CHALLENGES & IMPROVEMENT

DELIVERABLE 3.1: REPORT ON MEASURES TO

OVERCOME WEAKNESSES IN STI COOPERATION
 DRAGON-
STAR PLUS

CHALLENGES & The project has received

funding from the

IMPROVEMENT European

Horizon 2020 research,

Union’s

and Innovation program

A REPORT BASED ON SURVEYS

under grant Agreement

No 645775
AND INTERVIEWS WITH
RESEARCHERS INVOLVED IN EU
FRAMEWORK PROGRAMMES ON
THE OBSTACLES AND THEIR
RECOMMENDATIONS HOW TO
The project provides

support services to
OVERCOME THE WEAKNESSES
European and Chinese

researchers for

enhancing the bilateral

cooperation, and

provides a platform for

bilateral policy

discussions
1
REVISION CONTROL

Versi Author Partner Date Status

on

0.1 Zheng Zhang EUREL 27.01.2017 Initial draft

Quality check and second draft

Quality check

0.2 Zheng Zhang EUREL 31.01.2017 Peer review

0.3 Zheng Zhang EUREL 01.02.2017 Final version and submission to
the EC

Disclaimer

All intellectual property rights are owned by the DRAGON-STAR Plus consortium members and are protected by the applicable
laws. Except where otherwise specified, all document contents are: “© DRAGON-STAR Plus Project - All rights reserved”.
Reproduction is not authorized without prior written agreement.

All DRAGON-STAR Plus consortium members have agreed to full publication of this document. The commercial use of any
information contained in this document may require a license from the owner of that information.

All DRAGON-STAR Plus consortium members are also committed to publish accurate and up to date information and take the
greatest care to do so. However, the DRAGON-STAR Plus consortium members cannot accept liability for any inaccuracies or
omissions nor do they accept liability for any direct, indirect, special, consequential or other losses or damages of any kind
arising out of the use of this information.

In addition, this publication reflects only the DRAGON-STAR Plus consortium members view and the European Commission is
not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.
2
CONTENT
0. Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 4
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 4
2. Methods .......................................................................................................................................... 5
3. Obstacles and challenges ............................................................................................................... 6
3.1 Obstacles related to scientific issues ....................................................................................... 6
3.2 Obstacles related to consortium .............................................................................................. 7
3.3. Obstacles related to administrative/legal issues....................................................................... 7
3.4 Obstacles related to cultural issues ......................................................................................... 8
3.5 Other obstacles mentioned in open questions ......................................................................... 9
3.6 Obstacles revealed in interviews with Chinese researchers ................................................... 10
4. Recommendations how to overcome the obstacles ...................................................................... 11
5. Annex: Examples of question sheet of the online survey .............................................................. 12
5.1 Example 1: Questions to FP7 coordinators................................................................................. 13
5.2 Example 2: Questions to H2020 coordinators ............................................................................. 16

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Average rating of the obstacles related to scientific issues....................................................... 6

Figure 2 Average rating of the obstacles related to consortium .............................................................. 7

Figure 3 Average rating of the obstacles related to administrative/legal issues ...................................... 8

Figure 4 Average rating of the obstacles related to cultural issues ......................................................... 9

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: overview of the responses of the online survey ........................................................................ 5

3
 0. SUMMARY
In the period of September 2013 and April 2016, 151 coordinators of FP7 and H2020 projects with
Chinese participation, and 144 Chinese participants of FP7 and H2020 projects took part in online
surveys and interviews. The aim of the surveys and interviews was to identify the obstacles in EU-China
cooperation in EU Frameworks, and furthermore to recommend measures to overcome these obstacles.

The main obstacles raised by coordinators are:

• Administrative/ legal difficulties

• Access to wider Chinese scientific community
• Language
• Accessibility of the data

The main obstacles raised by Chinese participants are:

• Lack of funding for the Chinese partner

• Differences in management approaches
• Administrative/ legal difficulties
• Visa issue

Researchers gave many suggestion how to overcome the obstacles and how to establish better
cooperation. It can be summaries as the following points:

• Release the administrative burden on researchers

• Target the key researchers in China
• Target the European partners, who are interested in Chinese market.
• Long-term visa should be provided to project partners.
• Long-term funding for cooperation should be provided in certain research fields.
• Cultivate key human capital
• Raise IPR (Intellectual Property) awareness among the European partners
• Flexibility to join running EU projects should be given to researchers.

1. INTRODUCTION
A better understanding of obstacles and challenges in the collaboration in Research & Innovation (R&I)
between Europe and China is needed as a basis for strategic planning for the future. The EU 7th
Framework Programme (FP7) covered a seven-year period between 2007 and 2013. 315 Chinese
institutions actively engaged in 334 projects 1 , amounting to a total of 462 Chinese collaboration
contracts 2 . The EU 8th Framework Programme (Horizon 2020) has changed its policy toward the
participation of the BRIC-countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China), that China and the other emerging
economies are no longer automatically funded by the EU. Horizon 2020 started officially in 2014, the

1 European Commission (2014b) “Roadmaps for international cooperation”,

http://ec.europa.eu/research/iscp/pdf/policy/annex_roadmaps_sep-2014.pdf
2 European Union (2014) A practical guide for China, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
4
number of the projects involving Chinese participants are 36 (last update of this number: Jan. 2017).
Ministry of Science and Technology (MoST) of China launched their first calls for the co-funding
mechanism at the end of 20153. After the announcement of the co-funding mechanism, some aspects
are still unclear. Some Chinese institutions/organizations had a gap of at least one year for the funding.
In order to understand the obstacles and challenges in FP7 and H2020 projects, we conducted surveys
and interviews addressing the Chinese participants and their project coordinators. Besides addressing
the obstacles and challenges, researchers were also asked for suggestions how to overcome these
obstacles. Constructive opinions could be collected.

2. METHODS
The opinions of the researchers were collected in two ways: online survey and personal interviews. The
online survey was conducted in three rounds over the last four years, using the online survey tool
(surveymonkey.com). The questions of in the surveys were designed based on literature4. The initial
survey was sent out in September 2013 to 213 coordinators of FP7 projects with Chinese participation
and 307 Chinese participants of FP7 projects. The second round was sent out in October 2014 and the
third round in April 2016, addressing those who did not answer in the previous rounds. In addition, the
third round also addressed to 38 coordinators of Horizon 2020 projects with Chinese participation and 62
Chinese participants of Horizon 2020 projects.

TABLE 1: OVERVIEW OF THE RESPONSES OF THE ONLINE SURVEY

Total No. of responses Total Complete

contacts 09/2013 10/2014 04/2016 Total response rate*
rate
FP7 213 77 39 31 141 69% 53%
coordinator
FP7 307 80 38 14 132 43% 33%
participant
H2020 38 - - 10 10 26% 16%
coordinator
H2020 62 - - 8 8 13% 7%
participant
* Complete rate: the percentage of the responses, which completed the questionnaires.

The low response rate from the H2020 coordinators and participants was not surprising, because most
of the Horizon 2020 project just started in 2016. One additional difficulty in contacting the H2020
participants is that the contact details of them are not listed in cordis database
(http://cordis.europa.eu/home_en.html). On the homepage of the individual projects, if existing, only the
coordinator’s or administrator’s contact can be found, but not the participants’ contacts. In order to hear

3 https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/news/eu-china-research-and-innovation-co-funding-
mechanism-first-call-launched-china
4 Arnold E., Schwaag Serger S., Bussilet S., Brown N., Evalution of Chinese participation in the EU Framework

Programme (2009), http://www.eurosfaire.prd.fr/7pc/doc/1237308017_china_fps_final_2009_03_07.pdf

5
the opinions of the H2020 participants, four Chinese researchers, who are currently participating in
Horizon 2020 projects, were interviewed in September 2016. They gave valuable opinions.

3. OBSTACLES AND CHALLENGES

In the surveys, the coordinators and Chinese participants were asked to rate different obstacles related
to scientific issues (3.1), consortium (3.2), administrative & legal issues (3.3) and cultural issues (3.4), on
a rating scale 0 to 5, 0 = no obstacles and 5 = high obstacles. In total, 99 coordinators and 95 Chinese
participants completed this part. In addition, some other obstacles were mentioned in the open question
(3.6). In the context of the Chinese participation in H2020 and co-funding mechanism, the interviews with
the Chinese participants revealed several obstacles in this aspects (3.5).

3.1 Obstacles related to scientific issues

The average rating of the obstacles by coordinators and participants are shown in the Figure 1. The four
obstacles listed here are 1. Knowledge sharing, e.g. Partner did not want to share knowledge. 2. Access
to specific material, documents, etc. (e.g. difficult access to publications). 3. Access to research
infrastructure / labs (e.g. limited access to infrastructure). 4. Access to wider Chinese scientific community
(question to coordinators)/Access to wider European community (question to Chinese participants). The
general rating, both from coordinators and participants are between 1 and 2 on a 0-5 scale, which means
these obstacles were rather low. Among all four obstacles, “Access to wider Chinese scientific community
(European coordinators)/access to wider European scientific community (Chinese participants)” were
rated as the highest obstacle by both groups.

Obstacles related to scientific issues

Coordinators Chin. participants
5.0
How much do you weigh the obstacles (0=no

4.0
obstacle, 5=high obstacle)

3.0

2.0
1.8
1.4 1.4 1.6
1.4
1.1 1.2 1.2
1.0

0.0
Knowledge Sharing Access to specific Access to research Access to wider
material, documents, infrastructure / labs Chinese/European
etc. scientific community

FIGURE 1 AVERAGE RATING OF THE OBSTACLES RELATED TO SCIENTIFIC ISSUES

6
 3.2 Obstacles related to consortium
The average rating of the obstacles by coordinators and participants are shown in the Figure 2. The four
obstacles listed here are 1. Staff exchange (e.g. difficulties during exchange of students). 2. Cooperation
with the team (e.g. problems within the consortium). 3. Communication. 4. Meetings (e.g. different
meeting culture). The general rating, both from coordinators and participants are between 1 and 2 on a
0-5 scale, which means these obstacles were rather low. Unlikely the obstacles related to scientific
issues, the highest obstacles here were rated differently by coordinators and Chinese participants.
Among all four obstacles, “Communication” was rated as the highest obstacle by the coordinators, while
“Meetings (e.g. different meeting culture)” was rated as the highest obstacle by the Chinese side.

Obstacles related to consortium

Coordinators Chin. participants
5.0
How much do you weigh the obstacles (0=no

4.0
obstacle, 5=high obstacle)

3.0

2.0
1.5 1.5
1.4 1.3
1.1 1.1 1.1
1.0
1.0

0.0
Staff exchange Cooperation with the Communication Meetings
team

FIGURE 2 AVERAGE RATING OF THE OBSTACLES RELATED TO CONSORTIUM

3.3. Obstacles related to administrative/legal issues

The average rating of the obstacles by coordinators and participants are shown in the Figure 3. The five
obstacles listed here are 1. Issues concerning IPR issues (Publications, Patents, etc.). 2. Administrative/
legal difficulties (FP7/H2020 management requirements, forms, etc.). 3. Differences in management
approaches. 4. Lack of funding for the Chinese partner. 5. Exploitation Issues. These obstacles related
to administrative and legal issues were rated in general higher than those related to scientific issues and
consortium. Again, here coordinators and Chinese participants rated different issues as the highest
obstacles: for the coordinators, the highest obstacle here was “Administrative/ legal difficulties
(FP7/H2020 management requirements, forms, etc.)”; while for Chinese participants it was “Lack of
7
funding for the Chinese partner “. The obstacle of “lack of funding for Chinese partner” might seem to be
surprising for FP7 participants, who received direct funding from EU. However, in the open questions and
interviews, it was revealed that even in the FPs when Chinese partner received direct funding from EU,
the funding was not able to cover the entire costs of Chinese partners, especially the travel costs.

Obstacles related to administrative/legal issues

Coordinators Chin. participants
5.0
How much do you weigh the obstacles? (0=no

4.0
obstacle, 5=high obstacle)

3.0

2.1
2.0
1.9 1.7 1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2 1.1
1.0 1.0
1.0

0.0
Issues concerning Administrative/ Differences in Lack of funding Exploitation
IPR issues legal difficulties management for the Chinese Issues
approaches partner

FIGURE 3 AVERAGE RATING OF THE OBSTACLES RELATED TO ADMINISTRATIVE/LEGAL ISSUES

3.4 Obstacles related to cultural issues

The average rating of the obstacles by coordinators and participants are shown in Figure 4. The two
obstacles listed here are 1. Language. 2. Cultural behaviour (e.g. other habits concerning decision
making processes). It is interesting to see that for the coordinators “language” was a higher obstacle than
“cultural behavior”, but for the Chinese participants was the other way around.
8
 Obstacles related to cultural issues
5.0
How much do you weigh the obstacles? (0=no

4.0
obstacle, 5=high obstacle)

3.0

2.0 1.7
1.5 1.6
1.2
1.0

0.0
Language Cultural behaviour

FIGURE 4 AVERAGE RATING OF THE OBSTACLES RELATED TO CULTURAL ISSUES

Considering the whole results of the surveys, the main obstacles can be summaries as:

 Main three obstacles for coordinators:

o Administrative/ legal difficulties (FP7/H2020 management requirements, forms, etc.)
(rating =1.9)
o Access to wider Chinese scientific community (rating = 1.8)
o Language (rating = 1.7)
 Main three obstacles for Chinese participants:
o Lack of funding for the Chinese partner (rating =2.1)
o Differences in management approaches (rating = 1.8)
o Administrative/ legal difficulties (FP7/H2020 management requirements, forms, etc.)
(rating =1.7)

3.5 Other obstacles mentioned in open questions

In addition, eight Chinese participants answered the open question “Any other obstacles?” It was mainly
mentioned “visa application” as a big barrier for Chinese researchers to travel to Europe. 16 coordinators
also gave answers to this question. The most mentioned obstacle was “the accessibility to Chinese data”,
because Chinese partners were not allowed (by the government) to share the date with their project
partners.
9
 3.6 Obstacles revealed in interviews with Chinese researchers
As already mentioned in 3.3, “Lack of funding for Chinese partners” has been seen as the highest
obstacles by the Chinese participants, both in FP7 and H2020. With the context of the new funding policy
of H2020, Chinese researchers do not automatically receive funding from EU. Ministry of Science and
Technology (MoST) of China launched their first calls for the co-funding mechanism at the end of 2015.
We addressed this issue in our interviews to Chinese researchers, who are currently participating H2020
projects. They gave us more insights about the obstacles, co-funding mechanism, and other obstacles.

• Dr. Hao Zhang, Institute of Plant Protection, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, H2020
project MycoKey (From 2016-04-01 to 2020-03-31)

1. Funding for Chinese partners is a big challenge. EU funds this project for four years,
but MoST only for three years. This project started in Nov. 2015, until the time of interview (Sept.
2016), the Chinese partners have not received any funding from MoST. (In Nov. 2016, Dr. Zhang
informed us that their application for MoST co-funding was approved.) The co-funding mechanism
of MoST is not an automatic matching funding for Chinese partners in approved H2020 projects.
MoST releases calls for proposals, and the Chinese partners need to submit proposal and apply
for the projects. The application involves two stages: the first stage is submission of proposal and
the second stage is a hearing in front of 20 experts. Some of the approved EU H2020 projects
received funding, some not.

2. Reporting system to both EU and MoST: complicated, reporting every three months to
EC and at the same time, Chinese researchers also need to deliver reports to MoST. So, it left
little time for the scientists to do research.

• Prof. Nianwan Yang, Institute of Plant Protection, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences,
H2020 project EUCLID (From 2015-09-15 to 2019-09-14)

1. Match funding is a big problem for this project .After the project approved early 2015 and
started one year ago, the Chinese researchers have not received any funding. We are currently
applying for the MoST co-funding, but until the time of interview, it was not clear if we will receive
the funding. (According to the information from CAAS, the project did not receive MoST co-
funding). We covered our research activities with other resources, but for exchange and travel,
there is no funding. Ms. Yang should have been in Venice for the first annual conference, but due
to this problem, she could not participate in it.

2. Huge administrative burden for scientists.

• Prof. Yang Liu, Institute of Food Science & Technology, Chinese Academy of Agricultural
Sciences, H2020 project MyToolBox (From 2016-03-01 to 2020-02-29)

1. No funding for Chinese partners is an issue for us. My institute could not understand
the purpose of participating in EU H2020 if there is no funding to Chinese partners.

2. My research group is big and well-known in my field, so I have enough funding sources to
10

cover the costs in the EU project. But the problem I face is the timing of sharing some results
 and data. If the EU project meeting is earlier than my Chinese project meeting, I will not be able
to share the results on the EU project meeting.

• Prof. Daoliang Li, China-EU Center for Information & Communication Technologies in
Agriculture, China Agricultural University, H2020 project DRAGON-STAR Plus (From 2015-02-01
to 2018-01-31)

1. Funding is not a big issue for me. My group is well-established and well-known in China,
so we have enough national projects, in which 15% of the funding can be used for international
cooperation. This is how we can participate in EU projects.

2. The cooperation established by EU projects often ends after the project is finished.
No or very few funding supports long-term cooperation between Europe and China in a certain
research field.

4. RECOMMENDATIONS HOW TO OVERCOME THE OBSTACLES

Based on the challenges that coordinators and Chinese participants face, they also gave their opinions
on how they think these obstacles can be overcome. These opinions can be concluded in the following
points:

1. Release the administrative burden on researchers: This aspect is especially important for the
Chinese researchers, because they have this burden both from EU and from MoST. Specific funding in
the project to hire qualified scientific manager to do the administrative work, which will help scientists to
be more efficient in their research.

2. Target the key researchers in China: According to our survey, 75% of the Chinese researchers were
involved in Chinese funding programmes. Previous similar surveys5 in FP5 and FP6 showed an even
higher involvement in national funding. As Prof. Daoliang Li explained to us, 15% of the MoST and NSFC
funding must be used for international cooperation. The promotional work done by RCP (Chinese
Regional Contact Points) and by EU-H2020 coordination and support actions may target these groups
and offer hands-on help in getting access to H2020 projects.

3. Target the European partners, who are interested in Chinese market: H2020 is supposed to
contribute substantially to the resolution of the financial crisis and boost the economy. In order to live up
to the high expectation, the innovation industry and entrepreneurs should be much better actively
integrated in H2020 cooperation. H2020 offers them a bridge to the high growth market.

4. Long-term visa should be provided to project partners: The visa barriers are well-known to
researchers, liaison officers and business people. Visa restrictions of Schengen and on the Chinese

5Arnold E., Schwaag Serger S., Bussilet S., Brown N., Evalution of Chinese participation in the EU Framework
Programme (2009), http://www.eurosfaire.prd.fr/7pc/doc/1237308017_china_fps_final_2009_03_07.pdf
11
side may need to be revised to permit a greater flow of movement and knowledge. Ten-year visa with
multiple entries should be given to the Knowledge Carries and Business Innovators from both sides.

5. Long-term funding for cooperation should be provided in certain research fields: The EU and
Chinese government need to develop common strategies for research cooperation. Based on this
strategy, funding programs should support the cooperation between cluster of excellent teams in one
area and this support should be long-term, not limited to 3-4 year project funding. In each area, there
should be one cluster/association of the best researchers/research teams in Europe and in China. The
collaboration between these two clusters in each area should support e.g. young researchers exchange,
staff exchange, annual meetings, co-publication, etc.

6. Cultivate Key Human Capital: Almost 4000 young Chinese scientists were trained in the Marie
Sklodowska Curie Actions (MSCA) in FP7. It is well known that a PhD trained in Europe will have built
professional scientific and personal networks in Europe. These scientists can help bridge the gap
between China and Europe by various means (including marriage, language skills, family history). This
should be supported to enhance EU-Chinese relationships. Well-performing former MSCA or ERC
fellows might be the best placed to lift the prestige of the EU-FP for R&I.

7. IPR (Intellectual Property) awareness: As shown in our survey and other previous studies, Europe
is still effective in investing money in research but not in turning research into financial return. In China,
researchers are required to file patents in order to receive public funding. In the interest of both research
communities, a coordinated approach to patenting and to cooperation with industry must become a
primary goal.

8. Flexibility to join EU projects: H2020 is a top-down call-related, deadline-oriented, highly

administrative and complex program. The probability that a target partner will collaborate with a
consortium at the time of proposal submission is very low. In addition, the chance of success of a
proposal is often below 10%, acting therefore as a disincentive to involvement. The capacity for fast
track amendments to existing contracts and consortium agreements (running projects) may attract the
target researchers and innovators/entrepreneurs to join at a time suitable to their needs. Hands-on
Support for the project partners should be provided by well-trained EU-NCP (National Contact Points
Europe) and Chinese RCP (Regional Contact Points in China) and Business Centres to connect the
researchers and innovators.

5. ANNEX: EXAMPLES OF QUESTION SHEET OF THE

ONLINE SURVEY
Here is example of the questions in the online survey related to this report. Example 1 are questions to
FP7 coordinators and Example 2 are the questions to H2020 coordinators. The questions to the Chinese
participants are the same, except few adaptions, e.g. Q45 in Example 1, for the Chinese participants was
the question of “access to wider European scientific community”.
12
5.1 Example 1: Questions to FP7 coordinators

13
14
15
5.2 Example 2: Questions to H2020 coordinators

16
17
18