A Review of the
S&T Agreement between
the European Union & the Republic of Korea
Research and Innovation
EUR 25829 EN
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Research and Innovation Directorate D – International cooperation Unit D1 – Policy coordination, EFTA and enlargement countries, Russia, Asia and Pacific Contact: Pierrick Fillon European Commission B-1049 Brussels E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]
A Review of the S&T Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Korea Prof. Bernard BOBE and Dr Patrick CREHAN
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation International Cooperation
EUR 25829 EN
EUROPE DIRECT is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union Freephone number (*):
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed
LEGAL NOTICE Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of the following information. The views expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission. More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu). Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2013 ISBN 978-92-79-28759-6 doi 10.2777/72449 © European Union, 2013 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. Cover Image © Patrick Crehan, 2012
Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................. 9 Table of Reviewers’ Recommendations .................................................................. 10 SECTION 1: GENERAL INTRODUCTION ......................................................................... 13 1.1 The Purpose of the S+T Agreement ................................................................. 13 1.2 The Interest for Europe of S+T Cooperation with South Korea ............................. 13 1.3 The FTA and other Agreements between the EU and South Korea ........................ 15 1.4 Scope and Content of the S+T Agreement with the EU ....................................... 16 SECTION 2: AN OVERVIEW OF THE SYSTEM FOR S+T COOPERATION ............................... 18 2.1 The Korean S+T System ................................................................................ 18 2.2 The Positioning of EU Member States............................................................... 22 2.3 S+T Cooperation between Korea and the EU .................................................... 23 2.4 The Evolution of S+T Orientation in the EU and South Korea............................... 24 2.5 A SWOT Analysis of the Relationship ............................................................... 26 2.6 Stalled Efforts and Set-Backs ......................................................................... 27 SECTION 3: RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................ 29 3.1 Mechanisms for Realizing Policy Objectives ....................................................... 30 3.1.1 Finding the Right Channels for Communication ............................................... 30 3.1.2 Deepening Cooperation Based on a Long Term Thinking .................................. 30 3.1.3 Making Better use of the BILATs and ERANETs ............................................... 31 3.1.4 Joint Initiatives and wider use of Variable Geometry Instruments ...................... 33 3.1.5 Making Better Use of Mobility Programs ........................................................ 34 3.1.6 Making Better Use of the Eureka Initiative ..................................................... 37 3.1.7 Improving the Mutual Visibility of the EU and Korean S+T Systems ................... 37 3.2 Policy Approach and Context .......................................................................... 39 3.2.1 Information Sharing ................................................................................... 39 3.2.2 Foresight .................................................................................................. 40 3.2.3 Policy Learning, Evaluation and Impact Assessment ........................................ 41 3.3 Areas of Opportunity for Future Cooperation ..................................................... 41 ANNEX 1: THE POSITIONING OF THE EU MEMBER STATES .............................................. 43 Annex 1.1 Denmark ........................................................................................... 43 Annex 1.2 France ............................................................................................... 44 Annex 1.3 Germany ........................................................................................... 45 Annex 1.4 United Kingdom .................................................................................. 46 Annex 1.5 Other Member States such as Sweden and Italy ...................................... 47 ANNEX 2 OVERVIEW OF COOPERATION DATA ............................................................... 48 Annex 2.1 Marie Curie ........................................................................................ 48 Annex 2.2 FP7 ................................................................................................... 48 Annex 2.3 EUREKA and EUROSTARS ..................................................................... 50 Annex 2.4 Korean Programs ................................................................................ 52 Annex 2.5 BILAT and ERANET projects of the CAPACITIES Programme ...................... 53 ANNEX 3: THE FIVE QUESTIONS OF THE EXPERT TERMS OF REFERENCE .......................... 56 ANNEX 4: BASIC DATA FOR INFORMATION SHARING ..................................................... 61 ANNEX 5: MAIN REFERENCE DOCUMENTS .................................................................... 62
List of Acronyms
Global Green Growth Forum
A European network of organisations of and for people aged 50+
The French Agence Nationale de la Recherche
A project to promote BI-LAT S+T cooperation between the EC and non EU country
A ministerial department of the UK government dealing with Business, Innovation and Skills
The Federal Ministry of Education and Research in Germany
The Geneva based European Centre for Nuclear research
The Community Innovation Program
The French Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
A Programme of the FP7 People initiative for the Regional, National and International mobility programmes
The Technical University of Denmark
The European Commission
The European Design Innovation Initiative
European Institute of Technology
Europe Korea Forum
European Patent Office
European Research Area
A network involving EU funding agencies intended to structure the ERA. The term is used interchangeably with any FP7 funded project intended to develop such a network. Already about 60 ERANETs have been funded under FP7
European Commission's information platform on European, national and regional research systems and policies
European Research Council
European Space Agency
European Technology Platforms
Electronics and Communication Research Institute
European Atomic Energy Agency
European portal for the mobility of researchers
An European industry oriented research initiative involving 41 countries
A joint programme between the FP and EUREKA
The EU Framework Program for R+D
The 7th FP from 2007 to 2013
Free Trade Agreement
Europe initiative for a global satellite navigation system
The KOTRA ‘Global Alliance Partnership Series’ programme
Gross Domestic Product
Gross Domestic Expenditure on Research and Development
Global Green Growth Initiative, also Global Green Growth Institute
The Russian GNSS
Global market-oriented technology development program
Global navigation satellite system
Global Partnership Program
Global Positioning System
The electrical distribution network
The ‘Global Research Laboratory’ programme run by the NRF
The ‘Global Research Network’ programme run by the NRF
German Institute for Heavy Ion Research
Horizon 2020, the European Framework Programme for Research and Innovation for the period 2014 to 2020
The Marie-Curie programme
The Institute for Basic Science, a Korean network of basic science institutes
Information and Communication Technology
International Energy Agency
Intellectual Property Right
The ‘International Research Staff Exchange Scheme’ of the Marie-Curie programme
International Organization for Standardization
International Space Station
Information Society Technologies Advisory Group
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor
ISO Transport Service on TCP/IP Joint Programming Initiative
Joint Research Centre
Joint EU-ROK Science and Technology Committee
Joint Technology Initiative
Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology
An FP financed project to advance EU-Korea S+T Cooperation
Korea Institute for Advancement of Technology
Korea Institute of Construction & Transportation Technology
Korea Institute of Science and Technology Evaluation and Planning
Korean Institute of Science & Technology Information
Korea Polar Research Institute
A horizontal ERANET to develop a scientific cooperation network between the ERA and the Republic of Korea
An EC financed project to stimulate and facilitate the participation of European researchers in Korean R+D programs
Korea Trade-Investment Promotion Agency
Ministry of Education, Science and Technology
Ministry of Knowledge Economy
Ministry for Land Transport and the Marine affairs
Member States of the European Union
Member State Programs
The US National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Contact Point
A Korean programme for Needs-Driven Technology Development
The US National Institute of Health
National Research Foundation
The Korean National Science and Technology Council
Overseas Development Assistance (United Nations)
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
French National Innovation Agency
Office of Strategic Planning
Patent Cooperation Treaty
Public-Private Partnership, also Public-Public Partnership
Research and Development
Republic of Korea
Science and Technology
European Strategic Energy Technology Plan
Strategic Forum for International Cooperation
Small and Medium Enterprise
An electrical distribution grid managed using advanced ICT
Analysis of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats
Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol
Terms of Reference
United States of America
Variable Geometry Instrument. This refers to a set of mechanisms for realising joint initiatives involving the funding agencies of member states that have a shared interest and willingness to jointly invest, not necessarily all member states and not necessarily
Technical Research Institute of Finland
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
World Intellectual Property Organization
World Trade Organization
The Broader Context for EU-Korea S+T Cooperation
Becoming the eleventh largest economy in less than three decades thanks to innovation, Korea strongly values the role of research and innovation as an engine for growth. Having spent more than €10 billion on R&D in 2010 alone, Korea has expressed its ambition to become the world’s seventh power in science and technology by 2025.
This situation and the fact that Korea is the only Asian country so far to have a running Free Trade Agreement with the EU1 sets expectations for S+T cooperation at a high level. The EU is South Korea’s second trading partner and its biggest source of foreign direct investment. Recognizing that Korea is a rapidly growing economy, President José Manuel Barroso speaking at the European Council in October 2012, stressed that Korea is for Europe a source of immediate growth if it tackles access to government procurement, the protection of IPR and a commitment to sustainable development.
Against this background, the S&T Agreement entered into force with South Korea in 2007. Korea also has agreements with ITER and Euratom, as well as with CERN and EUREKA – a European network supporting market-oriented industrial research- underline the potential for cooperation. Europeean scientists therefore value South Korea for its unique S&T capabilities. European businesses has established numerous subsidiaries in South Korea. They value its highly capable human resources, its respect for contract law and the strong protection for intellectual property rights that Korea provides.
Slow Progress but Hope for the Future
Although South Korea takes part in the Framework Programme, the level of cooperation we observe is far below what one would expect by comparison with Japan or the US. Given the importance of Korea as a business and trading partner, given the magnitude of its ambition and resources in science and technology, deeper cooperation is desirable. Achieving this however will require a qualitative change in how the EU and South Korea work together in future.
Opportunities clearly exist to link S&T cooperation with major challenges and key technologies to support broader policy agendas of the EU or its member states. Oppurtunities exist for S&T cooperation to support the Free Trade Agreement, for example via open innovation and the development of industrial clusters, - areas where Germany is currently pursuing initiatives.Opportunities exist to realise the goal of Global Green Growth, an area - where Denmark and the UK already work with South Korea. Opportunities also exist in relatuion to the challenge of an Ageing Society. This has been the subject of a recent agreement between Korea and Sweden.
The agreement came into force in 2011. EU exports to South Korea that year were €32.4B in goods and €7.5B in services, whereas imports to the EU from South Korea amounted to €36.1B and €4.5B respectively. 9
The Need for a New Way Forward
Until now however the overall approach to developing S+T cooperation with South Korea has been at best ad-hoc and opportunistic. A more strategic approach based on a long term vision and jointly agreed goals would better serve mutual interests. We recommend the development of a roadmap for EU-Korea S+T cooperation with a three to five year time horizon. The execution of such a roadmap will require much better use of available programs and mechanisms in both Korea and Europe than has happened in the past. Success will require greater reciprocity in terms of the mutual opening of programmes, the facilitation of access to key partners and the sharing of relevant information. The implementation of the roadmap should lead over time to the establishment of Joint Initiatives2 on important themes of mutual interest - jointly funded, jointly managed and jointly coordinated. The following table outlines a set of eleven recommendations on how to achieve this. The recommendations are structured under three main pillars of areas, mechanisms and policies.
Table of Reviewers’ Recommendations
Apply a long term anticipatory approach to EU-Korea S+T cooperation.
Base cooperation on a 3 to 5 year ROADMAP developed interactively with stakeholders, updated regularly and whose progress is monitored with the help of the SFIC3, EU member states and the Joint Committee
Focus efforts on specific areas linked to broader EU policy agendas: The Free Trade Agreement for example on
pre-normative and regulatory research in nano-safety, food traceability, IP and procurement Industrial Cooperation based on cluster initiatives involving large and SMEs EU and Korean companies addressing issues such as IP in an open & transparent way Societal Challenges such as Green Growth and Ageing Key Enabling Technologies for example in robotics, space and internet security… Move towards more ambitious long term collaboration commensurate with the advanced nature of EU and Korean S+T
Use BILAT & ERANET mechanisms to support the
development of the roadmap and intensify communication with the SFIC, the Joint Committee and relevant bodies in Korea Engage with all organisations that need to be involved for successful roadmap implementation, for example EU research programmes, EU member states and Korean laboratories, industry, financing bodies and agencies Ensure the early stage involvement of relevant actors Use BILAT and ERANET mechanisms such as those
piloted in the KORANET project to identify and initiate integration projects, some of which may involve other third countries. Work towards EU-NIH type of arrangements to implement the mutual opening of programs. Where possible include Korean partners in EU joint initiatives, clusters and networks in line with roadmap priorities Apply the principle of reciprocity to include EU actors in relevant Korean clusters, networks and initiatives
Implementation can be supported by the use of Joint
Initiatives or other instruments such as ETPs, JTIs, JPs, PPPs4…
These include joint calls, coordinated calls, twinning initiatives, project-to-project, network-to-network and agency-to-agency cooperation, as well as participation in variable geometry instruments such a ETPs, JITs, JPs…
3 The Strategic Forum for International S+T Cooperation… 4
These refer to European Technology Platforms (ETPs), Joint Technology Initiatives (JTIs), Joint Programs (JPs), Public-Private-Partnerships and Public-Public-Partnerships (PPPs)… 10
systems, on a limited number of main themes…
These can build on existing efforts at EU, EU
member state (MS) and Korean level, existing MSKR, and EU-KR, multilateral and global initiatives…
Support the implementation of the roadmap based on: The mutual opening of programs, By extending the existing system of National
Contact Points or NCPs with a reciprocal network of European NCPs for Korean programs. The current network is a network of experts in Korea that promote EU programs. This should be extended by adding a network in Europe of NCPs for Korean programs…
In developing S+T cooperation move the focus from “matching partners” to “structuring collaboration”
The roadmap shows where to focus efforts, but implementation needs to be prepared by developing appropriate partnerships …
Move the focus of efforts to promote mobility from “making contact between researchers” to establishing “durable institutional collaboration”
The extended NCP network would attend key events in Korea, make contact with key laboratories and industrial players in Korea and closely follow the progress of Korean programs.
This could be financed by: Expert contracts ERANET and BILAT mechanisms Policy oriented mobility initiatives for example under
the Marie-Curie COFUND action whereby the EU cofinances national, regional and international mobility programs. Use BILAT, ERANET and mobility programs such as IRSES and IAPP5, COFUND and EURAXESS6 as well as ERC fellowships to support the development of institutional arrangements between EU and Korean actors that contribute to the implementation of the Roadmap, based on joint initiatives in education, research and innovation:
3.1.3 & 3.1.5
Shared facilities such as joint laboratories to
support sustainable mobility, mutual access to test beds and incubators… Joint projects based on reciprocal access to EU and Korean funding mechanisms… Joint Initiatives based on co-financing and joint coordination…
Devote additional resources to identifying appropriate counterparts in the Korean system not just in the MEST and MKE but when appropriate in the ministries dealing with environment, health, agriculture
The Joint Committee could be used as a channel for identifying these actors and obtaining commitment at the appropriate level.
Improve information sharing among policy makers. From an EU point of view there is a lack of knowledge on Korean programmes and Korean policies and a lack of accountability in the mutual opening of programmes/initiatives.
Use BILAT and ERANET actions to make sure that the relevant data is available to support the work of the EC, the Joint Committee and SFIC. The scheme provided in annex 4 of this report is a starting point.
Increase the mutual visibility of EU and Korean centres of excellence…
The extended NCP network can contribute. It is useful to consider a “Destination Europe/Korea”
style initiative based on lessons learned in working with the US. Overall increase participation of ROK under the EUREKA individual projects, EUREKA Clusters, Eurostars
Increase the use of the Eureka initiative and the integration of SMEs in the global economy
Use H2020 to support bottom-up schemes that build on the experience of initiatives such as EUREKA to increase collaboration involving EU and ROK SMEs At appropriate level call for reciprocity opening of SMEsROK programs in particular technological clusters
These actions of the Marie-Curie mobility program with a strong institutional dimension
A jobs market initiative to support the mobility of researchers 11
For Europeans Increase EC financial7 support to SME’s in Eurostars and ease mechanisms Finance EUREKA individual projects &Clusters under H2020
Use participative Foresight and Roadmapping techniques as well as studies to align S+T cooperation with other EU policies and develop the constituencies needed to support high impact actions
Provide resources for policy learning, evaluation and impact assessment
Address the implementation of reciprocal measures
based on mutual opening of programs to support joint initiatives. Fund a study that establishes clear links between future EU-Korea trade and the H2020 research agenda Establish clear links between research, innovation, development and deployment for example in societal challenges such as Green Growth Look for natural synergies based on multilateral approaches to hard problem such as “Ageing” which could involve US, JP, CN, ROK as well as the EU Support policy research on:
Research exchange on methodologies Joint ex-ante / ex-post evaluation Joint impact assessment
Eurostars is currently funded about 100M€ for 2008-2013. 12
SECTION 1: GENERAL INTRODUCTION
In 2006 the European Community and the Government of the Republic of South Korea concluded an S+T agreement, which became effective in 2007. Both parties agreed to carry out a review of progress achieved once the agreement had been in place for five years.
1.1 The Purpose of the S+T Agreement
EU S+T agreements with third countries such as South Korea are part of a range of tools that support the development of European competitiveness. In principle the S+T agreement can contribute to this goal in many ways. It can support the quest by European institutions for global excellence in research, education and innovation by allowing them to join forces with global centres of excellence to achieve the critical mass needed to address difficult challenges. It can also be used to reinforce or support policies which contribute to the overall competitiveness of Europe. For example policies on trade, energy, the environment and climate change, as well as entrepreneurship, innovation and the development of industrial clusters. They can help develop new market opportunities for small and medium sized European businesses or to address the research and innovation needs of European business investing in Korea, as well as Korean businesses investing in Europe.
In principle Horizon 2020 will attempt to use the S+T agreement to improve EU competitiveness by focusing on important social and economic challenges, and by supporting the integration of programs that employ interventions spanning education, research and innovation.
A number of arrangements have been put in place to support the implementation of the S+T agreement with South Korea. The main structure is the JSTC often simply referred to as “the Joint Committee”. Another important structure is the SFIC – the Strategic Forum on International S+T Cooperation. Various working groups also play an important role in helping the EU achieve the benefits made possible by formal government to government S+T cooperation.
1.2 The Interest for Europe of S+T Cooperation with South Korea
South Korea is already an important part of the lives of many Europeans. It is a top global provider of a wide range of consumer electronic goods - mobile phones, tablets, cameras, video recorders and TV sets. These are produced by companies such as Samsung and LG. Companies such as Hyundai and Daewoo are important producers of cars and other vehicles. Perhaps less well known is the fact that South Korea is a major exporter of construction services. The PETRONAS towers in Kuala Lumpur for example, once the tallest building in the world, were built by a Samsung subsidiary. Korea has a huge shipbuilding industry. The largest liquefied natural gas carrier in the world was also built by a Samsung subsidiary.
The great industrial groups of South Korea have made extraordinary progress and now account for a large part of Korean industrial output. They are global players and have extensive international networks. Their subsidiaries in Europe give employment to many European citizens. They employ research laboratories in Europe and sub-contract work to European centres of excellence such as the DTU of Denmark, Fraunhofer of Germany, and Manchester University of the UK. They are present in 13
EU industrial clusters such Cosmetic Valley a region close to Paris that includes the cities of Orleans and Chartres. Their suppliers include many European companies both large and small. The Korean S+T system has served them well, and the dream of a typical graduate from a top Korean institution such as KAIST is to become the employee of a giant group like Samsung.
Now that these conglomerates have gone global, they create fewer new jobs in Korea than they did in the past. Their growth is mainly due to expansion outside of Korea. The attention of the Korean government has therefore shifted towards the creation of jobs at home based on the success of new companies, and not just based on the success of the chaebols. South Korea is now intent on developing the infrastructure needed to support its “growth engines”, for example clusters, science parks, incubators and venture capital, as well as the global knowledge networks needed to feed into this. In parallel with this it has started to develop its own capacity for creative research in basic science and new technologies. It has set its sights on recognition as a global leader in basic science by 2020 and has set itself the goal of being counted among the top 7 nations for scientific output by then. One of the main initiatives to achieve this has been the establishment of the IBS or Institute for Basic Science. This in effect will be a network of new Korean institutions run by scientists with global reputations each endowed with visionary scientific goals and the funds necessary to achieve them. The IBS is still in its infancy but over the next ten years it could emerge as a major feature of the global landscape for basic research.
In the last decade or so Korea has also emerged as a cultural force. It is a major exporter of films and TV dramas. It exports popular and classical music, not just to Asia but to the US as well. This summer a song called Gangnam Style sung in Korean by a South Korean rapper called PSY, became a global sensation making the charts also in Europe. Earlier this year during the Queen Elizabeth Music Competition, the Bozar cinema in Brussels screened a documentary film called The Korean Musical Mystery exploring the reasons why South Korean musicians now feature so prominently in many of the top musical competitions in the world. Korean food is tremendously popular in the US and the promotion of Korean culture is now an element in its development as an economic, cultural and diplomatic power.
In terms of international diplomacy, South Korea has recently emerged as a leader on green development issues. It promotes a vision of growth that emphasizes resource efficiency, quality of life and respect for the environment. It launched the Global Green Growth Initiative also known as 3GI, intended to boost the growth of developing economies in a sustainable manner. This has earned the support of EU member states such as Denmark and the UK. It is now an international organization with head office in Seoul. Denmark has since launched a sister initiative in partnership with 3GI called the Global Green Growth Forum or 3GF, which focuses on financing. Korea has taken a lead on other aspects of development including the UN backed Busan Global Partnership on Aid Effectiveness. These inter-related, mutually reinforcing initiatives are part of a larger plan for Korea to become a global leader in green technologies, a market they consider to be worth as much as €2Trillion per year by 2020. Korea plans to commit as much as 2% of annual GDP for the “green reorganization” of its economy.
There are opportunities for Europe in all of these activities. The European Union and its member states are already a part of this and may play a greater role in future.
1.3 The FTA and other Agreements between the EU and South Korea
Arguably one of the Europe’s biggest and most ambitious basic science initiatives is CERN just outside Geneva. The goal of CERN is to understand the nature of matter on the most fundamental scale. After many years of informal collaboration, South Korea signed an agreement with CERN in 2006 and has since created a number of dedicated laboratories in Korea to support its programme of collaborative activities. Korea is a commercial producer of small scale nuclear reactors and has collaboration agreements with EURATOM and with ITER; the EU led international initiative to develop commercially viable energy based on nuclear fusion, based at Cadarache in the South of France.
Korea has bilateral S+T agreements with a number of EU member states, for example with Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden and the United Kingdom. One of the more recent bilateral S+T agreements between South Korea and an EU member state is the agreement with Denmark. This was signed in May 2012 and is referred to as the “Green Alliance”. It was welcomed by the Copenhagen Cleantech Cluster as opening the door to Danish participation in Korean research programs, which if managed correctly could provide business opportunities for the Danish green tech sector.
Since then Sweden concluded an agreement with South Korea on the development of medicines for Alzheimer’s disease and for cooperation on the design of “age friendly” goods. This agreement consists of a memorandum of understanding between health ministries. The goal is to increase cooperation between the Swedish and Korean pharmaceutical industry on the development of treatments for dementia, as well as cooperation on issues such as low birth rates and eventually the whole range of health and welfare related issues. This is very much in line with EU policies on ageing and the positions of the AGE-Platform which has developed and promotes a political vision of “A Europe for All Ages”.
Agreements also exist at regional level, for example with the region of Baden Württemberg. In addition to national and regional S+T agreements, there exist an increasing number of bottom-up agreements linking EU and Korean research laboratories, research institutions and universities.
In the course of this review, one of the reviewers met the owner of a European design company based in Seoul. The owner was very satisfied with his business and how it was growing. One of the member states’ experts interviewed in the course of this review, mentioned “design” as an area for growth in exports to Korea saying that “we are leaving a lot of money on the table as regards export opportunities”. Design is one of the areas opened up by the FTA on the basis of freer trade in services. Design in all its forms is an important element of innovation. It is an essential ingredient in facing down the challenge of an ageing society. It is also central to achieving important goals in policy areas such as accessible ICT. Design has not featured very prominently in EU discussions about research and innovation and it is not clear if it will find a place in Horizon 2020, but a recent initiative launched by the European Commission to strengthen the connection between design, innovation and competitiveness might change that. The European Design Innovation Initiative or EDII was launched in January 2011 and is hosted by the Aalto University in Finland. It is a response to the view of the Commission that user-centered and market-driven design will play an increasingly important role in tackling challenges associated with climate change, ageing of population and the competitiveness of European countries.
Korea is the only Asian country with which the EU has both a Free Trade Agreement and an S+T Agreement. Over the next 4 years it is expected that this will lead to the elimination of barriers to trade 15
on more than 98% of industrial goods exchanged between the EU and South Korea. It will create new opportunities for trade in telecommunications, automotive products, electronics, pharmaceutical goods and medical devices. It will have removed barriers to trade in almost all agricultural produce, in services such as construction, legal and business services as well as design and engineering. According to reports by DG Trade, the agreement will lead to the opening up of important markets for public procurement, allowing EU companies to bid for contracts in excess of €17M and requiring the Korean administration to recognize as SMEs in Korea, all companies that are recognized as SMEs in Europe.
DG Enterprise considers that there are opportunities to increase exports to South Korea by as much as €40B per year by 2020. It provides support to European companies interested in entering the Korean market via its ETP or Executive Training Program and its EU Gateway Program.
KOTRA the Korean inward investment agency, places a lot of emphasis on the role of research in multinational supply chains. They observe that foreign companies in search of places in which to invest are often interested in sourcing technologies, setting up laboratories or getting access to research infrastructure. KOTRA runs two programs with a focus on the research and innovation needs of foreign investors which are of direct relevance for European businesses, in which EU companies such as BASF, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, Solvay and Merck have already been involved:
The GAPS or Global Alliance Partnership Series The GPP or Global Partnership Program
The GAPS program helps foreign multinationals that want to invest in South Korea. The GPP program helps foreign companies that want to engage with South Korea on the basis of an open innovation model. EU companies that have benefited from this program include
1.4 Scope and Content of the S+T Agreement with the EU
Broadly speaking the agreement refers to mutual access to programs on an equitable basis as well as the timely sharing of relevant information. It requires that both South Korea and the European Union encourage, develop and facilitate cooperative activities in S+T based on the following principles:
Mutual and equitable contributions and benefits Mutual access to S+T programs, projects and facilities Timely exchange of relevant information
Article III of the S & T agreement refers to direct cooperative activities that may include the exchange of information on activities, policies, practices, laws and regulations concerning research and development.
Annex I of the agreement clarifies that not only that the European Union afford access to Korean organizations and individuals to the EU program, but that legal entities established in the Community may participate in the research and development projects or programs funded by the Korean Government, in accordance with their rules and regulations.
It is very hard to estimate to what extent there really is a mutual opening of programmes. There is a lack of transparency on the Korean side and an unwillingness to share information. This is an issue that needs to be explicitly addressed in future if EU-Korea S+T collaboration is to achieve its full potential.
Other than that the agreement is very broad. It designates a Joint Committee to follow up on the implementation of the agreement. The EU and Korea is free to decide the themes and mechanism to apply.
Intellectual property is an issue of considerable importance for S+T cooperation and its careful management is essential for the export of research services.
The issue of intellectual property is addressed in the S+T agreement. South Korea has a modern system for IPR protection. In general IPR is respected and enforceable through Korean courts. One of the main concerns of scientists working with partners funded from abroad and subject to rules that may differ from those in Europe, is the issue of ownership of IP created within the context of joint projects. As far as we know there were no problems enforcing the S&T agreement on these topics. Nobody during our interviews suggested that there were difficulties on these matters. Legal analysis is required to ensure that EU research programs (under FP7 and foreseen Horizon 2020) IPR obligations always remain fulfilled by Korea, especially considering their obligations as members of the WTO.
IP issues did arise in relation to Korea after it became an associate member of the EUREKA initiative. Korean legislation stipulated that “technologies which have been developed with financial support from the Korean Government require a licence if they are to be used outside the Republic of Korea.” This never lead to any lawsuits or challenges and the potential for conflict was removed when Korea made modifications to its legislation that exempted technologies created in the context of a EUREKA project from the application of this legislation.
There is a chapter of the FTA devoted to IP and the possibility of raising issues for treatment via regular EU-Korea related meetings. The FTA allows European law firms and consultancies to operate in South Korea and therefore to provide support to Europeans operating in the Korean marketplace on complex IP related issues.
SECTION 2: AN OVERVIEW OF THE SYSTEM FOR S+T COOPERATION
This section reviews elements of the organization of S+T in the EU and South Korea that are relevant for EU-Korea S+T cooperation as well as the mechanisms currently employed to support collaboration. A SWOT analysis is provided of the current situation based on the observations of the reviewers and in anticipation of future policy needs. This analysis distinguishes between factors that are under the management or control of EU actors and those that are under the influence of Korean actors. It concludes with a scenario for what an ideal approach might look like, ideal from a European perspective in that it permits an optimal usage of the S+T agreement as a tool to promote European competitiveness. Clearly, any such ideal will differ substantially from what is feasible in practice, but it provides a bearing and serves as motivation for the recommendations provided in section 3.
2.1 The Korean S+T System
In 2011 ERAWATCH published a report on the Korean Innovation system. This gives quite a comprehensive overview of the system and can easily be consulted online. More detailed information is available via the NTIS or National Science and Technology Information Service.
South Korea implements an S+T driven model of growth. Korean GERD has grown at a rate of 9.3% a year over the past decade. The S+T basic plan aims to increase GERD to 5% of GDP by the end of 2012. It is now 4.7% of GDP, far surpassing the level of investment of most EU member states. Korean companies also invest heavily in research. Samsung for example is second only to IBM in terms of patenting. They invest in research in the EU and contract research out to the best EU research laboratories such as those of the German Fraunhofer Institute and the Danish DTU. Figures for GERD in 2010 show that:
72% of this funded by industry 27% by government and only 0.2% from abroad.
In what is known as the “577 Initiative”8, Korea intends to:
Increase spending on research to 5% of GERD, Focus on 7 areas, Become one of the top 7 S+T powers in the world by 2020.
There is no doubt about the commitment of South Korea to the use of S+T as an engine for growth. Past efforts were very top down or government driven. International cooperation was used mainly as a tool for acquiring the technology and know-how needed by Korean industry. It has been very successful in pursuit of its goals. Over the last few decades it has acquired the ability to build and export nuclear power stations, design build and launch small satellites into low earth orbit, not to mention consumer electronics, cars trucks and electric cars, high speed trains, fuel cells and turbines for wind-energy. Korea is an impressive machine for transforming S+T research into business and it should surprise no-one if this continues.
The S+T Basic Plan of the Lee Myung Bak administration 18
Korea now wants to move onto a new phase of development based on leadership as a primary producer of global scientific knowledge and not simply a fast follower or clever initiator of commercial applications based on ideas created elsewhere. Europe should organize and deepen cooperation between EU and South Korea as it has been doing with others industrialized and fast growing countries. Research funding in Korea is mainly concentrated in two ministries • •
The Ministry for Education Science and Technology (MEST) where research programs are run by the National Research Foundation (NRF), and The Ministry of the Knowledge Economy (MKE) where much of its funding is channelled to industry and academia via KIAT9 and KETEP10
These are not the only entities involved in the Korean research system, but they are the main ones with which the European Commission interacts for the implementation of the S+T agreement. Many other ministries are also involved in the funding of research, innovation, demonstration and deployment activities. The national roadmap for nanotechnology refers to five different ministries involved in its implementation. One of the key institutes involved in environment related businesses and technologies, is the Korea Environmental Industry & Technology Institute under the Ministry of the Environment. There are many organizations lying outside the sphere of influence of the MEST and the MKE, which play an important role in providing access to local industry, but making contact with these in a timely manner has been difficult. The recently reformed National Science and Technology Commission (NSTC) attached to the office of the President, plays a coordinating role in S+T policy implementation. However it is a small organization and takes an ‘arm’s length’ approach to coordination on issues that span different ministries. It does not have an international cooperation office, but is considering setting one up. Overall it has been hard for European actors to access the people they need in the Korean administration because of the cross cutting nature of the challenges they need to work on.
The Korean Model for the Development of S+T Collaboration
Korea systematically develops roadmaps for key research themes and generates detailed lists of keytechnologies necessary for the development of these domains. It then approaches international S+T partners with world class capabilities requesting cooperation on that topic. This is done at laboratory, region or national government level, whatever level is necessary to make contact and reach goals in a fast efficient manner. There is a preference for going right to the source, accessing know-how at the lowest level possible for faster results. In doing so Korea has great clarity of purpose and often directly finances the contribution of foreign research collaborators to procure the collaboration it deems necessary or useful.
Korea seems to approach cooperation with the EU in exactly the same way as it approaches cooperation with any of its other allies, for example the US, Japan, Germany, the UK, France, Denmark or Italy.
The Korean Institute for the Advancement of Technology which among other things manages the Korean participation to EUREKA
The Korean Institute for Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning which runs a number of energy related research programmes 19
In particular Korean partners do not seem to understand the specificity of EU programmes their role in the construction of the European Research Area for example, the role of Joint Initiatives or the concept of “variable geometry”. Korea seems to approach basic and applied research as well as innovation and entrepreneurship as totally separate activities rather than as part of a continuum, or as activities that are somehow related and need to eventually join-up for example through the involvement of companies, end-users and other types of stakeholders. This is an issue which will need to be addressed explicitly is useful progress is to be made on EU-Korea S+T in the context of the upcoming H2020.
Korean Programs Korea has many research programs run by different agencies. These are often small, experimental in nature and often very innovative. For example one of the MEST programs is dedicated to recruiting foreign research laboratories and helping them to set up in Korea. Another initiative focuses on unexploited intellectual property via a “patent clearing house” that makes use of unused intellectually property available to companies via a market mechanism.
The Korean R+D system is complex and changes quickly. It seems more entrepreneurial and less methodical than the EU system, which places a lot of emphasis on formal ex-ante and ex-post evaluation at project, program and policy level. Keeping up with available programs is challenging even for Korean scientists. The BILAT and ERANET projects KETSCAP, KORRIDOR and KORANET have helped maintain knowledge of who is doing what, but more effort is required really know what is going on.
Many initiatives that are listed as programmes are not programmes in the sense of being based on an open competition for the selecting of research projects on pre-defined themes. They are mechanisms for financing the operations of single actors. European actors have often benefited from these. The MEST for example runs programmes dedicated to the financing the Pasteur Institute in Korea, as well as joint laboratories in Korea involving the Fraunhofer and Max-Plank Institutes.
Korean programs seem to be run very efficiently and the system for providing matching funding for Korean partners in the Framework Programme works well. They differ in many aspects from EU programs, for example in terms of scope, timing, financing and flexibility. The time from launch of call to start of work can be as low as 3 months and usually less than 6 months. They include many innovative programs such as the NRF program to attract foreign research laboratories. A number of European organizations seem to have benefited from these programmes.
Performance of the Korean S+T System The EU27 innovation scoreboard shows that the US, Japan and South Korea have a performance lead over the EU 27. The European Union Innovation scoreboard from 2011 states that:
“South Korea is performing better than the EU27 in 7 indicators, in particular in R&D expenditure in the business sector and PCT patent applications (Figure 14). The EU27 has a performance lead in Doctorate degrees, Most-cited publications, and PCT patent applications in societal challenges and License and patent revenues from abroad.
Overall there is a clear performance lead in favour of South Korea and this innovation lead has been increasing up until 2010 and remained stable in 2011. South Korea has increased its lead in Tertiary education, R&D expenditure in the business sector PCT patents and Knowledge-intensive services exports.
The EU27 has increased its lead in most cited publications; the EU27 lead has decreased in PCT patents in societal challenges and License and patent revenues from abroad11”.
According to the last WIPO report12, worldwide patent activity increased by 4.9% between 2005 and 2006, mostly due to increased filings by applicants from China, the Republic of Korea and the United States of America. The total number of applications filed across the world in 2006 is estimated to be 1.76 million, representing a 4.9% increase from the previous year. Between 2005 and 2006, the number of filings worldwide by applicants from China, the Republic of Korea and the United States of America increased by 32.1%, 6.6% and 6.7% respectively.
Patent applicants tend to come from a relatively small number of countries of origin. For example, applicants from Japan, the United States of America, the Republic of Korea, Germany and China accounted for 76% of total patent filings in 2006. Chinese residents increased their share of total worldwide patent filings from 1.8% to 7.3% between 2000 and 2006, mostly due to increases in domestic patent filings.
The rise of Korea in the production of patents is illustrated by comparison with Germany of the number of patent filings as a share of world production.
Share of World Production
European Commission, http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/files/ius-2011_en.pdf, p. 21
2.2 The Positioning of EU Member States
An overview of collaboration between South Korea and EU member states is provided in Annex 1 for the case of Denmark, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy and Sweden.
It is important to note that these remarks are based on interviews. They are not intended to be exhaustive but to give an idea of what is going on with member states and motivate a discussion about how EU cooperation could add value to or complement these on-going efforts. There may be many other initiatives which we have not heard about. It has not been possible to obtain good data. This data seems to be distributed across many databases in many agencies and ministries and the task of gathering and collating this data has not yet been accomplished.
Each of the countries listed above - Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the UK and Sweden, all have formal S+T agreements with South Korea. Both France and Denmark are in the process of developing a dedicated strategy for cooperation with Korea.
In the case of Denmark there is already a very strong orientation towards green technologies, crystallized around the idea of Global Green Growth. Danish interest of course does not stop there. There is also interest in areas such as healthcare and welfare technologies. In the case of Germany there is potential interest on behalf of regions such as Baden Württemberg to develop cooperation in the area of industrial clusters. On the other hand at federal government level there is potential interest in specific areas for collaboration in areas such as green technologies, nano-safety, pharmaceuticals and open innovation. In the case of Sweden there is a big interest in the subject of Ageing from the point of view of the development of new drugs for Alzheimer’s and the design of more age friendly consumer products. In the case of France and the UK the level of cooperation has been quite broad covering many areas of science and technology ranging from ICT to high speed trains, nuclear energy and aerospace. Italy has strong collaboration with Korea in areas such as robotics.
Much of this collaboration is based on the establishment of joint research laboratories, with shared research and education programs as well as regular visits and the exchange of students or staff. Everyone interviewed was positive about cooperation with South Korea. All of those interviewed felt that S+T cooperation with South Korea should be increased, and that the European Commission had a role to play in developing this via the Framework Programmes and eventually via Joint Initiatives in a small number of targeted domains.
Many stressed the need to be more targeted or strategic about what we want from collaboration with South Korea and cautioned on the need to work harder on issues related to intellectual property. In Korea it is not an exaggeration to say that “science is business” and Korea is very efficient at creating, protecting and exploiting intellectual property. So if a European actor wants to protect an IP asset, it should take this seriously and invest the time and money necessary. This will become easier thanks to the FTA which allows foreign lawyers to set up shop in Korea and offer services that may be more accessible to European actors in Korea.
2.3 S+T Cooperation between Korea and the EU
International cooperation can be measured by the percentage of publications of scientists of one country, co-signed with scientists of other countries, and also by the number or patents.
In 2008 Korea represented 2.7% of total world publications (2.0% in 2003, rate of growth of 30%) ranking at the 11th position. The USA represented 27.4%, the five first European countries 22% (Germany, UK, France, Italy, and Spain), China 8.8% and Japan 6.8%.
World Scientific Production (2008) 30,0% 25,0% 20,0% 15,0% 10,0% 5,0% 0,0%
Source: Based on the Observatoire des Sciences et Techniques, Paris, 2010
The following graph gives data of co-publications for the USA, China, Japan and South Korea with the ten main partners in 2008. France, Germany and the UK are not represented as South Korea is not in their ten first partners. More of half of co-publications of Korean scientist are done with the USA. The two other main partners are Japan (17%) and China (12.6%). Three major European countries (France, Germany, UK) count for 16.8%, almost like with Japan.
Co-publications of S-K with (2008) 60,0% 50,0% 40,0% 30,0% 20,0% 10,0% 0,0%
Source : Observatoire des Sciences et Techniques, Paris, 2010
Until now, most Korean international S+T collaboration is with the US and Japan. This is understandable given its history, but disappointing given the size of the EU economy and the EU S+T system relative to these two countries.
Many in Europe have been surprised at the speed with which South Korea has developed in the past 5 to 10 years. Bibliometric studies performed in the context of the KORANET project clearly show how far it has come.
2.4 The Evolution of S+T Orientation in the EU and South Korea
In 2012, the year in which this review is carried out, Europe is on the eve of transition from FP7 to Horizon 2020. This is radical departure from past thinking about R+D, accompanied by a significant boost in funding. South Korea is also undergoing a major restructuring of its research, innovation and education system. It is in this emerging context that the next 5 years of cooperation between the EU and South Korea will take place. So it is useful to take stock of the major changes in orientation of our respective S+T systems and factor this evolution into our recommendations for the future.
South Korea Orientations
Focus on academic excellence Focuses on research with an economic or social purpose FP7 starts to integrate research and innovation via the CIP The SET plan integrates research and development with demonstration and deployment (R+DDD) The FP helps to structure EU research via the use of variable geometry instruments The EIT and the ERC are established The “flagship” concept is piloted to address hard problems requiring a long term commitment for success Design is recognized as important for innovation and an essential ingredient for tackling
Steadily increased funding for R+D Supports growth of chaebols Focus on short term gains and the acquisition of key technologies Develops roadmaps, lists of key technologies and identifies technology gaps, designs programs to fill these gaps… Combines bottom-up and top-down approaches… Many small experimental programs Emphasizes development of international network
MKE Focuses on the use of the EUREKA Initiative Seeks greater role as EUREKA policy strategy Adopts new IP legislation to enable participation Provides direct financing to European research entities
MEST Focuses on FP participation Runs a program for recruitment of EU research labs Provides direct financing to European research Starts international acquisition of talent for its IBS Target of 5% GERD
to Korea entities initiative
The Framework Programme and the Competitiveness Innovation Framework Programme are merged in a new H2020 concept H2020 integrates Research, Innovation and Higher Education H2020 themes shift from S+T domains to social and economic challenges RDI is systematically linked to competitiveness via other policy agendas There is increased use of variable geometry instruments The structuring function of the FP extends to International cooperation The ERC truly goes international Design assumes a role in H2020
Mixture of long and short term views Develop infrastructure for entrepreneurship Attend to needs of SMEs/Start-ups Aims at achieving global leadership in Greentech Takes leadership on development of certain networks Develop basic research and decrease research bureaucracy Increase Korea-China-Japan S+T links
MKE Expansion of participation in the EUREKA Initiative Focus on “growth engines” Continues to encourage acquisition of key technologies
MEST top 7
Focus on global S+T leadership aiming to be in the Focus on development of 7 science systems Fully deploys the IBS Aims at Nobel prizes Establish one of a kind “accelerator” program Implement a cluster policy
2.5 A SWOT Analysis of the Relationship
Issues that the EU controls
Issues that ROK controls
Home of the Nobel prize Many centres of S+T excellence Extensive, easily identifiable networks of excellence… Many cooperation tools (FP, EIT, ERC, MSPs, VGIs …) HQ of many key ROK suppliers (Bosch, Merck, A. Liq.) Scientific and industrial leadership in many areas World’s biggest and most powerful trade block Leader in many global S+T initiatives (CERN, ITER, GRID…)
Industrial power already deeply embedded in Europe… Highly diversified economy, adventurous consumer society Cultural powerhouse especially in US and Asia Good IP protection Asian logistic hub of growing importance… Strong R+D orientation of KOTRA programs… Singular policy focus on growth engines, clear roadmaps… EU companies in ROK happy with environment… Lack of a global strategy for South Korea… Top down decision making process Caught unawares by 50 yrs. of rapid Korean Double or multiple point of entry (MEST, growth… MKE,…) Low knowledge of Korean industrial and Difficulty developing cooperation beyond social evolution… MEST organizations … Low linkages in S+T compared to Japan and Little experience of Korean researchers in the US … multilateral cooperation Low awareness of areas of Korean Language barriers… excellence… Hierarchical, command and control culture… Low bargaining power except in trade… Lack of transparency, silos and Low follow-though on EU S+T advances with communication… innovation… Cultural difference to be understood… Especially in building mid-size companies… Focus on short term (commercialization of research, but shifting)… Chaebols are creating jobs abroad Use S+T cooperation (H2020 i.e. R+I+) to Pursue S+T links in areas with unique ROK support: capability The FTA (nano safety, food and drug safety…) R-learning, social robotics, machine ethics … Ageing policy (Europe for All Ages, U-City EU+ROK+JP+CN)… Exploit momentum created by launch of the Deeper integration of EU suppliers in Korean IBS supply chains… Exploit opportunity for triangular coop. based Climate change (3GI etc) adding value to MS on 3GI efforts… Efforts to develop SME and cluster Triangular cooperation on developing infrastructure… economies… Needs to balance US & Japan historical links in S&T with European Union & Member States Missed opportunities through lack of Ambition to become the world No. 1 in Green preparation based on clear, continuous strategy and Tech markets implementation process Ambition to become a world leader in S+T Failing to use S+T to support competitiveness Ability and willingness to invest in S+T for of EU industry, other EU policies, create jobs and growth… stimulate growth Excellent for commercialization of research Failure to exploit a window of opportunity… Excellent at strategy and execution… Failure to match Korean ambition and drive… Failure to match Korean ability in IP management… Failure to match its excellence at turning S+T into business…
2.6 Stalled Efforts and Set-Backs
Despite the potential interest and high promise the history of efforts by the EU to develop cooperation with Korea has been plagued by stalled efforts and set-backs.
EU-Korea S+T cooperation is overseen by a joint steering committee called the JCST consisting of high level officials from the EU and South Korea. This “joint committee” as it is also known, meets formally once every two years. The meetings are attended by officials at the level of Director General or Commissioner on the EU side, and at the level of Minister on the side of South Korea. At such meetings, the top officials review progress, approve a roadmap for future S+T cooperation and encourage everyone to work together to make this happen. Although this gives a strong signal to all relevant actors on where to focus efforts, the whole process has not been effective until now.
At the last meeting of the joint committee, the members approved a roadmap that referred to ICT, nanotechnology, renewable energies and the mobility of researchers as areas of common interest in which to deepen cooperation. This led to the organization of thematic workshops involving EU and Korean experts, both in the EU and in South Korea. The workshops were attended by heads of unit on the EC side, hoping to launch concrete thematic initiatives with their Korean counterparts. This has proven far more difficult than expected.
Efforts to develop cooperation in domains identified in the existing roadmap have floundered for a variety of reasons. In some cases this is because the initial definition of the area of common interest is far too vague. It is not clear from the roadmap if the “common interest” is in
High-risk blue-skies research, Innovation-related technical problem solving, Demonstrating new scientific and technical concepts, Exploring new business models, Opening up of new markets, Encouraging the creation of international supply chains or Stimulating the emergence of new industrial eco-systems.
Without timely insights of this nature efforts to bring together the right parties to plan future cooperation are doomed to failure. Efforts to obtain appropriate insights based for example on meetings with ISTAG for ICT or with a Working Group on nanotechnology have been beneficial but at best have led to limited progress. These are steps in the right direction but simply not enough to achieve the desired result. Given the overall low-level of linkages in terms of joint publications, mutual exchange of students in higher education, especially the exchange of graduate students between Korea and European Union, much more thorough preparation is required to achieve a higher level of mutually beneficial S+T cooperation. The roadmap approach is correct, but it needs to be deepened and enriched in a number of ways, before it can be effective. The promotion of collaboration needs to take account of the fact that the planning of cooperation requires not only a choice of disciplines, but an shared understanding of the value cooperation will create, as well as of the kind of collaboration required to achieve those goals. Depending on whether the goal is production of new scientific knowledge, increasing the competitiveness of European industrial eco-systems or making tangible progress in addressing complex societal challenges, the nature of collaboration and the way to achieve it will be very 27
different. Achieving any ambitious goal will require a combination of existing EU and Korean programs. It will require measures that go beyond basic research to include demonstration, participation in test-beds, the establishment of open living labs, all the way up to supply chain development, partnering opportunities, market access initiatives, access by SMEs to public procurement markets, access to incubators, industrial clusters and finance for business development.
If it has been difficult to develop meaningful S+T cooperation with South Korea over the last 5 years, it will become more difficult in the course of H2020, due to the importance given to societal challenges, the need to involve an increasingly diverse group of actors to ensure a high impact on industry and society, as well as the need to realize activities that range from scientifically risky longterm research, to commercially risky innovation, as well as the need to share resources on tasks that are too big for any single country to tackle on its own.
The two main partners for the EC in developing S+T cooperation are the MEST and the MKE. Overall research investment is split roughly 50-50 between agencies under the control of these two ministries. The MKE is close to industry and has been very effective in developing collaboration with the EU on the basis of the EUREKA initiative. The main interlocutor for the EC however has been MEST in particular the NRF its agency for research funding.
The main concern of the MEST is to build up the Korean science base. It effectively has no real links with industry, or at least none it is able to bring to the table with EU counterparts. It has no real mandate with respect to innovation. It has neither the time nor the resources to help EU actors connect with the full range of actors of the Korean economy required if the EU is to realize high impact projects in domains of importance for industry and society. The role of the NRF seems to be purely administrative and it is not the right port of entry for strategic dialogue on future programming.
Although the MKE in principle promises better access to Korean industry the issue does not stop there. The implementation of roadmaps on major societal challenges areas such as Green Growth or on Key Emerging Technologies such as nanotechnology, involve agencies and research institutes from many other ministries. Timely access to these actors is also needed, as well as transparency in their roles and their overall place in Korean thematic roadmaps, if the EU is to benefit from the relationship.
If the past is anything to go by the EU cannot achieve significant goals with respect to any of these domains by interacting with the MEST alone, or even with the MKE, it must have access to the full range of actors, or it will be limited to fulfilling a one-sided bargain with South Korea as the main beneficiary.
The development of a useful and feasible 3 to 5 year roadmap for EU-Korea cooperation must involve EU and Korean industrial stakeholders as well as any other key-stakeholders, and any other ministries as appropriate.
SECTION 3: RECOMMENDATIONS
The main weakness in the relationship so far is the generally weak overall level of interaction between EU and Korean institutions supporting research and innovation. These need to be systematically developed over the next five years. In parallel with this more care needs to be given to strategic dialogue between the EU and Korea. There is considerable potential for the EU and Korea to work together to make progress on hard societal challenges. Realizing this will requires a significance change to the way we work together. Merely intensifying the past approach will not yield results. The following diagram summarizes our recommendations for mechanisms that should be put in place. Over the next five years it is feasible in principle to arrive at a situation where the EU and South Korea collaborate for their mutual benefit on important joint initiatives - jointly planned, jointly managed and jointly financed.
This explained in more detail in the following sections. Our recommendations are regrouped under three main headings that deal with the mechanisms for realizing policy objectives, the overall policy approach and context, as well as areas of opportunity for future collaboration.
3.1 Mechanisms for Realizing Policy Objectives
This section addresses issues such as the development of the basic linkages needed for collaboration, the role of mobility and the visibility of EU organizations in Korea. It also addresses the nature of S+T collaboration and how to develop activities intended to contribute to the realization of broader EU policy objectives.
3.1.1 Finding the Right Channels for Communication
Efforts to develop cooperation in a number of areas have met with mixed success and this will not improve unless a new approach is adopted. One of the reasons why efforts to develop cooperation on nanosafety floundered is because the competencies for nanotechnology are spread across ministries other than the MKE or the MEST. In this case of nanosafety the main ministry is the Ministry of the Environment as well as at least 2 other ministries for a total of 5 centres of responsibility. One of the reasons progress is the mismatch between EU and Korean officials. This was most likely due to the following reasons:
The Korean system uses terminology in a way different from that in Europe. In general the term “director” in Korea does not signify the same level of responsibility or competence as in the EU system. An EU Director is closer in status to a Vice Minister in Korea. It is therefore not easy for EU actors to find the right person to talk to whose commitment is required to move ahead on technical aspects of cooperation. Higher level officials tend to rotate frequently, as often as once every 18 months. This means that a constant effort is required to understand who is responsible for what, to make sure they are aware of the commitments of their predecessors, and to maintain contact. Relevant information which can help negotiate this complex situation is not easily available in English.
To improve this situation there is a need to change the way the EU interacts with its Korean partners. The EU needs to find the resources to identify the right people to talk to and at the right level. There is a need to address complex social and economic challenges using a cross-cutting approach based on a global vision of final outcomes. The parties to the agreement should invest the time and effort needed to develop a shared vision of what they can achieve together and bring on board all of the actors needed to make this a reality.
3.1.2 Deepening Cooperation Based on a Long Term Thinking
Cooperation so far has been based on a mechanism whereby Korea presents to the EU a list of technologies or research fields that it wants to explore through S+T collaboration, to which the EU responds by identifying programs and calls which may support such collaboration. These lists are created internally for the Korean S+T system using Foresight or R+I management techniques to establish roadmaps, establish lists of key-technologies and filter them base on a ‘make-buy’ type of decision process. When cooperation is possible in principle this list is incorporated into a roadmap maintained by a Joint Steering Committee on EU-Korea S+T Cooperation and it is communicated for information or feedback to the SFIC. This process is efficient in some ways, but it is also ineffective. 30
The resulting roadmaps are therefore short term in nature and ill-suited to achieving high impact or ambitious objectives. The process is not sensitive to the timing of up-coming calls and fails to take account of stakeholder interests such as concerns about competition, IP leakage or the need for collaborators to prepare consortia so as to respond to competitive calls. Given the seemingly ad-hoc nature process they could not be otherwise. Ideally the roadmaps should cover a 3 to 5 year period.
The development of a useful and feasible 3 to 5 year roadmap for EU-Korea cooperation must involve EU and Korean industrial stakeholders as well as any other key-stakeholders hose identify is revealed as the process. It should involve other ministries as appropriate. The Roadmapping process needs to explore what can be achieved based on the mutual opening of existing programs. Very little has been done on this so far. An improved process would reveal the limitations of what can be achieved using available programs and guide the design of future programmes. It should do this for both Korean and EU programs. This will pave the way for more specific, more intensive cooperation based on tailored Joint Initiatives. The process is feasible.
One way for achieving this is to explicitly embed the Roadmapping process in a broader Foresight initiative. By this we do not mean traditional “technology foresight”, whose main concern is prioritizing investment in lists of key technologies. Technology foresight is already done by both EU and Korean actors so there may be little need to cover this ground again. Instead we mean “structural foresight” that starts with the sharing of technology roadmaps, extracts a roadmap for collaboration, based on the identification of areas of common interest, and maps out how collaboration can be achieved based on joint initiatives and the mutual opening of programs on both sides.
The roadmap agreed by the Joint Committee should not limit itself to a list of domains such as ICT and nanotechnology. It should clearly map out:
The higher goals to be achieved and the added value that cooperation with Korea will provide, The Korean calls, programs or other mechanisms to be deployed to achieve them, and to which EU actors require access, The EU calls, programs or other mechanisms to be deployed to achieve them, to which Korea in most cases already has access, And provide a 3 to 5 year timeline for realizing a defined program of calls and other interventions involving named bodies at EU, Korea and member state level.
3.1.3 Making Better use of the BILATs and ERANETs
Interviews with scientists who have participated in EU-Korea BILATS indicate that they have not been very effective in general as mechanisms for developing collaboration. A number of criticisms have been voiced by both European and Korean experts who have attended meetings of KETSCAP and KORRIDOR. A recurring observation is that meetings tend to be too general or not sufficiently focused and fail to attract a critical mass of participants with interests in related areas. Those interviewed suggested that such meetings would be much more effective if they were to focus on specific themes. This would enable building communities of shared interest, simplify the challenge of communication, and permit a more comprehensive approach in an area of mutual interest.
Some of those interviewed emphasized that they would not attend such “matching workshops” again. They consider that meetings intended merely to establish contact, no longer serve any useful purpose and that there are other better and less costly ways of doing this. These remarks are very much in line 31
with comments concerning the overall evolution of mobility programs, Furthermore they are reflected in the decision of Italy and Korea to discontinue a mobility program that provided support for short stays and workshops and that they jointly managed for many years. Program managers seem to increasingly rely on professional networks and tools such as LinkedIn to support the matching function. Clearly the world has moved on and the BILATs should evolve too.
We recommend that the use of BILATs and ERA-NETs move beyond a focus on “matching” partners towards a focus on “structuring” collaboration.
More specifically we suggest that they be used to achieve a number the following objectives dealt with in more detail elsewhere in this section:
Support the work of the EC, the JSTC and SFIC by maintaining an overview of Member state policies and their cooperation with South Korea. This is something that could be achieved using the resources of the BILAT or ERANET projects. Support the work of the EC, the JSTC and SFIC by maintaining an overview of Korean policies, ministries and agencies in areas of relevance to the EU and H2020. Launch programs of small initiatives intended to develop more sustainable institutional collaboration based on the KORANET mechanism. To be more precise KORANET is an ERANET project that raised additional funds from member states to finance a series of small initiatives in selected domains chosen using competitive calls for proposals. There has been some criticism of KORANET due to the fact that research initiatives funded in this way are of small scale. Nevertheless such small projects might better serve to develop deeper institutional arrangements such as Joint Laboratories or more ambitious projects based on the opening of EU and Korean programs. Integrate the use participative Foresight and Roadmapping in BILAT and ERANET actions to: o Support the alignment of EU-Korea or multilateral collaboration with broader policy objectives for example related to Trade, Green Growth, Ageing or the international development of industrial eco-systems, o Support the identification of areas where Korea and the EU have complementary know-how or capabilities and complement each other in long-term scientifically ambitious projects. o Pursue the development of deeper cooperation based on the project-to-project, network-to-network and agency-to-agency models that have employed successfully for example with the US.
To realize any of these goals in practice, it will be necessary to include text in future BILAT and ERANET calls, that signals to consortia how it is possible to act in more strategic and structuring way. It is necessary to allow flexibility in the terms of the contract so that future ERANET actions can:
Respond to the information and data needs of the Joint Committee and SFIC, Mobilize extra funds from Member State and Korean agencies for KORANET-type structuring actions Work towards Joint Initiatives or prepare the ground for other variable geometry instruments Engage not only with actors in Korea but in countries such as China or Japan where the possibility of multilateral action makes sense.
3.1.4 Joint Initiatives and wider use of Variable Geometry Instruments
Korea has repeatedly expressed interest in the use of joint calls and coordinated calls. This seems to be an important model for collaboration with EU member states, much more important than the mutual opening of programs.
There are clear benefits to the Joint Call in that it involves shared governance, an ear-marked budget for jointly agreed themes, certainty as to who is eligible and the amount of funding available.
In practice however, Joint Calls tend to be one-off ad-hoc actions that create exceptions in an administrative machine designed to manage tens of calls and tens of thousands of research contracts at any one time. This places a great administrative burden on the officers of the European Commission and they rely on the good will and surplus energy of EC officials willing to champion the affair. It is sometimes possible to launch them, but we know of no case where they are repeated.
Because of their focus, joint calls are a good way to create or acquire specific key technologies. They may be less well suited to achieving more complex policy goals, for example when they require the implementation of roadmaps involving research, innovation, demonstration and deployment or interactions with many ministries and their agencies. In these cases variable geometry instruments may be the best way forward, especially on topics related to green growth, ageing or the international development of complex industrial eco-systems.
The advantages of using variable geometry instruments may become more significant under H2020. H2020 starts from challenges that require either a complex systemic approach13 or a sustained largescale long-term effort by a network of world class institutes14. The advantage is that such instruments can put in place governance structures and mechanisms, different from those of the FP and optimized to achieve their objective. Variable geometry instruments provide the assurance that EU or shared MS policy goals are being addressed. In principle they provide Korean organizations with opportunities to allocate a dedicated budget and participate in the overall management of strategy, joint calls and projects.
Many examples of variable geometry instruments already exist such as ETPs, JTIs and JPs. EUREKAEUROSTARS is an example of such an instrument in which Korea already successfully takes part. Many such instruments have an explicit international cooperation dimension, but all are open in principle to the participation of third countries. Our recommendation is to explore opportunities for including South Korean organizations in on-going variable geometry instruments.
such as climate change the environment and ageing.
modeling of the brain, the treatment of Alzheimer’s or the development of life-like humanoid robots. 33
3.1.5 Making Better Use of Mobility Programs
The basic linkages and networks needed for collaboration are developed via mobility programs. Countries such as France, Germany, the UK and Italy have run mobility programs with South Korea for many years. For example:
Italy used to run a mobility program in collaboration with South Korea that provided support to scientists for short term stays, but they have recently agreed to discontinue it. Nowadays the cost of international travel and accommodation is low and there are many international S+T conferences that afford chances for EU and Korean scientists to meet. Programs whose support is limited to helping scientists attend conferences or make short visits may be of decreasing utility as enablers of deeper cooperation. A more sophisticated approach is required that takes account of the need to structure collaboration once the basic contact has been made, that facilitates the hard work of developing work plans, building consortia, negotiating IP agreements and eventually writing proposals. There is a real need to support medium-term stays, for example stays of up to 3 months that allow the partners to develop and refine ideas for collaborative research projects. The Danish government runs a mobility program intended to support the development of cooperation with its partner countries provides support for medium stays and exchanges for up to 90 days as well as for series of workshops intended to help prepare plans, establish consortia and write proposals for more ambitious projects that can be submitted for example to the programs run separately or jointly by the EU, EU Member States or South Korea. Germany has run mobility programs with South Korea for many years. It has systematically built up a community of more than 30,000 experts who have lived or worked in Germany, as well as Germans who have lived or worked in Korea. Germany is now moving towards a more institutional approach, more stable, more systematic and less dependent on individuals. Many mobility programs are run at institutional level. The Danish Technological University or DTU is a case in point. Relations between the DTU and South Korea only started in 2008. Since then it has developed 5 educational programs for the granting of joint degrees with Korean institutions, mainly with KAIST in Daejeon. It has concluded industrial collaboration contracts with major Korean companies such as Samsung, LG and Hyundai. These agreements run the full range from basic memoranda of understanding to contract research involving nondisclosure agreements. The main focus of DTU collaboration with South Korea is on Green Tech and the DTU is especially attractive to South Korea at least in part because of its emphasis on applied research. It is worth noting that the Danish branch of the 3GI secretariat is currently hosted at the Roskilde campus of DTU. At least one expert responsible for the R+D component of the 3GI resides there. The head of the ERC recently completed a mission to Korea, Singapore and Japan intended to promote the fellowship program and attract excellent Asian researchers to carry out their work in Europe. There seems to be a very high level of interest in the program, but so far there is a very low level of awareness of the program, or how to access it. The first Korean scientist to benefit from an ERC fellowship has already started work in Denmark at the DTU. In future this could prove an important mechanism for attracting the best Korean scientists to the best S+T institutes in Europe. The French STAR programme has led to the establishment of “Internal Associated Laboratories (LIA).
The attention of EU member states however, seems to be moving away from facilitating the research careers of individual scientists, and more towards the use of mobility programs to establish and develop institutional links, increasing the scope for systematic cooperation in the areas of education, research and innovation based on joint programs.
In this sense: 34
The Danish mobility program for international cooperation may be considered as an example of good practice in setting up initial collaboration. The mechanisms employed by the KORANET project could be employed to support mobility programs like those run in Denmark.
On the other hand, the Marie-Curie program can be used for the development of durable institutional links. So far in the context of EU-Korea cooperation however, the use of Marie-Curie has been disappointing. One of the reasons is confusion about the formal rules and constraints of the program, which seem at first sight to preclude the participation of Korean scientists. It may also be too early to see used on a wide scale, as it requires that the parties demonstrate that they already have a strong working relationship. Perhaps there are not enough of these basic links already in existence for the use of Marie Curie. It is possible that Marie-Curie is mainly seen as a tool for financing individual scientists rather than as an organizational development tool of benefit to directors who want to embed their institutions in sustainable global networks. If this is the case it might be useful to rethink how Marie-Curie is presented with a view to presenting it differently to different target groups for greater impact.
More use could be made of existing instruments such as the IRSES, IAPP and COFUND actions of Marie-Cure Programme. IRSES is designed to support institutional cooperation based on exchange of students and staff. IAPP is designed to forge links between industry and academia. COFUND encourages the development of jointly managed mobility programs at national, regional and international level reinforced by funding from the EU.
It could be useful to promote fellowship and research recruitment programs of Korea and the EU member states based on the EURAXESS program.
The ERC Programmes
The ERC also has an important role to play. It runs a wide range of programs that support bottom up collaboration, researcher mobility and it is open for Korean researchers. Until recently however there has been very little awareness of these programs among not only Korean researchers, but also among researchers in China, Singapore and Japan. As a result the potential of these programs for developing the basis for future S+T collaboration has been ignored.
South Korean Mobility Programs
The NRF has deployed a program designed to recruit foreign research labs to South Korea. It directly finances selected research lab to establish operations in South Korea and a number of European labs have benefited from this program. At least one European research director consulted during the review expressed an interest in mechanisms of this kind being used in Europe to anchor collaboration with Korean companies.
A Roadmap for the use of EU-Korea Mobility Programmes
Our specific recommendations under the heading of mobility are therefore to:
Establish a mobility program aimed at supporting groups setting up initial collaboration based for example on EU calls of the FP7 or calls of the NRF, MKE and other Ministerial programs in Korea. Promote Marie-Curie as a tool for developing systematic institutional relationships based on joint educational and research programs. Explore the use of the Marie-Curie program as a tool to recruit foreign research labs. Use the KORANET mechanism based on the BILAT and ERANET instruments of FP7 Promote the use of ERC schemes in Korea, especially in key areas of the EU-Korea Roadmap for S+T collaboration.
Given the current weakness of linkages between the EU and South Korea it is worthwhile dedicating resources to the systematic development of institutional relations between the EU and South Korea which will provide a foundation for future S+T collaboration. Efforts could focus on area identified in the overall roadmap for future S+T collaboration. They could make use of an ERANET mechanisms that developed in the KORANET project, to fund short stays or workshop-series that will prepare the ground for the signing of MoUs, the development of joint laboratories, or the development of joint programs at institution to institution level in education and research, innovation and entrepreneurship.
This can be seen as a way to step-up up on a ladder of maturity that allows the partners to progress in stages from an early tentative partnerships to deeper collaboration supported by Marie Curie, and eventually to shared programmes that can benefit from extra funding supplied via a mechanism such as COFUND as outlined in the following diagram.
3.1.6 Making Better Use of the Eureka Initiative
The specific suggestions are that:
The Korea side should improve the cooperation mechanisms for the S+T cooperation and a specific “bottom up procedure” could be elaborated on the EC side. A “Specific Day” in Europe and/or in Korea on specific fields and areas, as defined in §.2 (like the “Eureka Day” or the “I.T.C. day”) could be organized. Beyond these institutional cooperation between institutions, cooperation should focus on the links between academia and companies, either according the Eureka-Eurostars programme under FP7 for SME’s, or under the European wide EUREKA initiative (including Large Companies participation in “Clusters”) to which ROK is belonging as one of the few nonEuropean associate country.
3.1.7 Improving the Mutual Visibility of the EU and Korean S+T Systems
Comparing EU-Korea S+T collaboration with EU-Japan and EU-US collaboration the general visibility or recognition of European institutions and European research in South Korea is low. This relates to a fundamental issue in that many policy makers consider mid-career scientists more likely to seek collaboration with colleagues or scientists they have met earlier in their career.
Japan has very good links with Korea in terms of Japanese students studying in Korea and Korean students studying in Japan. Mobility at undergraduate level tends to be managed directly by universities themselves. Many have mobility programs and work to promote them in other countries. 37
By comparison the numbers for the EU are relatively low. Increasing the number of Korean graduates student in Europe and European graduates at excellent Korean institutions could be considered as one of the foundations for smooth cooperation in future. US and Japanese universities hold open days in South Korea and are pro-active in their efforts to recruit Korean students. When Koreans consider where to study abroad they are already presented with a strong offer from both these countries. Once they travel for example to the US, the easiest thing is to continue on there to complete a Master’s degree or a PhD. The links developed in those times can have a lasting influence on the whole career of the individual.
For these reasons, Korean scientists already have strong links with US and Japanese research institutes and a lower level of awareness of who is doing what in Europe. The “invisibility” of Europe is not just an issue in South Korea, it is also an issue in the US, India and China.
Our recommendation is to consider what can be done to improve the visibility of European universities and research organizations in Korea15. This will require a much more intensive communication campaign than is usually envisaged in FP7 support actions. In collaboration with the SFIC, the EC has financed an initiative in the US that presents a vast range of EU and MS programs and initiatives to US target groups motivated by an information asymmetry due to the fact that whereas EU actors have deep knowledge of the US system and how to access it, US actors are much less well informed as to the range of European opportunities and mechanisms for cooperation. This is a learning process. There is a general lack of awareness on both EU and Korean sides. The BILATs are not adequate as a mechanism to address this and a “Destination EU/Korea” style programs building on the lessons of the US pilots may be the best way to provide a strong foundations for future cooperation at all levels in terms of education, research and innovation.
One of the most important mechanisms for enhancing programme visibility is the network of NCPs or National Contact points. The Korean network is still learning how to play this role. It would help them to be more deeply embedded in the European S+T activities by more frequent attendance at meetings, workshops, matching events and European information days.
Greater reciprocity could be obtained if the NCP network were extended to include a network of Europeans acting as contact points in Europe for Korean programmes.
15 Korean Universities play a worldwide role in science and technology as shown in the 2012 Shanghai ranking. http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2012.html 38
3.2 Policy Approach and Context
From an EU perspective it is desirable to systematically work towards increased alignment of actions undertaken under the S+T agreement with broader EU policy objectives. The most immediate and important area is arguably trade. An effort is therefore needed to see how the FP and other programs can contribute to European competitiveness by helping to unlock the benefits of free Trade agreements, not only with Korea but also with other countries of Asia in partnership with Korea. Other areas include ageing, food traceability, nano-safety, security in the internet of things – an area which includes smart-grids and other essential infrastructures of the future. Making use of actions undertaken on the basis of the S+T agreement to support the FTA will require designing calls, mobilizing actors and building appropriate partnerships so that the link is clear. These links are not necessarily obvious to researchers. The commission could start by commissioning a study to map out the opportunities that exist to do this on the basis of current and emerging technology trends.
3.2.1 Information Sharing
The timely sharing of relevant information is an essential element of EU-Korea S+T cooperation. Each side appreciates the importance of information sharing, but there is not as yet a shared view on what data needs to be shared and how to do this. As a result it has been difficult for the EU and for its reviewers to obtain essential needed information in a timely manner. There are different views on the nature of this information and whether or not it can be shared. This is so in the case for basic reference texts essential for coordination such as roadmaps and action plans. It is also the case for information concerning the operation of programs and the results of open calls. Some Korean officials are of the opinion that this information can be shared, whereas others consider it private and confidential or even secret.
We also know that in some cases the Korean government has experienced its own frustration with failed attempts in trying to obtain program related information it seeks from the EU. The best way to improve this situation may be to make this an item for discussion in future government level meetings and formally agree a basic set of information to be shared.
The issue of sharing information needs to be dealt with on at least three levels:
The policy maker or program manager who needs information necessary to identify areas of common interest and position itself with respect to the programs of the other The policy maker or expert involved in reviewing the agreement or assessing its progress and impact The researcher or research manager who has to anticipate future opportunities for cooperation, allocate resources for, and plan in advance, the writing of proposals and the establishment of networks for collaboration.
This issue is explored in Annex 4 of this report, which contains a more detailed and technical recommendation for the kind of information that needs to be exchanged on a continuous and systematic manner.
Other issues of transparency or visibility also need to be addressed. Information silos naturally occur for a range of practical and political reasons in large complex organisations. Conscious effort is 39
required to overcome this. The work of the EC would be easier if it had a good overview of cooperation between each MS and South Korea.
This is necessary to optimize the added value for EU member states of EC actions carried out under the S+T agreement. The work of the EC would also be easier if it had a better overview of how policy is implemented in Korea in complex areas where many ministries are required to intervene. This is certainly the case for areas such as smart cities, green growth and nano-safety. It is most likely the case in other areas as well. Many efforts to engage South Korea in the area of nano-safety have met with frustration at least in part because of the lack of access to South Koreas roadmap or action plan on nano-technology as well as an understanding of the different ministries involved and the work done by their agencies. This problem will become more important in H2020 as it moves away from a sole focus on technology themes to address grand challenges for society and the economy such as ageing.
Given the size and complexity of the EU and the rapidly evolving nature of policy in Korea, it is not practically possible for commission staff to maintain and update this information on their own. It is difficult to see how this can be addressed at the level of the SFIC. We suggest that future BILAT or ERANET activities assume at least some of this burden of work.
A more participative approach is needed to developing S+T collaboration with South Korea. One that engages not only the MEST, MKE and the agencies or institutes under their responsibility, but the full range of institutions in Korea involved in research and in the implementation of roadmaps that address complex issues that cross many ministerial boundaries and include but are not limited to challenges associated to Nanotechnology, Smart Cities, Global Green Growth and Ageing.
A more long-term approach is required based on reflection and the development of more ambitious common goals which can serve as the basis for collaboration. The need for more complex coordination and the opportunity for joint initiatives will increase in H2020 because of the way in which the Programme is structured. The joint execution of Foresight actions is arguably the best way to approach this. Foresight is a valuable tool for establishing research agendas and roadmaps as well as for mobilizing actors who need to work together on complex issues. It is an important bridge between the complexity of a real world problems and the clarity of programs needed to address them.
We suggest that EU-Korea collaboration could benefit from joint foresight exercises in a number of areas, particularly on the main themes of H2020, and as a way to address practical policy challenges such as how to explore, initiate or prepare the ground for deeper cooperation based for example on:
Use of the S+T agreement in support of the FTA A variable geometry instrument on Green Growth with Korea links R&D with innovation, demonstration and deployment A multi-lateral action on ageing involving the EU, Korea, Japan and China The international development of clusters and industrial eco-systems
3.2.3 Policy Learning, Evaluation and Impact Assessment
The EU and South Korea have a lot to learn from each other about program design and implementation. We recommend that future cooperation explicitly address the issue of policy learning with a view to improving the benefit to both sides of the S+T agreement. The specific actions which may contribute to this include joint actions on:
Impact analysis, Methodologies for ex ante and ex post analysis of policies, programs and projects, Joint execution of ex-ante & ex-post evaluations of projects and programmes.
3.3 Areas of Opportunity for Future Cooperation
Defining areas for cooperation with South Korea in the context of the Framework Program has often been difficult due to:
Korea’s tendency to propose projects intended to acquire technological know-how in areas where EU competitive interests often appear to be at stake, The EU’s need to interact with a broader range of stakeholders than those represented by MEST or MKE.
One way of structuring the search for suitable areas for cooperation is to collaborate on:
Areas where the FP or H2020 can add value to existing collaboration with EU member states. A good starting point is the 60 or so thematic ERANETs. These are the main instruments for realizing variable geometry S+T initiatives. They run by the funding agencies of EU member states. They adopt a governance system that is best suited to the overall challenge being addressed. They provide a system of governance, as well as a system for competitive awards that is in many cases for flexible and more adaptive than that of the Framework Programme. Short, medium and long term research and innovation actions that support broader EU policy goals on trade, climate, ageing, clusters and development Networks and infrastructure for research, innovation and new business development that support European and Korean goals in terms of trade, investment and job creation not just in EU and South Korea but in other parts of the world, for example in relation to new and emerging green growth agendas of developing economies. Ambitious long-term S+T projects in areas where the EU and South Korea have complementary capabilities and which resonate with Korea’s ambition to become one of the top 7 S+T powers in the world by 2020
Areas which fall into one or more of these categories include:
Nano-Safety: An area of possible consequence for EU-Korea trade in this domain Green Growth: An area where Denmark and the UK has already embarked on an ambitious program of activities with Korea Ageing: An area that is the subject of an agreement between the EU and Sweden and that touches upon a wide range of short, medium and long-term issues in research and innovation such as science of the brain, the treatment of medical disorders, welfare technologies such as social robotics, ICT accessibility, as well as design for an age friendly society 41
Open Innovation, Clusters, Entrepreneurship and SME development: This has been discussed in high level meetings between Germany and South Korea. Some German Laender have recently started to explore cooperation on these themes. Other technology domains: Such as internet security of the internet of things, smart grids and micro-grids, as well as space technologies.
ANNEX 1: THE POSITIONING OF THE EU MEMBER STATES
Annex 1.1 Denmark
Denmark exports to Korea in sectors such as food, health and medicine, greentech, construction, marine engineering… It considers Korea an important trade partner with overall exports to Korea increasing, and further potential to be unlocked … It considers Korea an ally on trade issues i.e. on the opening up of markets for agricultural produce, food, greentech, … The first government to government agreement on S+T was in 2012 and is referred to as the “Green Growth Alliance”... Denmark is also the first country to join the 3GI (Global Green Growth Initiative)… It has since established a complementary initiative called 3GF (Global Green Growth Forum) with a focus on finance
Bottom-up links between Denmark and Korea only really exists since a 2008 mission by DTU the main ROK partner DTU now has very good cooperation with KAIST (5 joint degree programs, and 5 joint research programs) and others … DTU now has MOUs with and does contract research for several Korean MNCs (Samsung, Hyundai, LG …) The focus of cooperation with DTU is mainly on green technology areas such as batteries and bioreactors… The DTU considers the cooperation to be of mutual benefit… The CCC or Copenhagen Clean Tech Cluster expects to conclude an agreement with Incheon Science Park later this year to include it an international network of Cleantech Clusters that it manages…
Denmark provides direct financing to non-Danish partners in successful proposals to Danish research programs… It has an international cooperation program that supports extended visits and workshops required to set up joint projects Denmark considers Korea a potential SOURCE of immediately useful technologies for example in welfare technologies, for example to lower the cost of healthcare or public services using robotic assistants, welfare technologies etc. Missions to Korea have been conducted by for example by CARENET, a Copenhagen network of elderly care professionals… As one of the first concrete actions under the S+T agreement DK plans a joint call with the GTC (Green Growth Centre). The GTC sees itself as a future coordinator of Korean contributions to 3GI in terms of research, policy and development aid
Annex 1.2 France
A cooperation agreement was signed in 1981 (renewing a previous agreement signed in 1965) A Science & Technology Committee meets every two years since 2002 Cooperation agreement between ANR and NRF signed in 2011 with a joint call in 2011 Cooperation agreement between OSEO and KIAT signed in 2011 to develop the Eureka initiative (Korea is associate to EUREKA since 2009) France is developing an S&T strategy for South-Korea, to be finalized before the end of 2012 Korean firms doing research in France include Samsung, LG, and Amore Pacific… French firms doing research in Korea include Air Liquide, VALEO, Rhodia, Sanofi, Renault, and Thales.
S+T COOPERATION The main areas for cooperation are:
New materials and Nanotechnologies… Life & Health sciences, biotechnologies, Environmental sciences… ICT, Aeronautics and Space … Basic Sciences, Human & Social Sciences …
The STAR mobility program (Science and Technology Amical Relationship) was created in 2003 and is managed with the MEST-NRF. So far around 106 joint projects have been selected. The program budget for 2010/2011 was about 0.8M euros … The Blaise Pascal fellowship brings Korean PhD/MSc to France. It financed 50 students since 2005 An Asian regional mobility program in ICT The Bio-Asia regional mobility program The IPK16 funded by the MEST-NRF for the period 2004-2013 The France-Korea Particle Physics Laboratory (F-K PPL), a virtual International Associate Laboratory implemented by the CNRS with KISTI (Korean Institute of Science & Technology Information) & several French Research Universities … A Centre for Photonics & Nanostructures with KIST, KAIST on one hand & CNRS, University of Grenoble & Ecole Centrale Lyon. It includes Korea Advanced Nanofab Centre (KANC) An International Research Network “Fun Mood” (FUNctional Materials for Organic Optics, Electronics, and Devices) was created in July 2010, for a period of three years A Joint research Centre in Nano-photonics & Spintronics involving the University of Strasbourg (IPCMS) and Ewha Womans in October 2010: nano-sciences, specifically in spintronics, spinphotonics, and quantum imaging applications, and at contributing to new advances in nanotechnologies. A Joint Research Centre funded by NRF and Province of Gyenggi has also been established.
Institut Pasteur Korea is a joint research structure created in 2003. 44
Annex 1.3 Germany GENERAL BACKGROUND
Germany is one of Korea’s most important trade partners ($20B trade volume in 2009) There are many agreements between German and Korean institutes and universitie that go back decades, and others more recent. An agreement between governments exists since 1986 (BMBF + MEST/MKE) Many German companies have subsidiaries in SK and run research labs (Merck, Bosch …)
Germany hosts 5,000 SK students at any one time (the largest of any Asian country in Germany) and in 2008 the BMBF helped set up ADeKo 17 There is great demand to cooperate with Germany on NANO-technology research. Korea may be a future candidate for increased basic research cooperation. Korea is a producer of primary nano-materials, there is an interest on NANO-SAFETY, characterization and related technologies, Responsibility for cluster development in Germany mainly lies with the Laender. This is often based on a vision of industrial eco-systems that extend far beyond the region via their supply chains and business alliances. The national Spitzen-Cluster competition went far beyond the traditional approach by supporting top-level research focused on future lead markets18. One of the winning consortia of the Spitzen Cluster competition was MicroTECSüdwest based in Baden Württemberg, containing large companies such as Bosch, Roche Diagnostics, Festo, KIT, IMTEK and IMS Chips, many of which have long established subsidiaries in SK19. In 2010 the BMBF established joint German-Korean structures for research on: o Algae Biotechnology (Berlin University of Technology + Dongseo University in Pusan) o Bio-nano composites (JINBiT = University of Munster + Gwangju Inst. of S+T)
FEDERAL level strategy moved from MOBILITY to INSTITUTIONS and STRUCTURES Adequate funding of cluster initiatives may require a Federal + Regional + ROK + EC approach A recently established Fraunhofer representative office in Seoul already earns several million euros per year for contract research services to Korean multinationals Korea’s NRF provides direct funding to joint laboratories involving Fraunhofer (EMI) and Max-Plank (at POSTEC)
ADeKo a Germany-ROK alumnus program with 6,000+ members.
. Many of these relate to ‘grand challenges’ such as ageing, mobility and energy. These are not clusters in the traditional sense but consortia of large companies that invest up to €40M in frontier research, matched by €40M in Federal research funding, topped up with €5M from the Laender to support innovation initiatives such as the development of global supply chains
For this reason the region of Baden-Württemberg has been exploring options for cooperation with South Korea on the basis of their Korean Industrial Complex Cluster program – a program which envisages the transformation of Korean chaebols, responsible for about 75% of Korean exports, into pan-regional clusters, one for each of the 7 newly defined economic zones. BW is also involved in an OECD TIP on “smart regions” involving Guanju… 45
Annex 1.4 United Kingdom
Cooperation agreement signed between Governments in June 1985 and recently in 2004 So far MKE/MEST cooperation is handled separately: BI with MEST and MoHW with MKE It has a team of 4 Science and Innovation Officers based in Seoul. Rolls Royce has a JRC at Pusan National University involving Lloyds Register Education Trust and the Un. of Liverpool Korean firms doing research in the UK include Samsung Advanced Institute of Technology at Imperial College, POSCO at Sheffield and LG Life Sciences at the University of Aberdeen. The SAMSUNG Global Research Outreach program funds 30-40 projects in Europe.
BI works with MEST on bilateral Focal Point programs in Space, Nanotechnology, Bio-nanotechnology, Energy, Risk Management, Hydrogen Storage, Global Navigation and Satellite Systems, Life Sciences, Polar Research, Food Safety, Environmental Technology, Material Research, Mathematics, women in science, science museums… MoHW works with the MKE to facilitate links in biotechnology, nanotechnology, ICT, energy and the environment, and transport technologies, as well as a joint program, The BIS + MoHW work with MKE on causes and treatment of Alzheimer’s Disease… Human Mobility based on the Chevening Scholarship program involved 800 Koreans so far, Four UK academics participate in the MEST World Class University Program, Many bottom-up agreements between institutions exist20. KIAT under the Global Industry Academia Program, where each year a new university is selected and which was promoted through the EU program KORRIDOR, The UK-Korea Neuroscience program involves the Korean Brain Research Centre + Sheffield, Bristol and Manchester Universities, The UK-Korea Alzheimer’s Consortium involves Cambridge and Bristol Universities.
National strategy for R&D international engagement defined within a Global Science and Innovation Forum Seven UK Research Councils allocate public funds to support research projects and teams. The UK Research Councils budgets are allocated under the responsibility of BIS The UK government signed a MoU on Nanotechnology with Korea in 2007… Many bilateral institutional partnerships, for example between Korea University + University of Nottingham, KAIST + Imperial College London, POSTECH + University of Cambridge, KOPRI + Scottish Association for Marine Science.
Queen’s University Belfast + ETRI in ICT, Chungbuk National University + Imperial College London in Life Science, KRRI + Sheffield University have joint research labs in both locations, Cavendish laboratories in Cambridge + KAIST cooperate in Spintronics, Nanoelectronics, Bio-physics, Astrophysics and Optoelectronics, Oxford + KRIBB on bio-nanotechnology, biotechnology, biology, microbiology, nutrition, chemistry and chemical engineering, University of Strathclyde + 46
Annex 1.5 Other Member States such as Sweden and Italy
Italy is in its 10th 3-year bilateral program with South Korea The program covers exchange of researchers and the funding of relevant projects. Overall Italy is very satisfied with it This year they stopped the short visit mobility program. Both sides agreed that such support was no longer necessary The Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs provides about 800k Euros of co-funding each year Among the most successful collaborations are those with the Scuola Santana, with Prof. Paolo Dario in robotics with funding of up to 300k Euros per year
Korea is very interested in Sweden’s role in the Noble Prize The NRF therefore has an office in Stockholm Korea organizes a bi-annual conference in Sweden on the full set of Nobel Prize topics In 2012 Sweden + the Korean Ministry for Health and Welfare signed an MoU to: o Organize an annual joint forum on “low birth rate” and “ageing” o Extend their cooperation to all areas of health and welfare. In particular to develop industrial cooperation on: Vaccines for dementia Commodities that are elderly people-friendly
Some Europeans see Korean programs as under-funded, and observe a high number of lapsed projects... It seems easier to start a project with Korean support than to finish it. Basically the Korean government provides money as long as the Korean side is learning something new, and when that stops, support stops too… The large number of lapsed projects may simply be due to a lack of further support when the goal has been reached or when the interest of continuing for one more year drops below a certain threshold…
ANNEX 2 OVERVIEW OF COOPERATION DATA Annex 2.1 Marie Curie 41 SK scientists were funded in Marie Curie actions from 2007 to 2012 and 6 SK institutions participated to the scheme.
The Marie-Curie programs of FP7 have been under-used. It is certainly not well understood in Korea. It’s potential as a tool for cooperation remains untapped.
Based on comments we have received both from Korean and EU experts, there is a perception that the Marie-Curie program is complicated and over-constrained in the sense that its rules are too rigid or incompatible with the contracts of Korean research staff.
It is impossible for any program to match the needs of all actors. It is possible that some problems are only problems of perception due to a lack of a detailed understanding of the Marie-Curie mechanism, and can be addressed through more effective communication.
We are informed that a requirement of the Marie-Curie program that Korean scholars spend 50% of their time in the EU was interpreted as 6 months per year. It seems that staff employed in the Korean research system are constrained to spending a maximum of 2 months per year outside Korea.
Annex 2.2 FP7 Korea S&T cooperation with the EU, measured as its participation to the European Framework Program 7 (FP7) is much less than for other Asian Countries. ASIA FP7 Statistics
Req. EC contribution by FP7 applicants 195,92
Nr. Of successful FP7 applicants 462
Req. EC contribution by successful FP7 applicants 29,15
Nr. Of FP7 grant holders 255
EC contribution to FP7 grant holders 23,28
Nr. of FP7 applicants
Source: European Commission
The rate of success (29%) is the same than for Japan, and greater than for China (26%) and India (23%). The implementation of cooperative activities has been quite low and is characterized by small amount of projects and small amount of funds. During FP6 & FP7 63 projects involved 72 Korean participations for a total cost of 805 M.€, the E.C. contribution being 455 M.€ (1,67 M.€ to Korean partners) as shown in the following table.
“Korean participation in FP7 increased by about 20 times compared to FP6 21. In FP7 research performance by Korean partners reached € 17.9 million in 45 projects, compared to ca. €0.73 million in 17 projects of FP6”. OVERVIEW of Korean FP Participation
Participations by Korean Organizations
Projects in which they were involved
No. of Korean Organizations
Total value of Those Projects (Euros)
EC Contribution (Euros)
Cost to Korean Partners (Euros)
EC Contribution to Korean Partners (Euros)
Source: European Commission
The Ministry of Education Science and Technology (MEST) through NRF provides more than 92% of the funding for Korean participants in FP7. Overall promotion of the FP seems low and the NCP system does not seem to work very well. Past promotion efforts have focused on a small number of institutions (ETRI) and fields of research (ICT) for example.
However there were some “success stories” like the participation of ETRI to the two CASAGRAS projects22. “Our goals were achieved. We are very with these two cooperation projects. The projects contributed a lot to International and domestic standards: I.S.O. and I.T.O.T. (ISO Transport Service on TCP/IP)”. The I.T.O.T. recommendations 202623 are a great achievement”. “More than 2000 persons attended ITOT workshop, and the global network is an important achievement”.
21 22 23
Information Flash on International Cooperation activities, Issue 26, July 2012. http://www.iot-casagras.org/ http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2900.txt and http://www.rfc-editor.org/ 49
Annex 2.3 EUREKA and EUROSTARS
Although the Eureka! Initiative is not under the responsibility of the European Commission, we took it into account for two reasons:
International cooperation S&T projects for SME’s is funded by the FP7 under the acronym “EUROSTARS”, From a Korean point of view, cooperation on S&T projects under the Eureka! Scheme is viewed as “cooperation with Europe”,
The Republic of Korea was admitted as a EUREKA associated country in June 2009. The Agreement between Korea and EUREKA was renewed in 2012 for the period 2012-2015. Although Korea is still associated, it status has been modified, like for Canada: a project can be funded if it has only two partners (1 Korean, 1 Member state of EUREKA) and Korea can be “main participants”, coordinator of the project 24.
Korea participation to EUREKA has been steadily increasing as shown in the two following figures (for 2012 up to June).
Source : EUREKA Secretariat
Up to 2012 the rule was to accept a project only with a Korean partners and two MS partners, and the Korea participant could be a “main participant”. 50
Source: EUREKA Secretariat
17 Korean Companies have been involved in 25 individual projects, mainly SME’s (82%). Korea cooperation with the EUREKA Initiative was very important under “Clusters”, mainly in Information Technology (ITEA2) and Communication Technology (CELTIC+) as shown … During the last EUREKA meeting (June 2012), large Korean firms announced their intention to be more active within this EUREKA scheme. A survey has been implemented about Korean EUREKA project participation with European partners. The conclusions are rather positive:
European participants of EUREKA projects with Korean partners underlined the opportunity to develop products and services with technologically proficient Korean partners and the possibility of the Korean market size. European participants reported that the arrangement of IPR in projects with Korean participation was established with all legal obligations and rights25.
The question of Intellectual Property Rights is very important with two aspects: as far as we have been said, there was no IPR problem under FP6 & FP7 cooperation. An expertise from lawyers is needed to ensure that recent moves in Korea legislation under the WTO actions are fulfilling the EU requirements to protect European IPR under cooperation through FP7 & H2020.
Report to the High Level Group meeting, June 2012 51
Annex 2.4 Korean Programs
Over the years 2008-2012, 13 proposals with EU partners were selected for the KIAT Program “Needs-driven technology development International” (NDTDP) and no proposals were selected to the KIAT program “Global market-oriented technology development program” (GMTDP). These KORRIDOR programs (NDTDP, GMTDP), are no longer active and the detailed information about European participants is not available.
European Scientists participated to 115 MEST projects (94 projects for the establishment of a fundamental basis for international cooperation, 16 projects for attracting distinguished research institutions, 5 projects for conducting international collaborative research)26. “There is no observable participation from enterprises because most research projects are characterized by pure science27”.
France (39 cases, 29.8%) ranks first in the number of participation cases in MEST projects, followed by Germany (28 cases), Italy (21 cases), UK (12 cases), and Romania (10 cases). Cooperation with Romania particularly stands out, owing to the recent increasing interest of the Korean government in cooperation with Eastern Europe.
In MKE projects, enterprises account for the largest portion with 61.9% (60 projects), followed by universities (22 projects, 22.7%), and research institutions (15 projects, 15.5%)28.
Germany and Spain are involved in 14 participation cases each. The rest is as follows, Netherlands (10 cases), UK (7 cases), France (5 cases) Italy (5 cases), and Czech Republic (5 cases). Three 3 Eastern European countries, Cyprus (2 cases), Lithuania (4 cases), and Slovakia (2 cases), are listed as international R&D collaboration partners of Korea. These partnerships reflect the increased interest of the Korean government in cooperating with Eastern European countries.
According to statistics from KISTEP, including 19 international cooperation programs from all Ministries, Korean funding for projects with European participation was 611 M.€ for 69 projects (€8 847 K per project). The KOREAN administration was not able to give more detailed information as we have for Korean participants to FP7 and EUREKA, about proposals, projects and participants in a very detailed way. We have been advised to check the NSTC database (in KOREAN): it has been done, and no information useful for this evaluation was available.
Some elements about the questions of “balanced and mutually beneficial” will need to take into account other information later on. According to the interviews implemented with Korean Scientists from ETRI, particularly in EUREKA projects in which they participated, it seems that the cooperation activities have produced results mutually beneficial (Standards in ICT for instance).
FP7 is seen by the Korean side as funding of pure research and EUREKA as funding industrial research. The expectations cannot be the same.
Some foreign companies are well funded for R&D, like Rolls Royce, Aerospace, Lloyd Register Ship, or ship construction companies. It is under the NRF scheme.
According to NRF data (2008) quoted in : D.1.1 – Policy Paper “Access opportunities for European researchers in Korean RTD programs: Status and recommendations” 27
Ibid, page 4
Ibid, page 6 52
Annex 2.5 BILAT and ERANET projects of the CAPACITIES Programme
Three projects have been funded under the FP7 “Capacities programme” over the course of the last 5 years: KORANET, KORRIDOR & KETSCAPE.
KETSCAPE (Korea-EU Science and Technology Cooperation Advancement Programme) to promote the FP in Korea KORRIDOR (Stimulating and facilitating the participation of European researchers in Korean R&D programmes) to promote Korean programs in Europe KORANET (Korean scientific cooperation network with the European Research Area), a more diverse program with a more strategic dimension.
Within the KORANET project, special attention is given to the coordination of competency networks. They are an ideal instrument to link research done at universities or institutes and the industry and thus to bridge the gap between research and its application. The cooperation between Europe and Korea in this field should yield synergistic effects. The second pillar KORANET relies upon is the establishment of a joint S&T funding programme, where interested programme owners agree to launch a pilot joint programme within a given scientific field or discipline.
The amount & duration of each project is described in the following table.
Reference Start date
Name Gerold HEINRICHS
2 400,00 BMBF
244367 1.12.2009 24 months
KIST 499,42 Europe
222087 15.7.2008 42 months
NRF 465,00 (MEST)
Tae Hee KIM
Projects under capacity programs have been useful and relevant to initiate projects under other E.C. FP7 programs (SP1-Cooperation). Formally these seem to have been well run and fulfilled all of their contractual obligations.
Implementing S+T Cooperation between Korean and European Scientists is difficult For the cooperation with Europe, there is more a lack of awareness than a lack of money. KIAT went to ETRI to promote FP7 and EUREKA. It is the reason why ETRI is participating to many projects in FP7 and EUREKA. MEST funded KIAT 200 K$ for FP7, while MKE funded 10 million US$ for EUREKA. Korean participation to European programs is the results of the political willingness of these two Ministries: MEST for FP7 and MKE for EUREKA. Korean interviewed scientists said that funding Eureka projects by KIAT (MKE) is not sufficient (particularly in ICT projects). Furthermore the time length of decisions, even for EUREKA projects which is faster than FP7 is too long. The 53
coordination of funding by Eureka Members is not easy. During that time American, Chines and Japanese scientists are at work. There is a strong tendency to internationalize Korean R&D, but there are obstacles to tackle E.U. R&D programs:
FP7 is formal, complex, and Korean do not participate to organizing meetings. EUREKA is open, informal, easier to get access, transparent. For both, it is important to match with the fiscal year. Marie Curie actions: it is different from joint calls. There is no flexible mechanism. It is organized by the EU side and Korea would be part of the organization. For ERAWATCH, S-Korea was not eligible to use money from the Commission. Before Networking, the question is “how to fund people to work with”?
S&T cooperation between EU and SK lacks of ambition The two KORANET joint calls were interesting as an example of a “variable geometry program” to bring extra-money29 from MS. But only a small amount of money was available for networking on two fields: Health and Green tech. The bibliometric studies on Korean scientific output helped BMBF (Germany) to understand the extent with which ROK is emerging as an increasingly important scientific player, and that S&T collaboration deficit that E.U. (and Member States) has with Korea compared to, for example, the US and Japan. KORANET started well and was well managed. Although the amount of money is small, the question is if it could be a model for the future? One condition would be to link such an EC program to Networking Member States policies.
The goal of KORRIDOR was to promote Korean programs in Europe. One question is arising: are the goals and the means of KORRIDOR matching well enough?
KORRIDOR built a Website and organized seminars, like in Barcelona. KISTEP Europe worked for KETEP. But the impact of KORRIDOR is questionable: (i) the Website not used for International Cooperation. (ii) KETEP attended the KORRIDOR Day in Barcelona. There were a few participants (60 persons) and it was too ambitious to cover all R&D fields. KETEP–IEA could organize such a day on a particular field30. KORRIDOR events are not needed for meetings of academics, scientists. Networking is at its best in specialized international conferences and meetings. “To meet Energy Scientists, KETEP used networks of Energy scientists”.
Many scientists interviewed point out that: travel is cheap and international conferences are many; meeting other scientists or finding people to work with is not difficult, at least not for professional researchers; general meetings that try to bring together people on diverse themes and match them are of marginal value. It is more important to fund cooperative projects and or Joint Laboratories.
However, some interviewed scientists noticed that it was the first time they could obtain information about Korean programs open to foreigners. Korean Research programs like Global Research Network (GRN), Global Research Laboratory (GRL) or KIAT programs are managed within the agencies, not the Ministries. It is a big problem to fund research programs open to foreigners. Most of them are
Around 1 M€ for the call on Health, and 1,5 M€ for the call on Green Tech, mainly from Germany and “small” MS. For instance France and the UK did not participate.
underfunded. It is very difficult to know who will sign the contract and who will pay for it. Program officers change very often, and it is very difficult to insure continuity. GRL is now closed. It has been very difficult to obtain information about KORRIDOR funded projects from the Korean side. As one said “the agencies do not know why they should share information, this is an old habit”. In our opinion, cooperation and monitoring process need to elaborate “Management Information system” and to exchange data.
The real question is whether or not these projects under Capacities programs have had a strategic impact on EU-Korean collaboration and what lessons can these experiences provide for the future. Our overall impression is that the “partnering workshop” approach is no longer very useful or at least need to be racially rethought to be effective. Italy and SK recently discontinued their joint mobility program for similar reasons. The recommendation from experts is to focus of such meetings to specific themes or abandon them altogether in favour of a program that allows people the time to develop a proper proposal, via workshops or extended visits for example. Denmark already runs such a program to support cooperation with its S+T agreement partner countries.
ANNEX 3: THE FIVE QUESTIONS OF THE EXPERT TERMS OF REFERENCE
TOR 1: What are the major evolutions in bilateral cooperation over the last five years?
Bilateral Cooperation under the Framework Program
Progress seems slow by comparison with US, Japan, NZ and other EU S+T agreement countries… The level of FP participation by Korean companies is very low… The NRF provides matching funds to Korean partners in successful FP projects and this seems to have worked very efficiently… Overall promotion of the FP seems low and the NCP system does not seem to work very well… Past promotion efforts have focused on a small number of institutions - ETRI and ICT for example… Korea would rather focus on joint-calls jointly-developed and promoted with earmarked budgets…
Bilateral Cooperation under other EU Initiatives
Korean participation in EUREKA (MKE-KIAT) is good and increasing . Korean officials say that participation could be much higher but they have held back… Korea has successfully lobbied to change the rules of participation, so that Korean partners can now lead EUREKA projects, and minimal eligible partnerships are 1MS+1ROK instead of 2MS+1ROK, this is optimal in the sense that a Korean company could therefore lead a project where research is carried out by an EU research institute and vice-versa of course… Korea is now lobbying to join EUREKA governance so as to provide input to EUREKA programming… Korea has arranged EUREKA information and partnering days in Europe for the last few years…
Access to Korean Programs
Relevant Korean websites make scant reference to EU-Korea cooperation either at EU or MS level… It is not at all clear if and how actors from the EU can take part in Korean programs… Our impression is that in principle non-Korean partners can take part in many programs, but at the discretion of the Korean partners to include them and the Korean government to fund them Korea (MEST-NRF, MKE-KIAT and MKE-KETEP) have run dedicated international cooperation programs which seem very innovative in nature, and which directly finance the activities of non-Korean partners… The NRF runs a program for “recruiting foreign research labs” that finances establishment of EU labs in Korea… KETEP runs an energy research program which directly finances the contribution of non-Korean research labs to the project. By all accounts some EU laboratories have been financed. Having said that the system is very un-transparent and highly asymmetric…
It has not been possible to obtain the information needed to ascertain to what extent access is reciprocal or mutually assured. This is an issue that should be addressed in future.
TOR 2: Are the cooperation activities producing the expected results?
From a Korean perspective, the situation looks good.
Korea has many cooperation agreements with the EU It has a very clear sense of purpose and operates simultaneously on all levels to achieve its goals: o Multilateral collaborations (CERN, GALILEO, ISS, EURATOM, ITER…) o EU S+T agreement (FP…) o Variable Geometry Instruments (EUREKA-EUROSTARS …) o Agreements with member states (D, DK, UK, F, I…) o Agreements with institutions (DTU + KAIST, DTU + Korean multinationals…, KAIST & Cambridge etc.) o Informal scientist-to-scientist arrangements (Paolo Dario…)
In general EU actors involved in collaborations with Korean scientists seem happy with Korean collaboration which they see as win-win.
Many EU countries are deepening cooperation with South Korea (Germany, Denmark, UK …) Many EU companies with subsidiaries in Korea have established research labs there (Merck, Bosch, Air Liquide, VALEO …) A small number of EU research labs are setting up a presence in Korea Fraunhofer has an office in Seoul to procure contract research from Korean multinationals
If the main goal on the EU side is to increase the number of Korean institutes involved in the FP, and enjoy all of the well known benefits that this should provide, the results so far are disappointing in terms of numbers, especially in the case of company participation.
It will be difficult to improve on this or achieve other strategic goals using a simple arms-length approach relying on open programs. The use of joint initiatives will improve the situation. A much more structured approach is required suggesting a more nuanced future role for the BILAT and ERANET mechanisms as well as more sophisticated use of mobility programs.
It will also be necessary to explicitly address the issue of the mutual opening of programs.
TOR 3: How has the role of the JSTC / SFIC evolved?
The JSTC and the SFIC have evolved steadily in their overall approach to international cooperation and in their specific approach to cooperation with South Korea …
The JSC seems to rely almost exclusively on a “bottom up” approach based on the interest and willingness of project officers in charge of specific themes. Internal networking and cooperation in the EC seems to work well overall. Project officers have been forthcoming in terms of their time, participation in workshops and meetings, showing great willingness to help develop cooperation. These efforts have not been matched or aligned with efforts on the Korean side. An example in point is the effort to develop cooperation on nano-safety. It has not been possible to obtain the Korean roadmap on nano-technology, and Korean partners have provided little help understanding who the main actors are and how to involve them…this is internal politics, they belong to other ministries …
The overall impression is that the work of the JSC is under-resourced and that more support is required to prepare the ground not only for the JSC process but also for implementation of JSC recommendations …
This could have consequences for the future role and orientation of BILAT and ERANET mechanisms…
The SFIC increasingly tries to encourage a more strategic focus based on the definition of priorities and strategic areas. It has experimented with various modes of intervention with other countries for example with China, India and the US.
The approach for China was an approach based on mapping areas of mutual interest. In the case of India there was a focus on the theme of water, In the case of the US involvement in the SET-plan has evolved into an effort to raise the profile of the UE in the US based on a pilot initiative called “Destination Europe”.
All of these initiatives address issues where future attention in required to improve the impact for Europe of cooperation with Korea – this is explained in detail in the report.
Based on our evaluation and in view of the evolution towards H2020 and its broader focus on innovation as well as research, we suggest efforts to focus on 4 areas:
Use of the S+T agreement to support the FTA (add clusters, entrepreneurship and SMEs) Use of the FP to establish joint initiatives or other instrument building on existing initiatives Consider multilateral initiatives involving SK, Japan, China and the EU on the topic of Ageing Consider the development of an awareness initiative learning from “Destination Europe” with a view to supporting mobility (undergrad to post-doc and other research personnel)
TOR 4: How useful have the relevant international cooperation projects funded under CAPACITIES been (BILATS, ERA-NETS)?
There have been 3 initiatives under the CAPACITIES program over the course of the last 5 years:
KETSCAP to promote the FP in Korea KORRIDOR to promote Korean programs in Europe KORANET a more diverse program with a more strategic dimension
Formally these seem to have been well run and fulfilled all of their contractual obligations. The real question is whether or not they have had a strategic impact on EU-Korean collaboration and what lessons can these experiences provide for the future …
Based on interviews our overall impression is that the “partnering workshop” approach is no longer very useful or at least need to be racially rethought to be effective. Many scientists interviewed point out that:
Travel is cheap and international conferences are many so meeting other scientists or finding people to work with is not difficult, at least not for professional researchers General meetings that try to bring together people on diverse themes and match them are of marginal value
Italy and SK recently discontinued their joint mobility program for reasons such as these.
The recommendation from experts is to focus such meetings to specific themes or abandon them altogether in favour of a program that allows people the time to develop a proper proposal, for example via workshops or extended visits for example.
Denmark already runs such a program to support cooperation with its S+T agreement partner countries. This seems like a much better to follow.
KORANET seems to have been quite successful on a number of levels:
It has focused its meetings on more specific themes, supporting them with studies and more focused workshops. Its bibliometric studies on Korean scientific output helped them (BMBF of Germany) understand the extent with which ROK is emerging as an increasingly important scientific player, and that S+T collaboration deficit that EU (also German) has with Korea compared to for example the US and Japan. It piloted a variable geometry program within the KORANET project that mobilized extra money from participating EU member states, to finance calls for small EU-Korea projects on Ageing Society (2010) and on Green Tech (2012) … this may be a model to learn from and adapt for the future.
TOR 5: To what extent have the bilateral EU-Korea cooperation activities contributed to developing coordination and synergies with MS bilateral cooperation?
Until now collaboration with the EU on the basis of the S+T agreement is seen as complementary to the bilateral agreements with member states as well as institutional collaboration supported by direct financing of European efforts via Korean research programs. This complementarity is being actively managed by the Koreans government.
The main impact so far is only just emerging based on the KORANET pilot program-in-a-project described earlier. So far the indications are positive and at least one member state not included in earlier calls, has expressed an interest in being involved in future calls. It has contributed to establish between France and Korea an International Associated Laboratory with CNRS.
From a European point of view there may be opportunities in future for synergies with MS bilateral cooperation in support of the G3I initiative. G3I stands for the Global green Growth Initiative championed by the Korean government and now an international NGO with headquarters in Seoul. EU member states have been asked join as has the EC. So far Denmark and the UK have joined. Membership of 3GI involves paying a contribution of 5M euros per year into a common pot. This is used to help developing economies:
Establish policies for sustainable development, Create the Public Private Partnerships needed to execute those policies and Conduct research needed to support all of this.
The ambition of Korea is to be a global leader in green growth technologies. Arguably Europe is the leader to date and wants to maintain its leadership. There are clear synergies between the EU and Korea in terms of GGG capabilities, synergies which could be exploited to enter global markets now, but which may not exist in 5 or 10 year time.
There is now an opportunity to develop cooperation with Korea in this area which adds value to MS activities either with Korea or in this particular sector.
ANNEX 4: BASIC DATA FOR INFORMATION SHARING
Information Required for Assessment of Progress For each program it is desirable to have the following basic data:
Name of Program Purpose or objective of program Name and date of call Purpose or objective of call Number of proposals Number of successful proposals Number of successful proposals with an EU partner The list of partners for each of these - EU, Korean and other The cost of the contribution of each partner The funding each partner receives
There may be a need to supplement such data, which is available to those involved in policy work in the case of EU programs, with other information to take account of the differences in the nature and method of funding. For example Korean programs tend to award funding on an annual basis. A multiyear project may only have a guaranteed budget for its first year. It may then be reviewed after one year and a decision taken to extend or terminate the project. In other cases, the budget is provided for say 3 years with a review and a decision to extend or terminate after that period. It seems that the Korean system is more ready to terminate projects than the EU system. EU experts with knowledge of Korean programs have remarked on the relatively high number of unfinished projects. As a result of these differences it may be useful to request data about Korean programs and projects that go beyond that normally reported for EU projects.
Information Required for the Coordination and Stimulation of Cooperation Other data of importance for cooperation at the level of policy and program manager as well as at the level of researcher wanting to establish collaboration on specific topics are as follows:
Roadmaps and Action Plans: Much of this is in Korean or at least initially only in Korean. This should not be a problem as there are often Korean speaking colleagues on the EU side who can help out with translation, even while major documents are being formally translated by Korean counterparts. Prior information on the timing of calls: This is intended to be highly predictable on the Korean side. The main elements of uncertainty being the precise themes or uncertainty due to the experimental or pilot nature of certain measures Prior information on consultations: The Korean government holds regular open consultations on upcoming calls. Given the short time between the publication of a call and the deadline, researchers in both the EU and South Korea have relatively short time to build consortia and organize the writing of proposals. The consultation proce4s and its results are also a form of preparation that helps researchers anticipate the content of calls and organize in advance.
Entry Points, Portals and Awareness There is a general lack of awareness both among EU and Korean scientists, of possibilities for EUKorea S+T collaboration. This lack of awareness exists both in terms of awareness of the existence of an agreement and processes for policy coordination, as well as at the level of awareness among 61
researchers and research consortium leaders of opportunities for financing collaboration research proposals and the conditions that apply.
There is a need to continue or increase efforts to raise awareness and facilitation of access to members EU or Korean researchers, not already very familiar with EU-Korea cooperation and the modalities of its implementation. For these people public portals such as the websites of the various agencies running programs have a very important role to play. In principle all websites dealing with collaboration relevant to the S+T agreement should provide appropriate links or clearly indicate where information and contacts for follow-up may be had.
ANNEX 5: MAIN REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
Key background documents relating to or relevant for the future of EU-Korea S+T cooperation include the following:
The 2010 EU-Korea Summit The EU-Korea Framework Agreement The EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement The EU-Korea S+T Agreement The 2011-2013 EU-Korea Roadmap for Cooperation in Science and Technology The 2012 communication on Enhancing and focusing EU international cooperation in research and innovation: A strategic approach The Third meeting of the JSTC or Joint Science and Technology Committee The KETSCAP BILAT project The KORRIDOR BILAT project The KORANET ERANET project The KORANET publication Korea and Europe Meeting through Science (ENG) The KORANET publication Korea and Europe Meeting through Science (KOR) The KORANET SWOT analysis on scientific cooperation The AGE-Platform Roadmap for Research on Ageing The 2012 EC Communication on Smart Cities and Communities
European Commission EUR 25829 - A Review of the S&T Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Korea Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union 2013 — 64 pp. — 21 x 29,7 cm ISBN 978-92-79-28759-6 doi 10.2777/72449
How to obtain EU publications Free publications: • via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); • at the European Union’s representations or delegations. You can obtain their contact details on the Internet (http://ec.europa.eu) or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758. Priced publications: • via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu). Priced subscriptions (e.g. annual series of the Official Journal of the European Union and reports of cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union): • via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union (http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).
In 2006 the European Union concluded an S&T agreement with the government of the Republic of South Korea. Thanks to innovation, South Korea has grown to become the eleventh largest economy in a very short time and it aims to become the world’s seventh power in science and technology by 2025. South Korea is the first Asian country to have concluded a Free Trade Agreement with the EU. The EU is South Korea’s second trading partner and its biggest source of foreign direct investment. Continuing cooperation on S&T will therefore create many more opportunities for mutual beneficial growth. The main recommendations of this report are to move from a short-term approach to a more ambitious approach based on a long-term vision and clear roadmaps that rely on reciprocal measures and the mutual opening of programmes. The two sides should intensify policy dialogue to include the full spectrum of Korean and European actors necessary for the development of priority domains, and encourage the involvement of industry so as to reap the full benefit of the Free Trade Agreement, based on participation in test-beds and the development of standards in emerging technologies.
Studies and reports