CORNET

1

• CORNET
• An ERA-NET in the field of
• Collective Research

2
Objectives

• CORNET - COllective Research NETworking
• Definition of collective research
• pre-competitive research, triggered by market
  needs
• for the benefit of large groupings of SME in
  an industrial
• or service sector
• free access to research results
  

3
Partners
23 partner from 17 countries / regions in Europe

• Austria, Belgium/Flanders, Belgium/Wallonia,
  Cyprus, France, Germany, Greece, Italy,
  Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland,
  Portugal, Slovenia, Spain/Catalonia,
  Spain/Valencia, Turkey
• Coordinator AiF Germany

4
Activities

• WP1 EXCHANGE
• Exchange of Information andBest Practise

• WP 2 STRATEGIC ACTIVITIES
• Kick-Start Projects
• Strategic Common Activities

• WP3 LONG-TERM COOPERATION
• Implementation of Action Plan
• Joint activities

5
State of the play (1)

• Collective Research Guide - finished
• Data Base/Flyer finished
• First Call 2005 (kick-start projects) - finished
• Countries Austria,
  BE-Flanders, Germany, Slovenia and SP-Valencia
• Submitted projects 5
• Selected projects 3
• Project-consortia min 3 research
  associations from 3 different countries/regions
• Total public funding 1 Mill.

6
State of the play (2)

• Second Call opened 16 May 16 Oct. 2006
• Countries Austria,
  BE-Flanders, Cyprus, France, Germany, Norway,
  Slovenia, SP-Catalonia and SP-Valencia
• Project-consortia min. 3
  associations from 3 different countries/regions
• core
  group of SMEs involved in research activities
• Case studies - in process
• Best practise in dissemination of results - in
  process
• Long- term Strategy - in process
• More information on http//www.cornet-e
  ra.net

7
Lessons learned

• Early start learning by doing
• No need for harmonisation of national rules
  (principle each country finances its
  institutions works)
• But agreement on common elements
• Joint guidelines, one application form, use of
  English language, common rules for dissemination
  of results
• Common evaluation procedures and experts, joint
  recommendation for funding
• Core group of SMEs

8
Main Barriers

• Foreign language
• Different objectives of national programmes
• Rules on Intellectual Property Rights differ
• Higher coordination costs of an international
  project
• Approval by national ministries could create
  delays
• Fear of uncertain COM financing

9
How far can coordination go ?

• Principle each country finances its
  institutions works
• Advantages
• flexibility
• No advance obligation of national authorities
• No trans-border financing
• Disadvantages
• Time delay
• Dependency on national budgets and rules
• COM financing for overall co-ordination necessary
  

10
How far can coordination go ?

• Way of integration depends on subject
• If financing is for few institutions having
  similar tasks, which could be planned well ahead
  Further integration (Art. 169) possible
• Example IMERA
• COM should participate in financing research
  activities
• If financing is for many institutions, which have
  to be found by common calls Principle each
  country finances its institutions/companies is
  more appropriate
• Examples ERA-CORNET, ERA-SME
• COM should at least finance coordination costs