analytical report 3 - era.net rus · 2018-10-23 · the present report has been drafted as...

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010

Analytical Report 3

ERA.Net RUS: Linking Russia to the ERA: Coordination of MS’/AC’ S&T programmes towards and with Russia

D 1.3 / Analytical report 3: “State of the art and perspectives of bilateral S&T programmes between

EU MS/AC and Russia and of activities of S&T Programme Owners in EU MS/AC towards Russia and in Russia towards EU MS/AC accompanying /

complementing bilateral S&T agreements”

Deliverable Lead General Secretariat for Research and Technology (GSRT), Greece

Work Package: Work Package 1, Task 1.3, Deliverable D 1.3

Authors of Report 3:

Sarantis Kougiou, GSRT, Greece Manfred Spiesberger, ZSI, Austria Vassiliki Kerasioti, GSRT, Greece With further contributions by: Irina Kuklina, ICISTE, Russia Gulnara Roll, Archimedes, Estonia Liliana Proskuryakova, HSE, Russia Irina Sharova, RAS, Russia

Dissemination Level Public

Date: September 2010

Project Number FP7-226164

Instrument: Coordination Action (CA)

Start date of Project: 01/02/2009

Duration: 48 months

Project funded by the European Community under the International Cooperation activity of the Capacities Programme of the 7th European Framework Programme for RTD (FP7).

D 1.3 Bilateral S&T Cooperation with Russia of 72

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010


Table of contents

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................... 3

2 INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT OF REPORT 3 ............................................. 6

3 MAIN FEATURES OF THE CURRENT RUSSIAN S&T SYSTEM ..................... 7

4 BILATERAL S&T COOPERATION FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF EU MS/AC PROGRAMME OWNERS ........................................................................................ 11

4.1 Methodology .............................................................................................................11

4.2 Analysis of the online survey among EU MS/AC Programme Owners ...............14

4.3 Summary of conclusions on the EU MS/AC Programme Owners data analysis45

5 BILATERAL S&T COOPERATION FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF RUSSIAN PROGRAMME OWNERS ........................................................................................ 47

5.1 Methodology .............................................................................................................47

5.2 Analysis of survey and interview results ...............................................................48

5.3 Specific information on international cooperation of Russian Programme Owners ..................................................................................................................................53

6 CONCLUSIONS OF THE SURVEY AMONG EU MS/AC AND RUSSIAN PROGRAMME OWNERS ........................................................................................ 70

7 ANNEXES

7.1 Annex A: Survey questionnaire for EU MS/AC Programme Owners

7.2 Annex B: Survey questionnaire for Russian Programme owners

7.3 Annex C: Interview guidelines for EU MS/AC Programme Owners

7.4 Annex D: Interview guidelines for Russian Programme Owners

7.5 Annex E: Table of EU MS/AC Programme Owners and instruments used

7.6 Annex F: International S&T agreements and main EU partners of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS)

7.7 Annex G: List of abbreviations

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010


1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The present report constitutes deliverable D 1.3 of the ERA-Net project for Russia (ERA.Net RUS)1, which is funded under the EU’s 7th Framework Programme for Research and Development (FP7). The report describes the state and perspectives of bilateral S&T and Innovation programmes between Russia on the one hand, and the EU Member States (MS)2 and Associated Countries (AC)3 to the FP7 on the other. The report facilitates understanding major activities of S&T and Innovation Programme Owners of EU MS/AC towards Russia and of Russian Programme Owners towards the EU MS/AC. Under the term “Programme Owner” (PO) we understand here governmental and non-governmental organisations, which finance and/or manage S&T funding programmes. In most cases these organisations are ministries, research or innovation funds, or R&D organisations (such as Academies of Science). Information and data on the bilateral S&T cooperation programmes were gathered by means of a survey. Around 140 Programme Owners in Russia and in nearly all EU MS/AC4 were contacted in the summer and autumn of 2009 and invited to respond to a questionnaire covering a broad range of aspects of their cooperation programmes, such as S&T agreements, programme management, funding instruments, evaluation procedures, the budget, thematic priorities, funded projects, etc. The results of the survey were discussed at ERA.Net RUS workshops in Tallinn, Estonia in June 2009 and in Moscow, Russia in January 2010. This report includes the survey data of a solid sample of 40 Programme Owners from EU MS/AC and the data of 10 Russian Programme Owners. The survey data were further enhanced by in-depth interviews with 8 Russian and 13 EU MS/AC Programme Owners. The analysis presented in this report shall facilitate the identification of common ground on which to build a joint multilateral S&T cooperation among Programme Owners of EU MS/AC and Russia. From the survey and interview data analysis, it can be concluded that an impressive wealth of S&T cooperation exists at a bilateral as well as a multilateral level between Russia, on the one hand, and the EU Member States and Associated Countries to the FP7 (EU MS/AC) on the other. At the bilateral level, several countries stand out with a comprehensive cooperation with Russia. This concerns above all the big EU countries Germany and France. Several smaller countries also have a remarkable tradition of cooperation with Russia. For example, the Nordic countries Finland and Norway have substantial cooperation programmes in monetary terms. But also Austria, Greece, Italy, Israel, Poland, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom traditionally have a good and comprehensive S&T cooperation with Russia. These country patterns are confirmed by budgetary data and the number of projects supported in the programmes. Budgets for S&T cooperation with Russia have mostly

1 For more detailed information on ERA.Net RUS see http://www.eranet-rus.eu/ 2 EU MS: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom 3 AC to FP7: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Iceland, Israel, Liechtenstein, Montenegro, Norway, Serbia, Switzerland, Turkey 4 11 Programme Owners were contacted in Russia and around 130 POs in EU MS/AC.

http://www.eranet-rus.eu/

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010


increased over the years and for some POs further budgetary increases or relaunches of cooperation are foreseen. The front runners for cooperation with Russia, in terms of budget size, can be singled out as AT (Austrian Science Fund), DE (Helmholtz Association, German Research Foundation, International Bureau of BMBF), FI (Academy of Finland), FR (CNRS) and NO (Research Council of Norway). On the side of the Russian Programme Owners, in 2008 the Federal Agency for Science and Innovation, which was disbanded in early 2010 and integrated into the Ministry of Education and Science, had the largest budget for S&T cooperation with EU MS/AC. Its budget was mainly used for multilateral funding cooperation with the EU Framework Programme for RTD. Next followed the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR) and the Foundation for Assistance to Small Innovative Enterprises (FASIE), whose funds are primarily dedicated to bilateral cooperation. For all three organisations the budget figures show a strong increasing tendency towards cooperation with EU MS/AC. For the Russian Academy of Sciences, no exact figures are available but a multitude of cooperation programmes, mostly with Academies of Science in EU MS/AC, are in place. Funding programmes in basic research are clearly more substantial than those in applied research and innovation. Further down the innovation pipeline, cooperation is beginning to develop more comprehensively around the Russian innovation foundation FASIE, Rusnano and the Russian Venture Company (RVC). However, impact assessments of the cooperation programmes are only rarely undertaken. Evaluation procedures for the selection of projects to be supported are mostly well established in EU/AC as well as in Russia. In a majority of bilateral funding programmes, separate evaluation procedures are used. Programme Owners focus on the scientific quality, suitability of applicants and feasibility of projects in the evaluation of projects. The next most frequently used evaluation criteria are the added value of the cooperation and the participation of young scientists. S&T agreements provide a formal framework, within which efficient cooperation programmes can be implemented. The Russian Academy of Sciences has the most agreements in place with partners in 28 EU MS/AC, followed by the Ministry of Education and Science, which has concluded bilateral agreements with 21 EU MS/AC, and third comes the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, which has agreements with organisations in 12 EU MS/AC in place. The thematic priorities addressed in the S&T cooperation with Russia cover a broad spectrum of science. The majority of Programme Owners on the side of EU MS/AC follow a broad thematic approach, but several funding organisations have defined specific thematic priorities for their cooperation with Russia (e.g. Norway: Energy, Oceans, etc.). Most frequently cited thematic priorities in the cooperation are nanotechnologies/materials, energy, environment/climate change, socio-economic sciences and humanities, ICT, and biotechnology. Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) do not, for most Programme Owners, pose significant problems. Of course, the further cooperation moves to applied research and innovation, the more important IPR issues become. A variety of obstacles, such as legal problems, budgetary limitations, problems with the transfer of funds and material, visa procedures, cultural and language barriers, have been mentioned by funding organisations, which do hamper the bilateral cooperation. But there is also a distinct lack of information on bilateral cooperation programmes and on the funding procedures applied by Programme Owners.

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010


Examples of good practice mentioned by Programme Owners concern support for research and networking activities among scientists, such as workshops, joint laboratories, research training groups, and science days. Finally, the results of the survey indicate that there is great interest on the side of Russian Programme Owners as well as on the side of several Programme Owners of the EU Member States and Associated Countries to FP7 to develop and deepen the S&T and innovation cooperation.

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010


2 INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT OF REPORT 3 In the frame of the ERA-Net project for Russia (ERA.Net RUS)5, funded within the EU’s 7th Framework Programme for Research and Development (FP7), a range of analytical reports on the Russian S&T system and on the S&T cooperation of Russia with the EU Member States (MS)6 and Associated Countries (AC)7 of FP7 have been prepared. The present report has been drafted as deliverable D 1.3 - analytical report 3 of the ERA.Net RUS project with the title: “State of the art and perspectives of bilateral S&T programmes between EU MS/AC and Russia and of activities of S&T Programme Owners in EU MS/AC towards Russia and in Russia towards EU MS/AC accompanying / complementing bilateral S&T agreements”8. WP1 aimed to prepare the analytical ground for coordinating EU MS/AC S&T and innovation programmes towards and with Russia and Russian Programme Owners. For this reason, information on the structure of the Russian S&T system, the respective funding system, and the Russian Programme Owners and their activities was gathered and analyzed. Under this workpackage, information on the status quo of the bilateral S&T programmes of EU MS/AC programmes towards Russia, on their activities and funding schemes and the opportunities and needs for cooperation in basic, applied/innovation-oriented research in EU MS/AC and Russia was also gathered and analyzed. The present analytical report describes the state-of-the-art and the perspectives of bilateral S&T programmes between EU MS/AC and Russia. The objective of the report is to develop an understanding of the major activities of S&T and Innovation Programme Owners of EU MS/AC towards Russia and of Russian Programme Owners towards the EU MS/AC. The description of the current status of cooperation and the understanding of the strategic objectives underlying bilateral S&T agreements facilitates the identification of good practices at a programme level. This analytical framework shall make it possible for Programme Owners of EU MS/AC and Russia to find common ground on which to build multilateral S&T cooperation, which in turn shall lead to economies of scale through the pooling of financial means, joint management and easier access to multilateral S&T funding for researchers. The envisaged joint distribution of resources will increase the efficiency of S&T schemes between the involved Programme Owners and improve the position of all players involved. In this sense, this report contributes to the broader aims of ERA.Net RUS and will therefore be disseminated to relevant Programme Owners. Throughout this report the term “Programme Owner” (PO/POs) is frequently used. The term “Programme Owner” is understood to mean a governmental or non-governmental organisation that finances and/or manages S&T funding programmes. In most cases these organisations are ministries, research or innovation funds, or R&D organisations (such as Academies of Science).

5 For more detailed information on ERA.Net RUS see http://www.eranet-rus.eu/ 6 EU MS: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom 7 AC to FP7: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Iceland, Israel, Liechtenstein, Montenegro, Norway, Serbia, Switzerland, Turkey 8 The General Secretariat for Research and Technology (GSRT) of the Hellenic Ministry of Education, Lifelong learning and Religious affairs, Greece, is the task leader 1.3. Work Package 1 leader is ZSI, Austria


ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010


3 MAIN FEATURES OF THE CURRENT RUSSIAN S&T SYSTEM As an introduction to the analysis of bilateral S&T cooperation between EU/AC and Russia, main features of the current Russian S&T system are outlined in the following brief overview.9 Russia has inherited an important S&T sector from the Soviet Union, which provides enormous potential but which, up to now, has also posed serious challenges in terms of S&T policy-making. The break-up of the Soviet Union in 1990/91 and the ensuing economic turmoil resulted also in a serious crisis and downsizing of the Russian S&T sector - financially as well as concerning the R&D personnel. Spending on R&D was slashed from levels of over 2% of GDP to below 1%. These cuts were the more drastic, as the Russian GDP contracted substantially during this period. Since the severe financial crisis in Russia in 1998, an economic upswing has led to improvements in the S&T sector, such as steadily increasing salaries, the upgrading of equipment and the devising of new major funding programmes. In recent years Russia’s expenditure on R&D has been slightly above 1% of GDP on R&D; for example, in 2007 it spent 1.12% of GDP on R&D.10 As GDP expanded strongly during this period and up to the year 2008 at growth levels of around 6% in absolute terms, funding inflows in R&D have grown substantially. The research funding structure is characterised by two main features: a strong domination of public funding for research and development and – in comparison to other European countries – a high proportion of spending on defence-related research. Research is performed in Russia mainly in the public sector, particularly by Academies and research institutes, as well as by corporations, which are partly or fully owned by the state. Substantial parts of the R&D budget are allocated to major publicly owned organisations such as the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS), the Russian Space Agency (Roscosmos) and the State Nuclear Corporation (Rosatom). The Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) is still a major player in Russia’s research system and receives a substantial block grant from the state. In the Higher Education sector, only 6.3% of the Gross Domestic Expenditure on R&D (GERD) was performed in 2007, which is rather low in comparison with 22.3% for the 27 EU countries.11 Universities have traditionally focused on education, but have been gaining in importance over recent years in research - a development which is further stimulated by the government’s research policy. Private companies and private non-profit organisations in Russia perform R&D only to a rather limited extent. The strength of Russian research lies traditionally in basic research, while applied research and technology development are lagging behind in comparison with OECD countries. A major challenge for research policy is to stimulate business R&D and to improve the linkages between knowledge generation and the business sector.

9 For a detailed overview of the Russian S&T and innovation system, see ERA.Net RUS analytical report 1: The Russian S&T System. For a detailed overview of the Russian S&T and innovation funding system see ERA.Net RUS analytical report 2: The Russian S&T and Innovation Funding System. Both reports are accessible at the ERA:Net RUS website: www.eranet-rus.eu 10 EUROSTAT Database, 2010. 11 OECD, Main Science and Technology Indicators 2008-2; Data for the EU 27 countries are for the year 2006.


ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010


The main player in the Russian research system on the political level is the Ministry of Education and Science, which takes care of research policy formulation and oversees its implementation. Several other ministries have responsibilities for R&D and respective budgets: the Ministry for Economic Development, the Ministry of Industry and Trade, the Ministry of Energy, the Ministry of Information Technologies and Communication, the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Health and Social Development, as well as the Ministry of Agriculture. Research policy is coordinated at governmental level by the Governmental Commission on High Technologies and Innovations. A research-related advisory body to the President is the Council for Science, Technologies and Education. Within the Russian Parliament’s lower house, the State Duma, the Committee on Science and High Technologies takes care of research policy, while in the upper house, the Federal Council, the Committee on Education and Science is responsible. Both committees propose and scrutinise legislation relevant to R&D. R&D funding is allocated mainly in the form of block grants, but policy is increasingly shifting to a funding allocation based on competition. Allocation takes place either directly from the state budget to research performing organisations, channelled through the ministries mentioned above, or distributed via several agencies. Competitive R&D funding allocation is handled by:

several Ministries (through Federal Targeted Programmes), especially the Ministry of Education and Science12;

the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR) and the Russian Foundation for Humanities (RFH), which distribute funds for basic research;

the Foundation for Assistance to Small Innovative Enterprises (FASIE), which has been created for innovation related funding;

the Russian Academy of Sciences to its institutes (still to a rather limited extent); the State Corporation for Nanotechnologies – Rusnano; the Russian Foundation for Technological Development (RFTR).

Strategies for developing the science and technology sector are laid down in programme documents and implemented along these lines. The Strategy for the Development of Science and Innovation in the Russian Federation up to the year 2015, which has been prepared by the Ministry of Education and Science in 2006 and the Comprehensive Programme for the Scientific-Technological Development and Technological Modernisation of the Economy of the Russian Federation up to the year 2015, which dates from 2007, provide major guidance. Current challenges for Russian S&T policy making The major challenge for Russian science and technology policy is to improve the innovative capacities of the country and to help herewith diversify the economy, which is currently based above all on the production of primary goods. While a lot of R&D is financed and produced in Russia, this can only to a very limited extent be transposed into innovative or high-tech products and services. The absorption capacity of the Russian market for R&D is rather limited, due to low levels of R&D investment by Russian companies, a lack of adequate innovative companies and a lack of linkages between companies and R&D performers. A number of measures are needed in order to: stimulate the R&D spending of private companies, develop new small and medium sized innovative enterprises that are either based

12 The Ministry of Education and Science has taken over policy implementation tasks of two agencies, which were previously subordinated to it, but disbanded in March 2010: the Federal Agency for Science and Innovation (FASI or Rosnauka) and the Federal Agency for Education (Rosobrazovanie).

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010


on R&D or linked to R&D institutions, and improve the transfer of knowledge generated into innovative products and services.13 Human resources are another important issue. The Russian R&D personnel have declined by approximately 50% since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. In 2004 R&D personnel made up 1.25% of total employment in Russia and it was herewith slightly below the EU average of 1.44%.14 A certain problem constitutes the age structure of the R&D and educational personnel. The internal migration (from R&D to other sectors of the economy) und external migration trends (abroad) during the immediate post-Soviet transformation phase have thinned out the middle-aged R&D and educational personnel. Important parts of the currently leading senior scientist stratum are, or soon will be, of retirement age. It is an important challenge for the Russian policy makers to ensure adequate training and preparation of younger layers of the R&D labour force for senior scientific and educational positions.15 Another challenge concerns a certain division between education and research. In the Soviet era a division had been established in which R&D was concentrated mainly in the institute and Academy sector, while the universities were mostly devoted to education. Several support measures have been introduced to bridge this divide and to improve the research capacities of the university sector. Such measures concern, for example, programmes for the upgrading of scientific equipment at universities, the strengthening of leading scientific groups, etc. A fourth issue concerns framework conditions for R&D and for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) into research and high tech in Russia. Unclear and unstable framework conditions and regulatory deficiencies of the Russian market continue to hamper the development of the S&T sector and foreign investment in Russian R&D. This relates to insufficient protection of property rights, particularly intellectual property rights (IPR), deficiencies in laws and their application, corruption, bad infrastructure, etc. Challenges have been identified by Russian research policy makers; they have been analysed and laid down in strategic and programmatic documents. Thanks to strong economic growth in recent years several measures have been taken and financed. International S&T cooperation Russia has put a strong emphasis on S&T cooperation with EU Member States and countries associated to the EU’s Framework Programme for Research and Development (FP). The Russian Federation has active agreements in place with fifteen out of the twenty seven EU members16 and with five countries associated to FP717. As regards the 6th FP (2002-2007) Russia had the highest participation in the FP of all “Third Countries” (countries not being an EU Member State or Associated Country). It has agreed with the EU a common space of research and education, which includes strengthening participation in the EU’s FP, the implementation of the Bologna process in education in Russia, and the harmonisation of rules and regulations. Important advances have been achieved in realising this common space:

13 See for an analysis of the challenges of innovation policy: Christian Gianella/William Tompson (2007): Stimulating Innovation in Russia: The Role of Institutions and Policies, OECD Economics Department Working Papers No. 539. 14 Eurostat Database, 2008. 15 See for an analysis of the human resources issue: Irina Dezhina (2005). Changes in the Russian R&D personnel structure and state policy, Russie.Cei.Visions, No. 4. 16 The countries listed at the website of the Russian Ministry of Education and Science are: Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and United Kingdom. 17 Israel, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Norway, Serbia, Turkey

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010


Russia is running coordinated calls with the EU in FP7. The next step in enhancing cooperation would be the association of Russia to FP7. Accordingly, Russia officially requested this association in 2008.

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010


4 BILATERAL S&T COOPERATION FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF EU MS/AC PROGRAMME OWNERS

4.1 Methodology

4.1.1 Online survey conducted by ERA.Net RUS and BS ERA.Net The source of data for this chapter was an online survey in which a very solid sample of Programme Owners of EU MS/AC participated. In addition, interviews were conducted with selected Programme Owners in order to deepen the analysis.18 The online survey was implemented jointly by the ERA.Net projects for Russia (ERA.Net RUS) and for the Black Sea region (BS-ERA.Net)19. The rationale behind a joint approach was that the two projects are the same instruments (ERA.Nets) which started at the same time and comprise very similar tasks, which are: learning lessons on existing bilateral cooperation (programmes) and preparing the ground for coordination of EU MS/AC S&T programmes with Russia and the BS region, respectively. When collecting information on current S&T cooperation (programmes) the same target groups needed to be addressed in the two projects (Programme Owners in EU MS/AC). Furthermore, many countries (and partners) are involved in both projects (on the EU MS/AC side). Therefore it was decided to contact Programme Owners in a joint approach. However, this report concentrates on the evaluation of Russia-related questions. Sections A, B and C of the online questionnaire collected general information about the participating EU MS/AC Programme Owners (POs): the type of organisation, cooperation details and the evaluation procedure for submitted proposals. Section D.1 concerned questions about the S&T cooperation of EU MS/AC POs with the Black Sea region countries and was not analysed in this report. Section D.2 was about the S&T cooperation of EU MS/AC POs with Russia and was the focus of the analysis in this report. The questioned Programme Owners (POs) are organisations or agencies among EU MS/AC that are involved in international S&T cooperation in some way. This means that they can design or implement S&T policies; engage in the joint implementation of international projects; evaluate proposals and/or fund projects and perform other related tasks. The Programme Owners (POs) which participated in the online survey represent almost all the member states and associated countries of EU/FP7 and include most of the organisations that have substantial and effective S&T cooperation with Russia and can be instructive for the analysis. The consortium partners of ERA.Net RUS have made considerable efforts to ensure that the statistical sample will include as many Programme Owners as possible from all the countries that could provide a relevant contribution for the analysis. The focus was on funding organisations. The participation of Programme Owners in the online survey was therefore quite high and satisfying for the analytical purposes of report 3.

18 The word-version of the online survey questionnaire for EU MS AC Programme Owners and the interview guidelines and the online survey can be found in Annex A and Annex C respectively. 19 For more information on the Black Sea ERA.Net see: http://www.bs-era.net/

http://www.bs-era.net/

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010


4.1.2 The statistical sample of Programme Owners used in the analysis and the isolation of data related to Russia

Around 140 Programme Owners in the EU Member States and Associated Countries of FP7 were contacted in the summer and autumn of 2009 and invited to participate in the survey. A rather large population of S&T funding bodies was asked to provide data on their S&T cooperation with Russia. Only a limited number of these Programme Owners are known to actually have a substantial cooperation with Russia, but the aim was to get a broad picture of ongoing funding cooperation and not to miss out on any relevant player. Since the end of 2009 the number of EU MS/AC POs that have participated in the online survey have stabilized. 61 Programme Owners appeared to have “completed” the online survey. Out of this group, ten Programme Owners had left the entire (or almost the entire) questionnaire blank and in fact did not respond. Several other responding Programme Owners do not have S&T cooperation with Russia, or did not provide relevant replies regarding Russia. These problems of non-response decrease the real overall rate of participation in the online survey. Finally, 40 Programme Owners were selected to be included in the sample and their questionnaires were processed. The Programme Owners that are included in the statistical sample of analysis are the ones that did fill in questions relevant to Russia. The majority filled in the entire (or almost the entire) relevant section D.2 for S&T cooperation with Russia. The remaining Programme Owners were included in the sample either because they had at least one or more replies that indicated an interest in Russia for S&T cooperation at present or in the future (e.g. ticked Russia in response to the B.1 question), or they encountered an obstacle that might be instructive to the analysis. 2 non EU MS/AC Programme Owners, the Armenian State Committee for Science and the Academy of Sciences of Moldova, have been included in this sample of 40 POs, as they have responded to the survey and have substantial cooperation with Russia. The rate of participation in the online survey can be considered quite satisfying for the analytical purposes of this report, as the population of Programme Owners to be studied was already a limited one. The sample includes funding organisations that have significant cooperation with Russia, or who can at least contribute to the analysis. The 40 Programme Owners included in the analysis are the following:

1 State Committee of Science of the Republic of Armenia (SCS RA), Armenia 2 Austrian Academy of Sciences (ÖAW), Austria 3 Austrian Research Association (ÖFG), Austria 4 Austrian Science Fund (FWF), Austria 5 Federal Ministry of Economy, Family and Youth (BMWFJ), Austria 6 Federal Ministry of Science and Research (BMWF), Austria 7 Ministry of Education and Science (MES), Bulgaria 8 Estonian Science Foundation (ETF), Estonia 9 Academy of Finland (AKA), Finland 10 Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs (MAEE), France 11 French National Institute for Research in Computer Science and Control (INRIA),

France 12 National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS), France 13 National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA), France 14 OSEO, France 15 German Research Foundation (DFG), Germany 16 Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres, Germany 17 Humboldt Foundation, Germany

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010


18 International Bureau of the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (IB-BMBF), Germany

19 Max Planck Society, Germany 20 General Secretariat for Research and Technology (GSRT), Greece 21 Hungarian Academy of Sciences (MTA), Hungary 22 National Office for Research and Technology (NKTH), Hungary 23 Ministry of University and Research (MIUR), Italy 24 Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), Israel 25 Academy of Sciences of Moldova (ASM), Moldova 26 Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), Netherlands 27 Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), Netherlands 28 The Research Council of Norway (RCN), Norway 29 Polish Academy of Sciences (PAN), Poland 30 Ministry of Regional Development and Housing (MDRL), Romania 31 National Authority for Scientific Research (ANCS), Romania 32 Ministry of Science and Technological Development (MSTD), Serbia 33 Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts (SANU), Serbia 34 Ministry of Higher Education, S&T (MVZT), Slovenia 35 Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), Spain 36 State Secretariat for Education and Research (SER), Switzerland 37 Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF), Switzerland 38 The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK),

Turkey 39 The Turkish Academy of Sciences (TUBA), Turkey 40 The Royal Society, United Kingdom

From the above 40 Programme Owners that were included in the analysis, only six (6) of them did not fill in section D.2 relevant to Russia, but they did tick questions relevant to Russia that were indicative of an obstacle or an interest in S&T cooperation with Russia. So, clearly the vast majority of the Programme Owners included in the analysis could provide a significant volume of data about their international S&T cooperation with Russia. The survey data were further enhanced by interviews conducted by the consortium partners of ERA.Net RUS with major EU MS/AC Programme Owners. The interviews were conducted along the interview guidelines available in annex D. The relevant interview reports were compiled along the following headings: Framework conditions for International Cooperation; Russia as a partner in RTD; perspectives of S&T cooperation with Russia; Funding programmes; Finances; Evaluation procedures; Mobility; and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). The following 13 Programme Owners were interviewed for their S&T cooperation with Russia:

1 Austrian Science Fund (FWF), Austria 2 Federal Ministry of Science and Research (BMWF), Austria 3 Academy of Finland (AKA), Finland 4 National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS), France 5 German Research Foundation (DFG), Germany 6 International Bureau of Federal Ministry of Education and Research (IB-BMBF),

Germany 7 General Secretariat for Research and Technology (GSRT), Greece 8 Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), Netherlands 9 The Research Council of Norway (RCN), Norway 10 Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), Spain

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010


11 Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF), Switzerland 12 State Secretariat for Education and Research (SER), Switzerland 13 The Royal Society, United Kingdom

These interviews were a means of deepening the analysis and have been incorporated into this report along with the analysis of the replies to the survey questions.

4.2 Analysis of the online survey among EU MS/AC Programme Owners

In this chapter, data of the online survey conducted among EU MS/AC Programme Owners by the ERA.Net RUS consortium are analysed. The survey consisted of closed questions, which required one or more options from a list of possible answers (selected by ticking the appropriate box), as well as open questions, where free text could be entered by the PO’s officer. As outlined above, 40 responding organisations from EU Member States and Associated Countries of FP7 were included in the current version of the analysis. The ensuing comments on the results are mainly on a question by question basis, following the structure of the three relevant sections of the online questionnaire. The analysis has been complemented with data extracted from the interviews with selected Programme Owners, wherever necessary. Finally, conclusions are drawn on the state of bilateral S&T cooperation between EU MS/AC and Russia. In the bottom left corner of each diagram, the number (n) of Programme Owners that replied to the question(s) depicted in the diagram is typed. It is worth mentioning that not all 40 Programme Owners replied to all questions, but clearly the rate of replies is quite high (in most cases “n” is over 37). Whenever the sum of replies exceeds “n” it is because the POs gave more that one reply to the question. The percentage in the diagrams is the percentage of the POs that did reply to the question. Type of POs As can be seen from diagram 1, most of the Programme Owners (POs) that participated in the online survey are governmental organisations (GOV); they reach a percentage of 60% of responding organisations (24 POs). Non-governmental organisations (NGO) make up 25% (10 POs) and research institutions (RES) the remaining 15% (6 POs). No industry organisation (IND) or university (HE) participated in the survey. This is not surprising, as the survey was targeted at public or private organisations that finance or manage S&T funding programmes with Russia. Usually, industry and universities are on the receiving end of such funding programmes. They tend to participate in international S&T cooperation with the countries mentioned in the questionnaire either through support by the other types of organisation in their countries, through their own resources, or else they do not participate at all.

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010

Diagram 1

Type of POs

GOV: 60%NGO: 25%

HE: 0%

RES: 15% IND: 0%

n=40

4.2.1 Presentation and analysis of data extracted from section B of the questionnaire: Cooperation details

Section B of the online survey consisted of questions about the cooperation details of the S&T funding programmes. The following cooperation aspects were examined:

target countries of S&T cooperation of EU MS/AC Programme Owners, instruments used for supporting S&T cooperation with target countries (mobility, S&T

agreements, etc.), beneficiaries of the support provided by the PO, budget of POs for international S&T cooperation, eligible costs funded by the PO, programme management, including proposal submission, obstacles to S&T cooperation with Russia, thematic priorities of S&T cooperation with Russia.

Countries with which the POs support international S&T cooperation In question B1 of the survey, the responding Programme Owner could tick the countries of the Black Sea region, including Russia with which it supports S&T cooperation20. In diagram 2 we can see that 72% of the POs (28 POs) have stated that, apart from Russia, they also support cooperation with at least one of the Black Sea countries that BS ERA.Net is dealing with. Only Russia was ticked by 23% (9 POs) of the participating POs. 5% of respondents - 2


20 Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Georgia, Moldova, Romania, Russia, Turkey, Ukraine.

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010

organisations of our sample of 40 Programme Owners - did not tick Russia but other Black Sea region countries, and 1 PO ticked no box at all (n=39). These last 3 Programme Owners were included in the sample because they have relevant responses regarding S&T cooperation with Russia in other sections of the survey. It maybe supposed that either these POs do not follow a country-oriented S&T cooperation policy, but a regional approach, or that the colleague simply missed ticking Russia when filling in the online questionnaire. The high percentage of POs that support cooperation with Russia as well as the BS countries indicates that, in a majority of cases, the geographical scope of international S&T cooperation targets Russia and the wider Black Sea region. Put another way, if S&T cooperation is undertaken with Russia, then it also tends to spill over to other countries of the former Soviet Union situated in the Black Sea region. That said, around a quarter of EU MS/AC organisations cooperate exclusively with Russia and no other country of the Black Sea region. Diagram 2

Fields checked in B1 question

Only Russia Checked: 23%

Russia NOT checked: 5%

Russia and BS countries

checked: 72%

n=39 Instruments to support international S&T cooperation used by POs The survey question B2 was about the instruments used by the Programme Owner to support international S&T cooperation (S&T agreements, exchange of know-how, joint RTDI projects, etc.). This section is indicative of the basic cooperation practices that Programme Owners use. Information on these instruments will provide valuable inputs and hints for conceiving common and compatible funding instruments between Programme Owners in the context of multilateral S&T cooperation. The most popular instruments of international S&T cooperation that the POs have used so far are: Mobility of researchers: 30 references; joint implementation of RTDI21 projects: 23 references; and the joint funding of programmes: 21 references; the dissemination of RTDI results: 21 references. All instruments are presented in diagram 3.


21 Research, Technology Development and Innovation

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010

S&T agreements with foreign organisations were ticked by 27 POs in this question. They are not presented in this diagram, as it was considered more appropriate to be included in the relevant section about S&T agreements between Russia and EU MS/AC Programme Owners. The mobility of researchers is an easy way of networking and can be a preliminary stage of using other instruments. It provides for substantial S&T cooperation requiring only limited expenses, which is the reason for its popularity. The vast majority of the POs implement “two-way” mobility whereby their cooperation programmes support the exchange of EU MS/AC scientists as well as of Russian scientists (22 replies for two-way and only 3 for one-way mobility, the rest of the POs did not clarify the nature of the mobility). The joint implementation of RTDI projects is also quite frequently used. It is in fact difficult to draw an exact line between mobility and RTDI projects, as mobility projects are in most cases based on research projects, or the mobility is supported within a research project. But the supporting of RTDI projects is an indication of a more mature S&T cooperation that has moved on from simply supporting mobility costs to a more substantial and broader funding of RTDI activities. The joint funding of programmes concerns the financing of a research project by the cooperating organisations. The dissemination of RTDI results includes the organisation of conferences or participation in scientific events / publications, in order to give publicity to the results of joint programmes. The exchange of know-how is similar to dissemination but limited to the cooperating Programme Owners. Granting access to research infrastructure involves giving researchers the right to work in the facilities of the cooperating institution, thereby supplementing the infrastructure of a Programme Owner. Joint laboratories are a means for researchers to work together and exchange views or methods either by presenting their work or by using the same laboratory equipment. Technical support involves the provision of equipment or training on how to use the equipment. Diagram 3

Number of POs per instrument used to support S&T cooperation

6

8

9

12

14

21

21

23

30

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Technical support

Other

Joint laboratories

Access to infrastructure

Exchange of know how

Dissemination of RTDI results

Joint funding programmes

Joint implementation of RTDI projects

Mobility of researchers

Inst

rum

ent

Number of POs

n=40


ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010

Beneficiaries of POs Respondents were then questioned about the beneficiaries of funding support provided by their organisation. The majority of beneficiaries supported by the POs that participated in the online survey are public research organisations - 29 responses. Individual researchers were next for 19 POs, followed by private non-profit organisations for 13 POs. Enterprises were supported by 9 POs and others by 5. The beneficiaries are presented in diagram 4. Responses regarding beneficiaries that are supported by EU/AC Programme Owners show a bias towards the public and non-profit sector. This underlines the dominance of basic research in bilateral S&T cooperation support. Enterprises are mentioned only by nine respondents as a beneficiary of S&T support. “Other” beneficiaries are mostly universities, and in one case a network of research centres (this is the case for the network of the Helmholtz Association research centres in Germany). In the case of TUBA/Turkey, individual scientists from the public or the private sector were also classified under “other”. Diagram 4

Number of POs for each type of beneficiary

Public researchorganisations: 29

Private non-profit research

organisations: 13

Enterprises: 9

Individualresearchers: 19

Other: 5

n=40 Budget for international S&T cooperation In question B.3 the PO was asked to fill in the budget available for international S&T cooperation for the years 2006, 2007 and 2008. 25 POs gave their budget numbers. 15 POs reported the budget for all three years. In the following diagram the budget numbers have been classified into 4 categories: below €0,5 million, €0,5 – €1 million, €1 - €3 million, and over €3 million.


ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010

Diagram 5

Budget for international cooperation

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

below 0,5M 0,5-1M 1-3M over 3M

Millions (M) of Euro

Nu

mb

er o

f P

Os

2008

2007

2006

n=25 It is evident that there are more POs with an increased budget for international cooperation for the most recent year, 2008: 8 POs have a budget between €1-3 million and another 9 POs over €3 million. The above confirms that international S&T cooperation is a means of capitalizing on the comparative advantages of international partners in certain fields and a promising way of promoting research for both partners. This is reflected by the steadily increasing budget for international S&T cooperation during these 3 years and underpins the overall worldwide trend that international S&T cooperation is growing. Eligible costs covered by POs Question B4 was about the costs that the organisation covers in international S&T cooperation (travel costs, personnel costs, equipment, etc.). The eligible costs covered by the participating POs are presented in the diagram 5. Travel costs are most commonly covered by POs (35 POs), followed by personnel costs (34 POs). These two cost categories were examined in more detail: In 12 cases travel costs were covered by the sending party only. In the other 11 cases where the POs provided sufficient detail (for details in travel costs, n=23) both the sending and receiving party paid. Evidently, in most cases, both are used in general, but the exact payment model depends on the programme or the agreement with the cooperating institution. In 3 cases out of these 11, it was further clarified that the sending party pays the travel expenses of the researcher and the receiving party pays for accommodation and/or subsistence. The personnel costs referred to salaries of researchers in 12 cases, scholarships for young researchers in 14 cases, PhD scholarships for 11 cases, grants for post doctoral researchers in 13 cases, awards in 5 cases and daily subsistence in 1 case. Conferences were considered an eligible cost by 27 POs. The next most popular were consumables and equipment for 25 and 23 POs respectively. The cost of dissemination actions was considered as an ensuing eligible cost by 15 POs. The cost category “Other” could be specified with a free text. Several POs responded here and explained that, in general,


ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010

all costs directly incurred in a project could be covered e.g. the cost of workshops, mobility and subsistence, as well as the cost of providing technical personnel support. Usually researchers use existing research infrastructures and concentrate on benefiting from them for research projects. Their priority is to use various means of bringing researchers together such as travelling, providing grants, or sponsoring participation in conferences. Support in the purchase of consumables and equipment helps researchers to be substantially more engaged in joint research programmes. If the budget of the funded projects is not big enough for investments in research infrastructure, these costs can be covered as supplementary expenditures to the existing infrastructure used. Diagram 6

Eligible costs covered by POs

35 34

2725

23

15

6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Trave

l costs

Perso

nnel

costs

Confer

ence

s

Consumable

s

Equipm

ent

Dissemina

tion

othe

r

Eligible cost

Nu

mb

er o

f P

Os

n=38 Programme management in the country of the Programme Owner Question B5 was about the programme management of the organisation in the country of the PO: the issue of who deals with the programme’s management in the country and its organisation (publication and drafting of a call, evaluation of proposals, payment of projects, etc.). The same question asked for a short description of the submission of project proposals and project duration, as well as the administrative procedures that apply for project submissions. As regards who is responsible for the programme’s management in the country of the PO, 9 out of the 35 POs that provided a reply to this question answered that a ministry is responsible. Usually this is the case when a ministry is also the Programme Owner replying to the question. In many countries the Programme Owners are agencies with a strong affiliation to the competent ministries. The highest number of POs in this question (15 POs) replied that programme management is split between a ministry and a different agency. Often the ministry is the decision maker or the supervising authority and the agency deals with the practical aspects of programme


ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010

management such as payments. According to their responses, some Programme Owners considered payments to be a key programme management task. “An agency” was responsible for the programme management for 3 responding POs, meaning an agency other than the Programme Owner that replied to the question. Some replies had to be validated because in many cases the POs replied “an agency” and meant themselves, by filling in the “other” field with their own name. When this was the case, ticking the “other” field was not being counted as such, but as an “Agency that is the PO itself” which was not among the available boxes to tick on the original questionnaire. So, 7 POs stated that they are themselves solely responsible for the programme’s management in their country. There are two occurrences of “Other” in the diagram: one noted by the Royal Society of London (UK) which gave the description “mixed economy including ourselves” for this field, and the other by SANU (Serbia) that ticked the “ministry” box and filled in the “other” field with the description “sponsors”, which was counted twice - both as “ministry” and as “other”. In summary, ministries are entirely or partly responsible for the programme management of 24 POs out of 35 responding Programme Owners from the EU Member States and Associated Countries. Diagram 7

Who is responsible for programme management in the country (number of POs)

The ministry9

An agency3

Partly the ministry and a

different agency15

Other2

Agency that is the PO itself

7

n=35 Tasks of POs Subsequently Programme Owners were questioned regarding their specific programme management tasks. The tasks performed by POs have to do mostly with decision-making about project funding (32 POs), the periodical evaluation of projects (31 POs), drafting and publishing calls (31 POs), organizing the evaluation of proposals (29 POs), payments (27 POs), as well as supervising and establishing contracts (24 and 22 POs, respectively); see diagram 8 below. There were 6 references to “Other” tasks such as: policy-making, decision-making, accommodation for visitors, support for individual scientists, and designing and launching new programmes. The fact is that many participating POs, more or less, cover the


ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010

whole spectrum of major activities included in the process of implementing the programme. In the ERA.Net RUS analysis, we can therefore capitalize on their broad experience. Diagram 8

Tasks of POs

6

22

24

27

29

31

31

32

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Other

Establishing project contracts

Supervision of implementation of fundingprojects

Payment

Organising the evaluation of proposals

Drafting and publishing a call

Evaluation of periodical project reporting

Decision taking about project funding

Tas

k

Number of POs

n=38 Procedure for the submission of proposals The procedure for submitting proposals to the Programme Owner was tested with an open question. 34 Programme Owners replied by entering free text in this field, which can consist of any type of information pertaining to their procedure for proposal submission. The analysis of these replies was therefore a bit problematic. A wide range of practices are followed by the EU MS/AC Programme Owners that cannot be classified per Programme Owner (PO) as they vary substantially. The procedure of submission is often different for each type of project (mobility or research) and for each country or international partner. For instance, for the International Bureau of BMBF, the procedure of submission is different, depending on the programme and the nature of the agreement with the partner. The basic characteristics of the procedure for submission are that there may be a joint call or a unilateral call for S&T cooperation with Russia or other countries. When there is a joint call there is usually the same deadline applied to both countries involved, as well as joint eligibility criteria and a joint decision on the final selection for funding. There are 15 POs that follow the procedure of joint calls, but the details of the procedure can be quite different in D 1.3 Bilateral S&T Cooperation with Russia of 72

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010

each case. Only 2 POs mention the launching of unilateral calls for cooperation with Eastern Europe partners, including Russia. Another practice is not to have a deadline for submissions, but submissions are accepted all year round, or the POs may have fixed dates for submissions e.g. 5 dates per year, or annually, or biennial (such as CNRS’s practice for research or mobility projects respectively). This does not mean that the procedure for submissions in the context of a joint call is not familiar to these POs. The joint call procedure is the most common practice among the EU MS/AC Programme Owners. Administrative conditions Proposals submitted to Programme Owners and funded projects have to comply with certain administrative conditions. These conditions include the following: the requirement of a final report submitted upon completion of the project (28% of the 34 Programme Owners that replied to this question). The project needs to be submitted in both countries (24%). The proposal needs to be signed by authorized persons in both countries (23%). Specific project duration is a requirement in 19% of the cases. “Other” conditions have to do with the requirement for online submission or the requirement to implement the project in the country of the PO at a local host institution or with a local project leader. Diagram 9

Administrative conditions (per % of POs)

The project must be submitted to both countries

24%

A final report must be

submitted on completion

28%

Project duration19%

Other6%

The proposal must be signed

by an authorised person in both

countries23%

n=34 Obstacles to cooperation (with Russia) Obstacles to S&T cooperation with Russia were questioned with 6 options (legal problems, etc.), which could be ticked and in addition with an open text field, where POs could state “other” problems. The obstacles to cooperation mentioned by POs in relation to their cooperation with Russia are presented in diagram 10 below. 28 Programme Owners out of the 40 indicated an obstacle to cooperation with Russia (n=28). 12 Programme Owners did not mention any obstacles. The most important obstacle for 11 POs was the visa requirement for visiting Russia. The visa is a major obstacle since it is a prerequisite for travelling and staying in Russia. It is D 1.3 Bilateral S&T Cooperation with Russia of 72

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010


necessary for the implementation of mobility as well as joint research projects. The visa requirement for EU/AC scientists for travelling to Russia and vice versa for Russian scientists travelling to the EU/AC region is a question of reciprocal treatment between countries. It needs to be considered by the competent authorities of the EU, EU Member States, Associated Countries of FP7 and Russia.22 Several measures for facilitating visa procedures have been taken already (e.g. cost-free scientific visa) but clearly further measures such as a visa-free travel policy for scientists should be considered as a solution to this problem, which is consistently mentioned as a most pressing problematic issue by scientists as well as S&T funding bodies. Another obstacle that 9 POs have mentioned is the lack of legal agreements, and other such “legal problems”. This is usually the case when an agreement does not exist, when an existing agreement has not been renewed, or when an existing agreement has not been underpinned yet with a substantial S&T cooperation programme. The S&T agreement as an instrument to support cooperation is further emphasized in this question. It is a favourable condition for promoting international cooperation with Russia but not always a necessary prerequisite. The case of State Secretariat for Education and Research in Switzerland is instructive. There is no governmental agreement signed yet but a unilateral call was launched for joint projects and others for mobility. Despite this drawback, cooperation between individual scientists and research groups is developing well and appears to be accelerating23. Language or cultural barriers are relatively high in the ranking of obstacles for 5 POs, as well as the limited budget (4 POs) and the lack of information on financial tools for cooperation (4 POs). Providing POs with the funds necessary to implement cooperation programmes, or at least exchanging information about the financial tools available will further promote international cooperation. ERA.Net RUS provides for a platform for such information exchange. The ERA.Net RUS analytical reports and a database on S&T funding programmes for cooperation with Russia, which will be established in the frame of the project, will contribute significantly to cure the problem of lack of information. The creation of a specialized “help desk” for this purpose might be a very constructive additional option. POs have mentioned incompatibility of funding procedures for projects as another obstacle to cooperation. The wish for, or the lack of, joint funding programmes is mentioned as a weakness in their S&T cooperation with Russia by European Programme Owners in their interview reports. The language barrier has another indirect but important negative effect on international cooperation. It is a reason for the Russian “hidden expertise”. This means that even though Russian scientists are very advanced and competitive in certain fields of research (ICT, environmental monitoring), these activities are not well known because most of their scientific findings are published in Russian. If they were published in English peer-reviewed journals then the request for international cooperation in competitive fields would be increased24. The lack of agreements on IPR is not mentioned often. This factor will be analyzed later with a question on IPR issues, in the analysis of survey section D.2. In a project contract or a programme, IPR rules are addressed on a case by case basis, or ignored. But in at least one case, the difficulty of reaching a comprehensive agreement on IPR is a major obstacle to the conclusion of the S&T agreement itself. Other obstacles are mentioned 11 times and are various, indicating the subjectivity of the obstacles to the cooperation and the different experiences of the Programme Owners. They

22 It should be noted that of the group of Associated Countries to the FP7, Israel, Montenegro and Serbia do have a visa free travel policy with Russia. 23 Interview report with State Secretariat for Education and Research, Switzerland. 24 Interview report with International Bureau of BMBF, Germany.

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010

include the low level of contacts in Russia, the incompatibility of funding procedures of the Programme Owner and the Russian partners, the lack of proactive approach from the Russian side, the fact that cooperation started only recently and that the potential needs to be better exploited, and high taxes on the transfer of funds. The transfer of funds is an important issue not only because of the high taxes but also because of the difficulty a research institution experiences in trying to gain exemption from such a tax. Often the “other” obstacles are further instructive for the classification of the obstacles. This is the case with communication problems which could be classified under the option of cultural and language obstacles, or the difficulty of renewing an existing agreement (not the lack of one). Diagram 10

Obstacles to S&T cooperation with Russia

11 11

9

54 4

3

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Otherfactors

ObtainingVisa

Legalproblems

Language orculturalbarriers

Budgetproblems(limitedfunding)

lack of infoon financial

tools forcooperation

Lack ofagreements

on IPR

Obstacle

Nu

mb

er o

f P

Os

n=28 General horizontal research priorities supported by POs towards Russia In question B7a of the survey the research priorities supported by the organisation could be ticked (basic and/or applied research, technology development, innovation or other). The distribution for types of research supported by POs towards Russia are as follows: a large majority of 29 Programme Owners support basic research, where the strength of Russian research traditionally lies. Applied research is supported by 17 out of 32 PO’s, technology development by 10 PO’s, and innovation by 8 organisations (see diagram 11). Nearly all Programme Owners providing an answer to this question do support basic research, whereas when it comes to technology development and innovation less than a third of organisations responding to this question provide support. Only very few agencies dedicated specifically to support of technology development and innovation are involved in funding cooperation.


ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010

Diagram 11

Type of research priority supported

8

10

17

29

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Innovation

TechnologyDevelopment

Applied Research

Basic Research

No. of Programme Owners

n=32 Thematic fields of cooperation with Russia The survey questionnaire provided a list of 11 thematic fields of cooperation, which could be ticked, plus the option “other”, where free text could be introduced. 35 POs out of 40 reported on their fields of cooperation with Russia. The most common fields in which European Programme Owners cooperate with Russia are (highest to lowest): Nanotechnologies/materials (20 POs), Energy (19), Environment (19), ICTs (18), Socio-economic sciences and humanities (18), and Biotechnology (16). Behind these major fields of cooperation with Russia are Health, Food/agriculture and fisheries, and Space (10 POs each). Transport & aeronautics and Security were indicated by 8 and 4 POs respectively). Security emerges as the least common thematic field of S&T cooperation with Russia, which perhaps reflects the sensitivity of this research field. All fields are presented in diagram 12. The thematic fields such as mathematics, physics and chemistry were mentioned in the category “other”, which also included a general reference to basic research. The most common fields of cooperation among EU MS/AC POs and Russia can be indicative of the fields that may be mature enough for multilateral cooperation.


ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010

Diagram 12

Number of POs per thematic field of cooperation

Nanotechnologies / Materials:20

Energy:19

Environment (& climate

change):19

Socio-economic sciences and Humanities:18

ICT:18

Biotechnology:16

Other:14

Health:10

Food, agriculture and fisheries:10

Space:10

Transport and Aeronautics:8

Security:4

n=35

4.2.2 Presentation and analysis of data extracted from section C of the questionnaire: Evaluation procedures

Section C of the survey deals with the evaluation procedures that help decide which project to support in the frame of an international S&T funding programme. Practical aspects, including joint and separate evaluation procedures, were tested. The matter of who, how and how many experts evaluate the proposals was clarified, as were the standard and optional criteria for evaluation. These data are important for pinpointing the criteria used by an organisation to orientate its actions, and consequently they provide valuable input for identifying the common ground on which to build multilateral S&T cooperation activities. Evaluation procedure of POs Question C1 is a “check point” question about whether an evaluation procedure exists. The vast majority of POs (38 out of 39), including all respondents from EU MS/AC, use some kind of evaluation procedure for the selection of the proposed projects (diagram 13). Only one Programme Owner ticked the “NO” box, which might be a mistake or an omission. Another one did not fill in this section - probably because evaluation is not included in its tasks, or else it simply skipped section C altogether (n=39).


ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010

Diagram 13

% of POs that use evaluation procedure

Evaluation procedure EXISTS:

97%

NO evaluation procedure

declared: 3%

n=39 More often a separate evaluation procedure is applied (48% of all cases recorded), with the PO evaluating the proposed projects unilaterally (see diagram 14). A combined, two stage procedure consisting of a separate and joint evaluation step is applied by 20% of responding Programme Owners. In this case, usually the first separate evaluation by the POs involved is followed by a joint review of the proposed projects. The joint review serves here as a typical validation of the separate evaluations, or as the next stage of negotiation: approving the funding of certain projects. Joint evaluation is the third option (18%) and it is least often applied, probably because of its higher coordination cost, especially when only two funding partners are involved. Other reasons might be a lack of a common group of evaluators or of common criteria for evaluation. In some cases it might also be restricted by the statutes or rules of the Programme Owner. The category of “other” procedures was used by respondents to describe sub-types of evaluation procedures outlined above, such as evaluation by expert panels.


ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010

Diagram 14

Separate or joint evaluation

separate evaluation procedure: 48%

joint evaluation procedure: 18%

Both procedures are applied (2 stages evaluation): 20%

Other: 14%

n=37 Most of the programme owners that participated in the survey consult independent researchers to evaluate the proposals (26 POs). Experts of the ministry evaluate in 4 cases, and experts of the agency evaluate the proposals for 7 POs (see diagram 15). Programme Owners also use combinations of these options, where for example the first evaluation is performed by independent researchers, and in a second step, experts of the ministry or the agency perform the second evaluation and select projects for funding. Independent researchers are the most common case and this has to do with their objectivity and expertise, as well as with the fact that it is quite difficult for a Programme Owner to have an adequate number of experts from all disciplines and fields that can evaluate the variety of proposals submitted. The “other” field included panels of experts (3 cases), ad hoc committees, a network of German Programme Owners, foreign experts, independent experts, and experts of another agency. The Programme Owners interviewed also use (or are willing to use) international experts in their evaluation procedures.


ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010

Diagram 15

Who evaluates the proposals (POs number)

experts of the ministry:4

experts of the agency:7

Independent researchers:26

Other:8

n=37 As regards the question of how experts evaluate proposals, this happens remotely for 12 POs and in situ or via a committee meeting for 8 POs. Most of the POs, 16, have stated they use both procedures by ticking both “remote” and “in situ”. It is common for EU MS/AC Programme Owners to use both ways as a two stage evaluation procedure. Usually two experts evaluate a proposal and at the second stage a panel of experts reviews the proposals, usually classified according to their thematic field. See diagram 16. The category of “other” included one mention of “peer review” but it is not presented in the diagram as it does not contribute to the analysis. Diagram 16

How do experts evaluate? (Number of POs)

Remote:12

In situ/committee meeting:8

both:16

n=36


ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010


When it comes to the number of experts used for evaluation, the most common case is to consult at least two experts for evaluating a proposal; 12 POs indicated they have 2 experts. 4 POs use 1 expert per proposal and 4 other POs have 3 experts per proposal. A committee or a panel of more than 5 experts is the case for 2 POs and another 3 POs replied that they use between 2 and 6 experts, probably depending on the programme. The duration of the evaluation varies from 2 weeks to 8 months. The most usual case is from 1 to 3 months. The evaluation process is understood here, in a broad sense, to be the time period from the submission deadline for project proposals until the date when a decision is made on the project proposals to be funded. Evaluation criteria Diagram 17 presents the criteria applied in order to evaluate the proposals submitted. The criteria are sorted according to frequency of response by Programme Owners. Not surprisingly, the scientific merits of a proposal stand at the top of the evaluation criteria (33 POs). Next in importance come the suitability of applicants and feasibility of the project, mentioned by 32 POs. The Added value of cooperation, with 25 references, and the significance for international cooperation, with 19, are also important in decision making. These latter two criteria are also indicative of the POs’ expectations that the present level of cooperation among researchers might be upgraded in the future: in some cases, the funding of mobility projects serves the purpose of investigating the prospects for joint research projects. Some Programme Owners consider the funding of bilateral research projects as an incentive to become involved in cooperation at a higher, more multilateral level (e.g. in the EU Framework Programme for RTD). The participation of young researchers is quite often used as an evaluation criterion and was mentioned by 22 POs. Let us recall that in the cost section discussed above, scholarships for young researchers were mentioned by 14 POs, PhD scholarships by 11 POs and grants for postdoctoral researchers by 13 POs as an eligible personnel cost. These findings underpin the general tendency for the support of young researchers (including in international S&T cooperation) is high on the agenda of S&T funding organisations. The next most frequently mentioned criterion was the requested (appropriate) budget, which was referred to by 15 POs. National priorities are less frequently used as a criterion and were mentioned by 12 POs. The top-down integration of international S&T cooperation in the national thematic priorities appears less relevant than the bottom-up criterion of scientific quality. A majority of POs enjoy a certain autonomy in the selection of projects based mainly on their scientific quality and feasibility. Other significant criteria used are the promotion of innovative technology towards industry and SMEs, the increase of investments and economic development, the participation of female researchers, the co-funding of the project, and the impact on local economy. The evaluation criteria selected by the POs are not classified according to the types of programmes. However, this is not a problem for the analysis. The IB-BMBF (Germany) is a Programme Owner that also supports innovation projects. Its evaluation criteria though do not deviate from the others.

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010

Diagram 17

n=37

4.2.3 Presentation and analysis of data extracted from section D.2: Specific cooperation details about Russia

Section D.2 of the survey asked about specific aspects of cooperation with Russia alone, and was not directed at other countries of the Black Sea region. The information requested included formal agreements, the budget for cooperation with Russia, the number of projects supported, perspectives for cooperation, the IPR situation, examples of good practice, and impact assessments of the cooperation. Agreements with Russia The first question of section D.2.1 on Russia was about the existence of an agreement between the responding organisation and Russia and/or Russian institution(s). The majority of POs (29, or 94%) have an S&T agreement with Russia or Russian organisation(s), while 2 POs (6%) do not (see the following diagram 18). In the question about the instruments, 27 Programme Owners selected the S&T agreements as an instrument that they could use in order to promote international S&T cooperation.


ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010

Diagram 18

% of POs that have S&T agreement with Russia

Number of POs that HAVE S&T agreement with

Russia or Russian

Organisation(s): 29: 94%

Number of POs that have NOT

S&T agreement with Russia or

Russian Organisation(s):

2: 6%

n=31 Russian partners of EU MS/AC Programme Owners The name of the partner organisation in Russia was questioned in the next survey step.Table 1 lists the Russian organisations that are mentioned as partners by the POs. This table provides an index for their abbreviations (in Russian or English) used in diagram 19 below, which gives the numbers of POs that have an agreement with a Russian institution (the last two are not official abbreviations but just a shortened reference to indicate them on the diagram). Table 1

Federal Agency of Education Rosobrazovanie Federal Agency of Science and Innovation Rosnauka Foundation for Assistance to Small Innovative Enterprises FASIE Ministry of Education and Science Minobrnauki/MON Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences RASKHN Russian Academy of Medical Sciences RAMS Russian Academy of Sciences RAS Russian Foundation for Basic Research RFBR Russian Foundation for Humanities RFH Russian Government (no ministry specified) Russian gov. Moscow Independent University Mos. Ind. Univ.


ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010

Diagram 19

n=24 Most of the responding Programme Owners from EU Member States and Associated Countries of FP7 have agreements with the Russian Academy of Sciences (or its affiliated institutions): 14 agreements. If the branch Academies (RASKHN, RAMS) are added, then the Academy sector accounts for 16 S&T agreements of responding organisations. Next is the RFBR with 13 agreements. The Ministry of Education and Science is involved as a partner in 9 agreements and the Russian government in 3. RFH is next with 3 agreements and FASIE with 2. Moscow Independent University is mentioned once25. Evidently, RAS and RFBR are the Russian organisations with the most active presence in the international cooperation field, as far as international agreements of our sample of S&T funding organisations from EU MS/AC are concerned. The Russian government is the 3rd most important partner among our sample, mostly through the competent Ministry of Education and Science (MON). We should note though that the Ministry currently has 21 S&T agreements with EU MS/AC in place, RAS 28 and RFBR 12; more details on the S&T agreements concluded by Russian Programme Owners are discussed in chapter 4 “Bilateral S&T Cooperation from the Perspective of Russian Programme Owners”, below. Active S&T cooperation with Russia in the last 5 years Question D.2.2 checked whether an active S&T cooperation programme had existed with Russia over the last 5 years. In the case of an S&T cooperation programme that was no longer


25 The reference to the “Russian State Committee of Higher Education” and the reference to the “Russian Committee of Science and Technology” were considered to refer to the Ministry of Education and Science (Minobrnauki/MON). References to specialized institutes affiliated to important Russian S&T institutions are included in the counting of the latter (e.g. reference to IPPI is included in the number of agreements with RAS).

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010

active, the question asked for what reason it stopped, and if there were plans to promote cooperation. In the case of an active S&T cooperation programme it was asked which organisation implemented the programme. Most of the POs that participated in the online survey thus far indicated an active S&T cooperation with Russia in the last 5 years (28 POs, 87%) and therefore have relevant experience of cooperating with Russia. 4 POs (13%) did not have an active cooperation programme with Russia in the last five years. Diagram 20

% of POs that had active S&T cooperation with Russia in the last 5 years

POs that HAD active S&T

cooperation with Russia the last 5

years: 87%

POs that did NOT have an active

cooperation with Russia the last five years: 13%

n=32


ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010

Implementation of programmes with Russia The majority of Programme Owners that did have an active cooperation with Russia in the last five years implemented the programme on their own (17 POs, or 63% of responding POs). This means that they enjoy a certain degree of autonomy in their action towards any future multilateral S&T cooperation framework (see diagram 21). 10 POs (37%) did not implement the programme themselves. Diagram 21

% of POs that had active S&T cooperation in the last 5 years and implement the S&T cooperation programme themselves

POs that have stated that do

NOT implement the S&T

programmes themselves: 37%

POs that have stated to

implement the S&T programmes themselves: 63%

n=27 10 POs ticked the field about having plans to promote their S&T cooperation with Russia. This box was intended to be ticked by those that did not have active S&T cooperation with Russia in the last 5 years. It is not clear though whether they already had substantial plans about activating the cooperation, whether they intended to do so in the future, or whether they were waiting for favourable circumstances in order to promote cooperation with Russia. Project / activities supported by the POs in their cooperation with Russia The types of projects or activities supported in cooperation programmes with Russia are displayed in the following diagram. The types (mobility, research, other) were identified with tick boxes, whereby more than one option could be ticked by respondents. Research projects accounted for 23 references, mobility for 19, and “Other/Conferences, etc.” were mentioned 16 times. Information about supported projects with Russia is made available to the public only by 13 POs. Usually this means that information can be accessed online and can be found in English, French, or German.


ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010

Diagram 22

Number of POs per types of projects with Russia

MOBILITY: 19

RESEARCH: 23

OTHER: 16

n=35 Budget for cooperation with Russia In question D.2.4 of the survey, the POs were requested to disclose the budget for their cooperation with Russia for the years 2006, 2007, 2008, whereby details were asked per project type, minimum/average/maximum. 18 POs provided budget data for their cooperation with Russia for these three years (total n=18 for the two diagrams). 7 POs did not provide budget data for the years 2006 and/or 2007, which is an indication that either their cooperation with Russia started only recently or that they did not have specific data for the budget with Russia available. Another 2 POs did not provide budget data for the year 2008, but only for the previous years, so it is assumed that there were no funds for their cooperation with Russia for the year 2008. Diagram 23 illustrates the budgets of the POs for cooperation with Russia that exceed €1 million. The Research Council of Norway (RCN) spent an outstandingly high budget for cooperation with Russia during 2008 - over €14 million26. RCN’s high budget can be explained by the “International Polar Year” - an example of good practice that resulted in collaboration with Russia through a high number of projects (details given in the “good practices” section below). The Academy of Finland (AKA) had the second biggest budget of 2008 with €3 million. The next largest budget for cooperation with Russia, and clearly the biggest increase in relation to the years 2006 and 2007, belonged to the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) - €2,2 million. Interestingly, NWO of the Netherlands has had a rather high budget for cooperation with Russia in comparison with 2006, but has not launched any new funding activities targeted at Russia since then.

26 Conversion rates RUB (or other)-EUR: rate at 31st of December of the year in which budget was approved and/or spent. ECB rate to be applied: http://www.ecb.int/stats/exchange/eurofxref/html/index.en.html


Similarly for NIS http://www.bankisrael.gov.il/deptdata/mth/average/averge.htm (year average NIS/Euro)

http://www.ecb.int/stats/exchange/eurofxref/html/index.en.html

http://www.bankisrael.gov.il/deptdata/mth/average/averge.htm

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010

Diagram 23

Budget for cooperation with Russia: POs with budget over 1 million Euro

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

RCN/Nor

way

AKA / Finl

and

FWF/A

ustria

Helmholt

z/Ger

man

y

CNRS/Fra

nce

IB-B

MBF /

Germ

any

NWO/N

ethe

rland

s

Name of PO

Bu

dg

et i

n M

illi

on

Eu

ro

2006

2007

2008

n=7 Diagram 24 depicts the budgets for cooperation with Russia that are below €1 million, so that the comparison among budgets of the remaining POs is clearer. We should also note that budgets of Academies of Science are mostly rather low, as they usually support only the mobility of their scientists. The POs with the top three budgets below €1 million for the year 2008 were SER/Switzerland, MOST/Israel and the Royal Society of London/UK. The front runner among the Academies in budgetary terms is the Polish Academy of Sciences, which comes in the diagram fourth place.


ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010

Diagram 24

Budget for cooperation with Russia: POs with budget below 1 million Euro

0,000,050,100,150,200,250,300,350,400,450,50

SER/S

witzer

land

MOST/

Isra

el

Royal S

ociety

/UK

PAN /

Poland

MVZT

/Slove

nia

BMW

F/Aus

tria

CSIC /

Spain

OAW

/Aus

tria

SANU /

Serbia

KNAW/N

ethe

rland

s

NKTH /

Hun

gary

Name of PO

Budget

in M

illion E

uro

2006

2007

2008

n=11 Number of projects with Russia and budget per project Question D.2.5 asked about the number of projects funded during the years 2006-7-8. The following diagram presents the total number of projects which responding Programme Owners supported in their cooperation with Russia in the years 2006, 2007, 2008. The Programme Owners with the highest number of projects with Russia (for all types of projects) for the year 2008 are: CNRS/France, the German Research Foundation (DFG) and the Polish Academy of Sciences. In this question the POs needed to differentiate between the types of projects (mobility, research, or other) and also provide the average, minimum and maximum budget per project with Russia. These data would be further instructive for the analysis. If 50 mobility projects get supported with a budget of €4.000 each, that would be a very different situation from, say, 2 research or innovation projects receiving support in the order of €100.000 each. The total budget spent on the cooperation might be the same, but the quality of the two programmes is very different. Unfortunately, not many of the POs were so detailed in their replies. Usually the total number of projects is given, but no distinction is made between mobility and research projects. The fields of the average, maximum and minimum budget per project and type of project have often been left blank. Several POs have refrained from providing exact data by arguing that the budget of a project is dependant on variables such as the number of participating scientists, whether the project is implemented in Russia or not, the cost of laboratory equipment and consumables, etc.


ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010

Diagram 25

Number of all projects with Russia 2008-7-6

0 50 100 150 200

AKA / Fin

land

BMW

F / Aus

tria

GSRT / Gre

eceIB

-BM

BF

NKTH / Hun

gary

NWO /

Nethe

rland

s

KNAW/N

ethe

rland

s

MTA

/ Hun

gary

Helmho

ltz /

Germ

any

Royal

Societ

y/UK

Humbo

lt/Ger

many

TUBITAK/T

urke

y

FWF

/ Aus

tria

MVZT

/ Slov

enia

MOST

/ Isr

ael

CSIC /

Spain

PAN / Pola

nd

DFG / Ger

many

CNRS / Fra

nce

EU

MS

/AC

PO

s

Number of projects

2008

2007

2006

n=19


ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010


The highest number of (all kinds of) projects were supported by CNRS/France, which also provided the details about its type of projects: the mobility projects of CNRS with Russia steadily decreased over the years (2006: 88, 2007: 73, and 2008: 53) in favour of research projects, workshops and joint laboratories (2006: 47, 2007: 69, 2008: 82). This fact can be further analysed. The mobility projects are not renewable, therefore new means of cooperation between French and Russian researchers are sought (research projects, laboratories), especially if the initial mobility projects are successful. The demand comes from both the French as well as the Russian side and, since CNRS supports this demand for new projects, the cooperation evolves27. It is an important factor that the policy for international cooperation of CNRS often is to build bottom – up i.e. it is usually the researchers that initiate cooperation28. When an institution can meet the demands of researchers, as CNRS does in this case, international cooperation is promoted. The German Research Foundation (DFG) follows, with 100-120 projects supported annually but it does not make a distinction between types of projects. Close behind is the International Bureau of the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (IB-BMBF, Germany), with 109, 78, 99 projects for the years 2006-7-8 respectively. We should compare the number of projects with the budget figures above to get a further insight: at one end of the spectrum we can find FWF/Austria and AKA/Finland, which are typical S&T funding organisations and which put the priority on few, but well funded research projects. At the other end of the spectrum we find Academies of Science, which are typical research organisations and which provide modest mobility support for a sometimes quite high number of staff exchanges. For example, within the framework of “joint Polish-Russian research projects”, the Polish Academy of Sciences supports the mobility of its participating researchers (average budget per project is 4.000PLN, that is approximately 1.012€ in 2010 exchange rate). A comparison of data about the budget per project is problematic, as the differences are enormous: the average budget for research projects varies from €7.500 up to €250.000. But these differences also reflect the differences of the role and approach of responding Programme Owners. IPR regime with Russia Question D.2.6 asked about the existence of an IPR regime. The percentage of the POs that agreed on some kind of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) regime with their Russian partner organisation reached 29% (see diagram 26). This is usually the case when a bilateral agreement on IPR applies, or when the details about the IPR terms in a project are decided on a case by case basis. On the other hand, 71% percent of the Programme Owners declared that they do not have a specific IPR regime with Russia. Still, in this case, national IPR legislation needs to be respected. Some Programme Owners recommend concluding an IPR agreement, but only few POs oblige the project partners to conclude one. IPR are mostly solved on a case by case basis, whereby it is left usually to the project partners to clarify it, if such questions arise. In general, IPR are not much of an issue in ongoing cooperation. A rather frictionless IPR situation might occasionally cause a surprise, but it needs to be considered that bilateral projects deal mainly with basic research, where IPR is not such an important issue. The more the supported projects move towards applied research and innovation, the more the IPR issue becomes relevant. The International Bureau of BMBF reported that in its joint funding activity with the Foundation for Assistance to Small Innovative Enterprises (FASIE), no IPR problems have yet arisen, but they recommend project partners to conclude an internal IPR agreement.

27 A special acknowledgement to Virginie Robin (CNRS, France) for her contribution to this analysis. 28 Interview report with CNRS, France.

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010

However, there are exceptional cases reported when the conclusion of an S&T agreement could not be completed because agreement on IPR terms could not be reached. Diagram 26

% of POs with IPR regime with Russia

POs that have IPR regime with

Russia: 29%

POs that DO NOT have IPR regime with Russia: 71%

n=14 Plans for future S&T cooperation with Russia Plans for future S&T cooperation with Russia were identified in the online survey through question D.2.7. This was an open question, where the European POs could enter a short description as free text. In this question there were 24 replies. 3 respondents stated: “nothing planned”, while another indicated that the competent ministry had ended cooperation with Russia and that “plans depend on future S&T strategy” which was under development at the time of filling in the questionnaire. The remaining 21 POs did indeed have plans for the future and intended in many cases to continue this cooperation or even increase the number of projects. There were 13 references to the funding of new projects, either in the context of the present framework or by launching new calls in the near future. In at least three cases it can be inferred that the budget for cooperation would be increased with new calls, continue on a “higher financial level”, or that the budget would be increased by 10%. The new fields that seem to attract the interest for cooperation are: nanotechnologies (4 references/ref.), the environment (2 ref.), ICT (2 ref.), biotechnology (2 ref.), and then space, oceanography, medicine, energy, the humanities and the social sciences with 1 reference each. New agreements and/or funding programmes are imminent for another 9 POs. The Russian institutions mentioned for new agreements were RFBR, RFH, RAS (3 ref.), Rosnauka, FASIE, ROSCOSMOS (Russian Federal Space Agency), Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences and Russian Academy of Medical Sciences. In one case, the creation of a “joint funding mechanism” with Russia was also mentioned. Clearly, POs are expecting benefits from the cooperation with Russia. Their intention is to enhance cooperation with new agreements, relaunch their cooperation through new funding programmes, continue existing programmes, or in some cases even increase the budget. Good practice examples of cooperation with Russia Good practice examples were also queried with an open question (question D.2.8), where replies to this field could be entered as free text. 12 POs contributed good practice examples in the relevant question of the online survey. The good practices have been regrouped into D 1.3 Bilateral S&T Cooperation with Russia of 72

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010


examples of S&T funding bodies, on the one hand, and research organisations (which also run S&T funding programmes) on the other. S&T funding bodies For the Academy of Finland it has proved more efficient to deal directly with funding partners of S&T cooperation which resemble their own structure, and which have similar functions and scope of actions. The knowledge of the Russian language and of the country is an asset. BMWF/Austria has capitalized on its experience from science days on nano- and biotechnologies as a means of networking and establishing cooperation projects in these fields. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) mentions the International Research Training Group Gießen-Marburg-Moscow: "Enzymes and Multienzyme Complexes Acting on Nucleic Acids". The International Research Training Group GRK 1384 is formed of scientists from the Justus-Liebig University (Giessen), the Philipps-University (Marburg), The Russian Academy of Science and the M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University. Associated partners include scientists from the Institute of Biotechnology (Vilnius) and the International Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology (Warsaw). The International Research Training Group focuses on the training of doctoral students in the biochemistry of enzymes and multienzyme complexes acting on nucleic acids29. Another good practice example is the SME-oriented funding partnership between the International Bureau (IB) of BMBF/Germany and the Russian Foundation for Assistance to Small Innovative Enterprises (FASIE). This cooperation is based on a German-Russian Memorandum of Understanding on "Cooperation in the field of applied industry-oriented research between German and Russian innovative SMEs" which was signed in December 2007 between IB and FASIE. The common goal of the partnership is to support bilateral R&D projects involving German and Russian small innovative enterprises and applied research institutions. In May 2008 IB and FASIE published their first joint call. 30 proposals for bilateral projects were submitted. Nine of these proposals now are granted with a maximum funding of € 50.000 from each side and a maximum project lifecycle of two years. Based on this positive experience, in February 2009 IB and FASIE published their second joint call. 57 proposals were submitted and, after the joint evaluation, approximately 18 bilateral projects will be funded. This successful funding cooperation between a German and a Russian funding body will be continued and at the same time can serve as a model for further joint funding co-operations between Germany and the Russian Federation. The Research Council of Norway presents as a good practice the “International Polar Year” that ran from March 2007 until March 2009. Polar research refers to research on phenomena in the polar areas (the Arctic and the Antarctic) as well as research to be applied in these areas. Polar research encompasses a variety of scientific disciplines, primarily in the natural sciences, technology, the social sciences and the humanities. Cooperation with Russia was highlighted as successful in this programme. Research institutions running S&T funding programmes CNRS mentioned joint laboratories as a good practice. The Helmholtz – Russia joint research groups (HRJRGs) are also a successful practice. One example from the research field "Health" is the HRJRG “Genetic susceptibility to tuberculosis” (Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research in cooperation with the Central Institute for Tuberculosis Moscow). A second example, from the research field "Structure of Matter", is the "Development of a high energy electron cooler for hadrons’ physics experiments at COSY and at HESR" (Forschungszentrum Jülich and Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics Novosibirsk/ Joint Institute for Nuclear Research Dubna).

29 http://www.uni-giessen.de/cms/fbz/fb08/biologie/biochem/international-networks/gradu

http://www.uni-giessen.de/cms/fbz/fb08/biologie/biochem/international-networks/gradu

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010


The Max Planck Society reports on the "Max Planck Partner Groups" in Ekaterinburg and Moscow as a good practice. Partner Groups are an instrument of strengthening the ties between Max Planck Institutes and foreign research institutes and of intensifying cooperation between individual scientists through jointly conducted projects. They are headed by visiting scientists with proven research records and profiles who, after completing their research residency at a Max Planck Institute, return to their home base to lead an appropriately equipped research group. Within the scope of Partner Group funding, scientists are given the opportunity to continue their research at their home institute under favourable working conditions and in close contact with their former host institute. For the Max Planck Society, the Partner Groups are a means of facilitating access to high-performance research institutes overseas. All directors of Max Planck Institutes are eligible to nominate potential candidates as head of new Partner Groups. Recommendations are rated on the basis of the quality of the submitted research project as well as of its potential in terms of the research profile of the partner institute. Fundamental for each new Partner Group is a Cooperation Agreement between the Max Planck Institute and its partner institute overseas. All Partner Groups are supported by a bilateral Scientific Advisory Board, initially for a three-year period. After successful evaluation by the Board, the Partner Group can be extended by a further two years. As a rule, the Max Planck Society will allocate 20,000 euros p.a. per Partner Group30. The Polish Academy of Sciences (PAN) described as a good practice the “Days of Polish Science in Russia”, 13 - 17 October 2008 with 19 scientific events (including conferences, seminars, symposia and 3 exhibitions), organised in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Ekaterinburg, Warsaw and Zakopane. Central celebrations took place in Moscow on 13-14 October 2008. Also a Workshop on Plant Molecular Biotechnology was held from 5 - 12 July 2009 in Gdansk (Poland). The majority of good practices mentioned in the online survey can be classified as practices of networking. The acquaintance of researchers and institutions seems to be the first step in order to prepare the ground for a more comprehensive cooperation. Small scale events that bring together researchers and scientists can provide the basis of a fruitful cooperation with mutual benefits. The practices of the International Bureau of BMBF in preparing new calls with Russian partners are often based on bilateral committees such as panels of experts, joint workshops, and specialized work groups that can contribute effectively to the implementation of joint programmes. The Polish Science Days may also have contributed to the conclusion of agreements planned for 2010, between the Polish Academy of Sciences and Russian organisations. Impact assessment used in international cooperation with Russia Question D.2.9 required a yes/no reply to indicate whether impact assessments for S&T cooperation with Russia had been performed. Most of the POs do not use Impact Assessment (IA) as a tool to analyse their cooperation with Russia (see diagram 27). This limits the possibilities for evaluating the practices followed so far and for identifying good practice. Only 8 of the POs use IA, 25 POs do not (n=33) and the remaining 7 POs provided no reply at all in this field.

30 http://www.mpg.de/english/institutesProjectsFacilities/partnergroups/aboutPgrp/index.html

http://www.mpg.de/english/institutesProjectsFacilities/partnergroups/aboutPgrp/index.html

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010

Diagram 27

% of POs that use Impact Assessment for S&T programmes with Russia

POs that USE IA for cooperation w ith

Russia: 24%

POs that do NOT use IA for

cooperation w ith Russia: 76%

n=33 Whenever an Impact Assessment is used, it is done every 2 or 3 years and more often at the end of a scheme or a programme, in order to evaluate the cooperation with a specific country or institution. Only one PO stated that they use IA regularly.

4.3 Summary of conclusions on the EU MS/AC Programme Owners data analysis

The POs that have so far participated in the online survey are mostly governmental organisations, followed by NGOs and research institutions. A majority of POs cooperating with Russia also cooperate with other Black Sea countries. Only few POs (mostly ministries) delegate implementation tasks to specialized agencies. They enjoy a relative autonomy in their actions and their tasks cover almost all the spectrum of the activities that a PO can possibly perform. Most POs are responsible for the programme management and its implementation. An S&T agreement is considered an important instrument to develop international S&T cooperation with Russia, as it provides a comprehensive framework, within which efficient cooperation programmes can be implemented and cooperation leads to the expected results. Inter-Governmental agreements are complemented with agreements with Russian Programme Owners. Most POs of our sample have agreements with RAS (14 agreements). The next most popular is RFBR (13 agreements) and then the Ministry of Education and Science (MON), which has 7 agreements. The scientific merits of a proposed project and its feasibility have the highest importance among the evaluation criteria. The participation of young researchers is often considered an asset in the evaluation of projects for EU MS/AC programme evaluation. Basic research is a high priority of the participating POs. Innovation has far less relevance in bilateral S&T cooperation. The most popular thematic fields of cooperation for POs are (highest to lowest): nanotechnologies/materials, information and communication technologies, energy, the environment and biotechnology.


ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010


Most of the POs have an agreement with a Russian institution that has allowed them to have a cooperation programme in the last five years. In a few cases such an agreement has not been renewed. A major obstacle to cooperation is the visa requirement for travelling. Further facilitation of visa procedures for researchers could be envisaged. Furthermore, the transferring of funds is difficult due to the taxes imposed. Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) agreements do not usually pose problems for the bilateral programmes with Russia. IPR issues are mostly resolved on a case by case basis. There are not many comprehensive agreements on IPR. Among good practices are the networking activities among scientists: Workshops, joint laboratories, training groups, science days etc. The building of interpersonal relations and the increase of contacts is often a good means of furthering the successful implementation of future projects. Only 8 POs use IA analysis for their programmes with Russia, which makes it more difficult to validate good practices of cooperation. Regarding future perspectives, an increasing tendency of S&T cooperation with Russia can be expected: POs are either planning to continue the ongoing cooperation or to enhance it, many of them with new funding tools or increased budgets. Only one responding PO out of 40 has stated that the funding programme with Russia has been ended and cannot speculate on when it will be relaunched. The conclusions from the interview reports of the 13 POs are further strengthening the above trend. It seems that the international financial crisis is having little or no effect on their plans for international cooperation. Actually, in many cases, investment in R&D is being considered useful for giving the economy a boost. The experiences of cooperating with Russia appear to be broadly positive. One weakness reported in the interviews, in addition to the aforementioned, is the lack of joint funding programmes. The relevance of the ERA.Net projects for the EU MS/AC interviewed is in most cases “high” or “significant”. Only one Programme Owner did not have a good experience from its participation in an ERA.Net project and has reservations about multilateral projects in general. Regarding the possibility of multilateral coordination of their S&T cooperation with Russia at a European level, the EU MS/AC POs interviewed are positive. Many of them are already participating in other multilateral programmes. Two of them prefer the method of coordination to be “exchange of information” and “good practices”. Some of them stated that, while they are positive in principal, it would depend on the precise conditions of the multilateral cooperation (e.g. big European countries participating, focus on basic research, etc.).

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010


5 BILATERAL S&T COOPERATION FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF RUSSIAN PROGRAMME OWNERS

5.1 Methodology Within the framework of analysing bilateral S&T cooperation between EU Member States, Associated Countries of FP7 and Russia, the main Programme Owners from Russia have also been surveyed. The same questionnaire that was administered to EU MS/AC Programme Owners was used, with only some slight modifications made to take account of the fact that it was targeted at Russian organisations. The questionnaire is available in Annex B. Survey results were followed up and complemented with in-depth interviews. The interview guidelines for interviews with Russian Programme Owners featured more differences, as compared to the guidelines for interviews with EU MS/AC Programme Owners. This was necessary, as the interviews with Russian colleagues also served the purpose of collecting information on the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) of the Russian S&T funding system. These interviews also provided an input for the 2nd ERA.Net RUS analytical report on the Russian S&T funding system. The interview guidelines can be found in Annex D. Both questionnaire and interview guidelines were translated into Russian to facilitate data collection. Up to the end of January 2010 the following Russian Programme Owners had been surveyed and interviewed: Federal Agency of Science and Innovation (FASI or Rosnauka) Foundation for Assistance to Small Innovative Enterprises (FASIE) Ministry of Economic Development (Mineconomrazvitiya) Ministry of Education and Science (Minobrnauki) Ministry of Industry and Trade (Minpromtorg) Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) Russian Corporation for Nanotechnologies (Rusnano) Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR) Russian Foundation for Humanities (RFH) Russian Venture Company (RVK) The population of Russian Programme Owners is clearly much more limited in number than it is among the EU Member States and Associated Countries to FP7. In the selected sample of Russian Programme Owners, the most relevant Russian S&T and innovation funding organisations have been included. The sample is rather heterogeneous: it includes classical foundations that are dedicated to S&T and innovation funding, with relevant bilateral cooperation programmes (FASIE, RFBR, RFH). It includes the major Russian basic research organisation (RAS), which has a broad network of financially small-scale mobility programmes with partner Academies in the EU member states and Associated Countries of FP7. It includes Ministries being Programme Owners of Federal Targeted Programmes for S&T funding. These programmes contain certain international cooperation elements. The Ministry of Education and Science is the main ministerial player, as it has a dense network of S&T agreements with EU MS/AC countries. In addition, in March 2010 it incorporated the Federal Agency for Science and Innovation (FASI or Rosnauka) in its structure and is now managing its tasks, including the international cooperation elements. Finally, innovation and

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010


investment bodies (Rusnano, RVK) with certain R&D support components and some international outreach have also been included. Because of this heterogeneity, the survey questionnaire did not fully apply to several of the POs of the sample and was therefore not filled. The questionnaire was filled though by FASIE, RFBR, RFH, Rosnauka, and information is partly available for the Ministry of Education and Science. Therefore it is also not possible to provide such a detailed statistical analysis as for the EU MS/AC Programme Owners in the previous chapter. Nevertheless, the most relevant information that could be gathered is discussed in this chapter. The chapter is in addition to the survey and interview data based on information made available by the respective organisations and on research into publicly accessible sources (e.g. information on websites). The following analysis is divided into two parts: first, a comparative view of questionnaire and interview data is undertaken and second, specific features of international S&T cooperation per Programme Owner are discussed.

5.2 Analysis of survey and interview results Types of Programme Owner Russian Programme Owners relevant to international cooperation are all governmental organisations, whereby the Russian Academy of Sciences is the above all a research institution. This organisational structure underlines the dominance of the governmental sector in the Russian R&D funding system; private or non-governmental research funding bodies in Russia still have a very limited relevance. S&T Agreements There is differentiation in international S&T cooperation between the Russian Programme Owners along the lines of the innovation chain: the most comprehensive and long lasting bilateral cooperation programmes are established in basic research (RAS, RFBR), while funding bodies in applied research and innovation (such as FASIE) have been increasing and developing their international activities in recent years and are trying to catch up. The whole setup of Russia’s international S&T and innovation cooperation is underpinned by bilateral S&T agreements, which the Ministry of Education and Science has been concluding with a broad range of EU Member States and Associated Countries since the early 1990s; at the time this survey was finalised in late 2009, there were 16 agreements with EU MS and 5 with AC in place. The following diagram shows the status of agreements of Russian Programme Owners in late 2009:

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010

Diagram 28

Bilateral S&T agreements of RF POs with EU MS/AC

9

53

1916

9

42

28

21

12

42

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

RAS MES RFBR RFH FASIE

No

. o

f E

U M

S/A

C

AC

EU

EU/AC

The most comprehensive and long lasting cooperation is established in basic research funding. The Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) has a long tradition of researcher exchanges with a broad range of EU countries and Associated Countries. RAS is the leading Russian research organisation which, similar to other Academies of Sciences in EU MS/AC, uses a small portion of its funds for the mobility of its researchers, mainly with partner Academies. It currently has agreements with organisations in 19 EU Member States and 9 Associated Countries of FP7. The Russian Foundation for Basic Research is the focal point of bilateral funding cooperation for basic research in the sciences; it has bilateral agreements and funding programmes with partners in 9 EU Member States and 3 Associated Countries. It is de-facto implementing a large part of the practical side of intergovernmental agreements concluded by the Ministry of Education and Research. On a much smaller scale, RFH implements bilateral cooperation in the Humanities and Social Sciences and has concluded agreements with partner organisations in 4 EU member states. In applied research, FASIE supports start-ups and small innovative enterprises in their R&D efforts and has developed substantial international cooperation with France and Germany. The ministries have funding tools with the Federal Targeted Programmes available, which are for the moment used for international cooperation only to a limited extent. Cooperation on a multilateral scale is financially very substantial, in which the Ministry of Education and Science provides co-funding for collaborative calls with the EU in FP7 via the Federal Targeted Programme “R&D in Priority Fields of the S&T Complex of Russia (2007-2012)”.31 The Russian Venture Company (RVC) and Rusnano are state instruments for innovation support. Both RVC and Rusnano have been established recently and are in the process of developing their international cooperation activities. EU MS/AC target countries of Russian S&T cooperation A useful insight into ongoing S&T cooperation is provided by comparing the target countries in EU MS/AC, with which the Russian POs are cooperating. Diagram 29 gives an overview, how many of the five Russian Programme Owners, RAS, MES, RFBR, RFH and FASIE have


31 These collaborative calls were managed by the Federal Agency for Science and Innovation until March 2010, when the agency was disbanded and reintegrated into the Ministry of Education and Science.

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010

agreements in place with organisations in EU Member States and Associated Countries of FP7.32 The data show that all these Russian POs have concluded agreements with French and German partners. Next follows Finland, where only FASIE has no agreement,33 and then a range of smaller and bigger countries with three Russian POs formally cooperating with each country. This overview confirms to a certain extent the strongest S&T cooperation partners of Russia, although countries such as Greece, Switzerland and Norway, which also have important S&T programmes with Russia, clearly have less formalised networks. Diagram 29

No. of RF POs, which have agreements per EU MS/AC in place; RF POs included: RAS, MES, RFBR, RFH, FASIE

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

DE FR FI AT ES IL IT NL TR

No

. o

f R

F P

Os

Funding instruments and Beneficiaries RFBR, RFH and FASIE run classical bilateral cooperation tools, such as joint calls for RTDI projects, mobility support, and support for dissemination activities. RFBR and RAS also fund advanced forms of cooperation such as joint labs. The beneficiaries of RFBR support are individual researchers, while FASIE provides support mostly to small enterprises and, to a much lesser extent, to individual researchers. Russian Venture Company (RVC) and Rusnano are state corporations fulfilling the role of investment funds, which support prototyping, testing and start-ups. RVC is conceived as a fund of funds, which participates in thematic sub-investment funds. Such sub-funds can be established with international participation; one fund has been set-up with co-funding from an investment company from Israel. Rusnano is a kind of investment fund for the nanotechnology field. Its core business is the support of investment projects, which are based on R&D results in the nanotechnology field. Foreign research organisations and companies can apply for Rusnano support, provided they set up a business and production in Russia. But Rusnano does also support bilateral R&D cooperation, as it provides the Russian funding share in the German research infrastructure XFEL (X-Ray Free Electron Laser), which amounts to € 250 million over the time span 2009-16.34

32 Status of data on agreements is late 2009, when the survey was finalised. 33 In April 2010 FASIE concluded an agreement with the Finnish Innovation Agency TEKES. Finland is therefore on a par with France and Germany and has also formal cooperation agreements with the five Russian Programme Owners under consideration here.


34 News of 16.04.2009 at www.rusnano.com

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010

Budgets Out of these organisations, RFBR comparatively has the highest annual budget for international S&T cooperation. In 2008, it amounted to close to 250 million Russian Roubles which, according to the conversion rate at the end of 2008, was around € 5.9 million. Around 50% of this budget is invested in cooperation with funding partners from EU/AC. International cooperation programmes of the Foundation now account for 5% of its total budget. The number of international projects has doubled during the past few years. If the current growth rate continues, in the next few years the limit of 10% of the budget will be reached, which is a reasonable limit according to RFBR. Diagram 30

RFBR budget for international cooperation

0

50.000.000

100.000.000

150.000.000

200.000.000

250.000.000

300.000.000

overall EU/AC

Ru

ssia

n R

ou

ble

s (R

UB

)

2007

2008

In 2008 the FASIE budget for international cooperation increased strongly from levels of € 100,000 per year to € 1,000,000. Practically the entire budget for international cooperation is dedicated to cooperation with EU/AC. Diagram 31

FASIE budget for international cooperation

€ 0

€ 200.000

€ 400.000

€ 600.000

€ 800.000

€ 1.000.000

€ 1.200.000

overall EU/AC

2006

2007

2008


ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010

Comparison of budgets for S&T cooperation with EU MS/AC among Russian Programme Owners shows that in 2008 the Federal Agency for Science and Innovation (FASI) had the highest budget, followed by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR) and the Foundation for Assistance to Small Innovative Enterprises (FASIE). Budget figures show for all three organisations a strong increasing tendency for cooperation with EU MS/AC (see diagram 32). The budget of the Federal Agency for Science and Innovation, which became part of the Ministry of Education and Science during 2010, was mainly used for multilateral cooperation with the EU Framework Programme for RTD, while those of RFBR and FASIE were mainly dedicated to bilateral cooperation. For the Russian Academy of Sciences no exact figures were available but a multitude of cooperation programmes are in place, mostly with Academies of Sciences in EU MS/AC. Diagram 32

Budgets for S&T cooperation with EU MS/AC of Russian POs

€ 0

€ 500.000

€ 1.000.000

€ 1.500.000

€ 2.000.000

€ 2.500.000

€ 3.000.000

€ 3.500.000

€ 4.000.000

FASI RFBR FASIE

2006

2007

2008

Thematic Priorities Thematically, RFBR covers all fields of the sciences but normally not humanities and social sciences. FASIE is thematically open in principle but has supported only a very limited number of projects in humanities and social sciences up to now. RFH supports research only in social sciences and humanities. Obstacles for S&T cooperation programmes Obstacles that were reported by Russian Programme Owners for bilateral cooperation included: budgetary limits and uncertainties, legal limitations, importing of equipment (import duties), language and cultural barriers, and a lack of information on financial tools for cooperation. Evaluation procedures Mobility projects within the framework of the RAS exchange programmes undergo internal evaluation. Projects are supported based on an assessment of the substance of the cooperation that has already been established between RAS researchers and foreign scientists. RFBR and FASIE joint calls with international partners are usually evaluated remotely by 2, or in the case of FASIE sometimes 3, independent experts. Experts for evaluating proposals


ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010


are usually recruited from the scientific community of Russia. Evaluation normally takes only 1-2 months. Evaluation results are then compared with the results of the funding partners and then an agreement is reached on the projects to be funded. Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) There is no specific Intellectual Property Rights framework in Russia in place for international cooperation projects. Projects have to be in line with Russian legislation, especially the 4th part of the civil code. According to Russian funding bodies, the IPR situation has substantially improved over the years; contradictions between the law and normative acts of the government have been eliminated so that IPR should no longer be a problematic point in bilateral cooperation. However, some problems do persist in fields where IPR is sensitive, such as in defence-related R&D. Impact Assessments Impact Assessments or evaluations of the bilateral programmes have not yet been performed by Russian funding organisations. This is a pattern similar to EU/AC. But at RFBR an impact assessment in the form of a self-evaluation was foreseen in 2009. The results shall serve as a stock-taking of ongoing cooperation and facilitate the focussing of funding on most promising cooperations.

5.3 Specific information on international cooperation of Russian Programme Owners

5.3.1 Ministry of Education and Science (MES or Minobrnauki) The Ministry of Education and Science is the main policy maker for Russian international S&T cooperation. The ministry has concluded agreements on S&T cooperation with a broad range of EU Member States and Associated Countries to FP7. These agreements underpin the bilateral cooperation activities of the other Russian Programme Owners, discussed in further detail in the chapters below. S&T agreements have been concluded with the following EU 16 countries:

Austria Bulgaria Czech Republic Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Italy Netherlands Poland Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain United Kingdom

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010


In addition, there are also agreements in place with 5 Associated Countries to FP7: Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Israel Norway Serbia Turkey

The Ministry is also the main player for cooperation with the European Union at the multilateral level. An EU-Russia S&T agreement was renewed in 2009 and cooperation is ongoing and developing in the frame of the EU-Russia Common Space on Education and Science. An EU-Russia Permanent Partnership Council on Research was established, which held its first meeting in May 2008, with then EU Commissioner for Research, Janez Potocnik, and Russian Minister of Education and Science, Andrei Fursenko, participating in the meeting. In the Joint Statement of the Permanent Partnership Council, it was highlighted that the European Research Area would be enriched and strengthened by Russia also becoming a full part of it. Significantly, in the spring of 2008 Russia formally requested association to the EU Framework Programme, which is indeed a far reaching policy decision. In March 2010, the Federal Agency for Science and Innovation (FASI or Rosnauka) was disbanded and integrated into the structure of the Ministry. Rosnauka was an implementing agency for the Ministry’s S&T policy. It was more focussed on the multilateral side of Russian international S&T cooperation and less involved in bilateral cooperation. It was Programme Owner of the main competitive S&T funding programme, “R&D in Priority Fields of the S&T Complex of Russia” for the period 2007-2012. The programme, which has a budget of RUR 195 billion (~ € 5.7 billion), is now managed under the auspices of the Ministry. The programme budget is only partly financed out of the state budget and a substantial contribution of approximately 30% is expected from private sources. The programme includes possibilities for international cooperation. In particular, most of the coordinated calls between the EU and Russia in the 7th Framework Programme are financed out of this programme. The topics of the coordinated calls and the call implementation procedures are agreed in joint working groups of EU and Russian representatives. Coordinated calls contribute to the implementation of the EU-Russian strategic partnership in science and technology and have been agreed and implemented meanwhile in the following thematic areas: Aeronautics; Food, Agriculture and Biotechnology; Energy; Health; Nanotechnology and New Materials. Discussions on coordinated calls are ongoing in the fields of Nuclear Fission and Space research.

5.3.2 Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) The Russian Academy of Sciences is the main basic research organisation in Russia. It maintains relations with almost all leading countries of Europe, America and Asia. The main forms of cooperation include:

joint research within the framework of interagency cooperation agreements, implementation of intergovernmental agreements, participation in international organisations (more than 50), activities of international centres and laboratories.

RAS usually concludes with foreign partners a framework agreement, which is then filled with projects, mostly with mobility projects. RAS scientists cooperate with their colleagues

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010


from other countries under agreements concluded at different levels: agency – agency, institute – institute, laboratory – laboratory. In 2006, RAS cooperated with foreign partners under 105 interacademy agreements on scientific cooperation and 6 intergovernmental agreements on S&T and cooperation. RAS has previously cooperated closely with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MID) on its international cooperation. MID supported RAS with exchanges, with information on the cooperation potential in target countries, and by establishing contacts. This close link with MID was neglected during the reform years, but this support via MID should in view of RAS representatives be re-established in order to serve as a RAS infrastructure abroad. Cooperation instruments Funding of international cooperation of RAS still works in a traditional sense, as it was already established during the Soviet period: an equivalent number of scientists is exchanged between Academies and travel costs, including daily allowances, are financed for this purpose. Such exchange programmes are ongoing with a broad range of Academies all over the world, including AT, BG, CR, NL, PL, RS, US, etc. A promising form of cooperation that is regularly successfully established by RFBR with organisations such as CNRS, DFG and several other funding organisations is the joint funding of calls for proposals. The Academy has started considering this form as one of the opportunities for arranging its cooperation with foreign partners. At the multilateral level, the Academy, in particular the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (SBRAS), has experience in the co-funding of calls with INTAS: a co-funded call was implemented in 2006 and 14 projects were selected for funding.35 A very important form of cooperation for RAS is the co-training (co-tutelle) of young scientists: this involves the preparation of theses in Russia and during visits abroad, and then a parallel defence of the prepared theses in Russia and in the foreign country. A two-way exchange should be arranged: the training of Russian postgraduates in Russia and abroad, and the training of foreign postgraduates in their home countries and in Russia. However, to arrange this scheme, RAS could provide conditions for work, but other conditions, including social needs, could be provided in cooperation with other agencies, ministries, etc. It would also be important to arrange this co-training with Russia under the same conditions as those that are envisaged for intra-European co-tutelle. Other promising lines of cooperation are the exchange of professors and the establishment of joint shared-use facilities – international platforms. The budget spent on international cooperation is difficult to calculate and obtain from RAS - these data are not available due to the decentralized structure of RAS. Nevertheless, RAS representatives agree that data and information on international cooperation would need to be collected in principle. Evaluation The evaluation of international cooperation projects at RAS is performed in the following way: information on ongoing S&T cooperation is exchanged between the partner Academies, including information on the cooperation that already exists among scientists, the groups that are cooperating, and the results that have been achieved (joint publications, etc.). On this basis, projects are evaluated and a decision on funding is taken.

35 See http://www.intas.be/callresults.htm

http://www.intas.be/callresults.htm

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010


Regional outreach Particular emphasis is put on cooperation with Europe and on integration into the European scientific community. Among the main cooperation partners of RAS are France and Germany. Advanced forms of cooperation, such as joint laboratories, have been implemented with partners in these countries. With CNRS in France, 26 such joint virtual laboratories have been established; with German partners such joint labs are also in operation. A joint Russian-French training programme for young scientists is in place since 1994. This is a 3 year PhD programme whereby young scientists work for half a year in France and half a year in Russia. The exact number of trained PhDs is not available, but is estimated to be up to 100. Brain drain is not a problem in this cooperation scheme. It works very well with European partners, as there is a true interest in the Russian scientific potential. Such programmes also exist with other countries, such as Germany and Italy. Much attention is devoted to cooperation with the scientists from the Commonwealth of Independent States and the partner Academies in these countries. Other priorities for international cooperation of RAS are Asia (and primarily China) and North America (USA and Canada). For example, a long tradition of 50 years of cooperation links RAS with the US Academy of Sciences. Other geographical priorities are the G8, Brazil, India, China and South Africa. As regards perspectives, there is an interest to establish cooperation with several foreign organisations, including NIH (US) and the Academy of Argentina. Also, cooperation is to be re-established with other R&D organisations, for example with INSERM (France), with which an agreement had been in place up to the end of the Soviet era. Mobility of foreign scientists to Russia According to representatives of RAS, over the years only few foreign scientists have gone for scientific working visits to Russia. The reason for this development is their view that equipment and other facilities are not up-to-date. But in recent years the equipment and infrastructure of several institutes have drastically improved. It would therefore be important for Western scientists to re-discover Russian R&D institutions to work with their Russian colleagues, and for bilateral and multilateral cooperation programmes (e.g. mobility programmes) to be put in place for furthering these necessary exchanges. However, grants of Western European organisations are often too low, given the high living costs and expensive housing in Russian cities, especially in Moscow and St. Petersburg. Thematic priorities for international cooperation RAS covers a wide range of basic research fields in its international S&T cooperation, which includes fields such as the environment, satellite monitoring of the Earth, space phenomena, maritime research, life sciences, research on thermonuclear problems, superconductivity, ultrahigh and cryogenic temperatures, etc. EU Framework programmes and RAS RAS delegated leading experts and researchers to joint working groups in four priorities for cooperation between EU and Russia: nanosciences and nanotechnologies, non-nuclear energy, medicine and health, and food safety. RAS members take part in the activity of the Joint EU-Russia Committee. As to the horizontal programmes of the Seventh Framework Programme, RAS would be interested in joining the activity line coordinated by the European Research Council. The Presidium of RAS would be interested in establishing a National contact point for the IDEAS programme.

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010


Cooperation with the EU in FP7 The Russian Academy of Sciences is generally strong and well represented in S&T cooperation programmes with the EU. According to RAS data, depending on projects, 25-80% of Russian participants in FP7 projects were RAS institutes. FP7 measures the impact of the programme only in terms of administrative data: number of projects funded, the amount of funding invested, but there is no information on the results of projects in terms of publications, patents, etc. This is a big deficiency. Funding allocated versus results achieved in a project is a key measurement, which is largely missing from the FP projects. Integration into the European Research Area (ERA) is a relevant issue for Russia and RAS and there is an interest in this. The association of Russia to the EUs 7th Framework Programme (FP7) is a very important discussion. Coordinated calls are a very good example of cooperation. These calls provide solid funding for projects, which is very positive. However, some improvements for topic selection and for the evaluation procedure would be recommended. Indeed it is a problem that for certain topics only very few groups are working on it and therefore, in this case, the competition is rather limited. INTAS grants, now discontinued, were very valuable for Russian scientists. For the European partners they provided only limited funds while they were responsible for the coordination and project reporting. Yet this demonstrated the interest of European scientists to collaborate with their Russian colleagues.

5.3.3 Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR) The Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR) is the main competitive funding body for basic research in the sciences. The international activity of RFBR covers all fields of basic research, primarily natural sciences: physics, astronomy, mathematics, mechanics, informatics, chemistry, biology, medicine, Earth sciences, computer science and information technology, material science, basics of engineering science, etc., as well as social sciences and the humanities. In most cases, joint calls have no limitations with respect to the subject of research. With some countries the scope of cooperation has been narrowed down to a limited number of topics. For example, in the case of Finland, the Finnish partner insisted on having a specific subject of mutual interest for cooperation (biological backgrounds of addiction to gambling, drinking, smoking, etc.). Recently the scope of cooperation with Finland has been widened. Cooperation with the Israeli partner started with nanotechnologies, but then became broader. Ideas of new joint calls might come from contacts with foreign colleagues. However, it should be emphasized that RFBR is not willing to sign MoUs; it is rather apt to real actions with foreign funding organisations. Conditions of cooperation and terms of co-funding RFBR cooperation with its partners may take different forms:

Parity funding - merging of funds (1995 joint INTAS-RFBR calls). Each co-funding organisation supports scientists in its country (joint calls with DFG,

CNRS, NSFC, BRFBR, NSF/CRDF, INTAS-RFBR 1997, OAD, and CAE). Same principle as in the previous option, but with additional funding from foreign

partner-organisations for Russian project participants (joint calls with NWO and NSC (Taiwan)).

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010


Joint projects are funded by a foreign partner-organisation; RFBR participates in the evaluation and selection of proposals (cooperation with Swiss National Science Foundation).

An average RFBR grant amounts to € 10-15.000 per year. The grants provided by RFBR to Russian participants and by foreign co-funding organisations to their national teams within joint projects are not equal: sometimes the RFBR grants are smaller (as compared to those provided by CNRS, for example), sometimes they are higher (as in the case of joint calls with Moldova). Most of the money granted by RFBR should be spent to cover research expenses. For geostrategic reasons RFBR makes efforts to support contacts with the former Soviet Union countries: long-term cooperation with BRFFR (Belarus) and ASM (Moldova), a cooperation agreement with National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (Ukraine); also, RFBR is negotiating agreements to be signed with partner organisations in Azerbaijan, Armenia and Uzbekistan. Thus far, joint calls launched together with partner organisations in Belarus and Moldova have been very successful (even though Moldova is a small country); the number of projects is almost equal to that in joint calls with CNRS. Additionally, there is cooperation with Mongolia and Vietnam. As to the rest of the world, China, USA and European Union are leading the list of RFBR partners. Traditional relations and the research potential of France and Germany, as well as high interest from the side of national funding agencies, are behind cooperation with scientists from those countries. Cooperation with USA organisations is speeding up, but still the budget spent for cooperation with EU countries exceeds that spent for cooperation with the USA. Types of international projects: (see Table 3 below)

Joint projects of basic research Funding of workshops /other networking activities Institutional funding (e.g. joint labs) Travel grants

RFBR has other forms of international cooperation instruments: With Germany, international research training groups and joint research teams are supported. A more recent cooperation instrument concerns support for the mobility of young scientists - mobility within Russia, the training of young scientists from Ukraine, Belarus, etc. who are invited to research centres in Russia, travel grants for the participation of young scientists in conferences abroad. In 2007 RFBR allocated RUB 150 million for this scheme. Evaluation of projects in international programmes The RFBR system of expert evaluation involves over 2,000 highly qualified Russian scientists and is recognized by RFBR partner-organisations. Сooperation in the evaluation of both national projects, solely funded by foreign science foundations, and of joint projects of Russian and foreign scientists, funded under calls for proposals launched by foreign science foundations, is one of the areas of the international activity of RFBR. Experts of the Foundation had been involved in the evaluation of project proposals submitted to the Estonian Science Foundation for several years. Examples of RFBR cooperation with EU MS/AC partners RFBR cooperation with DFG is based on extensive long-term relations between Russian and German research teams that exist practically in every field of fundamental science. The first contacts between DFG and RFBR date back to 1994. The first call for proposals was organised in 1995. The number of proposals submitted (over 700), confirmed the availability of a high potential for the development of Russian-German cooperation. Analysis of the results of the organisation of joint calls with DFG enabled fine-tuning of the procedure of cooperation between the two foundations. Thus, since 1997, it was decided to

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010


have a continuous call for proposals for RFBR-DFG research projects in which, once an agreement is reached on the project topic, the distribution of duties and the amount of work, etc. between the German and Russian colleagues, a German project co-leader submits a proposal to DFG. If the project is positively reviewed by DFG, the respective Russian co-leader may then submit that proposal according to Russian rules to RFBR. The past few years have shown that this arrangement is of considerable interest to Russian scientists. In the year 2000 for example, 99 joint projects were funded under the joint DFG-RFBR call, and another 85 and 80 projects were funded in 2001 and 2004, respectively. With DFG a joint programme for International Research Training groups has been set up. It is nearly entirely dedicated to young researchers at postgraduate level (PhD students, aspiranty) and therefore involves mainly universities. Only mobility is supported in this programme. Cooperation between RFBR and CNRS is possible thanks to a framework agreement in order to:

assist several cooperation structures: LIA, GDR and PICS (four year-term, renewable once), with the financing of projects (3-5 three year-term projects for each structure, € 200.000 for four years; about 100 on-going projects in 2008);

to organise joint CNRS-RFBR calls for PICS (10-14 k€/year in Russia; 60 on-going projects in 2008);

to hold seminars (10/year since 2007). In October 2008, RFBR and CNRS signed a memorandum of understanding for the creation of an associated French-Russian international laboratory in the sphere of extreme light. The laboratory should establish a link for Russian laboratories with the European Extreme Light Infrastructure. As the Foundation has been cooperating with CNRS for more than ten years now, the situation has become stable and would even benefit from a boost. Since 2000, within the framework of the agreement with the Academy of Finland and upon the request of the Finnish Academy, RFBR has recommended experts to be engaged in the evaluation of projects submitted to the national call for proposals. In 2003-2004, RFBR experts evaluated joint project proposals for the calls organised together with the Estonian Science Foundation and the Academy of Finland. On the recommendation of RFBR, Russian experts regularly took part in the INTAS evaluation of project proposals. Also, at the request of the Swiss National Science Foundation, RFBR participates in the evaluation of SNSF project proposals submitted under the Partnership of Institutes programme, in which Russian academic institutions can participate. The most prominent example of this type of collaboration is a call for joint Russian-Dutch proposals, under which projects were funded solely by NWO. In 1998, NWO invited RFBR to act as a partner in the call for proposals to select promising projects. The call for proposals suggested a two-stage selection procedure. At each stage RFBR and NWO evaluated proposals independently (using agreed criteria). The proposals to be selected for the second stage (presentation of a detailed project proposal) were ranked at joint meetings of RFBR and NWO experts. Regarding the UK, the Foundation is cooperating with the Royal Society. Furthermore, negotiations with funding organisations from Slovakia, Montenegro, Poland, Czech Republic, Bulgaria and Hungary are also underway. RFBR cooperation with non-EU MS/AC countries In February 1994, a memorandum of understanding for cooperation in fundamental scientific research was signed between RFBR and NSF (USA). The practical implementation of the memorandum was undertaken in the following three areas: joint projects to support young Russian scientists; research in the Arctic, and telecommunications programmes and

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010


information exchange. Most rapidly growing is recently started cooperation with NSF on specific topics (material science, space) and CRDF (biology, chemistry, physics). In 1998-1999 the U.S. Civil Research and Development Foundation (CRDF) (using NSF funds) and RFBR financed a programme entitled "New Opportunities for Cooperation Among Young Scientists Under the CRDF Program" to support young scientists. Over 80 young Russian and American scientists took part in joint Russian-American projects supported by CRDF; they received grants to make three-month research trips to the United States and Russia. The total funding under the programme reached 550,000 US$ while the share of CRDF (NSF) was 380,000 US$. Cooperation between RFBR and an analogous foundation in Belarus started in 1999. Two calls were launched together with BRFBR in 2002 and 2004. About 100 joint projects are supported annually, based on the results of such a competitive selection. It should be noted that the most surprising results in organising the joint calls for proposals were the high number of proposals submitted under the joint calls with partner-organisations from Moldova and Japan (JSPS - more than 400 applications under the first call). Under the cooperation agreement with NSFC of China, joint calls for proposals have been organised since 1996. Applications are considered by RFBR and NSFC independently, only those proposals that are highly evaluated by both foundations are selected for funding. About 80 projects are funded annually. Success rates for international competitions differ from cooperation country to country. For example the call with Japan is rather competitive. In comparison, the success-rate in the call with China is significantly higher with around 50% of proposals getting funded. Multilateral cooperation The Foundation has not been involved in policy dialogue thus far, but it is very much interested in participating in bilateral multilateral policy dialogue. In 1999, RFBR leaders were invited to take part in the Scientific G8 meetings and since then they have been regularly involved in the meetings. Since the 1980s, chairpersons and presidents of the largest organisations for science funding and management in the G-7 powers have been meeting annually (the Scientific G-7 meetings). Once Russia joined the club, it became the "Scientific G8". Contacts with foreign colleagues within this and other fora can result in new ideas for future joint actions. Regarding cooperation with the EU at the multilateral level, the Foundation has established contacts with the newly organised European Research Council and is willing to examine possible ways of cooperating with this body and to explore other cooperation options within FP7. RFBR already has a good track record in cooperation with EU structures. It cooperated and funded a joint call with INTAS and it is involved in some thematic ERA.Nets (e.g. BONUS). Multilateral cooperation and multidisciplinary competitions are developing at RFBR with certain EU member states. A Russian-German-French competition for workshops was implemented, although this needed a certain coordination effort. The competition involved three different funds, to which one proposal had to be submitted. The proposal had to be prepared in English. Evaluation results and final decision making were coordinated among the funding partners. Another multilateral opportunity could also be to address ESF’s interest in cooperation on polar research, which would require the involvement of at least 2-3 European partners.

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010


Table 2. International projects supported by RFBR (RFBR own statistics)

2007 2008

Country Number

of projects Total in roubles

Total in Euro

Number of projects

Total in roubles

Total in Euro

Germany 91 32 047 730 915 649 111 39 755 000 1 135 857 France 94 38 885 000 1 111 000 156 58 201 436 1 662 898 Austria 15 5 445 000 155 571 8 3 350 000 95 714

Netherlands 8 3 803 090 108 660 8 3 391 182 96 891 Finland 8 3 050 000 87 143 18 6 666 363 190 468

Switzerland / / / 25 9 302 523 265 786 Belgium 30 11 345 000 324 143 / / / Romania 12 5 080 000 145 143 / / /

Italy 16 6 000 000 171 429 22 8 950 000 255 714

UK / / / 10 4 420 000 126 286

Subtotal EU 274 105 655 820 3 018 738 266 134 036 504 3 829 614

+27%

Israel 27 10 840 000 309 714 27 11 670 000 333 429 China 101 34 520 000 986 286 94 34 240 000 978 286 Japan 44 20 800 000 594 286 30 14 602 480 417 214 Taiwan 37 9 934 600 283 846 54 17 572 000 502 057 India / / / 35 15 660 000 447 229 USA 23 10 090 000 288 286 38 17 480 000 499 429

Total 506 191 840 420 5 481 155 649 245 260 984 7 007 458

+28%

Table 3. Types of international projects: Tools and respective Programme/Funding scheme TOOLS Programme/Funding Scheme

MOBILITY FUNDING Travel grants to support participation of Russian scientists in scientific conferences held abroad

FUNDING OF RESEARCH PROJECTS

Calls for proposals for joint research projects: each partner organisation covers the expenses of participants from its country; in the case of exchange of visits, the sending party pays for travel, the receiving party covers accommodation and subsistence

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010


FUNDING OF JOINT LABORATORIES

1. Joint laboratories (CNRS, France) 2. Centres of Excellence (NWO, Netherlands) 3. International research training groups with participation of young scientists (DFG, Germany) 4. Joint research teams (Helmholtz Association, Germany)

FUNDING OF WORKSHOPS AND OTHER NETWORKING ACTIVITIES

1. Organisation of bilateral scientific workshops in the frame of an Agreement (Germany, France, Switzerland) 2. Financial support for the organisation of international scientific conferences in Russia

5.3.4 Russian Foundation for Humanities (RFH) The Russian Foundation for Humanities uses the following instruments in its international cooperation programmes: research projects; projects on organisation of scientific events (conferences, seminars, etc.); projects of expeditions; The international cooperation programmes of RFH are implemented according to the following principles: A call with free thematic choice is preferred by RFH, as well as equal access to the

participation of scientists independently of their age, place of work etc. Russian scientists and their foreign partners - the participants of the call - must present a

project on a common theme, with certain scientific tasks on which the project will be focused.

Projects need to undergo independent expert review whereby, for the Russian proposal, the RFH organises the evaluation and, for the proposal of the foreign scientists, it is organised by the partner organisation (foundation, Academy of Science etc.). The results of the two evaluation procedures are then compared and a decision is made on the projects to be offered financial support.

Parity of financing: the RFH finances Russian participants of the project and the foreign funding partner finances scientists of their country.

International cooperation experience of RFH In the mid-1990s RFH launched joint calls together with INTAS. There was a new impulse to establish international contacts in 2000 while really active international cooperation with foreign funding organisations started in 2004.

The Foundation’s strategy for international cooperation focuses on three target groups: post-USSR countries, European countries, and the countries that traditionally have close relations with the USSR (Mongolia, China, Vietnam, and Taiwan).

1. One of the priorities of the Foundation is to revive cooperation with the countries of the former USSR (or New Independent States of the Former Soviet Union – NIS):

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010


The top partner in this region was the Belorussian Republican Foundation for Basic Research. The cooperation started in 2000. Some 97 joint projects were funded during 2000-2007; the combined budget of the projects is about € 800.000.

Under the agreement with the second most active partner – the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine - 45 projects had been supported since 2005, with an overall budget of € 70.000 Euro.

Third came the Academy of Sciences of Moldova (5 projects since 2006, with an overall budget of € 70.000).

A basic funding principle for open and thematic joint calls for proposals is that each party covers the expenses of its scientists. Usually, three types of projects are supported: 1) research projects by joint research teams; 2) expeditions, and 3) conferences. There is a limitation on Ukraine and Moldova calls - only researchers from the Academy may participate, because for these calls RFH partner-organisations are Academies of Sciences. Evaluation is carried out independently by each of the parties.

Negotiations with two former USSR countries, but which are now EU members, are underway and already have partly led to results: Lithuania (Lithuanian Foundation for Science and Education) and Estonia (the Estonian Foundation for Science – joint projects and expeditions, and the Estonian Academy of Sciences – stays of young researchers). A call for proposals was implemented in 2009 with the Estonian Foundation for Science.

2. RFH has established contacts with S&T funding organisations in EU countries (Finland, Germany, and France) in order to organise the joint support of research projects and to exchange experience in research funding.

A cooperation agreement with the Academy of Finland and the first joint calls date back to 2005. Two projects with an overall budget of € 14.000 were funded in 2006 and 4 projects with an overall budget of € 50.000 were supported in 2007. The projects are in the following fields:

The role of the media in the development of society Innovative economy Problems of alcohol and drug addiction

Cooperation with Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) started in 2006 with the launch of the first joint call for proposals. The budget of the call on RFH’s part was RUB 1.200.000 (about € 35.000). Proposals for joint research projects and for conferences were accepted. The call was open and no limitations with respect to the subject were imposed. 24 proposals were submitted for research projects and 7 proposals for conferences. Upon evaluation, 3 research projects and 3 conferences were selected for funding. The average research project budget for the RFH-DFG calls was RUB 350.000 (€ 10.000).

Preliminary evaluation results for joint RFH-DFG call in 2007 are as follows: 3 research projects and 3 conferences will be funded. The success rate is 1:3.

It is noteworthy that results of the evaluation of proposals by Russian and German experts were diverse, even contradictory, hence the necessity for developing a common basis for evaluation. Evaluation results should be summarised at joint meetings with experts from both sides. This is valid both for the evaluation of proposals and the evaluation of interim and final reports. RFH and DFG share an interest in the methodological aspects of the organisation of expert evaluation in

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010


different countries and plan to organise a joint workshop for the experts engaged in the two foundations.

Funding principles for RFH-DFG projects: research projects – each party funds its participants; conferences – RFH funds the organisation of conferences in Russia and the travel costs of Russian participants, while DFG pays for the travel costs of the German scientists attending conferences in Russia.

In 2006, cooperation agreements were signed with two French organisations: Maison des Sciences de l’Homme (to support mobility) and CNRS (to support joint research projects) and a joint call with CNRS has since been implemented.

3. The third focus of the cooperation is represented by Mongolia and Vietnam. The Joint call with the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science of Mongolia entitled “The World of Central Asia” is very popular – 21 projects were supported in 2006. On the whole, 48 joint Russian-Mongolian projects were supported with an overall budget of € 400.000.

In April 2007, an agreement on cooperation between RFH and the Academy of Social Sciences of Vietnam was signed.

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010


Obstacles to international cooperation Negotiations and cooperation with NIS partner-organisations that are not foundations are complicated by the fact that they do not in some cases use a procedure for proposal evaluation and have no experience in organizing calls for proposals. The main problems in arranging joint calls with partners from NIS are: the absence of funds in many NIS countries, and the transformation of the national academies of certain countries to the European model (such as Georgia and Kazakhstan). Some difficulties were faced in organising joint calls with foreign funding agencies. For example, the publication dates of the calls for proposals and the deadlines for proposal submission had to be harmonised and a common approach to the evaluation procedure had to be defined. To synchronize the announcement of joint calls, an agreement on the deadlines for handing in applications and summing up the results proved difficult. Differences in the criteria of scientific expert reviews were another problem, which had to be solved. Some potential partners are not familiar with the RFH approach to apply procedures and mechanisms based on a parity partnership cooperation between European and Russian structures in financing scientific projects.

RFH’s less active international cooperation, as compared to RFBR, for example, can be explained by the specific character of international cooperation in the humanities – in many cases the funding required for research in social sciences and the humanities is lower than that required for the natural sciences. Research subjects in the natural sciences are universal and topical; the contacts network of Russian scientists with their foreign colleagues lasts for years, whereas the humanities are very sensitive to political influence (priorities may depend on political and economic situations).

Cooperation with international organisations Thus far it was easier for RFH to have relations with national structures because it is generally easier to negotiate on a bilateral basis. RFH has not got sufficient experience of interaction with pan-European structures. It is more difficult to cooperate with the EU because RFH lacks knowledge of FP7 instruments. Prospects for international cooperation in the humanities There are social problems of a global character (common EU-Russia problems) that are topical for researchers from different countries (the fight against terrorism; regional languages; historical, cultural, ethnic and linguistic relations, etc.). There are prospects for international cooperation in the research of global problems. Expansion of the contacts of Russian scientists with their foreign colleagues will promote incorporation of Russian social sciences and humanities into the global community and the formation of a joint information space. Therefore, it is very important to use the capacities of agencies that fund research to create the right conditions for establishing contacts between researchers. Coordination of policies and dialogue The Foundation is a self-governing body, which is authorised to establish direct contacts with the European community – all strategic issues of the Foundation’s activities are determined by the Council of the Foundation. For its practical activity RFH is interested in discussing the organisation of expert evaluation with similar organisations from other countries. As to the political approach, RFH believes that it is very important to develop mechanisms for the cooperation of European countries with Russian partner-organisations. If FP7 is meant to involve, inter alia, funding organisations from third countries, certain mechanisms should be discussed and developed on the basis of mutual benefit. RFH is willing to be involved in

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010


setting joint priorities for international collaboration with the EU and to take part in the design of appropriate cooperation programmes.

5.3.5 Foundation for Assistance to Small Innovative Enterprises (FASIE) The Foundation for Assistance to Small Innovative Enterprises (FASIE) is a non-commercial state funding organisation. It provides funding mainly for applied research, technology development and innovation for Small Innovative Enterprises. The projects can be in any scientific discipline. Strong ties have been established on a bilateral level with similar foundations in France (OSEO) and Germany (International Bureau of BMBF), with which joint funding programmes have been implemented in recent years. Joint programmes are aimed at creating informational, marketing and consulting support for small innovative enterprises, and for supporting the implementation of innovations both in Russia and in the country of the funding partner. FASIE’s joint calls with international partners have usually specific deadlines36. In the bilateral calls, the project proposal must be submitted both in Russia to FASIE and to the partner organisation in the cooperating country. The Foundation is cooperating with various players on the European R&D funding level. It hosts the Russian National Contact Point (NCP) for the SME programme within FP7 and advises Russian SMEs on participation in the Framework Programme. FASIE provides support for the project “Gate to Russian Business Innovation Networks” (Gate2RuBIN), which involves Russia in the Enterprise Europe Network. The Foundation is also involved with EUREKA, where it is a contact point in Russia and has provided funding for participating Russian SMEs. Links have been in place also to the EU’s TACIS programme. A joint funding activity had already been implemented between FASIE and INTAS in 2006, when a joint call for innovation grants was implemented. In this case, the proposals to the call could only be submitted to INTAS and had to be written in English. Evaluation of proposals Project proposals to international programmes of FASIE are usually evaluated by both funding partners and the evaluation results are compared afterwards. Proposals ranked by both evaluations within the funding range are being funded. Critical proposals, which are proposed by one party for funding, but not by the other party, or proposals close to the funding band, are discussed between the partners. An exchange of opinions takes place in this case. Usually there are no selection meetings held for international competitions, with the exception of the FASIE-INTAS call, where a meeting of a selection panel was convened. The evaluation takes place in two steps: first, an eligibility check is performed by FASIE staff. This is to check whether the formal

criteria have been fulfilled. second, the evaluation itself takes place, which is normally performed by external experts.

Usually 2-3 experts evaluate one proposal remotely via the internet. FASIE has a pool of 2000 experts for evaluation. At the time of the interview with FASIE representatives in 2009 only national experts were used for project evaluation but the involvement of international experts was under discussion; for example, Russian scientists who had emigrated were being considered for involvement in evaluations. The duration of the evaluation procedure is usually 30-40 days. All the usual evaluation criteria are used: scientific and technical merit; links to industry and the participation of SMEs

36 In national FASIE programmes some calls are implemented also on a rolling basis, without specific deadlines.

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010


are very relevant for FASIE, as an innovation support fund. The essential criteria are the track record of the SME(s) and the quality of the proposal. The Russian procurement law (Federal Law 94, of 2005) is relevant for FASIE competitions. The tendering rules foresee strict and short procedures. Supported costs The average budgetary amount for a single project supported by FASIE is approximately € 100,000 or RUB 2-3 million per year, and constitutes the FASIE contribution to national and international projects. Usually 90% of costs in an applied research project go on the following cost categories: salary, equipment, consumables. Other costs account for 10% which may be used, for example, for dissemination activities, rent, etc. Travel cannot be supported by FASIE. Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) There is no specific IPR framework for projects supported within the international cooperation programmes of FASIE. Projects have to be in accordance with Russian legislation, specifically with the 4th part of the civil code. An agreement on IPR has to be signed in order for a project to be funded by FASIE. Perspectives International cooperation, overall, has been a success. In particular, the joint programmes with OSEO and IB-BMBF have been very satisfactory and can be mentioned as good practice examples. FASIE’s international partners also include the British Council, DTI (UK), CRDF (USA), the Eurasia Fund, and others. The Foundation is interested in developing its international cooperation further with possible partners such as TEKES of Finland,37 but also with Spain, Austria and Switzerland on a bilateral level. On the multilateral level it is foreseen that cooperation through FP7 and EUREKA will be further enhanced.

5.3.6 Russian Corporation of Nanotechnologies (Rusnano) Rusnano is a state corporation, operating as a kind of investment fund for nanotechnology commercialisation. Since Rusnano was established in 2007 up until mid 2009, more than 100 international partners have participated in project applications submitted to Rusnano. A pre-condition for support by Rusnano is that production needs to be established in Russia, but it need not be exclusively located in Russia. Foreign organisations would simply need to establish a company or local branch in Russia. Although Rusnano has a number of advantages for private investors, there are several factors in Russia that still do limit foreign applications to Rusnano: Lack of awareness among foreign companies and investors about Rusnano and its

opportunities. A complicated legal system, which poses risks for investment security. Framework agreements have been concluded by Rusnano with a range of international partners: Ministry of Science and Technology of China (an agreement is a necessity for cooperation

with China). National Innovation Fund (NIF) of Kazakhstan; a joint Rusnano-NIF fund is planned to be

set up for nano-projects.

37 A cooperation agreement between FASIE and TEKES was meanwhile concluded in April 2010.

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010


Organisations from South Korea; Organisations from Finland; Contracts for specific tasks have been concluded with foreign companies; e.g. in nano-

medicine with IL, US. In mid 2010 more than 70 projects were selected for financial support by Rusnano, whereby 15% of projects are with international participation. Foreign partners are mostly from the USA and Israel, with partners from the EU lagging behind. Participation from EU countries as a whole is on the same level as participation from the USA or from Israel.

5.3.7 Russian Venture Company The Russian Venture Company (RVC) is a state-owned venture fund. It is conceived as a fund of funds which participates in thematic sub-investment funds. RVC sub-funds invest into innovative companies and start-ups that implement innovative and promising solutions. Sub-funds can be established with international participation. In 2009 there were 7 such sub-funds operating, whereby one fund was set-up with co-funding from an investment company from Israel. The fact that an international partner is participating in this sub-fund is not of high relevance; while the consortium is composed of foreign and national partners, it constitutes a Russian entity and is in accordance with Russian law.

5.3.8 Ministry of Economic Development The Ministry of Economic Development (Mineconomrazvitiya) is responsible for supporting foreign direct investment (FDI) in Russia38 and for external trade issues. The Ministry is one of the key governmental bodies responsible for cooperation with some multilateral institutions, namely the OECD, the EU, and the WTO. S&T and innovation cooperation are issues that arise in this context. They are also discussed, inter alia, at meetings of bilateral ministerial commissions, which Russia has established with some countries (e.g. USA, EU). Trade Representative Offices of the Ministry abroad assist in S&T and innovation cooperation matters. An important element of the support for S&T and innovation under the Ministry of Economic Development is the creation of Special Economic Zones for Technology Development and Commercialisation. These Zones were established in 2005 in St. Petersburg, Tomsk, Zelenograd and Dubna (the latter two both situated in the surroundings of Moscow). One of their main aims is to attract foreign direct investment and foreign companies to set up high-tech businesses in the SEZs. In 2009, foreign companies had not yet established themselves in the Zones, but some subsidiaries of foreign companies had.

5.3.9 Ministry of Industry and Trade The Ministry of Industry and Trade (Minpromtorg) is a key Programme Owner of several major Federal Targeted Programmes, which provide support for R&D and innovation projects. This concerns, for example, the programmes for the aviation sector, radioelectronics, and the national technological base. Minpromtorg has in general a lot of international cooperation experience, but no joint bilateral or international S&T or innovation funding programmes. However, it does have experience of

38 According to the governmental Decree 249.

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010


funding cooperation with the EU Framework Programme for RTD through a coordinated call on aviation. An important issue is technical regulations and other regulatory documents, which the Ministry plans to develop and which shall be harmonized with international standards. Minpromtorg has joint bilateral commissions at ministerial level, which mostly tackle important political issues. The Minister also holds working meetings with his counterpart in the European Commission, the Directorate of Enterprise and Industry.

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010


6 CONCLUSIONS OF THE SURVEY AMONG EU MS/AC AND RUSSIAN PROGRAMME OWNERS

1. An impressive wealth of S&T cooperation exists on a bilateral as well as a multilateral level between Russia on the one hand and EU Member States and Associated Countries to FP7 (EU MS/AC) on the other. Countries that do not have a bilateral cooperation programme with Russia, such as some small EU Member States, they at least cooperate with Russian teams in the framework of EU funded projects. On a bilateral level, several countries stand out with comprehensive cooperation. This concerns above all the big EU countries Germany and France. Several smaller countries have a remarkable tradition of cooperation with Russia too. For example, the Nordic countries Finland and Norway, which are neighbouring countries to Russia, have substantial cooperation programmes in financial terms. Furthermore, Austria, Greece, Italy, Israel, Poland, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom traditionally have a good and comprehensive S&T cooperation with Russia. By contrast, the Netherlands, which had a long-lasting cooperation programme with Russia that generated positive results, reduced their cooperation and ultimately stopped the programme.

2. Programme Owners involved in S&T cooperation with Russia are mostly governmental organisations as compared to non-governmental. In Russia all Programme Owners are governmental organisations.

3. S&T agreements provide a formal framework, within which efficient cooperation programmes can be implemented. They are considered to be an important instrument for developing international S&T cooperation with Russia. The Russian Academy of Sciences has the largest network of agreements in place, with partners in 28 EU MS/AC, followed by the Ministry of Education and Science, which has concluded bilateral agreements with 21 EU MS/AC, and third comes the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, which has agreements with organisations in 12 EU MS/AC in place.

4. Funding programmes in basic research are obviously more substantial, than programmes in applied research and innovation. This reflects the strength of Russia in basic research. Further down the innovation pipeline, cooperation is beginning to develop more comprehensively: joint calls of the Russian innovation foundation FASIE with innovation support agencies in France (OSEO) and Germany (International Bureau of BMBF), as well as international participation in programmes of Rusnano and of the Russian Venture Company (RVC) can be mentioned here.

5. Budgets of EU/AC funding organisations for their cooperation programmes with Russia are difficult to compare, as only limited information is available from Programme Owners. In numerous cases there are either no budget figures available or only an overall budget for international cooperation is calculated, without specific figures for cooperation with Russia alone. Nevertheless the front runners in budget size from the preliminary sample can be singled out with organisations in AT (Austrian Science Fund), DE (Helmholtz Association, German Research Foundation, International Bureau of BMBF), FI (Academy of Finland), FR (CNRS), and NO (Research Council of Norway). Budgets for S&T cooperation with Russia have mostly increased over recent years on the side of EU MS/AC Programme Owners and for some POs further budgetary increases or relaunches of cooperation are foreseen. On the side of the Russian Programme Owners, in 2008 - the last year of observation of budget data for this survey - the Federal Agency for Science and Innovation had the highest budget for S&T cooperation with EU MS/AC. The agency was disbanded in early 2010 and integrated into the Ministry of Education and Science. It was followed by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research and the Foundation for Assistance to Small

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010


Innovative Enterprises. For all three organisations, the budget figures show a strong increasing tendency for cooperation with EU MS/AC. The budget of the Federal Agency for Science and Innovation was used mainly for multilateral funding cooperation with the EU Framework Programme for RTD, while those of RFBR and FASIE are primarily dedicated to bilateral cooperation. For the Russian Academy of Sciences no exact figures are available but a multitude of cooperation programmes are in place, mostly with Academies of Science in EU MS/AC.

6. Thematic priorities dealt with in the S&T cooperation with Russia cover a broad spectrum of science. There are, however, some thematic limitations in the programmes: on the Russian side, while programmes of the RFBR normally support R&D and mobility projects in the sciences, the RFH deals with humanities and social sciences. A majority of Programme Owners on the side of EU MS/AC follow a broad thematic approach, but several funding organisations have defined specific thematic priorities for their cooperation with Russia (e.g. Norway: Energy, Oceans, etc.). The most frequently cited thematic priorities in the cooperation are nanotechnologies/materials, energy, environment/climate change, socio-economic sciences and humanities, ICT, and biotechnology.

7. A variety of obstacles, such as legal problems, budgetary limitations, problems with the transfer of funds and material, obtaining a visa, as well as cultural and language barriers, have been mentioned by funding organisations as hindrances to bilateral cooperation. But also there is a lack of information on bilateral cooperation programmes and on the funding procedures applied by Programme Owners; the information exchange taking place through ongoing initiatives such as the ERA.Net RUS project should help to improve this situation.

8. Evaluation procedures for the selection of projects to be supported are mostly well established in EU/AC as well as in Russia. Evaluations are usually performed by 2-3 independent experts. The duration of the evaluation varies from 2 weeks to 8 months, with the duration in Russia tending to be shorter due to tendering regulations. The most usual case is from 1 to 3 months. In around 50% of cases Programme Owners in EU MS/AC tend to perform their own separate evaluation procedures. Joint evaluation procedures are applied by 20% of Programme Owners; the remainder use a combination of separate and joint evaluations. Programme Owners focus on the scientific quality, the suitability of applicants and the feasibility of projects in the evaluation process. The next most frequently used evaluation criteria are the added value of the cooperation and the participation of young scientists.

9. Impact assessments of cooperation programmes are only rarely undertaken. But that is often a general problem in international S&T cooperation, even for projects funded under the EU Framework Programme. Impact assessments are planned for RFBR and EU/AC funding organisations. Some kind of self-evaluation is undertaken in the form of annual reporting but it only rarely goes into the substance of results, such as the quantity and quality of publications or patents resulting from the project, the technological or social innovations implemented, etc.

10. Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) do not, for most Programme Owners, pose important problems. Of course, the further that cooperation moves towards applied research and innovation, the more important IPR issues become. The current situation proves that S&T cooperation is mainly ongoing in basic research.

11. Good practice examples mentioned by Programme Owners concern support for research and networking activities among scientists: workshops, joint laboratories, research training groups, science days etc. The building of interpersonal relations and

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 29/09/2010


the enriching of contacts is often a good means of furthering the successful implementation of future projects.

12. There is great interest on the side of Russian Programme Owners as well as on the side of several Programme Owners of EU Member States and Associated Countries of FP7 to develop and deepen the S&T and innovation cooperation.

1

QUESTIONNAIRE REGARDING COOPERATION IN SCIENCE, RESEARCH, TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT AND/OR INNOVATION

addressed to governmental and non-governmental programme owners

This is a joint survey of the ERA Net project for the Black Sea region (BS-ERA.NET) and the ERA Net project for Russia (ERA.Net RUS). Both ERA Net projects are funded by the European Communities 7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP7). This questionnaire shall support analysis of ongoing S&T cooperation programmes between EU Member States (MS)1 and Associated Countries to the FP7 (AC)2 on the one hand and countries of the Former Soviet Union (FSU) located in the Black Sea region on the other hand: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova, Russia, and Ukraine. The questionnaire is addressed to governmental and non-governmental S&T funding programme owners in both regions, EU MS/AC as well as FSU countries. Collected data will be analysed and used for preparing a report on these funding programmes. Results of the survey shall help identifying areas of future S&T cooperation and support the formulation of policy recommendations for furthering this cooperation. Your institution is kindly requested to answer the questions provided below. The questionnaire is divided into the following sections:

Section A General information about your Organisation

Section B Information about your Cooperation programmes

Section C Evaluation Procedures Section D1 Target Region specific questions (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria,

Georgia, Moldova, Romania, Turkey, Ukraine) Section D2 Target Region specific questions (Russia)

1 Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom 2 Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, FYR of Macedonia, Iceland, Israel, Liechtenstein, Montenegro, Norway, Serbia, Switzerland, Turkey

mueller.franziska

Schreibmaschinentext

mueller.franziska

Textfeld

7 ANNEXES 7.1 Annex A: Survey questionnaire for EU MS/AC Programme Owners

2

SECTION A – ORGANISATION DETAILS

A.1. Organisation Legal Name

A.1.1 Street №

A.1.2 Street

A.1.3 P.O. Box

A.1.4 City

A.1.5 Post code

A.1.6 Country

A.1.7 Tel and fax number

A.1.8 E-mail

A.1.9 website

A.2. Organisation short name

A.3. Department responsible for cooperation programme

A.3.1. Address (if different from above)

A.4. Type of Organisation (please tick only one answer)

1. Governmental Organisation (GOV)

2. Nongovernmental organisation (NGO)

3. University and Higher Education Institution (HE)

4. Research Institution (RES)

5. Industry (IND)

A.5. Name of contact person: …………………………………………………………………

3

SECTION B – COOPERATION DETAILS B.1 WITH WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING COUNTRIES DOES YOUR ORGANISATION HAVE AN S&T COOPERATION PROGRAMME?

S&T cooperation

Armenia

Azerbaijan

Bulgaria

Georgia

Moldova

Romania

Russia

Turkey

Ukraine

B.2 WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING INSTRUMENTS DOES YOUR ORGANISATION APPLY IN ORDER TO SUPPORT INTERNATIONAL S&T COOPERATION?

S&T agreements with foreign organisations Mobility of researchers Both sides Only one side your country-partner or partner -your country Please specify usual time period of researcher mobility: Exchange of know-how Joint implementation of RTDI projects Access to infrastructure Technical support/ provision of equipment Dissemination of RTDI results and accompanying measures (conferences, workshops, publications, brokerage events, etc.) Joint laboratories Joint funding programmes Other (please specify) …………………………………………………………………………………

B.2 WHO ARE BENEFICIARIES OF YOUR S&T COOPERATION SUPPORT? Public research organisations Private non - profit research organisations Enterprises Individual researchers Other (please specify) ………………………………………………………………………………… B.3 BUDGETARY ASPECTS

Total budget for international S&T cooperation/year of your organisation in national currency:

4

Year 2006: Year 2007: Year 2008:

B.4 ELIGIBLE COSTS, WHICH CAN BE SUPPORTED BY YOUR ORGANISATION IN THE FRAME OF INTERNATIONAL S&T COOPERATION? Travel costs: sending party paying model receiving party paying model other (please specify) Personnel costs: salary scholarships for young researchers (up to 35 years) PhD scholarships grants for researchers at post doctoral level awards other (please specify) Consumables Equipment Conferences, Exhibitions Dissemination (Publications, patents, etc.) Other (please specify) …………………………………………………………………………………

B.5 PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT (i.e. practical aspects such as launching a call, etc) Which and what kind of organisation deals with the programme management in

your country? The ministry An agency Partly the ministry, partly a separate agency (Name and type of the agency) ………………………………………………………………………………… Other (please specify) ………………………………………………………………………………… What are the tasks of your organisation?

Drafting and publishing a call Organising the evaluation of proposals Decision taking on projects to be funded Establishing project contracts Supervision of implementation of funded projects Evaluation of periodical project reporting Payment Other (please specify) …………………………………………………………………………………

6

Procedure of submission of the project-proposals (please provide a short description e.g.: joint calls, specific deadline, specific forms, language, other important

administrative provisions): ………………………………………………………………………………… Administrative conditions: The project must be submitted in both countries The proposal must be signed by an authorised person and by the

project leaders of both countries A final report must be submitted after the completion of the

project Project Duration Other (please specify) …………………………………………………………………………………

Project duration: (Please specify per funding instrument, which you apply, i.e. mobility programme, research projects and per country, if different. Add lines, if necessary. Press enter in any field to write another line.)

Average

Maximum

Minimum

7

B.6 OBSTACLES /BARRIERS TO S&T COOPERATION

What are the main problems of your S&T collaboration with the countries listed below? Please comment for each S&T partner country separately. Please tick the appropriate box(es).

S&T collaboration with Legal problems (e.g. bilateral agreements)

Budget problems (limited funding)

Lack of information on financial tools for cooperation

Agreements on IPR

Language or cultural barriers

Obtaining VISA

Other factors

Armenia

Azerbaijan

Bulgaria

Georgia

Moldova

Romania

Russia

Turkey

Ukraine

8

B7 EXISTING BILATERAL AND MULTILATERAL S&T PROGRAMMES

WHAT ARE RESEARCH PRIORITIES SUPPORTED UNDER YOUR S&T COOPERATION WITH COUNTRIES LISTED BELOW? Please tick

the appropriate box and differentiate between established cooperation and programmes under preparation a) General horizontal

Armenia Azerbaijan Bulgaria Georgia Moldova Romania Russia Turkey Ukraine Comments (e.g. please state S&T cooperation under preparation, etc.)

Basic Research

Applied Research

Technology development

Innovation

Other

b) Thematic field of cooperation

Armenia Azerbaijan Bulgaria Georgia Moldova Romania Russia Turkey Ukraine Comments (e.g. please state S&T cooperation under

preparation, etc.) Health

Food, agriculture and fisheries

Biotechnology

Nanotechnologies/Materials

Energy

Environment (incl. climate change)

Transport and Aeronautics

Socio-economic sciences and humanities

9

Security

Space

Information and Communication Technologies (ICT)

Other

Estimated funding 2006 – 2008 in national currency

10

SECTION C - EVALUATION PROCEDURES C1 ARE PROJECT PROPOSALS IN THE FRAME OF YOUR BILATERAL OR

MULTILATERAL S&T COOPERATION PROGRAMMES BEING EVALUATED? Yes, No C2 PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF EVALUATION OF PROJECT PROPOSALS Are the project proposals evaluated separately in each country or do you apply a joint review procedure?

Separate evaluation procedure Joint evaluation procedure Both procedures are applied (two stage evaluation procedure) Other (please comment)

………………………………………………………………………………… Who evaluates the proposals? Experts of the ministry Experts of the agency Independent researchers Other (please specify) ………………………………………………………………………………… How do experts evaluate? Remote In situ/committee meeting Other (please specify) ………………………………………………………………………………… How many experts evaluate normally one project proposal? How long does the evaluation procedure usually take? (Evaluation procedure is understood here in a broad sense, as time period from submission deadline of project proposals until decision on project proposals to be funded.) C2 DO YOU HAVE SOME OPTIONAL EVALUATION CRITERIA THAT CAN POSITIVELY

INFLUENCE THE FUNDING DECISION? Participation of young researchers Links to industry Participation of SMEs Other (please specify) ………………………………………………………………………………… C3 WHICH EVALUATION CRITERIA DO YOU USE? Scientific and technical merits of the proposals

11

Suitability of applicants and feasibility of the projects Significance of the research regarding international co-operation Requested budget National priorities Added value of the bi -(or multi-) lateral collaboration Other (please specify) …………………………………………………………………………………

D D D D D D

12

SECTION D1 – REGION SPECIFIC COOPERATION DETAILS: BLACK SEA Please provide in this section only details on your cooperation with: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Georgia, Moldova, Romania, Turkey, Ukraine. Details on your cooperation with Russia will be asked in the following section D1.1 BI-LATERAL PROGRAMS: FOR WHICH COUNTRIES DO YOU HAVE CURRENT ESTABLISHED PROGRAMMES/AGREEMENTS OR SUCH UNDER PREPARATION?

Program reference

Country Status Thematic Fields

Validity period

Estimated funding

established Under preparation

D1.2 MULTI-LATERAL AND (INTER)-REGIONAL PROGRAMS: FOR WHICH COUNTRIES/REGIONS DO YOU HAVE CURRENT ESTABLISHED MULTI-LATERAL PROGRAMMES/AGREEMENTS OR SUCH UNDER PREPARATION?

Program reference

Region(s)/ list of

countries

Status Thematic Fields

Validity period

Estimated funding

established

Under preparation

D1.3 THE BLACK SEA ERA NET AIMS TO ESTABLISH A JOINT CALL FOR SUPPORTING MULTILATERAL SCIENTIFIC PROJECTS IN THE BLACK SEA REGION. IS YOUR ORGANIZATION INTERESTED IN DISCUSSING A PARTICIPATION IN A JOINT CALL TARGETING THE BLACK SEA REGION?

Yes, No

IF NO, WHICH ORGANIZATION COULD BE ADDRESSED IN YOUR OPINION IN YOUR COUNTRY? ………………………………………………………………………………… D1.4 PLEASE GIVE INFORMATION ABOUT SCIENTIFIC NETWORKS YOU KNOW IN THE BLACK SEA REGION

Name:

Contact information (e.g website):

Comments (e.g. thematic field):

13

(Please add lines, if there are more than one. Press enter in any field to write another line.)

14

SECTION D2 – REGION SPECIFIC COOPERATION DETAILS: RUSSIA

D2.1 DOES YOUR COUNTRY/ORGANISATION HAVE AN S&T AGREEMENT WITH RUSSIA/RUSSIAN ORGANISATION(S)?

Yes

If Yes: Title of the agreement:

Date of Signature:

Date of entry into force:

Partner in Russia:

(Please add lines, if there are more than one. Press enter in any field to write another line.)

No

If you do not have an official agreement with Russia/Russian organisations,

but substantial cooperation with funding exists, please indicate: Partner in Russia: Mechanism for guaranteeing funding (e.g. Memorandum of

Understanding, etc.): D2.2 HAS THERE BEEN AN ACTIVE S&T COOPERATION PROGRAMME WITH

RUSSIA/WITH A RUSSIAN PARTNER ORGANISATION DURING THE LAST FIVE YEARS IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE S&T AGREEMENT?

Yes

No

If No: It existed in the past and stopped When? ………………………………………………………………………………… What was the reason? ………………………………………………………………………………… Are there plans to reactivate it? Yes, No Are there plans to promote cooperation in the near future? Yes, No What would be the scope of future S&T cooperation?

15

………………………………………………………………………………… If Yes: Does your organisation implement the S&T cooperation programme? Yes, No If no, which organisation is responsible for the implementation? …………………………………………………………………………………

D2.3 WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING PROJECTS/ACTIVITIES DOES YOUR

ORGANISATION SUPPORT IN ITS COOPERATION WITH RUSSIA/RUSSIAN ORGANISATIONS?

Mobility projects Research projects Other (conferences, etc.) ……………………………………………… D2.4 BUDGETARY ASPECTS - RUSSIA Budget for bilateral S&T cooperation/year of your country/organisation with Russia in national currency: Per year (for the last 3 years): 2006: 2007: 2008:

Per project (current project size; please differentiate for mobility projects, research projects and other activities – e.g. conferences, etc. – if applicable. Press enter in any field to write another line.):

Average

Maximum

Minimum

D2.5 NO OF PROJECTS (ACTIVITIES) FUNDED DURING THE LAST 3 YEARS IN THE FRAME OF YOUR COOPERATION WITH RUSSIA/RUSSIAN ORGANISATIONS? (Please differentiate for mobility projects, research projects and other activities – e.g. conferences, etc. – if applicable. Press enter in any field to write another line.)

2006: 2007: 2008: Is information on these projects publicly available and accessible?

16

Yes, No If yes, please specify how, where and in which language.

………………………………………………………………………………… D2.6 IPR FRAMEWORK

Is there a specific Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) regime set up in the context of your S&T cooperation with Russia? (please specify)

…………………………………………………………………………………

D2.7 WHAT ARE YOUR PLANS FOR FUTURE S&T COOPERATION WITH RUSSIA?

(Please provide short description for time frame of the next 3 years on e.g. new funding programmes, scientific priorities, etc.)

………………………………………………………………………………… D2.8 GOOD PRACTICE: PLEASE PROVIDE GOOD PRACTICE EXAMPLES OF YOUR S&T

COOPERATION WITH RUSSIA. ………………………………………………………………………………… D2.9 IMPACT ASSESSMENT/EVALUATION Has an impact assessment/evaluation of your S&t cooperation with Russia/Russian organisations been performed during the last 5 years? Yes, No If Yes, Is a Report on this impact assessment/evaluation available? Yes, No How regularly are impact assessments/evaluations performed? (every year, two years, etc.) …………………………………………………………………………………

1

7.2 Annex B: Survey questionnaire for Russian Programme owners

QUESTIONNAIRE REGARDING COOPERATION IN SCIENCE, RESEARCH, TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT AND/OR INNOVATION

addressed to governmental and non-governmental programme owners

This is a joint survey of the ERA Net project for the Black Sea region (BS-ERA.NET) and the ERA Net project for Russia (ERA.Net RUS). Both ERA Net projects are funded by the European Communities 7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP7). This questionnaire shall support analysis of ongoing S&T cooperation programmes between EU Member States (MS)1 and Associated Countries to the FP7 (AC)2 on the one hand and countries of the Former Soviet Union (FSU) located in the Black Sea region on the other hand: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova, Russia, and Ukraine. The questionnaire is addressed to governmental and non-governmental S&T funding programme owners in both regions, EU MS/AC as well as FSU countries. Collected data will be analysed and used for preparing a report on these funding programmes. Results of the survey shall help identifying areas of future S&T cooperation and support the formulation of policy recommendations for furthering this cooperation. Your institution is kindly requested to answer the questions provided below. The questionnaire is divided into the following sections:

Section A General information about your Organisation

Section B Information about your international S&T Cooperation Programmes

Section C Region specific cooperation details: Russia

Section D Black Sea region specific question


2

SECTION A – ORGANISATION DETAILS

A.1. Organisation Legal Name

A.1.1 Street №

A.1.2 Street

A.1.3 P.O. Box

A.1.4 City

A.1.5 Post code

A.1.6 Country

A.1.7 Tel and fax number

A.1.8 E-mail

A.1.9 website

A.2. Organisation short name

A.3. Department responsible for cooperation programme

A.3.1. Address (if different from above)

A.4. Type of Organisation (please tick only one answer)

1. Governmental Organisation (GOV)

2. Nongovernmental organisation (NGO)

3. University and Higher Education Institution (HE)

4. Research Institution (RES)

5. Industry (IND)

A.5. Name of contact person: …………………………………………………………………

SECTION B – INTERNATIONAL S&T COOPERATION DETAILS B.1 WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING INSTRUMENTS DOES YOUR ORGANISATION APPLY

IN ORDER TO SUPPORT INTERNATIONAL S&T COOPERATION? S&T agreements with foreign organisations Mobility of researchers Both sides Only one side your country-partner or partner -your country Please specify usual time period of researcher mobility:……. Exchange of know-how Joint implementation of RTDI projects Access to infrastructure Technical support/ provision of equipment Dissemination of RTDI results and accompanying measures (conferences, workshops, publications, brokerage events, etc.) Joint laboratories Joint funding programmes Other (please specify) …………………………………………………………………………………

B.2 WHO ARE BENEFICIARIES OF YOUR S&T COOPERATION SUPPORT? Public research organisations Private non - profit research organisations Enterprises Individual researchers Other (please specify) ………………………………………………………………………………… B.3 BUDGETARY ASPECTS

Total budget for international S&T cooperation/year of your organisation in national currency: Year 2006: Year 2007: Year 2008:

B.4 ELIGIBLE COSTS, WHICH CAN BE SUPPORTED BY YOUR ORGANISATION IN THE FRAME OF INTERNATIONAL S&T COOPERATION? Travel costs: sending party paying model receiving party paying model other (please specify) ……………………………… Personnel costs: salary scholarships for young researchers (up to 35 years) PhD scholarships grants for researchers at post doctoral level awards other (please specify) ……………………………… Consumables Equipment Conferences, Exhibitions Dissemination (Publications, patents, etc.) Other (please specify) …………………………………………………………………………………

3

B.5 PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT: (i.e. practical aspects such as launching a call,

evaluation of project proposals, etc.) Which and what kind of organisation deals with the programme management in

your country? The ministry An agency Partly the ministry, partly a separate agency (Name and type of the agency) ………………………………………………………………………………… Other (please specify) ………………………………………………………………………………… What are the tasks of your organisation?

Drafting and publishing a call Organising the evaluation of proposals Decision taking on projects to be funded Establishing project contracts Supervision of implementation of funded projects Evaluation of periodical project reporting Payment Other (please specify) ………………………………………………………………………………… Procedure of submission of the project-proposals (please provide a short description e.g.: joint calls, specific deadline, specific forms, language, other important

administrative provisions): ………………………………………………………………………………… Administrative conditions: The project must be submitted in both countries The proposal must be signed by an authorised person and by the

project leaders of both countries A final report must be submitted after the completion of the

project Project Duration Russian Federal Law 94 (in its latest version) Other (please specify) …………………………………………………………………………………

Project duration: (Please specify per funding instrument, which you apply, i.e. mobility programme, research projects and per country, if different. Add lines, if necessary.)

Average …………………………………………

Maximum …………………………………………

Minimum …………………………………………

4

B.6 EVALUATION PROCEDURE Are project proposals in the frame of your bilateral or multilateral S&T cooperation programmes being evaluated? Yes, No Are the project proposals evaluated separately in each country or do you apply a joint review procedure? Separate evaluation procedure Joint evaluation procedure Both procedures are applied (two stage evaluation procedure) Other (please specify) ………………………………………………………………………………… Who evaluates the proposals? Experts of the ministry Experts of the agency Independent researchers Other (please specify) ………………………………………………………………………………… How do experts evaluate? Remote In situ/committee meeting Other (please specify) ………………………………………………………………………………… How many experts evaluate normally one project proposal? ……… How long does the evaluation procedure usually take? (Evaluation procedure is understood here in a broad sense, as time period from submission deadline of project proposals until decision on project proposals to be funded.) ……… Do you have some optional evaluation criteria that can positively influence

the funding decision? Participation of young researchers Links to industry Participation of SMEs Other (please specify) ………………………………………………………………………………… Which evaluation criteria do you use? Scientific and technical merits of the proposals Suitability of applicants and feasibility of the projects Significance of the research regarding international co-operation Requested budget National priorities Other (please specify) …………………………………………………………………………………

5

SECTION C – REGION SPECIFIC COOPERATION DETAILS: RUSSIA

C.1 DOES YOUR ORGANISATION HAVE AN S&T AGREEMENT WITH AN ORGANISATION(S) IN AN EU MEMBER STATE (MS) OR ASSOCIATED COUNTRY TO THE FP7 (AC)?

Yes

If Yes: Title of the agreement: …………………………………………………

Date of Signature: ………………………………………………………

Date of entry into force: ………………………………………………

Partner in EU MS/AC: …………………………………………………………

(Please add lines, if there are more than one.)

No

If you do not have an official agreement with EU MS/AC organisations,

but substantial cooperation with funding exists, please indicate: Partner in EU MS/AC: …………………………………… Mechanism for guaranteeing funding (e.g. Memorandum of

Understanding, etc.): …………………………………… C.2 COOPERATION PROGRAMMES With which organisations in EU MS/AC has there been an active S&T cooperation

programme during the last five years in the framework of the respective S&T agreement(s)?

Please list countries and respective partner organisation(s): ………………………………………………………………………………… With which organisations in EU MS/AC has there NOT been an active S&T

cooperation programme during the last five years in the framework of the respective S&T agreement(s)? (Please specify per country.)

When did the programme stop? ………………………………………………………………………………… What was the reason? ………………………………………………………………………………… Are there plans to reactivate it? Yes, No

6

With which countries/organisations are there plans to promote cooperation in the near future and what would be the scope of future S&T cooperation?

(Please answer per country and add lines as necessary.) ………………………………………………………………………………… Does your organisation implement the S&T cooperation programme(s)? Yes, No If no, which organisation is responsible for the implementation? (Please specify per country, if there are differences.) ………………………………………………………………………………… C.3 WHAT ARE RESEARCH PRIORITIES SUPPORTED UNDER YOUR S&T

COOPERATION WITH ORGANISATIONS IN EU MS/AC? (Please specify per cooperation programme.)

General (horizontal): Basic research Applied research Technology Development Innovation Other (please specify) …………………………………………………………………………………

Thematic: The main fields of co-operation: Health (Medicine) Food, agriculture and fisheries Biotechnology Nanotechnologies & Material Sciences Physics & Optics Energy Environment (incl. climate change) Transport and Aeronautics Social Sciences Humanities Security Space ICT Other (please specify)

…………………………………………………………………………………

Are there some research fields that are excluded from your cooperation? …………………………………………………………………………………

7

C.4 BUDGETARY ASPECTS - RUSSIA Budget for bilateral S&T cooperation/year of your organisation with organisations in EU MS/AC in national currency (RUB): (Please specify per organisation/country and add tables as necessary.) Per year (for the last 3 years): 2006: 2007: 2008:

Per project (current project size; please differentiate for mobility projects, research projects and other activities – e.g. conferences, etc. – if applicable): Average …………………………………………

Maximum …………………………………………

Minimum …………………………………………

C.5 NO OF PROJECTS (ACTIVITIES) FUNDED DURING THE LAST 3 YEARS IN THE

FRAME OF YOUR COOPERATION WITH ORGANISATIONS IN EU MS/AC? (Please add tables per country/organisation as necessary. Please differentiate for mobility projects, research projects and other activities – e.g. conferences, etc. – if applicable.) 2006: 2007: 2008: Is information on these projects publicly available and accessible? Yes, No If yes, please specify how, where and in which language. ………………………………………………………………………………… C.6 IPR FRAMEWORK

Is there a specific Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) regime set up in the context of your S&T cooperation with organisations in EU MS/AC? (Please specify per country/organisation.)

………………………………………………………………………………… C.7 WHAT ARE OBSTACLES/CONSTRAINTS/BARRIERS TO YOUR S&T

COOPERATION WITH ORGANISATIONS IN EU MS/AC? Legal problems (e.g. bilateral agreements) Budget problems (e.g. limited funding) Lack of information on financial tools for cooperation Agreements on IPR Language or cultural barriers Obtaining visa

8

Please provide short description of obstacles/constraints/barriers to your S&T cooperation with EU MS/AC in general and country specific, if applicable. Please describe main obstacles and mention obstacles not included in the list above.

………………………………………………………………………………… C.8 WHAT ARE YOUR PLANS FOR FUTURE S&T COOPERATION WITH EU MS/AC?

(Please provide short description for time frame of the next 3 years on e.g. new funding programmes, scientific priorities, etc. Please specify per country, if applicable.)

………………………………………………………………………………… C.9 GOOD PRACTICE: PLEASE PROVIDE GOOD PRACTICE EXAMPLES OF YOUR S&T

COOPERATION WITH EU MS/AC. ………………………………………………………………………………… C.10 IMPACT ASSESSMENT/EVALUATION Have impact assessments/evaluations of your S&T cooperation with organisations in EU MS/AC been performed during the last 5 years? Yes, No If yes, for which countries/organisations? ……………………………………………. For which countries/organisations are reports on this impact assessment/ evaluation available? ……………………………………………. How regularly are impact assessments/evaluations performed? (every year, two years, etc.) …………………………………………………………………………………

9

10

SECTION D – BLACK SEA REGION SPECIFIC QUESTION

D.1 WITH WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING COUNTRIES IN THE BLACK SEA REGION DOES YOUR ORGANISATION HAVE CURRENTLY AN S&T COOPERATION PROGRAMME OR IS PREPARING ONE? COUNTRY PROGRAMME

REFERENCE PROGRAMME STATUS THEMATIC

FIELDS PROGRAMME VALIDITY PERIOD

ESTIMATED FUNDING OVER VALIDITY PERIOD

established under preparation

Armenia Azerbaijan Bulgaria Georgia Moldova Romania Ukraine Turkey

7.3 Annex C: Interview guidelines for EU MS/AC Programme Owners

Interview guideline ERA.Net RUS

This is a guideline for interviews with programme owners in EU MS/AC following the ERA.Net RUS/BS ERA.Net online survey. The interview serves the following purposes: Complement and clarify information provided in the online survey. Check for in-depth information on certain aspects of the online survey. Check especially for strengths and weaknesses of the national S&T systems and on

perspectives of cooperation (part 1 of interview guideline). Please focus in the interview therefore on part 1 of the interview guideline. Many of the questions, especially in Part 2, might already have been answered in the online survey. Answers given in the online survey of the respective programme owners need to be checked thoroughly prior to the implementation of interviews. The interviews need to be transcribed into interview reports by the interviewers. The interview reports shall follow the heading structure given in this guideline. Information gathered in the interviews will be used within the ERA.Net RUS project as input for analytical reports on S&T cooperation with Russia.

Part 1: General questions Part 2: Questions on programme level. Part 1 1. Framework conditions for International Cooperation

Who is defining the framework conditions (i.e. legal requirements, budget) for your international S&T funding activities?

Are there any current or upcoming reforms of your national S&T sector and S&T funding system that might influence your international programmes with Russia?

Which influence has the legal framework and the tax policy on your international activities and funding programmes?

Which international developments affect your national S&T funding system? Which factors restrict your international S&T cooperation? Name advantages/ disadvantages of international S&T cooperation. What are your most important international cooperation partners?

2. Russia as partner in RTD What are the strengths & weaknesses of the Russian RTD sector from your point of

view? What are RTD capacities and in which thematic areas?

What are the strengths and weaknesses of your funding programme(s) with Russia? With which institutions in Russia do you cooperate and with which would you like to

establish cooperation? Which problems occur in RTD cooperation with Russia? What are experiences in RTD cooperation with Russia of researchers funded by you

(problems/ successes)? What are good practice examples or good practice procedures in your cooperation

with Russia? (e.g. simplified procedures for exchange of scientific material, etc.)

3. Perspectives

What are the thematic priorities of your bilateral cooperation with Russia and which thematic priorities are upcoming?

Do you expect an increase/ decrease of your bilateral cooperation in the close future? From your point of view: are there very few/adequate / too many funding instruments

at national/ European/ Russian level that support cooperation? Are further funding instruments required in your country/ Russia/ at EU level and how

should they look like? Which relevance has the ERA-Net concept/ project for your organization? Is your organisation interested in coordinating its international programmes with

Russia with other international partners? If yes, how far should such coordination reach? E.g. information exchange, exchange

on good practice, harmonisation of procedures, conferences, coordination of thematic priorities, joint multilateral calls with other programme owners, etc.

If no, what are the reasons for a lack of interest in such coordination? E.g. coordination is too time and resources consuming, not enough financial resources available, no specific advantage of such coordination for your organisation, etc.

Part 2 1. Funding programmes General questions

Which are your most important international/ bilateral S&T funding programmes? Are there new relevant international/bilateral programmes planned? Does your organisation award all funds via competitive programmes? (e.g.: calls,

evaluation, funding of the best ranked projects) or are funds also awarded as basic funding/block grant to research organisations (non-competitive: no competition among applicants for funds; with / without call for proposals, with / without evaluation; e.g.: on the basis of business plans).

What is the average project size and average project duration that you support? How many projects with Russia do you fund per year? How many projects overall do

you support within your international cooperation activities? Do you launch joint calls with your international cooperation partners and/or do you

provide unilateral funding for international S&T cooperation? Questions related to specific programmes

What are the call issuing procedures (call scheduling, call documents etc.)? Who may apply? What does the application procedure look like (proposal submission procedures,

proposal languages; proposal forms etc.)?

What should the proposal itself consist of? What are the negotiation and contract signing procedures (shared and/or separate

contract responsibility; joint and country-specific procedures; duration and timing)? What is the expected impact of the programme?

2. Finances General questions

What is your overall annual budget? What is your budget for international cooperation? What is your budget for

international cooperation with the BS-Region/ Russia? Questions related to specific programmes

What is financed, what can be accounted for? (basic research, applied research, technology transfer, etc. and their definitions)

How is the financial support calculated? What type of funding Instruments are used (e.g. joint RTDI projects, researchers’

mobility, conference/event participation, access to research infrastructure, etc.). What are the eligible costs (if funding scheme related to actual costs is applied).

For example, personnel costs, travel, purchase of equipment, etc). Please specify if there are any country-specific differences.

What are the Administrative and Payment procedures (Description of payment procedures and indication of any country-specific differences, e.g. advanced payments; required documents, common documents models, or country-specific issues, etc. ….).

Is there a money-flow from Russia to your country? 3. Evaluation procedures

Which procedures are applied for the selection of projects? Who manages the evaluation? Who evaluates the proposals? How are evaluators being selected, what are their requirements? Evaluation modality: (remote, in situ, etc.) Which evaluation criteria do you use? Evaluation reports: (if existing, shared or country-specific forms, etc.). Duration of evaluation, number of evaluators? What are the advantages and disadvantages of your evaluation system? Do you have some optional evaluation criteria that can positively influence the

decision? Do you have international experts included in the evaluation? Who takes the final decision on the funding? How is the implementation of projects reviewed, which are supported by you? Are your programmes monitored and evaluated periodically and/or in the end? Which

criteria are used? Who does it? 4. Mobility

Does your organization support researcher mobility?

Which programmes do currently exist for researcher mobility? What is the budget? How do you evaluate and select researcher mobility projects? How many mobility projects have you funded? A) In total, b) This year? With which organisations and countries do you cooperate within your mobility

programmes? 5. Intellectual Property Right (IPR)

Which rules do you apply concerning IPR? Which is the legal frame applied in relation with the access to research data/ results Which problems do you encounter, if companies want to use results from bilateral

research projects? Are there any examples for the use of intellectual properties from your bilateral

projects?

7.4 Annex D: Interview guidelines for Russian Programme Owners

Interview guideline for SWOT analysis

of the Russian S&T funding system ERA.Net RUS is a project funded by the European Communities 7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP7). The project shall further and coordinate S&T cooperation between European Union Member States1, Associated Countries to the FP7 (AC)2 and Russia. In the frame of this project an analysis of Strengths and Weaknesses (SWOT) of the Russian S&T funding system is undertaken. SWOT analysis is an analytical method, which is used to identify and categorise significant internal factors (i.e. strengths and weaknesses) and external factors (i.e. opportunities and threats) an organisation faces. This is an interview guideline for SWOT analysis of Russian S&T funding programme owners. Strengths and Weaknesses shall be tested for the Russian S&T funding system in general and specifically for each Russian S&T funding programme owner.

SWOT interview guideline Strengths (internal factors) What are strengths of the Russian S&T funding system in general? What are the advantages of your organisation’s S&T funding approach? What is external feedback you receive on your funding activities? What relevant resources do you have access to? Weaknesses (internal factors) What could be improved for the Russian S&T funding system? What could be improved regarding the S&T funding approach of your organisation? What should be avoided in the operation of your S&T funding programmes, and in the operation of your organisation? Opportunities (external factors) Where do you see good opportunities for the Russian S&T funding system? Where do you see good external opportunities, which may influence positively the operation of your organisation?


What are national or international trends, you are aware of, which may have a positive impact on your operation? Threats (external factors) Which threats do you see for the Russian S&T funding system in general? What obstacles does your organisation face in its S&T funding policy? Are any changes of national or international policy threatening your operation or position in the S&T funding system? Strengths and Weaknesses shall be discussed along the following topical lines: Changes in government S&T policy Who is defining the framework conditions for your S&T funding activities? Which reforms of the S&T sector and S&T funding are upcoming? Are there new S&T funding programmes planned, which are relevant for your organisation? Funding programmes What are your main S&T funding programmes? Which influence has the legal framework for S&T funding and tax policy on your operation? How far do you use competitive project funding allocation versus block funding allocation? What is an average project size you support, and for which average duration? How many projects do you fund annually? Which costs do you support with your funding programme? Evaluation procedures Which procedures are applied for selection of projects? Which evaluation criteria? Who is evaluating proposals? Who decides on selection of proposals/of funds to be funded? Evaluation/peer review system – international experts’ involvement? How is the implementation of projects reviewed, which are supported by you? Budget What is your overall annual budget? What is your annual budget for R&D funding? What is your budget for competitive R&D funding programmes? International cooperation Which international developments influence your national S&T funding system? Which forms of international cooperation are used by your organisation? What are limitations on international cooperation in the Russian S&T funding system? What are advantages/disadvantages of international cooperation? What are your main international cooperation partners? Mobility Does your organisation support researcher mobility? Which programmes and which budgets are in place for researcher mobility? How do you evaluate and select researcher mobility projects? How many mobility projects have you supported and how many do you support annually? With which organisations and countries do you cooperate for mobility projects?

7.5 Annex E for ERA.Net RUS report 3: Table of EU MS/AC Programme Owners and instruments used

Name of PO INSTRUMENTS THAT THE PO APPLY IN ORDER TO SUPPORT INTERNATIONAL S&T COOPERATION Response

NKTH, Hungary S&T agreements with foreign organisations Yes Mobility of researchers Yes, Both sides

Please specify usual time period of researcher mobility: 12 days or1-3 months

Exchange of know-how No Joint implementation of RTDI projects No Access to infrastructure No Technical support/ provision of equipment No

Dissemination of RTDI results and accompanying measures No

Joint laboratories No Joint funding programmes No

ASM, Moldova S&T agreements with foreign organisations Yes Mobility of researchers Yes, Both sides Please specify usual time period of researcher mobility: Exchange of know-how Yes Joint implementation of RTDI projects Yes Access to infrastructure Yes Technical support/ provision of equipment No

Dissemination of RTDI results and accompanying measures Yes

Joint laboratories No Joint funding programmes Yes Other (please specify) CSIC, Spain S&T agreements with foreign organisations Yes Mobility of researchers Yes, Both sides

Please specify usual time period of researcher mobility: 15 days - 3 months

Exchange of know-how No Joint implementation of RTDI projects Yes Access to infrastructure No Technical support/ provision of equipment No


Joint laboratories Yes Joint funding programmes Yes Other (please specify)

Humboldt Foundation, Germany S&T agreements with foreign organisations No Mobility of researchers Yes, Both sides Please specify usual time period of researcher mobility:



Joint laboratories No Joint funding programmes No Other (please specify) BMWF, Austria S&T agreements with foreign organisations Yes Mobility of researchers Yes, Both sides

Please specify usual time period of researcher mobility: 10 days till 3 months per year

Exchange of know-how Yes Joint implementation of RTDI projects Yes Access to infrastructure Yes Technical support/ provision of equipment No



Other (please specify)

Science Days, Brokerage events, Visits

Austrian Academy of Sciences (ÖAW), Austria S&T agreements with foreign organisations No Mobility of researchers Yes, Both sides

Please specify usual time period of researcher mobility: a few days to a few weeks

Exchange of know-how Yes Joint implementation of RTDI projects No Access to infrastructure Yes Technical support/ provision of equipment No


Joint laboratories No Joint funding programmes No Other (please specify)

Österr. Forschungsgemeinschaft (ÖFG), Austria S&T agreements with foreign organisations No


Yes, Only one side, your country-partner

Please specify usual time period of researcher mobility: 3-12 months Exchange of know-how No Joint implementation of RTDI projects No Access to infrastructure No Technical support/ provision of equipment No


Joint laboratories No Joint funding programmes No Other (please specify) CNRS, France S&T agreements with foreign organisations Yes Mobility of researchers No Please specify usual time period of researcher mobility: Exchange of know-how No Joint implementation of RTDI projects Yes Access to infrastructure Yes Technical support/ provision of equipment No


Joint laboratories Yes Joint funding programmes Yes


International Research Networks

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaf (DFG), Germany S&T agreements with foreign organisations Yes Mobility of researchers Yes, Both sides Please specify usual time period of researcher mobility: up to 1 year Exchange of know-how Yes Joint implementation of RTDI projects No Access to infrastructure No Technical support/ provision of equipment No


Joint laboratories No Joint funding programmes Yes Other (please specify)

Estonian Science Foundation (ETF), Estonia S&T agreements with foreign organisations Yes Mobility of researchers No Please specify usual time period of researcher mobility: Exchange of know-how No Joint implementation of RTDI projects Yes Access to infrastructure No Technical support/ provision of equipment No


Joint laboratories No Joint funding programmes Yes Other (please specify) BMWFJ, Austria S&T agreements with foreign organisations No Mobility of researchers No Please specify usual time period of researcher mobility: Exchange of know-how No Joint implementation of RTDI projects Yes

Access to infrastructure No Technical support/ provision of equipment No



Austrian Science Fund (FWF), Austria S&T agreements with foreign organisations No Mobility of researchers Yes, Both sides Please specify usual time period of researcher mobility: 10 - 24 months Exchange of know-how No Joint implementation of RTDI projects No Access to infrastructure No Technical support/ provision of equipment No


Joint laboratories No Joint funding programmes Yes Other (please specify) GSRT, Greece S&T agreements with foreign organisations Yes Mobility of researchers No Please specify usual time period of researcher mobility: Exchange of know-how No Joint implementation of RTDI projects Yes Access to infrastructure No Technical support/ provision of equipment No



International Bureau BMBF (DLR), Germany S&T agreements with foreign organisations Yes


Yes, Both sides, Only one side, your country-partner, partner-your country

Please specify usual time period of researcher mobility: Max. 3 months Exchange of know-how Yes Joint implementation of RTDI projects Yes Access to infrastructure Yes Technical support/ provision of equipment Yes



Helmholtz Association, Germany S&T agreements with foreign organisations Yes


Yes, Only one side, partner-your country

Please specify usual time period of researcher mobility: 3 years Exchange of know-how Yes Joint implementation of RTDI projects Yes Access to infrastructure Yes Technical support/ provision of equipment No



Hungarian Academy of Sciences (MTA), Hungary S&T agreements with foreign organisations Yes Mobility of researchers Yes, Both sides Please specify usual time period of researcher mobility: 1 week-10 days Exchange of know-how No Joint implementation of RTDI projects Yes Access to infrastructure No Technical support/ provision of equipment No



Other (please specify) joint scientific committees

INRA, France S&T agreements with foreign organisations No Mobility of researchers Yes, Both sides Please specify usual time period of researcher mobility: Exchange of know-how No Joint implementation of RTDI projects No Access to infrastructure No Technical support/ provision of equipment No


Joint laboratories No Joint funding programmes No Other (please specify) INRIA, France S&T agreements with foreign organisations Yes Mobility of researchers Yes, Both sides Please specify usual time period of researcher mobility: Exchange of know-how No Joint implementation of RTDI projects No Access to infrastructure No Technical support/ provision of equipment No


Joint laboratories Yes Joint funding programmes No

Max Planck Society, Germany S&T agreements with foreign organisations Yes Mobility of researchers Yes, Both sides

Please specify usual time period of researcher mobility: up to about three years

Exchange of know-how Yes Joint implementation of RTDI projects Yes Access to infrastructure Yes Technical support/ provision of equipment Yes


Joint laboratories Yes Joint funding programmes Yes Other (please specify) MAEE, FR S&T agreements with foreign organisations Yes Mobility of researchers Yes Please specify usual time period of researcher mobility: Exchange of know-how No Joint implementation of RTDI projects No Access to infrastructure No Technical support/ provision of equipment No


Joint laboratories No Joint funding programmes No Other (please specify) MIUR, Italy S&T agreements with foreign organisations No Mobility of researchers Yes Please specify usual time period of researcher mobility: Exchange of know-how No Joint implementation of RTDI projects Yes Access to infrastructure No Technical support/ provision of equipment No


Joint laboratories No Joint funding programmes Yes Other (please specify) MES, Bulgaria S&T agreements with foreign organisations Yes Mobility of researchers Yes, Both sides Please specify usual time period of researcher mobility: Exchange of know-how Yes Joint implementation of RTDI projects Yes Access to infrastructure Yes Technical support/ provision of equipment No


Joint laboratories No Joint funding programmes Yes Other (please specify) Ministry of Regional Development (MDRL), Romania S&T agreements with foreign organisations No Mobility of researchers No Please specify usual time period of researcher mobility: Exchange of know-how No Joint implementation of RTDI projects No Access to infrastructure No Technical support/ provision of equipment No



Ministry of Science and Techno (MOST), Israel S&T agreements with foreign organisations Yes Mobility of researchers No Please specify usual time period of researcher mobility: Exchange of know-how No Joint implementation of RTDI projects No Access to infrastructure No Technical support/ provision of equipment No


Joint laboratories No Joint funding programmes Yes Other (please specify) MSTD, Serbia S&T agreements with foreign organisations Yes Mobility of researchers Yes, Both sides Please specify usual time period of researcher mobility: Exchange of know-how No Joint implementation of RTDI projects No Access to infrastructure No Technical support/ provision of equipment No


Joint laboratories No Joint funding programmes No Other (please specify) ANCS, Romania S&T agreements with foreign organisations Yes Mobility of researchers Yes, Both sides

Please specify usual time period of researcher mobility: 60 days/ year/ in one direction

Exchange of know-how Yes Joint implementation of RTDI projects Yes Access to infrastructure Yes

Technical support/ provision of equipment No



NWO, The Netherlands S&T agreements with foreign organisations No Mobility of researchers No Please specify usual time period of researcher mobility: Exchange of know-how No Joint implementation of RTDI projects No Access to infrastructure No Technical support/ provision of equipment No


Joint laboratories No Joint funding programmes Yes Other (please specify) Oséo, France S&T agreements with foreign organisations Yes Mobility of researchers No Please specify usual time period of researcher mobility: Exchange of know-how No Joint implementation of RTDI projects No Access to infrastructure No Technical support/ provision of equipment No


Joint laboratories No Joint funding programmes Yes


specific financial instruments for internationalisation of SMEs and international activities

Polska Akademia Nauk (PAN), Poland S&T agreements with foreign organisations No Mobility of researchers Yes, Both sides Please specify usual time period of researcher mobility: 3 - 28 days Exchange of know-how No Joint implementation of RTDI projects No Access to infrastructure No Technical support/ provision of equipment No


Joint laboratories Yes Joint funding programmes No


young researchers' schools

KNAW, Netherlands S&T agreements with foreign organisations No Mobility of researchers No Please specify usual time period of researcher mobility: Exchange of know-how No Joint implementation of RTDI projects No Access to infrastructure No Technical support/ provision of equipment No


Joint laboratories No Joint funding programmes Yes Other (please specify) SASA, Serbia S&T agreements with foreign organisations Yes Mobility of researchers Yes, Both sides Please specify usual time period of researcher mobility: whole year Exchange of know-how Yes Joint implementation of RTDI projects Yes Access to infrastructure No Technical support/ provision of equipment No


Joint laboratories Yes Joint funding programmes Yes Other (please specify) SCS RA, Armenia S&T agreements with foreign organisations Yes Mobility of researchers Yes, Both sides Please specify usual time period of researcher mobility: Exchange of know-how Yes Joint implementation of RTDI projects Yes Access to infrastructure Yes Technical support/ provision of equipment Yes


Joint laboratories Yes Joint funding programmes No Other (please specify)

State Secretariat for Education (SER), Switzerland S&T agreements with foreign organisations Yes Mobility of researchers Yes, Both sides Please specify usual time period of researcher mobility: different models Exchange of know-how Yes Joint implementation of RTDI projects Yes Access to infrastructure Yes Technical support/ provision of equipment No




Founding and funding member of NEC (Rom) and CAS (BG)

Academy of Finland (AKA), Finland S&T agreements with foreign organisations Yes Mobility of researchers Yes, Both sides Please specify usual time period of researcher mobility: Exchange of know-how No Joint implementation of RTDI projects Yes Access to infrastructure No Technical support/ provision of equipment No



Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF), Switzerland S&T agreements with foreign organisations No Mobility of researchers No Please specify usual time period of researcher mobility: Exchange of know-how No Joint implementation of RTDI projects Yes Access to infrastructure No Technical support/ provision of equipment No




Institutional Partnerships, Conference Grants

The Research Council of Norway (RCN), Norway S&T agreements with foreign organisations Yes Mobility of researchers Yes, Both sides Please specify usual time period of researcher mobility: 1-10 months Exchange of know-how Yes Joint implementation of RTDI projects Yes Access to infrastructure No Technical support/ provision of equipment Yes



The Royal Society, UK S&T agreements with foreign organisations No Mobility of researchers Yes, Both sides

Please specify usual time period of researcher mobility: several days up to months

Exchange of know-how Yes Joint implementation of RTDI projects Yes Access to infrastructure Yes Technical support/ provision of equipment Yes




Cost-share agreements on "Joint Projects" (Russia only)

TUBITAK, Turkey S&T agreements with foreign organisations Yes Mobility of researchers Yes, Both sides Please specify usual time period of researcher mobility: Exchange of know-how No Joint implementation of RTDI projects Yes Access to infrastructure No Technical support/ provision of equipment Yes



Turkish Academy of Sciences (TUBA), Turkey S&T agreements with foreign organisations Yes Mobility of researchers Yes, Both sides

Please specify usual time period of researcher mobility: throughout the whole year





Exchange of publications, organisation of joint scientific meetings, short scientific visits of scientists

Ministry of Higher Education, S&T (MVZT), Slovenia S&T agreements with foreign organisations Yes Mobility of researchers Yes, Both sides Please specify usual time period of researcher mobility: Exchange of know-how Yes

Joint implementation of RTDI projects Yes Access to infrastructure Yes Technical support/ provision of equipment No


Joint laboratories No Joint funding programmes Yes

7.6 Annex F: International S&T agreements and main EU partners of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS)

RAS Agreements on international S&T cooperation – status 2006

The Russian Academy of Sciences has signed agreements on S&T cooperation with academies of sciences and research organisations of the following countries:

Armenia – National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia;

Austria - Austrian Academy of Sciences (ÖAW);

Azerbaijan – National Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan;

Belarus – National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Belorussia;

Bulgaria – Bulgarian Academy of Sciences;

Chile –University of Santiago;

Croatia - Croatian Academy of Science and Arts (HAZU);

Czech Republic – Academy of Sciences of Czech Republic (ASCR);

Ecuador – National Secretariat for Science and Technology (SENACYT);

Egypt – Egypt Academy of Research and Technology;

Estonia – Estonia Academy of Sciences (ETA);

Finland – Academy of Sciences of Finland;

France – French Academy of Sciences, L'École des hautes études en sciences sociales (EHESS), Maison des science de l'homme, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), University Bordeaux I, Pierre and Mari Curie University;

Georgia – National Academy of Sciences;

Germany – Max Planck Society, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences;

Greece – General Secretariat for Research and Technologies;

Hungary – Hungarian Academy of Sciences;

India – Indian Academy of Sciences;

Israel – Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities;

Italy - Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, "Alessandro Volta" Centre for Scientific Culture, National Institute of Nuclear Physics, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche;

Kazakhstan – National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Kazakhstan;

Kyrgyzstan - National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Kyrgyzstan;

Latvia – Latvian Academy of Sciences;

Lithuania – Lithuanian Academy of Sciences (LMA);

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia – Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Academy of Science and Art (MANU);

Malaysia – Academy of Sciences of Malaysia;

Mexico – Mexican Academy of Science;

Moldova – Academy of Sciences of Moldova;

Mongolia – Academy of Sciences of Mongolia;

Montenegro – Montenegro Academy of Science and Arts (CANU);

Norway – University of Oslo, Bergen University;

Peoples Republic of China – Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Ministry of Education of PRC, National Science Foundation of China, Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences;

Republic of South Africa – Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf), Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC);

Romania – Academy of Romania;

Serbia – Serbian Academy of Science and Arts (SANU);

Slovakia – Slovak Academy of Sciences (SAV);

Socialist Republic of Vietnam – Academy of Natural Sciences and Technologies and Academy of Social Sciences;

South Korea - Korea Science and Engineering Foundation (KOSEF), Korean Academy of Science and Technology (KAST);

Spain – Spanish High Council for Scientific Research, Madrid Polytechnic University;

Sweden – Royal Academy of Sciences (KVA), Royal Swedish Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities;

Switzerland – World Agency for Planetary Monitoring and Earthquake Risk Reduction (WAPMERR);

Syria – Damask University;

Tajikistan – Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tajikistan;

Turkey – Istanbul University;

UK – The British Academy, the Royal Society;

Ukraine – National Academy of Sciences;

USA – Geological Survey, Department of Energy, National Institute of Standards and Technology, National science Foundation, International Research & Exchanges Board (IREX);

Uzbekistan – Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Uzbekistan.

In 2006, agreements were signed and renewed with institutions of Serbia Republic, France, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Croatia, and Montenegro. A memorandum with the Academy of Sciences of Albania has been prepared for signing.

Main EU partners of RAS institutes and fields of cooperation in 2006

Cooperation with Germany: main partners – MPG, Helmholtz Society, DFG.

In July 2006, five agreements were signed with CNRS: on establishment of joint mathematics laboratory, on establishment of European research association “Terahertz semiconductor sources and detectors”, on establishment of Russian-French education and research network

in mathematics, on exchange of representatives, etc. As a positive tendency in cooperation with French organisation one should mention the shift to larger-scale projects through establishment of European associated laboratories (6 associated labs were set up), research networks and European research associations (10 associations were set up).

Cooperation with Italy: 18 joint projects in inorganic chemistry, thermal physics, chemical physics, plant and animal physiology, geology, geophysics, nanomaterials, etc.

Cooperation with Finland: 1) Global change: cosmic rays, solar activity, cosmogenic isotopes and climate – Physico-Technical Institute of RAS and Universities of Helsinki and Oulu; Institute of Russian History RAS and Helsinki University.

Cooperation with Netherlands: cooperation within intergovernmental agreement (preparation and implementation of 11 new joint projects) and within the agreement between RAS and TNO – in research and applied projects, innovation activity and commercialisation of results (RAS: Institute for Petrochemical Synthesis, Photochemistry Centre, Institute of Physical Chemistry and Electrochemistry, Institute of Chemical Physics, Institute for Problems of Chemical Physics.

Cooperation with Greece: 10 projects in astronomy, physics, oceanography, cultural heritage.

Cooperation with Spain: evolution of the Atlantic - Institute of Machine Science (RAS), Institute of Industrial Automatics (RAS), Institute of Oceanology (RAS) – Andalusia Institute of Earth Sciences (Spain); archaeology – Institute of Archeology RAS and Institute of History (Spain).

In 2006, Polar Geophysics Institute of the Kola Branch of RAS cooperated with the Institute of Space Research of the Austrian Academy of Sciences.

Cooperation with Switzerland: October 2006 - Russian-Swiss Workshop on cooperation in science and technology.

Cooperation with Bulgarian Academy of Sciences: thematic cooperation plan for 2006 -2008 was signed (44 subjects in natural and social sciences).

Cooperation with Hungary: round table of social scientists in Moscow.

Cooperation with Poland: bilateral conference “Infrastructure and economic development of Russia and Poland”, bilateral Russian-Polish symposium on the problems of Arctic seas, cooperation between the Institute of Petrochemical Synthesis RAS and Centre for Molecular and Macromolecular Studies PAS.

Slovakia: Institute of Information Transmission Problems RAS – Institute of Measurement Problems and Institute of Normal and Pathological Physiology of Slovak Academy of Sciences.

Czech Republic: Physico-Chemical Institute RAS and Institute of Metal Physics of Czech Academy of Sciences; historians and archive scientists.

Thematic cooperation plans have been developed and signed: Serbia (31 subjects, 25 person-weeks for exchange of scientists), Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (17 subjects), Croatia (7 subjects), and Montenegro (14 subjects).

7.7 Annex G: List of abbreviations

1 AKA: Academy of Finland, Finland

2 ANCS : National Authority for Scientific Research, Romania

3 ASM: Academy of Sciences of Moldova, Moldova

4 BMWF: Federal Ministry of Science and Research, Austria

5 BMWFJ: Federal Ministry of Economy, Family and Youth, Austria

6 CNRS: National Center for Scientific Research, France

7 CSIC: Spanish National Research Council, Spain

8 DFG: German Research Foundation, Germany

9 ETF: Estonian Science Foundation, Estonia

10 IB-BMBF: International Bureau of the Federal Ministry of Education and

Research, Germany

11 INRA: National Institute for Agricultural Research, France

12 INRIA: French National Institute for Research in Computer Science and Control,

France

13 FWF: Austrian Science Fund, Austria

14 FASI: The Federal Agency for Science and Innovation

15 FASIE: The Foundation for Assistance to Small Innovative Enterprises

16 GSRT: General Secretariat for Research and Technology, Greece

17 KNAW: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, Netherlands

18 MAEE: Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs, France

19 MES: Ministry of Education and Science

20 Mineconomrazvitiya: Russian Ministry of Economic Development

21 Minobrnauki/MON: Russian Ministry of Education and Science

22 Minpromtorg: Russian Ministry of Industry and Trade

23 Mos. Ind. Univ.: Moscow Independent University

24 MDRL: Ministry of Regional Development and Housing, Romania

25 MES: Ministry of Education and Science, Bulgaria

26 MIUR: Ministry of University and Research, Italy

27 MOST: Ministry of Science and Technology, Israel

28 MTA: Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Hungary

29 MSTD: Ministry of Science and Technological Development, Serbia

30 MVZT: Ministry of Higher Education, S&T, Slovenia

31 NKTH: National Office for Research and Technology, Hungary

32 NOW: Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, Netherlands

33 ÖAW: Austrian Academy of Sciences, Austria

34 ÖFG: Austrian Research Association, Austria

35 OSEO, France

36 PAN: Polish Academy of Sciences, Poland

37 PO / POs: Programme Owner / Programme Owners

38 RCN: The Research Council of Norway, Norway

39 RAMS: Russian Academy of Medical Sciences

40 RAS: Russian Academy of Sciences

41 RASKHN: Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences

42 RFBR: The Russian Foundation for Basic Research

43 RFH: The Russian Foundation for Humanities

44 RFTR : The Russian Foundation for Technological Development

45 Rosnauka: Federal Agency of Science and Innovation

46 Rosobrazovanie: The Federal Agency for Education

47 Russian gov.: Russian Government (no ministry specified)

48 Rusnano: The State Corporation for Nanotechnologies

49 RVK: Russian Venture Company

50 SANU / SASA: Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Serbia

51 SCS RA: State Committee of Science of Republic of Armenia, Armenia

52 SER: State Secretariat for Education and Research, Switzerland

53 SNSF: Swiss National Science Foundation, Switzerland

54 TUBA: The Turkish Academy of Sciences, Turkey

55 TUBITAK: The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey, Turkey

analytical report 3 - era.net rus · 2018-10-23 · the present report has been drafted as...

Documents