The Tunisian scientific research system currently entails: 13 public universities (one of which virtual) with 205 higher education and scientific research institutions and 37 doctoral schools; 39 national research centres, including 21 research centres with active units and labs recognised by the National Authority for Evaluation of Research Activities; 329 research laboratories and 301 research units distributed across the universities and research centres. In addition to universities, academia is enriched by a network of ISETs (Instituts supérieurs des études technologiques). The high level of institutional density is one of the key structural issues in the Tunisian research and Higher Education (HE) system. Tunisia has a higher number of higher education and scientific research institutions than many research-intensive countries and the average in the EU. This high number of Tunisian research institutions causes fragmentation in financial and administrative resources, as well as problems for knowledge management. Moreover, the Tunisian R&D system lacks of a strong scientific specialization of the national scientific research system despite the small size of the country. As a result there are many small research teams that struggle to reach a critical mass and enhance their visibility.

Previous studies[ZE4] have highlighted how Tunisia is facing several challenges that are limiting the efficiency of its research system and contraining private R&D. [MR(5]

• The Tunisian R&I system [ZE6]is very complex, involving too many actors, given the size of the country. The system in rapid change, with several intermediaries being created, but their contribution to the country’s innovation performance is unclear[MR(7];

• There is not one overall strategic thought. Coordination between ministries is improving, but besides horizontal coordination, there are issues with vertical coordination between different types of actors;

• Despite the aforementioned inefficiencies, there is a very detailed understanding of national problems. Stakeholders are aware of the major contraints limiting the country’s innovation performance and they are willing to promote initiatives to improve the system;

• There have been some recent efforts in defining research priorities from a top-down perspectives but these are too broad (they are more sectors than research priorities or key enabling technologies – e.g. water) and are not applied to the different levels of the system (e.g. the technopole system is not specialised in these priorities);

• There are some bottom-up efforts in identifying priorities (e.g. IRESA) but these priorities and methodologies are not shared. More exchanges of experiences are needed;

• Much emphasis is given to the technopole system, but the system is [MR(8]too big for the size of the country (11 units)[ZE9] and the level of maturity of its units is very heterogeneous;

• Some of the technopoles do not respond to urgent needs of the country;

• There is low critical mass in research efforts, with many research institutions, small teams and limited budget;

• Universities have very little autonomy in setting their strategies and in promoting their policies in engaging with the private sector;

• The private sector is basically excluded from the definition of national priorities;

• There is little or no evaluation of the research system, no information about its selfsustainability;

• There is a strong specialisation in basic reseach rather than applied research and experimental development;

• While the management of university-industry interactions should be left to academic institutions and companies, with intermediaries supporting these two agents, the rules that regulate these interactions are unclear. There is little incentive for researchers starting a company or promoting a collaboration agreement with the private sector;

• There is limited information on the technological needs of the country’s dual economy. The awareness about their innovation activity is very low;

• The IPR system adopted in Tunisia might not be appropriate for the objectives of government stakeholders, as it appears better suited for a highly industrialised country.

[MR(1]This is not true

[MR(2]“and to foster public-private cooperation” should be here as well