R&D AND INNOVATION IN SPAIN: IMPROVING THE POLICY MIX EDITA Fundación Española para la Ciencia y la Tecnología (FECYT)
© OECD, 2007
MAQUETACIÓN Jorge del Barrio
IMPRIME Lettergraf
DEPÓSITO LEGAL M-25962-2007
FECHA DE PUBLICACIÓN
15 de Mayo de 2007
La traducción de este documento se ha realizado bajo la responsabilidad de la FECYT. FOREWORD
This peer review of Spain’s “policy mix for R&D and innovation” is the second such review carried out by the OECD Working Party on Innovation and Technology Policy (TIP) as part of its effort to assess the policy mix for research and innovation policies. This review, requested by the Spanish authorities, complements the larger OECD country reviews of innovation policy underway in the TIP’s mother committee, the Committee for Scientific and Technological Policy (CSTP) as well as the recent OECD Economic Survey of Spain 2006 which contained a special chapter on innovation. The report reflects the findings that emerged from meetings in Madrid between an international panel of experts and the key stakeholders in the areas of R&D and innovation policy on 6-9 November 2006. It also draws on and reflects the input from a background paper commissioned by the Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology (FECYT), on behalf of the Spanish government. The background paper is attached as an annex to the main report.
A first draft of this report was discussed at a meeting of OECD’s Working Party on Technology and Innovation Policy at The Hague, the Netherlands in December 2006 and was subsequently reviewed by policy makers and other stakeholders in Madrid on 22 January 2007. The Secretariat revised the draft to take into account discussions at the meeting and comments by the Spanish authorities and other key stakeholders. The revised report was then presented by the OECD to the Spanish authorities in Madrid at a press conference on 2 April 2007. This is the final report to be published jointly by the OECD and the FECYT in English and in Spanish. Table of contents Part I
Introduction...... 7
1. Improving the functioning of the innovation system as a whole...... 9 2. Policy mix for the science and technology base ...... 12 3. Policy mix for business R&D and innovation ...... 15 4. Policy mix for science-industry linkages ...... 21 5. Policy mix for human resources in science and technology...... 23 6. Governance and evaluation...... 26 7. Conclusions...... 29
References ...... 30 Part II
Annex 1 BACKGROUND AND ISSUES...... 31 Annex 2 SELECTED ACTORS...... 63 Annex3 POLICY INSTRUMENTS...... 66 Annex 4 THE INGENIO 2010 INITIATIVE...... 75 Annex 5 ORGANISATION OF THE REVIEW ...... 79 Annex 6 INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR OECD REVIEW OF POLICY MIX ...... 80
Boxes
Box 1. Recommendations to improve Spain’s R&D and Innovation Policy Mix...... 8
Box 2. Enhancing policy coordination across governments...... 11
Box 3. Funding for infrastructure: An example from Canada ...... 14
Box 4. Tax incentives for labour and social charges of R&D personnel ...... 19
Box 5. Simplifying access to capital schemes – an example from the Netherlands...... 20
Box 6. Recent policy initiatives in OECD countries to enhance links between science and business.....22
Box 7. Measures to promote human resources in science and technology in Spain...... 24
Box 8. Regional Agencies in Canada...... 27
Box A1. Public funding for universities in Spain...... 63 7 Part I - Introduction Part I
Introduction
In 1986 Spain enacted the Bill on Science and Technology which set the modern foundation for science and technology policy at a time when the country was still in the process of re-industrialisation and modernisation. Twenty years later Spain is again at a crossroads, both in terms of its general economic outlook but also in terms of its national innovation strategy, recently revamped under the Spanish National Plan for Scientific Research, Development and Technological Innovation (2004-2007) and Ingenio 2010, the current government’s key strategy for increasing public support to R&D and innovation. Having successfully generated sustained economic growth over the past decade, Spain has succeeded in closing the gap in per capita GDP with her leading EU partners, despite persistent lags in productivity growth. To increase productivity in the future, maintain the trajectory of economic convergence in the euro area and help address a range of social objectives, Spain is focusing policy attention and public investment on enhancing science and innovation.
As Spain moves ahead to develop a new national plan for science and technology, the government has requested that the OECD undertake a peer review of the “policy mix” for R&D and innovation. The main purpose of the review by the OECD is to assess the recent changes in the policy mix for R&D and innovation, including the individual policy instruments, drawing on international experience. This paper presents the main findings from the peer review undertaken by an OECD panel of experts1 and reflects input from the Spanish authorities and stakeholders in the national Research and Development (R&D) and innovation system. It also draws on the background report submitted by the Spanish authorities, which is attached in Annexes 1 to 4.2 The findings from the review are intended to provide the Spanish government and stakeholders with fresh insights and recommendations on priorities that could help develop a more coherent and effective R&D and innovation policy mix.
This report is intended to complement the recent OECD Economic Survey of Spain (OECD, 2006c), which also provided recommendations on policies to strengthen innovation performance. That report focused primarily on the framework conditions for innovation, while this report is primarily focused on policy instruments in the area of science and innovation policy. The main policy recommendations to enhance Spain’s policy mix for R&D and innovation are shown in Box 1 and are elaborated further in the remainder of this report. Concrete examples from other OECD countries as regards possible approaches to follow are provided in the text. The background report in Annexes 1 to 4 provides more information on the Spanish R&D and innovation system.
1. The OECD panel consisted of Dirk Pilat and Mario Cervantes of the OECD Secretariat, Pierre Therrien of Industry Canada; Sveinn Thorgrimsson of the Icelandic Ministry of Industry; Ilan Peled of the Ministry of Industry, Israel; and Enrico Martínez, consultant to CONACYT, Mexico (see Annex 5).
2. The background report (Martínez et al., 2006) was commissioned by the Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology (FECYT), on behalf of the Spanish government. It was drafted by Catalina Martínez, with the collaboration of Laura Cruz-Castro and under the supervision of Luis Sanz-Menéndez, Spanish representative to the OECD Committee for Scientific and Technological Policy (CSTP) and its Working Party on Technology and Innovation Policy (TIP). 8 R&D and innovation in Spain: improving the policy mix
Box 1. Recommendations to improve Spain’s R&D and Innovation Policy Mix
Strengthen the science and technology base; focus on achieving excellence and critical mass • Reduce the fragmentation of funding for research teams and projects. • Encourage greater accountability of universities and public research organisations (PROs) with regard to research outputs through improved financial incentives and via performance measures and goals. • Strengthen the ability of universities and PROs to recruit highly-qualified research talent and excellent technology transfer professionals. • Promote legal changes to enable public research institutions to hire and appoint researchers from nonEU countries. • Encourage the dissemination of tools and resources for research management and strategic planning to assist universities and PROs in developing multi-year plans.
Improve support for business R&D and innovation • Broaden the access to the CENIT public/private partnership (PPP) projects by opening them up to foreign firms and research institutions. • Ensure simplified access by firms to various funding schemes for R&D projects involving different ministries and regions (e.g. by developing a “one-stop window” for R&D programmes). • Improve effectiveness of the main R&D tax credit scheme and ensure that new R&D tax incentives that reduce social security charges do not “crowd out” non-subsidised research employment. Consider focusing labour R&D tax credits on smaller innovative companies. • Monitor the effectiveness of recent policies to improve access to seed and start-up venture capital. • Consider the specific needs of SMEs when reassessing the policy mix for R&D and innovation.
Foster industry-science linkages • Improve the capacity for and management of technology transfer by enhancing networking and encouraging consolidation among existing intermediaries. • Strengthen co-operation between regions and the national government in developing clusters.
Foster mobility and strengthen human resources for science and technology • Remove barriers to and enhance incentives for mobility. • Strengthen the training and support for technical personnel. • Improve career training and development in universities and PROs. • Improve information about the wide range of government programmes for young researchers.
Improve the governance and evaluation of innovation policy and foster policy learning • Improve co-ordination across ministries and with the regions, especially in terms of programme implementation; this will also help strengthen the critical mass for research and innovation. This could also improve the synergy between policy design and implementation. • Clarify and simplify the number of instruments, improving transparency (e.g. one-stop-shops) and reduce administrative burdens for applicants and managers. • Strengthen the involvement of stakeholders, especially business, in the development of innovation policies. • Develop suitable indicators to monitor progress in innovation programmes. • Strengthen the management of public support and improve the quality of policy implementation. • Reduce the reporting burden arising from multiple evaluations and improve the co-ordination of evaluation criteria between regions and national Ministries. • Improve the capacity for strategic planning and policy evaluation. 9 Part I - 1. Improving the functioning of the innovation system as a whole
1. Improving the functioning of the innovation system as a whole
1.1 CURRENT SITUATION
Spain spends around 1.1% of GDP on research and development (1.13% in 2005), significantly below the EU-25 (1.8%) and OECD (2.26%) averages. Nevertheless the current level represents a substantial increase from the levels of the mid-1980s. The share of total expenditures on R&D (GERD) financed by the business sector is 48% while that financed by government is 41% with 6.2% financed from abroad and 4.8% from other national sources. This distribution of the sources of financing for R&D, in contrast, has remained stable since the mid-1990s. In terms of performance of GERD, the business sector performs 54% while the higher education sector performs 29.5% and the government sector performs 16% of GERD.
While the national government is the main actor in innovation policy, the process of decentralisation combined with the increased devolution of responsibilities (and funding) to the regional authorities has increased the complexity of the innovation system. The regional governments are increasingly important players in the Spanish strategy to boost innovation and most regions are developing their own innovation strategies and plans. In two regional communities, Navarra and the Basque Country, this autonomy is reinforced by fiscal federalism that allows the regional governments to raise taxes and transfer them to the central government.
As in many other OECD countries, the regional distribution of R&D expenditure is uneven, with two regions (Madrid and Catalonia) spending 51.2% of the total, and four regions, namely Navarra, Madrid, the Basque Country, and Catalonia spending over 1% of regional GDP on R&D (Figure 1).
The increased involvement of regions in support of innovation is a welcome and positive development. Nevertheless, while some regional governments attribute a very high budgetary priority to R&D (in 2005,
Figure 1. R&D Expenditures in Spain by region 1 - As a share of regional GDP in 20042
1. Data on R&D as share of GDP are taken from national sources and do not correspond to OECD harmonised international data. Data for the regions is calculated relative to regional GDP. 2. Years in parenthesis are 2003 and 2002, respectively. GDP base 1995. Source: COTEC, 2006. 10 R&D and innovation in Spain: improving the policy mix
Castile y Leon devoted EUR 220 million or 2.6% of its total regional government budget to R&D; the Basque Country devoted EUR 110 million or 1.6% of its regional government budget; and Andalusia EUR 333 million or 1.4% of its regional government budget), support for R&D and innovation in the majority of the regions remains low. Furthermore, there is a risk that regional policy will duplicate the policies of the national government, at times with little synergy, and even create conflicting incentive structures for research and innovation actors.
Historically, the policy mix for research, development and innovation in Spain has been characterised by a disconnection between policies to support business innovation on the one hand and those to support the science base on the other. Part of this is related to the slow emergence of a coherent governance structure for innovation policy and weak co-ordination and co-operation between the main ministries responsible for science and technology. Until recently, the National Plan consisted of a vast range of programmes that were managed by sectoral ministries. This was detrimental to the coordination of government measures, despite the efforts of the Interministerial Commission on Science and Technology (CICYT), which oversees the application of the Plan and the recent improvement in co-ordination in some areas (OECD, 2006c).
In addition, the link between the governance structure and funding for university research has been weak. Funding for university education comes from the regions while funding for research projects comes from the Ministry of Education and Science, the Ministry of Health and Consumption (for biomedicine and health sciences and technologies for health and welfare research), regional governments and European funds. In addition, funding for projects is based solely on the evaluation of projects and individual researcher’s curricula and not on the performance of institutions or research groups. Consequently, the governments, at both the national and regional levels, have not been able to sufficiently steer universities into focusing research funding and improving quality and, up until now, most funding for research has been highly dispersed and research itself has been fragmented.
1.2 CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
Boosting R&D and innovation in the business sector is a challenge for Spain given its industrial structure, which includes only a small share of high-technology sectors, and the fact that most firms are small or medium-sized. International firms play an important role in performing R&D, especially in industries such as aerospace, pharmaceutical and information technology. Foreign affiliate R&D spending rose in absolute terms from USD 1,163.2 million in 1998 to USD 1,734.3 million in 2004. Given the general rise in Spanish business R&D spending, the share of R&D by foreign affiliates fell to 26.2% from a high of 32.8% in 1999 (OECD, 2006a).
Another challenge facing Spain is the expected drop in EU funding for regional development, part of which is being used to support R&D and innovation activities. Between 2007 and 2013, Spain will receive around EUR 27.7 billion from the European structural funds, which implies a reduction compared to the amount received between 2000 and 2006 (EUR 37.3 billion). To compensate for this general decrease of funds, a European technology fund of EUR 2 billion has been established by the European Union for Spain for the period 2007-2013. Moreover, the Spanish government and the European Commission will increase the share and the total amount of structural funds devoted to R&D&I. As a result of both measures, the share allocated to R&D&I will grow by 30% for the period 2007-2013 compared to 2000-2006 and Spain will have around EUR 10 billion from European structural funds to invest in R&D and innovation. Nevertheless, the technology fund is exceptional and unique for Spain, and more radical decreases in the total amount of EU structural funds for Spain are envisaged in the future, which suggests that the share of EU structural funds allocated to R&D&I in Spain will be reduced in the next period (Martinez et. al., 2006).
1.3 POLICY RESPONSES
The main policy vehicle to shift the policy mix in Spain towards higher quality research and innovation in the business sector is the Ingenio 2010 initiative. The programme itself is part of the broad based National Reform Plan launched by the government in 2005 to boost Spanish competitiveness. In addition to introducing new measures, it intends to complement initiatives contemplated in the Spanish National Plan for Scientific Research, Development and Technological Innovation (2004-2007) which was approved by the previous government. Under Ingenio 2010, the national government has almost doubled public support to R&D and innovation (in the 2007 budget more than EUR 8 billion was allocated). Through this massive increase in public funding, the government expects that GERD will reach 2% of GDP by 2010. In practical terms, the plan proposes a number of instruments to increase the focus and funding of government 11 Part I - 1. Improving the functioning of the innovation system as a whole research, stimulate technology transfer by encouraging public/private partnerships and enhancing the incentives for private-sector research and the diffusion of new technologies (see Annex 4).
The driving logic behind the various policy instruments proposed by the Ingenio 2010 plan is to build critical mass for research, foster networking and increase the contribution of public research efforts to innovation in the Spanish productive sector. The funding targets long-term, large-sized and broad-ranging projects, to stimulate higher-risk and more ambitious research. Regional investment will be encouraged, calling on the regional governments to collaborate in the start-up of the programmes as well as to co-finance the subsequent activity in their areas.
1.4 ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
While decentralisation has its benefits in terms of enabling local actors to have a greater voice in the design and implementation of policy, too great a dispersion of competences can create problems of co- ordination, insufficient synergies or even duplication and overall lack of clarity for all those involved in the system (e.g. firms, researchers, research institutions). To address these challenges, Spain will have to improve co-ordination between the different ministries as well as with the regions, and can draw on experience in other OECD countries in doing so (Box 2 and Box 7).
In addition, while Ingenio 2010 represents a broad-based strategy to link science and innovation policy, the multiplicity of objectives and policy instruments will have to be closely monitored and evaluated to avoid wasteful duplication and dispersion of funds.
Policy development to enhance Spain’s innovation system in the long run would also benefit from a stronger capacity for strategic planning and policy evaluation. Such capacity should be developed within the Spanish government, but should also draw on existing providers of strategic intelligence.
The main policy recommendations from this review as regards the overall innovation system are to:
• Improve the co-ordination across ministries and with the regions. This could also improve the synergy between policy design and implementation. • Clarify and simplify the number of instruments, improving transparency (e.g. one-stop-shops) and reduce administrative burdens for applicants and managers. • Improve the capacity for strategic planning and policy evaluation.
Some of these issues are discussed further in the section on governance and evaluation.
Box 2. Enhancing policy co-ordination across governments
Policy practices to enhance co-ordination in policy making for innovation are abundant in the OECD area. For example, Sweden established a Council for Innovation Policy in 2004 chaired by the Ministry of Industry.The mission for the council is to be a forum for discussion about guidelines on innovation policy and strategies for economic growth and renewal. Korea recently established a co-ordination function within the Prime Minister’s office to improve overall management of government R&D funding and innovation initiatives. Furthermore, the Minister of Science and Technology was promoted to the rank of Vice Prime Minister in 2004. Similar initiatives exist in other OECD countries. The experience from previous OECD work suggests that such co-ordination efforts, either through inter-ministerial co- operation or through advisory councils, should not be too narrow. Policies to foster innovation require coherence across a broad range of government policies,often going well beyond science and technology. 12 R&D and innovation in Spain: improving the policy mix
2. Policy mix for the science and technology base
2.1 CURRENT SITUATION
In Spain, the main institutions performing public research are universities and public research organisations, including the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC – Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas), the main public research institution in the country. In addition, several applied research institutes under the responsibility of different sectoral ministries (e.g. the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Defence, etc.) and the Ministry of Education and Science play important roles.
For universities, funding for teaching and operations is the responsibility of the regions which allocate funding to universities based mainly on the number of students and teachers and other related criteria. Because the regions provide little or no institutional funding for research (block grants), university faculty must apply and search for competitive funding available from national, regional or European funding institutions. The law gives the national government the competence to promote and co-ordinate research. However, researchers in one region cannot apply for competitive research funds offered by another region, despite the fact that their proposal could fit into the policy objectives defined by the regional government or that they could work together with a research team from the region. This policy goes against the objective of creating critical mass in research and also limits co-operation.
The low level of funding for public research has prevented Spanish researchers from achieving the critical mass necessary to effectively compete for international research projects. Average R&D expenditure per researcher in universities stood at 50% of the level in EU15 in 2001 (OECD, 2006c). This low level of support for research and the weak infrastructure has caused Spanish public research groups to focus their activities in fields of science requiring fewer resources. This lack of critical mass is evident in the low impact of Spanish scientific production on the productive sector as measured by patenting or industry financing of university R&D as well as the excessive fragmentation of research groups and limited participation in the European research programmes (European Commission, 2006; OECD, 2006c).
2.2 CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
Spain has increased its scientific production dramatically over the past decade but a significant share of publications is not cited and participation in EU Framework programmes has waned in recent years. Therefore, one of the challenges is to improve the quality of scientific research. While the fragmentation of research caused by the dispersion of funding has been an important obstacle to increasing quality and impact, another barrier has been the limited influence of the government on improving the performance of universities. The proposed changes to the University Law will create a national accreditation system with standard quality levels, but will also give universities more autonomy. The main challenge is to develop policies that provide strong incentives for universities to enhance performance, in the context of their increasing autonomy.
Mobility within the public research system is also limited because the system of academic recruitment is not sufficiently competitive or transparent. There are significant problems in hiring non-EU citizens, who can not get permanent positions because of public service regulations and the accreditation of foreign diplomas. There are few institutionalised incentives for mobility: more than half of all PhDs obtain their employment at the institution where they obtained their degree (Cruz-Castro and Sanz-Menéndez, 2006). Furthermore, few PhDs obtain their post-doctorate abroad which is important in expanding research networks and learning new research practices. At present there is no (financial) incentive for public institutions to hire researchers outside of their own institution. While some institutes and departments have started to search for the best candidates in international labour markets, others still give preference to the long queue of candidates waiting to obtain permanent positions, so that the search for the best candidate often ends at the institution. 13 Part I - 2. Policy mix for the science and technology base
2.3 POLICY RESPONSES
As part of Ingenio 2010, the government has launched CONSOLIDER, a programme that intends to increase critical mass and excellence in public research by concentrating long-term funding on the best teams. The CONSOLIDER programme is based on four instruments to strengthen the critical mass and reduce fragmentation, namely:
• CONSOLIDER projects: to increase the size of research groups and concentrate resources, as well as to improve Spanish participation in EU framework programmes.
• CIBER projects: to raise the quality of research in biomedicine and the health sciences by developing new research networks with a legal economic status.
• I-3 projects: to reward outstanding professors and researchers (Spanish or foreigners) by reducing their teaching load and to reward research institutions for selecting and providing permanent positions for excellent researchers.
• Strategic fund for scientific and technological infrastructures: to fund renewed research equipment of universities and public research institutions.
In addition to these new programmes, the government has decided to reform the Universities Act approved in 2001 (Ley Orgánica de Universidades) in order to increase universities’ autonomy, flexibility and accountability. The proposed reform includes measures to facilitate the incorporation of public researchers into the private sector and enhance the importance of technology transfer activities. The government is also moving ahead to transform the CSIC into a performing research agency working under “contractual agreements”, as a part of the Public Agencies Act. The government is also considering the promotion of a new finance model for funding universities. The idea is to link financing to other criteria, namely research targets and performance measures. Institutions that meet such targets could receive more funding. This will create competition between institutions and for students, professors and researchers. In addition, it is intended to promote the use of ex post evaluations of universities which can serve as a basis for funding programmes. The government also hopes to negotiate a framework with the regions for the inclusion of quality criteria in the evaluation of universities.
2.4 ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Policies to strengthen the Spanish science and technology base are already moving towards achieving research excellence and greater critical mass. This strategy will need to be followed through, with research funding increasingly linked to clear objectives and performance goals. Reducing the fragmented nature of funding for scientific research will be important to increase critical mass and could be tackled when addressing the lack of block grant funding for research for Spanish universities and research institutions. Reducing this fragmentation not only involves university research, but will also need to involve the applied research institutes with a sectoral focus (e.g. health, environment, defence) and the CSIC. These institutes may also require further consolidation to build critical mass and achieve research excellence. The focus on excellence will also require stronger evaluation, not just for projects but also for institutions. This will introduce greater transparency and objectivity into the system.
The current arrangement under which some applied institutes are steered by one ministry (Defence, Health and Consumer Affairs, Environment, etc) but must also compete for funding from the Ministry of Education and Science or the Ministry of Industry, requires that special efforts are made to improve inter- ministerial co-operation.
The university reform will provide greater opportunities for universities to attract research talent. However, the law will need to be complemented with appropriate incentives and greater competition if it is to prove effective in enhancing performance.
The recent experience of the CSIC and Instituto de Salud Carlos III in terms of developing ex post evaluation and building strategic planning could be particularly useful to improve performance in other PROS and in the universities. Providing PROs and universities with some explicit “block grant” funding (excluding salaries and running costs) could provide more stability to undertake long-term research and 14 R&D and innovation in Spain: improving the policy mix
to develop long-term strategies for research institutes. The Canadian example for funding research infrastructure through block funding (Box 3) could be a useful practice to examine in this respect.
Box 3. Funding for infrastructure: An example from Canada
Canada has a major programme for funding research infrastructure, the Canadian Foundation for Innovation (CFI). The funding formula and selection process of the CFI might be relevant for the Spanish situation. The CFI usually supports up to 40% of a project’s infrastructure cost, the rest being funded by the provinces (usually the same percentage as the federal government) and other private or public partners. Sharing the cost of each project ensures that federal and provincial governments agree on the importance of the project. One key element of the selection process is that the proposal must fit within the institution’s research priorities.This process ensures that CFI’s funding enables institutions to build on their current efforts in specific research fields and helps create a critical mass of knowledge and researchers. Another key selection criteria is the proposals’ ability to demonstrate that the proposed research team is the best qualified to lead and implement the project in order to create excellence and critical mass at the institutional and regional level.
The main policy recommendations from this review as regards the science and technology base are to:
• Reduce the fragmentation of funding for research teams and projects. • Encourage greater accountability of universities and PROs with regard to research outputs through improved financial incentives and performance measures and goals. • Strengthen the ability of universities and PROs to recruit highly-qualified research talent and excellent technology transfer professionals. • Promote legal changes to enable public research institutions to hire and appoint researchers from non-EU countries. • Encourage the dissemination of tools and resources for research management and strategic planning to assist universities and PROs in developing multi-year plans. 15 Part I - 3. Policy mix for business R&D and innovation
3. Policy mix for business R&D and innovation
3.1 CURRENT SITUATION
Although Spain’s business R&D has increased over the past decade, business spending on R&D remains relatively low compared with other OECD countries (Figure 2). Most of the growth in business R&D in Spain, as in other countries, has been driven by expansion of R&D in the services sector. Between 1993 and 2002, R&D in services expanded at an annual rate of 16.1% compared to 7.9% for manufacturing (OECD, 2005). The Spanish manufacturing sector is concentrated mainly in low, medium-low and medium- high technologies such as food products, textiles, chemicals, metal products, machinery and equipment and transport equipment.
As regards innovation in the broader sense, data from the European Innovation Scoreboard show that the number of Spanish firms that innovate in-house to improve their competitiveness is far below the European average. Furthermore, most of the investment in technology is related to capital goods and semi-finished products. Only a quarter of SMEs in Spain report that they develop innovations in-house. Furthermore, Spanish companies apply for ten times less EPO patents per million inhabitants than the EU-25 average, and few EPO, USPTO and JPO patents are obtained (European Commission, 2006). Spain also ranks low in the number of spin-offs from universities and PROs (OECD, 2006, European Commission, 2006). Most venture capital in Spain is oriented towards expansion as opposed to early stage investments. Consequently, venture capital investments in high-tech sectors like communications, information technology and biotechnology accounted for less than 20% of total venture capital investments in Spain between 2000 and 2003 (OECD, 2005).
Figure 2. Intensity of business expenditure on R&D by country, 19951 and 20052 - As a % of GDP
Notes: 1. 1996 for Switzerland, Argentina, 1997 for South Africa and 1998 for Chinese Taipei, instead of 1995. 2. 2003 for Mexico, New Zealand, Sweden and 2004 for Switzerland, Japan, United States, Chinese Taipei, United Kingdom, Australia, South Africa and Total OECD, instead of 2005. Source: OECD, Main Science and Technology Indicators, 2006/II.
The government funds around 10% of business R&D in Spain, higher than in most other OECD countries, but around the average for EU countries. In the 2005 state budget, 42% of funds allocated to 16 R&D and innovation in Spain: improving the policy mix
research consisted of aid to private firms, and 93% of these resources were granted in the form of subsidised loans (OECD, 2006c). The main mechanisms for support are competitive matching interest-free loans and grants. The main actor in the promotion of business innovation is the Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Trade and through it the General Secretariat for Industry and the Centre for Technological Industrial Development (CDTI - Centro para el Desarollo Tecnológico Industrial) as well as the regions. The CDTI has different roles, mainly regarding the promotion of innovation and the technological development of companies located in Spain (Spanish or foreign-based).
3.2 CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
While low R&D in the business sector is the main challenge facing Spain’s ability to improve longer-term competitiveness and productivity, there are several inter-related challenges. The vast majority of firms in Spain are small and do not necessarily see a need to undertake R&D or lack the organisational capabilities and human resource capacity to exploit knowledge and conduct internal research and development. Another challenge is fostering technologically-based entrepreneurship and start-ups and spin-offs. The traditional lack of early stage venture capital and the orientation of private funds towards less risky ventures in more established industries (e.g. construction, real estate, and energy) also limit the potential to boost business R&D via the creation of new firms. At the same time, the existence of many applied research institutes with a sectoral focus as well as the large number of intermediary bodies (technology centres, science parks) suggest that there remains a potential to improve the technological innovativeness of traditional industries. These traditional low-tech sectors should not be ignored.
3.3 POLICY RESPONSES
Subsidies and loans
The government has increased support through interest-free loans. In 2005, around EUR 1,419 million was devoted to the PROFIT programme (Programma de Fomento de la Investigación Tecnológica) and other tools in support of technological research which included soft loans (EUR 1,250 million) and small subsidies (EUR 169 million), for competitive research projects by firms and/or public research institutes.3 The Ministry of Industry manages the participation when firms are the main beneficiaries and the risk is low, while the Ministry of Education and Science manages the participation of public research institutes and firms in the very early phases of R&D. Most projects, however, are small-scale (EUR 80,000 per project) and low risk, due to the need to reimburse the loans over a short period.
Public/private partnerships
In order to focus resources on strategic actions, two new programmes have been launched: CENIT (National Strategic Consortia for Technical Research), managed by CDTI, and the AVANZ@ Plan managed by the Secretary of State for Telecommunications and the Information Society. Through the CENIT the government also seeks to improve public support for business innovation. To this end the government first identified the following broad priority areas:
• Health sciences and biomedicine. • Agro-food technology. • ICTs. • Production and design technologies. • Environment and renewable energy. • New materials and nanotechnology. • Sustainable mobility. • Security objectives. Firms propose specific projects related to the above priorities identified by the government – a “bottom- up” approach where the selected projects are funded via grants. The projects must include at least six members in a consortium which must include at least two large private enterprises and an equal number of
3. Castro Caravaca (2006). 17 Part I - 3. Policy mix for business R&D and innovation
SMEs. In addition, it should include two research centres associated with or sub-contracted by participating firms which must make up 25% of the total budget. Finally, the companies must be able to provide half the funding necessary for the project. Proposals are evaluated on a competitive basis by the CDTI and the National Agency for Evaluation and Foresight (ANEP) together with officials of the Ministry for Education and Science (MEC) and the Ministry for Industry, Tourism and Trade (MITYC).
The first call for CENIT projects managed by CDTI approved EUR 200 million to fund 16 large R&D&I consortia in strategic technology areas during four years (to be matched with EUR 230 million from the private sector). The projects approved in the first round involve 178 firms (51% SMEs and 49% large firms) and 208 research groups in universities, public research centres and technology centres (representing more than 800 researchers FTE).
Support to SMEs
Support to SMEs has mainly focused on increasing absorptive capacity or “technology catch-up” by providing SMEs with loans to adopt ICTs (e.g. the Avanz@plan), to support exporting, etc. The Business Promotion Plan is another one of the seven pillars of the National Reform Plan. It was designed during 2005 with the aim to foster SME innovation and competitiveness. It has been managed by the Directorate General for SMEs at the Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Trade (MITYC) since 2006 (the year most measures were launched). It aims to provide an umbrella for several activities, comprised under the following five action lines:
• Promote entrepreneurship throughout society. • Foster the creation of new businesses and business growth. • Increase innovation capacity and knowledge transfer. • Foster internationalisation. • Administrative simplification.
Fiscal support to R&D
Tax incentives have increased in importance as a policy tool to stimulate business R&D in OECD countries. In comparison to grants, tax incentives are market-oriented since industry decides in which projects/areas it should invest in R&D. Tax incentives also tend to provide more stability than grants which can fluctuate annually, making it difficult for companies to rely on them for sharing risks in longer-term projects. Two main types of tax incentives are used to stimulate R&D in OECD countries, tax allowances and tax credits. In addition to fiscal incentives for R&D expenditures, some OECD governments also promote innovation by granting tax incentives for venture capital investment.
Spain currently has one of the most generous programmes for R&D tax incentives, but only between 40% and 50% of Spanish innovative firms doing R&D currently benefit from R&D tax incentives. To remedy this and improve the uptake of R&D and innovation, the government has made and is making several changes to fiscal incentives for R&D. For instance, as regards the management of the R&D tax credits, since 2003 the MITYC has responsibility for accrediting the R&D expenditure of firms in order to increase legal security.
1. In addition, a recent tax reform has reduced the general corporate tax rate by 15% for all companies, in one year for SMEs (from 30 to 25% by 2007) and in two years for the rest of firms (from 35% to 32.5% by 2007 and to 30% by 2008). The reform has also introduced a new discount of 40% in the social charges corresponding to R&D staff for the company that can not be combined with the use of R&D tax credits on corporate taxes. Finally, the tax reform has established a progressive reduction (8% for 2007, and 15% for 2008) in the level of the R&D tax credit. The current system of R&D&I tax incentives will not be available as from 1 January 2012 (Law 35/2006, Disposición Derogatoria Segunda). However, the government envisages evaluating the relative effectiveness of the two alternative R&D&I support measures (reduction in social charges for R&D staff versus R&D&I corporate tax credits) before the end of 2011) and will then decide which one is better adapted to the needs of Spanish firms.
Private venture capital and business angels
To address the gap in early stage financing for new companies, in 2005 the Parliament passed a new venture capital law which, under certain conditions, provides tax exemptions for disinvestments in venture 18 R&D and innovation in Spain: improving the policy mix
capital funds. This is especially an incentive for business angels. In addition, as part of the Ingenio 2010 plan, the government launched a “Fund of Funds” in 2005 within the Neotec programme managed by CDTI. The total budget of the Neotec Venture Capital is EUR 183 million for the period 2006-2010. It aims at promoting the creation of new technology-based firms through participations in venture-capital companies (10 to 15 funds) each investing in at least 10 start ups. CDTI will also set up a network as part of the programme with the aim to improve the information available to potential investors (domestically or abroad).
Public procurement of technological and innovative products and services
The new Act on Public Contracts, currently under Parliamentary debate, proposes a new type of collaboration contract between the public and private sectors, with more flexible arrangements. Under this new Act the government, in order to fulfil public services, can request the private sector to produce goods or provide services incorporating technology specifically developed to provide innovative and economically advantageous solutions.
3.4 ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Despite the increasing share of government financing of business R&D, the overall share of private R&D in total expenditure remains low. Various studies have cited the small scale of direct support (loans, subsidies) and the conditions for firms to qualify as a barrier to achieving a greater impact of public support on private R&D. The limited policy focus on supporting R&D in services, for example, is a case in point. The new development of large-scale public/private partnerships is therefore welcome and positive. In addition to creating critical mass, the CENIT projects appear to have additional benefits in increasing co-operation between firms and public research institutions in different regions. However, the broad priority areas that have been identified for CENIT, namely priority areas that are common to most countries, including the European Union, suggests that there may be room for a further narrowing down of priorities, possibly linking them to areas where Spain already competes successfully, or could compete successfully, in the global marketplace.
For the time being, participation in the CENIT programme is restricted to national firms (but including subsidiaries of foreign firms). In the next call for CENIT proposals, the government should explore the opening up of access to institutes and firms in other countries focusing on priority fields (e.g. food production, new materials) where there are clear synergies with national research capabilities. For example, countries like Denmark already allow funding for cross-border public-private partnerships under the country’s Innovation Consortiums programme.4 Furthermore, the Danish Research Councils are also allowed to fund international collaborative projects that benefit Danish stakeholders.
With regard to tax incentives, the desire by the government to expand the use of fiscal incentives by allowing firms to choose between tax credits on profits and deductions for employer social security and other labour charges for hiring research personnel should help support firms’ investment in research at the earliest stage of the R&D process, where the risk of market failures is higher. It could be particularly attractive for small R&D performing firms that do not generate profits.
Such incentives exist in other OECD countries with high social security and other payroll taxes (Box 4). The total tax wedge in Spain is 39% (i.e. the difference between what employers pay in wages and social security taxes and what the employee receives net of taxes, cash benefits and social security charges) slightly above the unweighted OECD average of 37.3% (OECD, 2007). Employer social security contributions constitute 23.4% of the total labour costs in Spain compared to 13% in the Netherlands, 29.7% in France and 23.3% in Belgium, all countries that use R&D tax incentives for social charges on labour (Box 4). However, labour costs are significantly lower in Spain than in those countries and it remains to be seen to what extent the reduction in social security charges will induce companies to carry out additional R&D. In addition, there are additional challenges with implementing such types of R&D tax credits. For example, certification of researchers being hired assumes a clear definition of eligible occupations to avoid non-research workers be hired under the research occupation label (i.e. risk of re-labelling). The
4. The aim of Innovation Consortia is to strengthen co-operation between companies, public research institutions and technological service entities to develop new generic technology platforms for the coming five-ten years of product and service development in Denmark. Enterprises must contribute 50% of the funding. Typically a consortium has a total budget of EUR 2 500 000 – 5 500 000 and lasts 3 to 4 years (EU Trend chart Country Report for Denmark, 2006). 19 Part I - 3. Policy mix for business R&D and innovation
Box 4. Tax incentives for labour and social charges of R&D personnel
A recent trend in OECD countries has been to employ fiscal R&D incentives for labour social charges (i.e. social security and other social taxes on labour). The rationale is that by reducing social charges, companies can reduce monthly operating costs and therefore increase cash flow. This is particularly important since wages typically make up a large part of total R&D costs. Increasing cash flow is particularly important for small, research-intensive firms with little revenue but high investment in intellectual and human capital. The tax credits on social charges act as a subsidy to early stage costs whereas tax credits for R&D expenditures generally subsidise later-stage profits, which can be seen as a reward for successful innovation.Another argument for fiscal incentives for labour charges is that they may potentially be easier for governments to control (depending on the design of the programme) and that they may be less subject to manipulation than company profits. Furthermore, by subsiding human capital, the incentives may contribute to retaining human talent. In France,the Young Innovative Company (YIC) scheme allows research staff at young SMEs (less than eight years old and devoting at least 15% of turnover to R&D) to be exempt from social charges.Qualified staff must spend up to 50% of their time on R&D projects.The scheme also allows firms to combine tax credits for social charges with the normal tax credit for R&D expenditures (Crédit d’impôt Recherche – CIR). Companies are controlled by the URSAFF,the French social security agency.The scheme currently costs the government approximately EUR 100 million. In 2004, 1,640 firms took part and claimed exemptions for 8,200 employees.In comparison,6,369 firms filed a claim for the normal R&D tax credit (CIR) for the fiscal year 2004.The amount of tax credits claimed was EUR 890 million. In Belgium, an exemption of EUR 11,510 for staff members conducting scientific research is allowed. This amount is increased to EUR 23,590 for highly qualified staff members (ten years experience and doctorate degree).The company must be profitable because the deduction cannot be carried forward. Firms must prove that the researcher has been involved in R&D activities on a full-time basis. The exemption is not permanent.The company must certify each year that the researcher in question is still working on a full time basis in the research department of the same company. A certificate must be applied for within three months of the last day of the taxable period. It must be enclosed with the tax return, together with a list showing all the names of the relevant staff members. Failure to comply with the regulation results in the loss of the previously obtained exemption.This causes the taxable income of the company to increase proportionally so that the company is liable to pay taxes on the previously obtained exemption in the year that the researcher leaves. The Flemish Government has introduced a one-time tax exemption for companies hiring additional research or quality assurance personnel. A deduction from taxable income is granted for scientific researchers, persons in charge of developing a firm’s technological potential, the head of a quality assurance department and the head of an export department. In the Netherlands, the WBSO (Promotion of Research and Development Act) tax scheme for promoting R&D reduces the wage tax and social security contributions of companies with R&D personnel.The WBSO is open to entrepreneurs, start-ups, SMEs and large firms in the Netherlands who undertake research into technological innovations, irrespective of sector.The company has to apply in advance, giving a description of the R&D project which must be approved by the government via SenterNovem, an independent agency. From 2006, eligible R&D includes technical research that aims at improving physical production processes or software; technical feasibility of R&D projects; development of technically new physical products, physical production processes, software or parts thereof and technical scientific research to seek an explanation for a phenomenon in fields such as physics, chemistry, biotechnology, production technology and information and communication technology. As from 2006, 42% of the first EUR 110,000 of R&D wage costs can be deducted from the wage tax and national insurance contributions. For the remaining R&D wage costs the rate is 14%. First-time users can deduct 60% instead of 42%. Self-employed people can obtain R&D tax relief of EUR 11,255. For first-time self-employed users this rate increases by an extra EUR 5,628. Universities can apply for WBSO tax deduction,when personnel are working on projects directly paid by companies,but also when personnel are working on certain types of public grants.The percentages and the amount of the R&D tax relief are subject to change each year.With 73,145 applications from 24,754 companies in the 1994-2001 period and a budget of EUR 337 million in 2001, the WBSO has grown to become by far the most important Dutch measure for the promotion of corporate R&D activities in terms of scope and budget. Since 2004, the budget for the scheme has been increased by an additional EUR 100 million to reach a total budget of EUR 425 million for 2006. Source: OECD STI Outlook 2006 and national sources. 20 R&D and innovation in Spain: improving the policy mix
impact of the scheme may also be affected if it results in the substitution of workers or if it affects researchers’ wages, which could result from increased demand.
One option to be considered would be to focus the R&D tax credit for social security charges on smaller innovative companies carrying out R&D, as is done in the French Young Innovative Company Scheme (YIC) and maintain the main tax credit scheme for larger firms. The scheme for large firms could be adjusted to improve its effectiveness, e.g. through changes in its implementation, such as improving ease of use, the introduction of certification processes and reviews of eligible expenditures.
The government has also introduced important steps to enhance access to venture capital, notably through the legal changes made in 2005 and in the context of Ingenio 2010. Further action steps may be needed, but it will be important to monitor first whether the new measures are helping to improve access to seed and start-up capital.
A concern that can be raised as regards the new measures implemented over the recent period is that they add a new range of policy instruments and funding mechanisms to an already complex area for firms. Simplifying the different funding instruments and providing easy access would help firms to benefit from the new opportunities that are being offered by the government. Other OECD governments are also taking this approach. For example, the Netherlands is simplifying access to capital schemes (Box 5). It is also important to assess the risk that policy instruments might substitute for each other, raising the potential for over-subsidisation of firms and inefficient use of government funds.
Box 5: Simplifying access to capital schemes – an example from the Netherlands
To better meet the need for capital in the market, the Netherlands Ministry of Economic Affairs will introduce a single capital market package that groups existing schemes together. This should lead to greater transparency, greater awareness among entrepreneurs, lower acquisition and implementation costs, and shorter and simpler procedures. The package will consist of finance for start-ups, growing enterprises, innovative companies, company transfers and capital-intensive sectors (such as shipbuilding and aircraft construction) and investment in emerging markets.It will offer various financing options.The most suitable option will depend on the entrepreneur’s risk profile.The aim is a capital package that is, as far as possible, cost-neutral for the government.
In considering its mix of policy instruments to support business innovation, the government may also wish to consider whether the specific needs of SMEs are sufficiently addressed by the various policy instruments. At the same time, this should not result in the introduction of further policy instruments, as the range of instruments supporting business innovation is already quite extensive.
The main policy recommendations from this review as regards support for business R&D and innovation are to:
• Broaden the access to the CENIT public/private partnership (PPP) projects by opening them up to foreign firms and research institutions. • Ensure simplified access by firms to various funding schemes for R&D projects involving different ministries and regions (e.g. by developing a “one-stop window” for R&D programmes). • Improve the effectiveness of the main R&D tax credit scheme and ensure that new R&D tax incentives that reduce social security charges do not “crowd out” non-subsidised research employment. Consider focusing labour R&D tax credits on smaller innovative companies. • Monitor the effectiveness of recent policies to improve access to seed and start-up venture capital. • Consider the specific needs of SMEs when reassessing the policy mix for R&D and innovation. 21 Part I - 4. Policy mix for science-industry linkages
4. Policy mix for science-industry linkages
4.1 CURRENT SITUATION
In general, links between science and industry in Spain have been stronger between companies and technological centres than with the universities. Despite the fact that industry finances 7.5% of the R&D expenditure of universities (higher than the OECD average), interaction between science and industry is typically low and biased towards engineering schools. Moreover, mobility between the public and private sector is low. Joint publications between universities and industry as well as join patenting are also low. One proxy for collaboration with industry comes from data from the Community Innovation Survey showing that less than 5% of Spanish SMEs were involved in co-operation (with either a public research body or another company) as part of their innovative activities (OECD, 2005). While the cultural gap between the two communities is a barrier in Spain – as in many other OECD countries – the regulations that historically governed university employment and intellectual property in Spain have made it difficult to engage in institutional forms of collaboration. This is particularly a challenge for SMEs which tend to suffer from information gaps and market failures in financial markets. Technology transfer was recognised in 1983 with the University Law (art. 11) that allowed this type of collaboration; prior to that it was illegal to transfer university results to industry.
Consequently, the Spanish innovation landscape is characterised by a large number of science parks and technological centres that have emerged to fill this gap, despite often being short of regular funding. The network of technological centres is growing very fast and receives most of its funding from the private sector (55%). From the public sector, the regional governments play the main role in supporting technological centres (25% of the overall income, almost EUR 100 million, in 2005). The decision to support science parks is shared between the regional governments and the state. However, given the proliferation and diversity of science parks as well as relatively loose criteria for hosting firms, there is a risk that some become general business ventures or real estate offices with few links to needs as regards R&D and innovation.
4.2 CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
There is much scope for improvement to bridge the gap between Spanish research and industry. One opportunity to reduce the cultural gap is to gear training of the next generation of researchers more towards industry needs but also by providing them with more research management training. Efforts could also be made to better utilise the large existing infrastructure of intermediaries in Spain – technology centres, science parks, technology transfer offices (OTRIs) at universities and PROs, etc. Fostering co-operation and networking, including across regions, could enhance synergies and the transfer of know-how. Strengthening the science and technology base itself, and fostering business R&D, as discussed in the sections above, may enhance the capacity and interest in both science and industry for greater co-operation.
The government is also encouraging efforts to promote qualitative and quantitative improvements in the National Health System infrastructures and the capacity for co-operation with industries for research and innovation. This would go beyond the traditional co-operation currently underway with pharmaceutical companies.
4.3 POLICY RESPONSES
Over the past years the government has made legal and administrative changes to the frameworks governing co-operation between universities and firms. Under the proposed University law, public university professors (civil servants) will be eligible to take up to a five-year sabbatical to launch a company based on technological innovation. The professor reserves the right to keep his post at the university. Although it is likely only a few professors will seize this opportunity at first, a few successful experiences could help expand this mechanism in the future.
In addition to regulatory reforms, the CENIT programme mentioned above is the main programme to promote clusters and facilitate links between the public and private sectors. As concerns the commercialisation of research, the Ministry of Industry’s Directorate General for SMEs provides so-called mezzanine loans to university spin-offs and public and private research organisations, as well as technology 22 R&D and innovation in Spain: improving the policy mix
centres, enterprise incubators and science and technology parks. The INNOEMPRESA programme provides grants for innovation projects (in production organisation, marketing and sales management, environmental management, energy efficiency, logistics, distribution and design); technological advice through support institutions (e.g. technology centres); support for the implementation and certification of technological quality standards; and joint innovation projects between value chain partners (e.g. ICT, logistics). The INNOEMPRESA programme also includes an action line forming part of the AVANZ@ Plan to increase ICT use in internal and external business processes.
The government also aims to strengthen and improve networking of technological centres. This action comprises four measures: i) to help business groups or associations explore their technological needs and consider the creation of new technological centres via the CREA programme; ii) to boost support of the PROFIT scheme for technology centres; iii) to foster the creation of consortia among technology centres (at least three technology centres from three different regions must participate) under the CONSORCIA programme; iv) to promote the participation of technology centres in the EU Framework Programme via the INNOEUROPA programme.
4.4 ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
There is room to improve the capacity for technology transfer by enhancing networking and encouraging consolidation of existing transfer organisations. Networks and/or mergers of technology centres may be one way to get technology centres to act together and gain sufficient critical mass. Changes in the way research centres are evaluated could also influence their incentives to co-operate and also support the development of alliances and networks.
The mobility of people is also an important way to enhance the interaction between science and industry. Further reforms may be needed to increase incentives for the mobility of researchers between institutions and industry. Some recommendations are made in the next section.
Interactions between science and business may also benefit from greater co-operation between regions and the national government in developing clusters. Given the amount of funding involved in cluster development, evaluation of the different initiatives is important. In all these areas, Spain can draw on a range of experiences in OECD countries in this area that may help inspire further reforms to enhance links between science and industry (Box 6).
Box 6. Recent policy initiatives in OECD countries to enhance links between science and business
In Italy,a recent government Act of November 2005 dealing with the “status”of university researchers and professors, grants both the Ministry of Universities and Research (MIUR) and each individual university the autonomy to develop collaborative research tools. Furthermore, according to a new law, public-sector researchers and technicians can spend a period of time working in private firms, keeping their salary and career path, and receiving an additional salary from the company. In Finland, a new university law affects the overall definition of university tasks; the so-called “third mission” – transferring technology to the private sector – was added to universities’ basic tasks. Furthermore, a new Act on Inventions concerning universities’ intangible rights and innovations made in universities is under discussion in the Finnish parliament. It is expected to be in force by the beginning of 2007. For its part, the Hungarian Patent Office has drawn up guidelines to help universities develop policies and procedures for protecting and exploiting IPRs. Australia’s TechFast, a pilot programme to strengthen the transfer of intellectual property from research institutions to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), was funded thanks to an election commitment.AUD 2.4 million is being provided to the Australian Institute for Commercialisation for a 12-18 month pilot. New Zealand is piloting a technology transfer programme on the model of the Danish Technology Institute. It is a service programme designed to identify technical requirements of firms, especially SMEs, and to provide suitable sources of technology and knowledge.
The main policy recommendations of this review to enhance industry-science linkages are to:
• Improve the capacity and management of technology transfer by enhancing networking and encouraging consolidation among existing intermediaries. • Strengthen co-operation between regions and the national government in developing clusters. 23 Part I - 5. Policy mix for human resources in science and technology
5. Policy mix for human resources in science and technology
5.1 CURRENT SITUATION
Spain has increased the production of human resources in science and technology over the past years. Spain ranks above the OECD average in terms of the share of university graduates with degrees in science and engineering (over 20%). There are currently some 80,000 students enrolled in PhD studies. Spain produces around 167 PhD graduates per million population, ahead of Portugal, the Netherlands and even Korea (OECD, 2006a). Despite the high number of PhD students, only some 8,000 PhDs graduate each year. The duration of PhD studies is relatively long in Spain compared to other countries: up to six years instead of the four years common elsewhere. Spain ranks close to the EU average in terms of researchers per 1,000 employed. In 2004, there were 5.5 researchers per thousand total employed in Spain compared to 3.5 in 1995. About a third of Spanish researchers work in the business sector (31.7%) while the rest work in the public sector (universities or government research institutes). The limited ability of the public and business research to absorb a constant stream of young PhDs has resulted in a brain drain to other EU countries and to North America. On the positive side, Spain has been able to increase the participation of women among its university science graduates and the researcher population. Women account for 36.3% of researchers in Spain compared to 28.3% in Italy and 27.8% in France. However, most women researchers in Spain work in the public sector where they are under-represented in senior positions and only 6% of business researchers in Spain are women (OECD, 2006d).
5.2 CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
Spain faces several challenges with regard to human resources. On the supply-side there has been a levelling off of university graduates in science and engineering. On the demand-side, employment of researchers in the business sector has grown slowly despite government efforts to boost industry’s hiring of PhD and R&D staff (e.g. via the Torres Quevedo programme). In some fields such as biochemistry there appears to be an oversupply. Another challenge is the academic employment structure at universities, characterised now by multiple categories of employment (e.g. civil servant or public employee, private law employee either permanent or temporary) with differences in terms of employment protection and social coverage. In addition, the median age for permanent researchers in universities is over 50 years old. This situation of insiders and outsiders has resulted in young researchers working on multiple short-term contracts with relatively low pay. This has made the promotion of research careers a challenge for universities and the government.
As in other OECD countries, Spain also faces the challenge of low mobility of students and researchers. In universities, it is estimated that more than half of university post-docs carry out their training at the institution where they received their PhD. The problems in the labour market in the private sector, namely the duality of the market (one-third of workers are on temporary contracts) further acts as a barrier to mobility. For firms the high firings costs associated with permanent employees limit their ability to adjust staffing and organisation to changes in technology and market demand (OECD, 2006c). Housing markets, in particular the high cost of housing relative to income in some regions, can be a strong barrier to mobility, especially for researchers in the public sector where pay scales are more regulated.
5.3 POLICY RESPONSES
Responsibility for policies for human resources in science and technology is distributed between ministries and the regions depending on the area (e.g. education, training, mobility or employment). The national government has introduced several measures to promote training and employment of young researchers (Box 7) and has also approved the mandatory transformation, after the third year, of the traditional fellowships into regular contracts for the training of researchers, and the extension of social security rights to all researchers and training personnel (Estatuto del Becario). One of these policy actions is the Ramon y Cajal programme, which is funded by the national government. In five years the programme 24 R&D and innovation in Spain: improving the policy mix
has affected more than 2,500 young researchers from Spain and overseas. The new I3 programme rewards the institutions (universities or PROs) that provide new hired researchers (including Ramon y Cajal recipients) with longer term or permanent positions and employment security. Another measure is the Programme of National Health System Researchers (six year job contracts with a three year research project funded by the Ministry of Health and Consumption and in a minority part by the Regions). It has affected 400 National Health System researchers since 1998. It also rewards the institutions (hospitals, universities or PROs) that provide hired researchers with longer term or permanent job positions and employment security and is also co-funded by the Autonomous Communities.
To promote mobility from university to industry, the government foresees that the reform of the University Act will allow university professors to take leave for up to five years to create spin-off ventures related to their research. Box 7 below provides a list of the many policy measures from the national government (other measures are provided by the regions) to promote the quality of researchers’ training as well as their employment.
Box 7. Measures to promote human resources in science and technology in Spain
• Pre- and post-doctoral research fellowships (managed by different ministries, mainly MEC and Ministry for Health and Consumption, MSC); pre-doctoral MSC fellowships are also available for registered nurses (DUE).The Postdoctoral research fellowship extramural programme managed by MSC also includes a mandatory one year scientific traineeship abroad. • Contracts for research training for health specialist trainees (managed by MSC-ISCIII since 2001, co- funded by recipient health institutions, which are in turn managed by the autonomous communities), with a mandatory one year scientific traineeship abroad. • Pre-doctoral fellowships for research management training (programme managed by MSC). • Programme Ramón y Cajal, contracts for PhDs at PROs and universities for a maximum of five years (managed by MEC, since 2001). • Contracts for national health system researchers for a maximum of six years (managed by MSC-ISCIII since 1998, co-funded by recipient health institutions). • Programme Juan de la Cierva, contracts for postdoctoral researchers at PROs (managed by MEC, since 2004). • Programme Torres Quevedo, contracts for R&D personnel (PhDs and technology management experts) at firms or technological centres (managed by MEC, since 2001). • Contracts for technical manpower for research support at the National Health System shared use research infrastructures (extramural programme managed by MSC-ISCIII since 2000, co-funded by recipient health institutions which are in turn managed by the autonomous communities). • Programme I3 for the incentives, incorporation and intensification of research activity (managed by MEC, and by MSC-ISCIII for matters concerning the national health system). • Researcher mobility for National Health System personnel for scientific traineeships abroad (MSC- ISCIII) and for projects (MEC). • Contracts for R&D technical personnel at PROs (MEC). • Programme I3P, pre- and post-doctoral contracts at CSIC (with some interest for business) (MEC- CSIC). • Support to international co-operation projects. Source: Martinez et. al., 2006.
5.4 ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The match between supply and demand of human resources could be further improved by strengthening career training and development in universities and PROs. There is also scope to improve the provision of information about the vast range of government programmes for young researchers. In addition, more could be done to enhance incentives for mobility. For example, admissions and recruitment policies at institutions should be reviewed in order to limit “in-breeding”. Improvements in the quality of university education and 25 Part I - 5. Policy mix for human resources in science and technology greater competition between institutions could also foster mobility, whereby the best students attend the better institutions. While the planned reform to the University Act to allow professors to take up to five years leave to work on spin-offs is a welcome development, the focus on spin-offs as opposed to other forms of interaction with firms (e.g. consulting activities, technology transfer activities in general) may be too limited or narrow to change the mind-sets of university faculty with regard to mobility; only certain types of academic research results may best be commercialised via spin-offs. The development of science parks and other intermediary institutions offers opportunities to expose young students to greater interactions with applied research projects and industrial partners as well as opportunities for entrepreneurship.
Another important issue that emerged several times in discussions with firms and research institutions was the need to strengthen training and support for technical personnel at masters and bachelors level. In Spain, as in other OECD countries, the focus on PhD-level researchers has drawn attention away from training technical support staff. This is aggravated by the relatively weak level of vocational training in Spain. An improved supply of technical staff would facilitate a division of labour in research institutions and free up time for principal researchers to focus on funding and the management of research projects.
As in some other policy areas, the range of measures that is available for researchers, and notably for young researchers, is extensive, which raises the risk that only a few of them will be aware of all the possible options for support.
The main policy recommendations of this review to enhance human resources in science and technology are to:
• Remove barriers to and enhance incentives for mobility.
• Strengthen the training and support for technical personnel.
• Improve career training and development in universities and PROs.
• Improve information about the wide range of government programmes for young researchers. 26 R&D and innovation in Spain: improving the policy mix
6. Governance and evaluation
6.1 CURRENT SITUATION
Decision making
As noted in the first section, the Spanish innovation system is governed by several Ministries and institutions and by the ministries and agencies of the 17 regions. The Ministry of Education and Science is in charge of the promotion and general co-ordination of scientific research and technological innovation. Most of the annual budget for R&D&I of the central government is currently managed by MITYC and the MEC. The Inter-ministerial Commission for Science and Technology (CICYT) is the institution officially in charge of defining S&T policy and the elaboration of the National R&D&I Plan, as well as of coordinating its management and implementation across different ministries and of evaluating its results. The composition of the Permanent Commission of the CICYT is as high level as the CICYT, which leaves the effective day- to-day co-ordination of the National R&D&I Plan in the hands of an informal institution: the Support and Follow-Up Unit of the CYCIT (CAS-CICYT). The CAS-CICYT is chaired by the Director of the Economic Bureau of the Prime Minister and composed of two Secretaries of State (Deputy Ministers), as well as the Secretary Generals and Director Generals who manage most of the annual budget for R&D&I.
Co-ordination
The Scientific and Technological General Council is responsible for the co-ordination of the technological and scientific policies of the regional governments. The Inter-Ministerial Commission on Science and Technology (CICYT) is the central organisation to plan, co-ordinate and follow up the innovation policy. The Commission’s tasks include the integration of the programmes initiated by the different sectors, proposing the allocation of public funds across the various programmes of the National Plan and the co-ordination of their implementation. The high level and broad composition of the Commission is viewed as limiting its functionality and operability as a decision-making body.
Management and implementation of public support
The implementation of public support for R&D and innovation is relatively complex in Spain. The large number of instruments and the larger number of actors involved in supporting R&D and innovation combined with sometimes complex procedures lead to a significant burden on applicants and may introduce delays in managing, approving and implementing proposals. Improving these procedures and providing harmonised standards for application to different programmes could be highly beneficial to users and could also help reduce the bureaucratic burden in agencies and responsible ministries.
Evaluation policies and practices
Within the framework of the National Plan for R&D and innovation 2004-2007, the government has launched a new Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation System (SISE) for all R&D and innovation programmes and instruments. This system will enable continuous review of the R&D and innovation policy and constitutes the basis for improving existing initiatives and identifying the need for new ones. However, the statistical infrastructure for accessing data for evaluation is underdeveloped. The government has created a basic database on indicators for industry and innovation but the lack of up-to-date data limits the possibility to evaluate many of the recent policies and discrete instruments. In addition, there is a need to define better (micro-level) indicators that can be matched to programme objectives.
6.2 CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
The main challenge facing Spain with regard to the governance of innovation policy is the need to clarify the role of the regions in the national strategy and to ensure that institutional co-ordination and planning work to serve the national interest. While co-ordination has improved in several areas, there is still a risk of wasteful duplication, lack of synergy and overlap or even conflict of objectives. Each region has its own universities, its own science park, its own innovation agency, etc. In terms of implementation, this two-tier 27 Part I - 6. Governance and evaluation structure of a national and regional system makes it difficult for firms, especially SMEs and other individual stakeholders to exploit synergies between national and regional policies. In addition, instilling a culture of evaluation of instruments at all levels of policy making will require significant and clear signals at the policy making level but also in the agencies responsible for policy implementation.
6.3 POLICY RESPONSES
The government envisages a new structure to promote co-operation between regional governments in order to develop joint approaches to the same problems, as opposed to the duplication of initiatives. Indeed, the commitment of regional authorities is necessary even if the main role lies with the national government. In addition, the regions have strengthened their role as organised institutional players in the S&T policy landscape and in performance. Apart from the national evaluation bodies (e.g. CDTI for technical research, ANEP for scientific research, ISCIII for Biomedical and Health Sciences and the National Health System Research, ANECA for university quality), some autonomous communities have created their own regional agencies for the evaluation of the quality of research and universities, e.g. Catalonia, Galicia, Castilla-Leon, Madrid, Andalusia, Valencia.
The government, in the context of the development of a new Public Agencies Act, has already approved the creation of new agencies related to R&D funding and promotion. The Ministry of Education and Science will transfer some of the traditional units managing support directly from the Ministry into an Agency of Public Support for R&D, while the Ministry of Health will change the status of the Health Institute Carlos III into an agency, both funding and performing research. The proposed transformation of the CSIC is also covered by the new Act. The new regulation should increase flexibility in the management of public funds, improving efficiency in the use of resources and improve the quality of implementation of R&D funding and promotion.
As regards co-ordination, the recent “Conference of Presidents” (a meeting of the Prime Minister and the Presidents of the regional governments) is viewed by the government as a way to improve inter-regional and regional-national co-ordination. The greater involvement of sectoral ministries such as the Ministry of the Environment in promoting R&D is also viewed as a way to improve co-ordination between ministries, insofar as linking sectoral R&D policies to national R&D priorities can generate incentives for inter-ministerial co-ordination to address key policy challenges such as energy, the environment and adaptation to climate change.
6.4 ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The governance structure for science, technology and innovation policy in Spain is complex. The growing importance of the regions in the system as well as the challenges related to globalisation in general make it important for Spain to ensure a governance of S&T policy that is as simplified and coherent as possible. Further clarifying the role of the different government bodies so as to avoid overlap and dispersion of funds will be helpful. Improving governance of the system may also benefit from a strengthened involvement of stakeholders (e.g. from industry) in the discussion on policy development, both formally and informally. Such involvement should ideally also include foreign stakeholders.
With regard to co-ordination of national and regional innovation policies, greater transparency and coordination of the programmes devised by national and regional governments would also help to avoid duplication, make it easier for SMEs to access information and increase the impact of measures. One way to achieve greater transparency would be to improve information flows between national government bodies and regional actors, as in Canada via its regional innovation agencies (Box 8). The recent Conference of Presidents is another example of institutionalising such information flows.
Box 8. Regional Agencies in Canada
The Canadian federal government has regional agencies covering all regions (a region might encompass more than only one province: four agencies cover 13 provinces and territories). The broad mission of these agencies is to help build economic development and competitiveness in their region, and strengthening the innovation capacity is at the core of their mandate. These regional agencies are a useful link between the federal and the provincial governments. As these agencies are aware of the federal innovation-related programmes and policies as well as those from the regions, they play a critical role in aligning federal and provincial policies and in ensuring synergies among different tools used by both levels of government. 28 R&D and innovation in Spain: improving the policy mix
Evaluation of research excellence is currently carried out by national agencies, but also by regional agencies. On the one hand, given the proliferation of competitive calls from different institutions, some evaluators may see themselves evaluating the same projects several times which implies a waste of resources. On the other hand, programmes with similar objectives but evaluated by different agencies may have different outcomes, which may lead to “forum-shopping” by applicants. Evaluation standards between national and regional evaluation agencies should be consistent to avoid “excellence” being measured by different benchmarks in national and regional programmes sharing common objectives (OECD, 2006c, Martinez et. al., 2006). Involvement of international experts in the evaluation of programmes and institutions could also help improve the capacity for and the culture of evaluation in innovation policy.
The budget for S&T has increased significantly in the last few years and will continue to do so, therefore it will be important to develop and collect accurate indicators on activities undertaken but more importantly on the results of such activities (output, outcomes, and impact) for the Spanish economy and society.
The main policy recommendations of this review to enhance the governance and evaluation of innovation policy in Spain are to:
• Improve co-ordination across ministries and with the regions, especially in terms of programme implementation; this will also help strengthen the critical mass for research and innovation. • Clarify and simplify the number of instruments, improving transparency (e.g. one-stop-shops) and reduce administrative burdens for applicants and managers. • Strengthen the involvement of stakeholders, especially business, in the development of innovation policies. • Develop suitable indicators to monitor progress in innovation programmes. • Strengthen the management of public support and improve the quality of policy implementation. • Reduce the reporting burden arising from multiple evaluations and improve the co-ordination of evaluation criteria between regions and national Ministries. • Improve the capacity for strategic planning and policy evaluation. 29 Part I - 7. Conclusions
7. Conclusions
Spain is taking the innovation challenge seriously. The current agenda for reform is particularly ambitious. The new Ingenio 2010 plan seems well designed in terms of its scope but there remain some questions regarding the best way to implement some of the policy instruments and there is a need for better priority setting, especially given the large amount of funds that will be mobilised in a very short time. While bottom up approaches are important for driving demand, linking projects to national productive capacity and areas where Spain already has or may develop a comparative advantage on global markets could help strengthen competitiveness. Increasing competition in the system for public research can help by increasing mobility and matching supply and demand for skills. Meanwhile linking government support to research and innovation around public/private partnerships can also help link public research to market needs. There is also a role for public procurement to play in terms of developing lead markets for technology and innovation.
Another issue that remains open is the role that block grant funding can play in increasing the quality and excellence of research in universities and PROs if it is appropriately linked to performance measures and evaluations, including by international peers. In addition, despite the creation of large programmes using grants such as CENIT, a lot of the smaller support instruments (using grants and interest free loans) continue to exist. Yet their small size and the short repayment periods raise the issue of efficiency of support and the question of impact. The government may wish to assess whether there is room for consolidating small grants and loans into larger grants and/or into a single source of funds. One option would be to group such funds to stimulate public/private partnerships involving SMEs, along the CENIT model. Finally, it is very important that the government address the broad issue of co-ordination between ministries – although co-ordination appears to work between the two main Ministries (MITYC and MEC) – and especially with the regions. 30 R&D and innovation in Spain: improving the policy mix
References
Castro Caravaca, J.C. (2005), “Una nueva organización para el PROFIT”, Economía Industrial, 359, pp.223- 230. CONFEDERACION DE SOCIEDADES CIENTIFICAS DE ESPANA (2006) Acción Crece: Proposals by the Scientific Community to Boost Science in Spain. COTEC (2006), Informe 2006. Cruz-Castro, L and Sanz-Menéndez, L (2006) “Careers at universities and public research centres: evidence from individual trajectories’ data” Paper presented at the Conference on “Science and Technology Policy 2006: US-EU Policies for Research and Innovation”, Atlanta, 18-20 May 2006. European Commission (2006) ERAWATCH Research Inventory Report for Spain: http://www.cordis.europa.eu/erawatch/. Martínez, C., Cruz-Castro, L., Sanz-Menéndez L. (2006), Background report for the OECD Peer Review of the Innovation Policy Mix for Spain, commissioned by the FECYT for the Spanish government, see Annex I. Sanz-Menéndez, L. and Cruz-Castro, L. (2003) “Coping with environmental pressures: public research organisations responses to funding crises” in Research Policy 32 (2003) 1293-1308, Elsevier press, Netherlands. OECD (1987), Innovation Policy Spain, OECD, Paris. OECD (2005), OECD STI Scoreboard 2005, OECD, Paris. OECD (2006a), OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2006, OECD, Paris. OECD (2006b),Going for Growth 2006, OECD Paris. OECD (2006c), OECD Economic Survey of Spain OECD, Paris. OECD (2006d), Women in Scientific Careers OECD, Paris OECD (2007), Taxing Wages 2005/2006: 2006 Edition OECD, Paris 31 Part II - Annex 1 BACKGROUND AND ISSUES Part II
Annex 1 BACKGROUND AND ISSUES5
The aim of this background report is to provide information and guidance for the OECD peer review of the policy mix for R&D and innovation (R&D&I) in Spain. It is divided in two sections: background and main issues. The background section provides a brief overview of the Spanish R&D&I system and summarises the policies and institutional setting of the public support to R&D&I in Spain. It describes the National R&D&I Plan for 2004-2007 and the new measures introduced in 2005. It also provides an overview of the evolution of Spanish annual budgets for R&D&I and finishes with a brief description of regional support to R&D&I.Additional information on institutions and policy instruments is provided in the Annexes.The section on main issues sets out a number of areas where special attention may be needed during the review.They refer to the overall innovation system,governance, policy design and policies in specific areas, such as the science and technology base, business R&D&I, science-industry linkages and human resources for science and technology.
1. Background
1.1 BRIEF OVERVIEW OF SPANISH R&D AND INNOVATION SYSTEM
With GDP growth above the EU average in the past two decades (mainly due to labour input increases), Spanish GDP per capita reached 98% of the EU-25 level in 2004 and is expected to reach 100% soon (OECD, 2005c). However, despite a positive economic trend, productivity is still lower than the EU average.
“Fiscal consolidation, the fall in interest rates due to the introduction of the single currency, structural reforms pursued since the mid 1990s and a surge in immigration have created a virtuous circle of rapidly rising activity sustained by strong job creation. But where there is much light, there is also shadow: unemployment is still widespread; productivity gains have remained meagre; inflation is relatively high, eroding international competitiveness; and the surge in house prices is a cause for concern.”6
Raising R&D investment and promoting innovation are among the changes needed to increase productivity. Total R&D investment as a share of GDP lagging behind the EU average and a relatively low share of R&D performed by the business sector indicate some of the weaknesses of the Spanish innovation system. In 2004, the share of gross domestic expenditure in R&D (GERD) performed by the business sector in Spain was equal to 54.4%, compared to an average of 67.9% for the OECD and only 31.7% of all researchers worked in the business sector, whereas the OECD average was more than 60% (OECD, 2006b).
In a private sector essentially composed of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in traditional sectors with low research intensity and reduced use of information and communications technologies (ICT)
5. This report has been commissioned by the Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology (FECYT), on behalf of the Spanish government. It has been drafted by Catalina Martínez, with the collaboration of Laura Cruz-Castro and under the supervision of Luis Sanz-Menéndez, Spanish representative at the OECD Committee for Scientific and Technological Policy. This version incorporates comments onto a previous version provided by the Economic Bureau of the Prime Minister (OEP), the Ministry of Education and Science (MEC), the Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Trade (MITYC), the Institute of Health Carlos III (ISCIII) and a number of regional governments.
6. OECD Economic Survey of Spain 2005, “Maintaining a strong performance: the challenges ahead”, www.oecd.org. 32 R&D and innovation in Spain: improving the policy mix
relative to international standards, only a few Spanish firms base their competitiveness on innovation and technology, but their number is growing. Between 2002 and 2004, 29.7% of Spanish firms with more than 10 employees carried out innovative activities, compared to 19.4% for the period 2001-2003 (see Table A1). On the other hand, despite an increase in absolute terms and given a general rise in Spanish business R&D spending, the share of business R&D expenditures carried out by affiliates of foreign firms appears to have decreased in the past few years, from 31% in 2001 to 26% in 2003, whereas it has increased in other European countries (OECD, 2006b).7
The dominant type of innovations in Spanish firms tends to be mainly related to products and processes new to the firm and new to the local market, rather than new to the international market (Eurostat, 2005). Spanish inventors were at the origin of 120 triadic patents with priority in 2002 (0.23% of the total), compared to 7,271 for Germany, which represented 14.12% of the total (OECD, 2005b).
Table A1. Innovation in Spanish firms, 2000-2004
Total innovation expenditure (EUR million) 10,, 174.3 11 089.5 11 , 198.5 12 , 491.0 Number of innovative firmsa 29, 228 32,, 339 31 711 51 , 319 Share of innovative firms (% total) 19.8 20.6 19.4 29.7 Number of innovative firms doing R&D 4,, 783 9 247b 7 , 535 8 , 958 Share of innovative firms doing R&D (% total) 3.2 5.9 4.6 5.2
Notes: (a) An innovative firm is a firm that developed some innovative activity in the year of reference or the two previous years; (b) Systematic R&D: 4247; Occasional R&D: 5000. Source: COTEC (2006), based on “Encuesta sobre Innovación Tecnológica en las Empresas”, INE (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004).
In this context, the high potential of the Spanish research base is very promising. The proportion of the population aged 25 to 34 years with tertiary education has grown rapidly in recent years and is currently higher than the European and OECD averages (38% in Spain, compared to 29% for the EU- 19 average and 31% for the OECD in 2004) (OECD, 2006c). The share of Spanish science and engineering graduates is also high, equal to 28.1% in 2003, and above the EU average, behind Sweden with 30.5%, Ireland with 29.9%, France with 29.4%, Finland with 28.7% and Austria with 28.4%. Moreover, the annual growth rate of science and engineering graduates between 1998 and 2003 in Spain was the highest by far among EU-25 countries, at 5.1% (European Commission, 2005a).
The number of researchers per thousand total employed has increased considerably in recent years, from 3.5 in 1995 to 5.5 in 2004 (5.9 for EU-25 in 2003) (OECD, 2006b), even though funding per researcher remains nevertheless low compared to other countries. In 2003, the average public expenditure per researcher was equal to USD 119,700 PPP in Spain, compared to USD 197,900 PPP in France and USD 213,900 PPP in Germany (COTEC, 2006).
The number of Spanish scientific publications has also grown considerably in the past, putting Spain currently among the top countries in terms of number of scientific publications included in the Science Citation Index (SCI), even though the number of publications per million inhabitants and their impact in terms of citations is still low compared to other European countries. Spanish researchers produced 3.22% of the world scientific publications in 2003, which amounts to 588 scientific articles per million inhabitants, less than the EU-25 average of 639 (European Commission, 2005a).
The distribution of researchers is strongly biased towards the public sector, as reflected in the share of GERD performed by the higher education sector, which is quite large compared to other OECD countries (30.3% in 2003, compared with an OECD average of 17.4% and 22.1% for the EU-25 countries). Among the researchers, 51.1% worked full time equivalent at universities and 17% for the government in 2004 (OECD, 2006b). The distribution of academic scientific publications reflects this bias: 61.3% of Spanish scientific publications with international diffusion in 2001-2003 were authored by university researchers, 23.54% by researchers in the health sector and 20.76% by researchers at
7. For example, from 25% in 2001 to 27% in 2003 in Germany; from 40% to 45% in the United Kingdom and from 65% to 72% in Ireland. 33 Part II - Annex 1 BACKGROUND AND ISSUES the Scientific Research Council (CSIC), the largest public research organisation in Spain (business researchers authored 3.51%) (COTEC, 2006).
Spanish R&D&I policies try to address these and other challenges and opportunities for the Spanish research and innovation system through the measures included in the National R&D&I Plan for the period 2004-2007, as well as the new initiatives introduced in 2005 (following a change of government) which included, among other things, an increase in the government budget for R&D&I of more than 25% per year and a prioritisation of public-private partnerships for innovation with the aim to increase the leverage effect of public R&D efforts on the private sector.
1.2 SPANISH SYSTEM OF PUBLIC SUPPORT TO R&D&I
Most Spanish R&D&I policies are implemented under the umbrella of the National R&D&I Plan, which every four years sets the priorities of the central government for the distribution of public funds on a competitive basis. As defined in the Constitution, R&D&I policy is a shared competence between the regional and central governments, but the central government has the exclusive competence of “co- ordination and general promotion”.8 Regional governments are responsible for supervising and funding universities and they play a significant (and growing) role in the funding of R&D&I of universities and other research institutions within their territories. A brief description of the main institutions involved in the design, management and performance of the Spanish public R&D&I system is set out below (Table A2). For more information about some of the main actors of the system see Annex 2.
The regulatory framework for the support of R&D&I is defined by a number of laws and regulations, with the Science Act (enacted in 1986), being the most important reference, as it is the basis for the institutional and organisational set-up of the system. Public action in support of S&T is also regulated by many laws, such as those regulating public subsidies and public contracts, or the annual budget law. In addition, the changing nature of universities and public research centres (requiring increasing autonomy and flexibility) has prompted regulatory reforms to revise their governance and financing models. The Public Agencies Law, which entered into force in July 2006, and the reform of the Universities Law, to be approved at the beginning of 2007, intend to facilitate those changes (see Table A3).
1.3 NATIONAL R&D&I PLAN FOR 2004-2007
As stipulated in the 1986 Science Law, the government has to elaborate National R&D Plans every four years, setting the priorities, objectives and instruments of R&D policy for the corresponding reference period. The first National Plan covered the period 1988-1991. With the addition of innovation to the National R&D Plan in 2000, it became the National R&D&I Plan. The fifth National Plan was approved by the Government in November 2003 and covers the period 2004-2007.
The National Plan has evolved as a bottom-up assemblage of instruments proposed by various ministries, public bodies and a myriad of stakeholders, rather than a top-down policy process based on the evaluation of needs and strategic choices. The design of the National Plan is the result of a co- operative process that involves actors from science, technology, enterprise and society spheres (more than 450 experts from universities, public bodies, health institutions, technology centres and business were involved in the preparation of the last Plan), including representatives from the regions (autonomous communities), ministerial departments and other councils.
The ultimate goal of the National Plan for the period 2004-2007 is to contribute to knowledge generation for the benefit of society and the improvement of social welfare, but it also has a specific set of objectives (many of them long term) with which all R&D&I policy programmes and actions should in principle be consistent (Table A4).
8. The Inter-ministerial Commission for Science and Technology (CICYT), chaired by the Prime Minister, has the formal objective of planning, co-ordinating and monitoring the National R&D&I Plan. It was created by the Science Act in 1986, and has the support of the Ministry for Education and Science (MEC). The secretary of CICYT is the Secretary of State for Universities and Research at MEC. 34 R&D and innovation in Spain: improving the policy mix
Table A2. Main institutions in the Spanish public R&D&I system Policy design Parliament, for the approval of the annual budget law and any legislation affecting the Spanish R&D&I system and for taking notice of the National R&D&I Plan elaborated by the government every 4 years. Central government, for the elaboration of the National R&D&I Plan and for submitting to the Parliament for approval a proposal for the annual budget and any other law affecting the Spanish R&D&I system. Ministries with R&D and innovation responsibilities, mainly the Ministry of Education and Science (MEC)5, also in charge of promotion and co-ordination of the National Plan; the Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Trade (MITYC); the Ministry of Defence (MD); the Ministry of Health and Consumption (MSC); the Ministry of Environment (ME) and the Ministry of Public Works (MFOM). Regional governments. The 17 Autonomous Communities have developed their own Regional R&D&I Plans and some of them have enacted regional S&T Acts. Planning and The Inter-ministerial Commission for Science and Technology (CICYT) chaired by the co-ordination Prime Minister and with representatives from all ministries with an interest in S&T, is in charge of planning, co-ordinating and monitoring the National R&D&I Plan. The CICYT is advised by its Monitoring and Support Commission (CAS-CICYT), which is compound by the main management R&D&I units, and also gets advice from the General Council on Science and Technology (in charge of regional co-ordination) and the Advisory Council on Science and Technology (which channels the views of businesses and the civil society). Administrative and technical support for CICYT is provided by the Economic Bureau of the Prime Minister and the MEC. Management Management units within different ministries, mainly: of competitive Secretary of State for Universities and Research (MEC-SEUI), and under its calls for aegis the Secretary General for Scientific and Technology Policy (MEC- funding SGPCT) which oversees the Directorate General for Research (MEC-DGI) and the Directorate General for Technology Policy (MEC-DGPT). Secretary of State for Telecommunications and Information Society (MITYC- SETSI). Secretary General for Industry (MITYC-SGI), and under its aegis the Directorate General for Industrial Development (MITYC-DGDI) and the Directorate General for Small and Medium Enterprises (MITYC-DGPYME). Industrial Technology Development Centre (CDTI): public corporate entity at MITYC engaged in the promotion of innovation and technological development of Spanish companies. National Enterprise for Innovation (ENISA): State-owned Company that collaborates with DGPYME at MITYC in the search for and use of new financial instruments for SMEs. In recent years, ENISA has been developing participative loans to finance SME projects. Public Research Organisations with intramural research centres and provision of external competitive funding: National Institute for Agricultural and Food Research (INIA), under the aegis of MEC Institute of Health Carlos III (ISCIII), under the aegis of MSC. Management units in regional governments. Research Universities. Funding for education and operational costs for universities are Performers transferred from regional governments, whereas funding for university research comes either from regional, national and EU calls for R&D&I funding. Public research organisations (under the aegis of different ministries), the Scientific Research Council (CSIC) being the largest one. Regional research centres (under the aegis of regional governments) and Technological Centres. Firms. Evaluation At the national level: CDTI, for industrial R&D and technical projects; ANEP, for the evaluation and prospective of academic R&D projects; CNEAI, for the evaluation of individuals’ research activity; ANECA, for the evaluation of quality and accreditation of
9 universities; and ISCIII for biomedical and health sciences and for the National Health . As stated in the Royal DecreeSystem 553/2004 (NHS). of 17 April 2004 on the distribution of responsibilities among ministries, the MEC is in charge of the promotion and general co-ordination of scientific research and technological innovation. At the regional level: Regional agencies for the evaluation of research and university Article 8.1: “Corresponde al Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia la propuesta y ejecución de la política del Gobierno quality exist in eight regions (e.g. Catalonia, Galicia, Castile-Leon, Madrid, Andalusia, en materia educativa, deportiva y de universidades, así como de la política de fomento y coordinación general de la etc). investigación científica y la innovación tecnológica.” Article 10.1: “El Ministerio de Industria, Turismo y Comercio es el Supportdepartamento and encargadoSpanish de la propuesta Foundation y ejecución for Science de la and política Technology del Gobierno (FECYT), en materia under de the desarrollo aegis of industrial, MEC. intermediationpolítica comercial, energética,CDTI and de la Spanish pequeña Patent y mediana and Trademarkempresa, de Office turismo (OEPM), y de telecomunicaciones. under the aegis of” MITYC. Research results transfer offices (OTRIs); Technology Centres (TCs); Scientific and Technology Parks; University-Enterprise Foundations (FUEs); Large Scientific Installations (GIC). Policy design Parliament, for the approval of the annual budget law and any legislation affecting the Spanish R&D&I system and for taking notice of the National R&D&I Plan elaborated by the government every 4 years. Central government, for the elaboration of the National R&D&I Plan and for submitting to the Parliament for approval a proposal for the annual budget and any other law affecting the Spanish R&D&I system. Ministries with R&D and innovation responsibilities, mainly the Ministry of Education and Science (MEC)5, also in charge of promotion and co-ordination of the National Plan; the Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Trade (MITYC); the Ministry of Defence (MD); the Ministry of Health and Consumption (MSC); the Ministry of Environment (ME) and the Ministry of Public Works (MFOM). Regional governments. The 17 Autonomous Communities have developed their own Regional R&D&I Plans and some of them have enacted regional S&T Acts. Planning and The Inter-ministerial Commission for Science and Technology (CICYT) chaired by the co-ordination Prime Minister and with representatives from all ministries with an interest in S&T, is in charge of planning, co-ordinating and monitoring the National R&D&I Plan. The CICYT is advised by its Monitoring and Support Commission (CAS-CICYT), which is compound by the main management R&D&I units, and also gets advice from the General Council on Science and Technology (in charge of regional co-ordination) and the Advisory Council on Science and Technology (which channels the views of businesses and the civil society). Administrative and technical support for CICYT is provided by the Economic Bureau of the Prime Minister and the MEC. Management Management units within different ministries, mainly: of competitive Secretary of State for Universities and Research (MEC-SEUI), and under its calls for aegis the Secretary General for Scientific and Technology Policy (MEC- funding SGPCT) which oversees the Directorate General for Research (MEC-DGI) and the Directorate General for Technology Policy (MEC-DGPT). Secretary of State for Telecommunications and Information Society (MITYC- SETSI). Secretary General for Industry (MITYC-SGI), and under its aegis the Directorate General for Industrial Development (MITYC-DGDI) and the Directorate General for Small and Medium Enterprises (MITYC-DGPYME). Industrial Technology Development Centre (CDTI): public corporate entity at MITYC engaged in the promotion of innovation and technological development of Spanish companies. National Enterprise for Innovation (ENISA): State-owned Company that collaborates with DGPYME at MITYC in the search for and use of new financial instruments for SMEs. In recent years, ENISA has been developing participative loans to finance SME projects. Public Research Organisations with intramural research centres and provision of external competitive funding: National Institute for Agricultural and Food Research (INIA), under the aegis of MEC Institute of Health Carlos III (ISCIII), under the aegis of MSC. Management units in regional governments. Research Universities. Funding for education and operational costs for universities are Performers transferred from regional governments, whereas funding for university research comes either from regional, national and EU calls for R&D&I funding. Public research organisations (under the aegis of different ministries), the Scientific 35 Part II - Annex 1 BACKGROUNDResearch AND ISSUES Council (CSIC) being the largest one. Regional research centres (under the aegis of regional governments) and Technological Centres. Table A2. (cont.) Main institutionsFirms. in the Spanish public R&D&I system Evaluation At the national level: CDTI, for industrial R&D and technical projects; ANEP, for the evaluation and prospective of academic R&D projects; CNEAI, for the evaluation of individuals’ research activity; ANECA, for the evaluation of quality and accreditation of universities; and ISCIII for biomedical and health sciences and for the National Health System (NHS). At the regional level: Regional agencies for the evaluation of research and university quality exist in eight regions (e.g. Catalonia, Galicia, Castile-Leon, Madrid, Andalusia, etc). Support and Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology (FECYT), under the aegis of MEC. intermediation CDTI and Spanish Patent and Trademark Office (OEPM), under the aegis of MITYC. Research results transfer offices (OTRIs); Technology Centres (TCs); Scientific and Technology Parks; University-Enterprise Foundations (FUEs); Large Scientific Installations (GIC). Source: Based on information from FECYT-SISE and other sources.
Table A3. Regulatory framework of the Spanish R&D&I system 36 R&D and innovation in Spain: improving the policy mix
Table A3. (cont.) Regulatory framework of the Spanish R&D&I system
Table A4. Strategic objectives of the National R&D&I Plan, 2004-2007 Science, Enhance the level of Spanish science and technology, both in scale and quality. technology and Expand the number and quality of human resources in both the public and private enterprise sectors. system Reinforce the international dimension of Spanish science and technology, with special emphasis on the European Research Area. Strengthen the role of the public sector in generating fundamental knowledge. Improve the visibility and communication of scientific and technological advances in Spanish society. Co-ordination of Reinforce co-operation between national and regional governments and, in the science, particular, improve co-ordination between the National R&D&I Plan and the R&D&I technology and plans of the regional governments. enterprise Improve co-ordination of the administration of the National Plan and its evaluation system and management procedures. Promote co-operation and co-ordination between public R&D institutions. Business Boost technology and innovation capacity of enterprises. competitiveness Promote creation of an innovating entrepreneurial community. Contribute to creating an environment that favours investment in R&D and innovation. Improve interaction, collaboration and partnering arrangements between public sector R&D and the business community. 37 Part II - Annex 1 BACKGROUND AND ISSUES
A measurable objective initially set by the National R&D&I Plan for 2004-2007 was to increase R&D expenditures to reach 1.22% of GDP by 2005, with a final objective of reaching the level of 1.4% by 2007. On this basis, total innovation expenditure was expected to exceed 2.1% of GDP by 2005 and 2.5% of GDP by 2007. However, these objectives set by the previous government appeared to be too ambitious (relative to the proposed budget for R&D&I) and were revised by the new government taking power in 2004, which also announced a 25% annual increase in the budget for R&D&I, as from 2005.
The new government also introduced important changes in the governance system of national innovation policy such as the suppression of the Ministry of Science and Technology (MCYT), created in 2000 by the previous government, and the distribution of its responsibilities between two ministries: The Ministry of Education and Science (MEC) (formerly known as the Ministry of Education and Culture) and the Ministry
Table A5. National R&D&I Plan 2004-2007: Areas, Programmes/Actions, Managing Ministries
Life sciences • Biomedicine. MEC, MITYC, MSC • Technologies for health and welfare. MEC, MITYC, MSC, MTAS • Biotechnology. MEC, MITYC • Basic biology. MEC Agro-food and • Agro-food technologies and resources. MEC, MITYC environmental sciences • Environmental sciences and technologies. MEC, MITYC, MMA and technologies • Biodiversity, earth sciences and global MEC, MITYC change. Space sciences, • Space. MD, MEC, MITYC mathematics and • Astronomy and astrophysics. MD, MEC physics • Particle physics. MEC • Mathematics. MEC • Physics. MEC Energy • Energy. MEC, MITYC Chemistry, materials • Science and chemistry technologies. MEC, MITYC and design and • Materials. MEC, MITYC industrial production • Design and industrial production. MEC, MITYC Security and defence • Security. MEC, MITYC • Defence. MD Information society • Electronics and communications MEC, MITYC technologies technologies. MEC, MITYC • Computing technologies. MEC, MITYC • Service technologies of the information MEC, MITYC society. • Strategic action on security and trust on ICT. Transport and • Transport. MEC, MFOM, MITYC construction • Construction. MEC, MFOM, MITYC Humanities, social • Humanities. MEC sciences and • Social sciences, economics and law. MEC, MITYC, MTAS economics Strategic transverse • Tourism technologies. MEC, MITYC actions • Nanoscience and nanotechnology. MEC, MITYC •Sport. MEC • Gender equality. MTAS Horizontal areas (open • International co-operation in S&T. MAEC, MEC, MITYC, MSC to all scientific- • Development of human resources. MAEC, MEC, MSC, MTAS, technological domains) • Support to business competitiveness. MEC, MITYC • Equipment and infrastructure. MEC, MITYC, MSC • Promotion of scientific-technological MEC, MSC Culture. Note: MEC stands for Ministry of Education and Science, MSC for Ministry of Health and Consumption, MITYC for Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Trade, MMA for Ministry of Environment, MD for Ministry of Defence, MTAS for Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, MFOM for Ministry of Public Works, MAEC for Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Source: National R&D&I Plan Programme of Work for 2005. 38 R&D and innovation in Spain: improving the policy mix
of Industry, Tourism and Trade (MITYC). The split did not affect the responsibilities of the Ministry of Health and Consumption (MSC) in the field of health research. Since 2004 the MEC is in charge of policies related to education and sport, as well as of proposing and managing policies for the promotion and general co- ordination of scientific research and technological innovation. The MITYC is in charge of proposing and managing policies for industrial innovation and technology development, trade, small and medium-sized enterprises, energy and mining and tourism, in addition to its previous responsibilities related to telecommunications and the information society.
Table A5 above lists all areas, programmes and actions included in the National R&D&I Plan for 2004- 2007, as well as their distribution by managing ministries, whereas Table A6 sets out the different types of actions included. The information in both tables has been drawn from the 2005 Programme of Work, which already includes the new distribution of ministerial competences introduced in 2004.
The National Plan is implemented through more than 30 National R&D Programmes and Strategic Actions managed by different ministerial departments (mainly MEC, MITYC and MSC) corresponding to different thematic priority lines. It is presented around two axes: priority areas (thematic and horizontal areas) and actions (participation modes for the provision of financial support, mainly on a competitive basis through grants and interest-free loans).
Table A6. Different types of support within the National R&D&I Plan, 2004-2007
R&D&I projects Research projects. Technological development projects. Technological innovation projects. Human resources Fellowships. Support for research and technical personnel contracts. Mobility. Industrial Creation and development of new technology based firms. competitiveness Support for the creation and development of interface units for knowledge transfer. Support for the accreditation for business R&D&I activities. Management and development of patents. Support for the creation of R&D&I units within firms. Promotion of innovation culture. Scientific- Small size scientific-technological equipment, linked to specific projects. technological Medium size scientific-technological equipment, for common use in research equipment and and technology centres. infrastructure Large size scientific-technological equipment, such as creation of new research centres and improvement of large scientific installations. Complementary Promotion of Spanish participation in international programmes, especially the actions EU Framework Programme. Support for the creation of thematic networks. Design and construction of advanced scientific and technical instruments within large international projects. Support for the creation of biological materials banks or databases of genomic or proteomic interest. Support for the organisation of conferences, seminars and workshops. Activities on oceanographic boats or Antarctic facilities. Development of studies on the science-technology-enterprise system. Scientific-technological actions of special interest. International, bilateral or multilateral co-operation actions, for R&D&I or for development co-operation.
Source: National R&D&I Plan Programme of Work for 2005.
1.4 THE NATIONAL REFORM PROGRAMME FOR 2005-2010
The Spanish Government presented its National Reform Programme (NRP) to the European Commission in October 2005 as the fundamental reference point for Spain’s economic policy for the period
11 39 Part II - Annex 1 BACKGROUND AND ISSUES
2005-2010. It falls under the re-launched Lisbon Agenda, focusing on economic growth and job creation.
1.4.1 Strategic initiative INGENIO 2010
The strategic initiative for R&D&I INGENIO 2010, launched in June 2005, was integrated in the NRP as the 4th Pillar of the global strategy, which for the first time made R&D&I policy an explicit part of the economic policy and objectives of the Spanish government (see Annex 3). The INGENIO 2010 programme fixes the following objectives:
• To increase the ratio of R&D investment as a percentage of GDP from 1.05% in 2003 to 1.6% in 2008, reaching 2% in 2010.
• To raise the private sector’s contribution to R&D investment from 48% in 2003 to 52.5% in 2008, reaching 55% in 2010.
• To reach the EU-15 average in the percentage of GDP devoted to ICTs, from 4.8% in 2004 to 6.4% in 2008, reaching 7% in 2010.
To comply with the objectives of the INGENIO 2010 programme, the State’s civilian R&D and innovation budget increased by an unprecedented 21% in 2005, 32% in 2006 and 34% in 2007. In addition to this major increase in domestic funds, there will also be EUR 2 billion from the European Technology Fund, obtained in the recent negotiation of the Financial Perspective 2007-2013, to finance research and development by and for companies.
Figure A1. Civilian R&D Budget 2004-2007
Source: Informe COTEC 2006 and 2007. Based on information from Presupuestos Generales del Estado 2006 y 2007. Ministerio de Economía y Hacienda.
The INGENIO 2010 programme aims to gradually focus these resources on strategic initiatives to meet the challenges faced by the Spanish Science and Technology System. This gradual focus will be achieved by allocating a significant portion of the minimum annual increase of 25% in the national R&D and innovation budget to strategic initiatives grouped in three major lines of action. The CENIT Programme (National Strategic Technological Research Consortia) to stimulate R&D and innovation collaboration; the CONSOLIDER Programme, to reach critical mass and research excellence; and the AVANZ@Plan, to converge with Europe in the main information society indicators.
Some of the characteristics of these new strategic initiatives, as stressed by the government, involve a shift of emphasis for policy support from individuals to groups, networks and consortia; from specific projects to research lines; from short-term objectives to long-term ones; from atomized to large projects in size and scope; and finally, from ex ante evaluation to a system where evaluation is done at all stages of the policy process (ex ante, intermediate and ex post).
An assessment made by the European Commission enhances the INGENIO 2010 initiative:
“Concerning the R&D and innovation strategy, the research investment objective is ambitious (2% of GDP by 2010) but achievable if Spain sustains current increases in public research 40 R&D and innovation in Spain: improving the policy mix
Table A7. Objectives and instruments of the INGENIO 2010 initiative 41 Part II - Annex 1 BACKGROUND AND ISSUES
Table A7. (cont.) Objectives and instruments of the INGENIO 2010 initiative
Source: Economic Bureau of the Prime Minister (OEP).
investment (with an objective of a 25% minimum annual increase) and succeeds in mobilising private expenditure, including through the financial participation of regional governments. The programme puts forward a wide array of measures, with quantified objectives and clear timetables. In particular, reforms of the legal and administrative framework for R&D, the new monitoring and evaluation system and the new “Plan AVANZ@” to improve take-up of ICT are useful steps. Widening the use of ICT is also highlighted as a driver for modernising public administration”
1.4.2 Business Promotion Plan
The Business Promotion Plan is another of the seven pillars of the National Reform Plan. It was designed during 2005 with the aim to foster SME innovation and competitiveness. It is managed by the Directorate General for SMEs at the MITYC, and since 2006 (the year most measures were launched) it aims to provide an umbrella for most of its activities, comprised under the following five action lines:
I. Promote entrepreneurship throughout society.
II. Foster the creation of new businesses and business growth.
III. Increase innovation capacity and knowledge transfer.
IV. Foster internationalisation. 42 R&D and innovation in Spain: improving the policy mix
V. Administrative simplification.
The third action line includes the following measures to increase innovation capacity and knowledge transfer:
• Spin-offs from research centres: extension of participative loans (mezzanine loans) to university spin- offs and public and private research organisations, as well as technology centres, enterprise incubators and science and technology parks.
• Financial support for technological projects: support for the purchase of tangible and intangible technologies delivering new products and processes via the technological innovation line of the Institute of Official Credit (ICO) and CDTI.
• INNOEMPRESA programme: Support to innovation projects (in production organisation, marketing and sales management, environmental management, energy efficiency, logistics, distribution and design); technological advise through support institutions (e.g. technology centres); support for the implementation and certification of technological quality standards; and joint innovation projects between value chain partners (e.g. ICT, logistics). The INNOEMPRESA programme also includes an action line forming part of the AVANZ@Plan to increase ICT use in internal and external business processes.
• Support for innovative clusters: Promote the growth of existing regional clusters and achieve collaboration between the State and Regional Administrations for the identification and labelling of innovative clusters (Innovative Business Groupings).
• Boost technological centres: This action comprises four measures: i) CREA programme, to help business groups or associations explore their technological needs and consider the creation of new technological centres; ii) PROFIT for technology centres, to intensify the PROFIT support programme for technology centres; iii) CONSORCIA programme, to foster the creation of consortia among technology centres; iv) INNOEUROPA programme, to promote the participation of technology centres in the EU Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development.
• Encourage the participation in the EU Framework Programme for R&D: The Directorate General for SMEs at MITYC has been appointed National Contact Point for the Framework Programme. Its objective will therefore be to give advice and help SMEs in the preparation of EU R&D collaborative projects and improve their participation in the programme.
1.5 TAX INCENTIVES FOR R&D&I
The Spanish system of tax incentives for R&D&I has been the most generous among OECD countries for the past few years. It allows a deduction from corporate taxes to firms investing in R&D&I activities, offering a mixed system of volume-based and incremental tax credits. Deductions can reach as much as 30% of the level and 50% of the increment in R&D expenditure on a broad range of operations, including staff costs, acquisition of technology and purchases of material (Warda, 2006) (see Table A8).
With the aim to increase legal security for firms confronting the internal revenue service and encourage them to use R&D&I benefits more broadly, in 2003 the government enabled the MITYC to issue “certificates” for R&D&I activities for firms willing to benefit from the corresponding tax incentives. At present, between 40% and 50% of Spanish innovative firms are estimated to benefit from these incentives (around 4,000 in 2004)10, which represented EUR 262 million in the annual budget for the year 2006 (21% more than in 2005).
The tax reform approved in November 2006 has brought in important changes.11 First of all, a new instrument has been introduced in the form of a reduction of 40% in the social charges to be paid by
10. Ministry of Economy.
11. Ley 35/2006, de 28 de noviembre, del Impuesto sobre la Renta de las Personas Físicas y de Modificación Parcial de las Leyes de los Impuestos sobre Sociedades, sobre la Renta de no Residentes y sobre el Patrimonio. (Published in BOE 285, of 29 November 2006). 43 Part II - Annex 1 BACKGROUND AND ISSUES
Table A8. R&D tax credits in OECD countries, 2006
Austria 135% – special allowance 125% – capital allowance 115% – alternative refundable tax credit 8%
Canada-federal 20% 35% of level France1 10% 40% Ireland 20% Italy 30% of level Japan 50% – large firm <10% research intensity 8% – large firm >10% research intensity 10% – collaboration with universities and other R&D institutes 15% – basic technology 5%
Korea2 – development of tech. 15% 50% – facilities 10% Mexico 30% Netherlands 14% 42% of level Norway 18% 20% of level Portugal1 20% 50% Spain1 30% 50% United States - federal 20% 1. Tax incentive based on a combination of level of R&D investment and incremental increase in R&D investment. 2. Korea offers both a volume-based and an incremental tax credit, but firms cannot benefit from both at the same time. Source: Warda (2006) and updates provided by the author under contract to the OECD; Rapport au Parlement sur le crédit d’impôt recherche, Ministère délégué à l'Enseignement supérieur et à la Recherche (2006). the firm corresponding to R&D staff (not compatible with the use of R&D&I corporate tax benefits). Second, corporate tax rates have been reduced 15% for all companies, in one year for SMEs (from 30 to 25% by 2007) and in two years for the rest of firms (from 35 to 32.5% by 2007 and to 30% by 2008). Third, to compensate for the general decrease in corporate taxes, R&D&I corporate tax credits have also been reduced (8% by 2007 and 15% by 2008). Fourth, the tax reform also states that the current system of R&D&I tax incentives will not be available as of 1 January 2012.12 Finally, the government envisages evaluating the relative effectiveness of the two alternative R&D&I support measures (reduction in social charges for R&D staff versus R&D&I corporate tax credits) before the end of 2011 and decide which one is better adapted to the needs of the Spanish economy.
1.6 THE NATIONAL R&D&I PLAN MONITORING AND EVALUATION COMMISSION
The Commission for Monitoring and Evaluating the National R&D&I Plan (COSEP) was created in May 2005 as part of the Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation System (SISE) introduced by the National Plan 2004-2007. COSEP responds to the terms of reference marked by SISE by echoing the views of 100 experts, distributed in different sub-commissions, about the design and impact of the National Plan.
COSEP prepared its first annual report in 2005 based on the National R&D&I Plan activities of 2004. It praised the decisive contribution of the National Plans to the improvement of the Spanish innovation system, but criticised the fact that the Plan has become a, too long, list of thematic
12. Ley 35/2006, Disposición Derogatoria Segunda. 44 R&D and innovation in Spain: improving the policy mix
programmes (covering scientific-technical areas and sectors) that define with excessive detail the scientific-technical priorities. It also noted the following deficiencies in the current implementation of the National R&D&I Plan:
• On the one hand, the Plan defines broad strategic objectives, with large abstraction levels, whereas, on the other, it includes – as a result of a participative process – an excessive number of detailed “priority lines”.
• There is no direct and measurable connection in the Plan between strategic objectives on the one hand and the actions and instruments on the other.
• There is a certain inconsistency between the structure of the Plan, as a collection of themes, and its implementation, which is developed around a set of classic instruments (projects, fellowships, etc.) under competitive calls for R&D&I funding.
The COSEP also emphasised the need for an in-depth revision of the legal framework for R&D&I, including a new Science and Technology Act, and the design of multi-annual budgetary programmes within the R&D&I National Plan, as well as to maintain budget annual increases of 25%, giving preference to grants rather than to interest-free loans, due to the low leverage capacity of interest-free loans (also called soft loans) for radical increases of business R&D.
As noted by COSEP, a comparison of the initial objectives of the Plan, in terms of expected values for a set of indicators, and the real evolution of such indicators during its first year of reference, reflects shortfalls in at least five objectives (highlighted in the table below).
Table A9. Targets of the 2004-2007 National R&D&I Plan
Total R&D spending as % of GDP 1.10 1.22 1.07 (1)
Spending on innovation as % of GDP 1.90 2.10 1.49
Share of total R&D performed by the business sector 56.40 57.60 54.40
Annual Budget for R&D&I as % of total Budget 1.66 1.70 1.91
Scientific output as share of world total 2.75 2.77 2.77
Innovative enterprises as % of total 27.00 28.00 29.70
Increase of new technology-based public spin-offs 40 60 40
EPO patents by residents in Spain as % of total 1.00 1.30 0.69
Return from EU Framework Programme for R&D 6.40 6.50 6.20
Researchers per 1 000 persons in labour force 4.70 4.80 5.6
Share of researchers in the business sector 26.00 27.00 31.7
R&D personnel per 1 000 persons in labour force 7.10 7.20 9.0
Share of R&D personnel in the business sector 42.00 43.00 43.9
Public sector net gain in researchers posts and contracts 700 800 790
Employment of PhD holders in firms and technology centres 300 350 275
Employment of technologists in SMEs and technology 500 550 529 centres
Notes: (1). In 2003, R&D spending as a share of GDP reached 1.10%, the objective set for 2004. However, a change in the national accounts (move from 1995 base to 2000 base) has caused an upward revision of the GDP, and thus, a decline of the share of R&D spending over GDP. These figures (1.10% in 2003 and 1.07% in 2004) are therefore not comparable as they use different bases (1995 and 2000 respectively). Using the old methodology, total R&D spending as % of GDP for 2004 would have been 1.12%, thus above the fixed objective. Source: COSEP 2005 Report on the R&D&I National Plan (FECYT, SISE). 45 Part II - Annex 1 BACKGROUND AND ISSUES
1.7 RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE CONFEDERATION OF SPANISH SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES
Scientific associations have recently issued policy recommendations to improve the R&D&I system in Spain. In June 2005, the Confederation of Spanish Scientific Societies (COSCE), which counts 50 member societies representing more than 30,000 Spanish scientists, released suggestions for changes in five areas: i) structures and instruments of science policy; ii) human resources in research; iii) science and business; iv) Spain and Europe; and v) science and society. In the area of structures and instruments, COSCE proposed, among other things, to make ex post evaluations of public R&D efforts; to maintain
Table A10. Main policy instruments by target area, 2006 46 R&D and innovation in Spain: improving the policy mix
existing budgetary commitments; to moderate the use of soft loans in public funding for R&D; to link project funding to the quality of research groups; to introduce systems for the periodic assessment of public research centres and institutes and to create a single agency for the evaluation and funding of public research (COSCE, 2006).
1.8 PORTFOLIO OF R&D&I POLICY INSTRUMENTS
Considering the policy instruments initially included in the National R&D&I Plan for the period 2004-2007 and the changes introduced by the government in 2005, the government has a quite broad portfolio of available policy instruments for the remaining years of reference of the National Plan. Table A10 below lists main policy instruments by target area and Annex 3 briefly describes each instrument (the target area of ICT use, which is not included in the table below, is set out in Annex 3).
1.9 FUNDING FOR R&D&I POLICIES
The implementation of policies is constrained by the availability of funds, which are provided by the central and regional government budget appropriations for R&D&I as well as by European structural funds.
1.9.1 European structural funds
The availability of European structural funds is gradually decreasing, as Spanish regions progress in their convergence with more advanced European regions. Between 2007 and 2013, Spain will receive around EUR 27.7 billion from the European structural funds, which implies a reduction with respect to the amount received between 2000 and 2006 (EUR 37.3 billion). To compensate for this general decrease of funds, a European technology fund of EUR 2 billion has been especially established by the European Union for Spain for the period 2007-2013 and the Spanish government and the European Commission will increase the share and the total amount of structural funds devoted to R&D&I. As a result of both measures, despite a general decrease of funds the share allocated to R&D&I will grow around 30% for the period 2007-2013 with respect to 2000-2006 and Spain will have around EUR 10 billion from European structural funds to invest in R&D&I.13 Nevertheless, the technology fund is exceptional and unique for Spain, and more radical decreases in the total amount of EU structural funds for Spain are envisaged in the future, which leads to the assumption that the share of EU structural funds allocated to R&D&I will be reduced in the next period.
1.9.2 National budget for R&D&I
Government appropriations for R&D&I in annual budgets have grown substantially in Spain in recent years, indicating an increase in the effective commitment of the government to support R&D&I activities.
Government budget appropriations or outlays for R&D have increased in Spain from 0.74% of GDP in 2002 to 0.86% in 2005, while they have decreased on average for the European Union. Budget appropriations for R&D decreased in France from 1% in 2002, to 0.94% in 2005. Likewise, in the United Kingdom, they went from 0.77% in 2002 to 0.73% in 2005, and in Germany from 0.78% in 2002 to 0.76% in 2005.14 In addition, most of the Spanish R&D&I budget increases have been devoted to programmes for the support of technological R&D, as shown in Figure A2.
The public budget for R&D in Spain includes a very high share of soft loans (more than 50%) relative to grants. Despite the general growth in the overall budget for R&D&I, the level of public subsidies and transfers for R&D only reached the level of 1990 in 2002 (in constant terms, EUR million of 1990), which indicates that most of the observed growth had been in the form of soft loans (see Figure A3).
However, this trend seems to have started to change in 2006, with an increase in subsidies in the R&D&I budget appropriations of 25.81% with respect to 2005, the highest increment in 15 years.
The 2006 annual budget, including non-civilian R&D, allocated EUR 6,546 million to R&D support (Function 46), which represented 3% of the overall annual budget of the central government (excluding the budget of the social security system), a 30.4% increase with respect to 2005. This increase went both to
13. Ministry of Economy, Secretaría General de Presupuesto y Gasto.
14. Eurostat, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu, as seen on 9 October 2006. 47 Part II - Annex 1 BACKGROUND AND ISSUES inject new funds to existing actions as well as to the new instruments introduced in June 2005 by the strategic initiative INGENIO 2010.15 Funds were spread across 16 budgetary programmes managed by different ministries, although most of the budget was managed by the MITYC (52.4%) and the MEC (37.1%), followed by the Ministry of Defence (5.0%) and the MSC (4.4%).
Figure A2. Breakdown of budget appropriations for R&D by programme, 2001-2006
Source: Based on data from COTEC 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006.
Figure A3. Annual Public Budget for R&D, 1990-2007 - EUR million of 1990
Note: Function 54 (Scientific Research, Technical and Applied), Function 46 (Research, Development and Innovation) since 2005. Chapter VIII, corresponding to financial assets, includes loans to firms for project development. Source: Sistema Integral de Seguimiento y Evaluación (SISE). Observatorio permanente del sistema español ciencia, tecnología y sociedad, MEC_FECYT (based on Presupuestos Generales del Estado).
15. The Spanish share of government budget appropriations for non-civilian R&D with respect to the total budget for R&D (GBAORD) has significantly decreased in the past few years, from 27% in 2002 to 16% in 2005, but it is still above the EU average, with only United Kingdom, France and Sweden having a higher share (EUROSTAT, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu, as seen on 9 October 2006). 48 R&D and innovation in Spain: improving the policy mix
Table A11. R&D Budget 2004-2007 - EUR million
,,,, ,,,, ,,,, Note: Function 54 (Scientific Research, Technical and Applied), Function 46 (Research, Development and Innovation) since 2005. Chapter VIII, corresponding to financial assets, includes loans to firms for project development. Source: Sistema Integral de Seguimiento y Evaluación (SISE). Observatorio permanente del sistema español ciencia, tecnología y sociedad, MEC_FECYT (based on Presupuestos Generales del Estado).
Table A12. Management of the 2006 Annual Budget for R&D
Defence 5.0 11.2
Education and Science 37.1 53.7
Industry, Tourism and Trade 52.4 22.4
Health and Consumption 4.4 9.8
Source: MEC, Indicadores del sistema de ciencia y tecnología 2005. “Distribución porcentual de los PGE para I+D por departamentos ministeriales 2006”.
Figure A4. Approved support for 2004 and budgeted support for 2006 - Breakdown by financial instrument and type of action, EUR million
Source: 2004 figures are based on support approved as set out in the “Memoria de actividades de I+D+I 2004” (CICYT, 2006) and 2006 figures are estimations from the National Plan Programme of Work for 2006 (CICYT, 2005).
23 49 Part II - Annex 1 BACKGROUND AND ISSUES
After the suppression of the Ministry of Science and Technology in 2004, the new distribution of responsibilities between the MEC and the MITYC implied a change in the allocation of funds. A comparison between the allocation of funds in 2004 (approved support, designed before INGENIO 2010) and in 2006 (budgeted in 2005, after INGENIO) is set out in the figure below.
Table A13 below presents the distribution of budget appropriations for R&D for 2005 and 2006, under the umbrella of the National Plan 2004-2007, whereas Table A14 sets out the breakdown of the budget between 2000 and 2003, corresponding to the previous National R&D&I Plan 2000-2003.
Table A13. Budget Appropriations or Outlays on R&D, 2005-2006
462M. Sociological and constitutional research and studies 11.95 0.2% 12.62 0.2% 5.6% 462N. Statistical and economic research and studies 6.71 0.1% 6.93 0.1% 3.2% 463A. Scientific research 515.4 10.3% 601.53 9.2.% 16.7% 463B. Coordination and promotion of scientific and technical research 563.05 11.2% 1, 008.54 15.4% 79.1% 464A. Military research and studies 315.69 6.3% 321.98 4.9% 2.0% 465A. Health research 243.81 4.9% 287.06 4.4% 17.7% 466A. Education research 4.95 0.1% 5.33 0.1% 7.6% 467A. Astronomy and astrophysics 13.49 0.3% 15.06 0.2% 11.6% 467B. Public works and transport research and experiments 1.41 0.0% 6.54 0.1% 364.7% 467C. Technological and industrial research and development2 2, 621.50 52.2% 2, 983.86 45.6% 13.8% 467D. Agricultural research and experiments 57.93 1.2% 64.18 1.0% 10.8% 467E. Oceanographic and fisheries research 42.16 0.8% 49.36 0.8% 17.1% 467F. Geological-mining and environmental research 42.15 0.8% 47.95 0.7% 13.8% 467G. Information society research and development 373.11 7.4% 503.64 7.7% 35.0% 467H. Energy, environment and technological research 81.33 1.6% 94.09 1.4% 15.7% 467I. Telecommunications technological innovation 123.48 2.5% 537.05 8.2% 334.9% ,,
Notes: (1) Chapters I-VII correspond to grants and transfers, Chapter VIII corresponds to financial assets (interest-free loans); (2) Budgetary programme 467 C (technological and industrial research and development) includes support for technological innovation in the defence sector. It becomes a new budgetary programme on its own in the annual budget 2007 (464B), not included in this table. Source: Sistema Integral de Seguimiento y Evaluación. Observatorio permanente del sistema español ciencia, tecnología y sociedad. MEC_FECYT % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 0 4 0 4 0 1 1 1 1 0 6 9 9 0 2 0 2 5 1 2 0 6 1 5 4 1 1 7 7 4 3 2 1 7 7 5 4 5 9 7 7 3 1 9 1 0 8 8 2 7 8 2 9 ...... 7 6 7 0 0 4 8 3 4 6 0 6 0 9 1 0 2 7 1 3 1 4 2 9 9 8 3 6 1 5 3 8 4 5 7 5 1 1 1 8 2 2 2 6 7 1 1 1 2 0 3 7 1 1 9 5 9 4 7 8 7 2 4 5 8 4 6 3 5 7 6 9 4 8 6 0 9 8 5 4 ...... 3 9 4 7 5 1 6 9 6 6 4 2 2 0 1 6 0 9 5 2 5 3 6 6 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 3 4 3 4 2 0 0 1 4 4 6 9 3 0 7 2 4 8 3 9 7 6 5 6 3 7 2 3 8 2 9 0 9 0 6 ...... 3 5 4 0 5 0 5 8 5 0 1 4 9 0 5 0 2 5 2 6 3 4 1 1 1 8 0 1 3 4 3 3 2 3 8 0 6 0 1 9 5 2 1 0 4 3 2 6 9 6 8 3 1 9 3 8 0 0 9 3 7 6 0 0 7 ...... 3 5 4 4 5 6 4 2 0 2 9 9 4 0 4 3 1 1 4 5 3 6 1 1 4 1 6 2 8 1 4 3 1 4 1 , , , , , 1 2 2 5 9 5 3 2 7 7 9 5 4 2 4 1 3 8 2 7 7 6 8 4 2 8 6 0 ...... 6 6 4 7 4 4 9 3 5 3 9 7 8 6 4 0 4 2 2 4 9 3 8 9 1 2 1 3 1 , ,
50 R&D and innovation in Spain: improving the policy mix h , , c r s t a y n e g e s o e l m r i o r l n e a h s c p i c e x i n e h e t d h c r u c , d , d t t a e n h s n t n e c a s a r s e d d e h a i e e n n m r c e d c t a r l a p n s u n n a a t o o c e l i n i e h e e s r c i t f i i c e o s l c t i r a m g d v t t s e h a n a p o r n e a n l c c f e t e i o r i a d e l o o s n s g c a e n n h d , e e , m o s s e i v l r h c o n r f e i s r m l e o c t i a e c o e a r i a d e e a r p s t v e e h s n g c n . s x r i d e n d s c c a p i o o d
o i l i
r e e 3 n n d i e 0 e n e x t d r t 0 f n s - s . r a t 2 s a u n s - e e a e u . d u r o y 0 c a e l e t t 0 e t a n 0 m i i . c
n , h m l h 2 w s i a t
t n d s s w m e n s w r
s a c a , g a p l a s ”
o n e l s P m r t o a
a i m i e d I r r c f n o r n i t n & a h i C a a o n
r D o n n n n i f & t e p o
a
c y o c n h R e e 3 t
n i e h t a 0 l s r h s c 0 d a u c 2 n s n - l d o o c g e c o 0 p d a r i m a s 0 i t e r m h 0 r r e a d r a c n 2
h o n e a N r n c a c
c c a , d I a i e d v n I e a g I c l r h s l a ó e V o t l
o
r o r e n e f e n e a r t n a o a c e s p a i
s e a d n s t T s s a a s h
l r l a r C n c e
a e v , ó s i n o e i k e n t c e l e a a r y n i n a
s a r r v e n y r r e t o a g g s e l
h a t c n n o t o t n e i
o
I r e i
l a d g o e e s r a a c n
t m n o l o o i m g i l i r r p l u r , a n s w o u c f e e t r r t i o a d r r o i i i
n y o o a l y c o s c s l t
e r a h i r y I t n d I c D n n a
o V t t l u g , - i m t r I a o n c l e
l r c a c u s r o i r i r h h f i O c s í e t t t
r o i i e p r n u a h i b e e a e c c o c t i o i t v l h r
C r C
f i o s
s . d e n u i n n o s c 6 e i e ó a n i o g 4
i c n t t n a C o a g E i H P I M i i T F D E S T A S t t r E c s A e p n v S u o n F r I
p d e e G H I M D N C p E J K L A P B A B A l d l
A l a ......
c a
t n w e o o i g 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 c n
d a s ...... i u N
4 B n 5
a 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 l n
. o P ...... i
4 t l c 1 E n “ A
u
: 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 F e e c : l r e t b u o a o T N S 51 Part II - Annex 1 BACKGROUND AND ISSUES
The 2007 Annual Budget for R&D&I amounts EUR 8,124 million, of which EUR 6,541 million correspond to civilian R&D (a 34.3% increase with respect to 2006), which doubles the resources devoted to this area in 2004, and the rest is for defence-related research (6% reduction).16 The MITYC will manage 51.3% of the budget for R&D&I, the MEC 38.7%, the Ministry of Defence 4.4% and the MSC 4.1%.
Table A15. Annual Budgets for Civilian R&D&I, 2006-2007 - EUR million
Basic Research 1,, 610.07 2 182.97 35.6 Information Society and ICT 1, 040.69 1, 506.82 44.8 Technological and Industrial Research 1, 625.85 2, 146.98 32.1 Biomedical and Health Science Research 287.06 333.80 16.3 Other 305.67 369.99 21.0 , ,
Note: Basic research comprises budgetary programmes 463A and 463B. Information Society and ICT comprises programmes 467G and 467I. For 2006, Technological and Industrial Research corresponds to programme 467C, excluding support to technological innovation in the defence sector, which in 2007 is presented separately, as budgetary programme 464B. Thus, the 2007 figure for technological and industrial research included in the table fully corresponds to budgetary programme 467C. Source: Ministerio de Economía y Hacienda, Annual Budget 2007 (Libro Rojo, p. 28).
1.9.3 Regional governments
Even though the central government is in charge of the general promotion and co-ordination of R&D policy, the 17 regional governments (autonomous communities) are increasingly supporting the development of their own regional innovation system. Education and research at universities, as well as research in hospitals and on agricultural issues are already the competence of the regions. Public universities are under the administrative supervision of regional governments insofar as their educational role is concerned, while research in universities is funded through both the National Plan and Regional Plans. Several autonomous communities have developed their own Regional Science and Technology Acts, created their corresponding planning and decision-making institutions and all of them have approved their own regional plans for R&D (some of them also for innovation). This has also gone hand in hand with increasing economic resources allocated to R&D and innovation in regional government budgets, in parallel with the central government, with the common objective to reach the EU average.
The sum of all regional budgets for R&D&I amounted to EUR 943 million in 2004 (921.5 excluding loans).17 Therefore, public funds available for R&D&I in Spain from both national and regional budgets amounted to EUR 5,357 million in 2004, of which regional funds represented about 18%. Excluding loans, public funds for R&D&I grants amounted to EUR 3,066 million of which regional funds represented about 30%.18 There is however a large dispersion across autonomous communities with regard to funds for R&D&I available in each regional budget as a percentage of the sum of all regional budgets for R&D&I (see Figure A5). Regions also give very different levels of budgetary priority to R&D&I – measured by the percentage of R&D&I with respect to each regional government budget as a whole – with the top regions being Castile-Leon with 2.6% of its whole regional budget dedicated to R&D&I, the Basque Country with 1.6% and Andalusia with 1.4% in 2005.19
16. The 2006 Annual Budget included EUR 6,545.72 million for R&D&I (30.4% increase with respect to 2005). Of that amount, EUR 4,861.83 million correspond to civilian research (31.8% increase with respect to 2005) and EUR 1 683.89 million to defence-related research (increase of 26.6%).
17. The sum of all regional budgets for R&D&I was equal to EUR 1,291 million in 2005, which represented a 37% increase with respect to 2004.
18. Data on 2004 regional budgets for R&D&I come from Ministerio de Economía, Dirección General de Financiación Territorial. Data on the 2004 national budget for R&D&I come from SISE. For additional information, see Sanz- Menéndez (2005), pp. 236-238.
19. See Figure 1 for 2002, 2003 and 2004 data. 52 R&D and innovation in Spain: improving the policy mix l a Figure A5. Fundst for R&D&I in regional budgets, 2004 o t f
25o 200
e % all regional governments, 2004 r a
Regional budgets grow th 2003-2004 h t h
20s 150 w , o r % g l
15 100 a u n n a
10 50 , %
5 0 s s s a n o a a a a a a a a d n j i i i i í r r a c e r a h ñ ó ó r c c i o c c i r u i
0 i -50 s r c r d u l e r g a l n u a d l a u a n a R a L u a v a e
e a t t r l a a n l V a M M G y a
s a a d
a a A m L M s N n A
a í C V e C B l l r a a i A t t L x P
s - E a
a C l l i t s
Source: Ministerio de Economía, Dirección General de Financiación Territorial. a C
In 2004, the region most committed to regional development through R&D (according to 2004 regional government budgets) was Castile-Leon, one of the least favoured regions in Spain, which devotes 2.30% of its regional budget to R&D, followed by Madrid (1.67%) and the Basque Country (1.37%), two of the wealthiest regions in Spain. Andalusia dedicated 1% of its budget to R&D, Galicia 0.89%, Valencia 0.77% and Catalonia, where the industrial contribution to R&D was among the highest in Spain, only dedicated 0.50% of its public budget to R&D (European Commission, 2005b).
Regional governments have defined their own R&D policy mixes with instruments that overall tend to be very similar to those defined by the central government (e.g. human resources, R&D projects), although the relative weight of specific instruments depends on each regional approach to R&D and innovation policies. Some regions have put more emphasis on the support and development of business R&D and innovation, while others have opted to stress the creation of basic capabilities in science and technology through the support of public research institutions (Sanz-Menéndez and Cruz-Castro, 2005).
The National Plan has explicitly included co-ordination between the central and regional governments in the field of R&D&I policies as one of its main objectives. However, such co-ordination remains a challenge as well as the selection of the most efficient mechanisms to achieve this goal. At present, the General Council for Science and Technology, created by the Science Act in 1986 as a consulting body of CICYT, is officially in charge of co-ordinating R&D&I policies between the central and regional governments. It is chaired by the Minister of Education and Science and its members include representatives from all autonomous communities. 2. Main issues
2.1 OVERALL INNOVATION SYSTEM
Challenges and policy priorities. The challenges of the Spanish innovation system are largely determined by its industrial structure, mainly composed of SMEs in traditional sectors with a small number of high tech firms and few large firms (some of them former public monopolies in utility sectors), as well as a historically weak and diffuse public funding to R&D&I (stretched over a large number of objectives). Those sectors where Spanish firms have gained some relevance in international markets are traditionally characterised by low R&D investments (e.g. banking, tourism). There is a need to improve innovation-based 53 Part II - Annex 1 BACKGROUND AND ISSUES competitiveness and productivity of Spanish firms by establishing links between SMEs and the rest of the innovation system (e.g. via technology centres) as well as by reaching critical mass in research at international standards.
• Nearly 70% of Spanish business employment is in micro (less than 10 employees) and small enterprises (less than 49 employees), compared to an average of 50% in the European Union and 36% in the United States. On the other hand, only 18% of business employees are employed by large firms (more than 249 employees), compared to 34% in the EU and 50% in the United States.20
• The Spanish share of high technology products in total manufacturing exports is quite low and has barely increased between 1994 and 2003 (9.9% and 10.8% respectively) in contrast with most European countries, with the EU-25 average increasing from 16.3% in 1994 to 21.9% in 2003 (COTEC, 2006).
High reliance on EU funds for regional development. As Spanish regions go up the development ladder, it will be necessary to reduce the reliance of public support for R&D&I on European structural funds, which might lead to a bottleneck for public support if private investment in R&D does not increase at a sufficiently high rate.
• Between 2007 and 2013, Spain will receive EUR 27.7 billion from European Structural Funds, compared to EUR 37.3 billion received between 2000 and 2006. To compensate the impact of this reduction on R&D&I investment (especially in regions entering into competitiveness and phasing out objectives), two measures have been taken. First, a European technology fund of EUR 2 billion has been especially established for Spain for the period 2007-2013. Second, the Spanish government and the European Commission have decided to increase the share of EU structural funds devoted to R&D&I. Given the exceptional character of these measures, however, a reduction in EU structural funds for Spanish R&D&I is expected for the next periods.
2.2 GOVERNANCE
Connection between policy objectives and instruments. The National R&D&I Plan needs significant changes to become an effective instrument for the development of medium to long-term strategies. The absence of a clear link in the National R&D&I Plan between strategic objectives, actions, instruments and managing units may lead to deficient planning. Such connection is also lacking from annual budgets for R&D. This may lead to a situation where government appropriations for R&D&I tend to be allocated according to the political interests of different ministries, without a sufficiently coherent overall approach.
• One of the first sections of the National Plan sets out the strategic objectives of the plan, linking them with a number of standard national S&T indicators, however, the following sections of the Plan dealing with priority thematic areas and national programmes do not go back either to those objectives nor to the expected values of the indicators at a more micro level. The National Plan is therefore compartmentalised across objectives, priority areas and programmes or instruments.
• The National Plan Monitoring and Evaluation Commission (COSEP) has criticised the lack of direct and measurable connections between strategic objectives and actions or instruments in the National Plan.
Widespread management. The management of R&D&I policy programmes and instruments is spread across a large number of different ministries, and departments within ministries. This may lead to competition for funds among ministries, overlapping of programmes managed by different departments, informational problems and high administration costs.
• For example, as set out in the National R&D&I Plan Programme of Work for 2006, support for R&D&I projects and complementary actions corresponding to the National Programme for biomedicine is managed by six different units within three different ministries: i) Directorate General for Research and Directorate General for Technology Policy at the MEC; ii) CDTI and Directorate General for Industrial Development at the MITYC; iii) Department of the National Plan for Drugs and Institute of Health Carlos III at the MSC.
20. Data from INE, Directorio central de empresas (2003) and European Research Advisory Board (2004), http://ec.europa.eu/research/eurab/pdf/eurab_04_028_sme_era.pdf. 54 R&D and innovation in Spain: improving the policy mix
High level co-ordination rigidities. The Inter-ministerial Commission for Science and Technology (CICYT) is the institution officially in charge of the elaboration of the National R&D&I Plan, as well as of co-ordinating its management and implementation across different ministries and of evaluating its results, as stipulated in the 1986 Science Law. However, its high level composition may undermine its capacity to operate.
• The high level and broad composition (more than 20 members, including Ministers and Deputy Ministers as well as the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Ministers) limits the operability of the CICYT as a decision-making body. The composition of the Permanent Commission of the CICYT is as high level as the CICYT which leaves the effective day-to-day co-ordination of the National R&D&I Plan in the hands of an informal institution: the Support and Follow-Up Unit of the CYCIT (CAS-CICYT). The CAS-CICYT is chaired by the Director of the Economic Bureau of the Prime Minister and composed of two Secretaries of State (Deputy Ministers), as well as by the Secretary Generals and Director Generals who manage most of the annual budget for R&D&I.
Need for strategic R&D intelligence units. Despite the fact that all R&D&I in Spain is organised around a National Plan, there is no government unit specialised in providing strategic R&D policy intelligence (policy design, planning, analysis, monitoring and evaluation). It is necessary to increase administrative capabilities, but also to professionalise policy design and evaluation.
• Ministerial units in charge of providing effective specialised support in policy design and evaluation are very weak and distant from the spheres officially in charge of decision making. Besides, they only provide such support occasionally and on a marginal basis, as they are completely focused on the management and implementation of the National R&D&I Plan.
Multiple tasks. The multiple responsibilities undertaken by the MEC in the R&D&I Spanish policy may lead to excessive workload for its management units if sufficient economic and human resources are not provided.
• Under the current distribution of government competences, the CICYT, chaired by the Prime Minister, counts with support from the Ministry of Science and Education (MEC). The Secretary of State for Universities and Research within the MEC is, in addition to his political responsibilities at the Ministry, the Secretary of CICYT.
Distribution of responsibilities. The split of responsibilities between the MEC and the MITYC following the change of government and the suppression of the Ministry of Science and Technology in 2004, has left imprecise boundaries between them as regards competences on innovation and technology policy, especially with respect to actions targeting business R&D&I such as programmes and instruments involving public-private collaborative research and innovation projects (e.g. PROFIT).
• The management of the Programme for the Promotion of Technical Research (PROFIT) is currently characterised by an apparently complicated distribution of tasks. Support for R&D&I projects under this programme can be managed either by the MEC or the MITYC depending on the specific characteristics of the project (thematic area and type of applicants), as set out in the programme call.
Changing regulatory framework. The Spanish R&D&I regulatory framework is undergoing important changes (including those affecting the governance models for universities and public research centres). The impact of those changes on the R&D&I governance system should be carefully monitored.
• At least six new laws (or revisions of existing laws) affecting the Spanish R&D&I system have been approved since 2004, are currently being debated or will be soon debated in Parliament. They include the reform of the University Law, the proposed Biomedical Research Law and Public Contracts Law, as well as the recently approved Public Agencies Law, Venture Capital Law and Tax reform.
Co-ordination with regions. The central government’s weight in the support of regional innovation is still important but its leverage to set national priorities and implement a national R&D&I strategy will decrease if regional governments continue to increase their support. Increasing regional funding for 55 Part II - Annex 1 BACKGROUND AND ISSUES
R&D&I actions within their territories may lead to competition among regions, to the detriment of co- operation in order to achieve goals collectively. It is important to develop effective instruments to improve co-ordination between central and regional governments and among the regional governments themselves. Co-ordination with regions and mechanisms to ensure they share a common set of objectives with the central government are key.
• Regions (17 autonomous communities) are increasingly developing their own R&D&I policies and tapping into their own economic resources to fund R&D&I. Education and research at universities as well as research in hospitals and on agricultural issues are completely regionalised. In many of the regions, competences in R&D and innovation are also compartmentalised within regional education and science departments on the one hand and industry and innovation departments on the other. There are a few exceptions, however, in which R&D, universities and innovation support are under the responsibility of the same department in the regional government, such as the Andalusian Ministry for Innovation, Science and Business.
• During the period 2002-2004, according to the INE technological innovation survey, expenditures in innovation by firms located in Madrid (28%) and Catalonia (25%) represented more than half of the national total.
• The central government has drawn up parts of the INGENIO 2010 initiative, such as the AVANZ@plan, in collaboration with the regions.
• A Permanent Working Group composed by regional deputy ministers and general directors was created in June 2006, at the first meeting in three years of the General Council for Science and Technology, with the aim to improve co-ordination with the regions (ultimately under the responsibility of the General Council, which depends on CICYT). Two main themes were put on the agenda of the Permanent Working Group: R&D&I priorities and shared use of R&D&I infrastructures. In addition, a Technical Working Group for the exchange of information on R&D&I between the central and regional administrations met twice in 2005 and four times in 2006. The items included in its October 2006 meeting were as follows: i) shared use of R&D&I infrastructures; ii) taking into account Regional R&D&I Plans in building the National R&D&I Plan 2008-2011; and iii) sharing Spanish efforts in the EU VII Framework Programme.
2.3 POLICY DESIGN
Introduction of new policy measures. The implementation of the National Plan, as conceived in 2003, was affected by the launch of new policy measures in 2005. Since then, old policy measures have coexisted with new ones. It is therefore difficult to evaluate a “policy mix” which is still maturing. There is need to assess the coherence and efficient co-ordination between old and new policy instruments in trying to construct a single national strategy for S&T, as recommended in the COSEP report.
• In 2005, during the second year of reference of the National R&D&I Plan 2004-2007, the government announced the introduction of new policy measures (e.g. INGENIO 2010), as part of an ambitious National Reform Plan, and a significant budget increase for R&D&I to be distributed between old and new instruments.
Complexity of the R&D&I support system. The addition of new policy instruments may have increased the complexity of the system and reduced its efficiency, increasing the workload of certain managing units, without new resources being allocated to co-ordination, management, monitoring and evaluation.
• The budget increase announced by the government in 2004 was accompanied by a split of responsibilities for the promotion of technical research between managing units at the MEC (Directorate General for Technology Policy) and the MITYC (Directorate General for Industrial Development), following the suppression of the Ministry of Science and Technology where these responsibilities where previously concentrated. This change led to an increase in the number of competitive calls to be managed by each unit. The Directorate General for Information Society was not affected by the split and kept its old responsibilities intact when it was transferred to the MITYC. The CDTI, attached to MITYC, benefited from an increase in its resources of 274%. 56 R&D and innovation in Spain: improving the policy mix
Balance between soft loans and grants. The financial composition of R&D&I public support in terms of grants and interest-free loans is not balanced and largely depends on the availability of budgets. The share of loans has substantially increased in recent years compared to grants.
• In 2005, around EUR 1,419 million was devoted to the PROFIT programme (Programma de Fomento de la Investigación Tecnológica) and other tools in support of the technological research which provides soft loans (EUR 1,250 million), and small amounts of subsidies (EUR 169 million), for competitive research projects by firms and/or public research institutes. The 50.9% increase in the budget for the promotion of technical research through competitive calls corresponding to PROFIT with respect to 2004 was unevenly distributed between grants (11% increase) and soft loans (58.5%) (Castro Caravaca, 2006).
2.4 SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BASE
Investment in R&D. The reservoir of science and technology researchers in Spain is mostly found at universities and public research centres. The new emphasis on public-private partnerships and business R&D and innovation in government policies should not undermine support for public (and fundamental) research. Continued R&D investment is key to enable the production and transfer of research results to the private sector and training of high-skilled human resources, which in turn facilitates the absorption of research results by firms.
• One of the priorities of the INGENIO 2010 initiative was to promote public-private partnerships for R&D&I. To that end, a number of new actions were launched in 2005, such as the CENIT projects managed by CDTI.
• In 2003, 70% of researchers (FTE) worked in public research centres (16.7%) and universities (53.2%), compared to 50% on average for the 25 EU member countries (13.4% government, 36.5% higher education). Nevertheless, between 1997 and 2003 the annual growth rate of the share of researchers working in the business sector was higher for Spain (1.5%) than for the European average (0.9%) (European Commission, 2005a).
Segmentation and critical size. The increasing autonomy of universities and public research centres, as well as the growing role of regions in R&D&I funding, could lead to increasing competition and segmentation making it more difficult to achieve the central government policy goals. The objectives of raising research excellence to international standards, gaining critical mass, improving the quality and mobility of S&T graduates and facilitating technology transfer and collaboration with industry would be more difficult to reach in a context characterised by increasing fragmentation and a multiplicity of standards across regions.
• Regional public spending on R&D measured as a proportion of regional GDP ranged between 0.04% and 0.4% in 2003, with the highest spenders investing more than EUR 100 million in 2004 (Andalusia, Castile-Leon and Madrid), and at the other extreme La Rioja and Balears Islands spending less than EUR 4 million the same year (Ministerio de Economía y COTEC, 2005). Different regions have followed different policy models. Some regional policies are oriented towards strengthening public research centres and universities, while others are focussed on encouraging private research and innovation through technology centres.
• The reform of the Universities Act and the new Public Agencies Act will provide more flexibility to universities and public research centres on recruitment, overcoming some of the rigidities of the current legal framework for researchers and professors with civil servant status.
Too many priorities? Research funding has traditionally been very inclusive, with support for scientific research in the National Plan being allocated through a participative process. The National Plan is designed around a very broad set of national priorities, which may not be helpful for the implementation of an effective and selective prioritisation of R&D&I policies.
• The programme of work for 2005 includes ten priority thematic areas, in addition to one priority area across the board (horizontal). Distributed across those themes, the 2005 programme of work listed 35 different programmes or actions managed by different ministries.
Specialisation of universities and public research centres. Probably as a reflection of the broad support system and continuous search for funding in calls for tenders, Spanish universities and public 57 Part II - Annex 1 BACKGROUND AND ISSUES research centres have traditionally covered as many scientific fields as possible with the aim to reach the broadest demand. Specialisation in fields where they may have a comparative advantage is key to raise excellence and critical mass.
• There is no official ranking of the performance (either in teaching, graduation or research) of Spanish universities and public research centres.
• There is little student mobility between universities and between regions. According to the Ministry of Education, less than 10% of students move to a different region in order to attend university.
University funding. The fact that university funding essentially depends on the number of students (which is currently decreasing for demographic reasons), and the large number of universities created in recent years (offering as many university degrees as possible to satisfy all possible local needs) may be in conflict with the need to specialise and leads to the question of whether existing funding mechanisms are appropriate to provide the right incentives. It might be important to open the debate on how universities are funded.
• The number of Spanish universities has increased from 33 in 1983 (three of them private, owned by the church) to 69 in 2004.
• Spanish universities offer nowadays more than 3,300 university degrees, but due to diminishing numbers of university students (mainly for demographic reasons) some of those careers show registration numbers well below the national average, with less than ten new students per year in some faculties.21
• Among the 76,251 doctoral students for the academic year 2004/05 (16% more than for the academic year 2001/2), 31% are registered in the area of experimental and health sciences, 28% in social and legal sciences, 20% in humanities and 14% in engineering and technology. The increase in the number of doctoral students between 2001/2 and 2004/5 has benefited the area of engineering and technology (9% in 2001/2), relative to the other areas which have seen their share of students reduced.22
• The average share of graduates completing their studies within the normal time is low. The same is true for doctoral studies. Whereas there have been more than 60,000 doctoral students registered per year in the past few years, around 8,000 doctoral theses are annually approved.
• Spending per student is lower than the OECD average at all levels of education, and more so for higher education. Spending per student in higher education was substantially higher in the four largest European countries than in Spain in 2001, with EUR 6,227 PPP (63% higher in Germany, 40% in the United Kingdom, 22% in France and 19% in Italy). Greece was the only country with less spending per student in higher education than Spain in 2001, with only EUR 3,168 PPP (COTEC, 2006).
Benchmarks for research excellence. Evaluation of research excellence is undertaken by national agencies, but also by regional agencies. On the one hand, given the proliferation of competitive calls from different institutions, some evaluators may see themselves evaluating the same projects several times which implies a waste of resources. On the other hand, programmes with similar objectives but evaluated by different agencies may have different outcomes, which may lead to “forum-shopping” by applicants. Evaluation standards between national and regional evaluation agencies should be consistent to avoid “excellence” being measured by different benchmarks in national and regional programmes sharing common objectives.
• Apart from the national evaluation agencies (e.g. CDTI for technical research, ANEP for scientific research), some autonomous communities have created their own regional agencies for the evaluation of research and university quality, such as Catalonia, Galicia, Castilla-Leon, Madrid or Andalusia.
21. El Pais, 16.10.2006: “Mucha universidad” and 9.10.2006: “Sola en clase”.
22. Data from www.ine.es 58 R&D and innovation in Spain: improving the policy mix
R&D absorptive capacity of firms. Research in the business sector is mainly done by science graduates and engineers, not by doctorate holders. Increasing the number of doctors, S&T graduates and engineers working for firms as well as facilitating business collaboration with public research institutions is key to raise the absorptive capacity and interest of Spanish firms in R&D. In addition, there is a need to review the quality and nature of doctoral training at universities and explore the possibility of involving the private sector in the process of defining the features of the supply of S&T human resources.
• Co-operation with universities and public research centres might be a good way of improving the skills´ profile of human resources in firms and their ability to innovate. According to the INE technological innovation survey, during the period 2002-2004, among the 7,779 firms co- operating to innovate (53.5% of all innovative firms, compared to 40% in the previous period), 11.8% cooperated with public research centres, 19.5% co-operated with technology centres and 24% with universities.
2.5 BUSINESS R&D AND INNOVATION
Impact of tax benefits. Spain has been among the most generous countries in the OECD in terms of tax incentives for business R&D&I, but the evidence shows that only 40-50% of innovative firms benefit from the measure. Is important to assess the relative impact of R&D&I tax incentives with respect to alternative measures to encourage business R&D&I activities.
• The recently approved tax reform has stipulated a reduction of corporate taxes, a reduction of tax benefits for R&D&I activities to adapt to the former, and the introduction of an alternative R&D&I incentive system consisting of discounts in the social charges corresponding to R&D staff. The validity of R&D&I tax incentives expires at the end of 2011.
• The government has committed to evaluate the relative efficiency of both incentive systems by then.
Distribution of support by fields and sectors. The Centre for Industrial Technology Development (CDTI), which manages some of the new policy instruments in support of business R&D&I, has traditionally covered all industrial sectors with no distinction. However, CENIT projects introduced with the INGENIO 2010 initiative in 2005 include some priority areas, but leaving room to bottom-up proposals from other areas.
• The first call for CENIT projects managed by CDTI has approved EUR 200 million to fund 16 large R&D&I consortia in strategic technology areas during four years (complemented with EUR 230 million from the private sector). The projects approved involve 175 firms (51% SMEs and 49% large firms) and 208 research groups in universities, public research centres and technology centres (representing more than 800 researchers FTE). The technology areas where these projects will be developed include materials, transport, energy, biomedicine, ICT and agro- food technologies.
Private venture capital and business angels. Apart from the Fund of Funds (NEOTEC Venture Capital initiative managed by CDTI) launched by the government in 2005, it would be important to provide support for the development of a market for venture capital and the emergence of business angels.
• The NEOTEC venture capital initiative has funding of EUR 183 million for the period 2006- 2010 (with the possibility of extending year after year until 2012) to promote the creation of new technology based firms through participations in venture-capital companies (10 to 15 funds) each investing in at least 10 startups. CDTI will also set up a network as part of the programme with the aim to improve the information available to potential investors (domestic or foreign).
• According to the OECD, private support for start-ups accounted for just 3.5% of total venture capital investment in Spain in 2004, compared to an OECD average of 7%. High tech sectors attracted less than 20% of this type of capital between 2002 and 2003, compared to 35% for the European Union and 75% for the United States. 59 Part II - Annex 1 BACKGROUND AND ISSUES
• Business angels can benefit from tax incentives (on venture capital) introduced in the Spanish legislation in 2005 (tax exemptions for disinvestments in venture capital funds).
2.6 SCIENCE-INDUSTRY LINKAGES
Technology centres. Technology centres are becoming key elements of regional business R&D and innovation policies. However, their regional and sectoral focus may become an obstacle for their development and competitiveness at the international level (for funds and markets). Networks and/or mergers among technology centres may be some of the solutions for technology centres to act together and gain sufficient critical mass with the aim to reach the level of similar institutions in other EU countries.
• The Spanish association of technology centres (FEDIT) counts more than 60 technology centres among its members, employing more than 5,000 persons. There are also some regional federations of centres, such as REDIT in Valencia which comprises 16 centres specialised in 16 different technology areas, or EITE and SARETEK in the Basque Country.
• In addition, a strategic alliance called TECNALIA has been recently promoted by a few Basque technology centres with the objective to raise critical mass and converge in the long term.
Specialisation and co-operation among technology transfer offices. Technology transfer offices have opened in most universities and public research centres in the past few years. Increasing co-operation among existing technology transfer offices would facilitate their specialisation and help them improve their capacity to commercialise and diffuse research results nationally and internationally.
• RedOTRI is the network of technology transfer offices (OTRIs) at Spanish universities whose mission is to promote and diffuse the role of universities as essential elements of the national innovation system. RedOTRI is established as a permanent working group within the Sectoral R&D Commission of the University Presidents’ Conference (Conferencia de Rectores de las Universidades Españolas, CRUE).
2.7 HUMAN RESOURCES FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Flexibility of contracts. Existing policy programmes to promote the recruitment of postdoctoral researchers and junior PhDs in public research organisations (Programme Ramón y Cajal and Programme Juan de la Cierva, respectively), as well as in the National Health System (Programme for National Health System Researchers and Programme for Technical Support Personnel for National Health System Shared Use Research Infrastructures) mainly provide temporary solutions in an environment where permanent positions for researchers have civil servant status. Enabling public research institutions to use differentiated permanent contracting schemes (outside the civil service) depending on the candidate or the project would increase the flexibility of the system. It is also essential for funding bodies to ensure equal access conditions for all candidates and transparency in the selection process, as well as the establishment of co-funding mechanisms with autonomous communities.
• For example, the Ramón y Cajal programme represented, for the first time, a call for tender with an international selection of researchers for positions in centres with which they did not have a previous relation. On average, the profile of selected researchers corresponds to researchers having spent a long period in prestigious research centres abroad, and/or with several international publications. It remains to be seen whether they will all obtain permanent contracts following the end of the programme. There have been some actions taken by a number of institutions to prioritise the provision of permanent positions to researchers with Ramón y Cajal contracts benefiting from positive performance evaluations (e.g. CSIC, University of Cordoba, University of Granada, etc).
Mobility of researchers. The low mobility of researchers with civil servant status prevents further mobility between the public and private research sector. University professors taking a voluntary leave of absence to work for the business sector risk losing their positions and need to pass a competitive exam to gain them back, should they wish to return to the public sector. This and other 60 R&D and innovation in Spain: improving the policy mix
rigidities associated with the general civil service status of researchers with permanent positions in the public sector (e.g. salaries, recruitment, funding) hinder mobility.
• The forthcoming reform of the University Law will include some measures to facilitate mobility, such as guaranteeing the position for a maximum of five years for university professors taking a voluntary leave of absence to create spin-offs related to their research, and also enabling professors and students to move temporarily to other Spanish universities.
Intensification of research. Measures to alleviate the teaching workload of university professors with outstanding research careers are being introduced, as well as measures to alleviate the clinical workload of healthcare professionals with outstanding research track records, so that they can invest more time in research (I3 Programme, within the INGENIO 2010 initiative). It is important to ensure that these mechanisms do not undermine the education mission of universities and the health care mission of hospitals and other health centres within the National Health System. It is also essential to ensure that they do not become a mechanism to shift the teaching and clinical workload to young researchers.
• There were 69 universities in Spain in 2004 (48 public and 21 private). Among the 88,000 professors and lecturers employed at public universities, 50,500 were civil servants. Public universities concentrated 92% of students in 2004. Reducing teaching workload will nevertheless be facilitated by the decreasing number of university students (mainly due to demographic causes).
Competitive versus block grant funding. As there is almost no block-grant funding for university research in Spain, research projects tend to be funded on a competitive basis from annual government budget appropriations for R&D (from the central and regional governments) and European funds. Incentives to increase quality and research excellence in public research organisations could be raised by providing some block grant funding, but only if it is linked to the assessment of organisational performance.
• Research funding per researcher in Spain is low compared to European standards, with Germany spending almost 80% more per researcher and France 65% in 2003 (COTEC, 2006).
Evaluation of research. There is a growing emphasis on public-private partnerships in innovation policies in Spain, but the curricula of researchers in the public sector is principally evaluated on the basis of scientific publications. There is a need to find ways to reconcile the objectives of research excellence and co-operation with firms in the mechanisms for the evaluation of research careers. The lack of evaluation for research centres collectively may lead to internal conflicts as institutions increasingly encouraged to specialise may be unable to implement collective strategies where there is no recognition of joint performance based on the portfolio of activities of the centres.
Evaluation of research is made uniquely at the individual level, as a reputation-based reward system for research careers. No evaluation of the performance of research departments or centres is currently undertaken in Spain. 61 Part II - Annex 1 BACKGROUND AND ISSUES
References
Castro Caravaca, J.C. (2006), “Una nueva organización para el PROFIT”, Economía Industrial, 359, pp.223-230 (in Spanish). CICYT (2003), The Spanish National Plan for Scientific Research, Development and Technological Innovation for the Period 2004-2007. English Summary. Comisión Interministerial de Ciencia y Tecnología. Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia. CICYT (2004), “Memoria de actividades de I+D+I, 2002”, Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología (in Spanish). CICYT (2004), “Actividades en Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación Tecnológica. Programa de Trabajo 2005”. Comisión Interministerial de Ciencia y Tecnología. Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia (in Spanish). CICYT (2005), “Actividades en Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación Tecnológica. Programa de Trabajo 2006”. Comisión Interministerial de Ciencia y Tecnología. Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia (in Spanish). CICYT (2006), “Memoria de Actividades de I+D+I. 2004”. Comisión Interministerial de Ciencia y Tecnología. Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia. Approved by the Ministers Council on 21 July 2006 (in Spanish). COSCE (2006), Acción CRECE. Proposals by the Scientific Community to boost Science in Spain. Confederación de Sociedades Científicas de España. COSCE, Madrid, available at www.cosce.org/crece_ingles.htm COSEP (2005), “Informe COSEP sobre la Marcha del Plan Nacional en 2004”, mimeo (summary available in COTEC, 2006) (in Spanish). COSEP (2006), “Informe COSEP sobre la Marcha del Plan Nacional en 2005”, mimeo forthcoming (in Spanish). COTEC (2003), Tecnología e Innovación en España. Informe COTEC 2003. Fundación COTEC para la Innovación Tecnológica. COTEC, Madrid (in Spanish). COTEC (2004), Tecnología e Innovación en España. Informe COTEC 2004. Fundación COTEC para la Innovación Tecnológica. COTEC, Madrid (in Spanish). COTEC (2005), Tecnología e Innovación en España. Informe COTEC 2005. Fundación COTEC para la Innovación Tecnológica. COTEC, Madrid (in Spanish). COTEC (2006), Tecnología e Innovación en España. Informe COTEC 2006. Fundación COTEC para la Innovación Tecnológica. COTEC, Madrid (in Spanish). Cruz-Castro, L. and Sanz-Menéndez, L. (2006), “Research evaluation in transition: individual versus organisational assessment in Spain”, Unidad de Políticas Comparadas (CSIC) Working Paper 06- 12. Forthcoming in The Sociology of Science Yearbook, vol. 26, Springer, 2008. European Commission (2005a), Key Figures 2005, Directorate General for Research. European Commission (2005b), European Trend Chart on Innovation. Annual Innovation Policy Trends and Appraisal Report. Spain. 2004-2005. European Commission. Enterprise Directorate General. European Commission (2006), “R&D and innovation policies in Spain”, Policy Mix Peer Reviews. Country Report: Spain. Second Cycle of the Open Method of Coordination for the Implementation of the 3% Action Plan. Report prepared for the CREST Policy Mix Working Group by Ken Guy, Wise Guys Ltd., in conjunction with IPTS. March 2006. Eurostat (2004), “Innovation in Europe. Results for the EU, Iceland and Norway”, Panorama of the European Union. Ministerio de Economía y Hacienda (2005), Presentación del Proyecto de Presupuestos Generales del Estado 2006. Ministerio de Economía y Hacienda (in Spanish). Ministerio de Economía y Hacienda (2006), Presentación del Proyecto de Presupuestos Generales del Estado 2007. Ministerio de Economía y Hacienda (in Spanish). OECD (2005a), Public-Private Partnerships for Research and Innovation. An Evaluation of the Spanish Experience. OECD. Paris. OECD (2005b), OECD Compendium of Patent Statistics 2005, OECD, Paris. OECD (2005c), Economic Survey Spain 2005. OECD. Paris. OECD (2006a), Policy Mix for Innovation in Iceland, OECD. Paris. OECD (2006b), Main Science and Technology Indicators 2006-1. OECD. Paris. 62 R&D and innovation in Spain: improving the policy mix
OECD (2006c), Education at a Glance 2006. OECD Briefing Note for Spain (12 September 2006), available at www.oecd.org. Sanz-Menéndez, L. (2005), “Políticas de I+D y presupuestos públicos en un entorno cambiante”, Presupuesto y Gasto Público, 39/2005, pp. 217-242. Secretaría General de Presupuestos y Gastos (in Spanish). Sanz-Menéndez, L. and L. Cruz-Castro (2005), “Explaining the science and technology policies of regional governments”, Regional Studies, Vol. 39.7, pp. 939-954. Warda, J. (2006), “Tax treatment of business investments in intellectual assets: an international comparison”, OECD STI Working Paper 2006/4. 63 Part II - Annex 2 SELECTED ACTORS
Annex 2 23
SELECTED ACTORS
Centre for Industrial Technology Development
The Centre for Industrial Technology Development (CDTI) is a public corporate entity of the Ministry for Industry, Tourism and Trade (MITYC), engaging in the promotion of innovation and technological development of Spanish companies. Its main functions are to i) evaluate and finance technological development, innovation and modernisation projects developed by Spanish companies; ii) manage Spanish participation in international programmes of technological co-operation; iii) promote technology transfer and technological co-operation between enterprises; and iv) support the generation and development of new technology-based firms.
The role of CDTI has been reinforced recently with the allocation of new programmes and funds, and for the first time it has been enabled to provide financial support to firms through grants, in addition to subsidised loans.
Universities
Higher education is provided by a total of 69 universities (48 public and 21 private). Among them, four are specialised in technical and engineering studies, located in Madrid, Catalonia, Valencia and Murcia. Universities are funded for their educational mission by regional governments (see Box A1).
Two institutions are in charge of the co-ordination of universities. First, the Council of University Co- ordination (where the Ministry of Education and Science, MEC, the autonomous communities and the
Box A1. Public funding for universities in Spain
At the time of the transfer of the universities´ control from the national government to the regional ones, the funding system was relatively homogeneous. It followed an incremental line item budgeting, in which each single item of expenditure of the budget was increased with respect to the budget of the previous years, but a system based on a formula model was emerging, where the main criteria were teaching loads (number of registered students) and the numbers of teaching staff; with almost no block grant funding for research. Today, university funding has been decentralised to the regional authorities, so the situation in each university varies depending on the strategies and priorities of regional governments.The annual transfer for university funding is included in the regional government annual budget that the regional parliament approves at the end of each year. Due to the very different political priority assigned by the different regional authorities to the higher education institutions and research policy, the mechanisms used by governments to finance universities are quite diverse. Incremental line item budgeting has been replaced by two types of models, which in many cases go together: formula models and contractual agreements. The first one is usually based on different combinations of students´ enrolment,size of the staff and other numerical data. In contractual agreements (contratos programa) the funds are usually linked to the accomplishment of goals or requisites previously agreed. In the absence of any significant block grant funding for research activities, university professors need to compete for funding from funding institutions (e.g. national, regional) or through contracts with companies. Source: Cruz-Castro and Sanz-Menéndez (2006).
23. Based on information from FECYT-SISE. 64 R&D and innovation in Spain: improving the policy mix
universities are represented), which co-ordinates the activities of public and private universities and proposes the main lines of educational policy, including measures concerning advanced postgraduate studies, the definition of qualifications to be officially recognised throughout the country and standards governing the creation of university departments. Second, the Conference of Spanish University Presidents (CRUE), an association created in 1994 by the public and private universities, which is in charge of facilitating co-operation with similar associations in other European countries.
Public research institutions
Public research institutions (including hospitals with research activities) are, together with universities, the public institutions performing most of the National Plan. They are quite heterogeneous. Six of them are under the aegis of the MEC (CSIC, CIEMAT, IGME, IEO, INIA, IAC), the other twelve fall under the responsibility of other ministries (e.g. ISCIII intramural activities under the MSC24). The largest public research institution, CSIC (Higher Scientific Research Council) has 116 research centres, covering almost all scientific and technological fields, 40 of which are mixed institutes established in co-operation with universities, 10 service centres and 134 units associated to universities and other institutions. Its annual budget amounts to EUR 700.8 million (26.13% own resources).
Spanish public research institutions receive most of their funding from the Annual Budget (Function 46)25, through the particular ministry they are attached to. Some of them, however, such as the Institute of Health Carlos III also receive public funds from other channels for other tasks not uniquely R&D related (intramural training, public health and services and R&D). The Fund for Health Research (FIS), managed by the Institute of Health Carlos III as its extramural funding branch, is responsible for funding (by means of public competitive calls) most scientific research projects developed in hospitals, health centres, PROs and universities and more than 15,000 researchers in the field of biomedicine, technologies for health and welfare and other health sciences research in Spain. One of the objectives of the FIS is to link basic and clinical and public health research and to promote cross-border research. It has also funded co-operative thematic networks on biomedical and other health sciences research (RETICS) as well as research biomedical network centres with legal personality (CIBER).
Research results transfer offices
The OTRIs were created at the end of 1988 as structures to promote and facilitate co-operation in R&D activities between researchers and firms. Years later, in 1996, they acquired an official character with the creation of an official registry for OTRIs at CICYT. There were 210 OTRIs by the end of 2005: 54 at technology centres, 56 at universities, 14 at public research centres and 56 at university-enterprise foundations.
Technology centres
Similarly to the OTRIs, there is also an official registry for technological and innovation centres (TIC) at CICYT since 1996. Nevertheless, any not-for-profit private organisation that provides innovation and technology services can become a member of the Spanish Federation of Technological Centres (FEDIT), even those which do not have the category of registered technology and innovation centre. At present there are 50 entities in the official registry and among the 61 technology centres associated with FEDIT only 36 are TIC. Only those registered at CICYT can be eligible for the national programme of support to technology centres included in the National R&DI Plan (OECD, 2005a).
Scientific and Technology Parks
Technology parks were first built in Spain in the 1980s to promote industrial growth, attracting high tech firms to certain regions. According to the Association of Scientific and Technology Parks (APTE), created in 1988, a park is a Project, generally associated to a physical space, related to universities and PROs and designed to promote the creation and growth of knowledge-based firms, usually located in the park, to facilitate technology transfer and innovation among firms and organisations using the Park. At the end of
24. In addition to the intramural activities ISCIII carries out extramural competitive research funding of hospitals, universities and other PROs.
25. Formerly Function 54. 65 Part II - Annex 2 SELECTED ACTORS
2004 there were 53 members of APTE (19 partners and 34 associates), but only 18 of them were operational by then. They involved 1,781 firms (17% increase from the previous year), for which the main sector of activity was ICT (23% of the total), and hired 45,492 employees (12% increase with respect to the previous year). 50% of their employees had a university degree and 21% were dedicated to R&D (9 330 by the end of 2004). Revenues amounted to EUR 6,115 million by the end of 2004 (10% increase with respect to the previous year).
Foundations
All foundations are registered either in the regional registries or in the MEC registry. They are not-for- profit entities depending in general on public or private funding institutions. Around one third of the 6,000 foundations registered by 1999 were related to education and research, and among them, the majority were in the fields of medicine and health sciences. In addition, 539 of the new foundations (created since 1975) have specific objectives in the field of scientific and technological research.
Some significant cases are:
• The Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology (FECYT) is a publicly promoted foundation with the objective of promoting research and technological development, facilitating collaboration among all the agents involved in R&D activities and the diffusion of research results.
• The University-enterprise foundations (FUE), of a private character and not-for-profit, were created jointly by the universities and chambers of commerce during the past 30 years. Their shareholders are mainly from the public sector. The main objective of the FUE is to facilitate technology transfer between universities and firms. They also provide specialised training, educational training and activities to foster employment. Other areas of activity include social awareness, information diffusion and international activities. At present there are 21 FUE, all members of the association “Red de Fundaciones Universidad-Empresa”.
Large scientific installations
According to the Advisory Committee for Large Scientific Installations (CAGIC), a large scientific installation (GIC) should be unique and exceptional in Spain and require a relatively large investment (above EUR 8 million) and/or maintenance cost (around EUR 1.6 million) compared to the total government budget appropriation on R&D in its area of activity. Its relevance and strategic character should justify its availability to the R&D system and the society as a whole. 66 R&D and innovation in Spain: improving the policy mix
Annex 3
POLICY INSTRUMENTS
Strengthening the science and technology base
R&D&I Projects
Under this heading there are several thematic areas in which the National R&D&I Plan provides funding for the following types of projects:
• Research projects, with the objective of obtaining new general scientific or technical knowledge, both in basic and applied research.
• Technological development projects, with the objective of materialising the results of research for the creation of products, processes and/or services.
• Technological innovation projects, with the objective of technological modernisation and improvement of business capacity for the adoption of technology in products, processes and services.
Support for R&D&I projects is managed by a broad number of ministries (MEC, MITYC, MSC, MMA, MTAS, MF) in the form of grants and also through soft loans. However, loans are not available to the same extent from all ministries with management responsibilities in the field of R&D&I, they tend to concentrate in the MITYC, and to a lesser extent in the MEC. A significant share of co-funding for research and innovation projects comes from EU structural funds for R&D activities.
Scientific-technological infrastructure projects
The financial support granted under this heading contributes to scientific-technological infrastructures with the aim of i) developing high quality research, especially in the priority areas of the National R&D&I Plan; ii) obtaining better use and return of investments in scientific-technological infrastructure and to promote the transfer of technology: iii) creating new research capacities; and iv) contributing through technological research and development to the advancement of knowledge, social and economic development of the country and the improvement of the quality of life of citizens. The areas that can receive support are the construction, refurbishing or expansion of research and technology centres and installation of scientific-technological equipment, the creation and improvement of ICT networks, and technology transfer actions. Support to this type of project can be given via grants co-financed by structural funds (FEDER) or soft loans. It is managed by MEC.
Support to health research centres
Public calls for tender for shared-use health research infrastructure within National Health System hospitals and other health institutions, supported by grants from the MSC-ISCIII, and co-funded by recipient institutions, whose management is carried out by the autonomous communities.
Health research certification and accreditation
Open call for the certification and accreditation of health research centres of excellence as Health Research Institutes (IIS) formed by virtual mergers of university and research centres with National Health System hospitals, as core research, through a process managed by the MSC-ISCIII with participation of the autonomous communities. 67 Part II - Annex 3 POLYCY INSTRUMENTS
CONSOLIDER Projects
The objective of the CONSOLIDER projects, managed by the MEC within the CONSOLIDER programme, is to increase the average size of research groups, provide more funding for the best research lines, break the excessive segmentation of research and promote the participation of public research organisations in the EU Framework Programme. Support is provided in the form of grants and soft loans.
CIBER
The objective of this initiative, associated with the CONSOLIDER programme, is to promote excellent research in biomedicine and health sciences undertaken in the National Health System and in the Science and Technology National System through the development and fostering of research networks to target pre- defined health priority problems (creating virtual entities with a legal personality). It is managed by the MSC- ISCIII, which will provide support through grants. The Thematic Networks of Co-operative Research (funded for 3 years since 2002) have been recently evaluated.
Strategic fund for building scientific and technological infrastructure
Under the aegis of the CONSOLIDER programme, the objectives of this fund, managed by MEC are: i) to ensure the availability and renewal of scientific and technological equipment and installations as well as the promotion of scientific and technological parks linked to universities and public research organisations and strategic singular projects for technological development; and ii) to support the creation of stable permanent infrastructures that promote public-private collaboration and provide adequate resources for the use of large scientific and technological installations in the international context. The central administration has elaborated a strategic map that identifies the large scientific-technological infrastructure to be constructed in the next 20 years. Such construction will be done through agreements with autonomous communities, who will co-finance the infrastructures developed within their territory. Likewise, there will be a call (RENOVE) to update the median equipment of universities and public research organisations. The fund would be assigned EUR 1,000 million over four years, including the co-financing from autonomous communities.
Improvement and access to large scientific and technological infrastructure
Support managed by MEC to guarantee the competitiveness of Spanish large scientific and technological infrastructure through grants. This support is devoted, on the one hand, to renewal, improvement or necessary expansions and, on the other, to promote access by the national scientific community.
Promoting business R&D and innovation
Programme for the promotion of technical research: PROFIT The general objective of PROFIT is to stimulate the business sector and other entities to carry out activities in the fields of research and technological development, as set out in the objectives defined by the National Plan for Scientific Research, Development and Technological Innovation (2004-2007). More precisely, the aims are : i) to develop the use by private companies and technological centres of public and private research infrastructures ; ii) to increase the participation of Spanish companies in international programmes of co-operation in scientific research and technological development ; iii) to support research projects which may increase technological capabilities of companies ; iv) to increase co-operation in R&D amongst all agents within the innovation system ; and v) to stimulate R&D projects in favour of energy efficiency. Targets of PROFIT are companies, entrepreneurial associations and technology centres. Projects can be proposed by individual entities or by groups of entities implying co-operation activities and networking.
Since the suppression of the Ministry for Science and Technology in 2004, the management and implementation of PROFIT is shared between the MEC and MITYC as follows:
• MEC manages, within the thematic areas of sections 1-9, 14-16, 18 and 19 (see Table A16), projects for industrial research, technical feasibility or technological development projects, to be implemented individually or in collaboration, except the following types of projects: i) individual projects proposed by firms, technology centres or private R&D centres; ii) co-operative projects if the partners are only 68 R&D and innovation in Spain: improving the policy mix
firms, technology centres or private non-university R&D centres; iii) projects involving less than 16% of subcontracted research with public research centres.
• MITYC manages, within the thematic areas of sections 10-13 (all projects, Directorate General Information Society, see Table A16) and within the thematic areas of sections 1-9, 14-16, 18 and 19
Table A16. Thematic areas and sections
Life sciences 1 National Programme for biomedicine: National Sub programme for Pharmaceutical research in discovery, development and evaluation of drugs. Life sciences 2 National Programme for Health Technologies and Welfare: National Sub programme for health technologies and research in health products. Life sciences 3 National Programme for biotechnology. Agro-food and 4 National Programme for Resources and Agro-food technologies. environmental sciences and technologies Agro-food and 5 National Programme for Environmental Sciences and Technologies. environmental sciences and technologies Energy 6 National Programme for Energy. Chemistry, 7 National Programme for Chemical Sciences and Technologies: Sub materials and programme for Oriented Chemical Research. design and industrial production Chemistry, 8 National Programme for Materials. materials and design and industrial production Chemistry, 9 National Programme for Design and Industrial Production: multidisciplinary materials and thematic priorities, national sub programme for equipment goods, national design and sub programme for the modernisation of traditional sectors, complex industrial systems strategic action. production Information 10 National Programme for Electronic and Communications Technologies: Society National Sub programme for Electronics, National Sub programme for Technologies Communications Technologies. Information 11 National Programme for Computer Technologies. Society Technologies Information 12 National Programme for Service Technologies of the Information Society: Society multidisciplinary thematic priorities, national sub programme for e-content, Technologies strategic action for e-inclusion and e-assistance. Information 13 Horizontal strategic action for security and trust in information systems, Society communications and information society services. Technologies Transport and 14 National Programme for transport: national sub programme for automation, construction national sub programme for flight transport, national sub programme for maritime transport, national sub programme for rail transport, national sub programme for transmodal transport.
Transport and 15 National Programme for construction. construction Security and 16 National Programme for Defence. Defence Humanities, social 17 National Programme for Social Sciences, Economics and Law. sciences and economics Strategic 18 Strategic action for tourism technologies. transverse actions Strategic 19 Strategic action for nanoscience and nanotechnology. transverse actions 69 Part II - Annex 3 POLYCY INSTRUMENTS
all projects excluded from the management of MEC as set out above. In addition, the MITYC manages the call for support to technology centres for co-operative projects with firms, other technology centres or private non-university R&D centres.
• MEC or MITYC could manage, depending on the thematic area, those projects consisting of: i) complementary actions; ii) complementary actions for international co-operation; iii) research projects within the Social Sciences, Economy and Law National Programme.
Financial aid for the creation of new firms: NEOTEC
The NEOTEC programme, managed by CDTI and launched in 2001, aims to stimulate the entrepreneurial culture. It is devoted to fostering the start-up of technology-based companies and has three main objectives: i) promoting a more favourable attitude to entrepreneurship in the scientific environment; ii) increasing start up funds to help new technology-based firms; iii) providing adequate infrastructure and services to new technology-based firms, such as training, technical and legal assistance, and information services. Support is provided in the form of soft loans.
Fund of Funds (NEOTEC)
Under the aegis of the CENIT programme, the “Fund of funds” is a fund managed by CDTI with the objective to invest in Private Risk Capital Funds which in turn invest in technology-based SMEs. It is characterised by: i) a global budget of EUR 176 million; ii) investment period from 2006 to 2011; iii) participants: European Investment Fund, CDTI and private firms; and iv) private contribution: more than 30%.
Support to technology centres
Support to actions and projects of technology centres with the following objectives: i) promote technological R&D units within technology centres; ii) promote the application of technological developments in firms through pilot experiences, technological demonstration projects, technological diagnosis and other research or diffusion actions with a clear industrial interest; iii) increase the presence of SMEs in national and international co-operation projects: iv) support the participation of technology centres in international programmes, especially within the EU Framework; and v) promote co-operation among technology centres. Support is managed by MITYC (directorate general for SMEs) and provided through grants and soft loans.
Strengthening industry-science linkages
Programme for the support of research transfer projects: PETRI
The MEC leads the programme PETRI (programa de ayudas para proyectos de estímulo a la transferencia de investigación). PETRI is designed to support the transfer of research outcomes produced within universities, PROs or technological centres to the private sector. Support is provided in the form of grants and soft loans.
Scientific-Technological Singular and Strategic Projects
Singular and strategic projects comprise a set of interrelated activities of R&D&I aiming to reach a common objective: to promote the integration of scientific-technological actors and increase technology transfer and to contribute to the increase of technological capacity of high business risk firms. The singularity of these actions might be due to their objective, configuration, opportunity, design or the very destination of their results. Their strategic character must be considered within the global scientific and technological context due to questions of environmental impact, improvement of the competitiveness of their productive environment, national socioeconomic interest or improvement of quality of life. Support to singular and strategic projects or actions is managed by the MEC and is provided in the form of grants and soft loans. 70 R&D and innovation in Spain: improving the policy mix
Equipment and infrastructures in scientific and technological parks
Projects or studies under this heading should respond to certain conditions of technical feasibility and technical R&D, with especial attention to projects with the following characteristics: i) creation of networks for technology transfer among parks, as well as for activities increasing technology transfer in general; ii) feasibility plans for activities such as the expansion of the park, the implementation of new services, the construction of infrastructures or buildings, etc.; iii) construction, equipment and scientific-technological infrastructure and their related costs; iv) construction, equipment and scientific- technological infrastructure for the provision of R&D support services within the park; v) construction, infrastructure and information systems for communications within the park; and vi) infrastructures for the connection of co-operation networks between firms and entities within the park. Support is managed by MEC and provided in the form of grants and soft loans.
Innovation management and technology transfer: support to OTRIs
All actions for the development and strengthening of the Research Results Transfer Offices (OTRIs) under this heading, in particular actions aimed at complementing the quality research already developed in research projects, as well as to promote the functioning, improvement and optimisation of the transfer system for scientific and technological knowledge, and the internationalisation of the R&D&I system, complementing and increasing the participation of Spanish groups in the EU Framework Programme and other European organisations or third countries. This measure also aims at improving the competitiveness of firms through the implementation of a number of activities improving the transfer of technology and research results. Support is managed by MEC and provided in the form of grants and soft loans.
Technological bank loans for the promotion of public-private interaction
To facilitate loans for the interaction of firms (mainly SMEs) and public research centres through the private bank selected in the call by the MEC for the following types of actions: i) co-operation projects with universities of public research centres, domestic or foreign, for the submission of proposals in national or international research programmes; ii) preparation of offers to present joint bids with universities or public research centres for projects of large or medium scientific installations, domestic or foreign; iii) support to collaboration contracts with universities or public research centres, or with their spin-offs; iv) support to patent applications and other forms of IPRs, or the extension of international scope of those IPRs, generated from joint projects with universities or public research centres; v) support to the acquisition of licences for the commercial exploitation of inventions or technologies developed by universities or public research centres; vi) support to the diffusion of any of the activities mentioned above. Support is managed by MEC and provided in the form of soft loans.
CENIT projects
Under the aegis of the CENIT programme, the Strategic National Consortia for Technical Research (Consorcios Estratégicos Nacionales de Investigación Técnica, CENIT), managed by CDTI with the expectation to approve projects for EUR 1,000 million during the first four years (EUR 500 million from the private sector) have the following characteristics: i) long-term contractual co-operation agreements between public and private research groups in joint research projects; ii) at least four firms (two of them SMEs) and two public research institutions; iii) minimum commitment of four years; iv) minimum annual budget of EUR 5 million; and v) financing rules of at least 50% financed by the private sector and at least 25% financed by public research organisations or technology centres. Research areas: i) biomedicine and health sciences (including biotechnology); ii) food technologies (including biotechnology); iii) ICT; iv) Production and design technologies; v) Environment, sustainable development and renewable energies; vi) new materials and nanotechnology; vii) sustainable mobility (automation, rail transport) and aerospace; viii) security (dual technology). Support is managed by MITYC and provided in the form of grants.
Human resource development
Research fellowships
A large number of fellowships are given by the public sector in Spain to form postgraduate researchers and they take different forms depending on whether they are managed by a public research organisation or a Ministry: 71 Part II - Annex 3 POLYCY INSTRUMENTS
• Fellowships associated to R&D projects for pre-doctoral training (Programme FPI).
• Fellowships associated to research themes in specific socioeconomic sectors (fellowship programmes of INIA, MSC-ISCIII intramural initiatives, INSHT). MSC-ISCIII also manages a health research training extramural pre-doctoral fellowship programme for researchers within the National Health System, which is also available for registered nurses.
• Fellowships associated with the training of university lecturers (Programme FPU managed by MEC- DGU).
• Pre-doctoral fellowships for research management training (MSC-ISCIII).
• Programme I3P, for pre- and post-doctoral research with some interest for business (MEC-CSIC).
• Fellowships for specialisation in international research organisations (fellowships INFN or IN2P3 managed by MEC-DGI).
• Fellowships to follow specific postgraduate studies in the USA (e.g. in social sciences or humanities).
• Postdoctoral fellowships at centres of excellence within the National Health System, including funding for one year of research abroad (extramural programme managed by MSC-ISCIII).
• Fellowships to study abroad (postdoctoral fellowships managed by MEC, Fulbright fellowships).
• Fellowships for health care personnel to carry out scientific research abroad during a maximum of 24 months (minimum 4 months). This programme is managed as an extramural programme by MSC- ISCIII.
• Fellowships to support international co-operation (AECI fellowships, managed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs).
Programme Ramón y Cajal
Launched in 2001, the programme Ramón y Cajal managed by MEC is dedicated to support employment of PhD holders in Spanish research organisations, offering contracts for a maximum of five years. The objective is to increase the number of job opportunities in the public research system and to reduce the gap between the demand for researchers and the number of researchers looking for a job. It aimed to improve matching between demand and supply in the PhD labour market and was a quite novel tool with respect to previous programmes mainly focused on providing public funding through grants or contracts for research projects. Over the years, the programme has contributed to the incorporation of more than 2,500 researchers into the Spanish S&T system (some of them from foreign research centres). Moreover, the centralised nature of the competitive selection mechanism of the Ramón y Cajal call (completely independent of the centres where the doctors would be hired) has also allowed the MEC to prioritise strategic areas. The rationale of the initiative has been widely diffused and similar programmes have been implemented at the regional level. The present and future success of the programme in becoming the key step of the “research career” towards tenure or long-term stability depends largely, but not exclusively, on the constant growth of public and private employment in the R&D&I system. It is equally important to ensure that promotion mechanisms at universities are based on excellence, for these and other fellows. The programme provided 800 contracts in 2001, 500 in 2002 and 700 in 2003. The first generation of Ramon y Cajal contracts which started in 2001 finishes in November 2006.
Programme of National Health System Researchers
Extramural programme managed by MSC-ISCIII to grant contracts for National Health System researchers. Each contract lasts a maximum of six years, with salaries co-funded by host health institutions, whose management is carried out by the autonomous communities. Each researcher must hold a PhD or MD and is also funded by MSC-ISCIII as a principal researcher to carry out a three-year research project during the first three years of the contract. Since 1998, when the programme was launched, 379 contracts have been granted. 72 R&D and innovation in Spain: improving the policy mix
Programme Juan de la Cierva
Launched in 2004, the programme Juan de la Cierva, managed by MEC, supports the recruitment of junior postdoctoral researchers by public research organisations on three-year contracts. It aims to increase the research capabilities of R&D groups and institutions through the recruitment of qualified researchers.
Programme for technical manpower for research support at National Health System shared use infrastructures
Extramural programme managed by MSC-ISCIII offering technical manpower for research support contracts at National Health System shared-use research infrastructures. Each contract lasts for three years and is co-funded by the recipient health institution, whose management is in turn carried out by the autonomous communities. Since 2000, when the programme was launched, 116 contracts have been granted.
Programme Torres Quevedo
The programme Torres Quevedo, managed by the MEC, was launched in 2001 to provide financial support for the incorporation of R&D personnel into firms or technological centres for R&D projects. The main objectives of this measure are to encourage companies’ demand for qualified personnel to launch R&D projects and to increase research capacity in companies and technological centres. The studies undertaken so far have revealed a very positive impact of the programme on the R&D capacity of Spanish firms. One of the objectives of the INGENIO 2010 initiative is to increase the funds allocated to the Torres Quevedo programme. As a result, the 2004-2005 call has more than doubled the capacity of the programme, which would translate into an increase from 340 to 780 doctorate holders being hired by firms (140 in the period 2002- 2003). The programme intends to keep on growing and reach the level of 1,300 researchers per year being hired in firms by 2010.
Incentives, incorporation and intensification of research activity (I3 Programme)
Under the aegis of the CONSOLIDER programme, this initiative, managed by the MEC, has the following objectives: i) provide incentives for giving permanent posts to Spanish or foreign senior researchers with a significant trajectory; ii) support the best researchers by reducing their teaching load; iii) expand the social security coverage to any researcher in a training period from the first year of fellowship, and also for postdoctoral researchers; and iv) encourage the expression of innovative ideas in programmes of work exploring the frontiers of knowledge (sub-programme EXPLORA). Also within this initiative and via the agreements signed with the autonomous communities, the State will co-finance permanent contracts for senior researchers of accredited research quality and contracts for teaching personnel to alleviate the teaching burden for the best researchers who could then dedicate themselves fully to research. Support is provided in the form of grants and soft loans.
The MSC-ISCIII manages an extramural I3 initiative, co-funded with the autonomous communities, which has the following objectives: i) provide incentives for the provision of permanent positions to senior National Health System researchers with outstanding research records; ii) support the best researchers with health care missions other than research, allowing them to invest more time in research, by reducing their clinical workload, without undermining the health care mission of recipient National Health System hospitals and other health centres.
Other research contracts
• Health sciences: Research training 3-year contracts at National Health System for recent health specialist trainees, with one year to do research abroad (extramural programme managed by MSC-ISCIII).
• Training: I3P contracts for technicians, pre-doctoral and post-doctoral training managed by CSIC. 73 Part II - Annex 3 POLYCY INSTRUMENTS
• Technical research: Short-term contracts for R&D technical support personnel for research projects in PROs.
International co-operation projects
For the development of joint R&D projects with researchers from a certain number of countries, within the framework of international co-operation activities with them (Germany, Austria, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy and Portugal) and exchange of Spanish researchers with those countries.
MSC-ISCIII also funds the Spanish participation in the European Research Area (ERA) and in international health research projects under initiatives of the ERANet schemes and article 169 of the Treaty of the European Community.
Researchers mobility projects
Support for visits of researchers from universities and other PROs to research centres in Spain or abroad (including support within the programme “Salvador Madariaga”), as well as support for the mobility of professors and students associated with doctorate studies with Quality Mention.
Encouraging ICT use
All managed by the MITYC, at the Directorate General for Information Society.
Digital cities
In 2004, the government launched a programme called “digital cities” to promote the diffusion and use of ICT in government and business (e-government, electronic commerce, tele-work, telemedicine, etc.). This programme is partially financed by the European Fund for Regional Development (FEDER) and is connected to other initiatives implemented at the EU level.
Singular cities
Under the aegis of the Plan AVANZ@, in May 2006, the government launched a programme as a follow-up to the programmes of Digital cities with the objective to promote the Information Society in the local environment. This programme will be implemented in two or more cities in each autonomous community through co-financing. The Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Trade (MITYC) will invest EUR 20 million that will be transferred via collaboration agreements to the corresponding cities.
ICT loans
Within the Plan AVANZ@, there are different types of loans depending on their objective and beneficiary, ranging from SMEs adopting innovations in their business processes, to improving their competitiveness, to university graduates.
Boosting the programme “wireless campus”
Under the aegis of the Plan AVANZ@, in May 2006, the government decided that the programme Wireless Campus will be boosted through an agreement with the Conference of Spanish University Presidents (CRUE) to increase its initial amount of EUR 1 million by an additional amount of EUR 3.3 million. This programme intends to introduce the use of new ICTs in the university community improving the connectivity of students in education centres.
Broadband in rural areas
Within the Plan AVANZ@, the government announced in May 2006 that the programme for the expansion of broadband (2005-2008) which had in principle an already ambitious objective of guaranteeing the coverage of the whole national territory by 2008, will be accelerated so that in 2007 and with the same provider chosen for the deployment of the infrastructures: 100% of local communities with more than 250 inhabitants and all developing areas (business areas, etc) will be covered. 74 R&D and innovation in Spain: improving the policy mix
ICT diffusion and awareness
Within the Plan AVANZ@, in May 2006, the government announced that there will be actions in four areas for a total amount of EUR 6.3 million: i) digital immersion; ii) industrial zones dynamism; iii) digital identity promotion; iv) trust and security.
Tractor projects
Under the aegis of the Plan AVANZ@ these projects support and promote technological research and development for the integration of activities within the same value chain. They are managed by the MITYC and support is provided in the form of grants and soft loans. 75 Part II - Annex 4 THE INGENIO 2010 INITIATIVE
Annex 4 25
THE INGENIO 2010 INITIATIVE
To comply with the objectives of the INGENIO 2010 Programme (presented in June 2005), the State’s civil R&D and innovation budget increased by an unprecedented 21% in 2005 and 32% in 2006, and this funding will continue to increase by at least 25% per year until the end of the legislature. In addition to this major increase in domestic funds, there are also EUR 2 Billion from the Technology Fund, obtained in the recent negotiation of the Financial Perspective 2007-2013, to finance research and development by and for companies.26 As a result, funding for civil R&D and innovation will increase by 34% in 2007 to match the record figure set in 2006.
The major increase in funding in 2006 served to start up all the strategic programmes in INGENIO 2010 and provide continuity to pre-existing R&D and innovation programmes.27
INGENIO 2010 started up three major strategic programmes.
Within the CENIT Programme, the first 16 CENIT projects, aimed at enhancing public-private co- operation, were chosen in 2006, mobilising EUR 200 million of public funds and EUR 230 million of private funds. The projects group 130 companies and 200 research groups. The first round, for which there were over 50 applications, was an unprecedented success. Consequently, and to cater for the large number of good projects, a second round of CENIT grants was announced in July 2006 and a third will be held early in 2007. Funding in 2007 will increase by EUR 95 million.
Also within the CENIT Programme, the NEOTEC Venture Capital Fund was launched in February 2006 to increase early-stage investment in Spanish technology companies. The fund was provided with EUR 176 million, of which EUR 66 million were contributed by a large number of private companies and EUR 50 million by the European Investment Fund, which participates in managing the fund. Finally, the number of beneficiaries of the Torres Quevedo programme, which supports integration of PhDs and technologists into private companies, increased by 60% to 551. The budget for 2007 has been increased by EUR 21 million (110%).
The first 17 projects were granted under the CONSOLIDER Programme, aimed at increasing research critical mass and excellence; they will mobilise EUR 82 million over the next five years, financing 170 groups and a total of 1,180 positively evaluated researchers. The number of subsidised projects will double in 2007, with the corresponding increase in the budget.
Also within CONSOLIDER, the first seven CIBER consortia grants for networked research into seven priority areas of Health Science were granted, involving a total of 241 research groups and a budget of EUR 32 million in 2006. A Strategic Fund has been established to improve and expand Science and Technology Infrastructure. This initiative, funded with EUR 200 million in 2006, will include drawing up a map of the
25. Based on information provided by the Economic Bureau of the Prime Minister.
26. Under the December 2005 European Council agreement, the Technology Fund is to be allocated under criteria of inter-regional cohesion. Of the total, 70% will be allocated to regions in the Convergence Objective, 5% to “phasing- out” regions, 10% to Regional Competitiveness and Employment Objective regions, and the remaining 15% to “phasing-in” regions.
27. Non-priority R&D and innovation actions received an increase of close to 14% in non-financial expenditure (i.e. excluding soft loans), nearly double the 8% average increase in the State General Budget for the year. 76 R&D and innovation in Spain: improving the policy mix
science and technology facilities required for the next 15 years (to be completed by December 2006). Finally, under the I3 Programme, which has a EUR 27 million budget for 2006, close to 300 positively evaluated researchers were hired on a stable basis by universities and public research centres.
A key difference between CENIT and CONSOLIDER projects with respect to traditional research projects is that their large size has led to a considerable degree of inter-regional co-operation. For example, the CENIT projects awarded in 2006 involve companies and research centres in seven regions, on average, and the corresponding figure for CONSOLIDER projects is close to four. This higher degree of co-operation between regions provides an extra degree of cohesion under INGENIO 2010 that was missing in pre- existing research projects.
The AVANZ@ Plan, which aims at accelerating convergence with Europe in the main indicators of the Information Society, represents the greatest effort ever made in Spain to extend the use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). In its first year (2006), AVANZ@ increased public budgets in this area by 120% to EUR 1,198 million. AVANZ@ comprises a large number of specific programmes, some of whose features are described below.
The AVANZ@ Plan represents an unprecedented bid for co-operation in R&D and innovation policy between various levels of the Administration. This is clear in the fact that all the regional governments and the Spanish Federation of Municipalities and Provinces (FEMP) have joined the AVANZ@ Plan. The Regional Governments’ contribution to co-financed actions ranges from 40% to 60%, depending on the region’s per capita income.
The AVANZ@ Plan also aims at expanding the participation by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in e-commerce and technological innovation. In particular, the Technological Loan Programme, which assists SMEs in equipping themselves for the Information Society and had a budget of EUR 325 million in 2006, benefited close to 27,000 companies due to co-operation by private banks in executing it.28
Efforts are also being made to bring all citizens, particularly disadvantaged groups, into the digital age. In 2006, EUR 6 million were allocated to favouring gender equality and inclusiveness in access to the Information Society and close to EUR 50 million were mobilised to extend the use of broadband and provide rural access centres. Under these programmes, in the first half of 2006 alone, 900 municipalities with almost 2 million inhabitants obtained broadband connectivity. In 2007, all municipalities with over 250 inhabitants will have broadband connectivity, one year ahead of the initial schedule. Additionally, an Online Healthcare programme has been launched and will apply uniform healthcare user cards, e-prescriptions, on- line appointments and electronic medical records in all the regions, under a total of 16 separate agreements.
Finally, under the AVANZ@ Plan, a number of initiatives have been launched that mark a watershed in citizens’ relations with the Administration, most notably the following three:
• The launch of the electronic ID card in February 2006, to be extended gradually so as to be available nationwide in 2008, for which a total of 150 procedures with the Administration are already fully operational.
• “Internet in the Classroom”, in co-operation with the Regional Governments, will provide connectivity, equipment and training in over 20,000 schools, incorporating the Information Society into the education process for close to 5 million students.
• “System of Applications and Networks for the Administration” (SARA) to make information exchange between administrations more agile. With SARA, the Administration will not have to ask citizens for information which it already has. As a first step in simplifying bureaucratic procedures, from January 2007 the State General Administration will no longer require photocopies of national ID cards and certificates of municipal census registration in all its procedures.
Regarding improvements in management and reduction of bureaucracy for R&D and innovation, a new Regulation under the General Subsidies Act was approved which makes the administrative procedures for
28. Beneficiary companies at 30 September 2006. 77 Part II - Annex 4 THE INGENIO 2010 INITIATIVE funding R&D and innovation more flexible, and a new Agencies Act will allow public research institutes such as the CSIC and Carlos III Health Institute to adopt legal forms that are in line with their procurement and contracting needs.
The new Act of Contracts with the Public Sector, which creates the “public technology purchase” as a way of turning the Administration into a driving force for innovation and allows electronic invoicing for suppliers of the Administration, has been submitted to Parliament. Finally, the reform of the Organic Universities Act created the “technology leave of absence” for up to five years to enable researchers to join technology firms.
In parallel with these actions, a new Integrated Monitoring and Assessment System (SISE) has been implemented.
The INGENIO 2010 programme devotes specific attention to promoting R&D and innovation in SMEs. INGENIO 2010 fosters participation by SMEs in major industrial research projects by requiring that there be a minimum number of SMEs in the major consortia financed with CENIT grants. Additionally, the NEOTEC Fund of Funds will promote the creation and consolidation of technology SMEs by co- financing private investment in firms of this type and contributing to the improvement of their human capital through the Torres Quevedo programme, which focuses particularly on SMEs. Finally, within INGENIO 2010, the AVANZ@ Plan’s largest single area is devoted to bringing SMEs into the Information Society (56% of the budget). Moreover, the NRP supplements this support for innovation via the Entrepreneurship Programme.
Co-ordination of the INGENIO 2010 plans with the Autonomous Community administrations is being effected through the General Council of the Interministerial Commission for Science and Technology (CICYT) and via the NRP’s own scheme for co-ordination with the regions. Finally, in addition to playing a major role in the INGENIO 2010 programmes via co-operation agreements, the Regional Governments have undertaken important innovation projects that complement the State’s actions in their regions.
Update
As one of the measures to improve management and information, in July 2006 the R&D and innovation Information Points were created to offer companies a one-stop shop for information about support for R&D and innovation from the regions, the State and the European Union. The network offers support by phone and the internet, and it has 118 points of presence, to which all the information offices of the State General Administration will be added gradually.
Additionally, a technology centre plan was approved comprising two programmes, one to finance co- operation between centres in different regions and the other to support the creation of new centres in regions which are under-equipped with these technology transfer bodies, provided there is a proven demand. This programme has a budget of EUR 7.2 million for 2007. The programme is part of the Entrepreneurship Programme.
Following the presentation of the COSEP 2005 report (COSEP, 2005) as part of the Integrated Monitoring and Assessment System (SISE), two new programmes were created in July 2006:
• An Activation Plan for the 7th Framework Programme with the goal of attaining an 8% return, equivalent to Spain’s economic weighting within the European Union. The Plan will have four specific programmes covering public research centres, technology centres, companies, and hospitals, with a budget of approximately EUR 16 million in 2007.
• A Science and Technology Communication Plan, coinciding with Science and Technology Year, to disseminate the values of science and foster innovation in society, particularly among young people. This programme has a budget of EUR 5 million for 2007.
Regarding improvements in management, we highlight two actions arising from the COSEP report:
• A clear separation, in the State General Budget, between civilian and military R&D and innovation programmes, regardless of the agency managing the latter. 78 R&D and innovation in Spain: improving the policy mix
• Drafting of a Schedule setting out all the R&D and innovation grants and aid programmes, to be published in the December prior to the year of reference, so as to provide enhanced advance information in this connection. Additionally, half-yearly reports will be issued on compliance with the schedule.
Finally, regulatory efforts to reduce administrative barriers and make the Administration a driver of innovation will continue. A new Biomedical Research Act, a new Act for Propagating the Information Society and an e-Government Act will be presented before 2007. Additionally, a series of initiatives that focus particularly on young people will be implemented, including most notably the José Castillejo programme to provide incentives to Spanish university lecturers to spend periods at prestigious research centres in other countries. 79 Part II - Annex 5 ORGANISATION OF THE REVIEW
Annex 5
ORGANISATION OF THE REVIEW
OECD Panel Members
Dirk PILAT, Head, Science and Technology Policy Division, OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry
Mario CERVANTES, Principal Administrator, Science and Technology Policy Division, OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry
Sveinn THORGRIMSSON, Director of Innovation and Industrial Affairs, The Ministry of Industry, Iceland
Ilan PELED, Magnet Director, Office of the Chief Scientist of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labour, Israel
Pierre THERRIEN, Senior Research Economist, Innovation Policy Branch, Industry Canada
Enrico MARTINEZ SÁENZ, Instituto de Estudios Superiores de Tamaulipas Altamira, on behalf of Guillermo Aguirre, Deputy Director of Technology, CONACYT, Mexico
Spanish representative at the OECD Committee for Scientific and Technological Policy
Luis SANZ-MENÉNDEZ, Advisor to the Secretary General for Science and Technology Policy, Ministry for Education and Science, Spain
Spanish external experts to FECYT
Catalina MARTÍNEZ, Research Fellow, Unidad de Políticas Comparadas, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC)
Laura CRUZ-CASTRO, Research Fellow, Unidad de Políticas Comparadas, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC)
FECYT
Alfonso BELTRÁN, Deputy Director, Fundación Española para la Ciencia y la Tecnología (FECYT)
Víctor Manuel DÍAZ BENITO, Fundación Española para la Ciencia y la Tecnología (FECYT)
Pilar RICO CASTRO, Fundación Española para la Ciencia y la Tecnología (FECYT) 80 R&D and innovation in Spain: improving the policy mix
Annex 6
INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR OECD REVIEW OF POLICY MIX
Madrid, 6-9 November 2006
Francisco José MARCELLÁN, Pedro MARÍN URIBE, Director Secretario General de Política General Sociedad del Bienestar, Científica y Tecnológica, MEC Oficina Económica del Presidente, OEP
María CALLEJÓN, Directora Miguel Angel QUINTANILLA, General de Política para la Secretario de Estado de Pequeña y Mediana Empresa, Universidades e Investigación, MEC MITYC
Joan TRULLÉN, Secretario General de Industria, SGI, MITYC
Francisco ROS, Secretario de Francisco GRACIA, Director del Estado de Telecomunicaciones y Instituto de Salud Carlos III, para la Sociedad de la Información, Ministerio de Sanidad MITYC
Researchers and R&D managers Arturo GONZALO AZPIRI, roundtable (representatives from Secretario General de Prevención different fields and institutions) de la Contaminación y el Cambio Climático, Ministerio de Medio Ambiente
R&D policy makers from Regional Carlos MARTÍNEZ, Presidente Governments: Cataluña, Navarra, del Consejo Superior de Cantabria, Galicia, Canarias, Investigaciones Científicas, MEC Asturias, and Valencia
Maurici LUCENA, Director General, Centro para el Desarrollo Tecnológico Industrial, CDTI, MITYC
Business roundtable (representatives from different sectors and firm-sizes 81 Part II - Annex 6 INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR OECD REVIEW OF POLICY MIX MIX
Javier ALONSO, Unión Fenosa Carlos BOSCH, Dragados Luis CABRA, Repsol YPF Rafael GARCERÁN, Repsol YPF Antonio de CARVAJAL, Indra Marc ALBA, Everis Javier ALONSO, Unión Fenosa José Luis LÓPEZ, Patentes Talgo Carlos BOSCH, Dragados Fernando MORENO , Solutex Luis CABRA, Repsol YPF José María INSENSER, Sidsa Rafael GARCERÁN, Repsol YPF Víctor RODRIGO, EADS Astrium Crisa Antonio de CARVAJAL, Indra Luis Ignacio VICENTE, Telefónica I+D Marc ALBA, Everis Juan MULET, Fundación COTEC José Luis LÓPEZ, Patentes Talgo Federico BAEZA Fundación COTEC Fernando MORENO , Solutex Adelaida SACRISTÁN, Fundación COTEC José María INSENSER, Sidsa Víctor RODRIGO, EADS Astrium Crisa Luis Ignacio VICENTE, Telefónica I+D Juan MULET, Fundación COTEC Antonio Luis ANDREU PERIZ, Life Sciences,Federico CIBBM; Hospital BAEZA VallFundación d´Hebron COTEC Javier MOSCOSO SARABIA, Philosophy, CSIC_IFSAdelaida SACRISTÁN, Fundación COTEC Mª Carmen ANDRADE PERDRIX, Construction, CSIC-ICC_E. Torroja Ángel IRABIEN GULÍAS, Agro-food and Environment, Uni_Cantabria Faustino OBESO CARRERA, Chemical and manufacturing technologies, ACERALIA Juan AVELLANER LACAL, Energy, IDAE, MITYCAntonio Luis ANDREU PERIZ, Life Sciences, CIBBM; Hospital Vall d´Hebron José Ignacio ALONSO MONTES, ICT, Uni_PolitecnicaJavier MOSCOSO Madrid SARABIA, Philosophy, CSIC_IFS Aurelia MODREGO RICO, Economics , Uni_CarlosMª Carmen III Madrid ANDRADE PERDRIX, Construction, CSIC-ICC_E. Torroja José BENLLIURE, Physic, Uni-Santiago CompostelaÁngel IRABIEN GULÍAS, Agro-food and Environment, Uni_Cantabria Javier MARTINEZ VASSALLO, S&T Policy Planning,Faustino MEC OBESO CARRERA, Chemical and manufacturing technologies, ACERALIA Juan AVELLANER LACAL, Energy, IDAE, MITYC José Ignacio ALONSO MONTES, ICT, Uni_Politecnica Madrid Aurelia MODREGO RICO, Economics , Uni_Carlos III Madrid José BENLLIURE, Physic, Uni-Santiago Compostela Javier MARTINEZ VASSALLO, S&T Policy Planning, MEC
Herminio SASTRE ANDRÉS, Viceconsejero de Ciencia y Tecnología, ASTURIAS Juan RUIZ ALZOLA, Director General de Investigación y Tecnología del Instituto Tecnológico, CANARIAS Pablo de CASTRO GARCÍA, Herminio SASTRE ANDRÉS, Director General de Desarrollo e Innovación Tecnológica,Viceconsejero CANTABRIA de Ciencia y Tecnología, ASTURIAS Juan RUIZ ALZOLA, Xavier TESTAR YMBERT, Director General de Investigación, CATALONIADirector General de Investigación y Tecnología del Instituto Tecnológico, CANARIAS Enrique DÍAZ MORENO, Pablo de CASTRO GARCÍA, Director General de Industria y Comercio, NAVARRADirector General de Desarrollo e Innovación Tecnológica, CANTABRIA Xavier TESTAR YMBERT, Rafael MUGUERZA, Director General de Investigación, CATALONIA Director Servicio Innovación y Tecnología, Dirección General de Industria y Comercio, NAVARRA Enrique DÍAZ MORENO, Emilio BARBERÁ GUILLÉN, Director General de Industria y Comercio, NAVARRA Secretario de Universidad, Ciencia y Tecnología, VALENCIA Rafael MUGUERZA, Director Servicio Innovación y Tecnología, Dirección General de Industria y Comercio, NAVARRA
Emilio BARBERÁ GUILLÉN, Secretario de Universidad, Ciencia y Tecnología, VALENCIA