Linking Russia to the ERA: Coordination of MS/AC S&T programmes Towards and with Russia ERA.NET RUS

1. Linking Russia to the ERA: Coordination of MS/AC S&T programmes Towards and with Russia ERA.NET RUS WORKSHOP Lessons learned and perspectives of bilateral S&T cooperation programmes Between EU Member States and Associated Countries and Russia 25-27 June 2009, Tallinn, Estonia Presentation and Discussion of the ERANET Russia draft analytical Report “State of the art and perspectives of bilateral S&T cooperation” Preliminary survey results among EU/AC Programme Owners Antonios Gypakis, General Secretariat for Research and Technology, Greece

2. Overview of the presentation Background and rationale of the survey Survey preliminary results

3. Bilateral cooperation in comparison – ERA.Net RUS survey results Methodology Bilateral cooperation between EU/AC and Russia is analysed by way of a survey among R&D funding bodies (or so-called “programme owners”) in the countries concerned.

4. EU/AC Programme owners were requested to answer questions regarding their cooperation in science, research, technological development and / or innovation towards Russia or with Russia Programme owners SECTION A General Information of the Programme Owners Organisation SECTION B Information about their cooperation programmes SECTION C Target Region specific qestions

5. SECTION C SECTION B & The survey consists of a sample of questions, which test for a variety of aspects of bilateral R&D funding cooperation, ranging from bilateral agreements, budgets invested, programme and evaluation procedures, thematic focus, etc.

6. Methodologically it has to be mentioned that: obviously not very easy to convince programme owners to provide data for such a survey. methodological remark the comparability of data, which is for several categories of questions not given: Differences in: accounting of budgets, modes of counting bilateral projects with Russia, etc.

7. Preliminary results of survey among EU/AC Programme Owners The survey sample includes currently complete responses of 15 organisations from the following countries: AT, CH, DE, FI, FR, GR, HU, NO, TR. Several organisations from other countries have provided only partly information up to now: BG, DK, EE, IT, NL, PL, SE. Some responding organisations from countries such as CY and RO do not have cooperation with Russia. For some countries the relevant programme owners need still to be identified and contacted in the next survey stage.

8. Out of the sample of responding organisations, the majority or 47% are governmental organisations. Non-governmental organisations make up 33% of responding funding organisations and 20% are research institutions operating also funding programmes.

9. Until end of June 2009 the following Russian programme owners have taken part in the Survey:

10. Cooperation Instruments EU/AC The instruments that the EU/AC programme owners organisations apply in order to support international S&T cooperation.

11. Beneficiaries of S&T support – EU/AC

12. Overall budget for international R&D cooperation and budget for cooperation with Russia, 2008

13. Budget An interesting indicator for EU/AC programme owners is a comparison of the overall budget for international S&T cooperation with the budget for cooperation with Russia for the year 2008. Only for a limited number of organizations the budget for cooperation with Russia is available; these amounts are obviously not always separately calculated from the overall international cooperation budget.

14. The Research Council of Norway has the highest overall international cooperation budget, which is entirely dedicated to cooperation with Russia. The Academy of Finland has, according to available figures, the second highest budget for S&T cooperation with Russia; it has been ranked at the end of the table, because the overall amount for international S&T cooperation was not available. For the Austrian Science Fund and CNRS/France it can be observed that they invest around 20% of their international S&T cooperation budget into cooperation with Russia.

15. Thematic priorities – EU/AC ranked according to frequency of mentioning

16. Obstacles – EU/AC • In terms of obstacles to bilateral S&T cooperation with Russia, • responding programme owners from EU/AC mentioned most frequently: • legal problems and • visa problems. • Cultural and language barriers as well as budget problems, • including troubles with money transfer are an issue too.

17. Evaluation procedures – EU/AC The majority of the programme owners use a separate evaluation procedure.

18. The use of optional evaluation criteria Most programme owners use optional evaluation criteria that can positively influence the funding decision

19. Most frequently used Evaluation criteria • scientific excellence of project proposals and • qualification and feasibility of projects

20. IPR - Rules 69% of respondents have either no IPR rules or have not indicated any. 6% of responding organisations, funded projects need to conclude an IPR agreement for the project. 13% of responding organisations do recommend project consortia to conclude IPR agreements 13% of organisations framework agreements between the funding organisations do regulate IPR questions Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) EU/AC

21. Impact Assessments - EU/AC Less than 20% of responding programme owners organisations are performing impact assessments of their bilateral cooperation programmes with Russia. Important Notice: More organisations are planning to do such impact assessments, evaluations are becoming more important in general as a justification and planning tool.

22. Thank you very much for your attention • Contacts: • Dr. Antonios Gypakis • Hellenic Ministry of Development / General Secretariat of Research and TechnologyDirectorate of the International S&T Cooperation / EU Division 14-18 Mesogeion Av., GR-115 27 Athens, Greece Tel:  +30 210 7714495, Fax: +30 210 7714153E-mail: agypa@gsrt.gr, URL: http://www.gsrt.gr