1)    MIRRIS Policy Dialogues continue: the 2nd Cycle

A 2nd cycle of policy dialogues has just been conducted in each of the EU 12 Member States, with the exception of Slovakia where the dialogue will be held during the course of May. Starting in November 2014 and until April 01 of this year, the MIRRIS consortium has visited each of the EU 12 Member States to present to selected national stakeholders the results based on the input collected through the 1st cycle. The first part of the contribution dealt with the presentation, for further discussion, of the GAP and SWOT analysis addressing the participation of each of the EU 13 Member States to the European Research Area (ERA).
The second part of the dialogue focused instead on best practices with the aim to highlight supporting actions to foster participation to the European Research Area (ERA). With a view to proposing targeted supporting measures, the MIRRIS Consortium presented a case study, selected amongst European good practices successfully implemented elsewhere in Europe and that contributed to the increase of participation to the EU R&D Programmes.
The aim of the 2nd cycle of dialogues is to identify a number of intervention measures to which implementing actors would be assigned and based on which actions for improving single country’s participation to the EU R&D Programmes would be defined. The increased number of the national stakeholders present per country comparing to the 1st cycle is a clear indicator of the recognized added value in the MIRRIS initiative. The table below shows the calendar of the 2nd cycle of MIRRIS policy dialogues:



MIRRIS in Poland, to open the 2nd cycle of Policy Dialogues


On 05 November 2014, the 2nd cycle of MIRRIS Policy dialogue started in Warsaw, at the premises of the Polish Agency for Enterprise Development (PARP). The intent of this dialogue was to discuss and select the most appropriate intervention scheme for Poland, based on the country specific SWOT and gap analysis.

The dialogue gathered more than 20 participants, the majority of which were present also at the 1st dialogue. A group of “newcomers” was present as well, confirming the raising interest in the dialogues. Moreover, this is an evidence of the commitment towards a successful outcome of the initiative.

The following organisations were represented during the dialogue:                                             

     - Aviation Valley;
     - Institute of Fundamental Research PAS, hosting the Polish National Contact Points;
     - Kozminski University;
     - Ministry of Infrastructure and Development;
     - Ministry of Science and Higher Education;
     - National Centre for Research and Development;
     - Polish Business and Innovation Centers Association;
     - Poznan science and technology park;
     - Wrocław Technology Park.
2nd Cycle Policy dialogue in Warsaw, Poland, 05 November 2014
Presentation of APRE activities and services by Mrs. Caterina Buonocore, NCP for Health in Italy 
A case study by the Agency for the Promotion of European Research (APRE,Italy) was presented to highlight existing support measures which could serve as an inspiration for Poland.

During the dialogue APRE presented their activities in a form of the case study, to showcase the examples of initiatives APRE is implementing. APRE was selected based on their experience and portfolio of services and activities they implement, which was found as a good benchmark for Poland, having in mind the size of the country as well as the existing infrastructure. APRE also showcased its activities within the H2020 programme committee for Societal Challenge 2.

Participants discussed the SWOT analysis presented by the consortium MIRRIS and agreed on the main challenges to improve the participation of Poland in the European Research Area. The 3rd round of Policy Dialogue will take place on 11th June 2015 and will be the opportunity to discuss the list of actions proposed by the MIRRIS consortium with the national stakeholders.

It has been concluded that Poland needs to frame turn short-term tactics into a long-term strategic vision in terms of participation to centrally managed programmes. With a right strategy, going from promotion and awareness raising to support down to the level of the single participant, Poland will be able to build a good path for not only increasing participation but for undertaking a role of the leader. The better engagement of the private sector Intervention measures identified for Poland shall be implemented within the framework of the ESIF 2014-2020 operational plans.

2)    Who is bringing money home? Countries’ dependency rate on their main beneficiaries

The 7th Monitoring Report regarding the FP7 programme has recently been published. It is useful to look at the Annex F, which presents how dependent a country is on the main beneficiaries and with which other EU countries national stakeholders are teaming. The below two tables are summarizing the above noted data:
The EU13 countries which are less dependent on their main beneficiaries are Slovakia (5.44%), Poland (6.13%) and Romania (6.54%), whilst the most dependent are Cyprus (32.66%), Malta (28.52%) and Slovenia (24.74%).
The main beneficiary of the EU13 countries is often a university (BG, CZ, CY, EE, HU, LT, MT, PL, RO, SK) whilst it is often a research centre in EU15 countries (ES, FR, FIN, DE, GR, IT). In EU13, only in Lithuania, Slovenia and Croatia the main beneficiary is a research centre.
In only a few countries the main beneficiary is not located in the capital city region: Belgium (Leuven), Czech Republic (Brno), Germany (Munich), Estonia (Tartu) and the UK (Oxford).

Besides the largely populated countries (DE, UK, FR, ES, IT) which appear in nearly all the top 5 collaborative links, two other countries seem to be reliable partners for a few Member States:
  • Greece as the 5th partner of Cyprus;
  • The Netherlands as the 5th partner of Spain, France, Germany, Italy and the UK.
With regard to the success of a project such as MIRRIS, the questions related to the two above-mentioned topics are:
  • Will the different Member States be less dependent on a few beneficiaries at the end of H2020?
  • Will national stakeholders be better known by organizations in almost all EU countries instead of always working with the same "friends"? In other words, is concentration better than diversification?