IST FP6 thematic area Bulgarian case

1
IST FP6 thematic areaBulgarian case

• A.Vutsova
• Ministry of Education and Science national
  coordinator

2
IST program - What is different?

• Unique Program regarding the size of the funding
  
  
• Good progress development
• Reached strong international and institutional
  collaboration
  
• Supporting RTD networking infrastructure
• Excellent example for institutional networking-
  industry, universities and research entities

3
IST and BG interest

• Strong interest in this area
• Increasing number of applications in comparison
  to other thematic areas
  
• More approved proposals and practically presence
  in each call
  
• Good balance between different types of
  applicants

4
Where is the place of NCP network?

• Contribution to the policy makers elaboration
  of the positions networking among various actors
  
  
• Building up Network of contact points
• Training and re-training of NCPs
• Raising awareness and training events
• Organizing targeted events as well as
  accompanying ones
  
• Organizing brokerage events
• Stimuli for NCP

5
In-sight on the new instruments

• There is no steady progress towards tackling with
  international competition
  
• Lack of efficient presence of SMEs
• Sharp decreasing of SME participation in
  comparison to FP5
  
• Lack of efficient participation of new member
  states and CCs
  
• Lack of efficient addressing IST issues related
  to the risk governance

6
In-sight on the traditional instruments

• Insufficient number of approved STREPS
• Insufficient number of CAs and SSA
• Strong presence of SCs and various cases of
  affiliated N M Ss presence
  
• Imbalanced partnerships-more RD entities less
  companies
  
• Lack of targeted actions

7
BG place and new framework conditions

• Creation of ERA
• Existing of the Barcelona and Lisbon objectives
• Integration of RTD activities into smaller
  programs with multidisciplinary profile
  
• Need for better synergy between EU programs and
  national programs
  
• Shifting towards long-term technological
  development
  

8
BG case 1

• Success rate average for all calls - 24
• General income from IST- 5 276 049 Euro
• Total number of successful proposals 32
• Total number of participating organizations- 35

9
BG case 2

• What about our attitude to the different
  instruments?

10
WHY - lower CCs presence?

• Relatively low degree of participation by all
  NMSs (8 total funding- 85 SCs)
  
• Weakly developed RTD infrastructure and low RTD
  expenditures
  
• Weakly developed economy but some opportunities
  for FD investments
  
• Badly distributed ICT experts among different
  companies and RD entities
  

11
Recommendations to the EC

• Attracting of skilled experts for the process of
  project performance and the process of project
  evaluation
  
• More result-dissemination activities and relevant
  stimulating
  
• Knowledge transfer to the targeted groups
• Better balance between various partners- more
  attention to small partners
  
• To be clarified the status of the big STREPS and
  small IP
  

12
Lessons learnt and further recommendations

• Actions toward SMEs involving
• Showcases of good and bad practices
• More flexibility and adaptability of the program
• Longer projects spanin some cases
• Timely accompanying policies

13
General recommendations

• Better exploitation of the opportunities given by
  NoE
  
• Pro-active brokerage events towards other
  partners
  
• Building up a stable ground for effective
  mobility of young researchers
  
• Involving experts who are able to capitalise on
  past experience and new knowledge

14
Recommendations toward applicants

• Improving the writing skills
• Strictly following the WP conditions
• Better building up projects consortium
• Study on approved projects
• Adequate managing schemes
• Attracting the real innovative SME- not sleeping
  partners
  
• Better balanced tasks among the partners
• Possible in-sight pre-evaluation
• NB! Do not be eager to win a lot of new projects
  ! Project performance is very time and HP
  consumable

15
Recommendations directed to the performers

• Regular assessment of research and technological
  relevance at the EU and world level
  
• More additional or complementary actions
• Improving the efficient RD uptake results
• Actions aiming at research breakthroughs of the
  industry
  
• Initiatives supporting to networking
  infrastructure

16
Thank you for your attention!

• A. Vutsova
• MES national coordinator