ERA.Net RUS FP /09/2010. Analytical Report 3

Transcription

1 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 FP 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 7 th European Framework Programme for RTD (FP7). D 1.3 Bilateral S&T Cooperation with Russia Page 1 of 72

2 Table of contents 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT OF REPORT MAIN FEATURES OF THE CURRENT RUSSIAN S&T SYSTEM BILATERAL S&T COOPERATION FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF EU MS/AC PROGRAMME OWNERS Methodology Analysis of the online survey among EU MS/AC Programme Owners Summary of conclusions on the EU MS/AC Programme Owners data analysis45 5 BILATERAL S&T COOPERATION FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF RUSSIAN PROGRAMME OWNERS Methodology Analysis of survey and interview results Specific information on international cooperation of Russian Programme Owners CONCLUSIONS OF THE SURVEY AMONG EU MS/AC AND RUSSIAN PROGRAMME OWNERS 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 D 1.3 Bilateral S&T Cooperation with Russia Page 2 of 72

3 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 7 th 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/AC 4 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 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 rdic countries Finland and rway 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 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, rway, Serbia, Switzerland, Turkey 4 11 Programme Owners were contacted in Russia and around 130 POs in EU MS/AC. D 1.3 Bilateral S&T Cooperation with Russia Page 3 of 72

4 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 rway). 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. rway: 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. D 1.3 Bilateral S&T Cooperation with Russia Page 4 of 72

5 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. D 1.3 Bilateral S&T Cooperation with Russia Page 5 of 72

6 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 7 th 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 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 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, rway, 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 D 1.3 Bilateral S&T Cooperation with Russia Page 6 of 72

7 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: 10 EUROSTAT Database, OECD, Main Science and Technology Indicators ; Data for the EU 27 countries are for the year D 1.3 Bilateral S&T Cooperation with Russia Page 7 of 72

8 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 Science 12 ; 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). D 1.3 Bilateral S&T Cooperation with Russia Page 8 of 72

9 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 members 16 and with five countries associated to FP7 17. As regards the 6th FP ( ) 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 Eurostat Database, 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, 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, rway, Serbia, Turkey D 1.3 Bilateral S&T Cooperation with Russia Page 9 of 72

10 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 D 1.3 Bilateral S&T Cooperation with Russia Page 10 of 72

11 4 BILATERAL S&T COOPERATION FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF EU MS/AC PROGRAMME OWNERS 4.1 Methodology 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 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: D 1.3 Bilateral S&T Cooperation with Russia Page 11 of 72

12 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 D 1.3 Bilateral S&T Cooperation with Russia Page 12 of 72

13 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 rway (RCN), rway 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 rway (RCN), rway 10 Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), Spain D 1.3 Bilateral S&T Cooperation with Russia Page 13 of 72

14 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). n-governmental organisations (NGO) make up 25% (10 POs) and research institutions (RES) the remaining 15% (6 POs). 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. D 1.3 Bilateral S&T Cooperation with Russia Page 14 of 72

15 Diagram 1 Type of POs HE: 0% RES: 15% IND: 0% NGO: 25% GOV: 60% n= 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 cooperation 20. 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 Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Georgia, Moldova, Romania, Russia, Turkey, Ukraine. D 1.3 Bilateral S&T Cooperation with Russia Page 15 of 72

16 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 and BS countries checked: 72% Russia NOT checked: 5% 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 RTDI 21 projects: 23 references; and the joint funding of programmes: 21 references; the dissemination of RTDI results: 21 references. All instruments are presented in diagram Research, Technology Development and Innovation D 1.3 Bilateral S&T Cooperation with Russia Page 16 of 72

17 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 oneway 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 Mobility of researchers 30 Joint implementation of RTDI projects 23 Joint funding programmes 21 Instrument Dissemination of RTDI results Exchange of know how Access to infrastructure Joint laboratories 9 Other 8 Technical support Number of POs n=40 D 1.3 Bilateral S&T Cooperation with Russia Page 17 of 72

18 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 Other: 5 Individual researchers: 19 Public research organisations: 29 Enterprises: 9 Private non-profit research organisations: 13 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 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. D 1.3 Bilateral S&T Cooperation with Russia Page 18 of 72

19 Diagram 5 Budget for international cooperation Number of POs below 0,5M 0,5-1M 1-3M over 3M Millions (M) of Euro 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, D 1.3 Bilateral S&T Cooperation with Russia Page 19 of 72

20 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 Number of POs Travel costs Personnel costs Conferences Consumables Equipment Dissemination other Eligible cost 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 D 1.3 Bilateral S&T Cooperation with Russia Page 20 of 72

21 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) Agency that is the PO itself 7 Other 2 Partly the ministry and a different agency 15 The ministry 9 An agency 3 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, decisionmaking, 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 D 1.3 Bilateral S&T Cooperation with Russia Page 21 of 72

22 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 Decision taking about project funding 32 Evaluation of periodical project reporting 31 Drafting and publishing a call 31 Organising the evaluation of proposals 29 Task Payment 27 Supervision of implementation of funding projects 24 Establishing project contracts 22 Other 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 Page 22 of 72

23 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) Project duration 19% Other 6% The project must be submitted to both countries 24% A final report must be submitted on completion 28% The proposal must be signed by an authorised person in both countries 23% 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 Page 23 of 72

24 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 accelerating 23. 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 increased 24. 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. D 1.3 Bilateral S&T Cooperation with Russia Page 24 of 72

25 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 Number of POs Other factors Obtaining Visa Legal problems Language or cultural barriers Budget problems (limited funding) lack of info on financial tools for cooperation Lack of agreements on IPR Obstacle 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. D 1.3 Bilateral S&T Cooperation with Russia Page 25 of 72

26 Diagram 11 Type of research priority supported Basic Research 29 Applied Research 17 Technology Development 10 Innovation 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. D 1.3 Bilateral S&T Cooperation with Russia Page 26 of 72

27 Diagram 12 Number of POs per thematic field of cooperation Space:10 Food, agriculture and fisheries:10 Security:4 Transport and Aeronautics:8 Nanotechnologie s / Materials:20 Energy:19 Health:10 Other:14 Environment (& climate change):19 Biotechnology:16 ICT:18 Socio-economic sciences and Humanities:18 n= 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). D 1.3 Bilateral S&T Cooperation with Russia Page 27 of 72

28 Diagram 13 % of POs that use evaluation procedure NO evaluation procedure declared: 3% Evaluation procedure EXISTS: 97% 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. D 1.3 Bilateral S&T Cooperation with Russia Page 28 of 72

29 Diagram 14 Separate or joint evaluation Other: 14% Both procedures are applied (2 stages evaluation): 20% separate evaluation procedure: 48% joint evaluation procedure: 18% 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. D 1.3 Bilateral S&T Cooperation with Russia Page 29 of 72

30 Diagram 15 Who evaluates the proposals (POs number) Other:8 experts of the ministry:4 experts of the agency:7 Independent researchers:26 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) both:16 Remote:12 In situ/committee meeting:8 n=36 D 1.3 Bilateral S&T Cooperation with Russia Page 30 of 72

31 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. t 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. D 1.3 Bilateral S&T Cooperation with Russia Page 31 of 72

32 Diagram 17 n= 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. D 1.3 Bilateral S&T Cooperation with Russia Page 32 of 72