Presented during the Ministerial Round Table on Science and Higher Education. From Bilateral to pan-European Cooperation held over 21-22 May 2010 in Tirana, Albania

1. SEE Expert Meeting and Ministerial Round Table
Strengthening 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, Austria
Tirana 21.May 2010

2. 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
Goal: analysing best practices and obstacles
towards common procedures ?
2

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
3

4. 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. 5
UNMIK/Kosovo
Montenegro
Romania
Slovenia
Moldova
Bulgaria
Albania
Croatia
Greece
Turkey
Serbia
FYRM
BiH
Albania X X P X X X X X
BiH X X X X X P X X
Bulgaria X X X X X X X P X X
Croatia P X X X X X X X X X
FYRM X X X X X X X
Greece X X X X X X X
Montenegro X X X X X X
Moldova X X X X
Romania X X X P X X
Serbia P P X X X P X
Slovenia X X X X X X X X X X
Turkey X X X X X X X X X
UNMIK/
Kosovo
Austria X X X X X P X
Belgium X X
Cyprus X
Czech Republic X X X
Denmark X
Estonia X
Finland X
France P X X X X X X
Germany X X X X X X
Hungary X X X X X X
Ireland X
Italy X X X X X X X
Latvia
Lithuania X
Luxembourg X
Malta X
Netherlands
Poland X X X X X
Portugal X X
Slovakia X X X X X
Spain X X P X
Sweden
United X X X
Kingdom

6. Environment. research
Agri-culture -businss
Impr. the quality of
Energy +Sust.dev.
Nano-technology
Bio-techn. Food
ater resources
aterials
Bio-medicine
Life sciences
Genomics
Space res.
Other
ICT
lif
NewM
W
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 6

7. 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 country
sinks with rising specialization of scientific research
• The costs of supplying specialized education facilities are rising
dramatically
7

8. Important Questions:
What to Fund? – Funding Policy
How to do it? – Funding Technical
Conclusion Strategies, priorities, decision making:
• For different tasks, different policy capacities are in
place 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.
8

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 9

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.
10

11. Conclusion Legal and administrative limitations:
All schemes primarily support “bilateral” science.
Bilateral is either determined by
• the territory
• the Person
• the Goal
that is considered as Bilateral.
Usually domestic (host country) rules are applied concerning:
• conflict of interest,
• good scientific practice,
• confidentiality and
• intellectual property rights
11

12. Conclusion application processing:
• Application provisions consist of application forms or
instructions 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 of
both.
• Usually the proposals are in local language or a lingua-
franca (mostly English) or a mix of both
• The application usually contains information about: the
planed work including financial aspects, existing work
concerning the same topic, information about the
conducting people (CV) as well as information concerning
their previous work (Publications) and information about
the involved institutions .
12

13. Conclusion Peer review process:
• Usually peers outside the own organisation (in
many cases international) evaluate the scientific quality of
the 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 is
overlapping).
13

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.
14

15. Conclusion Obstacles and best practices
Main 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
15

16. Conclusion Obstacles and best practices
Best 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
16

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 the
public sector
In the private Sector the Communication Methods can be described
as: 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.
17

18. 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