Analysis of Swedish participation in the EU's partnership

The partnerships aim to give FoI actors in Europe the opportunity to influence the design of the framework programme's funding in return for their also contributing funding. In this way, European FoI funding is concentrated in priority areas and its relevance is strengthened.

Inom Horisont Europa, there are currently nearly 40 partnerships under the Framework Programme's Pillar 2 in various forms: co-financed, institutionalised and co-programmed. What they have in common is that they bring together actors around common challenges and combine policy development with joint funding.

– For partnerships to function optimally, it is crucial that need owner participates in both the design and use of the results, says Daniel Johansson, Chief Analyst at Vinnova.

More common strategies and clearer frameworks are needed

The analysis shows that Swedish R&I financiers should strengthen their work to promote the participation of stakeholders. This applies both to how the partnerships themselves are implemented and how national research and innovation policy is otherwise designed.

Several clear examples of how authorities outside the circle of R&I financiers have benefited from partnerships in various ways are also highlighted in the analysis. In order for this value creation to be even more powerful, Swedish authorities need to become better at developing joint policy strategies, where the role of R&I is clarified.

The analysis also shows how Swedish actor-driven programme have in several cases contributed to creating added value by strengthening Swedish participation in partnerships in various ways. There is also more to be done here in clarifying the framework for their funding for partnerships. Funds for actor-driven programs constitute a considerable part of Vinnova's total appropriation budget.

Partnerships drive European cooperation, but there is room for improvement

The partnerships are also an important international contact point for employees at the participating Swedish authorities. The experiences built up here are also valuable outside the individual partnerships. These contact points arise particularly clearly within the co-financed partnerships, where national authorities have a special responsibility for implementation.

The analysis also points to the need to simplify implementation, especially within the co-financed partnerships. More uniform formats for applications and reporting, as well as better data coordination, would provide simpler implementation and a better overview of participation. Sweden should push for this, both within the EU and nationally.

It also appears that Swedish FoI actors participate to a lower degree than those of several comparable countries in project within several of the institutionalized and co-programmed partnerships. Further analysis is needed here. One aspect that is highlighted is how domestic project coordinators seem to contribute to increasing participation in co-programmed partnerships in several countries with similar conditions to Sweden.

Finally, the analysis shows that more comprehensive and systematic analyses of Sweden's participation in the partnerships, as well as in EU initiatives in research and innovation in general, are needed. This applies to both follow-up of project portfolios and in-depth analyses of strategically important issues.