Recommendations based on analysis of strengths and weaknesses

As shown, the Norwegian system is clearly small in scale. It is by now quite experienced with Framework Programmes, but the low investment of Norwegian industry in R&D means that there may be a substantial number of companies needing help in gaining access to the programmes. Research and innovation funding is highly centralised to RCN. The transition from the 5FPto the 6FP has been uncomfortable, not least since the centralising tendencies of 6FP run counter to the interests of small countries, and is likely to need considerable national effort to achieve.

Based on the information collected and analyzed in the evaluation, the following broad recommendations about the Norwegian national support system may be made:

• Norwegian research and innovation funding priorities should be reviewed in the light of the 6FP priorities and what is beginning to emerge about FP7. An explicit strategy should be devised about how to align national with EU funding priorities.

Also, key actual and potential centres of excellence should be identified, in order

Recommendations based on analysis of strengths and weaknesses

74

to guide interaction with the EC, other framework programme participants and the research-performing community

• The primary role of the Norwegian national support system should be to support Norwegian stakeholders’ interactions with EC programmes. Except to meet the special needs of smaller firms in relation to dedicated programmes such as CRAFT and to assist other newcomers to the FPs (such as state universities), the national support system should minimise its activities that ‘broadcast’ information already available from EC sources. Instead, strategic considerations related to achieving synergy with specific Norwegian R&D and innovation strategies should serve as guideposts for its operations.

• As shown in the benchmarking exercise, comparable nations with a good track record in the participation in EU’s FPs (e.g. Finland, Sweden, Netherlands) maintain a stronger presence in Brussels than Norway. For Norway, the arrangement of national experts working in the EU Commission contributes to this, but they are outside the operative support system. Norway should consider the strategic advantage of strengthing its liaison functions in Brussels.

• The focus of the Norwegian national support system activities should be on training and advice needed to support 6FP participation (especially in relation to the new instruments), intelligence gathering, organising and representing

Norwegian stakeholder interests and co-ordinating the implementation of the national strategy. Stakeholder organisations – such as university EU officers, industry associations, etc – are key customers of the national support system.

• New skills in areas such as law, finance and IPR should be integrated into the national support system, to tackle the specific needs generated by 6FP

• Where there are significant numbers of Norwegian stakeholders without their own system for supporting FP activities, the national support system should establish support groups or panels to advise it and the EC on Norwegian needs and priorities.

• There is a need for providing support and advice to firms and organizations in the regions, in particular to SMEs. This should be provided in a more proactive mode, i.e. based on active encouragement and support to those that are capable of

participating, or would benefit from participation. This should be an area of cooperation between the Reseach Council of Norway and the newly established Innovation Norway (the former SND). Regional state colleges should be

encouraged to take greater interest in participation in EU’s FPs.

• The risks and costs incurred for proposal of proposals and establishment of large FP-projects are high, representing a disincentive for participation. The present financial support mechanism (pilot project support, positioning support) should be amplified and tailored to match national R&D strategies and goals related to the participation in EU’s FPs.

The Norwegian system for information and counselling (support system)

Recommendations based on analysis of strengths and weaknesses

• Detailed monitoring of 6FP participation should be done, using good international practice (eg BIT) as a source of inspiration in systems design. The difficulties experienced by NIFU and STEP in contacting 5FP participants suggest there is scope for improvement here, compared with good international practice

6 Significant issues for Norwegian R&D and innovation policy and strategies

The topic of this chapter is the relevance and impact of 5FP in a perspective of Norwegian research and innovation policy and strategy. In approaching this, focus will be set on the following issues:

- How competitive was the Norwegian research system in 5FP?

Norwegian participation in the 5FP, measured as a share of the EU-contribution to projects in the 5FP, was reasonably good. However, several thematic areas with weak participation are identified. Thematic areas showing high Norwegian participation have a strong

position and focus in the Norwegian R&D and innovation base. (Cf. 6.1)

- What is the synergy between the EU’s 5 RP and national research programs in terms of topics and funding? It is still the case that national and EU research are regarded and managed as two separate R&D spheres (Cf. 6.2). Ideally, the national research portfolio should be structured in conjunction with the EU’s framework programs. This does

certainly not mean a passive adoption of themes and priorities of the EU’s RTD policies.

- What was perceived as the main incentives and barriers to participate in the 5FP?

Access to research networks and access to competence are the most important motives for participating in the 5FP for all types of participants. These are also the most tangible achieved results of the EU-projects. The most important hindrance for participation seems to be high proposal costs. Project and participation management costs do not seem to be a serious obstacle (Cf. 6.3).

- Why non-participation? The views of some business firms that did not participate in 5FP, but participated in the 4FP are presented. (Cf. 6.4)

- What is the additionality of the Norwegian EU-research? Would R&D projects funded by the EU have been undertaken irrespective of this funding? According to the respondents and others the additionality of the EU-projects seems to be high. (Cf.6.5)

- What is the effect of participation on the building of competence, on networking, on the quality and on internationalization of Norwegian research? Respondents’ overall

judgment of their participation is positive. About 77 per cent answered that their

participation was an overall success, only 3 per cent answered that their participation was basically a failure. (Cf. 6.6)

- Has participation in the EU’s projects improved industry’s innovation capability?

Evidence from the survey and other data sources show that the Norwegian industry’s innovative capability has improved, especially regarding the building up of competences

The competitiveness of Norwegian participants

78

and knowledge networks. However, there is a need for stimulating mechanisms of

“absorption and transfer” of the knowledge and competence emerging from the participation. The potential benefits from an increased “absorptive capacity” of the Norwegian innovation system are considerable (Cf. 6.7).

The presentation and analysis in this chapter is based on the data sources discussed in chapter 2.3. In general, all four data sources gave convergent information. The results from the survey are first presented graphically (figures) or in tables, in order to give the overall picture, that is, all responses to the specific group of questions in the survey (see Appendix 5). In the text, the focus will be set on policy implications of the main findings and, when they occur, on reporting statistically significant²² differences.

6.1 The competitiveness of Norwegian participants