Participation of Poland in Framework Programmes for Research, Technical Development and Demonstration of the European Union

by Andrzej Siemaszko

The Framework Programmes of the European Union are the most important instrument for integrating multidisciplinary research and strengtheninig the scientific cooperation, not only on the European continent. These are five-year programmes, open to universities, public and private research institutes, small and large enterprises, and have a significant budget at their disposal to support research-and-development projects.

Like other Candidates Countries, Poland participated from 1999 in the EU’s 5th Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration (FP5). The programme had at its disposal a budget of 15 billion euros. Poland had the status of an associated country, meaning in practice identical rights and duties as those of partners from EU Member States. Participation in the FP5 cost the Polish budget about 95 million euros.

Polish researchers and entrepreneurs have been participated in international consortia conducting R&D work in the fields of medicine, biotechnology, information society technologies, new materials, transportation, environment and energy. The total work’s value considerably exceeded 1 billion euros, of which the Polish partners’ direct engagement is estimated at 152 million euros. Through joint European research, we are becoming co-owners of state-of-the-art technologies. We are establishing valuable contacts that may bear fruit in the form of further research projects and business activities. We are learning new forms of work organization, project management and intellectual property rights protection.

The Candidate Countries have been able to participate in framework programmes since the early ‘90s. Initially, there were special low-budget programmes exlusively addressed to Central Europe countries and named in general INCO-Copernicus.

To ensure comparability of participation results, reference is made to the R&D potential calculated in terms of the relation of the GERD of a given country to the total research budget of the 6 Candidate Countries (GERD CC-6).

In Poland, interest in them was not great. Participants were mainly researchers, although the programmes also offered participation opportunities to enterprises. The biggest problem was the lack of information on participation opportunities and principles. Internet sources were not readily accessible; nor were printed information package, including application forms. Those who got through these barriers faced a procedure-related shock connected with preparation and submission of project proposals. In a several - dozen - pages study, one needed to describe in detail the project, its stages, timetable and consortium partners, giving the main and specific objectives and tasks, defining indicators and the project’s impact on the implementation of EU socio-economics policies. In the application there were elements never required in Polish research programmes conducted by the State Committee for Scientific Research (KBN) such as consortium structure, a detailed timetable with Gantt chart, presentation of the project management, reporting procedures, decision making, voting, conflict resolution and regulation of intellectual property rights. A big surprise for many researchers was the necessity to make a declaration concerning practical application of results, technology implementation and preparation of plans for its utilization.

The FP4 (1995-1998) consisted of over a dozen separate thematic programmes, such as ESPIRIT, Transport, Biotech 2 and FAIR. Each one was governed by different principles and required the completion of individual forms.

In 1998, the European Commission agreed to finance participants form candidate countries in all thematic programmes of the FP4 from a special budget of the INCO programme. This action considerably enhanced our interest in the programme. In order to satisfy the hunger for information on participation in the FP4 the nationwide consortium of Innovation Transfer Centers (OTI) was founded, led by the Warsaw University of Technology (PW) and cofinanced by the PHARE SCI-TECH II programme.

The unquestioned leader of the FP4 turned out to be Hungary. Baltic countries, as well as Romania and Bulgaria reported good results. Poland was a definite outsider in terms of our R&D potential, population and number of researchers.

In 1998, negotiations concerning the association of Candidate Countries with the FP5 began. The option which prevailed, strongly represented by Polish negotiators from the KBN, called for full accession, giving the same participation rights as those of EU Member Countries. The Commission also complied with the proposal by dr. J.K. Frąckowiak concerning the reduction by one-third of the membership contribution for Candidate Countries.

Today it can be seen how correct the decision was. We have gained 5 years of experience and become a strategic partner at a time when Europe was taking momentum towards Lisbon Strategy Implementation.

The European Commission, inspired by the positive experiences of some Member Countries, proposed to establish in all countries a National Contact Point (NCP). According to the assumptions, the institution should be independent, have adequate experience, be able to conduct large-scale information-and-training campaigns and closely cooperate with domestic bodies and the European Commission.

The competition to run the NCP was won by the team of the Institute of Fundamental Technological Research of the Polish Academy of Sciences (IPPT PAN), which included leading Polish experts: Dr. Andrzej Siemaszko, who has actively participated in several projects of the FP3 and FP4; Dr. Jerzy Supel, one of Poland’s leading experts on building an information society; and Prof. Michał Kleiber, participant of research projects and at that time one of few Polish evaluators of European projects.

The first calls of the FP5 gained great interest among Polish participants. Regrettably we were in for “ a cold shower”. Only every fifth projects was accepted. True, we reported a greater increase in the number of projects as compared with the FP4 than that of the Czech Republic and Hungary, but smaller than Slovenia. Relating quantitative results to research potential, Poland continued to score poor results in comparison to other countries. It transpired that, in addition to a strong research position, one needs to have good contacts with leading research centers, obtain strong support from industrial partners and master the ways of project proposal preparation.

The year 2000 showed a regression in Polish participation. A lack of interest was apparent, due to disappointment with the results of the first competitions, the low success rate and the level of difficulty involved in preparing applications. In 2000, we obtained 260 projects in total, not many more than the Czechs and Hungarians. Slovenia and Hungary became the European Commission’s favorites, having scored excellent results compared with their R&D potential.

Participation in the initial competitions of the FP5 highlighted basic weaknesses in the Polish R&D sector, longtime underinvestment effecting a lack of state-of-the-art laboratories and poor cooperation between researchers and industry.

The European Commission more and more frequently expressed concern for the problem of Poland’s very poor results. Statistics on research potential or population potential revealed Poland as ranking low among European countries. The graph of contribution recovery indicated that, at trends related to 2000, we could obtain from the total FP5 about 63 million euros.

Due to the first call’s poor results, the KBN decided to enhance the coordinating role of the NCP and considerably strengthen the NCP budget and the NCP network. In 2000 and 2001, several of information campaigns were prepared and intensive training courses were conducted in all Polish regions. Interest among participants was effectively enhanced and the number of submitted projects markedly increased. The unfavorable trend was overcome. Simulations of the final results indicated a chance to achieve by the end of the FP5 a “recovery” to the tune of 125 million euros (Fig. 5). In 2001, intense lobbing activity was taken up to launch special calls for proposal aimed to support the Candidate Countries. Finally, the Commission accepted 2 calls:
- NAS1 - joining projects underway
- NAS2 - creating Centers of Excellence.

Conduction of an information campaign for the Candidate Countries was entrusted to the Polish NCP (European training conference in Warsaw, November 2001). The NCP prepared a special guidebook on “How to Prepare an proposal for Center of Excellence.” Application writing workshops and direct consultations for applicants were conducted all over the country.

The great information-and-training effort on the part of the NCP brought significant results. In the NAS1 competition, for the first time in the Framework Programme’s history, Polish partners obtained twice as many projects as the Czechs or Hungarians, instead of a comparable number. We submitted 269 applications and received financing for 172. As for the NAS2 competition results they surpassed all expectations. 246 Polish applications for Center of Excellence and Center of Competence were submitted; the European Commission accepted 85 applications for financing-66 percent of all centers from Candidate Countries. The total amount of financing for Polish teams amounted to 26 million euros. Polish teams won 17 times more projects than the Czechs and 28 times more projects than Hungarians. The reserve list of centers that scored a very good mark featured 50 further Polish Centers of Excellence. Poland became an unquestioned leader among the Candidate Countries.

Since the list of centers assessed as “very good” was considerably longer, therefore the minister of science, prof. Michał Kleiber, taking into account of prior calls in 1999, approved a list of 157 Polish Centers of Excellence.

Polish research teams had wind in their sails. In the final calls of the FP5 Poland considerably increased its success rate. The participation of industrial units also increased. In the FP5, 718 small and medium-size enterprises (SMEs) and 195 large firms applied for co-financing. Of that number, 167 SMEs and 47 large firms took part in project implementation with success. The amount of European Commission financing for the Polish companies, respectively, amounts to 7.7 million euros and 5.5 million euros. In the CRAFT programme, addressed especially toward small and medium-size enterprises, a considerable rise is noted in participation during the last year of the FP5. In the first FP6 CRAFT competition, 37 projects were obtained, comparing to 52 in the whole FP5.

The fact that in the FP5 as many as 1, 323 Polish teams participated in 1,043 research projects and grants including 192 projects coordinated by them, testifies our activity in the European arena. In the later calls of the FP5 Polish teams accounted for nearly 2 percent of all project participants - a major success of Polish researchers and entrepreneurs. We should remember that over the first two years our activity in terms of submitted projects proposals amounted to about 1.3 percent and of those accepted under 1 percent. This result needs to be related to the value of 1.1 percent - Poland’s average financial share in the FP5 budget.

A success might be also measured by the ratio of participants supported to those submitted the proposals. In the first years of FP5 we had 20 percent success rate compared with 30 percent in the last year of the programme.

If you analyze Polish participation in the FP you have to remember that the research budget in Poland is one of the lowest in Europe: the Gross Expenditure on Research and Development (GERD) ratio to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is 0.65 percent. In the FP5 we often started the most ambitious technological projects empty handed. Comparing with the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Slovenia one should remember that they spend about 1.2 - 1.4 percent with 1.0 percent of GDP on research. At present Hungary has also joined the group of leaders with 1.0 percent of GDP. The EU average stands at 1.8 percent of GDP.

Another systematic weakness of Polish research has to be kept in mind, the contribution we pay is a percentage of our GDP (GDP PL/GDP EU - 1.83 percent) while what we recover is determined by the very low research potential as reflected in the ratio: GERD PL/GERD EU - 0.72 percent. Consequently to recover the contribution, we have to submit many more projects than countries that invest more in research.

The Framework Programme, like other EU initiatives features a compensation mechanism promoting small countries at the cost of large ones, hence Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Slovenia often benefit at the cost of Poland.

Unlike the earlier Framework Programmes the FP6 (2002-2006) focuses first and foremost on the creation of the European Research Area, integrating, structuring and strengthening the foundations for joint European research. In comparison with the FP5, the programme’s objective is to finance major undertakings centered on a smaller number priorities. Moreover new instruments have been introduced into FP6 in the form of integrated project or network of excellence expected to significantly affect the situation of the European research landscape and lend it a more pronounced shape.

The European Commission entrusted us with organizing the conference to inaugurate the FP6 for the Candidate Countries. President Aleksander Kwaśniewski honored the conference with his presence. Ministers from the Candidate Countries signed the Warsaw Declaration.

During the conference, the Crystal Prize awards were granted to the best teams participating in the FP5.

The FP6 budget is 17.5 billion euros, recently increased-upon taking into account new member countries’ contributions-to nearly 20 billion euros.

The European Commission has introduced new types of projects and legal and financial regulations, making participation in the programme more difficult than in the FP5. Additional difficulties include the focus on research areas compatible with trends developing in Europe and beyond, not always reflecting the needs of the Candidate Countries.

The enormous impetus of Polish teams from the final stage of the FP5 has carried over into the first competitions of the FP6. Poland increasingly often ranks among the top ten or even top six EU countries. We have left the Czech Republic and Hungary far behind, countries which were previously our main points of reference. We have started to score better results than Austria, Denmark and Finland. For example, in the third priority “nanotechnologies, materials, production methods” (NMP), as many as 514 Polish teams submitted applications (7th position among all participants), of which 81 obtained co-financing (9th position).

Promoting research through international exchanges of researchers and creating conditions encouraging young people to pursue academic careers has become one of the priorities of the European Research Area (ERA). These issues have been encompassed by a fellowship programme under the highly significant patronage of Marie Curie. It offers, not only individual fellowships but, above all, the possibility to expand the training and research activity offered by Polish institutions beyond the borders of our country.The beginning of our participation was not easy; it required a period of promotion and encouragement, as well as demonstration of the benefits of taking part in the programme.

As of the end of 2003, EC statistics revealed that as part of the Marie Curie individual fellowships (a scholar individually prepares a project for an institution of his/her own choosing outside his/her native country, and submits the project to the EC for expert evaluation), 80 Polish researchers obtained such fellowships for a period from six months to two years. As for the second type, the so-called host fellowships, over the same amount of time more than 399 young researchers went out to research organizations in EU Member Countries for a period from three months to three years, and their number keeps growing. In some cases, the whole application procedure lasted two weeks. Therefore, the growing popularity of these kind of grants is not surprising among young people who, at the threshold of their academic careers, cannot show any significant research results and publications. Importantly, in the FP5, nine Polish institutions run the Marie Curie training center with the goal of training doctorate students from many European countries.

Poland did very well in the new FP6 operation named the Marie Curie Transfer of Knowledge (ToK), where we coordinate 26 out of the 85 accepted applications-nearly one-third. This new kind of FP6 project is addressed first of all to the less developed regions in Europe. The goal-through researcher exchanges-is to establish cooperation between research institutions and industry and to enhance research unit potential. The next possibility, the “reintegration grants,” financing returns to home countries upon completion of foreign fellowships also enjoy popularity among Polish researchers. In the Marie Curie Programme Polish institutions did best among all Candidate Countries, even finishing ahead of some EU Member Countries. Regrettably, in spite of these results, the impressions from participation are similar to those of other countries: the effort put into preparing applications is incommensurate with the number of those accepted, a result of insufficient budgets in relation to submitted projects.

The Polish NPC network offers the considerable assistance in establishing contacts, preparation of large projects and lobbying. It is one of the best and most effective of those operating in the European countries. The NCP has a direct share in the success of about 600 projects in FP5: direct consulting and preparation assistance. At present, over 200 regional, thematic and local contact points offer their services.

In analyzing Polish participation in the Framework Programmes, it would be a mistake to refer exclusively to the amount of European Commission subsidies for the Polish participants of the projects (“contribution recovery”). The FP5 permitted full integration of the Polish R&D area into the European one and started the process of reforms and modernization of Polish research institutions in compliance with building a knowledge-based economy and implementation of the Lisbon Strategy. Poland has become an important part of the European Research Area-today the EU’s most ambitious project. The wealth of experience of several thousand FP5 participants will soon produce effective projects submitted to structural funds (about 500 million euros for R&D in the years 2004-2006). The political effects are inestimable; the R&D is the first Polish sector successfully integrated with European economic life. Participation in the FP5 has contributed to the international promotion of Poland, its entrepreneurs and its research units.

Today, the research is at the top of European agenda. According to the Lisbon Strategy we should reach 3 percent of GERD by the year 2010. To achieve this goal an European Initiative for Growth, Quick Start Project, Technology Platforms and other initiatives have been undertaken. They concentrate potential of most important European players over selected research priorities. Similarly in FP6, a market shift of an accent has taken palce towards a preparation of large, integrated projects, oriented towards the needs of European industry. The emphasis on the integration of key partners is growing. In this situation, teams from Candidate Countries have found themselves in a weaker position. To improve their chances, much effort is needed to establish direct contacts and to join European associations, networks and technological platforms. It is necessary to work out a special Action Plan to strengthen and integrate the R&D sector of new Member Countries.


National Contact Point for Research Programmes of the European Union
Institute of Fundamental Technological Research Polish Academy of Sciences
The National Contact Point (NCP) of the Fifth Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration was established in 1999 by the decision of the State Committee Research (KBN), as a result of an open call for tenders. Dr. Andrzej Siemaszko was nominated as NCP director. In 2002, by the decision of the KBN, responsibility of the NCP was extended to the Sixth Framework Programme.

The main task of the NCP is to disseminate information on EU research programmes and to help Polish research teams actively participate in EU Framework Programmes, through training, aid and consultancy, partner search service, as well as promoting international cooperation and encouraging to create multi-partner project consortia. The NCP-Poland also plays the role of Mobility Center and National Contact Point for the INTAS Programme. Moreover, NCP-PL is a training center for the implementation of structural funds in the RTD sector.

The creation of the National Contact Point followed the Council of Ministers of Poland’s 22 July, 1999 adoption of the resolution accepting the rules and conditions of Poland’s participation in EU research programmes. This means, in practical terms, the actual integration of Poland with the EU in the sector of research and technical development. As an associated country, financially contributing to the common EU RTD budget, Poland has acquired the full right to benefit from the EU Framework Programmes.

To carry out all these tasks, the three-level, country-wide NCP Network was
developed, consisting of:
- 11 Regional Contact Points
- 41 Thematic Contact Points
- approximately 200 Local Contact Points

with the National Contact Point performing a coordinating role, closely cooperating with the Ministry of Scientific Research and Information Technology, the European Commission, and other key partners both in Poland and abroad. The Polish NCP Network is considered as one of the best NCP systems in Europe.

The services provided by the NCP in Poland include:
I Information services
• Internet information service concerning general issues, thematic priorities, selection results, information and training events as well as other international programmes open to Polish participation-available at: www.6pr.pl;
• Other Internet services, for example, training, group work mechanisms, Intranet, reproduction of digitally recorded international conferences, coordination of Networks of Excellence.
• Development and maintenance of databases about NCP activities, Polish research teams participating in the FP5 and FP6, FP6 Expression of Interest of Polish applicants, address lists of persons and institutions.
The monthly number of visitors to the webpage is around 30,000, while data transfer reaches 6.2 GB.

II Training activities
Organizing Info-days, training events, specialized consultations and workshops, concerning project management and finances, Maria Curie fellowships, training for SMEs, organized both in Warsaw and across Poland.

On average, around 250 major information events per year are organized by the NCP and the NCP Network in Poland. The coordinators of NCP offer direct e-mail, telephone and individual consultations.

III Conferences
Organizing international conferences concerning Polish participation in EU Programmes, with the presence of high-level officials from the European Commission, Member States and Associated States.

IV Editorial activities
The NCP participates in editing and re-editing several newsletters:
• Wiadomości KPK-Granty Europejskie (NCP News-European Grants), 7,300 copies printed + webpage www.6pr.pl/s5o/gr_europ/index.html
• Nowości KOWI (KOWI News) - www.6pr.pl/kowi/index.html
• Biuletyn ‘eNews’ - www.6pr.pl/s5o/enews/index.html

V Participation in European projects as coordinator or partner
• in the FP5 accompanying measures projects: Polnet, Polda, Fellows for Industry, Partners for Life, Idealist-5PR, Train-Net, CEeB, NONAC, NET-CEE, DONQ POL, NASFP6-LAUNCH ï in the FP6 specific support actions projects and ETI projects: MENTOR+, IDEALIST34, CERA, NBCC, POLFOOD, NEST-IDEA, SMEs go Life Sciences, TrainNet Future, SMEs for Food.