Periodic Reporting for period 2 - MSCAdvocacy (International Advocacy for the Strategic Alignment of MSCA Cooperation Mechanisms in Key Partner Countries and Regions)
Reporting period: 2023-05-01 to 2025-04-30
The aim of the MSCAdvocacy project was to contribute to a more strategic promotion of the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) in 20 target countries (Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Egypt, India, Japan, Jordan, Republic of Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, South Africa, Switzerland, Tunisia, Ukraine, USA) and six regions (African Union, Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Eastern Partnership countries, Latin American and Caribbean States, Mediterranean Partnership countries and, Western Balkans) around the world, with which the European Union (EU) has signed research and innovation (R&I) cooperation agreements. Such strategic promotion ultimately would better align the funded MSCA to broader EU policies, while addressing challenges specific for each targeted country and region, such as unbalanced researchers flows towards and from the EU; decline in MSCA participation due to e.g. lack of co-funding mechanisms or weaknesses in MSCA dissemination in certain countries.
For fulfilling its objectives, the MSCAdvocacy project performed a cartography of the MSCA in the different countries and regions under the EU's R&I framework programme Horizon 2020 (H2020; 2014-2020) as a reference point and in Horizon Europe (HEU; 2021-2027), deriving trends in the participation (increase/decrease) per type of MSC action. Moreover, the project provided intelligence about challenges, barriers and opportunities for strategic MSCA promotion, in the form of policy briefs addressed to the European Commission (EC).
The methodological approach of MSCAdvocacy included desk research, identification of key stakeholders in each country and region, online interviews and surveys, as well as implementation of in-person fact-finding missions to the 20 target countries. Regional stakeholders were addressed through online interviews and workshops.
At the end of the three years implementation period of the project, recommendations have been prepared for a more strategic promotion of the MSCA in the future, to better align the funded actions to EU’s policies and priorities.
For fulfilling its objectives, the MSCAdvocacy project performed a cartography of the MSCA in the different countries and regions under the EU's R&I framework programme Horizon 2020 (H2020; 2014-2020) as a reference point and in Horizon Europe (HEU; 2021-2027), deriving trends in the participation (increase/decrease) per type of MSC action. Moreover, the project provided intelligence about challenges, barriers and opportunities for strategic MSCA promotion, in the form of policy briefs addressed to the European Commission (EC).
The methodological approach of MSCAdvocacy included desk research, identification of key stakeholders in each country and region, online interviews and surveys, as well as implementation of in-person fact-finding missions to the 20 target countries. Regional stakeholders were addressed through online interviews and workshops.
At the end of the three years implementation period of the project, recommendations have been prepared for a more strategic promotion of the MSCA in the future, to better align the funded actions to EU’s policies and priorities.
During the first year of its implementation the MSCAdvocacy project assessed the situation in terms of MSCA participation, but also in terms of broader R&I policies, research funding and MSCA promotion mechanisms in the target countries and regions.
In parallel, the project initiated a qualitative monitoring of the participation in the different types of MSCA (namely Staff Exchanges (SE); Doctoral Networks (DN); COFUND and Post-Doctoral Fellowships (PF)). The monitoring derived trends in the participation (per country/region and per type of action) between H2020 as a whole, and the three first years of HEU. The trends revealed improvements in the participation, but also weaknesses that could be addressed through a more strategic promotion of MSCA in the specific country or region.
Moreover, the qualitative monitoring identified highly ranked research entities in every country and region (reference SCImago ranking) that never participated in MSCA in H2020 and in the first three years of HEU. Such highly ranked entities constitute a priority target for a more strategic promotion of MSCA in the target countries and regions.
Last but not least, the project through its activities provided intelligence on important issues in the cooperation with each country and region, in the form of six policy briefs addressed to the EC (DG EAC) bi-annually.
In parallel, the project initiated a qualitative monitoring of the participation in the different types of MSCA (namely Staff Exchanges (SE); Doctoral Networks (DN); COFUND and Post-Doctoral Fellowships (PF)). The monitoring derived trends in the participation (per country/region and per type of action) between H2020 as a whole, and the three first years of HEU. The trends revealed improvements in the participation, but also weaknesses that could be addressed through a more strategic promotion of MSCA in the specific country or region.
Moreover, the qualitative monitoring identified highly ranked research entities in every country and region (reference SCImago ranking) that never participated in MSCA in H2020 and in the first three years of HEU. Such highly ranked entities constitute a priority target for a more strategic promotion of MSCA in the target countries and regions.
Last but not least, the project through its activities provided intelligence on important issues in the cooperation with each country and region, in the form of six policy briefs addressed to the EC (DG EAC) bi-annually.
The results of the qualitative monitoring of participation in MSCA indicate that, out of the 20 target countries, only nine have shown improved performance under HEU compared to H2020, while eleven experience lower participation rates. This decline may be attributed to the increasingly competitive nature of HEU grants, highlighting the need for intensified MSCA promotional efforts in countries that are falling behind. Conversely, when examining the analysed regions, nearly all demonstrate performance that is either improved or comparable under HEU relative to H2020.
In terms of academic excellence, participation varies among countries: in some countries mostly front-runners participate in the MSCA (e.g. in Australia, Canada, China and the US, 70% of the top 20 institutions are engaged in MSCA projects), while in other countries lower-ranking entities got a significant share of MSCA projects (e.g. in India none of the top 20 entities participated in MSCA in the first three years of HEU). These results show that a more targeted MSCA promotion is needed towards highly ranked research entities, which in principle are better placed for getting MSCA grants and constitute a higher target from EU side.
In terms of researcher mobility, higher-income countries among the 20 analysed tended to attract a net inflow of European researchers, while countries in the EU neighbourhood and those with developing research systems saw a greater outflow of researchers to the EU. The most pronounced imbalances in incoming to EU mobility based on H2020 data are observed with India (1,088 incoming/37 outgoing), Jordan (52/3) and Egypt (171/27). Conversely, the strongest imbalances in outgoing mobility are with Japan (200/762), US (800/2637) and Switzerland (489/1510).
In terms of academic excellence, participation varies among countries: in some countries mostly front-runners participate in the MSCA (e.g. in Australia, Canada, China and the US, 70% of the top 20 institutions are engaged in MSCA projects), while in other countries lower-ranking entities got a significant share of MSCA projects (e.g. in India none of the top 20 entities participated in MSCA in the first three years of HEU). These results show that a more targeted MSCA promotion is needed towards highly ranked research entities, which in principle are better placed for getting MSCA grants and constitute a higher target from EU side.
In terms of researcher mobility, higher-income countries among the 20 analysed tended to attract a net inflow of European researchers, while countries in the EU neighbourhood and those with developing research systems saw a greater outflow of researchers to the EU. The most pronounced imbalances in incoming to EU mobility based on H2020 data are observed with India (1,088 incoming/37 outgoing), Jordan (52/3) and Egypt (171/27). Conversely, the strongest imbalances in outgoing mobility are with Japan (200/762), US (800/2637) and Switzerland (489/1510).