SEE Expert Meeting and Ministerial Round TableStrengthening Scientific Research and Higher Education. From

Bilateral to pan-European Cooperation

Scientific areas and frameworks of bi-lateral and regional cooperation. Evaluation of existing and planned

agreements of cooperation

Dr. Silvo Korez, Zentrum für Soziale Innovation, AustriaTirana 21.May 2010

Method:

E-mail Interviews and desk research on bilateral scientific research and higher education agreements covering:

- funding instruments- funding principles - legal and administrative limitations- application processing- Reviewing- funding decision

2

Goal: analysing best practices and obstaclestowards common procedures ?

3

Status Quo in Bilateral Scientific Research and Higher Education Funding in SEE

• E-Mail Enquire was sent to partners and major funding organisations and was followed by intensive Desk Research

• Report content:– summaries of the funding practices and strategies of

organizations– description of similarities and differences in strategies,

priorities, funding instruments and practices, evaluation, decision-making and administrative and legal issues -analysis of the above mentioned

The actual work

- is a view from outside - a public view- It is not so much a view on what has been "sent" but rather

on what can be "received" using the methods described- The work has thus a mirror function. - It is comprehensive but not a taxative enumeration of

contracts in a legal binding sense. - It is an analysis of what is visible using the methods described. - This difference between "sent" and "received" is a central

element in the story, especially if it comes to bilateral contracts.

5

Albania

BiH

Bulgaria

Croatia

FYRM

Greece

Montenegro

Moldova

Romania

Serbia

Slovenia

Turkey

UNMIK/Kosovo

Alb

ania

X

X

P

X

X

X

X

X

BiH

X

X

X

X

X

P

X

X

Bulg

aria

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

P

X

X

Cro

atia

P

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

FY

RM

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

G

ree

ce

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Mon

tene

gro

X

X

X

X

X

X

Mo

ldo

va

X

X

X

X

R

om

an

ia

X

X

X

P

X

X

S

erb

ia

P

P

X

X

X

P

X

Slo

ven

ia

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

T

urke

y X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

U

NM

IK/

Koso

vo

Au

stria

X

X

X

X

X

P

X

Belg

ium

X

X

Cyp

rus

X

Cze

ch R

epu

blic

X

X

X

De

nm

ark

X

Esto

nia

X

F

inla

nd

X

F

ran

ce

P

X

X

X

X

X

X

Ge

rmany

X

X

X

X

X

X

H

ung

ary

X

X

X

X

X

X

Ire

lan

d

X

Italy

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

La

tvia

Lith

ua

nia

X

Lu

xem

bo

urg

X

M

alta

X

N

eth

erla

nds

P

ola

nd

X

X

X

X

X

Po

rtug

al

X

X

S

lova

kia

X

X

X

X

X

Sp

ain

X

X

P

X

Sw

ede

n

U

nite

d

Kin

gdo

m

X

X

X

6

ICT

Nan

o-te

chno

logy

New

Mat

eria

ls

Spac

e re

s.

Ene

rgy +

Sust

.dev

.

Agri

-cultur

e -b

usin

ss

Bio

-tec

hn.

Food

Bio

-med

icin

e

Lif

e sc

ience

s

Gen

om

ics

Impr

. the

qua

lity

of

lif

Env

iron

men

t. res

earc

h

Wat

er res

ourc

es

Oth

er

Alb

BiH X X X X X X

Bulg X X X X Foresight

Cro X X X X X X X

FYRM X X X X X X X Transport

Ecology

Chemistry

Earth quacking

Greece X X X X X X X Marine sciences

Natural hazards

Cultural heritage

Monten X X X X X X X

Moldava

Romania X X X X X X X X

Serbia

Slovenia X X X X X X Social sciences

Turkey

UN-Ko

Why? Bilateral Scientific Research and Higher

Education Funding in SEE?

• By increasing specialization research becomes more international

• This is especially valid for small states

• The probability to find a cooperation partner in the own countrysinks with rising specialization of scientific research

• The costs of supplying specialized education facilities are rising dramatically

7

8

Conclusion Strategies, priorities, decision making:

• For different tasks, different policy capacities are inplace in different Institutions.

• They reach from pure administrative function (“post office function”) to autonomy over the use of Funds.

• National legal restrictions play an important part here.

Important Questions:

What to Fund? – Funding Policy

How to do it? – Funding Technical

9

Conclusion funding instruments: A broad variety of funding instruments is in place in the covered countries. They could be grouped in:

• funding instruments focused on conducting research• funding instruments focused on supporting research

(networking, print etc.)• funding instruments focused on training

Approaches are either “bottom up” or “top down”, or a mix of both. Instruments are either focused on:

• organisation,• person,• activity• infrastructure • a mix of it

10

Conclusion funding principles:

Funding principles are either

• person centred or • institution centred or • a mix of both

Most of the schemes follow solely (bilateral) territorial principles.International portability of funds is an exception. In some cases even national portability of (personal) funds is excluded. (From one Institution to another)Eligibility of VAT is more usual than eligibility of Overheads.

11

Conclusion Legal and administrative limitations:

All schemes primarily support “bilateral” science. Bilateral is either determined by

• the territory• the Person• the Goalthat is considered as Bilateral.

Usually domestic (host country) rules are applied concerning:

• conflict of interest, • good scientific practice, • confidentiality and • intellectual property rights

12

Conclusion application processing:

• Application provisions consist of application forms orinstructions for preparing the proposal or a mix of both.

• Applications have either fixed or open deadlines.• They have one stage or more stages (Pre-proposal) and

can be supplied electronically or in hardcopy or a mix ofboth.

• Usually the proposals are in local language or a lingua-franca (mostly English) or a mix of both

• The application usually contains information about: theplaned work including financial aspects, existing workconcerning the same topic, information about the conducting people (CV) as well as information concerningtheir previous work (Publications) and information aboutthe involved institutions .

13

Conclusion Peer review process:

• Usually peers outside the own organisation (inmany cases international) evaluate the scientific quality ofthe proposals.

• In some cases the budget and feasibility is evaluated as well.• Reviewers are either individuals (at least two) or panels.• Reviewers are chosen by: a committee, council members, or

administrators. • The reason for exclusion of reviewers is usually the possibility

of vested interests recognized either formalised (e.g.common publication) or individual (wish of applicant or reviewer).

• Reviews either consist of an open text or a filled in form.• In some cases Instructions for the reviewer exist, in some not.• The Reviews are usually confidential• The review process, usually consist of one stage. In some cases a

second stage is possible. In some cases re-battles are possible.• The review process is usually separated (different bodies, people)

from the funding decision. In some cases it is not separated (it isoverlapping).

14

Conclusion funding decision:

• Usually the funding decisions are based on scientific peer review.

• The funding decision itself is usually taken by panels consisting of researchers, infrequent by individuals.

• In some cases a separate evaluation process (ranking) is in place between peer review and funding decision.

• This separate evaluation process is either declared or “hidden”due to budget constraints.

15

Conclusion Obstacles and best practicesMain obstacles for bi-lateral and transnational scientific

research and education programmes are:

• lack of political will• different policy capacities of institutions and countries • different reviewing standards in detail• different decision-making criteria• different administrative procedures• lack of time and qualified human resources• disbelieve in added value• worry about the withdrawal of funds• objections against earmarked funds

16

Conclusion Obstacles and best practicesBest practices are:

• The organisations contacted are central or the most important public research financiers in their countries.

• they have to consider the guidelines set by their governments.• Researchers have the possibility to influence on the funding

strategies and/or funding decisions.• the funding organisations contacted have various (different)

funding instruments and programmes.• They have considerable similarities in their funding

instruments. • The funding organisations are able to grant funding to

foreigners if they are working in the country in question.• Scientific peer review is common and confidential

17

Trends

Public Administration is changing fast:There is a trend towards “new public management” that means that management methods from the private sector find there way to thepublic sector

In the private Sector the Communication Methods can be describedas: Business to Business

Business to Customer

The adoption of this concept in the public sector is accompanied by extensive “Agencification”

Where the Agencies take over the “last mile” the Business to Customer communication.

In SEE the capacities for “Business to Business” communication are low.

Missing steering and coordination structures• to be able to accommodate the increasing complexity• repeated attempts to develop strategies are needed• these concepts have to manage to enter the political sphere and • Need to be implemented.

INTERNATIONALISATION – Analysis• Compilation of an overview of relevant RTD programmes and initiatives at

both the national and European levels• Comparison of the claims of the individual programmes with actual funding

reality (to do)

INTERNATIONALISATION – Recommendations• Strengthen Neighbourhood Policy (by intensifying scientific collaboration and

cooperation in education, research and development in the Central, Eastern and South East European Research Areas)

• Promote the own Country as a research and university location (in Central, Eastern and South East Europe, in selected non-European countries and in selected cooperative networks)

18