Response of the Hellenic Republic on the Common Strategic Framework (CSF) for
European Research and Innovative Funding
Greece welcomes the Green Paper on a Common Strategic Framework (CSF) which has the
potential to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of European policy in research and
innovation, to promote competitiveness, to strengthen the European Research Area (ERA)
and to address major societal challenges providing tangible solutions.
With more coordination, taking advantage of synergies all along and across the innovation
chain, being more accessible to users in research and industry, the CSF is Europe’s main
response to the challenges it faces. Europe needs the CSF as it faces a severe economic
crisis, the restructuring of world markets, energy and food supply, resource uncertainties,
environmental and climatic challenges and health and ageing issues.
Whilst Greece is itself in a deep economic crisis, the potential contribution of a CSF
working in synergy with the structural funds is such that Greece considers an important
increase in the budget of the CSF appropriate.
1. Working together to deliver on Europe 2020
The Common Strategic Framework (CSF) will increase coordination between the FP, the CIP
and the EIT enhancing thus the potential contribution of research and innovation to Europe
2020. Benefit will result primarily from:

Taking advantage of the potential for synergies and interactions, and

Simplification
Excellence and European Added Value should remain at the core of CSF.
The potential for Synergies and Interactions
The three programmes, the FP the CIP and the EIT, like the three sides of the knowledge
triangle, have their own emphasis which is expressed in the tools they use (research projects
and networks, support to innovation and knowledge and innovation communities).
Interactions can be assured through hybrid tools as well as through provisions for
complementary interventions and seamless passage of projects through the different
programmes.
The CSF offers the potential for synergies and interactions all along the research –
innovation chain, as well as across different fields of research and technology, between
different sectors and between different types of support (for example between frontier
research and innovation, between research infrastructures and industrial innovation etc.)
Fruitful interactions between the three main objectives of the CSF should be maximized.
The ERA should provide the basis for responding to major societal challenges and for
Page 1 of 5
supporting competitiveness. Addressing major societal challenges should involve the
research community and industry and should be leveraged to boost competitiveness.
Greece believes that the CSF could provide for a drastic improvement in the conditions for
exploiting results of European Research. For example, incentives could be provided to
exploit results of EU research through specific grants or programmes or through
incorporating an option for support to the exploitation in research project grants. Grants
could be given to SMEs to use advanced technological innovations, as well as support could
be given to spin-off companies based in results of EU research.
Simplification
The Commission’s communication on simplification acknowledges the importance of
establishing a common set of rules to avoid “bureaucracy”. The rules should be consistent,
transparent but at the same time simple enough to attract researchers, and in particular
SMEs and industry, to develop initiatives and actions.
Simplification should cover the whole experience of Europeans with the programmes.
Programmes should become more accessible and the experience with projects less
burdened by bureaucracy. The Greek experience has so far shown that the administrative
burden for preparing proposals, applying and implementing a project has been difficult to
handle especially for regional stakeholders of smaller size (Universities, Research Centres
and the private sectors, with emphasis on the SMEs) not possessing appropriate
administrative support and facilities.
Particular elements of simplification that could be advanced are:

Simple rules of participation allowing also for the participation of physical persons

Common funding and reporting rules across programmes

More flexibility in the use of accounting methods within the boundaries of
reasonable rates. Recognition of usual practices of participants.

Re-introduction of the status of “associate partner” as an intermediate state
between partner and subcontractor.

Lessening the cost of proposals. Shorter proposals, two stage evaluations, trust in
proposers are means of making the programmes more accessible by decreasing the
effort needed to apply for funding. Rotating call deadlines on the same subject are a
means of increasing the usefulness of the initial effort to develop a proposal, by
providing room for improvement and resubmission. There is by now a great deal of
experience with all these aspects in the Commission and we would like to see this
experience used to the benefit of proposers.

Simplification of the contract negotiation or reimbursement of the costs.

Predictable and as short as possible time to contract.
Page 2 of 5
2. Tackling societal challenges
Societal challenges such as climate change, energy-supply and security, ageing population
and migration have definitely emerged as real problems already affecting all Member States.
These challenges could have been addressed within the context of a thematic structure such
as this of the cooperation programme in FP7.
The mechanism for identifying the societal challenges that will provide the focus of
European research and innovation efforts is of prime importance. It is important that any
challenges identified are relevant to the needs of small countries (either relevant to
problems faced by these countries, or offering the potential to exploit capabilities of these
countries, or both). It is also important to target the challenges efficiently and to avoid
duplications. In order to achieve this whilst taking advantage of synergies, we suggest that
societal challenges should be tackled within thematically oriented collaborative research
programmes, and not vice versa. In this context there may be a need for updating and
increasing the size of certain programmes to attract a large-scale participation of industry,
which would be of major importance for the efficient tackling of societal challenges and the
strengthening of competitiveness.
To address societal challenges effectively and to contribute to the solution of problems the
challenges pose, challenges need to be defined together with the research community,
industry and other stakeholders. The institutions responsible for addressing the challenge at
national and European level (e.g. relevant ministries and Commission DGs) need to be
strongly involved in the programme.
Based on our experience with FP7 we would like to make two additional points in relation to
societal challenges.
First we would like to stress the value of curiosity driven research and bottom-up calls in
thematic programmes, where researchers respond to a broad agenda in which the research
is not strongly prescribed. This element needs to be strengthened in the new programmes.
Curiosity-driven research in the context of societal challenges may provide innovative and
effective solutions to real-world problems. Bottom-up activities complement the curiosity
driven research and may contribute to the satisfaction of societal needs. In the CSF, room
should exist for bottom up activities. This is where innovative ideas generated at a local
level, tackling societal problems not conceived by central planning can find space to flourish.
It is important to design the programmes so as to include a wide a range of synergistic
actions, launching rotating targeted calls to enlarge stakeholders’ participation.
Second we would like to stress that participation in co-funded programmes such as ERANET
Plus, JTIs, Art. 185, as well as in Joint Programming Initiatives is greatly constrained for
financially weak Member States despite their interest and often a substantial critical mass of
scientists , researchers and interested stakeholders. Thus, emphasis should not be put on
leveraging other sources of funding, but on the European Added Value of the actions
supported.
Page 3 of 5
3. Strengthening Competitiveness
Competitiveness will be a result of increasing the efficiency of research and innovation
process. Industrial participation in the CSF should be improved, more emphasis should be
put in supporting SMEs, and industry should be encouraged to take advantage of the ERA
and to play a leading role in addressing societal challenges.
Industrial participation in EU Programmes will be facilitated by simplification of procedures,
by instruments that provide support for research and innovation activities seamlessly, and
by an emphasis on the creation of “ecosystems” for innovation and industrial research in
regions, which would feed of scientific excellence and other socio-economic and resource
conditions (e.g. available research infrastructures, human resources, industrial relations,
societal values, entrepreneurial culture and other).
The key role of SMEs in competitveness must be stressed, not only as key innovators
themselves but also as important contributors to innovation in broader settings, such as
open innovation processes, social innovation etc. Special Actions should be planned for
SMEs, supporting the participation of SMEs in the programme(s), enhancing their
development and competitive presence in the market, thereby encouraging innovation,
growth and job creation. SMEs in existing business sectors contributing to the value chain
of large organizations should be encouraged to participate in EU programmes. SMEs
operating at a local level exploiting a local resource should be encouraged to internationalise
and become competitive in the international market. SMEs developing products on the
basis of a breakthrough technology should find supportive structures developed in the
context of the CSF. For countries like Greece SMEs constitute the backbone of the economy.
A very important contribution that the CSF could make would be to connect better EU
science base with its industry in general and SMEs in particular. Key to this effort are the
developing European Research Infrastructures and European support to frontier research.
Industry should not only undertake frontier research but should also capitalise on frontier
research carried out in academia or public research centres. The CSF should promote the
conditions and the behaviours that promote the industrial exploitation of ERC supported
frontier research through transfer of results, skills and competencies to companies and/or
through support to spin-offs. Also industry access to research infrastructures should be
promoted, particularly for SMEs.
In relation to research infrastructures as well as in relation to creating appropriate
conditions for knowledge intensive SMEs to flourish, good coordination and synergies
between the Structural Funds and CSF is paramount.
4. Strengthening Europe’s science base and the European Research Area
Scientific and technological excellence should remain the main criterion for funding projects
in all areas of CSF. The promotion of the scientific and technological excellence and the
Page 4 of 5
selection of projects on a competitive basis, following open calls for proposals and peerreview evaluation should remain the basic principle for its implementation.
Greece fully supports the further advancement of the “Ideas” programme and the ERC
which through pan-European competition boosts excellence in European science. We also
support the Marie Curie Actions Programme which has been successful, enhancing
researchers’ mobility and facilitating the integration of researchers to more competitive
environments within Europe. It should remain as a cornerstone of the CSF with a special
attention on inter-sectoral mobility and develop further synergies with research
infrastructures.
EU programmes should open up globally and enhance researchers’ mobility to create new
funding opportunities and attract talented human potential. These actions should be well
defined and targeted on the basis of the European added value principle, thus we should
give a priority in actions regarding mobility linked to ERIs as well as outgoing and incoming
mobility schemes with countries-niches of scientific excellence such as U.S.A., Canada,
Australia and Japan.
A well functioning ERA needs to pay attention to science in society actions, such as those
promoting “Open Access” to scientific results, which increases the use of those results.
Regarding the development of European Research Infrastructures (ERIs), the coordination of
national and European policies is necessary, both in terms of strategy (roadmaps,
convergence of goals and priorities) and in terms of funding (synergies with structural funds,
maximum investment benefit). Complementary «regional research facilities», add value to
major Research Infrastructures as satellite infrastructures, and promote the opening of ERIs
internationally.
The system of ERIs provides a case in which CSF and structural funds complement eachother very successfully, as for smaller countries, the system of ERIs offers an opportunity to
build and make use of laboratories and research facilities of high quality and get accustomed
to excellent working methodology and training. Connecting research infrastructures with
industry and in particular with SMEs could form important regional poles of innovation and
development.
Page 5 of 5