MAGHRENOV, deliverable 3.5: List of priorities to be supported jointly as well as individually by the partners or other institutions

DELIVERABLE
Project Acronym: MAGHRENOV
Grant Agreement number: 609453
Project Title: Convergence between EU and MAGHREB MPC innovation systems
in the field of Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency (RE&EE) –
A test-bed for fostering Euro Mediterranean Innovation Space
(EMIS)
D3.5 LIST OF PRIORITIES TO BE SUPPORTED
JOINTLY AS WELL AS INDIVIDUALLY BY THE
PARTNERS OR OTHER INSTITUTIONS
Version: 1.0
Authors:
AmenAllah GUIZANI (Independent Expert)
Helene BEN KHEMIS (ANME)
Internal Reviewers:
Olga MACKIEWICZ (KIC)
Claude AYACHE (KIC)
Nadia ZEDDOU (IRESEN)
Abdelhak CHAIBI (R&D Maroc)
Dissemination Level
P Public X
C Confidential, only for members of the consortium and the Commission Services
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological
development and demonstration under the grant agreement no. 609453.

D3.5 List of Priorities to be Supported Jointly as well as Individually by the Partners or other Institutions
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................. 2!
List of Tables .................................................................................................................. 3!
List of Figures ................................................................................................................. 3!
Revision History ............................................................................................................... 4!
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 5!
1! Introduction ............................................................................................................... 6!
2! Objectives of the Deliverable .......................................................................................... 6!
3! Methodology Adopted ................................................................................................... 7!
4! Current Situation and Analysis of the Results Obtained ........................................................... 9!
4.1! Current Situation ................................................................................................. 10!
4.2! Analysis of the Results Obtained ............................................................................... 10!
4.3! Analysis of the Open Question .................................................................................. 17!
5! Recommendations – List of Priorities ............................................................................... 21!
6! Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 24!
7! References .............................................................................................................. 25!
Annex 1: Database of Interviewees ...................................................................................... 26!
Annex 2: Questionnaire on the Prioritisation of Joint Objectives for Research & Development (R&D) and
Support to Innovation [Concerning Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency (RE&EE)] ........................... 28!
© MAGHRENOV Consortium Version 2 1.0 - 15/09/2014

List of Tables
Table 1: Stakeholders participating in the questionnaire from Tunisia .............................................. 9!
Table 2: Stakeholders participating in the questionnaire from Morocco ............................................ 9!
Table 3: Classification of interviewees’ answers on the bottlenecks interfering the R&D activities .......... 20!
List of Figures
Figure 1: Methodology adopted ............................................................................................ 8
Figure 2: Gender of those who responded the questionnaire ....................................................... 10
Figure 3: Countries of the interviewees ................................................................................ 10
Figure 4: Kind of institutions answering the questionnaire .......................................................... 11
Figure 5: Position of those who responded the questionnaire ....................................................... 11
Figure 6: Field of activity of institutions answering the questionnaire ............................................ 11
Figure 7: Main thematics on which interviewees are working on/will work on in the future .................. 12
Figure 8: The methodology adopted to define R&D activities/priorities .......................................... 12
Figure 9: Body in charge of the assessment of the R&D activities .................................................. 12
Figure 10: Relevance of projects in the R&D infrastructure ......................................................... 12
Figure 11: Relevance of Research Platforms in the R&D infrastructure ........................................... 12
Figure 12: Relevance of Research centres in the R&D infrastructure .............................................. 13
Figure 13: Relevance of Shared database in the R&D infrastructure ............................................... 13
Figure 14: Relevance of Competence and expertise network in the R&D infrastructure ....................... 13
Figure 15: Relevance of Exchange platform (online) in the R&D infrastructure .................................. 13
Figure 16: Relevance of Websites in the R&D infrastructure ........................................................ 13
Figure 17: Relevance of Laboratories in the R&D infrastructure .................................................... 13
Figure 18: Relevance of Shared archives in the R&D infrastructure ................................................ 13
Figure 19: Kind of networks in which interviewees are involved in ................................................ 14
Figure 20: Opportunities offered by networks ......................................................................... 14
Figure 21: Participation of the Industries (SMEs) involved in RE&EE in the R&D activities ..................... 14
Figure 22: Participation of the Industries (Mid & Big Companies) involved in RE&EE in the R&D activities .. 14
Figure 23: Relevance of the existing industrial funding schemes related to R&D activities in RE&EE ........ 14
Figure 24: Involvement of Industries (SMEs) in the national/international funding schemes allocated to R&D
activities ..................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 25: Involvement of Industries (Mid & Big Companies) in the national/international funding schemes
allocated to R&D activities ................................................................................................ 15
Figure 26: Online platforms used which provide information/links to available funding schemes, financial
bodies ........................................................................................................................ 15
Figure 27: Kind of EU Programs in which institutions, answering the questionnaire, participated ............ 15
Figure 28: Main expected benefits of collaboration with foreign partners in the R&D EU projects ........... 15
Figure 29: Kind of support needed to improve the Innovation in the R&D activities ............................ 16
Figure 30: Relevance of the relatedNational Innovation System (NIS) ............................................. 16
Figure 31: Relevance of the support of the interface structures (Incubator, Technology Parks, Technology
Transfer Office, etc.) in the National Innovation System ............................................................ 16
Figure 32: Relevance of the existing regulations (laws, decrees, patent, etc.) for Innovation ................ 16
Figure 33: Relevance of the funding schemes allocated to Innovation ............................................ 17
Figure 34: Relevance of the level of entrepreneurial education – Competence Management ................. 17
Figure 35: Institutions desiring receive of the results of this questionnaire ...................................... 17
Figure 36: Summary of the recommendations ......................................................................... 23

Revision History
Revision Date Author Organization Description
0.1 15/09/2014 AmenAllah
GUIZANI
Independent
Expert
Initial draft
0.2 20/09/2014 Olga
MACKIEWICZ
KIC Coordinator
review
1.0 22/09/2014 AmenAllah
GUIZANI
Independent
Expert
Final Version
Statement of originality:
This deliverable contains original unpublished work except where clearly indicated otherwise.
Acknowledgement of previously published material and of the work of others has been made
through appropriate citation, quotation or both.

Executive Summary
The present document is part of the Work Package 3’s deliverables of MAGHRENOV Project; it highlights a
list of priorities to be supported jointly as well as individually by the partners or other institutions. The task
leader is the Tunisian National Agency for Energy Conservation (ANME).
The obtained results of this report match well with the objectives of the Work Package 3 – Task 3.C:
Prioritisation of joint objectives for Research and Development (R&D) and support to innovation. In fact,
the elaborated questionnaire within the frame of this task was divided into two main parts:
• The first part was dedicated to collect several points of view of the prioritisation of joint objectives
for R&D.
• The second one was devoted to the current status of the support to innovation in the EuroMed
context, focusing on Maghreb.
This questionnaire was a useful tool to achieve the aim of task 3.C and then to propose some priorities to
be supported jointly as well as individually by the partners or other institutions in the Maghreb (especially
Tunisia and Morocco).

1 Introduction
The purpose of this deliverable is to establish priorities for supporting Research & Development (R&D)
activities as well as innovation programmes in the field of Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency (RE&EE) in
the EuroMed context with a focus on the Maghreb. The output of this report would also serve as a
referential for future support activities with higher expected impact on business activity.
This deliverable D3.5 is structured as follow:
Section 2: A short introduction is given.
Section 3-4: The objectives of the deliverable as well as the objectives of the related Work Package are
detailed; these objectives are followed by an explanation of the adopted methodology in the elaboration of
this report.
Section 5: The current situation is presented accompanied by the analysis of the collected results of the
questionnaire designed to achieve the aim of the task.
Section 6: A list of recommendations is proposed including the main priorities to be supported jointly as
well as individually by the partners of the MAGHRENOV project or other institutions.
2 Objectives of the Deliverable
The deliverable D3.5 entitled ‘List of priorities to be supported jointly as well as individually by the
partners or other institutions’ is related to task 3.C which targets the establishment of common priorities
for supporting R&D activities as well incremental or break-through-innovation programs. This can serve as a
referential for future support activities (as indicated in the exploratory phase addressed in Work Package 4
(WP4) and Work Package 5 (WP5) and an expected sustainable version) with higher expected impact on
business activity. Activities under WP4 and possibly WP5, also can serve as a feedback to consolidate
market intelligence especially through specific market studies.
In addition to that, the related Work Package to this task aims at increasing a shared knowledge on the
conditions of innovation for RE&EE in the EuroMed context, focusing on Maghreb to start with.
Three lines of action were identified in order to help fulfil this objective:
• Develop innovative RE&EE market intelligence in the concerned area and create capacity for
foresight modelling.
• Develop a common vision of RE&EE infrastructures needs in the area and articulate it with the
ESFRI (European Strategy Forum for Research Infrastructures) vision for European Union (EU) (next
ESFRI roadmap to be delivered in 2015).

3 Methodology Adopted
In order to achieve the objectives of this deliverable, a questionnaire on the Prioritisation of joint
objectives for Research & Development (R&D) and support to innovation [concerning Renewable Energy &
Energy Efficiency (RE&EE) was elaborated. It was composed of two parts: one for the collection of several
points of view on the prioritisation of joint objectives for R&D and one for the current status of the support
to innovation.
This questionnaire was then addressed to selected stakeholders, located in Tunisia and Morocco, involved
in the RE&EE value chain (from R&D to industry).
Well-qualified and experienced interviewees in these stakeholders were asked to answer the survey, which
was opened only for them. This choice was made since it is important to have the best and the most
significant answers which will allow to draw up the fruitful recommendations for the European Commission
as well as for the Policy level in both countries.
Moreover, the addressed stakeholders were classified into three levels:
• Macro-level (Policy Level)
Public authorities, policy-makers: Governing and setting up framework conditions.
• Meso-level (Institutional Support Level)
Institutional innovation support organisations or publicly funded initiatives / programmes: Institutions and
initiatives are tools to put R&D and innovation policies into practice.
• Micro-level (Innovation Capacity Level)
Firms, R&D centres, academia, educational institutions, etc.: Main beneficiaries of support measures and
main producers of knowledge, innovation, technologies, and products.
Furthermore, previous experiences with online questionnaires showed that actors and stakeholders don't
believe anymore in this kind of surveys, because they didn't receive any feedback later and they didn't see
any touchable or concrete actions related to the objectives of the questionnaires. To this purpose, they
don't accept anymore to allocate even just 5 minutes to answer. That's why this questionnaire was
conceived to be concise, precise and easy to answer.
The model used draws on a wide range of data from the Experts Opinions. The answers meet the need for
up-to-date and far-reaching data, providing valuable qualitative information for which hard data sources
are scarce or non-existent.
Among the persons approached, 40 national experts (27 from Tunisia - 13 from Morocco) completed the
survey. These experts were asked to provide freely their opinions in only one question on 'What are in your
opinion the existing bottlenecks in the R&D sector in your country and the main barriers preventing the
exploitation and the valorisation of the research results?’
The data gathered thus provide a unique source of insight and a qualitative portrait of each nation’s
innovation concept. The questions in the study follow a structure asking the interviewees to evaluate, on a
scale of 1 to 5 and also from Poor to Excellent, the current conditions of their particular innovation
environment they are operating in. At one end of the scale, value 1 represents the worst possible operating
condition or situation and at the other end of the scale, value 5represents the best conditions.

The figure below summarizes the methodology adopted:
Figure 1: Methodology adopted
The questionnaire was spread by using the mailing lists of stakeholders and many efforts were also done to
advertise via social networks and via the website of the project:
Links
LinkedIn of MAGHRENOV Project www.linkedin.com/groups/Maghrenov-7424021
Facebook page of MAGHRENOV Project www.facebook.com/Maghrenov
Facebook page of the TUnisian National
Innovation System (TUNISY)
www.facebook.com/groups/549524458392650/
Facebook page of the Technology Transfer Office
(TTO) of CRTEn (Research and Technology Centre
of Energy))
www.facebook.com/BuTT.CRTEn
MAGHRENOV Project Website www.maghrenov.eu/blog/view/2522/prioritisation-of-
joint-objectives-for-research-development

4 Current Situation and Analysis of the Results
Obtained
40 experts answered the survey (27 from Tunisia and 13 from Morocco); they belong to different levels
mentioned above (abbreviation could be found in the first annex):
Tunisian case
Macro level (2 experts) Meso level (12 experts) Micro level (13 experts)
MIEM
MHESR-ICT
ANME
ANPR
TTO.CRTEn
GIZ Tunisia
DUN
MCEBC
QUALIMEX
BSI
AES
CLIMA-CONSEIL
Sagemcom
ElgazalaTechnopark
ENIM
IPT
ENIT (3)
ENSIT (3)
CRTEn (4)
ISSTEG
Table 1: Stakeholders participating in the questionnaire from Tunisia
Moroccan case
Macro level Meso level (5) Micro level (8)
R&D Maroc (2)
CE3M
Incubateur MaroBtikar
IRESEN
ENIM
FSSM-UCA (2)
MENARES
University IbnZohr
IbnTofail University
University of Mohammed 1
CNEREE
Table 2: Stakeholders participating in the questionnaire from Morocco

4.1 Current Situation
The current situation is analysed in terms of RE&EE thematic on which R&D activities are focused, which
organism defines and finances these activities and finally which organism evaluates the work achieved. The
results show that:
• The majority of the interviewees' institutions are interested in Solar Energy and Energy Efficiency,
Smart Grids, Wind Energy and Biomass represent a lower field of activities whereas Geothermal
Energy is subject of minor interest.
• The Ministry in charge of Higher Education and Scientific Research, in Tunisia and Morocco, defines
the research priorities and subsequently orientates the financing of the activities.
• According to the interviewees', The Ministry in charge of Higher Education and Scientific Research
insures the evaluation of research activities.
4.2 Analysis of the Results Obtained
All the figures below represent the results obtained from the interviewees' responses.
Indeed, Figure 2 shows that approximately a quarter of answers were given by women. Figure 3 reflects the
relatively weak participation of Moroccan stakeholders compared to the Tunisian ones (only one third of
answers come from Morocco).
Figure 2: Gender of those who responded the questionnaire
Figure 3: Countries of the interviewees

Figure 4 deals with the kind of the institutions participating in this survey. We remark that we have roughly
all types of organizations with some differences in the participation percentage.
Figure 4: Kind of institutions answering the questionnaire
Figure 5 shows that a half of received answers were from high management position of the targeted
institutions, which is a bit strange because usually General Managers don’t have enough time to fill in these
surveys. Anyway, it is a good thing for us because we need highly their responses since High Management
level always defines the priorities of R&D activities and innovation policy which will enable us to have clear
idea regarding their priorities for Tunisia and Morocco. Figure 6 indicates that roughly all participating
institutions in the questionnaire are working on RE&EE. Figure 7 proves that two third of experts are
working/will work on Solar Energy (PV, Thermal, Solar Electricity) and Energy Efficiency in
Buildings/Industry, and we note a good balance between the remaining topics proposed (Energy Policy,
Smart Grids, Wind Energy, Biomass).
Figure 5: Position of those who responded the questionnaire
Figure 6: Field of activity of institutions answering the questionnaire

Figure 7: Main thematic on which interviewees are working on/will work on in the future
Figure 8 confirms that R&D activities/priorities are not defined mostly according to specific needs of
companies but answers show that, essentially, R&D activities/priorities are defined according to national
priorities that have been identified through policies and to Scientific and technological watch in a national
and international level. And Figure 9 points out that the assessment of R&D is allocated to the Ministry in
charge of Scientific Research activities instead of attributing it to the National body in charge of the
assessment of R&D activities in each country or at least to the National Agency/Foundation for Science,
Technology and Innovation or also the Scientific Council of the organisation.
Figure 8: The methodology adopted to define R&D activities/priorities
Figure 9: Body in charge of the assessment of the R&D activities
Figures 10 to 18, ESFRI (European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures) classification is adopted to
rate the R&D infrastructure. Figures 11, 13, 15 and 18 indicate that Research Platforms, Shared database,
Exchange platform (online) and Shared archives are not well rated, but the Projects, Research centres,
Competence and expertise network, Websites and Laboratories related respectively to Figures 10, 12, 14,
16 and 17, are quite well rated.
Figure 10: Relevance of projects in the R&D
infrastructure
Figure 11: Relevance of Research Platforms in the
R&D infrastructure

Figure 12: Relevance of Research centres in the
R&D infrastructure
Figure 13: Relevance of Shared database in the
R&D infrastructure
Figure 14: Relevance of Competence and
expertise network in the R&D infrastructure
Figure 15: Relevance of Exchange platform
(online)in the R&D infrastructure
Figure 16: Relevance of Websites in the R&D
infrastructure
Figure 17: Relevance of Laboratories in the R&D
infrastructure
Figure 18: Relevance of Shared archives in the R&D infrastructure
Figure 19 reflects that a half of participating institutions are involved in networks, but most of them prefer
be involved in Network with Multiple Professional Profiles. Figure 20 shows that those institutions gain some
opportunities thanks to their participation in these networks especially: Participation in Collaborative
Projects, Conferences, Seminars, Trainings; Access to information and improvement of the institution’s
Visibility.

Figure 19: Kind of networks in which interviewees are involved in
Figure 20: Opportunities offered by networks
Figures 21 to 25 are very interesting because they give an overview of the involvement of industries in the
R&D activities. In fact, Figures 21 and 22 show that this involvement is poor and in Figure 23, we note that
the existing industrial funding schemes related to R&D activities in RE&EE are quite well rated but Figures
24 and 25 indicate that even there are some funding schemes for industries, they are not well exploited.
Figure 21: Participation of the Industries (SMEs)
involved in RE&EE in the R&D activities
Figure 22: Participation of the Industries (Mid & Big
Companies) involved in RE&EE in the R&D activities
Figure 23: Relevance of the existing industrial funding schemes related to R&D activities in RE&EE

Figure 24: Involvement of Industries (SMEs) in
the national/international funding schemes
allocated to R&D activities
Figure 25: Involvement of Industries (Mid & Big
Companies) in the national/international funding
schemes allocated to R&D activities
According to Figure 26, Websites of ongoing national/international projects are the most visited websites
by the interviewees, which proves the importance of such projects. But the Websites of National Research
Authority/Council, National Research Funding Agencies and of course the institution website are also
usually consulted.
Figure 26: Online platforms used which provide information/links to available funding schemes,
financial bodies
Figure 27 shows that the majority of the institutions participated mainly in Framework Programs and took
profit of other mechanisms in lower occasions. The aim of their participation in these programs is access to
knowledge and market, according to Figure 28.
Figure 27: Kind of EU Programs in which institutions, answering the questionnaire, participated
Figure 28: Main expected benefits of collaboration with foreign partners in the R&D EU projects

Figure 29 shows that the main measures that have to be taken to improve the Innovation in the R&D
activities are: Implementation of Technology Transfer and Innovation Body, Reinforcement of R&D
infrastructure and Capacity Building. And the majority of interviewees, according Figure 30, didn’t rate
well their National Innovation System (NIS).
Figure 29: Kind of support needed to improve the Innovation in the R&D activities
Figure 30: Relevance of the related National Innovation System (NIS)
Figures 31 to 34 give an idea on the weaknesses (low rate given by interviewees) of the National Innovation
Systems in both countries:
• Poor support of the interface structures (Incubator, Technology Parks, Technology Transfer Office,
etc.).
• Inadequate existing regulations (laws, decrees, patent, etc.) for Innovation.
• Lack of funding schemes allocated to Innovation.
• Medium level of entrepreneurial education – Competence Management.
Figure 31: Relevance of the support of the interface structures (Incubator, Technology Parks,
Technology Transfer Office, etc.) in the National Innovation System
Figure 32: Relevance of the existing regulations (laws, decrees, patent, etc.) for Innovation

Figure 33: Relevance of the funding schemes allocated to Innovation
Figure 34: Relevance of the level of entrepreneurial education – Competence Management
Figure 35 shows that only 5% of the interviewees don’t like to receive the results of this questionnaire, so
there is a big interest in the expected results.
Figure 35: Institutions desiring receive of the results of this questionnaire
4.3 Analysis of the Open Question
As mentioned above, we included in the questionnaire an open question on [The existing bottlenecks in the
R&D sector in your country and the main barriers preventing the exploitation and the valorisation of the
research results]. The bottlenecks are classified according to the Governance Barriers, the Communication
/ Networking barriers, the Resources / Programme barriers and finally the actors (researchers and
Industrialists) related barriers.
All the responses of the interviewees are then inserted in the corresponding “rows” and the following chart
is obtained:
Governance barriers
− The actual mode of governance of universities, research centres and the public sector in general.
− The lack of long-term strategic vision for R&DI and related activities.
− Lack of innovation strategy in industry.
− Lack of transparency within the work of the agencies funding research projects.

− Lack of best governance practices within the agencies funding research projects.
− Lack of strategy for research activities.
− Lack of clear procedures and orientation guides for valorisation of the research results.
− Non-existence of visible programs.
− No appropriate strategic vision, which aims to promote R&D.
− Absence of a clear R&D strategy oriented to the needs of Industries.
− Heaviness administrative procedures related to exploitation of some Research Results.
− Lack of a global strategy inciting industry to collaborate with research entities.
− Lack of strategies to reduce administrative formalities.
− Lack of leading authorities.
− IP policy/legal aspects.
Communication / Networking barriers
− The lack of communication/exchange and cooperative projects between industrial representatives
and research institutions.
− Lack of coordination among the actors involved in funding, conducting and capitalizing of research
projects.
− There is a gap between University R&D organizations and business.
− Research does not come from the business needs and do not meet their expectations and cover topics
far from being operated immediately.
− Poor communication and tools for linking and matchmaking between the world of research and the
industry.
− Need to improve communication methods to let the researchers know what is exactly the real
national need in terms of R&D.
− Small number of networking events and meetings grouping Researchers and Industrials.
− Absence of on-line platforms providing useful Research Results able to interest the Industrials.
− Lack of well qualified structures in charge of dissemination of good research results.

− Lack of matching between research activities and industry targets.
− Lack of shared information.
Resources / Programme Barriers
− The lack of updated database with the different research results.
− The lack of applied research frameworks, centres and national collaborations between university and
industries in the field of Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency represents the most important barrier
preventing the exploitation and the valorisation of the research results.
− Share database between partners (Ministries, Research centres, Universities & Industries).
− Financial problems Collaboration with industrial.
− The most important problem is the funding of R&D.
− Not-well maintenance of R&D infrastructure.
− Poor R&D infrastructure and absence of real initiatives to launch big and daring R&D Projects.
− Low budget and poor financial support.
− The lack of financial resources in research laboratories and structures.
− The limited industrial contribution either in the financial plan or in the design plan.
Actors barriers
− Weakness of support bodies.
− The lack of specialists, competencies and professional profiles that can valorise the research results.
− The structures of the university are sclerotic and the company has no confidence in the university.
Requires that the university creates its own ecosystem to enhance its research through incubators for
start-ups In the USA, MIT University created 4000 SMEs in the last fifteen years and tens of thousands
of jobs.
− The poor involvement of the state owned big companies in R&DI activities.
− Lack of trust.
− Weakness of industrial foundation.
− Lack of involvement of our chiefs of concerned institutions.

− Lack of motivation of our researchers.
− The unawareness of the Researchers of the importance of the valorisation of their Research Results.
− Lack of well qualified professionals (for patent, marketing...) able to exploit the Research Results
and make them transferable to the Industry side.
− No confidence in the competence of Tunisian scientists.
− Lack of interest of most industries to R&D activities.
− Lack of incentives at both research entities and industry.
− Non-existence of SMEs, which express their need for R&D.
− Salaries.
Table 3: Classification of interviewees’ answers on the bottlenecks interfering the R&D activities

5 Recommendations – List of Priorities
The gathered answers to the questionnaire are used to propose some priorities related to R&D activities as
well as support to innovation, to be supported jointly as well as individually by the project’s partners or
other institutions established in both addressed countries.
Below, the main recommendations / priorities are given:
RECOMMENDATION 1: IMPROVING THE IMPLEMENTATION AND MANAGEMENT OF CURRENT R&D ACTIVITIES AND STI (SCIENCE,
TECHNOLOGY, AND INNOVATION) SUPPORT PROGRAMMES
According to the Experts’ Opinions, there are many determinants that can be improved with relatively
small effort and high impact, which are:
• Applied R&D Programmes
• Entrepreneurial Support
• International Cooperation Support
• R&D Funding Schemes
• Joint Funding Schemes
RECOMMENDATION 2: SUPPORT TO INNOVATION GOVERNANCE BY CLEAR DEFINITION OF PROGRAMMES AND GOOD EVALUATION
OF R&D ACTIVITIES
It is very important to focus on R&D activities clear programmes with evaluation and impact measuring of
R&D activities and support to innovation. These important tools justify public investments in R&D and
innovation and adopting programme designs and objectives. Such activities help to identify success stories
as well as areas for sectorial improvement.
RECOMMENDATION 3: IMPROVING THE IMPACT OF TUNISIAN/MOROCCAN TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER OFFICES/CENTRES
[INTERFACES BODIES/STRUCTURES]
The impact of Tunisian/Moroccan Technology Transfer Offices/Centres [Interfaces bodies/structures] could
also be improved with manageable efforts. Technology Transfer Offices/Centres [Interfaces
bodies/structures] are a very popular tool to bring together industry and academia, and enable more
sustainable innovations. Provided they are adequately staffed with researchers and fully technologically
equipped, they can offer innovation-related services according to their clients’ needs. These bodies are
internationally recognized as effective tools in the R&DI systems.
RECOMMENDATION 4: STRENGTHENING REGIONAL NETWORKS AND CLUSTERS
The support of clusters and the implementation of a sound cluster policy could have a major positive
impact for the RE&EE sector in Tunisia/Morocco. The development of a nationwide cluster policy focusing
on the RE&EE sector would support the process of cooperation between industry and academia. In this
context, some international donors are achieving support activities for networking.
RECOMMENDATION 5: STRENGTHENING THE EXISTING INSTITUTIONAL INNOVATION SUPPORT PROVIDERS
Many institutional innovation support entities are poorly implemented. Thus, it is strongly recommended to
have a more detailed look at these institutions and to support the Tunisian/Moroccan governments in
better implementing such entities. This support may be achieved taking into account the policy dimension
as well as the management dimension.

OTHER USEFUL RECOMMENDATIONS / PRIORITIES
• Support R&D projects of enterprises or cooperative projects in Renewable Technologies as well as
the development of services in relation to renewables.
• Deploy an information system to better share and exchange knowledge.
• Strengthen coordination between concerned ministries in Tunisia and Morocco in charge of R&D
activities and support to innovation.
• Offer infrastructure for start-up.
• Enhance motivation of inventors/entrepreneurs/industrials.
• Organize capacity building sessions for scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs in RE&EE.
These recommendations are summarized in the figure on the next page:

Figure 36: Summary of the recommendations

6 Conclusion
In conclusion, this report was written thanks to:
• The analysis of existing references regarding the specific R&D activities and support to innovation
system in the targeting countries (Tunisia and Morocco).
• The interviews conducted (via the online questionnaire) with well-qualified and experimented
experts representing the selected stakeholders in both countries.
• The evaluation and measuring of the questionnaire outcomes.
• The formulation of recommendations on the prioritisation of joint objectives for Research &
Development (R&D) and support to innovation.
The questionnaire established for this deliverable allowed to identify the main treated topics of RE&EE, the
weaknesses and the status of the Innovation System in both countries. Some recommendations are proposed
to overcome these difficulties and to strengthen R&D activities and support to innovation.

7 References
[1] Chaabouni, Refaat (2008) - Progress towards the Implementation of the National Innovation System
in Tunisia. In: Communications of the IBIMA, Volume 2, 2008, p. 188 – 191. Norristown: IBIMA
Publishing
[2] OECD (1997), National Innovation Systems, Paris, OECD Publishing
[3] World Bank (2010), Innovation Policy: A Guide for Developing Countries. Washington, D.C.: The
Workd Bank
[4] Cluster RE&EE in Tunisia (in EcoparkBorj-Cedria)
Link: www.lol-arabic.com/technopole//files/files/cluster.pdf
[5] www.pasri.tn/activites?axe=21
[6] www.pasri.tn/giz/
[7] www.giz.de/de/downloads/giz2013-fr-Programme-Appui-Entrepreneuriat.pdf
[8] www.anpr.tn/index.php?id=103
[9] www.innorpi.tn:8080/web/guest/normes?p_p_id=EXT_2&p_p_action=0&p_p_state=maximized&p_p
_mode=view&p_p_col_id=&p_p_col_pos=0&p_p_col_count=0&_EXT_2_struts_action=%2Fext%2Fcatal
ogue_normes%2Fview&_EXT_2_tabs1=normes-tunisiennes&_
EXT_2_group=&group=&normetn=NT%20110.332(2012)&normeet=&tabs1=normes-tunisiennes
[10] www.idnet.org.tn/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=90:naissance-de-idnet&
catid=38:slideshow&Itemid=102
[11] ec.europa.eu/research/infrastructures/index_en.cfm?pg=what
[12] ec.europa.eu/research/infrastructures/pdf/esfri-strategy_report_and_roadmap.pdf
[13] Med-Spring deliverable D2.3:Stocktaking of Research Results
Link: www.medspring.eu/sites/default/files/D2.3%20-%20StocktakingResearchResults_M10.pdf
[14] ETRERA_2020 (Empowering Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Research Alliance for Europe
2020 challenges) deliverable D.2.2: Catalogue of Competencies
Link: www.etrera2020.eu/project/public-deriverables.html

Annex 1: Database of Interviewees
Tunisian Stakeholders answering the questionnaire
Family & First Name Institution Website
BENYAICHE Mohamed Mongi MIEM - Ministry of Industry, Energy and Mining www.tunisieindustrie.gov.tn
CHTOUROU Radhouane
MHESR-ICT - Ministry of Higher Education, Scientific Research and
Information and Communication Technologies www.mes.tn
Hélène Ben Khemis ANME - Agence Nationale pour la Maîtrise de l'Energie www.anme.nat.tn
JAOUADI Mariem
ANPR - Agence Nationale de Promotion de la Recherche
Scientifique www.anpr.tn
KBAIER Zied
TTO.CRTEn – Bureau de Transfert de Technologie du Centre de
Recherches et des Technologies de l'Energie www.crten.rnrt.tn
MSELMI Fatma GIZ Tunisia - GesellschaftfürInternationaleZusammenarbeit www.giz.de
MILED Mouldi DUN - Desertec University Network www.dun-eumena.com
BEN ALI Elaid MCEBC - Management Company of EcoparkBorj-Cedria www.ecopark.tn
BEN CHARFEDDINE Adnene QUALIMEX Ongoing
ERNEZ Ahmed BSI - Biome Solar Industry www.biomesolar.com
BABA Abdallah AES - Alternative Energy Systems www.aes-tunisie.com
JELLOULI Yacine CLIMA-CONSEIL www.climaconseil@com
TOUMI Khaled Sagemcom Software & Technologies Tunisia www.sagemcom.com
JENDOUBI Monia ElgazalaTechnopark www.elgazala.tn
El ALIMI Souheil ENIM - Ecole Nationale d'Ingénieurs de Monastir www.enim.tn
BEN FADHEL Oussama IPT - Institut Pasteur de Tunis www.pasteur.tn
CHAABOUNI Refaat ENIT - Ecole Nationale d'Ingénieurs de Tunis www.enit.rnu.tn
SOUSSI Meriem ENIT - Ecole Nationale d'Ingénieurs de Tunis www.enit.rnu.tn
ZNOUDA Essia ENIT - Ecole Nationale d'Ingénieurs de Tunis www.enit.rnu.tn
BELHADJ Jamel ENSIT - Ecole Nationale Supérieure d'Ingénieurs de Tunis www.ensit.tn
MEZNI Taoufik ENSIT - Ecole Nationale Supérieure d'Ingénieurs de Tunis www.ensit.tn
BESSAÏS Brahim CRTEn - Centre de Recherches et des Technologies de l'Energie www.crten.rnrt.tn
GUIZANI AmenAllah CRTEn - Centre de Recherches et des Technologies de l'Energie www.crten.rnrt.tn
CHOUIKH Ridha CRTEn - Centre de Recherches et des Technologies de l'Energie crten.rnrt.tn
MAATALLAH Taher
ISSTEG - Institut Supérieur des Sciences et des Technologies de
l'Energie de Gafsa www.issteg.rnu.tn

Moroccan Stakeholders answering the questionnaire
Family Name and First Name Institution Website
BOUYAAKOUBNourdine CE3M - Cluster Electronique, Mécatronique et Mécanique www.ce3m.ma
SMANI Mohamed R&D Morocco rdmaroc.com
CHAIBI Abdelhak R&D Morocco rdmaroc.com
AROUCH Moha Incubator MaroBtikar - University Hassan 1er www.uh1.ac.ma
ZEDDOU Nadia
IRESEN - Institut de Recherche en Energie Solaire et Energies
Nouvelles www.iresen.org
JAMEA El Mostafa MENA Renewables and Sustainability - MENARES www.mena-renewables.com
IHLAL Ahmed University IbnZohr www.uiz.ac.ma
EL BARI Hassan IbnTofail University www.univ-ibntofail.ac.ma
HAMDI Hassan University Cadi Ayyad www.uca.ma
BENNOUNA Amin FSSM - Faculté des Sciences Semlalia de Marrakech www.fssm.ucam.ac.ma
MEZRHAB Ahmed University of Mohammed 1, Oujda, Morocco www.univ-oujda.ac.ma
MAALMIMostafa ENIM - École Nationale de l'Industrie Minérale www.enim.ac.ma
AIT NOUH Fatima
CNEREE - Centre National d'Etudes et de Recherches sur l'Eau
et l'Energie - Université Cadi Ayyad – Marrakech - Morocco www.ucam.ac.ma/cneree

Annex 2: Questionnaire on the Prioritisation of
Joint Objectives for Research & Development (R&D)
and Support to Innovation [Concerning Renewable
Energy & Energy Efficiency (RE&EE)]

MAGHRENOV, deliverable 3.5: List of priorities to be supported jointly as well as individually by the partners or other institutions

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (10)

Similaire à MAGHRENOV, deliverable 3.5: List of priorities to be supported jointly as well as individually by the partners or other institutions

Similaire à MAGHRENOV, deliverable 3.5: List of priorities to be supported jointly as well as individually by the partners or other institutions (20)

Plus de Maghrenov

Plus de Maghrenov (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

MAGHRENOV, deliverable 3.5: List of priorities to be supported jointly as well as individually by the partners or other institutions