slide1
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Linking Russia to the ERA: Coordination of MS/AC S&T programmes Towards and with Russia ERA.NET RUS

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 22

Preliminary survey results of EU MSAC programme owners - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 293 Views
  • Uploaded on

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.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Preliminary survey results of EU MSAC programme owners' - EllenMixel


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

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.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

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

slide2

Overview of the presentation

Background and rationale of the survey

Survey preliminary results

slide3

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.

slide4

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

slide5

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.

slide6

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.

slide7

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.

slide8

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.

slide9

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

slide10

Cooperation Instruments

EU/AC

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

slide11

Beneficiaries of S&T

support – EU/AC

slide12

Overall budget for international R&D cooperation

and budget for cooperation with Russia, 2008

slide13

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.

slide14

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.

slide15

Thematic priorities – EU/AC

ranked according to frequency of mentioning

slide16

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.
slide17

Evaluation procedures – EU/AC

The majority of the programme owners use a separate evaluation procedure.

slide18

The use of optional evaluation criteria

Most programme owners use optional evaluation criteria

that can positively influence the funding decision

slide19

Most frequently used

Evaluation criteria

  • scientific excellence of project proposals and
  • qualification and feasibility of projects
slide20

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

slide21

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.

slide22

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: [email protected], URL: http://www.gsrt.gr

ad