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.
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Linking Russia to the ERA:
Coordination of MS/AC S&T programmes
Towards and with Russia
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
General Secretariat for Research and Technology, Greece
Overview of the presentation
Background and rationale of the survey
Survey preliminary results
Bilateral cooperation in comparison – ERA.Net RUS survey results
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.
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
General Information of the Programme Owners Organisation
Information about their cooperation programmes
Target Region specific qestions
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.
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:
accounting of budgets,
modes of counting bilateral projects with Russia,
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.
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.
Until end of June 2009 the following Russian programme owners have taken part in the Survey:
The instruments that the EU/AC programme owners organisations apply in order to support international S&T cooperation.
Beneficiaries of S&T
support – EU/AC
Overall budget for international R&D cooperation
and budget for cooperation with Russia, 2008
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.
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.
Thematic priorities – EU/AC
ranked according to frequency of mentioning
Obstacles – EU/AC
Evaluation procedures – EU/AC
The majority of the programme owners use a separate evaluation procedure.
The use of optional evaluation criteria
Most programme owners use optional evaluation criteria
that can positively influence the funding decision
Most frequently used
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
Impact Assessments - EU/AC
Less than 20% of responding programme owners organisations are performing impact assessments of their bilateral cooperation programmes with Russia.
More organisations are planning to do such impact assessments,
evaluations are becoming more important in general
as a justification and planning tool.
Thank you very much for your attention
14-18 Mesogeion Av., GR-115 27 Athens, Greece
Tel: +30 210 7714495, Fax: +30 210 7714153E-mail: email@example.com, URL: http://www.gsrt.gr