Operational Feasibility Study for STI Joint European Liaison Offices (STI JELOs) for European Research Organizations in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Japan, New Zealand, Russia, South Africa and the USA

Operational Feasibility Study for STI
Joint European Liaison Offices

(STI JELOs)
for
European Research Organizations
in
Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada,
China, Japan, New Zealand, Russia,
South Africa and the USA
Compiled by FFG, the Austrian Research Promotion Agency, within the BILAT USA 2.0 project
October 2015
Operational Feasibility Study for STI Joint European

Liaison Offices
(STI JELOs)
for
European Research Organizations
in
Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China,
Japan, New Zealand, Russia,
South Africa and the
USA
1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 5
BILAT-projects .................................................................................................................................. 5
The STI JELO Survey ......................................................................................................................... 5
2 General Outcome of the STI JELO Survey ............................................................................................. 7
Results.............................................................................................................................................. 7
Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 15
Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 17
3 Argentina ............................................................................................................................................ 18
Argentina-Specific Results ............................................................................................................. 18
Existing Representation Offices from Research Organizations in Argentina................................. 18
Cooperation with Existing Structures in Argentina ....................................................................... 19
Specific Interest in an STI JELO in Argentina .................................................................................. 19
Preferences and specifications relating to an STI JELO Argentina................................................. 22
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................... 24
4 Australia .............................................................................................................................................. 25
Organizations interested in an STI JELO in Australia .................................................................... 25
Type of organization interested in an STI JELO in Australia.......................................................... 26
Thematic areas of interest of organizations interested in an STI JELO with Australia ................. 27
Existing representations in Australia ............................................................................................. 28
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................... 29
5 Brazil ................................................................................................................................................... 30
Brazil-Specific Results .................................................................................................................... 30
Organisations with a representation in Brazil ............................................................................... 31
Organisations cooperating with existing structures or partners in Brazil ..................................... 33
Results regarding a potential STI JELO in Brazil ............................................................................. 34
Methodology for the launch of an STI JELO in Brazil ..................................................................... 36
Indicative cost calculation for an STI JELO in Brazil ....................................................................... 36
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................... 37
6 Canada ................................................................................................................................................ 39
Country-Specific Results ................................................................................................................ 39
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................... 39
7 China ................................................................................................................................................... 40
Existing representation offices in China ........................................................................................ 40
Existing cooperations with China................................................................................................... 41
Establishing an STI JELO in China ................................................................................................... 44
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................... 45
8 Japan ................................................................................................................................................... 47
General Results with regard to Japan ............................................................................................ 47
Organisations with a representation in Japan ............................................................................... 48
Organisations with an STI JELO-interest in Japan .......................................................................... 50
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................... 53
9 New Zealand ....................................................................................................................................... 54
EUROPEAN ORGANIZATIONS WITH A REPRESENTATION OFFICE IN NEW ZEALAND ........................ 54
EUROPEAN ORGANIZATIONS WHICH COOPERATE WITH NEW ZEALAND......................................... 54
EUROPEAN ORGANISATIONS INTERESTED IN AN STI JELO IN NEW ZEALAND .................................. 57
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................... 60
10 Russia ................................................................................................................................................ 61
Organizations with a representation in Russia: opportunities and limits ......................................... 61
Difficulties encountered for the establishment of a representation in Russia ................................. 62

Main services offered by the existing representations in Russia ...................................................... 63
Mechanisms which facilitated the establishment of the existing representations in Russia............ 64
Financial support for the existing representations in Russia............................................................. 65
Cooperation with existing structures or partners in Russia .............................................................. 66
Establishment of a STI Joint European Liaison Office in Third Countries and Russia ........................ 67
11 South Africa ...................................................................................................................................... 68
Organisations with representation offices in South Africa................................................................ 68
Organisation already cooperating with South Africa ........................................................................ 71
Organisations interested in an STI Joint European Liaison Office in South Africa ............................ 75
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................... 80
12 USA.................................................................................................................................................... 82
Organisations interested in an STI JELO in the USA....................................................................... 82
Existing representations in the USA .............................................................................................. 85
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................... 88
Annex A .............................................................................................................................................. 90
Annex B ............................................................................................................................................ 100
1 Introduction
BILAT-projects
BILAT-projects are EU-funded (FP7) projects with the aim to enhance and further develop the
1
research and innovation cooperation between the EU and an international partner country . One of
the tasks each participating BILAT-project has to perform is the conduction of a survey assessing the
feasibility of an STI Joint European Liaison Office (STI JELO) - requirement within the Working
Programme of 2012. The purpose of possible future STI JELOs would be to enhance, support, and
sustain research cooperation between the European Union and its international partner countries in
the field of science, technology and innovation. Through these offices, European research
organizations could be enabled to increase their visibility, widen their networks, initiate joint
research projects, organise workshops, and share facilities and costs. Supporting the representation
and internationalization of European research organizations ultimately promotes the European
Union as a strong and progressive STI landscape. As one of the first steps towards these JELO JELOs, a
survey was conducted and analysed to determine whether European research organizations are
interested and would be willing to join.
The STI JELO Survey

Twelve BILAT-projects jointly conducted the survey examining the interest about establishing STI
Joint European Liaison Offices of European research organisations in:
Argentina (ABEST III)
Korea (KONNECT)
Australia (CAESIE)
Mexico (EU-MEX INNOVA)
Brazil (B.BICE+)
New Zealand (FRIENZ)
Canada (ERA CAN+)
Russia (BILAT RUS Advanced)
China (DRAGON STAR)
South Africa (ESASTAP PLUS)
Japan (JEUPISTE)
USA (BILAT USA 2.0)
The joint activity was coordinated by BILAT USA 2.0 and supported by ABEST III. It started with a
workshop on October 30th, 2013, in Bonn, where most of the above mentioned BILAT-projects were
represented. Details of the questionnaire (Annex A) and the structure of the survey were discussed,
1
In this case only those Third Countries that have an S&T Agreement with the European Union
the target survey respondents were defined, and the task of contacting them was divided among the
different BILAT-projects. The workshop was followed by an intensive coordination process, in which
the questionnaire for the survey was reviewed by the BILAT-project coordinators and the responsible
Project Officers. The final approval by the EC was given in June 2014. The survey was launched and
made accessible online from September 1st to October 31st, 2014.
The target group of survey respondents included European research organizations, research funding
agencies, universities, university associations, SMEs, Clusters, and/or Technology Transfer offices.
The envisaged number of responses varied from 1-2 organizations for smaller EU countries, and 3-5
for larger EU members. Approximately 400 organizations in 42 European Union Member States (MS)
and Associated Countries (AC) were contacted, which, with a response rate of about 25%, led to a
total number of 94 responses. Initially, the target group of about 400 organisations was divided by
European country among the twelve BILAT-projects and was invited via e-mail to fill in the jointly
elaborated online questionnaire. In countries where the response rate was low, organizations were
additionally contacted directly via telephone to encourage further participation in the online survey.
The questions of the online questionnaire were mixed, i.e. the questionnaire enclosed open ended,
as well as multiple-choice questions. The structure of the survey was divided into two main parts.
The first part was designed to determine the current situation of European research organizations.
This included general information about the organization and its research topics, and information
regarding their current representation and cooperation status in the aforementioned twelve Third
countries. The second part of the survey focused on STI Joint European Liaison Offices (STI JELOs) for
European research organizations, identifying the general interest in an STI JELO for European
research organizations in each of the twelve Third countries, as well as the preferred office structure
and the services that should be offered (Complete list of questions, Annex B).
The data generated by the survey has been analysed and imbedded in this report. The discussion of
the results is divided into two main parts. The first section introduces the general outcome, which
includes a statistical profile of all survey participants (e.g. type of organization, country of origin, etc.)
and an overview of the general interest in STI JELOs in all included twelve Third countries (e.g.
preferred office structure and services), as well as results, conclusions and recommendations.
The second part focuses on Third Country specific results in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada,
China, Japan, New Zealand, Russia, South Africa and the USA.
2 General Outcome of the STI JELO Survey

Results
About 400 research organizations, research funding agencies, universities, university associations,
SMEs, Clusters, and/or Technology Transfer offices in 42 European Union Member States (MS) and
Associated Countries (AC) had been contacted by the twelve BILAT-project consortia. The
participation or response rate was about 25%, with a total number of 94 responding organizations
from 28 European MS and AC.
Type of organization
80%
of
the
participating
organisations
are
public
organisations, whereas 20% of them
are private.
Research organisation
Research funding agency
1
1
Research organisations, research

funding agencies and universities
account for about 80% of the
participating organisations. With 13%
(12)
representing
Other
organisations, the rest, i.e. SMEs,
SME
associations,
Technology
clusters and Technology transfer
offices do not have a representative
voice in this survey, accounting only
for about 6% (6) all together.
University
12
2
1
University association
43
Small/Medium sized
enterprise
SME association
22
Technology cluster
11
Technology transfer office
Other
STI activities (multiple answers possible)

Applied research
24
Basic research
9
67
Innovation activities
29
33
59
34
53
67 of the
94
participating
organizations are involved in Applied
research, 59 of them in Basic
research.
Experimental
development
Research
management
Translational research
53 of the organizations are engaged

in Innovation activities and 34 of
them in Experimental development.
Research funding
33 of the organizations are engaged

in Research management and 29 in
Translational research which applies
Other
findings from basic science to enhance human health and well-being, practised in fields such as
environmental and agricultural science, as well as the health, behavioural, and social sciences. 24
organisations are Research funding agencies.
The distribution between the different STI activities shows a good balance, meaning that
organisations in all important STI fields are more or less equally represented in this survey.
Country distribution of participating organisations in the survey
11
2 2 2 2 2 2
4 4 4
6 6
Albania
Belgium
Ireland
Netherlands
Republic of Moldova
Serbia
Slovakia
Turkey
Croatia
Cyprus
Hungary
Italy
Malta
Sweden
Finland
Luxembourg
Poland
Slovenia
Portugal
Switzerland
United Kingdom
Greece
Israel
Spain
Austria
Germany
Czech Republic
France
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
3 3 3 3
5 5 5
12
It is clear, that the fewer organisations participate in the survey from a specific European country,
the less representative are the results for that country. Nevertheless, the fact that the opinion of
organisations from 28 European MS or AC are represented in this survey, shows the overall
European interest in such international topics and makes it possible to draw overall conclusions to
some extent.
Given that the big European countries, such as France, Germany or Spain are well represented with
5-12 research organisations, each, makes the results more representative, in return.
Thematic research focus (multiple answers possible)
Other
Space
Raw materials
Aquatic resources
Mathematics
Research Infrastructure
Agriculture and forestry
Physics
Industrial technologies
Food and healthy diet
Bio-based industries
Earth sciences
Chemistry
Engineering
Biology
Social sciences and humanities
Material sciences and nanotechnology
Health and medical research
Energy
Biotechnology
Environment and Climate Change
ICT
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
The distribution between thematic research fields shows that about 50% of the responding
organisations are engaged in Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), Environment and
Climate Change, Biotechnlogy, Energy, Health and medical research, and/or Material sciences and
nanotechnology, respectively.
Interest in STI Joint Liaison Offices outside of Europe
67% of the responding organisations (63 of 94) are interested

in an STI Joint European Liaison Office outside of Europe. Only
33% (31 of 94) show no interest!
Yes
31
No
63
Preferred structure of a potential STI Joint European Liaison Office (STI JELO)
71% (45/63) of the responding
organisations interested in STI JELOs
outside Europe would prefer a physical
office over a virtual one, of which 54%
(34/63) a physical office together with
other representations, e.g. jointly with
the EU Delegation. In contrary, 17%
(11/63) would be in favour of a physical
independent office.
Physical (Office together with

other Representations - e.g.
jointly with EU Delegation)
Virtual
31
34
Physical (Independent Office)
11
No answer
18
About 29% (18/63) of the respondents,

interested in STI JELOs outside Europe,
would prefer a virtual office for a potential STI JELO.
Interest in an STI Joint European Liaison Office for a specific Third Country/Countries (multiple
answers possible)
45% (42) of the responding
organisations show interest in
an STI JELO in China, 44% (41)
show an interest in an STI JELO
in the USA and 40% (38) of them
in Brazil.
Nevertheless, the interest in STI
JELOs in the remaining Third
Countries included in the survey
is remarkable and more or less
steady.
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
42
41
38
30
30
27
25
24
22
20
20
16
10
STI Joint European Liaison Offices services to be provided (multiple answers possible)
Other
Being the EEN (Enterprise Europe Network) node
Providing partnering services for EU companies
Promoting EU participation in national programmes
Promoting participation in Horizon 2020
Visibility (joint exhibitions, show rooms, etc.)
Joint activities (sharing research facilities, joint awareness
raising activities, promotion, events, etc.)
Representation (coordination of European STI interests,
scientific staff exchange, etc.)
Joint funding (joint research projects, joint calls, etc.)
Networking (primary contacts, communication, information
exchange, structural access to relevant data, etc.)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
According to 63% (59) of the respondents the main service a potential STI JELO should provide as
being useful for a better joint achievement with other European organisations are Networking
activities, such as functioning as primary contacts for communication purposes and information
exchange for providing structural access to relevant data.
48% (45) of the respondents argue that the second important service would be preparing Joint
funding activities, such as joint research projects and joint calls.
About 47% (44) would take advantage of Representation services offered by an STI JELO, i.e. services
for coordinating European STI interests and scientific staff exchange.
About 45% (42) of the respondents would need and request Joint activities, such as sharing research
facilities, joint awareness raising activities, joint promotion measures, joint events, and similar.
42.5% (40) of the respondents would need an STI JELO for Visibility reasons, taking advantage of joint
exhibitions, show rooms, etc.
Between 20% and 40% of the responding research organisations would request from an STI JELO
Promotion and partnering services, such as promoting participation in Horizon 2020, promoting EU
participation in national programmes, as well as partnering with EU companies and the Enterprise
Europe Network.
11
Existing representations in Third Countries

20% of the organizations
that participated in the
on-line survey have a
representation outside of
Europe.
Nevertheless,
80% do not have an
existing representation in
the above stated twelve
Third Countries.
10
8
6
4
2
0
3
0
The following were the reasons and motivations for establishing a representation in the top five
Third Countries:
USA:
Looking for bilateral R&D Programmes

Linking with the U.S. innovation ecosystem
Quality of research in the U.S .
Fostering collaboration in STI with well-trained scientists and investors
Promotion of research partnerships
Fostering and broadening teaching and research collaborations with Brazilian

universities and research institutions
Access to research landscape
Creating commercial relations for customers in home country
Generating new competencies and gaining experiences
Generating research projects
Connecting local interests with demand from government, research and
companies in Brazil
Brazil:
China:
Looking for bilateral R&D Programmes for promotion of young scientists

Generating joint research projects
Fostering collaboration in STI
Increasing visibility
Encouraging trade and innovation
Looking for joint R&D Programmes for promotion of young scientists

Fostering STI cooperation
Gaining an institutional representation and interface, i.e. increasing visibility
Looking for bilateral R&D Programmes

Staff exchange
Generating new joint research projects and supporting participants already
involved in numerous research projects at several universities
Facilitating STI cooperation and enabling synergies
Russia:
South Africa:
It is obvious and rational that reasons for establishing representations outside of Europe are more or
less the same irrespective of the Third Country in question. To sum up, main reasons are to
12
Establish bilateral R&D Programmes in order to link with the research landscape, the
innovation ecosystem, excellent scientists as well as investors abroad,
Foster STI collaboration in order to generate joint research projects and promote European
scientists,
Gain an institutional representation and interface, i.e. increasing visibility.
Open comments stated by the respondents with regard to establishing STI Joint European Liaison
Offices (STI JELOs) outside of Europe lead to the following main perceived potential risks or
challenges
63 answers (67%)
Financial sustainability
The main challenge for potential future STI JELOs is their financial viability. As they should represent
several European countries, the question will be who should finance the establishment and the
offered services and how to assure a quick return on investment.
Conflict of interest
Meeting the needs of different types of organisations from different European countries will require
an independent and transparent representation of interests within STI JELOs in Third Countries. The
members acceptance will depend on clear rules and structures in order to assure equal and fair
representation of the different member countries and its member organisations.
Adequate management
The coordination of different STI players requires suitable and flexible management of the STI JELOs
in order to cover their diverse needs (different in thematic fields, geographic and cultural
backgrounds and STI requirements). Good functioning and operational services will depend on an
adequate management structure with necessary motivated experts and experienced managerial
staff.
Accurate services
The identification of needed services and their prioritisation will be a challenge for STI JELOs in Third
Countries in order to provide the most accurate services. The communication between the different
STI players and the STI JELOs will have to be effective in order to respond to changing needs and
future potentials.
Good visibility
The impact of STI JELOs will depend on their visibility. Therefore regular awareness raising and
promotion activities throughout Europe will be needed.
The following were the main expected benefits for European research institutions in being
represented by STI Joint European Liaison Offices (STI JELOs) outside of Europe
62 answers (66%)
Increasing visibility and presence for improved networking activities
13
STI Joint European Liaison Offices in Third Countries are expected to increase visibility of European
research organisations and universities by supporting their effective presence in the target country.
Through a more efficient coordination of EU interests the European research area and its STI
competences as such shall become more visible and transparent to the Third Countries STI
communities and networks.
Sharing resources, expenses and risks
Bearing all related costs and potential risks is easier and more feasible when jointly sharing
resources, such as facilities, personnel, etc. An STI JELO in a Third Country is undoubtedly more
economical than a separate individual representation borne by one research organisation.
Entering new markets and finding new STI collaboration partners
The opening up of new markets and the identification of potential future STI partners is expected to
become easier and more focused in a Third Country through the support of a local STI JELO. The
assistance in initiating first contacts and pooled information about STI communities in the Third
Country shall be of outmost advantage for research organisations initiating international STI
collaborations.
Enhancing collaboration within H2020 and joint calls
STI JELOs in Third Countries are expected to increase the visibility of European research organisations
and research communities and, hence, open up and increase the STI cooperation possibilities with
Third Country counterparts. Furthermore, it is expected that STI JELOs support improved alignment
between H2020 and national and/or regional funding programs and potentially lead to more joint
and/or coordinated calls.
Access to relevant information, local STI networks and joint funding programs
Direct access to relevant data and information as well as direct contact to local STI networks and
communities is expected to provide researchers with better and faster access to joint funding
programs. It is expected that local STI JELOs provide transparent and timely information about STI
collaboration and funding possibilities in Third Countries increasing the chance for joint STI
collaborations.
Facilitating knowledge transfer, technology transfer and exchange of scientific personnel
Fostering the international exchange of knowledge, technologies and human resources is expected to
become more efficient through the coordination of a local STI JELO. Joint European interests,
knowledge and new technologies shall be easier to represent and promote through an STI JELO and
its platform. Merging efforts by European research organisations shall lead to more effective
knowledge and technology transfer and exchange of scientific personnel when organised and
managed by a local STI JELO.
14
Conclusions
1. Acceptable representation due to good thematic and regional coverage

94 organisations participated in the survey, 80% of them were public and 20% of them were private
organisations, representing 28 European MS and AC. Research organisations, research funding
agencies and universities account for about 80% of the participating organisations, covering all types
of STI activities, i.e. Applied research (71%), Basic research (63%) and Innovation activities (56%), and
Experimental development (36%).
It has to be noted that SMEs, SME associations, Technology clusters and Technology transfer offices
do not have a representative opinion in this survey, accounting only for about 6% (6) all together.
The thematic distribution over all given thematic research fields is also very well balanced, e.g. 50%
of the responding organisations being engaged in Information and Communication Technologies
(ICT), Environment and Climate Change, Biotechnlogy, Energy, Health and medical research, and/or
Material sciences and nanotechnology, respectively.
Altogether, it can be concluded that the survey covers the opinion of research organisations,
research funding agencies and universities from 28 European MS and AC in a balanced way, with big
European countries, such as France, Germany or Spain being well represented with 5-12 research
organisations, each, medium sized countries, such as the UK, Slovenia, Finland, Italy or Hungary
being represented by 2-4 research organisation, each, and small countries, such as Slovakia or
Ireland being represented by 1 research organisation, respectively.
2. High interest in STI Joint Liaison Offices to support networking activities outside of Europe
67% of the responding organisations are interested in the establishment of STI Joint European Liaison
Offices in all twelve Third Countries with the highest interest being in an STI JELO in China (45%), in
the USA (44%) and Brazil (40%), followed by Japan, Canada and Russia.
71% of the responding organisations interested in STI JELOs outside Europe would prefer a physical
office over a virtual one, of which 54% a physical office together with other representations, such as
the EU Delegation. Only 17% would be in favor of a physical independent office. Even though, about
29% of the respondents interested in STI JELOs could also imagine virtual offices for potential STI
JELOs outside Europe.
For 63% of the respondents a potential STI JELO in a Third Country should support networking
activities and function as primary contact office for communication purposes and information
exchange. For 48% joint funding activities, such as joint research projects and joint calls, would be an
important service of a potential STI JELO.
47% would take advantage of representation services, such as services for coordinating European STI
interests and scientific staff exchange and 45% would benefit from joint activities, such as sharing
research facilities, joint awareness raising activities, joint promotion measures, or joint events.
15
To conclude, there is a very high interest (67%) in establishing STI JELOs in Third Countries, especially
in China, the USA and Brazil. Physical offices are preferred together with other representations, such
as the EU Delegation (54%), primarily for networking and information exchange. Obviously, the EU
Delegations or other existing EU institutions in these Third Countries would efficiently be able to
meet these joint requirements by hiring dedicated staff to provide networking and information
exchange services, to support research organisations and universities in joint STI collaborations, and
to assist research funding agencies in joint funding and joint call preparation activities.
3. Clear messages toward potential challenges and expected benefits from being represented
by an STI JELO in a Third Country
Two thirds of the responding research organisations expressed clear challenges and benefits
regarding the establishment of STI JELOs in Third Countries.
To sum up, one can differentiate between internal, managerial and external service oriented
challenges. As to internal managerial challenges, the conflict of interest will have to be overcome by
transparent structures and adequate management. When it comes to financial sustainability, the
long-term viability of such an STI JELO in a Third Country has to be planned and secured.
Regarding services which shall be offered, each STI JELO in a Third Country will have to identify and
prioritise its offer and will have to ensure a transparent and informative marketing and
communication structure in order to have good visibility all over Europe.
The expected benefits from an STI JELO expressed by the survey respondents are numerous. STI
JELOs in Third Countries are expected to increase visibility of European research organisations and
universities, represent joint European interests, knowledge and new technologies and to support
their presence in the target country on the one side.
Moreover, STI JELOs in Third Countries shall support and provide direct access to relevant data,
information and contacts to local STI networks and communities equipping researchers with better
and faster access to joint funding programs and aligned collaboration within H2020.
16
Recommendations
Increased visibility and enhanced networking possibilities outside of Europe were the main
arguments for European research organisations in favor of STI JELOs in Third Countries. The idea of
sharing costs and risks and having a representation in the most innovative and dynamic markets
worldwide was very well received among European STI key players, especially those in small and
moderately innovating European countries.
Furthermore, looking at the European STI landscape from outside can be difficult and complicated
due to its complexity and heterogeneity. An STI Joint European Liaison Office could support a holistic
European picture, bundle information and data and provide a single European info point represented
through a single European voice in, again, complex and dynamic markets, such as China, USA and
Brazil, just to name the three most popular.
1. Establish physical STI JELOs in China, USA and Brazil

Strong and internationally more active European countries, e.g. Germany or France, and their
research organisations are increasingly represented in the worlds most innovative markets. A
physical STI Joint European Liaison Office in China, the USA or Brazil as part of existing European STI
structures, such as the EU Delegation or EURAXESS, with dedicated personnel, can on the one hand
increase visibility of already represented research organisations on the overall European level. On the
other hand, it can support STI key players in weaker and/or smaller European countries, i.e. Croatia,
Hungary, Luxemburg, Serbia, Slovenia, or Slovakia in joining forces and jointly bearing costs and risks,
giving a positive impetus for these innovation followers and moderate innovators in Europe
(Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015).
The offered services in physical STI JELOs can be shaped according to the needs of the European STI
community and the existing European structures and networks and can vary from Third Country to
Third Country
2. Strengthen existing European STI structures and networks in Third Countries, such as
Canada, Japan, Russia, etc.
The advantage of existing European structures and networks outside of Europe can be taken in most
of the Third Countries in order to raise international awareness of the European STI community. Joint
platforms and initiatives in Europe, such as JTIs, JPIs, ERA NETs, or SFIC are requested to increase
communication and exchange of information and hence empower existing European networks
worldwide, e.g. by enriching and strengthening existing online platforms and portals, regularly
informing embassies and organizing joint information events with EU Delegations.
17
3 Argentina
(provided by ABEST III)
Argentina-Specific Results
The data generated by the survey provides insight into the current representation status of
European research organizations in Argentina. It covers their bilateral cooperation with
Argentina, either in form of an own representation office or cooperation with other existing
structures such as embassies or non-governmental organizations. Furthermore, the
organizations were asked about the form of collaboration (e.g. which services/activities are
covered) and to elaborate on their experiences. Last but not least, the organizations were
asked whether they are interested in a Joint European Liaison Office in Argentina, and if so,
which services the office should cover to fulfill their needs.
Existing Representation Offices from Research Organizations in Argentina
Four of the 94 organizations that participated in the survey already established a

representation office in Argentina. They are all public organizations, two are universities in
Israel and France, one is a research funding agency in Spain and another is a SME
association in Poland. Both universities are engaged in all types of research and innovation
activities, while the Spanish research funding agency is only involved in research funding
and research management. The Polish SME association is not engaged in any type of
research but supports Polish research and innovation entities. The main motivations and
reasons for establishing a representation office in Argentina were to support the generation
of projects and to foster and broaden the research collaboration with Argentinian universities
and research institutions.
The answers regarding hurdles and difficulties encountered by the organizations during the
establishment or the operation of their own representation offices can provide valuable
information about possible challenges for an STI JELO in Argentina. However, all four
organizations answered that there were no administrative hurdles, no legal obstacles, no
financial difficulties, no mobility restrictions, no problems to find appropriate personnel and no
cultural obstacles. Information regarding the services rendered by these representation
offices could give an indication of what European organizations might need in order to
successfully establish and sustain a close cooperation with Argentina. Three out of the four
organizations stated that the representation office supports their networking activities. One
organization additionally receives support for the exchange of experts and staff, conferences
and workshops, and the representation of services or products. Under the option other, one
organization added funding activities and another added governmental support
When asked whether the organizations received any support (e.g. logistic, legal, etc.) for
establishing the office in Argentina, two out of four answered that they received support from
their embassy as well as from governmental organizations. Two claim they received no
support. As a response to the question How is the existing representation in Argentina
financed? one organization claims to be self-financed, and another is financed by the CDTI,
which is a Public Business Entity, answering to the Spanish Ministry of Economy and
Competitiveness. The remaining two have not given an answer to this question.
18
Cooperation with Existing Structures in Argentina
According to the survey responses, 23 organizations are cooperating with existing structures
or partners in Argentina. These are governmental organizations of Argentina (61%), their
own countrys embassy or representation in Argentina (30%), non-governmental
organizations in Argentina (22%), EU research, funding or business organizations (13%),
and another 13% have stated in the category other that they are cooperating with
universities. None are cooperating with the EU Delegation in Argentina. The services these
structures and partners provide the organizations with mostly pertain to the support of
networking activities (65%), support of exchange of experts and staff (48%), and another
30% receive support with organizing workshops. A smaller number of organizations receive
help in managing STI funding programs (17%), facilitating conferences (13%), offering
trainings (9%), and the representation of services or products (9%).
Even though these 23 organizations already cooperate with existing structures and partners
in Argentina, 10 of them are nonetheless still interested in an STI Joint European Liaison
Office in Argentina. This may indicate that the existing structures do not sufficiently fulfill all
their needs. The specific activities that these 10 organizations claim they could better
achieve jointly with other organizations shows that most organizations chose almost all
possible services that an STI JELO could potentially offer. The most popular activities are
networking (10/10), promoting participation in Horizon 2020 (9/10), promoting EU
participation in national programs (8/10), joint funding (8/10), visibility (joint exhibitions, show
rooms, etc.) (8/10), closely followed by providing partnering services for EU companies
(7/10), representation and joint activities (each 6/10) and being the EEN (Enterprise Europe
Network) node (5/10).
Specific Interest in an STI JELO in Argentina
Out of the 94 survey participants, 20 (21%) have declared a special interest in a STI JELO
office in Argentina. Interestingly, the research organizations who have declared a specific
interest in an STI JELO Argentina also tend to be interested in the other Latin-American
BILAT-project countries that were part of the survey, namely Brazil (18 out of the 20
organizations that are interested in an STI JELO Argentina) and Mexico (16 out of 20),
indicating a regional preference. China and USA come after the Latin-American countries
(unlike the general results, where China and the USA are the top STI JELO destinations).
Figure D shows that most of the organizations interested in an STI JELO Argentina are
located in the Czech Republic (25%), followed by Spain, Portugal, Israel, Greece and Croatia
(10% each).
19
Figure A: Countries interested in an STI JELO Argentina
Countries interested in JELO Argentina

No. of organizations
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
These organizations are mostly universities and research organizations (40% each, see
Figure E) and reflect the same public-to-private ratio as the general profile, namely 80%
public and 20% private.
Figure B: Type of organizations interested in an STI JELO Argentina
Type of organization interested in an STI JELO

Argentina?
10
8
6
4
2
0
University
Research
organisation
SME
association
Research
funding
agency
Other
Most of these organizations are engaged in applied research (80%) and basic research
(75%, see Figure F), whereas the thematic focus seems to be primarily material sciences
and nanotechnology (70%), biotechnology (70%) and environment and climate change
(65%), closely followed by several thematic areas such as biology, bio-based industries,
energy, and ICT, each counting 55% of the organizations (for more details, please see
figure G).
20
Figure C: Type of research and activities of organisations interested in an STI JELO Argentina
Type of research and activities of organisations

interested in an STI JELO Argentina
0
10
12
14
16
Applied research
Basic research
Experimental development
In0vation activities
Research management
Research funding
Sonstiges
Figure D: Thematic focus of organizations interested in an STI JELO Argentina
Thematic focus of organizations interested in JELO Argentina

0
10
12
14
16
18
20
Biotechnology
Material sciences and nanotechnology
Biology
Energy
ICT
Chemistry
Aquatic resources
Engineering
Research Infrastrukture
Earth sciences
Physics
Mathematics
Raw materials
Space
21
Preferences and specifications relating to an STI JELO Argentina
The preferences of the organizations who are interested in an STI JELO Argentina are
similar to the ones who are generally interested in STI JELOs. A higher percentage of
respondents claim to prefer a virtual structure for the Liaison Office (35% instead of 29%),
but the majority also prefers a physical office, either together with other delegates (45%) or
an individual office (20%).
Figure E: Preferred structure of an STI JELO Argentina
Preferred structure of JELO Argentina

35%
20%
Physical (Independent
Office)
45%
Physical (Office together

with other Representations)
Virtual
When asked Which services should the STI Joint European Liaison Office provide? And
what would be useful for your institution that you can better achieve jointly with other
organizations? almost all of the 20 respondents who are interested in an STI JELO
Argentina (95%) responded that networking (primary contacts, communication, information
exchange, structural access to relevant data, etc.) would be most useful, followed by joint
funding and promoting participation in Horizon 2020 as stated by 75% each. Slightly lower
but still of high importance are visibility and representation with 70%, respectively. Figure I
shows the list of answers and their frequencies.
Figure F: Preferred services that STI JELOs should provide
Which services should the STI Joint European Liaison Office provide?
What would be useful for your institution that you can better achieve
jointly with other organisations?
0
10
12
14
Networking
18
20
19
Visibility
14
Representation
14
Joint activities
13
Joint funding
15
15
Promoting EU participation in national programms
12
10
Being the EEN (Entreprise Europe Network) node

Sonstiges
16
8
2
22
When it comes to risks and challenges perceived by the twenty organizations who are
specifically interested in an STI JELO Argentina, the answers reflect a similar picture as the
answers of all organizations interested in STI JELOs in general. Most refer to financial
aspects, such as lack of funding or financial sustainability (8/20). Another 5 organizations are
concerned about conflicts of interest and the coordination of different needs and interests.
Other risks and challenges that were mentioned are lack of visibility and promotion, lack of
acceptance and interest/engagement from the organizations and the third countries, lack of
transparency and independence of the STI JELO office, as well as hesitations to share
information openly. Three organizations stated that they see no risks.
The expectations and benefits of the organizations specifically interested in an STI JELO
Argentina show a more diverse picture. As with the answers given in the general interest in
STI JELOs part, many of the answers reflect the list of possible answers for a previous
question, where the organizations were asked which services STI JELOs should offer to
cover their needs. Networking, joint funding, joint activities, visibility and representation are
among them. However, since this question gave the organizations a chance to elaborate on
their answers and add any expectations and benefits they can think of, it gives a more
detailed picture of their expectations and opinion about STI JELOs. Among the most frequent
answers of organizations interested in an STI JELO Argentina are aspects of networking
(17/20), including:
Finding partners and starting new partnerships;

Increasing the opportunity of collaboration with local partners;
Creating links to research, capacity building, innovation and external funding;
Better integration in international research, innovation and teaching networks;
Facilitating access of the several research stakeholders in a third country (national
and regional research funding bodies, academia, research institutes and companies,
infrastructures, competence centers, clusters);
Joining common research programs
Another topic frequently mentioned is the exchange and recruitment of scientific staff and
students (8/20), such as establishing a mechanism for exchange of scientific personnel or
recruitment of students from abroad. The third most frequently mentioned benefit is the
exchange and transfer of knowledge (specifically mentioned by 5 out of 20), for example:
support and exchange of ideas; new technology transfer; and access to foreign sources of
knowledge. Joint activities and joint research projects are also named frequently (6/20):
Jointly develop and exploit new knowledge and technologies based upon comparative factor
advantages; joint research projects and joint training (just to name a few). Other benefits
mentioned by the organizations are: Applying European innovations on other continents; new
markets for new technology; door-opening; decreasing transaction costs; better visibility
outside Europe; facilitating the participation at joint exhibitions and promotion events of EU
stakeholders in the third country, and to promote the research excellence and innovation
performance of the European organizations.
23
Conclusion
This survey, conducted by twelve BILAT projects, provides a first impression of the general
interest of European research organizations in the concept of Joint European STI Liaison
Offices (STI JELOs). It clearly shows that every third research organization which
participated in the survey is interested in an STI JELO in general, and every fifth organization
is specifically interested in an STI JELO in Argentina. Even though these results are not
representative for all research organizations in Europe, it does allow for a first impression,
not only on the overall interest, but also on specific preferences and expectations. The
preferred structure for an STI JELO in Argentina is a physical office together with other
representations (e.g. jointly with EU Delegation). The services that are most frequently
expected to be rendered include networking (primary contacts, communication, information
exchange, structural access to relevant data, etc.), joint funding (joint research projects, joint
calls, etc.) and promoting participation in Horizon 2020. The expected risks and challenges
most frequently stated pertain to conflicts of interest (e.g. diverse range of interests and
needs, underrepresentation of small organizations/member countries, office overwhelmed
with different requests) and funding issues (e.g. sustainable funding, high operational costs).
Among the expectations and benefits of STI JELOs stated by the organizations that are
interested in an STI JELO Argentina, networking is by far the most frequently mentioned
benefit. Other benefits include the exchange and recruitment of scientific staff and students,
as well as the exchange and transfer of knowledge. One other important issue that this
survey has revealed is the concern about funding. A sustainable funding scheme should be
developed, including the financial support from the EU for the initial years until the project
reaches self-sustainment.
Although Argentina ranks relatively low in the list of preferred STI JELO destinations, it has to
be taken into account that this survey included only the most important partner countries of
EU-cooperation in S&T.
Possible next steps could be:

A) Share the STI JELO report with ABEST-Partners and asking for suggestions and
comments
B) Organize a workshop with ABEST-Partners in Europe (inviting the EU-Delegation in
Argentina)
1. Identification of key countries, institutions and possible strategic partners
2. SWOT-Analysis of an STI JELO in Argentina
3. Other topics H
C) Share results with Policy Officer and verify if interest would also be reflected in
Horizon 2020 (e.g. a call).
24
4 Australia
(provided by CAESIE)
Organizations interested in an STI JELO in Australia
30% (19/63) of the respondents who are generally interested in a STI JELO outside of Europe are
interested in an STI JELO in Australia. The following map shows the country distribution of
organizations interested in an STI JELO in Australia in comparison to organizations interested in an STI
JELO in general.
1/2
0/1
0/2
0/1
0/1
0/2
0/1
6/8
0/2
0/9
0/4
0/3
1/1
1/2
0/1
2/2
0/2
2/2
1/1
2/3
0/2
0/1
1/5
Turkey
Israel: 1/3 Malta: 1/1 Cyprus: 0/1
19 interests in Australia/63 interests in total

It becomes noticeable in the map and one might conclude, that populous countries, such as,
Germany (0/1), France (0/9), Spain (0/2), UK (0/2) or Poland (0/2) are less interested in an STI JELO in
Australia compared to less populous countries, such as Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Hungary, Slovakia,
or the Czech Republic (6/8). The interest of the latter gives good evidence, since the sample is bigger
25
than that of the rest of the countries, that the establishment of an STI JELO in Australia would be very
welcome for a small country such as the Czech Republic. It should also be noted that in particular
the Czech organizations are mainly interested in a virtual rather than a physical STI JELO.
Of those, who are interested in a physical representation only two geographical preferences towards
an Australian city, country or region have been indicated, i.e. Canberra and Brisbane.
Type of organization interested in an STI JELO in Australia
12
10
8
6
Public
4
Private
2
0
Research
Organziations
Universities
Research
Funding
Organizations
Other
Research organizations (6) and Universities (10) account for 84% of the total of organizations
interested in an STI JELO in Australia (19). Research funding agencies, Other organizations,
Technology transfer offices, University associations and SMEs account for 5% all together. 2 Research
funding organizations (10%) are also interested in an STI JELO.
Public research organizations, Universities, Research funding agencies, Technology transfer offices
and Other organizations, hereafter, show more interests and see more advantages from an STI JELO
than private organizations.
26
Thematic areas of interest of organizations interested in an STI JELO with Australia
Other
[Space]
[Social sciences and humanities]
[Research Infrastrukture]
[Raw materials]
[Physics]
[Mathematics]
[Material sciences and nano
[Industrial technologies]
[ICT]
[Health and medical research]
[Food and healthy diet]
[Environment and Climate Change]
[Engineering]
[Energy]
[Earth sciences]
[Chemistry]
[Biotechnology]
[Bio-based industries]
[Biology]
[Aquatic resources]
[Agriculture and forestry]
0
10
12
14
The most favored thematic areas by European organizations interested in an STI JELO in Australia lie
in the energy field (14/19), followed by environment, material sciences (including nanotechnology)
and ICT (all 13/19). There is a surprisingly strong interest in social sciences and humanities (11/19)
which stems from the interests expressed by the universities. In contrast the interest in mathematics
and physics but also agriculture (all 7/19) is rather low.
27
Existing representations in Australia
Two from the just 4 organizations having already a representation in Australia come from Israel, the
other organizations come from Spain and Poland. The organizations from Israel are a public research
organization and a public university. The Spanish organization is a public research funding
organization whereas the organization from Poland is a public not further disclosed organization.
Country
Israel
Spain
Poland
Public
University
Research Funding Organization
Other
Private
Research Organization
None of the major European countries like France, UK or Germany responding to the survey have a
representation in Australia. As, for example, the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) is
supporting a so called information center at the University of Sydney the picture might not be
complete due to missing resonance to the survey.
Main reason/motivation to establish a representation in Australia
Main reasons (3 responses) were:
Australia is an important political and economic partner in the Asia-Pacific region,

To look for setting a bilateral R&D Programme
Support to networking of companies
No obstacles or difficulties were faced by the organizations having established a representation in

Australia
Services provided by the existing representations in Australia
The services which existing representations in Australia offer to their home organizations are mainly
networking activities, representation of services and products and facilitating conferences.
Support by Australian and EU organizations
Two of the existing representations received support either by their embassy or by a governmental
organization in Australia while the other two did not receive any support. The financing of the
representation is taken over either by the government or by the home organization itself.
28
Conclusion
1) Australia is not in the direct focus of European countries

With 32% of the respondents who are interested in setting up a representation outside Europe
Australia ranks second last among the Third countries of this survey. This may be due to the large
distance between Australia and Europe and little knowledge about the research and innovation
capacities of Australia which produces approx. 3% of the worlds publications with 0,3 of the
worlds population.
The main interest comes from smaller EU Member States like the Czech Republic, Portugal, Slovenia
and Croatia, whereas no European Member State with a large population like France, UK or Germany
showed any interest in an STI JELO in Australia. This may be due to the fact that the larger EU
Member States already have representations in Australia and usually also have science counsellors at
their embassies who provide support as necessary.
The Czech Republic shows an outstanding interest in setting up a representation with two thirds of
the responding organizations being interested in an STI JELO with Australia. It should be noted that
all Czech organizations were interested in a virtual rather than a physical representation.
Recommendation: The main interest in setting up a representation in Australia lies with the
smaller European Member States or Associated countries. Joining forces in an STI JELO in Australia
might be beneficial.
2) Social sciences and humanities get much interest within an STI JELO in Australia
While energy, ICT, environment, nanotechnology get the highest interest they are closely followed by
Social Sciences and Humanities. This may stem from the fact that universities show the highest
interest in an STI JELO in Australia.
Recommendation: An STI JELO in Australia should not only represent the classical Science and
Engineering disciplines but also may have a strong focus on Social Sciences and Humanities.
3) Meeting the needs faced by the European STI communities

All European research organizations have the same needs when going international, i.e. access to
information about the respective R&D landscape, funding programs, support in networking,
exchange of staff and experts as well as organizing joint workshops, conferences and trainings. This
can be achieved more easily by the larger European Member States than by the smaller ones. On
the other hand, from the Australian perspective cooperation interests usually lie with the larger
European Member States due to a lack of information on the capabilities of the smaller EU MS.
Recommendation: An STI JELO in Australia, representing overall European interests and meeting
overall European needs would foster the STI cooperation between Europe and Australia and promote
the European Research Area (ERA) as a whole in Australia.
29
5 Brazil
(provided by BBICE +)
Brazil-Specific Results
Half of the institutions interested in Brazil are Research Organisations (45%), the second biggest part
corresponding to Universities (29%). Research Funding Agencies make up 15% of the total. These
results resemble the results of the overall survey, with one difference: none of the SMEs, Technology
Cluster or Technology Transfer Offices indicated interest in cooperating with Brazil.
Among the activities carried out by the organizations interested in Brazil, applied and basic research
clearly dominate with almost 40% each, closely followed by translational research activities (32%).
Experimental development, research management, innovation activities and research funding come
up to rounded 20% each (figure 1). This result clearly differs from the overall respondents picture, as
Innovation does not reach the same importance (3rd place among all 94 respondents) when
considering only the organizations interested in Brazil.
Figure 1: Type of R&I activities, organizations interested in Brazil, multiple answers (%, n=53)
Applied Research
Basic Research
15
39
32
20
37
22
19
Experimental
Development
Research management
Research funding
The thematic research focuses of the organizations interested in further cooperation with Brazil are
shown in figure 2 (red bars), the most important being Environment/Climate Change and
Biotechnology with 60% each; Health & Medical Research with 57%; closely followed by ICT and
Material Sciences/Nanotechnology with 55%, and Energy with 51%.
It is noteworthy that these 6 leading fields of research are generally confirmed when considering all
94 respondents (figure 2, green bars).
30
Figure 2: Thematic Research Focus (%, multiple answers)

Biotechnology
Environment & Climate Change
Health & Medical Research
ICT
Material Sciences & Nanotechnology
Energy
Social Sciences & Humanities
Biology
Chemistry
Bio-based Industries
Earth Sciences
Engineering
Food & Healthy Diet
Industrial Technologies
Physics
Agriculture & Forestry
Aquatic Resources
Mathematics
Raw Materials
Space
Other
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
all respondents, n=94

organizations interested in Brazil, n=53
Organizations with a representation in Brazil, n=7
Organisations with a representation in Brazil

From the 7 European organisations established in Brazil, 4 are also present in the USA and South
Africa; 3 in Canada, Mexico, Russia and Japan; and 2 in China and Korea.
Headquarters are located twice in France and Germany, and one each in Switzerland, Spain and
Israel. Five are public institutions (2 universities, 1 research organization, 1 research funding agency
and 1 government funded organizations); the two private institutions are research organizations. In
contrast to figure 1, showing the type of research activities of the 53 organizations collaborating with
Brazil, among the existent representations innovation activities are dominating with 86%, followed
by applied research and research management with 71% each and translational research with 57%.
Interestingly, these 7 organisations cover all questioned thematic research topics (figure 2, blue
bars). Compared to the overall focus of all respondents and the organizations with further interest in
Brazil, the existent representations have a stronger focus on Research Infrastructure and
Mathematics, but are less focused on Material Sciences & Nanotechnology, Bio-based industries and
Agriculture & Forestry.
31
The main reason or motivation to establish a representation in Brazil was expressed as follows:
- To foster and broaden our teaching and research collaborations with Brazilian universities
and research institutions
- Need for experience in Brazil to act as a liaison expert to efficiently connect headquarters
interest with demand from Brazilian government, research and companies in Brazil
- Create commercial relations for our customers in home country
- Support to generate Iberoeka projects2
- Develop research projects and build a long term partnership with Brazil
Three of these organisations affirmed to have faced administrative hurdles in Brazil (e.g. the
registration of a one person liaison office does not allow to have a tax number, complicating
administrative processes); legal obstacles (very protective regarding e.g. genetic resources,
extremely rigorous when negotiating MoU) and financial difficulties (high taxation).
Networking activities are the most important facilities provided by 90% of the representations,
followed by support for expert/staff exchange, as well as the organization of workshops and
conferences (figure 3).
Figure 3: Services provided by representations in Brazil (%, multiple answers, n=7)
Legal and IPR

support
Trainings
Other
STI Funding
programmes
Networking
activities
100
80
60
40
20
0
Expert & staff

exchange
Workshops
Conferences
Representation
of services or
products
http://www.innovationseeds.eu/Funding_Guide/Funding_Core_Articles/Iberoeka_Funding_Core_Article.kl
32
Support (e.g. logistic, legal, etc.) for establishing an office in Brazil was provided by the respective
country's embassy or representation in 5 cases. 3 of these institutions indicated to have received
additional support by a governmental institution, a non-governmental organisation and by the
University of So Paulo. Two representations are self-financed. None received support from the EUDelegation or other EU organisations.
In 2 cases operational costs are being self-financed, 2 receive core funding from their organization
and one is financed by the mother countrys government and sponsors.
Organisations cooperating with existing structures or partners in Brazil

From the 53 institutions interested in further collaboration with Brazil, 49% (n=26) are already
cooperating with Brazil, with 92% of these being public organisations. Half of them are Research
organisations, 6 are Universities, 5 Research funding organisations, 1 Ministry and 1 dedicated to
international collaboration. One third of the Headquarters are located in France and Czech Republic
(5 and 3, respectively) and have to be considered carefully due to the countries` high respondent
rates. Another 3 organizations from Portugal and 2 each from Finland, Greece, Spain, Sweden and
the UK are cooperating with Brazil, as well as one each from Germany, Switzerland, Hungary, Israel
and Slovenia.
Whereas the thematic focuses of these 26 organisations resemble very well the areas of interest of
the 53 institutions willing to cooperate with Brazil (see figure 2, red bars); the results of the R&I
activities differ: basic research is dominating with 77%, followed by applied research with 69% and
innovation activities with 58%.
Regarding cooperation partners in Brazil, 36% are collaborating with governmental organisations,
19% with their mother countries Embassy and 13% with non-governmental organisations (see figure
4). 6% stated to cooperate with EU research, funding or business organisations, but only 1% is
collaborating with the EU Delegation in Brazil.
62% of the 26 institutions would be interested in an STI JELO in Brazil.
Figure 4: Cooperation with existing structures in Brazil (%, multiple answers, n=26)
2
2
Governmental organisation
2
6
36
Your country`s Embassy or

Representation
Non-governmental organisation
Universities
13
Private Partners
19
Organisations at federal and state level

EU research, funding or business
organisation
33
Figure 5: Services provided by Brazilian partners (%, multiple answers, n=26)
Legal and IPR

support
Networking
activities
40
30
Expert & staff

exchange
20
Trainings
10
Workshops
Other
STI Funding
programmes
Conferences
Services offered by Brazilian

partners (figure 5) match
the support provided by
local representations (figure
3),
with
networking
activities
(36%),
staff
exchange and workshops
(25% each) indicated to be
the most important.
Representation
of services or
products
Results regarding a potential STI JELO in Brazil

Brazil is ranking high among the target countries for a potential STI JELO, as shown above in the
general results, with 40% (38 institutions) of all 94 survey respondents affirming their interest. 79%
of these 38 organizations are public, 21% private institutions. About half (17) are Research
organizations and one third (13) universities, along with 4 research funding agencies, 2 Innovation
agencies, 1 Ministry and 1 dedicated to international collaboration.
Considering their headquarter location, institutions of small countries dominate the picture (careful
consideration has to be given again to the outliers of Czech Republic and France):
-
Czech Republic: 6
France: 5
Greece and Portugal: 3
Austria, Croatia, Finland, Hungary, Israel, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Switzerland, UK: 2
Belgium, Italy and Spain: 1
Since these 38 institutions are part of the 53 institutions willing to further cooperate with Brazil, the
thematic focuses do resemble their areas of interest (figure 2, red bars). Interestingly, there is a small
difference regarding R&I activities: STI JELO interested respondents are most active in the area of
applied research (82%) followed by basic research (79%), resembling the overall picture of all 94
survey respondents, whereas among the 53 institutions interested in further collaboration with Brazil
basic research was dominating. Research management is also more prominent with 39% compared
to the groups of institutions analysed before.
Questioned for the ideal structure of an STI JELO in Brazil, 61% of the 38 organizations favoured a
physical office together with other representations. A virtual office was indicated by 26%, whereas a
physical, independent office was only desired by 13% of the institutions.
Regarding geographical preferences for the location of the STI JELO, few answers were given by the
28 organizations voting for a physical representation: 7% each indicated either the capital Brasilia or
34
an innovation focused city, 4% each proposed either Rio de Janeiro or Porto Alegre and 18% stated to
have no preference.
Figure 6: Services an STI JELO should provide (%, multiple answers, n=38)
Networking
37 5
Representation
97
47
Joint funding
Joint activities
61
76

Visibility
63
76
Promoting EU participation in national programms

66
71
Being the EEN (Entreprise Europe Network) node

Other
All 38 organisations favouring an STI JELO in Brazil were consequently asked what kind of services an
STI JELO should provide, respectively what services they would consider as useful, and which
activities could be better achieved jointly with other organisations. Again, Networking (primary
contacts, communication, information exchange, structural access to relevant data) is ranking highest
with 97%, closely followed by Representation services (coordination of European STI interests,
scientific staff exchange) and Joint funding (joint research projects & calls) with 76% each (see figure
6). More than 50% of the organisations also estimate Joint activities (sharing research facilities, joint
awareness raising activities, promotion & events), Promoting participation in Horizon 2020, a better
visibility and the promotion of EU participation in national programmes.
Risks and challenges of a potential STI JELO in Brazil were also addressed by the survey. The
respondents did focus mainly on the risks, with financial issues being mentioned by 26% as the most
preoccupying aspect. The problem of differing expectations potentially leading to a too wide range of
subjects to be covered was mentioned by 21% and 11% insisted that the success of the project
depended on qualified personnel. Hesitation regarding transparency of information, a fair
distribution of goods among small and big member states, and cultural differences were indicated by
5% of the interviewed organizations. 13% did not mention any risks at all. Among the challenges, the
close cooperation with the EU delegation and embassies was positively mentioned by 5%, but
another 5% also questioned the difference of such an STI JELO to the existing EU-Delegation, and 5%
questioned the potential benefits for Europe in general, recommending an evaluation of the impact.
Finally, the respondents were invited to state their main expectations and benefits regarding the
participation of their own institution in such an STI JELO. The main arguments (multiple answers
possible, n=38) given were:
-
Enhanced networking & exchange (50%)

35
Access to ST&I landscape in Brazil (26%)

Facilitation of joint funding activities (21%)
Increased visibility (21%)
Finding new partners (18%)
Enhanced collaboration in the frame of H2020 (8%)
Methodology for the launch of an STI JELO in Brazil

As shown by the analysis above, a physical office together with other representations in either the
capital or an innovation focused city is the favored model for an STI JELO in Brazil. Before the launch
of such an STI JELO, a detailed business plan has to be elaborated considering the following major
points (this list is not exhaustive):
-
Target group
Location (Brasilia or So Paulo3)
Projection period
Business model: Independent office or affiliation to a Brazilian / European institution (e.g.
University of So Paulo / EU Delegation to Brazil in Brasilia)
Size of the office building (depending on the number of members)
Cost calculation
Legal formalities & status (complex situation in Brazil)
Management model (e.g. contracted manager or rotative management of members)
Criteria for joining members
Marketing strategy
Risks and challenges
Quality assurance
Once the business plan has been elaborated and approved, the STI JELO may be implemented
accordingly.
Indicative cost calculation for an STI JELO in Brazil

The German House of Science and Innovation (DWIH) in So Paulo4, a joint representation of German
universities, research institutions and innovation agencies presents a structure comparable to the
one envisaged for an STI JELO. For this reason, it will be considered as representative example for the
cost calculation.
Located in the center of So Paulo, the DWIH includes a foyer, eight institutional offices, a
conference room, a kitchen and toilettes within an ample office building. The individual offices
encompass about 15m each and may be shared by up to two employees. The rent for each office,
including all additional costs such as security, concierge, cleaning, water, electricity, phone, Internet
3
So Paulo is ranking highest among the Brazilian cities in terms of innovation, see: http://www.innovationcities.com/innovation-cities-index-2014-global/8889
4
http://www.dwih.com.br/index.php?id=72
36
provider, IT-assistance and administration fees, as well as an amount for the shared facilities adds up
to a total of 12.000 per year.
Contracting qualified personnel, as considered essential for the success of a liaison office by 11% of
the survey respondents supporting an STI JELO in Brazil, mounts up to 65.000 per year in the DWIH,
including all employer`s contributions, travel expenses and project funds.
In addition, at least one program coordinator would be needed to assure a smooth management of
the STI JELO, the coordination of events and projects, as well as the dissemination of all relevant
activities. Estimated costs for this position would be of 65.000 per year, equivalent to the above
mentioned costs for qualified personnel.
Furthermore, the methodology for the launch of the STI JELO presented above also foresees a
minimum of three own events per year promoting the Liaison office in order to gain visibility, as e.g.
lectures, exhibitions, workshops, fairs, conferences and/or B2B events. These so called program costs
are estimated to add up to a minimum of 60.000 per year.
Summarizing, estimated costs for a European organization interested in joining the STI JELO would
add up to a total of 80.000 per year for one office with one employee in So Paulo, Brazil. Overhead
costs for the management of an STI JELO as outlined above, considering also coordination and
dissemination activities, would add up to another 125.000 per year.
Conclusion
First of all, careful attention has to be paid to the limited number and unbalanced type of
respondents per country to this survey, as only 94 out of 400 contacted institutions replied. Due to
this fact, the following conclusions may indeed provide a trend-setting overview, but cannot be
considered as representative for the European STI community.
The survey results show a high cooperation interest in Brazil by the participating European STI
organizations (56%), in particular by public research organizations and universities, and, at a smaller
scale, by research funding agencies. Applied, basic and translational research areas dominate among
the activities carried out by these institutions; their thematic priorities being Biotechnology,
Environment & Climate Change, as well as Health & Medical Research, thus matching the Brazilian
STI strategy5.
The seven institutions already counting on a representation in Brazil are mainly from big MS, having
received support by their Embassies for the establishment of their offices. Five do also have
representations in other Third Countries, suggesting an international networking strategy of their
headquarter organization. Covering all thematic research fields, they are far more active in the
innovation sector than the average respondent, resembling their forward looking approach for new
partnerships and markets. Networking services including staff exchange and organization of
workshops have been indicated as the most important added values. Legal and administrative
hurdles have proven to be a complex issue in Brazil and should be carefully thought through before
the eventual set-up of liaison offices.
5
http://livroaberto.ibict.br/docs/218981.pdf
37
The proposal for an STI JELO in Brazil was positively affirmed by almost half of the respondents
(40%). Especially small member states welcomed the idea of a physical office together with other
representations in order to profit from joint networking, representation services, joint funding
activities and an increased visibility, as well as facilitating the promotion of EU participation and EU
relevant programmes. Hesitation was mentioned regarding financial issues and the principle of
equality among small and big MS. Interestingly, organizations favoring an STI JELO are slightly more
active in the field of applied research compared to basic research, research management also being
prominent among these candidates.
Summarizing, the European STI community considers Brazil as one of the most important Third
Countries for cooperation along with the USA and China. As a consequence, the idea of a Joint
European Liaison office was in general welcomed by the respondents of the survey, notwithstanding
the many challenges to be discussed and negotiated before an eventual implementation of such a
shared physical office in Brazil.
38
6 Canada
(provided by ERA-Can +)
Country-Specific Results
Existing representation offices in Canada

Only 2 organizations have a representation office in Canada. The main reasons for the establishment
of these two offices were to promote the Association of the friends of the Hebrew University and to
support EUREKA projects.
No problems, obstacles and barriers seem to be faced by the offices. Only the activity for one of the
organizations, offered as a service, is expressed and its a funding activity.
Another respondent declares that his/her organization does not have a representative office but a
cooperation model in place with universities, which can also act as a platform for general networking
activities. Its service is a joint Research and Development activity.
One of the existing offices is self-funded, while for the other one the funding is split between a selfand Canadian universities funding.
Existing cooperation with Canada
28 respondents organizations have an ongoing cooperation with Canada and Canadian partners, 7
with their countrys Embassy, 4 with a EU research, funding or business organization, 10 with a nongovernmental organization established in Canada, 12 with a governmental organization established in
Canada. The following offered services have been taken advantage of:
Representation Managing
of services or
STI funding
products
programmes
5
Facilitating
conferences
Organising
workshops
Offering
training
12
Supporting
exchange
of experts
and staff
15
Legal
and
IPR
support
0
Conclusion
32% (30 out of 94) of the respondents are in favor and would find it useful to open an STI JELO in
Canada
30% (28 out of 94) respondents organizations have an ongoing cooperation with Canada and the main
service offered is the support to experts exchange followed by the organization of workshops. No
office offers a legal or IPR support.
There seems to be no barrier and particular risks for the cooperation in Canada.
39
7 China
(provided by DRAGON STAR)
Existing representation offices in China
The main outcome of the current study is the clear and strong interest, of the majority of the
participants, in the establishment of an STI JELO office in China is significantly high. The
organizations, participating in the study, having representation offices in China are 6, while 5 of them
belong to the public and 1 in private sector. According to the feedback received by those
organisations, the main reasons for establishing representation of their offices in China were the
following:
-
To establish partnerships in China

To encourage trade and innovation
To gather information about the innovation system and the demand from China
To investigate the possibility for bilateral R&D Programs and generate projects.
To assist scientists from their countries to establish co - operation with Chinese Partners and
increase visibility
The services offered by the representation offices include trainings, workshops, representation of
services
or
products,
and
managing STI
funding programs
as shown in
the visual bellow.
Services offered by the offices
Offering
trainings
8%
Representati
on of
services or
products
25%
Organising
workshops
33%
Facilitating
conferences
17%
Managing STI
Funding
programmes
17%
Generally 4 of the organizations answered that they have received support, for establishing a
representation office in China, from their respective embassies, and 4 received support from other
governmental organizations, whereas 1 of them has not receive support at all. Funding was offered
by organizations such as CDTI in Berlin, Ghent University and the Belgian province, Research council.
Regarding the obstacles, two of the organizations stated that they had encountered several
administrative hurdles. Other mentioned problems finding suitable personnel, legal obstacles,
mobility restrictions and cultural obstacles. Also registration (and prolongation) issues were also
mentioned as the procedures are depended of regional administration which is not always
transparent.
40
Existing cooperations with China
In total 39 out of 94 responders answered that they already cooperate with China. From these 39
organisations, 10% are private and 90% public, while more details on the profiles of these
organisations are presented in the following charts and visuals:
Type of Organizations collaborating with

China
Other
13%
University
23%
Research
funding agency
18%
Technology
cluster
2%
Research
organisation
44%
Number of organizations cooperating with China

6
5
3
3
2
2
1
In the survey 29 out of the 39 organisations have collaborated with governmental organizations in
China, 19 of them with their national embassy or the representation of their country, 14 of them
with non-governmental organizations, 8 of them with EU research/funding/or business organizations
and 5 of them with the EU delegation in China.
41
Activities of the organizations collaborating with

Represntation of
China
services or
Legal and IPR
support
7%
Supporting
exchange of
experts and staff
19%
products
8%
Managing STI
funding
programmes
11%
Facilitating
conferences
7%
Supporting
networking
24%
Organising
workshops
16%
Offering training
8%
Furthermore, the organizations stated that they have developed long-term partnerships with
universities, research institutions (e.g. Wuhan University, Chinese Academy of Forests, etc.) and
enterprises in China.
The specific cooperation sectors of the organizations is analyzed in the next figure:
Activity of the organizations collaborating with China
18 18 18
16 16 17
15
13 14 14 14
11 11 12
20
22 23 23
42
Finally according to the responders the services offered by the organizations collaborating with China
are the following:
Activity of the organizations cooperating with China

Legal and IPR
support
7%
Representation of
services or products
8%
Managing STI
funding
programmes
11%
Facilitating
Supporting
exchange of experts
and staff
19%
Supporting
networking
24%
conferences
7%
Organising
workshops
16%
Offering training
8%
The responders have several expectations from the establishment of an STI JELO in China, including:
Support the science policy dialogue and the diplomacy in order to enhance the collaboration
with the third countries,
Share experiences,
Exchange staff (researchers, professors and students),
Establish synergies and take part in joint funding programs such as Horizon 2020.
In addition, based on the feedback received, another important issue is the recruitment of
professionals who have a long considerable experience in science/research policy making.
Nevertheless, there are some concerns as well. First of all, there is a question about the equal
opportunities among the members represented in the STI JELO and the underrepresentation of
smaller countries. Also the funding might be a significant issue as certain countries do not have the
funding capacity for this kind of activities. Thus, it was proposed that the local governments in China
and/or the private sector to contribute in these efforts. Since an STI JELO is mostly considered as a
small size office, other concerns were related with the management of administrative issues, and the
actual impact of such an initiative. Participants were concerned that an STI JELO office will probably
prove incapable of handling the needs of the whole country and of dealing with the bureaucratic
procedures in the third country. Thus, a popular idea was to coordinate efforts with other the
organizations that perform similar activities such as embassies, EURAXESS links and EEN.
43
The main difficulties faced by the responders could be summarized in issues with the registration
(and prolongation) process which is highly depended on regional administration and as a result it is
not always transparent. Also difficulties were reported in reaching the right administration capacity
in order to acquire local funding.
Difficulties faced in China

2
Mobility
restrictions
Cultural
obstacles
0
Administrative Problems to find Legal obstacles
hurdles
appropriate
personnel
Financial
difficulties
Establishing an STI JELO in China

42 out of 94 responders answered that they would be interested in the establishment of a Joint
European Liaison office in China. The profile of these organizations is analyzed in the graphs below:
Type of organisation interested in JELO

University
association
2%
University
31%
Other
14%
Research funding
agency
14%
Research
organisation
36%
Technology
transfer office
3%
Headquarters of organizations interested in JELO
44
Activity of the organizations interested in JELO

24
22
15 15
12 12
8
16
16 16
17
18
19
25 25
22 22
20
13 13
It is also interesting to mention that 24 of the responders stated that they would prefer to establish a
Joint Liasion Office in China in collaboration with another representation, 11 organizations expressed
their interest about a virtual office, while only of the 7 survey participants replied that they would
like to have an independent office. As regards the location of the STI JELO, some of the responders
have proposed Beijing, or another location close to a major innovation hub.
Conclusion
The main clear overall outcome of the survey is that most of the participants in the survey would like
a Joint European Liaison Office to be established. The vast majority has also suggested that this office
should co-exist with the offices of another representation such as EURAXESS and be staffed with
experienced personnel specialized in policy issues. Moreover, it should be in close cooperation with
all other offices from the research and innovation community representing other European
organizations. The STI JELO should act as a facilitator of R&I activities offered by the EC and targeting
China.
It is suggested that emphasis is given to sectors such as ICT, Environment, (Nano) Materials science
and Biotechnology.
45
The study reveals that there is a strong interest from the research community and as a result several
services have to be designed so as to support academia. It should be however mentioned, that only a
small proportion of the responders had an entrepreneurial, there is limited feedback from such
organizations. The requested services include:
1. Networking (primary contacts, communication, information exchange, structural access to
relevant data, etc.)
2. Visibility (joint exhibitions, show rooms, etc.)
3. Representation (coordination of European STI interests, scientific staff exchange, etc.)
4. Joint activities (sharing research facilities, joint awareness raising activities, promotion,
events, etc.)
STI JELOs should be functioning on the basis of mutual respect and all the partners have to be
supported on the same way regardless their size. The funding required for the establishment of such
offices could come from the European Commision, from local Chinese government and possibly from
private equity.
46
8 Japan
(provided by JEUPISTE)
General Results with regard to Japan
From the total of 94 institutions, 17 (nearly 20%) affirmed to have already a representation in a socalled international partner country. Japan ranked within the lower sphere showing 3 organisations
having already a representation in the country (figure 1). These are two organisations from Germany
and one from Spain.
Figure 1: Representations in specific Third Countries (%, n=94)
USA
New Zealand
Mexico
Korea
10
8
6
4
2
0
Brazil
China
Russia
Japan
South Africa
Canada
Argentina
Australia
Figure 2: Interest of organizations in an STI JELO in specific Third Countries (%, n=94)
USA
New Zealand
Mexico
Korea
50
40
30
20
10
0
Japan
Brazil
China
63 organisations would be interested in an

STI JELO in the designated Third Countries.
Japan as target country was chosen by 30
interested organisations.
Russia
South Africa
Canada
Argentina
Australia
Summarizing, from the total of 94 surveyed

institutions, 3 already have a representation in Japan and 30 indicated to be interested in an STI JELO
in Japan. From these 30 organisations some are already cooperating with partners in Japan. 24
47
participating partners affirmed to be cooperating already with existing structures like embassies,
NGOs or other partners in Japan. Interestingly, only 10 out of the 24 answered to be interested in an
STI JELO in Japan, less than half. Not surprisingly, the three organisations from figure 2 are not
interested in an STI JELO in Japan, as they have already their own structure in Japan.
In order to provide targeted-oriented results for this Japan-specific analysis, in the following only the
answers of the 30 institutions with a confirmed interested in Japan as well as the three institutions
with a representation in Japan will be considered.
Organisations with a representation in Japan

From the three European organisations established in Japan, the Spanish organisation is most active
in other countries. It has offices in all participating countries, except in New Zealand. The two
German organisations support offices in Brazil, Canada, China, Korea, Russia and the US. The Spanish
organisation is a funding agency, the German organisations are a government-funded agency and a
private research organisation.
Compared to the overall focus of the 30 respondents interested in an STI JELO in Japan the two
German institutions have a strong focus on the below mentioned research domains which mirrors
the average thematic interest in Japan. Spains funding agencies has naturally no specific thematic
focus.
The main reason or motivation for the two countries to establish a representation in Japan was
expressed as follows:
The private German research organisation:
- To foster and broaden our teaching and research collaborations with Japanese universities
and research institutions
- Need for Fraunhofer experience in Japan to act as a liaison expert to efficiently connect
Fraunhofer interest with demand from Japanese government, research and companies in
Japan
- Create commercial relations for our customers in home country
- Develop research projects and build a long term partnership with Japan
The German government-funded organisation:
- good quality of research and industry
The Spanish funding agency:
- To look for technological collaboration in general, at the beginining in 1986. A bilateral
programme was set up in 2008. Now support to generation of projects in the bilateral
programme.
All three organisations indicated not to have faced administrative hurdles in Japan.
48
Networking activities are the most important facilities provided by the representation in Japan,
followed by support for expert/staff exchange, as well as the organization of workshops and
conferences as you see in figure 3.
Figure 3: Services provided by representations in Japan (%, multiple answers, n=3)
Legal and
IPR support
Trainings
Other
STI Funding
programme
s
Networking
activities
100
80
60
40
20
0
Expert &
staff
exchange
Workshops
Conferences
Representat
ion of
services or
products
49
Support (e.g. logistic, legal, etc.) for establishing an office in Japan was provided by the respective
country's embassy or representation in all cases. The private German organisation crossed to have
received (or needed?) no support.
Organisations with an STI JELO-interest in Japan

30 institutions indicated to have an interest in European Liason Office in Japan. The
geographical/numerical distribution of the countries is as follows:
-
Czech Republic: 7
France: 4
Croatia, Hungary, Israel, Luxembourg, Portugal, Slovenia: 2
Albania, Finland, Greece, Italy, Serbia, Slovakia, United Kingdom: 1
Figure 4: Location of the organisations headquarters, total counts per country.

Black numbers: all respondents, n=94; red numbers: organizations interested in Japan, n=30.
3/1
2/0
1/0
4/1
1/0
1/0
3/0
6/0
11/7
3/2
12/4
6/0
4/0
1/1
2/2
1/0
3/2
2/1
2/2
1/1
4/2
5/0
1/1
5/1
Turkey
1/0
The location of the 30 organisations wishing to cooperate with Japan is shown in figure 4 (red
numbers). In average we count for 2 Japan-affirming responses by country. The high rate by the
50
Czech Republic responses could be explained the high rate of answering countries as such from Czech
Republic. No interest in Brazil was expressed by organizations from Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Ireland,
Germany, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Republic of Moldova, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and Turkey.
The distribution of types of the institutions interested in Japan can be divided into four categories.
Research organisations count for 12, followed by 11 universities. Research funding agencies make up
3, surpassed by 4 other institutions. One Technology Cluster from Serbia indicated interest in
cooperating with Japan.
Among the activities carried out by the organizations interested in Japan, nearly all crossed basic
research as their domain. Only 7 gave no answer, 3 of them being funding agencies. This result can
also be applied to the applied sciences, with only minor differences. Approximately 11-15 crosses
were respectively given to the following areas of research: Innovation, Biology, Biotechnology,
Chemistry, Earth Science, Energy, ICT, Material Sciences, Health and Environment. Noteworthy,
Innovation ranks quite high with 17 interested organisations.
The question what structure should the STI JELO have, was answered by with virtual office and
with physical office. The next question, whether the answering partners had any geographical
preference (city or region), was hard to evaluate as only a few answers were given, with a preference
to the capital, Tokyo.
In a better shape were answers to the complex Which services should the STI Joint European Liaison
Office provide? What would be useful for your institution that you can better achieve jointly with
other organisations? The interested partners said, that networking (primary contacts,
communication, information exchange, structural access to relevant data, etc.) are of utmost
importance. Nearly all 30 organisations expressed their interest in this activity. From those who
wished to establish a virtual office not all ticked networking.
Equally, visibility (joint exhibitions, show rooms, etc.) are regarded as useful by the overall majority.
Other topics like representation, e.g. coordination of European STI interests, scientific staff exchange,
etc. is of interest for the partner countries as well. Other features were also given like joint activities
(sharing research facilities, joint awareness raising activities, promotion, events, etc. Interestingly,
not all organisations ticked yes to the question whether there is an interest in joint funding (joint
research projects, joint calls, etc.). Money seems not to have the highest priority. At the same time
they declared their interest in promoting participation in Horizon 2020 was the last feature with a
high number of positive answers. All other points were not of utmost interest, but gained crosses as
well.
51
Figure 5: Services an STI JELO should provide (multiple answers, n=30)

Networking
Representation
9 1
Joint funding
29
12
Joint activities
15
23

Visibility
18
23
20
21
Promoting EU participation in national

programms
Providing partnering services for EU
companies
Being the EEN (Entreprise Europe
Network) node
Other
Interestingly the answering partner saw also risk and challenges in an STI JELO and commented the
question: Do you see any risks or challenges with regard to such a STI Joint European Liaison
Office? with the hint that an STI JELO had to coordinate diverse needs and interests of presumably
large numbers of EU stakeholders. It is seen as a risk in this context that the interests of smaller
partners will be overshadowed or underrepresented compared to the more established institutions
and organizations. In the same way it was seen as a risk that there are different interests of different
types of organisations. Also mentioned were the following points:
-
Cultural differences could be a risk;

Conflicts of interest may arise;
Costs could be high;
Personnel must be highly qualified;
Too heavy bureaucratic structure and functioning;
To be efficient such office will need several people to handle all activities as the office
would be swamped with requests;
Risk that not each country/organisation would be represented equally (accordingly
Equality principles should be applied);
Large EU-countries dominate the agenda to the disadvantage of small EU MS;
Challenge of being transparent and independent;
Research is one of the most competitive fields. Therefore the fear of Brain Drain has to be
countered by a fair distribution of goods of the STI JELO;
It would have to be a small office (for budget reasons) covering a very wide range of
subjects and topics - danger of being too spread to be truly useful;
Importance to clarify the difference between EU and STI JELO;
Challenge of real interaction between different players in the field; different in geography,
and different in the value chain of science
The STI JELO might have no impact at all;
The office should work closely with the EU delegation and representation as well as the
different research and innovation stakeholders of European embassies and other European
52
institutions. It must stick to a coordination role and not be seen as an entity at the top of
the existing ones.
A further question inquired the main expectations and benefits for the institution in participating in
an STI JELO in Japan. First of all, visibility and access to local networks was named. Also identifying
opportunities for collaboration with local partners were seen as important. In other words, access
to science and industry, with a primary focus on joint funding opportunities, was given high
attention. Sharing resources, experience, finding synergies, reduced functioning costs as compared
with an individual representation office were seen a crucial. For industrial/private partners, the
entering of new markets, technology and knowledge fields as well as finding new partners were in
the focus. Secondly, recruitment played a role. Students and scientific partners should be made
accessible via the STI JELO, so to say, increase of the mobility of scientists. Even more, to set up a
mechanism for exchange of scientific personnel. And thirdly, most of the answering partners were
in the hope to promote or access bilateral/multilateral funding schemes in order to support joint
research.
Conclusion
First of all, the data analysed here has to be taken with careful attention as it might not be taken as
representative (only three organisations were identified to have representations in Japan, which is
not very plausible; the answers were partly given by copy and paste so that it is questionable
whether they really apply to Japan).
There is an interest in having an STI JELO in Japan. This was mentioned in the foreground by those
institutions not having yet an office in Japan. Those who already are on the spot in Japan would not
invest or profit from an STI JELO, according to their self-description. Thematic focuses would play a
role, obviously with country-specific domains. Japan is of interest in the areas of: Innovation, Biology,
Biotechnology, Chemistry, Earth Science, Energy, ICT, Material Sciences, Health and Environment.
The three institutions already having a representation in Japan are mainly from big MS, will say in the
case of Japan from Germany and Spain. The idea of having an STI JELO in Japan is mostly favored by
those countries that cannot or not yet have a representation in Japan. Obviously these are smaller
and weaker European Member States/AS. Interestingly these countries look at a potential opening of
an STI JELO in Japan with sorrows, as they expect to be overrun by the strong MS/AS.
In all, Japan is of interest for many survey participants, however not ranking first. Taking into account
that the data only can give a trend rather than a sound decision basis, further questionnaires would
be necessary. One could start at the point of collaboration priority areas and deepen the analysis. On
the other hand, one also has to take into consideration that Japan did not seem to have put hurdles
while establishing representative offices of the three examples (two German and one Spanish office).
This might basically count favorable for Japan as a potential Liaison Office partner of the European
Union.
53
9 New Zealand
(provided by FRIENZ)
EUROPEAN ORGANIZATIONS WITH A REPRESENTATION OFFICE IN NEW

ZEALAND
None of the organizations which have replied has a representation office in New Zealand (20.21% in
total have a representation office in the other 11 targeted countries).
EUROPEAN ORGANIZATIONS WHICH COOPERATE WITH NEW ZEALAND

8 responding organizations have existing cooperation with New Zealand, i.e. 8.51% of the
questionnaires respondents.
1. Profile of the European organizations having cooperation with a NZ partner:

Origin and type of the organizations:
All respondents are from public organizations. Half of the organizations having cooperation with a NZ
partner are universities; the other half being research organizations. Czech Republic is the most
represented country among the respondents (3), followed by France (2). The United Kingdom,
Switzerland and Finland are respectively represented by 1 organization among the respondents. (See
Fig. 1).
3
2,5
2
1,5
1
0,5
University
Research Organization
Figure 1: Distribution per country of research organizations and universities having cooperation with NZ partners
Those results do not reflect the most significant NZ partners recorded, which are Germany, France,
and the UK;1 Those countries have some specific cooperation programmes with NZ (e.g. Dumont
dUrville NZ-France S&T Support Programme, NZ-Germany Science & Technology Programme,
etc.). In addition, NZ organizations cooperated the most with the UK, Germany, the Netherlands,
France and Italy within the FP7 framework. Yet, the respondents geographical origin distribution
does not reflect the current situation mentioned above.
54
Kind of activities conducted in the organizations:

All the 8 European organizations are conducting applied research, 7 of them basic research and 6 of
them innovation activities. Research management (3), translational research (2) and research funding
(0) are the activities which are the less conducted in the responding European organizations.
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Applied research
Basic research
Research management
Research funding
Figure 2: Activities conducted in the European organizations having cooperation with NZ partners
Main research areas of the organizations:
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Environment
Bio-based industry
Biotechnology
Food and healh diet
Social Sciences
Biology
Eath sciences
Health & medical
ICT
Research infrastructure
Agriculture
Aquatic resources
Energy
Material sciences &
Chemistry
Engineering
Mathematics
Physics
Raw materials
Space
Marine Research
Environment (7) is the research area most represented in the 8 organizations, followed by bio-based
industry, biotechnology, food and health diet, and social sciences (5). On the contrary industrial
technologies, raw materials, space and marine research are the less represented research areas amongst
the responding organizations (1).
Figure 4: Research areas of the responding European organizations
55
2. Profile of the organizations based in NZ with which the above mentioned organizations
cooperate with:
The 8 responding organizations, based in Europe, have cooperation with New Zealand organizations
but also with European organizations.
Cooperation of European organizations based in EU with New Zealand organizations in NZ:

Half of the organizations are collaborating both with NZ governmental and non-governmental
organizations, 3 are only collaborating with non-governmental organizations and 1 with only
governmental organizations.
These organizations based in New Zealand provide different kind of services to the European
organizations which have responded. The most important, provided to all European organization are
the support of experts and staffs exchange (to all of them), followed by the support of networks (7)
and the organizations of workshops.
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Supporting exchange of
experts and staff
Supporting network
Organizing workshops
Representation of services or
products
Offering training
Facilitating conference
Figure 3: Services provided by the partners based in NZ
Cooperation of European organizations based in the EU with European organizations based in NZ

3 out of the 8 European organizations are cooperating with European organizations (from France, the
United Kingdom and Finland) based in New Zealand. 2 of them are cooperating with their countrys
embassy or representation in NZ (France and United Kingdom). The organization from United
Kingdom is also cooperating with the EU Delegation in New Zealand. Also, 1 organization from
Finland is cooperating with 1 EU research, funding or business organization.
56
EUROPEAN ORGANISATIONS INTERESTED IN AN STI JELO IN NEW ZEALAND

Overall, 16 organizations are in favor of settling an STI JELO in NZ (25.40 % out of the organizations
interested in STI JELOs / 17.02% of the total respondents) and 30 organizations are not interested.
1. Profile of the organizations interested in settling an STI JELO in New Zealand

Origin and type of the organizations:
Responding organizations in favor of settling an STI JELO in NZ are from 11 different countries. The
most represented countries are Czech Republic (4), Portugal (2) and Croatia (2). All the other
countries are represented by one organization (see the table below for the details regarding the
geographical distribution).
Country
Czech Republic
Portugal
Croatia
Israel
United Kingdom
Slovenia
Serbia
Finland
Slovakia
Switzerland
Hungary
Number of
answers
4
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Figure 5: Distribution per country of organizations interested in an STI JELO in NZ
They are almost all public research organizations except one (cluster). They are mostly research
organizations (6) and universities (6).
Research
organisation
1
1
2
6
University
Research funding
agency
Cluster
Others
Figure 6: Kind of organizations interested in an STI JELO in NZ
57
The figure below presents the organizations interested in having an STI JELO in New Zealand,
combining both criteria (geographical origin and type of organization).
Figure 7: Organizations interested in an STI JELO in NZ
Most of these organizations are conducting applied research (14), basic research (13) and innovation
activities (9). Research management (7), translational research (5) and research funding (7) are the
activities which are the less conducted in the European organizations interested in an STI JELO in NZ.
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Figure 8: Activities conducted in the European organizations interested in an STI JELO in NZ
Main research areas of the organizations:

Biotechnology, chemistry, environment and climate, material sciences and nanotechnology (9) are the
most represented research area, followed by energy and ICT (8). On the contrary agriculture and
forestry, raw materials and space and marine research are the less represented research areas amongst
the organizations interested in settling an STI JELO in New Zealand.
58
Biotechnology
Chemistry
Environment and
Material sciences
Energy
ICT
Biology
Earth sciences
Health and medical
Social Sciences and
Engineering
Physics
Aquatic resources
Mathematics
Raw Materials
Space
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Figure 9: Research areas of the European organizations interested in an STI JELO in NZ
Focus on the European organizations having cooperation with NZ organizations:

Out of the 8 European organizations which have cooperation with NZ organizations, 6 have replied to
this question. 4 of them are in favor of having an STI JELO (25% of the organizations interested in
having an STI JELO in NZ). More precisely, 3 are in favor of an office together with other
representations and 1 in the format of a separate office. Among the remaining organizations, 2 are
against the implementation of an STI JELO in NZ and 2 have not answered this question.
2. Preferred structure and services of STI JELO:

A great majority (81.25%) of the organizations in favor of settling an STI JELO in NZ would prefer to
have a physical structure (slightly above the average rate of positive answer for settling an STI JELO
for all countries, 71.43%).
If the organizations were interested in having a physical structure, they were asked to further precise
the nature of the structure: a separate office or a joint office with other organizations. The majority of
the respondents are in favor of an office together with other representations (61.53%) as shows the
figure below (Fig. 5). This percentage is a bit lower than the average of positive answer for settling an
STI JELO for all countries (75.55%).
5
8
Separate Office
Office together with other
representations
Figure 10: Preference on the nature of the physical STI JELO structure (number)
No geographical preference was expressed as far as New Zealand is concerned.

59
Services expected from an STI JELO:
20
10
0
Figure 11: Services expected from an STI JELO
The main services expected from an STI JELO in NZ are networking (16), joint funding (14) and
promoting participation in H2020 (13).
Conclusion
Few respondents seem to be interested in having an STI JELO in New Zealand (only 17.01%).
However, some countries are under-represented in this survey as Germany (6.38%), Italy (2.13%) and
the United Kingdom (4.26%) while some other countries are over-represented. It raises the question of
the representability of this sampleand how much we can rely on these results.
60
10 Russia
(provided by BILAT-RUS-Advanced)
Organizations with a representation in Russia: opportunities and limits

Six Organizations which have filled the survey have already a representation in Russia: these
Organizations have their headquarters in Israel (2), Germany (2), France (1) and Spain (1).
The main reasons which stimulated these Organizations to establish an Office in Russia are:
1. To have an institutional representation and related interface for cooperation
(France)
2. To establish a partnership with the Hebrew University (Israel)
3. To promote scientific cooperation and enhance visibility in Russia (Germany)
4. To facilitate the cooperation in Research and Development between Spanish
Companies and Russian Partners (Spain).
It should be noted that one of the two Israeli Organizations having a representation in
Russia has also representations in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, South
Africa and USA. One of the German Organizations having a representation in Russia has
as well a representation in Brazil, USA and Japan, while the second German Organization
has an Office in China. The Spanish Organization having a representation in Russia has as
well offices in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, South Korea Mexico, South
Africa, USA and Japan.
The following figure describes how many Organizations which filled the survey have a
representation Office in the following Countries: Russia, Argentina, Australia, Brazil,
Canada, China, South Korea, Mexico, South Africa, USA, Japan and New Zealand. It is
visible that the number of representations in Russia is among the highest.
Number of Representations
6
7
4
Number of Representations
Figure 1: Number of representation Offices
61
Difficulties encountered for the establishment of a representation in Russia

Half of the Organizations (located in France, Israel and Germany) having already a
representation in Russia declared to have experienced difficulties in the establishment and
daily management of offices in Russia. These difficulties span from administrative hurdles
(France, Israel, Germany) like very complex and lengthy visa procedures, to problems in
finding appropriate personnel (Israel), to legal obstacles (Israel and Germany), to financial
difficulties (Israel and Germany) like very high rentals for office space, to mobility restrictions
(France and Israel), to cultural obstacles (Israel and Germany), like concerns on intellectual
property and brain drain.
DIFFICULTIES EXPERIENCED IN THE ESTABLISHMENT

AND MANAGEMENT OF OFFICES IN RUSSIA
Other
Administrative
hurdles
Cultural obstacles
Appropriate
personnel
Mobility
restrictions
Legal obstacles
Finanacial
difficulties
Figure 2: Summary of the main difficulties encountered in the establishment and daily
management of Representations in Russia
62
Main services offered by the existing representations in Russia

The main services offered by the Organizations representation in Russia can be summarized
as: representation of services or products (France, Germany), managing STI Funding
programmes (Germany), facilitating conferences (France, Germany), organizing workshops
(France, Germany), training (Germany), support to networking activities (France, Israel,
Germany), support to exchange of experts and staff (France, Germany), Legal and IPR
support (Israel), funding activities (Israel).
SERVICES OFFERED BY REPRESENTATION IN RUSSIA

Representation of
Funding activities
Legal and IPR
Managing STI
Funding programmes
Support to exchange
(experts, staff)
Facilitating
conferences
Organizing
workshops
Support to
networking activities
Training
Figure 3: Summary of the main services offered by Representations in Russia
63
Mechanisms which facilitated the establishment of the existing

representations in Russia
The establishment of the Organizations representation has been facilitated by the Countrys
Embassy and Representation in Russia (France, Israel, Germany), by a Governmental
organization in Russia (Spain) and by an EU Delegation (France). One of the Israeli
Organizations did not receive any kind of support.
It is worth noting that no EU research organization or funding agency or business
organization or non-governmental organization contributed to the establishment of the
Organizations representations in Russia.
MECHANISMS OF SUPPORT OF REPRESENTATIONS

IN RUSSIA
No support
EU Delegation
Governmental
Organization
Country's Embassy
and
Representation
Figure 4: Summary of the support offered for the establishment of Representations in Russia
64
Financial support for the existing representations in Russia

The survey indicates that the existing Organizations representations in Russia are supported
either by direct financing from the Home Country through the Embassys services (France),
or by the Government (Germany), or by CDTI (Spain), or by the Organizations headquarters
(Germany). The representation of one of the Israeli Organizations is self-financed.
FINANCING OF REPRESENTATION IN RUSSIA

Home Country
through Embassy
Self-Financed
CDTI
Government
Organizations'
Headquarters
Figure 5: Financing mechanisms of Representations in Russia
65
Cooperation with existing structures or partners in Russia

The cooperation with existing structures or partners in Russia has been developed by 33% of
the Organizations participating to the survey, corresponding to 31 Organizations. The
structures involved in the cooperation are the Country`s Embassy or representation in Russia
(13%), the EU Delegation in Russia (2%), the EU research, funding or business organisations
(5%), Non-governmental Russian organisations (12%), Russian Governmental Organizations
(21%) and other structures (e.g. Universities and research Institutions, 10%). Of the total of
94 Organizations populating the survey 44 have declared of not cooperating with existing
structures or partners in Russia.
Cooperation with existing structures in Russia
Country'e Embassy or
Representation
EU Delegation
EU research, funding or business
org.
Russian NGO
Russian Governmental
Organizations
University,Research Institute,
Other
Figure 6: Cooperation with existing structures in Russia
66
Establishment of a STI Joint European Liaison Office in Third Countries and

Russia
When prompted with the question whether there would be a specific interest for the
establishment of an STI Joint European Liaison Office in specific Third Countries, 63
Organizations (corresponding to 67% of the surveys participants) answered positively, while
31 Organizations (corresponding to 33% of the surveys participants) replied negatively.
Responses for the establishment of an STI

JELO in Third Countries
Negative
33%
Positive
67%
Positive
Negative
Figure 7: Positive and negative responses to the establishment of an STI JELO in Third
Countries
With reference to the Third Countries originally selected for the survey 27 preferences have
been assigned to Russia (29%), 20 preferences to Argentina (21%), 20 preferences to
Australia (21%), 38 preferences to Brazil (40%), 30 preferences to Canada (32%), 42
preferences to China (45%), 25 preferences to South Korea (27%), 22 preferences to Mexico
(23%), 16 preferences to New Zealand (17%), 24 preferences to South Africa (26%), 41
preferences to USA (44%) and 30 preferences to Japan (32%).
These results bring the interest for Russia in a high rank position, although not at the top:
this outcome is likely linked to the difficulties already experienced by some Organizations in
the establishment phase of their representations in the Country.
67
11 South Africa
(provided by ESASTAP plus)
Organisations with representation offices in South Africa

Five organisations 5.5%, stated having representation in South Africa. Among those five
organisations, three stated being interested in the establishment of an STI JELO in South Africa.
Type of
organisation
Public
university
Headquarters
country
Israel
(Jerusalem)
Main research areas/

activities
Pluridisciplinary research and
technology transfer
Services offered by their representation

offices
Supporting networking activities and funding
activities
Public
university
Belgium
Pluridisciplinary research
Public
research
funding
agency
Spain
(Madrid)
Public
research
organisation
- research for
development
France
(Marseille)
Financial assessment of R&D

projects implemented by
companies; managing
international technological
cooperation programmes,
Fostering international
business technology transfer,
Supporting the setting up of
technological companies
Pluridisciplinary research
emphasis on Environment,
resources, Health, and social
sciences
Supporting networking activities and

exchange of experts and staff, offering
trainings, organising workshops and
facilitating conferences, representation of
Supporting networking activities and
exchange of experts and staff
Private
research
organisation
- applicationoriented
Germany
(Munich)
Health, security,
communication, energy and
the environment
Managing STI Funding programmes, offering

trainings, supporting networking activities
and exchange of experts and staff, offering
trainings, organising workshops and
facilitating conferences, representation of
Representation of services or products,
organising workshops and facilitating
conferences, set up business connections
and collaborations : contract research,
scientific collaborations and capacity building
(exchange of experts and staff)
68
Out of those five organisations, two are university offices with their headquarters based in Israel and
Belgium. Their fields of research are broad and the main motivation for establishing offices in South
Africa is to support their respective research projects and staff exchanges with several South African
universities (mainly the case of the Belgium University) and to promote their home university. In this
sense, the main roles of the Israeli University representation is to raise awareness within the Jewish
and general South African community of the Universitys academic and research excellence, to raise
funds and encourage bequests in support of the University, and to encourage and assist South
African students wishing to undertake study at the University.
No support (e.g. logistic, legal, etc.) were provided by other institutions for establishing this Israeli
office in South Africa. The representation is also self-financed. On the contrary, the Belgium public
university received supports by its embassy in Pretoria, and its government. Funds were provided by
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Both of them indicated that they would be interested in an STI JELO in
South Africa however, one indicated the need to have a physical office and the other a virtual one.
Potential activities on which the university offices could capitalise with other organisations and
services that should be provided by the STI JELO are:
Networking - such as primary contacts, communication, information exchange, structural

access to relevant data;
Joint activities such as sharing research facilities, joint awareness raising activities,
promotion, events;
Joint funding - joint research projects, joint calls, promoting participation in Horizon 2020;
Being the EEN (Enterprise Europe Network) node.
The Israeli University indicated also other potential services such as representation service
(coordination of European STI interests, scientific staff exchange, etc.). The Belgium University
highlighted other services such as promoting EU participation in national programmes and providing
partnering services for EU companies.
A minor risk/challenge with regard to such an STI JELO was pointed out by the two organisations such
as the need to clarify the difference between EU and European Liaison office. Expectations and
benefits in participating in such joint office specifically mentioned are the direct access to science &
research in South Africa, networking with other European science organisations in the country, and
having local support and entry to local universities and Higher Education institutes.
The three others organisations based in South Africa are a research funding agency from Spain; a
German private company; and the joint French research institutes composed of two French public
research institutions - IRD/CNRS.
The Spanish research funding agency is a Business Entity, answering to the Ministry of Economy and
Competitiveness, which fosters the technological development and innovation of Spanish companies.
It is the entity that channels the funding and support applications for national and international RD&I
projects of Spanish companies.
This organisation extended its network to South Africa in order to support Spanish entities interested
in developing innovative R&D cooperative projects with South African companies, identify
technological opportunities and promotes technology transfer.
69
The main service offered by their representation is networking activities and find new partnership
opportunities. When asked if any difficulties were encountered to establish their office, this
representation mentioned administrative hurdles and operational ones due to the lack of
experiences from their counterpart organisations.
Support for establishing the office were given by the Spanish government and the Spanish embassy
to South Africa; the representation is funded by their own public budget. This research funding
agency indicated not being interested in the establishment of an STI JELO in South Africa without
giving any further information on their reasons.
The CNRS/IRD Joint office is a public entity under the umbrella of the French Embassy in South Africa
and representing two national French ARIs: Le Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)
and the French Institute of Research for Development (IRD). With their headquarter based in France,
those two institutions cover a wide range of research areas, IRD more focused on development
issues related to environment and resources, health, social context. CNRS is a pluridisciplinary
institution covering all scientific disciplines, including humanities, biological sciences, nuclear and
particle physics, information sciences, engineering and systems, mathematical sciences, astronomy,
ecology and the environment. Since 2015, The French agricultural research and international
cooperation organisation working for the sustainable development of tropical and Mediterranean
regions CIRAD, has strengthened its link to the CNRS/IRD joint office which is now the main focal
point for the three institutions.
No hurdles in setting up the joint office were indicated by the survey respondent. However, hurdles
occurred later on visa regulation and administrative requirements. The joint representation offers
multiple services to their institutions such managing STI Funding programmes, facilitating networking
and events, offering trainings and supporting exchange of experts and staff.
Supports from the French government and its embassy were given to facilitate the establishment of
this common representation which is mainly funded by IRD own budget with a support from the
CNRS ones. The French joint office is interested in an STI Joint European Liaison Office in South Africa
and will prefer a physical office than a virtual one. The services that this European office should
provide are the promotion of IRD & CNRS expertise in South Africa, the managing of STI Funding
programmes, the support of networking activities, exchange of experts and staff, training activities,
organization of workshops and conferences.
When asking what kind of risks or challenges can occur with regard to such an STI JELO, the
respondent highlighted the need to work closely with the EU delegation and representation in the
region (ex: Addis Ababa), as well as the different research and innovation stakeholders of European
embassies and other European institutions based in the country and the region. It must stick to a
coordination role and not be seen as an entity at the top of the existing ones. The main expectations
and benefits in participating in such an STI JELO are the increase of visibility, of new partnership
opportunities, of joint funding, and the facility to participate in H2020 programmes.
The German private research company is one of Europes largest application-oriented research
organisation with its headquarters located in Munich, Germany. Its research efforts are focused on
health, security, communication, energy and the environment. The organisation undertakes applied
research of direct utility to private and public enterprise and of wide benefit to society. The
70
organizations core task is to carry out research of practical utility in close cooperation with its
customers from industry and the public sector.
For the moment, the organisation has a Senior Advisor representative in South Africa; the Senior
Advisor helps the home organisation and their partners to set up business connections and
collaborations in South Africa and the all African continent. Currently most of their activities in Africa
are focused on Egypt and South Africa.
No specific hurdles to the activities of the organisation in South Africa were indicated by the survey
respondent. The representative is actively involved in contract research, scientific collaborations and
capacity building. This local representation benefits commercial enterprises in their business
activities as well as government customers in implementing economic, research and development
policies.
The representative activities are only funded by the organisation no supports are provided by other
institutions. The company indicated not being particularly interested for the moment in the
establishment of an STI JELO in South Africa.
Organisation already cooperating with South Africa

29% of the overall survey respondents (included the 5 organisations presented above), already
cooperate with South Africa.
The type of those organisations, their respective headquarters country and main research areas are
presented in the following table.
71
Headquarters
country
Number and
type of
organisation
Czech
Republic
3 public
organisations:
2 universities
and 1
research
organisation
Hungary
2 public
organisations:
1 university
and 1
research
organisation
France
5 public
organisations:
4 Research
organisations,
1 university
Portugal
2 public
organisations:
1 Research
organisation,
1 Research
funding
agency
Greece
3
organisations:
1 Innovation
Intermediary
(Private), 2
Research
organisation
(Private and
public)
Sweden
2 public
Type of
research and
innovation
activities
Basic
research,
applied
research,
experimental
development,
innovation
activities,
Research
funding &
research
management
Basic
research,
applied
research,
experimental
development,
Innovation
activities,
Research
management
Applied
research,
experimental
development,
translational
research,
Innovation
activities,
Research
management
Basic
research,
applied
research,
experimental
development,
research
funding and
innovation
activities
Basic
research,
applied
research,
experimental
development,
innovation
activities,
research
management
Research
Thematic research focus
Aquatic resources, Biology, Bio-based industries,

Biotechnology, Chemistry, Earth sciences, energy,
Engineering , Environment and Climate Change, Food and
healthy diet, Health and medical research, ICT, Material
sciences and nanotechnology, mathematic, physic, Research
Infrastructure, Social sciences and humanities and Space
Biology, Bio-based industries, Biotechnology, Chemistry,

Earth sciences, energy, Engineering, Environment and
Climate Change, ICT, Industrial technologies, Material
sciences and nanotechnology, mathematic, physic, Raw
materials, Social sciences and humanities & Space
Agriculture and forestry, Aquatic resources, Biology, Biobased industries, Biotechnology, Chemistry, Earth sciences,
energy, Engineering, Environment and Climate Change, Food
and healthy diet, Health and medical research, ICT, Industrial
technologies, Material sciences and nanotechnology,
mathematic, physic, Research Infrastructure, Social sciences
and humanities & Space
Agriculture and forestry, Aquatic resources, Biology,

Biotechnology, Chemistry, energy, Engineering, Environment
and Climate Change, Food and healthy diet, Health and
medical research, ICT, Industrial technologies, Material
sciences and nanotechnology, physic, Research
Infrastructure
Agriculture and forestry, Biology, Bio-based industries,

Engineering, Environment and Climate Change, Food and
healthy diet, Health and medical research, ICT, Industrial
and humanities and Space
Agriculture and forestry, Aquatic resources, Biology, Bio-
72
Research
funding
agency
Switzerland
2 public
organisations:
1 Research
organisation,
1 University
funding and
innovation
activities
based industries, Biotechnology, Chemistry, Earth sciences,

technologies, Material sciences and nanotechnology, Raw
materials, Social sciences and humanities
Biology, Chemistry, Earth sciences, energy, Environment and
Climate Change, Health and medical research, Material
sciences and nanotechnology, physics, Research
Infrastructure
Basic
research,
applied
research,
Experimental
development,
translational
research,
innovation
activities,
research
management
Finland
1 public
Applied
research
science, basic Biotechnology, energy, Environment and Climate Change,
organisation
research,
Industrial technologies, Research Infrastructure, Social sciences
Experimental and humanities
development,
Translational
research,
innovation
activities,
research
management
Slovenia
1 public
Applied
University
science, basic Biotechnology, Chemistry, Earth sciences, energy,
research,
Experimental healthy diet, Health and medical research, ICT, Industrial
development, technologies, Material sciences and nanotechnology, Raw
translational
materials, Mathematics and physics, Social sciences and
research,
humanities and space
Innovation
activities
Turkey
1 public
Research
N/A undefined
Research
funding
funding
agency
Germany
2 research
Applied
organisations: science, basic energy, Engineering, Environment and Climate Change, Food
public and
research,
and healthy diet , Health and medical research, ICT,
private
Translational
Industrial technologies, Material sciences and
research,
nanotechnology, Mathematics and physics, Raw materials &
Innovation
research infrastructure
activities,
Research
management
Israel
1 public
Information
Information available in section 1
university
available in
section
Spain
1 public
Information
research
available in
funding
section 1
agency
73
Belgium
1 public
organisations:
University
Information
available in
section 1
Partners in South Africa

When asked about the existing structures with which they are cooperating with in South Africa, 41%
survey respondents cooperate with South African governmental organisations and 37% cooperate
with their countrys Embassy or representation to South Africa. On a lower level, 26% are
cooperating with Non-Governmental Organization of South Africa, 15% with EU research, funding or
business organisations and 15% with the EU Delegation to South Africa and South African
universities.
Embassy or representation in South Africa
EU Delegation in South Africa
EU research, funding or business organisation
Non-governmental organisation
Governmental organisation
university
37%
15%
15%
26%
41%
15%
Services provided by the partners

Regarding the services provided by these structures or partners, one of the main activities is
supporting networking 56% and supporting exchange of experts and staff 41%.
Other activities such as offering trainings 33%, the organisation of workshops and conferences
26%, and the managements of STI funding programmes 22%, are also key services provided by their
representations/partners in South Africa.
Representation of services or products
Managing STI funding programmes
Facilitating conferences
Organising workshops
Offering training
11%
22%
26%
26%
33%
Supporting networking
Supporting exchange of experts and staff
Legal and IPR support
Research and joint publications
56%
41%
7%
4%
74
Organisations interested in an STI Joint European Liaison Office in South

Africa
26% of the overall survey respondents: 24 research organisations indicated that they would be
interested in an STI Joint European Liaison Office localised in South Africa.
The type of those organisations, their respective headquarters country and main research areas are
presented in the following table.
Headquarters
country
Number and
type of
organisation
Czech
Republic
4 public
organisations:
3 universities
and 1
research
organisation
Hungary
2 public
organisations:
1 university
and 1
research
organisation
France
3 public
organisations:
2 Research
organisations,
1 university
Portugal
2 public
organisations:
1 Research
organisation,
1 Research
funding
agency
Greece
3 private
organisations:
1 Innovation
Type of
research and
innovation
activities
Basic
research,
applied
research,
experimental
development,
translational
research and
education
Basic
research,
applied
research,
experimental
development,
Innovation
activities,
Research
management
Basic
research,
applied
research,
experimental
development,
translational
research,
Innovation
activities,
Research
management
Basic
research,
applied
research,
experimental
development,
research
funding and
innovation
activities
Basic
research,
applied
Thematic research focus
Aquatic resources, Biology, Bio-based industries,

Engineering , Environment and Climate Change, Food and
and humanities and Space

Earth sciences, energy, Engineering, Environment and
Climate Change, ICT, Industrial technologies, Material
sciences and nanotechnology, mathematic, physic, Raw
materials, Social sciences and humanities & Space

Biotechnology, Chemistry, Earth sciences, Engineering,
Environment and Climate Change, Food and healthy diet,
Health and medical research, Material sciences and
nanotechnology, physic, Raw materials, Research
Infrastructure, Social sciences and humanities

Biotechnology, Chemistry, energy, Engineering, Environment
and Climate Change, Food and healthy diet, Health and
medical research, ICT, Industrial technologies, Material
sciences and nanotechnology, physic, Research
Infrastructure
Agriculture and forestry, Aquatic resources, Biology, Biobased industries, Biotechnology, Chemistry, Earth sciences,
75
Intermediary,
2 Research
organisation
research,
and healthy diet, Health and medical research, ICT, Industrial
experimental technologies, Material sciences and nanotechnology and
development, Space
translational
research,
innovation
activities,
research
management
Switzerland
1 public
Basic
Earth sciences, energy, Environment and Climate Change
university
research,
applied
research,
research
management
Finland
1 public
Applied
research
science, basic
Biotechnology, energy, Environment and Climate Change,
organisation
research,
Industrial technologies, Research Infrastructure, Social
Experimental
sciences and humanities
development,
Translational
research,
Innovation
activities,
Research
management
Agriculture and forestry, Aquatic resources, Biology, BioSlovakia
1 public
Applied
research
science, basic based industries , Biotechnology, Chemistry, Earth sciences,
organisation
research,
Experimental and healthy diet, Health and medical research, ICT, Industrial
materials, Mathematics and physics, Research Infrastructure,
Translational
Social sciences and humanities and space
research,
Innovation
activities,
Research
management
Israel
2 public
Applied
Agriculture and forestry, Aquatic resources, Biology, Bioorganisations: science, basic based industries , Biotechnology, Chemistry, Earth sciences,
1 university & research,
energy, Environment and Climate Change, Food and healthy
1 research
Experimental diet, Health and medical research, ICT, Industrial
organisation
Translational
materials, Mathematics and physics, Research Infrastructure,
research,
Innovation
activities,
Research
management
ICT
Serbia
1 private
Applied
cluster
science, basic
research,
Innovation
activities,
Research
funding &
management
Luxembourg
1 private
Innovation
no research undertaken
76
Italy
Croatia
Belgium
national
Innovation
Agency
1 public
technology
transfer office
1 public
research
funding
agency
1 public
university
activities
Innovation
activities,
Research
funding &
management
Research
funding
Agriculture and forestry, Aquatic resources, Biology, Biobased industries , Biotechnology, Chemistry, Earth sciences,
energy, Food and healthy diet, Health and medical research,
ICT, Industrial technologies, Material sciences and
nanotechnology
None
Information
available in
section 1
77
Preferred structure and services of the STI JELO
Physical (Office together with other

Representations - e.g. jointly with EU
Delegation)
Physical (Independent Office)
Virtual Office
42%
29%
29%
Frequently named expectations & benefits of the STI JELO
Networking (primary contacts, communication,

information exchange, structural access to
relevant data, etc.)
Visibility (joint exhibitions, show rooms, etc.)
Representation (coordination of European STI
interests, scientific staff exchange, etc.)
Joint activities (sharing research facilities, joint
awareness raising activities, promotion, events,
etc.)
Joint funding (joint research projects, joint calls,
etc.)
Promoting EU participation in national
programmes
Being the EEN (Enterprise Europe Network) node
100%
79%
79%
67%
83%
75%
62,5%
46%
37,5%
Answers to open-ended questions underlined visibility as a key element regarding the main
expectations and benefits in participating in such an STI Joint European Liaison Office. By increasing
the visibility of its members and industry in South Africa, the STI JELO could also provide access to
local networks. The identification of potential future partners and assistance by initiating first
contacts with South Africa research stakeholders (national and regional research funding bodies,
academia, research institutes and companies, infrastructures, competence centers, clusters) is set
out as a key role by several respondents.
Specifically on innovation, some respondents pointed out the benefits in supporting and exchanging
on technology innovation such as bioeconomy and renewable natural resources, facilitate
technology transfer services between the two regions and the identification of funding sources
(governmental and non-governmental) for innovation projects. Support to staff and students
Exchange to start up new partnerships sharing, new markets for new technology were also
mentioned.
The STI JELO could support the internationalization of EU companies as well as non-profit research
associations and create new EEN nodes. The expected benefits are to support research and
innovation with South Africa to address common global challenges for the increase of the
competitiveness of the EU industry with social and economic benefits.
78
Several answers to open-ended questions highlighted the benefits of having such European office
regarding their participation in Horizon 2020. The STI JELO could identify priorities for cooperation
with third countries and regions, with a view to subsequently implementing these through activities
with the necessary scale and scope, in particular in the context of Horizon 2020. It could also
facilitate joint funding and enhance H2020 collaboration, coordinate more efficiently European
scientific actors, and improve alignment between H2020 and national/regional programmes.
Through better coordination, the STI JELO could promote the bilateral and multilateral funding
schemes to support joint research projects and joint training.
Furthermore, such office could enhance mobility, establishing a mechanism for exchange of scientific
personnel and students and offering local support and entry to local universities and Higher
Education institutions.
Lately, most survey respondents did not indicate geographical preferences in South Africa, a few
number pointed out the need to be based in key cities such as Pretoria and Johannesburg. Some
innovation agency pointed out the need to be localized in the main scientific park/hub of the
country.
Frequently named risks & challenges
Financial and funding issues were often raised by survey respondents as one of the main challenges
facing the establishment and sustainability of an STI JELO in South Africa. Challenges such as the
need to have a return on investment in a short period of time to justify expenses, the possibility for
some organisations of not being able to contribute financially, the lack of dedicated resource such as
personnel to follow the wide variety of topics are concerns that were highlighted in the survey
responses.
Duplication respondents highlighted the need for a good coordination with other European actors
involved in scientific cooperation with South Africa. The idea is to share information in order to avoid
duplication. The STI JELO should work closely with the EU delegation and representation in regions,
as well as with the different research and innovation stakeholders of European embassies and other
European institutions based in the country and region. For some respondents, the STI JELO should
stick to a coordination role and not be seen as a competitive entity. For others respondents, the
challenge is to work and coordinate with other European authorities while keeping the STI JELO's
independence intact.
The risk of spreading and dissipating efforts several respondents underlined the conflict that may
occur between diversity and coherence; in other words the risk for such diverse liaison office to act
with unity and take rapid decisions when need be.
For some respondents, the challenge is to have a small office (for budget reasons) covering a very
wide range of subjects and topics this office maybe too spread out to be truly useful. With different
organisations and different interests, it is important to clearly define the strategy and objectives of
the STI JELO in order to avoid inaction and paralysis.
79
Equal representation is also pointed out by several respondents as one of the principle upon which
the STI JELO should be based on. This joint office should secure equal representation of European
partners toward potential partners in South Africa.
Conflicts of interest may also occur between different organisations. In this regards, it is important
to clearly define the role and the mandate of such an STI JELO.
Other risks & challenges were pointed out such as the cultural and language barriers and the
competitiveness within the research community that may hamper the unity and effectiveness of the
STI JELO. Research related activities (research itself, innovation, research funding) are rather
sensitive topics where building trust is sometime difficult. Lately, the potential bureaucratic
requirements, lack of administrative and regulatory capacity in South Africa to promote the
collaboration were raised by some survey respondents.
Conclusion
These survey results highlighted the interests of several European research organisations in the
establishment of an STI JELO in South Africa. 24% of the respondents indicated their wish to see such
office taking ground in South Africa, among which three European organisations with already
representations in the country and several with already cooperation activities and partnerships going
on with South Africa research stakeholders.
A large majority of these European research organisations are public institutes - 79%, and a small one
from the private sector - 21%. Considering the type of organisations, 42% are unspecified research
organisations, 33% are public universities, 12,5% are public funding agencies, 12,5% are private
innovation agencies (included one private cluster).
Regarding the main expectations & benefits of an STI JELO in South Africa, all the survey respondents
indicated networking and visibility as key services from which they could benefit. In this regards,
the join office should help in the identification of potential future partners and assistance by
initiating first contacts with South Africa research stakeholders. Synergies on which such European
office could capitalized on are the implementation of joint activities and funding, facilitate the
participation in European programme such as H2020 and providing partnering services for EU
companies. Others synergies and complementarities can also be untapped as regards to research and
innovation capacity in addressing the shared economic, environmental and societal challenges. The
STI JELO may facilitate the development of a framework for cooperation to promote closer
collaboration in mutual economic and strategic interest between EU-South Africa industrial clusters
of businesses, researchers and innovators. It may provide also the technical assistance and training to
support South Africa in improving its national research and innovation systems. Concerning the
structure of such European office, 71% of the survey respondents underlined the need to have a
Physical 42% in favor of a joint office with other representations such as the EU delegation to South
Africa, 29% in favor of an independent office).
The establishment of such liaison office faces several challenges: financial issues, equal
representations, setting up a structure preventing conflict of interests between the members and
80
avoiding duplication by engaging in a coordination process with all the main research European
stakeholders active in South Africa.
The Possible next steps
- Contact with the European representations already established in South Africa, sharing and
exchanging information, uncapping potential synergies and discuss the potential scenarios
and way forward
- Platform to engage in a dialogue with the organisations showing an interest in the creation of
an STI JELO in South Africa
81
12 USA
(provided by BILAT USA 2.0)
Organisations interested in an STI JELO in the USA
Organizations interested in an STI JELO in the USA (distributed by country)
65% (41/63) of the respondents who are in general interested in an STI JELO outside of Europe (see
page 7) are interested in an STI JELO in the USA. The following map shows the country distribution of
organisations interested in an STI JELO in the USA in comparison to organisations interested in an STI
JELO in general.
1/2
1/1
2/2
1/1
1/1
0/1
0/2
7/8
2/2
2/4
2/3
1/1
2/2
2/9
1/1
2/2
2/2
2/2
1/1
2/3
0/2
1/1
2/5
Turkey
41 interests in the USA/63 interests in total

It becomes noticeable in the map and one might conclude, that populous countries, such as Poland
(0/2), Germany (0/1), France (2/9) or Spain (0/2) are less interested in an STI JELO in the USA,
compared to les populous countries, such as Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Hungary, Slovakia, Luxemburg
or the Czech Republic (7/8). The interest of the latter gives good evidence, since the sample is bigger
than that of the rest of the countries, that the establishment of an STI JELO in the USA would be very
welcome for a small country such as the Czech Republic.
82
In addition, only three geographical preferences towards a U.S. city, country or region have been
indicated, i.e. New York and Washington D.C. on the East coast; San Francisco on the West coast.
Type of organisation interested in an STI JELO in the USA
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Public
Private
Research organisations and Universities account for 68% (14 or 34% each) of the total of
organisations interested in an STI JELO in the USA (41). Research funding agencies, Other
organisations, Technology transfer offices, University associations and SMEs account for 32% all
together.
Public Research organisations, Universities, Research funding agencies, Technology transfer offices
and Other organisations, hereafter, show more interests and see more advantages from an STI JELO
in the USA than private organisations.
83
Thematic research focus of organisations interested in an STI JELO in the USA
Space
Raw materials
Aquatic resources
Physics
Mathematics
Bio-based industrie
Earth sciences
Chemistry
Biology
Engineering
Energy
Biotechnology
Material sciences and Nano technology
ICT
0
10
15
20
25
30
More than 50% of the organisations interested in an STI JELO in the USA are engaged in ICT (63%),
Material sciences and Nano technology, Biotechnology, Energy, Health and medical research,
Engineering and/or Environmental and Climate Change (51%).
84
Existing representations in the USA

The 8 organizations with existing representations in the USA (see page 9) are located in France (2;
one of them being a public research organization, one an Other organization), Germany (2; one of
them being a private research organization, one a public government funded organization), Israel (2;
one of them a private research organization, one a public university), Greece (1 private SME), and
Spain (1 public research funding agency).
France
Germany
Israel
Greece
Spain
Public organisation
Research organisation
Government funded organisation
University
Private
Other organisation
Other organisation
Research organization
Research organization
SME
Research funding agency
When putting this outcome into relation to the country distribution of countries interested in an STI
JELO in the USA (page 11), one might draw the conclusion, that the big countries, such as France,
Germany, and Spain do already have their national representations and, hence, do not need any
further joint European STI JELOs in the USA. Nevertheless, one might also argue, taking the example
of Israel, that although some organisations might have national representations, the interest of
having a joint European STI Liaison Office in the USA also exists.
It is also noticeable that the relation between private and public organisations already having a
representation in the USA is balanced.
Services/facilities existing representation offices in the USA provide(multiple answers possible)

Offering trainings
Other
Managing STI Funding programmes
Representation of services or products
Supporting networking activities
0
85
The services which existing representations in the USA offer to their research organisations are mainly
networking activities, representation of services and products, facilitating conferences, exchange of
experts and staff, and organising workshops.
Main reason/motivation to establish a representation in USA
Main reasons among the 8 organisations having a representation in the USA were to:
Link with the U.S. innovation ecosystem,

Foster STI collaboration with excellent scientists and innovators in the U.S.,
Identify bilateral R&D Programmes for supporting national companies,
Promote partnerships between national and U.S. researchers,
Get access to potential U.S. investors.
No obstacles nor difficulties were faced by organisations having established a representation in the
USA!
Notably, none of the 8 organisations having already established a representation in the USA stated any
obstacle during the process of setting up a representation and its operation in the USA, neither
cultural nor administrative, neither legal, nor financial.
Financing the existing representation in the USA was taken over either by the government or the
organisation itself (self-financing) or effected in a combination of both.
Support by U.S. and EU organisations and structures in the USA

The next chart shows the collaboration and relation between, on the one hand, European research
organisations having a representation in the USA (blue) and, on the other hand, European research
organisations not having a representation in the USA (red) with the listed structures and organisations
in the USA.
EU Delegation in the USA 01

EU research organisation, funding
agency or business organisation in 0
the USA
Other 1
Your country`s Embassy or
representation in the USA
Non-governmental organisation in
the USA
Governmental organisation in the

USA
2
0
Support for establishing EU

representations in the USA
12
Cooperation exploited by EU
research organisations without
representations in the USA
10
13
24
5
10
15
20
25
30
86
Accordingly, U.S. governmental and non-governmental organisations and embassies in the USA are
the main cooperation partners for European research organisations without representations in the
USA. Ranking third, embassies also support research organisations which do not have representations
in the USA and facilitate the establishment of representations overseas.
Services provided by existing organisations and structures in the USA

The chart shows the services offered by existing organisations and structures in the USA to European
research organisations. Hereafter, European research organisations mostly benefit from the support
for networking and exchange of experts and staff as well as organising joint workshops, trainings and
conferences.
Other
Represenation of services or products
Managing STI funding programmes
Offering training
Supporting networking
0
10
15
20
25
87
Conclusion
1. USA as second most-popular Third Country for small European countries

With 65% of the respondents who are interested in an STI JELO outside of Europe, the USA is the
second most-popular Third Country for a potential STI JELO after China. Populous countries, such
as Poland, Germany, France or Spain seem being less interested in an STI JELO in the USA,
compared to less populous countries, such as Croatia, Hungary, Luxemburg, Serbia Slovenia, or
Slovakia.
The Czech Republic has an exceptional representational position with 7 research organisations
out of 8 being interested in an STI JELO in the USA. As a result, one might conclude that the
establishment of an STI JELO in the USA would be very beneficial for small European countries.
The fact that populous countries, such as France, Germany, and Spain do already have their
national representations might lead to the conclusion that they do not need any further joint
European STI JELOs in the USA.
Recommendation: The focus on joining forces and representing small European countries,
such as Croatia, Hungary, Luxemburg, Serbia Slovenia, or Slovakia might give a positive impetus
for these innovation followers and moderate innovators in Europe in order to counteract the
innovation gap between the European Member States and foster STI cooperate with the USA as
worldwide important performance leader (Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015).
2. ICT and Nano STI communities with highest interest in an STI JELO in the USA
Public research organisations and universities with thematic research focus in ICT (Information
and Communication Technologies) and NMP (Nanosciences, nanotechnologies, materials and
new production technologies) are mostly interested in an STI JELO in the USA.
68% of the total of organisations interested in an STI JELO in the USA are research organisations
and universities, more than 80% of them are public.
63% of the organisations interested in an STI JELO in the USA are engaged in ICT and/or NMP
(Nanosciences, nanotechnologies, materials and new production technologies) respectively,
followed by Biotechnology, Energy, Health and medical research, Engineering and/or
Environmental and Climate Change.
Recommendation: In addition to the result that 63% of the organisations interested in an STI
JELO in the USA are engaged in ICT and/or NMP, U.S. participation in ICT research projects under
FP7 ranked second, after U.S. participation in Health which is specifically supported by an NIHE.C. reciprocity agreement (BILAT USA 2.0 Report on U.S. FP7 participation in collaborative
research projects and support actions). It might therefore be beneficial for a potential STI JELO in
the USA to have a specific focus in either ICT or Nanotechnology or both, in order to meet the
needs of the majority of European research organisations and universities.
88
3. Benefiting from existing well-established transatlantic networking structures

The fact that no difficulties were faced and reported in the survey by research organisations
having established a representation in the USA and that the existing structures do offer
supporting activities lead to the conclusion that setting up an STI JELO in the USA would
apparently be supportable.
Recommendation: Since U.S. and EU organisations and structures, such as U.S. governmental
and non-governmental organisations and European embassies in the USA, are the main
cooperation partners for European research organisations without representations in the USA it
is advisable to take advantage of these existing structures for setting up an STI JELO in the USA.
4. Meeting important needs faced by the European STI communities

Main reasons to establish a representation in the USA are, among others, to foster STI
partnerships and collaborations with scientists and innovators in the U.S. as well as to recognize
joint funding programmes and mutual investments.
Recommendation: All European research organisations have the same needs when going
international, i.e. the access to information about STI communities, joint funding programmes and
investors, as well as support in networking, exchange of experts and staff as well as organising joint
workshops, trainings and conferences. An STI JELO in the USA, representing overall European
interests and meeting overall European needs would on the one hand foster STI cooperation
coordinating European goals as well as enhance transatlantic STI cooperation speaking with one
(European) voice.
89
Annex A
MINUTES of the Expert workshop on STI Joint European Liaison Offices Bonn, October 30th, 2013
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
Annex B
Questions from the STI JELO online survey

1.
a)
-
Request of general information regarding the interview partner:

General information on the survey respondent
Which type of Organisation are you working for?
Where is your Organisation (headquarters) located?
Which type of research and innovation activities is your Organisation engaged in?
Which thematic research focus does your Organisation have?
b) Information regarding existing representation offices and/or cooperation with each of the
twelve international partner countries
- Which was the main reason/motivation to establish a representation in Country X?
- Which kind of difficulties did/do you face in Country X (with detailed explanation)?
- Which services/facilities does your representation office in Country X provide?
- Did you receive support (e.g. logistic, legal, etc.) for establishing the office in Country X
(e.g. by your Embassy, the EU Delegation, a governmental organization)?
- How is the existing representation in Country X financed?
- Are you cooperating with existing structures or partners in Country X?
- Which existing structures are you cooperating with (e.g. Embassy, EU Delegation, a
governmental organization)?
- If yes, which services do the named structures or partners provide you with?
2. Information regarding the interest in joint European liaison offices in international partner
countries
- Would your organisation be interested in a STI Joint European Liaison Office in Country X?
- According to your needs, what structure should the STI Joint European Liaison Office (STI
JELO) have?
- Do you have a geographical preference (city or region)?
- Which services should the STI Joint European Liaison Office provide? What would be useful
for your institution that you can better achieve jointly with other organisations?
- Do you see any risks or challenges with regard to such a STI Joint European Liaison Office?
- What would be the main expectations and benefits for your institution in
participating in such an STI Joint European Liaison Office?
100

Operational Feasibility Study for STI Joint European Liaison Offices (STI JELOs) for European Research Organizations in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Japan, New Zealand, Russia, South Africa and the USA

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Operational Feasibility Study for STI Joint European Liaison Offices (STI JELOs) for European Research Organizations in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Japan, New Zealand, Russia, South Africa and the USA

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Operational Feasibility Study for STI

Joint European Liaison Offices

Operational Feasibility Study for STI Joint European

Difficulties encountered for the establishment of a representation in Russia ................................. 62

The STI JELO Survey

Argentina (ABEST III)

Mexico (EU-MEX INNOVA)

New Zealand (FRIENZ)

Canada (ERA CAN+)

Russia (BILAT RUS Advanced)

China (DRAGON STAR)

South Africa (ESASTAP PLUS)

USA (BILAT USA 2.0)

2 General Outcome of the STI JELO Survey

Research organisations, research

STI activities (multiple answers possible)

53 of the organizations are engaged

33 of the organizations are engaged

Country distribution of participating organisations in the survey

Thematic research focus (multiple answers possible)

Interest in STI Joint Liaison Offices outside of Europe

67% of the responding organisations (63 of 94) are interested

Physical (Office together with

About 29% (18/63) of the respondents,

Existing representations in Third Countries

Looking for bilateral R&D Programmes

Fostering and broadening teaching and research collaborations with Brazilian

Looking for bilateral R&D Programmes for promotion of young scientists

Looking for joint R&D Programmes for promotion of young scientists

Looking for bilateral R&D Programmes

1. Acceptable representation due to good thematic and regional coverage

1. Establish physical STI JELOs in China, USA and Brazil

Existing Representation Offices from Research Organizations in Argentina

Four of the 94 organizations that participated in the survey already established a

Cooperation with Existing Structures in Argentina

Specific Interest in an STI JELO in Argentina

Figure A: Countries interested in an STI JELO Argentina

Countries interested in JELO Argentina

Figure B: Type of organizations interested in an STI JELO Argentina

Type of organization interested in an STI JELO

Type of research and activities of organisations

Figure D: Thematic focus of organizations interested in an STI JELO Argentina

Thematic focus of organizations interested in JELO Argentina

Preferences and specifications relating to an STI JELO Argentina

Preferred structure of JELO Argentina

Physical (Office together

Promoting participation in Horizon 2020

Promoting EU participation in national programms

Providing partnering services for EU companies

Being the EEN (Entreprise Europe Network) node

Finding partners and starting new partnerships;

Possible next steps could be:

Organizations interested in an STI JELO in Australia

Israel: 1/3 Malta: 1/1 Cyprus: 0/1

19 interests in Australia/63 interests in total

Type of organization interested in an STI JELO in Australia

Thematic areas of interest of organizations interested in an STI JELO with Australia

Existing representations in Australia

Australia is an important political and economic partner in the Asia-Pacific region,

No obstacles or difficulties were faced by the organizations having established a representation in

1) Australia is not in the direct focus of European countries

3) Meeting the needs faced by the European STI communities

Figure 2: Thematic Research Focus (%, multiple answers)

all respondents, n=94