View
222
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
RUSSIA
www.era.net-rus.eu
Linking Russia to the ERA:Coordination of MS/AC S&T programmes
Towards and with RussiaERA.NET RUS
WORKSHOPLessons learned and perspectives of bilateral S&T cooperation programmes
Between EU Member States and Associated Countries and Russia25-27 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
RUSSIA
www.era.net-rus.eu
Overview of the presentation
Background and rationale of the survey
Survey preliminary results
RUSSIA
www.era.net-rus.eu
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.
RUSSIA
www.era.net-rus.eu
EU/AC Programme owners were requested to answer questions regardingtheir 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
RUSSIA
www.era.net-rus.eu
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.
SECTION B & SECTION C
RUSSIA
www.era.net-rus.eu
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.
RUSSIA
www.era.net-rus.eu
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.
RUSSIA
www.era.net-rus.eu
Organisation Type of the EU/AC programme owners
47%
33%
20%
governmental non-governmental research institution
Out of the sample of responding organisations, the majority or 47% are governmentalorganisations. Non-governmental organisations make up 33% of responding funding organisations and 20% are research institutions operating also funding programmes.
RUSSIA
www.era.net-rus.eu
Until end of June 2009 the following Russian programme owners have taken part in the Survey:
Austrian Academy of Sciences International Bureau (DLR), Germany
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), Germany
Österr. Forschungsgemeinschaft, Austria GSRT, Hellenic Ministry for Development, Greece
Danish National Research Found Hungarian Academy of Science
Estonian Science Foundation The Research Council of Norway
Academy of Finland Swiss National Science Foundation
CNRS, France TUBITAK, Turkey
Helmholtz Association, Germany
RUSSIA
www.era.net-rus.eu
The instruments that the EU/AC programme owners organisations apply in order to support international S&T cooperation.
10 10
5
9
4
2
6
3
8
2
0123456789
10
No o
f Pro
gram
me
owne
rs
Instruments in order to support international S&T cooperation
Cooperation InstrumentsEU/AC
RUSSIA
www.era.net-rus.eu
10
5
3
9
3
0123456789
10N
o of
Pro
gram
me
owne
rs
Beneficiaries of the Programme Owners cooperation support
Beneficiaries of S&T support – EU/AC
RUSSIA
www.era.net-rus.eu
€ 0
€ 2.000.000
€ 4.000.000
€ 6.000.000
€ 8.000.000
€ 10.000.000
€ 12.000.000
€ 14.000.000
overallRU
Overall budget for international R&D cooperation and budget for cooperation with Russia, 2008
RUSSIA
www.era.net-rus.eu
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.
Budget
RUSSIA
www.era.net-rus.eu
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.
RUSSIA
www.era.net-rus.eu
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
No of Programme owners
Health
Food Agricultu
res and Fisheries
Biotechnology
Nanotechnologies/Materia
ls
Energy
Environment, C
limate Change
Transport, Aeronautic
s
Socioeconomic sciences & humanities
SecuritySpace
ICTOther
Priorities
Thematic priorities for bilateral S&T cooperation with Russia
ranked according to frequency of mentioning
Thematic priorities – EU/AC
RUSSIA
www.era.net-rus.eu
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.
Obstacles – EU/AC
RUSSIA
www.era.net-rus.eu
Types of Evaluation procedures
62%
12%
13%13%
Separate evaluation procedure
Joint evaluation procedure
Both procedures are applied (2 stage evaluation procedure)
other
Evaluation procedures – EU/AC
The majority of the programme owners use a separate evaluation procedure.
RUSSIA
www.era.net-rus.eu
Optional evaluation criteria that can positively influence the funding decision
51%
6%6%6%
31%
participation of young researchers links to industryparticipation of SMEs otherwithout criteria
Most programme owners use optional evaluation criteriathat can positively influence the funding decision
The use of optional evaluation criteria
RUSSIA
www.era.net-rus.eu
02468
101214No of programme
owners
Type of evaluation criteria
Use of Evaluation criteria
• scientific excellence of project proposals and • qualification and feasibility of projects
Most frequently usedEvaluation criteria
RUSSIA
www.era.net-rus.eu
6%
13%
13%
69%
agreement oblig.
agreement recom.
oth. specific rules
no specific 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 agreements13% of organisations framework agreements between the funding organisations do regulate IPR questions
Intellectual Property
Rights (IPR)EU/AC
IPR - Rules
RUSSIA
www.era.net-rus.eu
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.
RUSSIA
www.era.net-rus.eu
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 7714153
E-mail: [email protected], URL: http://www.gsrt.gr