internal project newsletter for consortium members 2 ... · 2. oleg luksha, anton yanovsky/russian...

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 20/08/2009

ERA.Net RUS Internal Project Newsletter № 2- August 09 of 6

Internal Project Newsletter for Consortium members

№ 2 - August 2009

Dear ERA.Net RUS consortium members, With this second internal project newsletter we would like to inform you about the progress of the project after half a year of its lifetime. Below you receive an update on the status quo of the work packages, on project-related news as well as on important dates of meetings and other events. The project newsletter has been designed in close cooperation with the work package leader(s) of the running WPs. You will quarterly receive a project newsletter. Do not hesitate to contact us in case you have any questions or contributions to the issues addressed in this newsletter. Best regards, Your ERA.Net RUS coordinating team Jörn Sonnenburg, Franziska Müller, Silke Kraus and Tanja Grinki Content

1) ‘To do’ items 2) News and updates 3) Status quo of individual work packages 4) Upcoming ERA.Net RUS meetings and events 5) Links to other relevant international cooperation actions

Attachments

1) Discussion paper of Analytical Report 3 2) Presentation on coordination of BS ERA.Net with ERA.Net RUS

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 20/08/2009


1. ‘To do’ items: Consortium partners are kindly requested to take the following actions: • If not already done so, please send your contribution to the Knowledge Management Plan

to us - deadline was 17 August (not valid for partners without Person Months i.e. Ministries).

• The partners who have not yet filled in the financial accounting system are asked to send it to Silke Kraus – deadline was 14 August (not valid for partners without PMs i.e. Ministries).

2. News and Updates First workshop within the project The workshop on "Lessons learned and perspectives of bilateral S&T cooperation programmes between EU Member States and Associated Countries and Russia", with programme owners from inside and outside the consortium was successfully implemented in Tallinn (Estonia) from 24-26 June 2009. First results of a survey among programme owners on bilateral S&T cooperation between EU/AC and Russia have been discussed at the workshop. Funding agencies and Ministries presented in detail their bilateral programmes, which provided an excellent insight in the practicalities of this cooperation. You may find all related information at our website www.era.net-rus.eu. Note: Minutes of the workshop are available in the Intranet only: http://www.era.net-rus.eu/en/intern/132.php (Username: ERA.Net, password: Russia). New members in the project consortium Antonios Gypakis from GSRT is unfortunately not working any more on the ERA.Net RUS project. But we are happy to welcome three new colleagues from GSRT who will work on the project and/ or be involved in the project from now on. It is Vassiliki Kerassioti ([email protected]), Sarantis Kougiou ([email protected]) and Efthimis Sakellariou ([email protected]). Further contact details can be found in the intranet of our website. At DLR the administrative team has been enlarged by Tanja Grinki ([email protected], phone: +49-228-3821-428). In case you have any questions on administrative issues you may contact Silke Kraus or Tanja Grinki. Consortium Agreement The Consortium Agreement has been signed by all participants and is available in the Intranet of our website at: http://www.era.net-rus.eu/en/intern/126.php. Internal communication and information management At the kick-off meeting in Vienna we presented a tool for internal communication and project management that we intended to use (EMDESK). After having spoken to the provider again we received the information that the price will be higher than expected (for several reasons). Also we have reconsidered once more what we need for our project and what the tool offers. It turned out that we need only a limited number out of the several functions the tool offers. The implementation of another project being coordinated by DLR also shows that the tool is not being used by project partners as expected. At the moment we are therefore taking into account the implementation of a share point in the Intranet section of our website that provides all functions we need in order to secure an efficient communication and information

http://www.era.net-rus.eu/

http://www.era.net-rus.eu/en/intern/132.php

mailto:[email protected]




http://www.era.net-rus.eu/en/intern/126.php

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 20/08/2009


management system. Next week there will be a meeting with our IT department and we will let you know afterwards about the outcomes. Important documents The final report of the FP6/ INCO project Rusera Exe ("Expanding ERA over Russia") with the title "Spotlight on EU-Russia RTD cooperation. A snapshot of experiences on researchers’ level" has been published and is very interesting in the context of our project. The report is available at CORDIS: http://cordis.europa.eu/fetch?CALLER=EN_NEWS&ACTION=D&SESSION=&RCN=31008 and also at the ERA.Net RUS website. The results of the CREST working group "Internationalisation of R&D" are now online available (including country report on Russia): http://ec.europa.eu/research/iscp/index.cfm?lg=en&pg=initiatives (at the bottom of the page). Events The 3rd meeting of the International Learning Network (ILN) on the implementation of joint calls for the coordinators of ERA.Nets will take place on 24 September with the participation of DLR and most probably CNRS. A conference implemented by PRO INNO EUROPE on Emerging Economies (BRIC Countries) and Innovation was held 9-10 July in Brussels where cooperation with Russia was one of the topics on the agenda. You may find general information here: http://www.proinno-europe.eu/index.cfm?fuseaction=workshops.ws_overview&id=29 For workshop presentations please visit the following link: http://www.proinno-europe.eu/index.cfm?fuseaction=workshops.ws_paper&ID=29 ERA.Net RUS relevant presentations are the ones held by 1. Manfred Spiesberger: Challenges and Opportunities by BRICs from a European perspective: Russia 2. Oleg Luksha, Anton Yanovsky/Russian Technology Transfer Network & Gate2RuBIN - information on the Russian Innovation system, including listing of problems. 3. Ludger Viehoff: International science and technology cooperation - a new European approach for global collaboration/ EC - Statistic shows that in FP7 Russia is the most successful third country. 4. Tom Hultin/Lappeenranta: Finnish innovation centre approach. FI-RU innovation cooperation/ EU-RU Innovation corridor. From 17-19 March 2010 an EU-RU Innovation Forum will be organized in Lappeenranta/ Finland. 3. Status quo of individual work packages Please note: Already finalized (sub-) tasks that were mentioned in the last newsletter will not be mentioned again. WP 1: Preparing the analytical ground… (WP leader: ZSI)

The Tallinn workshop at the end of June 2009 was also used to discuss the status quo and further advancement of work in work-package 1.

http://cordis.europa.eu/fetch?CALLER=EN_NEWS&ACTION=D&SESSION=&RCN=31008

http://cordis.europa.eu/fetch?CALLER=EN_NEWS&ACTION=D&SESSION=&RCN=31008

http://ec.europa.eu/research/iscp/index.cfm?lg=en&pg=initiatives

http://www.proinno-europe.eu/index.cfm?fuseaction=workshops.ws_overview&id=29

http://www.proinno-europe.eu/index.cfm?fuseaction=workshops.ws_paper&ID=29

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 20/08/2009


Task 1.1

• Preparation of Analytical Report 1 “The Russian S&T system” – D 1.1 (CNRS)- ONGOING

Task 1.2

• Preparation of Analytical Report 2 “The Russian S&T funding system from the perspective of international cooperation” – D 1.2.1 (ZSI) – ONGOING

• Implementing interviews with Russian programme owners in order to complement the online questionnaires and to analyse strengths and weaknesses of the Russian S&T funding system (ZSI) – ALMOST FINALIZED

• Developing a database of S&T programmes, which are relevant for S&T cooperation between EU MS/AC and Russia – D 1.2.2 (DLR) – RECENTLY STARTED IN CLOSE COOPERATION WITH BS ERA.Net AND TASK 1.3

Task 1.3

• Establishing an inventory of bilateral S&T cooperation programmes of EU/AC countries with Russia - (GSRT) – RECENTLY STARTED IN CLOSE COOPERATION WITH BS ERA.Net AND TASK 1.3

• Preparation of 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 governmental S&T agreements” - D 1.3 (GSRT)- ONGOING

• Collection of contact data of programme owners in EU MS/ AC and Russia to be contacted in relation to the filling-in of the online questionnaire - FINALIZED

• Adressing an online survey on bilateral S&T cooperation with Russia to the programme owners identified before – FINALIZED

• Implementing the survey: following-up that programme owners fill in the survey, data analysis - ONGOING

• In-depth interviews with programme owners in EU MS/AC in order to complement the questionnaire and to identify strengths and weaknesses of present programmes and identify the interest for a closer coordination of bilateral programmes - ONGOING

• Preparation and implementation of the workshop in June in Tallinn on “Lessons learned and perspectives of bilateral S&T cooperation programmes between EU MS/AC and Russia” (Archimedes) - FINALIZED

Task 1.4

• Developing the concept of a database of international S&T projects implemented in the last three years by public and private institutions in EU MS/ AC and Russia (TUBITAK)- FINALIZED

• Developing a template and collecting information (on projects) from owners of national and bilateral programmes in EU MS/AC and Russia (TUBITAK) - ONGOING

Task 1.5

• Analyzing experiences from Russian participation in ERA.Nets and from ongoing international ERA-Nets (AKA) – RECENTLY STARTED

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 20/08/2009


WP2, WP3, WP4: Starting from February 2010 on and thereafter WP5: Information, Dissemination, Communication and Links (WP leader: DLR)

Task 5.1

• Drafting the Knowledge Management Plan (KMP) that lists all information dissemination activities of the project partners. The KMP will be regularly updated throughout the project’s duration - D 5.1 (DLR) – RECENTLY updated

Task 5.2

• Establishing and up-dating a web-based Communication and Information Management System: The public project webpage is available at http://www.era.net-rus.eu. - D 5.2 (DLR) – An internal community platform is still under construction- ONGOING

Task 5.3

• Developing a database of relevant information service providers, journals etc. for regular information dissemination- (DLR) – ONGOING

Task 5.4

• Establishing a pro-active dialogue with the coordinators of ongoing coordination activities – (DLR) – Continuously ONGOING

WP 6: Project coordination and management (WP leader: DLR)

Task 6.1

• Signed Consortium Agreement – D 6.1.2 (DLR) – FINALIZED

Task 6.4

• Internal Newsletter – D 6.4 (DLR) – First internal newsletter published on 20 May 09 - QUARTERLY

4. Upcoming ERA.Net RUS meetings and events Please note the following upcoming dates in your agenda: 30 September 2009

• Drafting meeting for Analytical Report 1, 2 and 3 of WP 1 at HSE, Moscow with the participation of the coordinator, the Russian partners and the task leaders (CNRS and ZSI will be in Moscow anyway, GSRT is kindly asked to check whether the budget allows a participation). A separate Email with further information will follow.

26-27 January 2010

• Steering Board meeting for consortium members, Moscow/ Russia

http://www.era.net-rus.eu/

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 20/08/2009


• Project workshop "Identifying the specific needs for advanced cooperation of S&T programme owners in EU MS/AC and with Russian programme owners", Moscow/ Russia, linked to the Steering Board meeting

5. Links to other relevant international cooperation actions Coordination of ERA.Net RUS with BS ERA.Net (Black Sea ERA.Net) Recently there have been a lot of coordinated activities between our project and the BS ERA.Net for the following reasons: The two projects are the same instruments (ERA.Net), they have started at the same time and many countries (and partners) are involved in both projects (on EU MS/AC side). There are many similar tasks, especially in the analytical phase (work package 1). Also, often the same groups are being addressed and we wanted to avoid contacting the same people (especially programme owners in EU MS/ AC) again with similar requests such as to participate in a survey and an interview, to give information on programmes and projects etc. This coordinated approach sometimes takes a little bit longer than foreseen in our initial time planning, but will be more effective in the long run. For further information on the coordinated activities have a look at the attached presentation that was held at the BS ERA.Net Steering Board meeting in July in Bonn. Workshop on mobility On 12 October 2009 a workshop on barriers hampering mobility will take place within the IncoNet EECA project at HSE in Moscow. Coordinators board meeting The coordinators board meeting of project coordinators of CSA activities targeting EECA countries within the IncoNet EECA has been moved to October 2009. The meeting will have the form of a web conference.

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 21/06/2009

D 1.3 Bilateral S&T Cooperation with Russia – Discussion Paper Page 1 of 26

Discussion Paper

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

Discussion paper on

Lessons learned and perspectives of bilateral S&T cooperation programmes between EU Member States and Associated

Countries and Russia

Event: Workshop for ERA.Net RUS, Work Package 1, Task 1.3

Location: Tallinn, Estonia

Date: 25-27 June 2009

Authors of Discussion Paper:

Antonios Gypakis, GSRT, Greece Manfred Spiesberger, ZSI, Austria

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

mueller.franziska

Textfeld

Attachment 1

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 21/06/2009


Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION & WORKSHOP BACKGROUND............................................ 3

1.1 Aims of ERA.Net RUS ................................................................................................3

1.2 Purpose of workshop on bilateral S&T cooperation...............................................4

2 MAIN FEATURES OF THE CURRENT RUSSIAN S&T SYSTEM ..................... 5

3 BILATERAL COOPERATION IN COMPARISON – ERA.NET RUS SURVEY RESULTS................................................................................................................... 8

3.1 Methodology ...............................................................................................................8

3.2 Preliminary results of survey among EU/AC Programme Owners ........................8

3.3 Preliminary results of survey among Russian Programme Owners ...................15

3.4 Conclusions of preliminary survey results............................................................18

4 RESULTS OF SURVEY AMONG CREST OMC MEMBERS............................ 19

4.1 Cooperation with Russia at bilateral level .............................................................19

4.2 Strategies ..................................................................................................................20

4.3 Thematic Priorities ...................................................................................................23

4.4 Good practice in bilateral cooperation...................................................................25

5 ANNEX – ORGANOGRAMM OF THE RUSSIAN R&D SYSTEM .................... 26

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 21/06/2009


1 Introduction & workshop background This discussion paper has been drafted and compiled for the workshop on “Lessons learned and perspectives of bilateral S&T cooperation programmes between EU Member States (EU)1 and Associated Countries (AC)2 and Russia”. It serves as an introduction into the workshop and as a basis for discussions among workshop participants. The workshop is organised in the frame of the ERA.Net project for Russia, ERA.Net RUS. The paper is structured in the following way: first, background information on the aims of the ERA.Net RUS project and of the workshop is given. A chapter on the current Russian S&T system provides information on the basis on which the bilateral S&T cooperation with Russia is built. Preliminary results of a survey among EU/AC and Russian R&D funding organisations are analysed. Finally, for additional information, a chapter on bilateral EU/AC-Russian S&T cooperation from a report for the European Communities’ CREST OMC Working Group on Internationalisation of R&D is reproduced.

1.1 Aims of ERA.Net RUS The ERA.Net RUS project will contribute to the success of the European Research Area (ERA) by improving the coherence and coordination across Europe of international S&T cooperation programmes with Russia. The project focus will be on exploring options for linking bilateral S&T programmes in a variable geometry. ERA.Net RUS will: • further emphasise the significance of the EU-Russian partnership and help to reach a new

level in EU-Russian S&T cooperation by improving the coherence and coordination of European scientific cooperation with Russia and the complementarities between EU Member States/AC and Community activities.

• reduce fragmentation of activities towards S&T cooperation between EU MS/AC and Russia.

• contribute to strengthening the international dimension of the European Research Area. • help to widen the ERA`s trans-national approach on S&T cooperation, with benefits for

European and Russian S&T communities, policy-makers, economies and societies. The project has the following main aims: • A knowledge based DIALOGUE BETWEEN PROGRAMME OWNERS IN EU

MEMBER STATES, ASSOCIATED COUNTRIES (TO THE EU FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME) AND RUSSIA will be set-up in order to learn about each others objectives, priorities and instruments and to identify good cooperation practice in terms of effectiveness and efficiency. This will cover both bilateral S&T programmes of MS/AC and Russia and unilateral activities of governmental and non-governmental programme owners in EU MS/AC and Russia.

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

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 21/06/2009


• Options for JOINT FUNDING ACTIVITIES OF PARTICULAR BENEFIT FOR PROGRAMME OWNERS IN EU MS/AC AND RUSSIA will be identified and respective implementation scenarios will be developed. Again the emphasis will be on enhancing and linking bilateral funding schemes of MS/AC and Russia. If appropriate, activities of additional programme owners will be included as well. EU Programme owners from outside the project consortium will be addressed as well.

• A PILOT JOINT CALL of interested programme owners in EU MS/AC and Russia from inside and outside the project consortium will implemented and an assessment of the effectiveness and efficiency of the joint funding scheme will be carried out.

• Building on the experiences from the Pilot Joint Call and on a foresight exercise a SUSTAINABLE S&T (AND/OR INNOVATION) PROGRAMME will be developed and agreed upon by interested programme owners from EU MS/AC and Russia from inside and outside the project consortium.

Implementation of the ERA.Net RUS project has started in February 2009 and will last for four years until early 2013. The project is implemented by 18 partners from 11 different countries, including 4 partners from Russia.

1.2 Purpose of workshop on bilateral S&T cooperation As outlined in the workshop title, the purpose of the workshop is to discuss current ongoing bilateral S&T cooperation programmes between EU Member States, Associated Countries to FP7 and Russia. On the one hand the workshop discusses results of ongoing analytical work within work-package 1 of ERA.Net RUS, on the other hand it provides input for its analytical report on bilateral S&T cooperation between EU/AC and Russia. The main questions that this workshop will address are: 1. What are the experiences and lessons learned in the development and implementation of

the EU MS&AS – Russian bilateral S&T cooperation programmes concerning a. Defining thematic priorities and funding instruments by the programme owners; b. Rules and regulations; evaluation practices of the cooperation programmes; c. Constraints to and difficulties in implementation of the programmes.

2. What are the best practices of the bilateral S&T cooperation between EU and Russia? 3. What are the opportunities and specific needs for the coordination between the S&T

programme owners as well as between the bilateral and multilateral cooperation programmes (for instance, bilateral with FP7, ESF, other)?

Expected results

• Comments and recommendations for possible changes/improvements to the ERA-NET Russia Action draft report on lessons learned and perspectives of the bilateral S&T cooperation between EU MS&AS and Russia;

• Strengthening of a network of S&T cooperation programme owners and experts involved in the international S&T cooperation management and analysis;

• Better exchange of information, especially on best practices; more effective coordination of activities of EU MS/AS and Russian programme owners; better understanding of each other rules, procedures and constraints.

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 21/06/2009


ERA.Net RUS task leader GSRT is responsible for the report on bilateral S&T cooperation between EU/AC and Russia. This discussion paper and workshop are part of a comprehensive analytical exercise undertaken at the start of the ERA.Net RUS project, which shall deliver a range of analytical reports on the Russian S&T system, the Russian S&T funding system and the bilateral cooperation EU/AC with Russia. The analytical exercise is implemented under the guidance of work-package 1 leader ZSI and project coordinator PT-DLR. It provides an analytical basis for coordinating EU Member States´/Associated Countries´ S&T and innovation programmes towards Russia or with Russian programme owners.

2 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 in the following brief overview outlined. Russia has inherited an important S&T sector from the Soviet Union, which provides enormous potential but which poses up to now also serious challenges to its S&T policy making. The break-up of the Soviet Union in 1990/91 and the ensuing economic crisis 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 during this period importantly. Since the major financial crisis in Russia in 1998, an important economic upswing has led to improvements in the S&T sector, such as rising salaries, upgrading of equipment and devising of new major funding programmes. Russia has spent over the past years slightly above 1% of GDP on R&D; e.g. in 2006 it spent 1.08% of GDP on R&D (OECD, Main Science and Technology Indicators 2008-1). As GDP expanded strongly during this period at growth levels of around 6%, in absolute figures, 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 in the Academy and institute sector, 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 an important block grant from the state. In the Higher Education sector only 6.1% of GERD were performed in 2006, which is in comparison to 22.1% for the 27 EU countries rather low (OECD, Main Science and Technology Indicators 2008-1). Universities have traditionally cared foremost for education, but have been gaining in importance over recent years in research; a development, which is stimulated and furthered by the government’s research policy. Private companies and private non-profit organisations perform only to a rather limited extent R&D in Russia. The strength of Russian research lies traditionally in basic research, while applied research and technology development are lagging behind in comparison to 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.

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 21/06/2009


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: Ministry for Economic Development, Ministry of Industry and Trade, Ministry of Energy, Ministry of Information Technologies and Communication, Ministry of Defence. Research policy is coordinated at the 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.3 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 for R&D. R&D funding is allocated mainly in the form of block grants, but policy is shifting more and more to a competitive funding allocation. 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: • the Federal Agency for Science and Innovation (FASI), the Federal Agency for Education

(Rosobrazovanie), two policy implementation agencies subordinated to the Ministry of Education and Science;

• 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 State Corporation for Nanotechnologies - Rusnano, • and 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 primary goods production. 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 for R&D of the Russian market is rather limited, due to low R&D investment of Russian companies, lack of adequate innovative companies and lack of linkages between companies and R&D performers. Stimulating R&D spending of private companies, developing new small and medium sized innovative enterprises based on R&D or linked up to R&D institutions, and improving the transfer of knowledge generated into innovative products and services are the points to be tackled.4

3 For an organogramm of the Russian R&D system see the Annex. 4 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.

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 21/06/2009


Human resources are another important issue. The Russian R&D personnel has declined by approximately 50% since the dissolution of the Soviet Union until present. In 2004 R&D personnel made up 1.25% of total employment in Russia and was herewith slightly below the EU average of 1.44% (Eurostat, 2008). A certain problem constitutes the age structure of the R&D and educational personnel. The internal und external migration trends 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 retiring now or in the coming years. 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.5 Another challenge concerns a certain division between education and research. In the Soviet past a division had been established, where 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 upgrade of scientific equipment at universities, 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 concerns insufficient protection of property rights and intellectual property rights (IPR), deficiencies of 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 over the past years several measures could be taken and financed meanwhile. International S&T cooperation Russia has put strong emphasis on S&T cooperation with EU Member States and Associated Countries 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 members6 and with five associated countries to FP77. As regards the 6th FP (2002-2007) Russia has the highest participation in the FP of all “Third Countries” (countries not being EU Member State or Associated Country to the FP). It has agreed with the EU a common space of research and education, which includes strengthening of participation in the EU’s FP, implementation of the Bologna process in education in Russia and harmonisation of rules and regulations. Important advancement has been achieved in realisation of this common space: Russia is running coordinated calls with the EU in the 7th FP. The next step in enhancing cooperation would be the association of Russia to the FP7. Accordingly Russia has officially requested in 2008 this association.

5 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. 6 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, United Kingdom. 7 Israel, FYR of Macedonia, Norway, Serbia, Turkey

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 21/06/2009


3 Bilateral cooperation in comparison – ERA.Net RUS survey results

3.1 Methodology Bilateral cooperation between EU/AC and Russia is analysed by way of a survey among R&D funding bodies (or so-called “programme owners”) in the countries concerned. The survey consists of a sample of questions, which test for a variety of aspects of bilateral R&D funding cooperation, ranging from bilateral agreements, budgets invested, programme and evaluation procedures, thematic focus, etc. Methodologically it has to be mentioned that it is obviously not very easy to convince programme owners to provide data for such a survey. And as second methodological remark concerns comparability of data, which is for several categories of questions not given: there are differences in accounting of budgets, modes of counting bilateral projects with Russia, etc.

3.2 Preliminary results of survey among EU/AC Programme Owners

The survey sample includes currently complete responses of 15 organisations from the following countries: AT, CH, DE, FI, FR, GR, HU, NO, TR. Several organisations from other countries have provided only partly information up to now: BG, DK, EE, IT, NL, PL, SE. Some responding organisations from countries such as CY and RO do not have cooperation with Russia. For some countries the relevant programme owners need still to be identified and contacted in the next survey stage. Until end of June 2009 the following programme owners from EU/AC have taken part in the survey: • Austrian Academy of Sciences • Austrian Science Fund (FWF) • Österreichische Forschungsgemeinschaft, Austria • Danish National Research Found, • Estonian Science Foundation • Academy of Finland • CNRS, France • Helmholtz Association, Germany • International Bureau (DLR), Germany • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), Germany • GSRT, Hellenic Ministry for Development, Greece • Hungarian Academy of Science • The Research Council of Norway • Swiss National Science Foundation • TUBITAK, Turkey

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 21/06/2009


Out of the sample of responding organisations, the majority or 47% are governmental organisations. Non-governmental organisations make up 33% of responding funding organisations and 20% are research institutions operating also funding programmes.

Organisation Type of the EU/AC programme owners

47%

33%

20%

governmental non-governmental research institution

Cooperation Instruments – EU/AC The following diagram describes the instruments that the EU/AC programme owners apply in order to support international S&T cooperation. Responding EU/AC programme owners have in two thirds of cases fixed their cooperation with an agreement with a Russian partner organisation. What concerns funding instruments, most popular are mobility support, support for RTDI projects and joint funding programmes.

10 10

5

9

4

2

6

3

8

2

0123456789

10

No o

f Pro

gram

me o

wner

s

S&T Agreem

ents w

ith fore

ign org

Mobilty

of rese

archer

s

Exchang

e of kn

ow ho

w

Joint i

mplement

ation o

f RDTI p

rojects

Access

to infr

astruc

ture

Technic

al supp

ort/pro

vision

of equ

ipment

Dissem

.of RDTI r

esults

and ac

com. m

esures

Joint l

aborato

ries

Joint f

unding

progr

ammes

other

Instruments in order to support international S&T cooperation

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 21/06/2009


Beneficiaries of S&T support – EU/AC 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 three respondents as beneficiary of S&T support.

10

5

3

9

3

0123456789

10

No o

f Pro

gram

me o

wner

s

Public res

earch organisa

tions

Private non - p

rofit rese

arch organisa

tions

Enterprise

s

Individual resea

rchers

Other

Beneficiaries of the Programme Owners cooperation support

Budget An interesting indicator for EU/AC programme owners is a comparison of the overall budget for international S&T cooperation with the budget for cooperation with Russia for the year 2008. Only for a limited number of organizations the budget for cooperation with Russia is available; these amounts are obviously not always separately calculated from the overall international cooperation budget. The Research Council of Norway has the highest overall international cooperation budget, which is entirely dedicated to cooperation with Russia. The Academy of Finland has, according to available figures, the second highest budget for S&T cooperation with Russia; it has been ranked at the end of the table, because the overall amount for international S&T cooperation was not available. For the Austrian Science Fund and CNRS/France it can be observed that they invest around 20% of their international S&T cooperation budget into cooperation with Russia.

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 21/06/2009


Overall budget for international R&D cooperation and budget for cooperation with Russia, 2008

€ 0

€ 2.000.000

€ 4.000.000

€ 6.000.000

€ 8.000.000

€ 10.000.000

€ 12.000.000

€ 14.000.000

RCN/NO

IB-D

LR/D

E

FWF/A

T

DNRF/DK

CNRS/FR

GSRT/GR

SNF/CH

Helmho

ltz/D

E

ÖFG/AT

AAS/AT

AKA/FI

overallRU

Notes: • Non-EURO currencies have been converted to EURO with rate of the European Central

Bank (ECB) on 31.12.2008 • The budgets for GSRT/GR and AKA/FI have been averaged for the years 2006-08, as there

have been substantial changes in annual budgets. • The budget for Helmholtz/DE indicates a higher budget for cooperation with Russia than

overall for international research cooperation; this is due to an additional local Rouble budget for Russia.

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 21/06/2009


Thematic priorities – EU/AC The thematic priorities for bilateral S&T cooperation with Russia have been ranked according to frequency of mentioning, whereby the ranking should be considered very cautiously due to the size of the sample and bias towards some responding countries for the moment: ICT, Socioeconomics and humanities, Environment and Climate Change, Energy, Space, Nanotechnologies and Materials, Health, Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, Transport and Aeronautics. Security has not been mentioned yet as a priority, which indicates the sensibility of this research field.

01234567

No of Programme owners

Health

Food Agricultures and Fisheries

Biotechnology

Nanotechnologies/MaterialsEnergy

Environment, Clim

ate Change

Transport, Aeronautics

Socioeconomic sciences & humanities

SecuritySpace ICT

Other

Priorities

Thematic priorities for bilateral S&T cooperation with Russia

Obstacles – EU/AC In terms of obstacles to bilateral S&T cooperation with Russia, responding programme owners from EU/AC mentioned most frequently legal problems and visa problems. Cultural and language barriers as well as budget problems, including troubles with money transfer are an issue too.

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 21/06/2009


Evaluation procedures – EU/AC Regarding evaluation procedures it was first tested, whether the project proposals were evaluated separately in each country or whether the EU/AC programme owners apply a joint review procedure with a Russian funding partner. The majority of the programme owners use a separate evaluation procedure.

Types of Evaluation procedures

62%

12%

13%13%

Separate evaluation procedure

Joint evaluation procedure

Both procedures are applied (2 stage evaluation procedure)

other

The majority (62%) of the EU/AC programme owners give to the evaluation of the proposals independent researchers, using mostly a combined remote and in situ/committee meeting procedure. Taking into account the type of the proposals, the number of experts nominated by the different EU/AC programme owners in order to evaluate one project proposal ranges from 1 to 5, with 2 experts per proposal being the most commonly used approach. The duration of the evaluation procedure ranges from few weeks up to 8 months; on average duration is 3-4 months. 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.

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 21/06/2009


Most programme owners use optional evaluation criteria that can positively influence the funding decision. Interestingly more than 50% of responding organizations try to stimulate participation of young scientists in bilateral S&T cooperation through an optional evaluation criteria:

Optional evaluation criteria that can positively influence the funding decision

51%

6%6%6%

31%

participation of young researchers links to industryparticipation of SMEs otherwithout criteria

Evaluation criteria that are most frequently used by the EU/AC programme owners focus on scientific excellence of project proposals and on qualification and feasibility of projects.

02468

101214No of programme

owners

Scientific and technical merits of the proposals

Suitability of applicants & feasibility of the projects

Signific. of the research regard. inter. co-operation

Requested budget

National priorities

Add. value of the bi -(or multi-) lateral collaboration

otherType of evaluation criteria

Use of Evaluation criteria

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 21/06/2009


Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) – EU/AC For IPR rules, 69% of respondents have either no IPR rules or have not indicated any. For 6% of responding organisations, funded projects need to conclude an IPR agreement for the project. 13% of responding organisations do recommend project consortia to conclude IPR agreements and for another 13% of organisations framework agreements between the funding organisations do regulate IPR questions (e.g. share of IPR among project consortium). Chart: IPR rules

6%

13%

13%

69%

agreement oblig.agreement recom.oth. specific rulesno specific rules

Impact Assessments - EU/AC Less than 20% of responding organisations are performing impact assessments of their bilateral cooperation programmes with Russia. But it should be noted that more organisations are planning to do such impact assessments, which points to the fact, that evaluations are becoming more important in general as a justification and planning tool.

3.3 Preliminary results of survey among Russian Programme Owners

Until end of June 2009 the following Russian programme owners have been surveyed and interviewed: • Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) • Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR) • Russian Foundation for Humanities (RFH) • Foundation for Assistance to Small Innovative Enterprises (FASIE) • Russian Venture Company (RVK) • Russian Corporation for Nanotechnologies (Rusnano) • Ministry of Economic Development (Mineconomrazvitie) • Ministry of Industry and Trade (Minpromtorg)

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 21/06/2009


At least two more organisations, the Ministry of Education and Science and the Federal Agency of Science and Innovation (FASI or Rosnauka) will be surveyed and interviewed. In the following, first preliminary results of the survey and in-depth interviews are presented. Russian programme owners relevant for international cooperation are all governmental organisations, whereby the Russian Academy of Sciences is in first line a research institution. This underlines the dominance of the governmental sector in the Russian R&D funding system, as there are no relevant private or non-governmental research funding bodies in Russia yet. There is differentiation between these programme owners along the lines of the innovation chain: 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 in first line a research organisation, which uses, similar to other Academies of Sciences in EU/AC a small portion of its funds for mobility of its researchers, above all with partner Academies. The Russian Foundation for Basic Research is the focus point of bilateral funding cooperation for the sciences; it has the broadest range of bilateral agreements with EU/AC and is de-facto implementing a large part of the practical side of intergovernmental agreements concluded by the Ministry of Education and Research. RFH implements on a much smaller scale bilateral cooperation in the Humanities and Social Sciences. 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 only to a limited extent opened for international cooperation. Financially very substantial is cooperation on multilateral scale, where Rosnauka is providing co-funding for collaborative calls within FP7 via the Federal Targeted Programme “R&D in Priority Fields of the S&T Complex of Russia (2007-2012)”. 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 for the moment 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 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 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 2009-16.8 Both RVC and Rusnano have been established recently and are in the process of developing their international cooperation activities. 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 fund also advanced forms of cooperation such as joint labs. Beneficiaries of RFBR support are individual researchers, while FASIE provides support above all to small enterprises and to a 8 News of 16.04.2009 at www.rusnano.com

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 21/06/2009


much lesser extent to individual researchers. From the budgetary point of view, RFBR has of these organisations by far the comparatively highest annual budget for international cooperation. It amounted in 2008 to close to 250 million Russian Roubles, which was according to the conversion rate at the end of 2008 around € 5.9 million. Around 50% of this budget is invested in cooperation with funding partners from EU/AC.

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

Rus

sian

Rou

bles

(RU

B)

20072008

The FASIE budget for international cooperation has in 2008 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.

FASIE budget for international cooperation

€ 0

€ 200.000

€ 400.000

€ 600.000

€ 800.000

€ 1.000.000

€ 1.200.000

overall EU/AC

200620072008

Thematic Priorities Thematically RFBR covers all fields of the sciences, but normally not humanities and social sciences. FASIE is thematically completely open, but has only a very limited number of projects in humanities and social sciences.

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 21/06/2009


Obstacles for S&T cooperation programmes Obstacles that were reported for bilateral cooperation included: • budgetary limits and uncertainties, • legal limitations, • import of equipment (import duties) • and lack of information on financial tools for cooperation. Evaluation procedures Mobility projects in the frame of the RAS exchange programmes undergo internal evaluation; projects are supported based on judgement of substance of cooperation, which has been established already between RAS researchers and foreign scientists. RFBR and FASIE joint calls are evaluated usually remotely by 2, in the case of FASIE sometimes 3 independent experts, recruited from the scientific community of Russia. Evaluation takes normally only 1-2 months. Evaluation results are then compared with results of the funding partners and funding decisions agreed. 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 the Russian legislation, especially the 4th part of the civil code. According to Russian funding bodies, the IPR situation has substantially improved over past years; contradictions between the law and normative acts of the government have been abolished and de-facto IPR are should no longer be a problematic point in bilateral cooperation. Sensible fields for IPR, such as in defence related R&D, do although persist. Impact Assessments Impact Assessments or evaluations of the bilateral programmes have not been yet been performed by Russian funding organisations. This is a pattern similar to EU/AC. But at the side of RFBR it is planned to perform an impact assessment in the form of a self-evaluation still in 2009. The results shall serve a stock taking of ongoing cooperation and facilitate the focussing of funding on most promising cooperations.

3.4 Conclusions of preliminary survey results 1. An impressive wealth of S&T cooperation exists between Russia and EU/AC on

bilateral as well as multilateral level. Even small EU Member States such as Malta cooperate with Russian teams at least in the frame of EU funded projects. On 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; this concerns for example the Nordic countries Finland and Norway, which have as Russian neighbours also financially substantial cooperation programmes. But also Austria, Greece, Italy, Switzerland, and UK have traditionally good and comprehensive cooperation with Russia. Interestingly, the Netherlands, which have long had a cooperation programme with Russia, which generated positive results, have reduced their cooperation.

2. Funding programmes in basic research are obviously more substantial, which reflects the strength of Russia in basic research. Further down the innovation pipeline, cooperation is beginning to develop more comprehensively: joint calls FASIE-OSEO, IB; international participation in Rusnano or RVK programmes can be mentioned here.

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 21/06/2009


3. Budgets for EU/AC funding organisations 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, DE, NO, FR, FI.

4. Thematic priorities are broad for the main Russian funding bodies, but at the EU/AC side several funding organisations have defined priorities for their cooperation with Russia (e.g. Norway: Energy, Oceans, etc.)

5. A variety of obstacles, such as legal problems and budgetary limitations have been mentioned by funding organisations, which do hamper the bilateral cooperation.

6. Evaluation procedures for projects supported are mostly well established in EU/AC as well as in Russia. Evaluations are usually performed by 2-3 independent experts and tend to be shorter in timing in Russia.

7. Impact assessments of cooperation programmes are only rarely undertaken. But that is often a general problem in international cooperation, which is valid also for FP funded projects. Impact assessments are planned for RFBR and EU/AC funding organisations. Some kind of self-evaluation is undertaken via annual reporting. But it goes only rarely into the substance of results: how many joint publications as a result of project, patents, technologies implemented, etc.

8. There is great interest on the side of the Russian programme owners to develop and deepen the cooperation with partners from the EU/AC.

4 Results of survey among CREST OMC members In the following, a part of the paper “Country Report Russia: An Analysis of EU-Russian S&T cooperation” is reproduced.9 The paper was drafted by Manfred Spiesberger in 2008 in the frame of the European Communities’ committee “CREST OMC Working Group: Internationalisation of R&D - Facing the Challenge of Globalisation: Approaches to a Proactive International Policy in S&T”. The part is dealing with bilateral cooperation EU-Russia, which was tested via a survey among members of the Working Group from EU Member States and Associated Countries.

4.1 Cooperation with Russia at bilateral level This chapter goes into details of S&T cooperation of EU Member States and Associated Countries to the Framework Programme with Russia. It sheds light on the strategies and challenges of cooperation at this bilateral level. Science cooperation with Western Europe was ongoing already during the period of the Soviet Union. Russian scientists cooperated internationally mainly within the former Eastern Block, with colleagues in the communist satellite countries. But scientific contacts with Western Europe, USA, and other countries did take place already during the Soviet period. Formal S&T agreements between Western European countries and Russia date back to the eighties of last century and were at that time concluded still with the Soviet Union. The bilateral cooperation with Russia will be analysed over a number of dimensions, covering strategic aspects, instruments of cooperation, scientific priorities in the cooperation, challenges and good practice. The chapter is based on results of a questionnaire regarding policies and experiences of S&T cooperation with Russia, which has been filled in by a majority of EU Member States and Associated Countries to the FP in spring and summer

9 http://ec.europa.eu/research/iscp/pdf/crest_russia_08-12-08.pdf

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 21/06/2009


2008.10 Overall 23 countries have provided information on their cooperation with Russia out of a potential number of currently 37 Member States and Associated Countries. The survey has been submitted only to 32 countries, as several newly Associated Countries have not yet participated in the CREST Working Group.

4.2 Strategies The starting point is here that more than 50% of Member States and Associated Countries responding to the survey have a general strategy towards Russia over a broader range of policy fields. Countries with a comprehensive strategy are Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain, and Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom. When it comes to S&T cooperation, the picture becomes more concrete; three quarters of responding countries have taken strategic initiatives in S&T cooperation with Russia over the past three years and approximately two thirds are planning such initiatives over the coming five years Strategic initiatives to strengthen the bilateral S&T cooperation with Russia:

Most countries intending to take initiatives in cooperation have taken initiatives in the past. The difference being Lithuania, Romania, United Kingdom and Turkey having taken initiatives in the past years, but not planning new ones in the years to come. The only country having switched from less to more active is Latvia, which plans to undertake new initiatives in the coming years. The stability in countries having taken initiatives and planning new ones points to a fruitful cooperation, as obviously positive experience leads to further stimulation of the S&T cooperation. Initiatives in this context range from joint working groups and dialogue on S&T, joint funding programmes, use of infrastructure and scientific workshops, to enhancing cooperation in the frame of EU funded projects. S&T agreements: a large majority of countries has underpinned the cooperation with Russia with a formalised S&T cooperation agreement. Roughly three quarters of countries responding to the questionnaire, which are 17 countries, have agreements in place.11 Most of these countries have concluded the agreements already in the 1990ies. France and Germany

10 The questionnaires to Member States and Associated Countries on their cooperation with Russia have been analysed by Dr. Ales Gnamus, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies of the Joint Research Center, which did provide valuable input to this chapter. 11 The Swiss agreement has already been counted as active, although it was still under preparation at the time of the survey in spring 2008.

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 21/06/2009


have the longest tradition of an agreement with Russia; its agreements date back to 1966 for France and 1986 for Germany and were concluded at that time with the Soviet Union. Cooperation agreements with Russia:

According to the Russian ministry for education and science, S&T agreements have been concluded with 20 member states or associated countries out of a total of 37. The difference to the CREST Working Group survey is due to the fact that not all countries have answered the questionnaire, and that not all recently associated countries are represented in the WG.12 Future strategies: an important question concerns the future strategies of S&T cooperation with Russia. 70% of responding countries are willing to enhance the cooperation with Russia, Lithuania and Romania reconsider cooperation and only the Netherlands tend to reduce cooperation. Future tendency regarding S&T cooperation with Russia:

Evaluation: Another strategic survey issue concerned evaluations of S&T cooperation programmes with Russia. Only few countries, such as the Netherlands, Norway, and Slovenia have reported to have performed evaluations of their programmes until now. In the Dutch case it revealed a generally positive experience of scientists, whereby cooperation in basic oriented research in the sciences was highlighted as particularly successful. Other countries such as Austria and Germany perform a regular monitoring of programmes through their organisations managing the programmes or have established inventories and recommendations on cooperation and its instruments towards Russia.

12 See chapter 2 Main features of Russia’s current S&T system for the countries listed with the Russian ministry of Education and Science as having S&T agreements.

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 21/06/2009


A more systematic programme evaluation would provide valuable input for all Member States and Associated Countries for developing and coordinating their S&T cooperation with Russia. Analysis of programmes helps reveal successes, challenges and results of these programmes and gives strategic guidance for improving and for ways forward of cooperation with Russia. Enhanced coordination: The final strategy related survey question tested the support among Member States and Associated Countries for exploring options regarding enhanced coordination and regarding joint approaches or actions towards Russia. 75% of responding countries do support this idea, which is an indicator for the necessity of coordination and for the willingness to join forces on EU level. But it is also an indicator for the need of a “variable geometry” approach, where only a group of willing countries moves forward in developing a coordinated and/or joint approach. This result is confirmed by the different regional ERA.Net projects, targeting for example the Western Balkan Countries or Russia, where only an interested group of countries joins forces to develop new mechanisms of collaboration with the targeted region. Explore options for enhanced coordination and joint approaches/actions for S&T cooperation with Russia

Instruments Member States and Associated Countries use a variety of instruments to provide platforms and for stimulating the S&T cooperation with Russia. In the following, these instruments have been charted according to the frequency of country responses. Each mentioned instrument represents a broader category into which the distinct forms of cooperation of each country have been grouped. The chart shows that funding of joint research projects and measures for stimulating mobility are the most common instruments used by Member States and Associated Countries in its S&T cooperation with Russia; sixteen and fifteen out of twenty one responding countries explicitly mentioned the use of these instruments. With “research projects”, it should here be understood that this instrument ranges from support of few bilateral research projects to entire joint funding programmes for research projects. Mobility support includes measures such as fellowships, grants for visits, and joint mobility support programmes. Twelve countries mentioned the support of scientific seminars, workshops for matchmaking, and scientific and informational conferences as an instrument for stimulating the S&T cooperation. Eleven countries use joint committees or other forums for dialogue, exchanges of views and development of bilateral cooperation instruments. S&T dialogue is targeting the policy level and involves therefore mainly S&T policy makers, ranging from officials to representatives of scientific organisations.

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 21/06/2009


Instruments for bilateral S&T cooperation with Russia:

Nine responding countries have either placed an S&T attaché at their embassy in Russia, or have representations of research organisations or research funding bodies in Russia. Countries with long standing and comprehensive cooperation have established joint laboratories, joint institutes or share infrastructure with Russia; these six countries are France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, and Switzerland. Four responding countries try explicitly to enhance bilateral cooperation via the EU level. Mentioning of cooperation via the EU-level explicitly as an instrument reflects the fact that several responding countries are actively involved in EU funded projects for enhancing cooperation with Russia, such as BILAT-RUS and the upcoming ERA.Net RUS (due to start in February 2009). The last instrument, business R&D, includes cooperation in applied research and R&D involving businesses. It is highlighted only by three responding countries. This reveals again the Russian weakness in application oriented research versus its strengths in basic oriented research. It should be mentioned that although some countries do not have formal instruments available, they have de-facto a lot of cooperation ongoing on informal level. This is the case for example in the Baltic countries, where scientists still have well established links with their colleagues in Russia and where joint projects, mobility and workshops are supported on institutional level.13 The non-existence of formal agreements is to some extent a sign of the sometimes prickly political relationship between Baltic countries and Russia, which hinders the formalisation of cooperation at an official level.

4.3 Thematic Priorities Member States and Associated Countries were also asked about thematic priorities in S&T cooperation with Russia. There are several scientific topics, mentioned rather evenly by the responding countries. The front runner is biotechnology, but narrowly followed by energy, environment and nanotechnologies, all mentioned six times by respondents. Then follow space, materials, as well as health and pharmacology as next important priorities. Thematic priorities at the bilateral level are relevant and supported by funding also at the EU-level. For

13 Estonia reported in this context that co-publication of its scientists with Russian colleagues is similar in size to co-publication with German or French colleagues.

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 21/06/2009


comparison a more profound analysis of projects supported at bilateral level would be very useful. Thematic Priorities for bilateral S&T cooperation with Russia:

Challenges for bilateral cooperation The survey among Member States and Associated Countries tested the experiences and challenges in bilateral S&T cooperation with Russia. Several countries reported very good scientific results, successful and smoothly running collaboration, and positive feedback from scientists. But there are a range of challenges to this cooperation too. These challenges concern first administrative problems, such as problems with exchange of scientific material, and cumbersome visa procedures, which render scientific work difficult. A visa facilitation agreement between Russia and the EU has entered into force in June 2007, which includes rules for cost-free visa and an administratively simplified visa application procedure for participants in scientific exchange programmes. But the agreement has obviously not yet come to full fruition and did not yet facilitate the scientific exchange procedures in reality as expected. Administrative problems concern also a rather complex and bureaucratic Russian governmental administration and corruption. A second pressing issue for responding countries concerns Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). Clear rules for IPR are essential as a stable framework for fruitful S&T cooperation. They secure that parties participating in an R&D project do safeguard their rights on inventions and know-how and may use them in further investigations or for applications in the business sphere. Not surprisingly a third challenge mentioned by quite a few respondents relates to the innovation aspect in the cooperation, the economic application of jointly funded research, and technology transfer. This aspect is still underdeveloped in Russia and its international S&T cooperation. Accordingly respondents highlighted that it shall be further stimulated in the cooperation. This response is coherent with findings regarding the overall S&T situation in Russia, which

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 21/06/2009


let state already above a lack of innovation for Russian R&D efforts and a lack of business R&D. A fourth point mentioned by respondents reveals problems with the R&D funding system on the Russian side. Funding by the Russian counterpart is not always available or paid to scientists. This challenge should hopefully improve because of Russia’s more solid financial state and increased financial inflows into R&D. Differences in legal systems and administrative regulations do hamper cooperation too. This concerns for example the cooperation of funding bodies, where the Russian side has limitations in funding mobility of their scientists or in transferring funds for joint R&D projects abroad. A fifth frequently mentioned issue is stimulation of cooperation via the EU-level. On the one hand this allows building up of critical mass in terms of scientific scope and financial resources towards the big partner Russia, which is especially important for the smaller countries. An example here is once again the ERA.Net Russia project, bringing a group of ten countries14 together with the aim of developing a jointly funded call for research projects. On the other hand countries with limited bilateral cooperation aspire to enhance exchanges via joint EU initiatives or collaboration within FP funded research projects. Finally some responding countries highlighted the challenge of developing the cooperation further to more advanced forms such as joint research institutions, shared infrastructure and joint funding programmes.

4.4 Good practice in bilateral cooperation Germany has the most developed bilateral cooperation with Russia and has consequently entered into a strategic partnership on education, research and innovation. The cooperation between the two countries is broad in scope and in a comparatively mature state, including several support schemes for mobility and research projects, and on a more important scale, joint laboratories and shared infrastructure. Russia has committed itself to substantial co-funding of more than 400 Mio € as contribution to international R&D infrastructures located in Germany, for instance for the European X-ray laser project XFEL at DESY in Hamburg or the Facility for Antiproton and Ion Research (FAIR) in Darmstadt. German research funding organisations (DFG) or research organisations (Helmholtz and Fraunhofer) have representatives based in Moscow. But also smaller countries such as Finland or Austria have entered into comprehensive cooperation. Austria has fellowship schemes available, which are open for applications from Russian scientists. They are indeed used and bring a certain number of Russian scientists for research stays to Austria. Fellowships are available also in the opposite direction, but more modestly used by Austrian scientists. Short term mobility is supported via a scientific-technical agreement on governmental level. This scheme is implemented jointly by the Austrian Exchange Service and the RFBR. In 2008 the Austrian Science Fund and the RFBR have launched its first thematically open joint call for research projects. This development has been strategically important for Austria, as it helps offset the breaking away of INTAS as a support tool. Austria had traditionally used INTAS for promoting its scientific cooperation with Russia and had placed therefore a national expert in the INTAS secretariat.

14 The ten countries participating in ERA.Net RUS are Austria, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Norway, Russia, and Turkey.

ERA.Net RUS – FP7-226164 21/06/2009


5 Annex – Organogramm of the Russian R&D System

International Bureau of the BMBF - Creating international research and education networks 1

Franziska MüllerBonn

23 July 2009

Synergies BS-ERA.Net/ ERA.Net RUS

mueller.franziska

Textfeld

Attachment 2


• Same instruments

• Projects have started at the same time

• Many similar tasks, especially in the analytical phase (work package 1)Aim: Learning lessons on existing bilateral cooperation (programmes)Preparing the ground for coordination of EU MS/AC S&T programmes with the BS region/ with Russia (multilateral cooperation)

• Often same groups addressed (programme owners in EU MS/ AC)

• Many countries (and partners) involved in both projects (on EU MS/AC side)

Why a coordinated approach?


What to coordinate? Next Steps Timing Task leadList of programme owners in EU MS/AC, BS countries and Russia

Continuous update of the list

Ongoing BS: GSRTRUS: DLR

Online survey Contacting programme owners again in order to finalize survey

At latest until end of July

BS: GSRTRUS: GSRT

Evaluation of online survey

Who will do it? In what form?

Until end of August?

BS: DLRRUS: GSRT

Guidelines for personal interviews with programme owners following the online survey

Find a common approach

Asap BS: DLRRUS: GSRT

Overview of activities to be coordinated


What to coordinate? Next Steps Timing Task leadImplementation of interviews

Distribution of work AsapUntil end of September?

BS: DLR/ ENEARUS: GSRT

Fact Sheets in order to gather information about programmes

ERA.Net RUS: will be addressed to Russian programme owners/ BS: EU MS/AC and BS

AsapUntil end of September?

BS: DLR/ENEARUS: DLR

Database of programmes to be implemented at IncrEAST platform (ERA.Net RUS)

Joint approach?? Autumn 09 BS: ?RUS: DLR

Overview of activities to be coordinated


Examples: 1. List of programme owners


2. Online questionnaire


3. Interview guideline


4. Programme Fact Sheet

Note: ERA.NET RUS addresses Russian programme owners only


Comparative Analysis


Vision for optimum use of synergies between projects and EU-COM policy

Inco Net: Thematical priority setting by means of brokerage eventsERA.Net: Pilot Joint Call in one of the thematical priority areas identified in theIncoNetEU-COM: Launches SICA or thematical ERA.Net in the same themeConsortia which participated in the PJC of the ERA.Nets as potential applicants


Discussion: proposed joint next steps

1. Agree on finalizing survey implementation: which countries are dealt with byBS-ERA.Net and which by ERA.Net RUS. E.g.:ERA.Net RUS: AT, GER, Nordic countries, HU, F, ESP, UK, NL, PL, Italy, Greece, TR, Cyprus, SerbiaBS ERA.Net: RO, BG, MT

2. Agree on evaluation (who? In what form?)

3. Agree on interview guideline (available at DLR)

4. Agree on interview implementationERA.Net RUS: AT, GER, Nordic countries, NL, SUI, UK, H, PLBS ERA.Net: IT, GR, TR, ROM, BG, RO

5. Joint Database of S&T programmes (to be stored at IncrEAST platform)?


Franziska MüllerInternational Bureau of the BMBFc/o German Aerospace CenterHeinrich-Konen-Str. 153227 Bonn Phone: +49 (0)228 3821-447Fax: 0228 / 3821-444 E-mail: franziska.mueller@dlr.dewww.internationales-buero.dewww.kooperation-international.de

Thank you very much for your attention.

internal project newsletter for consortium members 2 ... · 2. oleg luksha, anton yanovsky/russian...

Documents