Organisational Evaluation of the Research Council of Lithuania (RCL) Evaluatio n Report European Science Foundation (ESF) ESF Evaluation Services The European Science Foundation (ESF) was ESF provides a range of evidence-based evaluation established in 1974 to provide a common platform services from framework design, through to the for its Member Organisations to advance European management, support and implementation of research collaboration and explore new directions ex-ante, formative and ex-post evaluation. for research. It is an independent organisation, ESF will coordinate and supply the necessary subject owned by 66 Member Organisations, which are matter and evaluation expertise across all science research funding organisations, research performing domains and conduct independent evaluations organisations and academies from 29 countries. drawing on national and international expertise ESF promotes collaboration in research itself, in at the level of research and innovation systems, funding of research and in science activities at the organisations and programmes. European level. Currently ESF is reducing its research www.esf.org/evaluation programmes while developing new activities to serve the science community, including peer review and For more details and requests, please contact evaluation services. [email protected] www.esf.org Authors: Chair of the ESF Evaluation Committee: • Professor Orla Feely, University College Dublin and Irish Research Council, Ireland ESF Evaluation Committee members: • Mr Hallgrímur Jónasson, Rannís, the Icelandic Centre for Research, Iceland • Professor Barbara M. Kehm, University of Glasgow, UK • Professor Peter van den Besselaar, VU University Amsterdam, Netherlands • Dr Barend van der Meulen, Rathenau Instituut, Netherlands • Professor Milena Žic Fuchs, University of Zagreb, Croatia ESF Evaluation Coordinator: • Ms Julia Boman, Science Officer, Evaluation Services, European Science Foundation
Review and editing: • Ms Siobhan Philips, Head of Evaluation Services, European Science Foundation
• Ms Rhona Heywood-Roos, Principal Administrative Officer, Evaluation Services, European Science Foundation
ISBN: 978-2-36873-192-5 Cover picture: The Research Council of Lithuania © LMT Contents
Foreword 3
1. Executive Summary 5 1.1 RCL Governance and Management 6 1.2 RCL Strategy for its Funding Schemes 6 1.3 Scientific Quality and Impact of RCL Programmes 6 1.4 RCL Internationalisation 6
2. Introduction and Context 8 2.1 Structure of the Report 8 2.2 Background to Evaluation 8 2.3 Terms of Reference 8 2.4 Methodology 8 2.5 The Evaluation Committee 10 2.6 National Context 10 2.6.1 Key Players at the National Level 13 2.6.2 Main Policy Frameworks 14 2.7 The Research Council of Lithuania 14 2.7.1 RCL Organisation and Governance 14 2.7.2 RCL Advisory Activities 15 2.7.3 RCL Funding Activities 16 2.7.4 RCL Clients 17 2.8 Summary 19
3. Findings of the Evaluation 20 3.1 RCL Governance and Management 20 3.2 RCL Strategy for its Funding Schemes 22 3.3 Scientific Quality and Impact of RCL Programmes 27 3.4 RCL Internationalisation 31
4. Conclusions 34
5. Recommendations 36
Appendices 39 Appendix I: RCL Clients and Stakeholders Consulted 40 Appendix II: List of Reference and Background Documents 42 Appendix III: Overview of the RCL Funding Portfolio 2009-2013 44 Appendix IV: Abbreviations 50
Research Council of Lithuania (RCL)* of Lithuania Council Research ESF was associated at that time. ESF was part of part was ESF associated time. at was that ESF of 2013 second the half and UnionEuropean during It should also be recalled that in 2004 Lithuania 2004 in Lithuania that berecalled It also should Science honour forEuropean It been an the has Foundation to have undertaken this organisational organisational Foundation to this have undertaken Presidency, as well as its wise investmentPresidency, its wise of as EU well as abbreviation used by the council is LMT. is council the by used abbreviation formal the although Lithuania of Council Research the to referring when used is RCL abbreviation English the document this * In l l l Foreword Structural Funds in life long education, research life in Funds Structural September 2013. Lithuania’s contribution to the for Social Sciences and Humanities’ held on 23-24 Humanities’ Sciences and for Social national structures relating to research and research research and research to relating structures national performance. However,performance. con it beread the must in thePresidency of Lithuanian memories first of the of its economy, its education research and system. text of a changing economic and social environment. economic social and of achanging text represent priorities, important other amongst tion, a which with Presidency events Vilnius two held in the organising committee of the very successful successful very of the committee organising the ble all the structural and organisational elements organisational and structural the ble all ber of the European Community. European ber of the report report and development, equal opportunities and job crea and development, opportunities and equal presented Briefing and Science Policy ESF the the accession fulfilled applied for successfully and planned of acentrally part was Lithuania ago, in Turbulentin Times equality in research’ held on 21-22 research’ in November 2013,equality or (LMT), taryba mokslo Lietuvos ofevaluation the economy. it had to has re-assem time, that Since coming of age of Lithuania as a fully-fledged mem afully-fledged as of of age Lithuania coming criteria for Ihave EU membership. Indeed, happy conference ‘Structural change promoting gender gender promoting change ‘Structural conference This report focuses on specific aspects of the of aspects on specific focuses report This It seems unbelievable today,It unbelievable seems but years 24 barely Science in Society: Caring for our Futures Futures our for Caring Society: in Science at the conference ‘Horizons ‘Horizons conference the at - - - - Committee for their wholehearted enthusiasm, wis enthusiasm, wholehearted for their Committee Committee was very impressed by the high qual impressed very high by was the Committee ity of its programmes and their leadership. They of their and its programmes ity international good practice and has done so whilst done has good practice so whilst and international 2007.in To RCL man its enormous the has credit, its resources purposively and effectively, noting the its resources effectively, and purposively noting in many interactional activities and has been a has and activities interactional many in needed by the research system and the wider socio- needed wider the research byand the system dom and diligence in taking on this task. We task. are on this taking in diligence dom and maintaining the confidence of all stakeholders its all confidence the of maintaining perspective represent perhaps greatest the changes of other international organisations. We trust that We that organisations. trust of international other the recommendations in this report are seen in the the report seen are in recommendations this the in throughout that period. Lithuania, like many small small many like Lithuania, period. that throughout that they will, moreover, will, help RCL they the that to manage indebtedtheis ESF to Evaluation The tive systems. but manageable immediate the as RCL well the as The infrastructure. research scientific and try’s RCL coun tothe research developing the system tive transformative process. and respected for years and membermany ESF of the researchers honest for insightful observations, their aged this complex change with a full awareness of afull complex with change this aged all levels of the system from Ministries through to through from levels Ministries system of the all have identified exciting opportunities ahead for have opportunities exciting identified economic system in which it embedded. is which economic in system equally indebted to the evaluation participants at indebted participants evaluation to the equally lished in 1991 and underwent substantial re-design re-design 1991 in substantial lished underwent and lack of mobility and a somewhat inward looking asomewhat and inward looking lack of mobility spirit of a constructive, peer review process, spirit of and aconstructive, comments and willingness to engage in aconstruc in to engage willingness comments and to reduce of complexity administra the challenge A challenges. EU, the faces significant in countries genuine and deep commitment of all the players the in of deep commitment all and genuine The Research Council of Lithuania was estab was Lithuania of Council Research The The Research Council of Lithuania is active Lithuania of Council Research The the observed ESF Committee Evaluation The ------
Organisational Evaluation of the Research Council of Lithuania (RCL) 3 Organisational Evaluation of the Research Council of Lithuania (RCL) 4 ESF Chief Executive Martin Hynes Martin Council should command with regard to resources with command should Council opportunities for improvement opportunities policy internal in uted to the evaluation internally and externally can can externally and uted internally evaluation to the the that authority of terms the in but also terms, be seen as supporting Lithuania to realise agreater to realise Lithuania supporting be seen as richly deserves in the Europe of Europe today. the in deserves richly and influence. If, as we anticipate,as theseIf,we it achieves influence. and ambitions, the efforts of all thosewho have all contrib of efforts the ambitions, share of the social and economicit so and that successes social share of the
- The Research Council of Lithuania (RCL) of Lithuania was Council Research The RCL and the European Science Foundation European (ESF) RCL the and Lithuania in 2007. in an itLithuania served as then has Since II III I first established in 1991 as the Lithuanian Science in Lithuanian the1991established as first l l l Executive Summary 1. Council, and underwent several reforms underwent before and Council, for the latter tofor implement latter the independent evalu an focused on three main aspects: main on three focused improvement related governance to the man and competitive merit-based body, ing administering necessary in the light of the significant changes in in changes of significant the light the in necessary the mission and funding portfolio of the RCL of the over portfolio funding and mission the tify strengths and recommendations for further recommendations and for further strengths tify being reorganised into the Research Council of Council Research into reorganised the being research funding programmes and organising the the organising and programmes research funding recent lack of the previous and international years, agement structures of the RCL, as well as the as well as of RCL, the agement structures believed to be was This RCL. of the ation study assessment of research activities. a research as fund Government the and also and for Parliament the on body research policy advisory evaluation of the RCL during that period. that RCL ofevaluation the during schemes. In particular, the scope of the evaluation scope evaluation of the the particular, schemes. In funding impactand of its strategy, quality scientific
The overall goal of the evaluation was theto was evaluation iden of goal The overall In 2012 an agreement 2012 reached an was In the between The assessment of the scientific quality quality thescientific of assessment The Recommendations and strategic planning planning strategic and Recommendations The assessment of the organisation of assessment The of the Research Council Research of the for funding schemes for funding b) Its internationalisation b) a) a) Governance management and The scientific quality and impact and quality scientific The of its programmes its of Analysis of the strategy for the funding forfunding the strategy of the Analysis schemes
- - - - The methodology included a scoping visit and data andvisit included scoping a The methodology RCL. with this view. The recommendations, summarised view. The summarised this recommendations, with Committee and interviews with RCL personnel and RCL personnel and with interviews and Committee Committee of the activities and personnel of and the of activities the Committee international Evaluation Committee of R&D execu of R&D Evaluationinternational Committee ings of the evaluations and the recommendations the of and evaluations of the ings developed commit areputation and for fairness professionalism on the so, itand drawn has doing ducing a myriad of funding schemes in the short the schemes in of a myriad funding ducing ment to quality. The Evaluation Committee concurs concurs The Committee mentEvaluation to quality. organisations research performing system, political fromthestakeholders with interviews ment. The the complex process of implementing significant significant implementing of process complex the the RCL. The current report summarises the find the current summarises The report RCL. the tives researchers, and asite Evaluation by visit the this favourablethis impression formed Evaluation by the Committee. Evaluation the below, should be viewed against the backdropbelow, the of be viewed should against RCL managed the has which in manner by the research to commitment continuous and improve In well. country the serves which research funding, and other agencies suggested that the RCL is rightly RCL rightly the is that agencies other suggested and a strongappreciation in standards of international of merit-baseda system of competitive allocation held in high esteem by these stakeholders, and has has and esteem stakeholders, by these high held in stakeholders, as well as a self-evaluation report by aself-evaluation as well as stakeholders, stakeholders while doing so. It implemented has doing stakeholders while the confidenceof and of fivespan retaining years, commitment of its leadership and staff, who have of staff, commitment itsleadership and change within a research funding system, intro system, aresearch funding within change gathering and analysis by the ESF, setting up an up an ESF, by the setting analysis and gathering The Evaluation Committee was very impressed was very The Committee Evaluation - - - - -
Organisational Evaluation of the Research Council of Lithuania (RCL) 5 Organisational Evaluation of the Research Council of Lithuania (RCL) 6 1.1 1.2 1.2 The balance of funding should be should monitored on a funding of The balance thethat RCL believes The Committee Evaluation a as and agency funding as a role The adual has RCL RCL away from itsrole, strategic therefore is and not would also represent a less heavy administrative represent also would administrative aless heavy Lithuania it is of the utmost importance that sci that it of utmost is importance the Lithuania Committee formed the opinion that a shift in in formed ashift that opinion the Committee Science, Technology Innovation and (MITA), given formal structure for interaction between the RCL the for between interaction structure formal for certain schemes bemore would consistentfor certain with in the best interest best research national of the system. the in from conduct damaging the of research.in Apart funding. research of outputs innovation education for higher policy setting and funding ing, delivery would yield better returns. International International returns. better yield would delivery priorities to components other service of the programmes, appropriate programmes, scale. in number and in provider but advice, former the dominates of policy objectives. beaddressed. should and of change, key strategic the number of calls and increasing the size of grants of grants size the increasing and of number calls the RCL its funded the relationshipand between the of internationally and nationally importance the by and external Council the rolesthese within both burden forRCL. the resulting in a large number of funding calls per year per year calls of number funding alarge in resulting resources the of the diverts further researchers, this adegree of flexibility allows and research planning a more strategic approach to research funding and and a more approach strategic to research funding agement of expenditure on grants; the Evaluation the on grants; agement of expenditure for Agency the particular in other agencies, and We recommend Lithuania. research amoreand in at system atime national the a valuable voice within and grants of relatively small average size. Reducing average Reducing of relatively size. grants small and development the and set of funding of a balanced from benefit would a research the community and Schemes heavily over the latter in the assignment of weight to assignment over heavily the in latter the Management entific research is well connected and integratedand connected is research well entific systematic definition of national objectivesresearch definition systematic under-utilisationthe of in results This stakeholders. complexity of the systems for organising, evaluat for organising, systems of the complexity continuing basis, and assessed against the agreed the against assessed and basis, continuing good practice recognises the uncertain nature of nature uncertain the good practice recognises Theregreat direct man is the attention to paid the by struck was The Committee Evaluation The RCL has a large portfolio of funding schemes, schemes, funding of portfolio The large a RCL has RCL Governance and Governance RCL and For development the research of of the system RCL Strategy for Funding its Strategy RCL - - - and Quality Scientific 1.3 1.4 The leadership of theThe leadership strong a of has RCL awareness with in collaboration undertaken be should This be The considershould can RCL howportfolio its While internationalisation is seen as a horizontal ahorizontal seen is as internationalisation While various programmes and by introducing arequire by introducing and programmes various MITA, so as to enhance coherence to enhance so as avoid and MITA, unpro (and Lithuanian if required by if law).it (and addition, In Lithuanian work for the regular evaluation of or success evaluation impact work forregular the the to awardeeswhat clarify to bebeneficial would was of the view that these could be accelerated. could these that view ofwas the funding allocation, and has done good job has of avery and allocation, funding impact of its programmes by reducing its reliance of byimpact its reliance its programmes reducing ashort in system funding national improving the broaderinnovation system. and into the knowledge in Lithuania. This should include mechanisms to include mechanisms should This Lithuania. in impact, the RCL develop the should docu astrategic impact, ductive proliferation of programmes. This type of type ductive proliferation This of programmes. development appropriate of an to long- medium- priority by the RCL, and is supported is by and anumber RCL, bypriority the projects. and measurable priorities funding its ment defining publication such in bypublication monitoring and English in ment submitted are proposals grant that of international standards in research research and in standards of international fundamental in on excellence focus the out losing of the supported programmes and of individual of supportedof individual and the programmes frame evaluation overall of an part objectives, as peer poolofon anational reviewers, introducing of its funding schemes, the Evaluation Committee Evaluation schemes, the Committee of its funding to bemade. market-facing with directly tion’ engage should and term strategy for the internationalisation of research for internationalisation the term strategy RCL’sthe international are around expectations and by harmonising evaluations, Panel to Review the RCL seekand the should to improve quality the research that has characterised its ambitions to date. its ambitions to date. characterised research has that review by international external experts in addition addition in experts review external by international a systematic fashion. a systematic approach been referred has specialisa ‘smart to as Impact of RCL Programmes expanded in the direction of applied research, with direction the in expanded elaborating its Conflict of Interest guidelines for Interestguidelines of itsConflict elaborating space of time. However,space of time. some improvements need outside and Lithuania. within stakeholders both The Evaluation Committee recommends that that recommends Committee Evaluation The The Evaluation Committee recommends the recommends Committee The Evaluation To underpin its articulation and delivery of delivery and To itsarticulation underpin RCL Internationalisation RCL ------A detailed treatment of all of recommenda these treatment of all A detailed RCL should consider the introduction of special RCL consider introduction should the which will require a relaxation in existing bureau existing in require arelaxation will which Horizon 2020, and the focused manner in which which in manner Horizon focused 2020, the and ing. measures to propel Lithuanian researchers towards to propelmeasures Lithuanian other countries are targeting that funding, the funding, that targeting are countries other to be found in the following chapters. following the to in befound is them, underpins that evaluation the and tions, attract international research talent into the country, researchcountry, into the international talent attract cratic obstacles. cratic greater success in the drawdown of European fund drawdown ofgreater the European successin In view of the opportunities represented of opportunities view the byIn - - -
Organisational Evaluation of the Research Council of Lithuania (RCL) 7 Organisational Evaluation of the Research Council of Lithuania (RCL) 8 4 and 5 summarise the conclusions the evaluation of the 5summarise 4 and This evaluation by the European Science the European evaluation by Foundation This Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)Memorandum of Understanding late 2012 in l l l years, drastically expanding its mission and funding funding and its mission expanding drastically years, (ESF) was commissioned by the ‘ commissioned by(ESF) was the well as a description of the national research adescriptionand national of as the well Lithuania (RCL). Lithuania Following the Executive Summary, the terms of terms ref the Executive Summary, the Following 1. In this document the English abbreviation RCL is used when when used is RCL abbreviation English the document this In 1. Committee to the RCL. to the Committee the of Chapter Chapter 2. 3provides findings the 2.2 2.1 2. development context in Lithuania are outlined in in areoutlined development Lithuania context in Introduction and Context and Introduction slo taryba slo portfolio, the RCL not the has previously been evaluated portfolio, organisation and national policy adviser, within the the adviser, within policy national and organisation undergone significant changes the changes fiveover past undergone significant the activities of the RCL for the past five years with RCL offivewith the forpast the activities years the independent evaluation for an out set plans that the by an international committee/organisation. international The by an research funding. research and provide recommendations of the Evaluation Evaluation the of recommendations provide and abbreviation used by the council is LMT is council the by used abbreviation evaluation based on the deliberations and conclu and deliberations on based the evaluation as evaluation of the erence methodology the and referring to the Research Council of Lithuania although the formal formal the although Lithuania of Council Research the to referring study of the RCL as a national research funding research RCLanational of funding the as study sions of the Evaluation Committee, while Chapters while sions Evaluation of the Committee, current evaluation is therefore timely and looks at therefore is and evaluation current timely general context of Lithuanian and European public public European and general context of Lithuanian Being a relatively young organisation that has has that arelatively organisation young Being Structure of the Report of the Structure Background to Evaluation Background ’ (LMT), or (LMT), ’ 1 The two organisations signed a signed two organisations The
Research Council of Council Research Lietuvos mok Lietuvos - - - The methodological approachThe includedmethodological scoping a The of terms the reference on thefocus evaluation of According to the MoU, to the According constituted an ESF visit, data gathering and analysis by the ESF office, office, ESF by the analysis and gathering data visit, Evaluation Committee of six science of executives six Evaluation Committee Evaluation Committee, expert reviews RCL of the expert Evaluation Committee, III II I 2.4 2.3 mendations for further improvementmendations for further related to the organisational structure, portfolio and procedures, and portfolio structure, organisational exercise. of evaluation the order to lay out details the of its funding schemes. of its funding the overall goal of identifying strengths and recom and strengths of identifying goal overall the three main aspects outlined below: outlined aspects main three as well as the strategy, scientific quality and impact and strategy,quality scientific the as well as and a self-evaluation reportand by RCL the according senior researchers,and prepared and a work in plan stakeholder interviews during the site the by visit the during stakeholder interviews governance and management structures of the RCL, RCL, of the governance management structures and
Recommendations and strategic planning planning strategic and Recommendations quality thescientific of assessment The The assessment of the organisation of assessment The of the Research Council Research of the for funding schemes for funding b) Its internationalisation b) a) a) Governance management and Methodology Terms of Reference The scientific quality and impactand ofits quality scientific The programmes Analysis of the strategy for the funding forfunding the strategy of the Analysis schemes
- 4. The full list of all stakeholders consulted is stakeholders consulted avail all list of full The The groupsThe wereconsulted (Figure 1): 5. 6. 3. 7. 2. 1. RCL and its procedures and activities (including RCL its (including procedures and activities and (11-13 November 2013), met with Committee the In addition, the RCL available the reference made addition, In and five to eight representatives, and the interviews fivewere interviews to eight therepresentatives, and Conceptual framework for the RCL evaluation RCL the for framework 1. Conceptual Figure Committee. for implementation the exercise evaluation of the is illustrated in Figure 1, while the agreed timeline and and timeline agreed the 1, while Figure in illustrated main steps of the activities are shown in Figure 2 Figure 2 are shown in steps of activities the main operations of RCL. During the site visit to Vilnius site the to visit Vilnius During operations of RCL. their views on different aspects of the strategy and thestrategy ofaspects on different views their frameworkto aspecified template. A conceptual the assigned members of the Evaluation Committee. members assigned ofEvaluationthe the Committee. tives relevant of various stakeholders to provide background documents on the legal basis for basis the legal on the documents background below. by the ESF office to be consulted by the office tobe by consulted ESF byEvaluation the representatives from seven main the groups, as able in Appendix I. All proceedings were proceedings recorded All I. Appendix able in stakeholders and RCL clients. Each group Each included RCLstakeholders and clients. conducted in the form of a guided discussion led by discussion formconducted the of aguided in
The Board of the RCL and Scientific Committees theScientific andBoard The of RCL invited The representaCommittee Evaluation The relevant Ministries and the andParliament The Ministries relevant Various stakeholders in the R&D landscape in in landscape Various R&D the stakeholders in Universities research and institutes RCL staff Research communities – both established and and established –both communities Research Experts on the peer review on process the (forExperts RCL the Lithuania funding schemes) early-career Te RC MoU, Wo rm L ES Co s F: Ma of mmis
Re rk Pa nd Mi fe pl si rl ni at re ia an on st e, m nc ri
in ent es & e g ,
Si te vi RCL and Staff si Re Evaluation t: Bo Con fe ar re d RC nc L: su e
a Se lt ES nd lf-E at F Ba - - io Secr va RCL ex ck Co ns lu gr at RCL to prepare report aself-evaluation according web links and PDF files). ESF identified additional PDFadditional and files). ESF identified web links were later elaborated and included in this report. report. were this later elaborated in included and Following the approval of the Committee, the final approval the final the Following of Committee, the Committee is provided in Appendix II. provided is Appendix Committee in integrity of the information included and used. and included information of the integrity draft was sent to the sentin was thatorder to RCL toensure draft deliberations and discussions after immediately of portfolio description RCL of goals, the strategic et misunderstanding. This step was step invite notwas to This ques- misunderstanding. ous groups, the Evaluation Committee started their their started Evaluation groups,ous the Committee of strengths and points for points improvement. and of strengths These the report was free of any factual error or major free reportof factual was any the areas main agreedon site the the when visit they text in Lithuania. The list of the documents and thedocuments list of The Lithuania. in text the Committee but to allow an overall check overall of the an but to allow Committee the conclusions and judgments by of made the tioning template.theincludedto asuggested The report background documents relevant to the R&D con relevant documents R&D tobackground the activities, as well as aSWOT analysis. as well as activities, and background documents and information and documents background and links that were that Evaluation available to made the links gathered through the consultations with the vari the with consultations the gathered through with ound ion ar per mm Furthermore, the Committee requested the the requested Committee the Furthermore, Based on the self-evaluation report, reference report, self-evaluation on the Based ia ts Re t Do po RC cu it rt, me te L St
nt e Univ s ak In st er it eh si utes ti es older , s Ev Co Sc al Es iences, ESF Re Ea MI ns Ap ua Ac ta TA rly-Car se en adem prov bl tion , ar M is su ch OST h
y s Re al ed ee A, et er of an
A,
s po & r
d c. rt
- -
Organisational Evaluation of the Research Council of Lithuania (RCL) 9 10 Organisational Evaluation of the Research Council of Lithuania (RCL) • • • • • The Evaluation Committee was constituted by the constituted was by The Committee Evaluation 2. Since 1 March 2014 Professor Feely is in addition Vice-President Vice-President addition in is Feely Professor 2014 1March Since 2. ESF Chief Executive, Martin Hynes, as the respon the as Hynes, Martin Executive, Chief ESF was composed of the following members: composed was following of the Timeline of the evaluation process evaluation the of Timeline 2. Figure Committee was chaired by Professor chaired was Orla Feely Committee and 2.5 sible authority for the evaluation exercise. The evaluation forsible the authority Dublin College University of Impact and Innovation Research, for Mr Hallgrímur Jónasson Hallgrímur Mr Dr Barend van der Meulen der van Barend Dr Professor Peter van den Besselaar den Peter van Professor Kehm M. Barbara Professor Professor Orla Feely – – – – – Council Research Irish – Chair, * EvaluationCommitte • • • Re Evaluation period EC * Distribution: docsto Constitution of background docs Identification: ref& & workplan Preparation ofMoU agreement Prelim discussions&
Assessment, Rathenau Instituut, Netherlands Instituut, Rathenau Assessment, University College Dublin College University University Amsterdam University University UK of Glasgow, Scotland, The Evaluation Committee Robert Owen Centre for Educational Change, Change, Centre Owen forRobert Educational Professor, School of Electrical, Electronic Electronic Professor, of Electrical, School Head of Department ofHead Science System of Department Professor of Organisation Sciences, VU VU Professor Sciences, of Organisation Professor International and of Leadership Icelandic the Director,General Rannís, Centre for Research Strategic Development in Higher Education, DevelopmentStrategic Education, Higher in and Communications Engineering, Engineering, and Communications Finalisation Feedback Drafting port
EC *
e
Oct
2012 Nov
, Chair
De
c
2 Jan
ES Si of Mo RC Fe
gn F: L: b
at 7/1/ 13/1 U ur
Ma
e 13 2/12
r
Ap
r
25 by Si Ma te -2
- ES y
6/
Vi F 4/13 si Ju
t 2013 n
• Angelique Giambelluca, on internship at ESF, on internship Giambelluca, Angelique 3. Official site for Lithuanian Statistics, 2013: Statistics, Lithuanian for site Official 3. ESF staff member Julia Boman, ScienceOfficer, Boman, member Julia staff ESF In order to put this evaluation exercise evaluation order intocon In to put this Heywood-Roos provided administrative support. support. providedHeywood-Roos administrative Lithuanian research and innovation system and the research the innovation and and system Lithuanian
2.6 its independence in 1991,its independence in entered and European the It provides section. overview state of the an this in Lithuania. in positioning of the RCL in particular are provided are particular RCL of the in positioning of phase gathering provided initial the support in policy frameworks. of the Lithuanian research and innovation system, research innovation and system, Lithuanian of the the seventh smallest country in the EU. the in country seventh smallest the the about figures and facts some ofmain the text, background information and statistics about R&D about R&D statistics and information background as well as an overview of the key players and main overview key of players the an as main and well as coordinated the evaluation exercise and Rhona exercise evaluation coordinated Rhona the and http://osp.stat.gov.lt/en/web/guest/home Professor Milena Žic Fuchs Žic Milena Professor – – Ju 2 1 (v EC Lithuania has a population of a population 2,971,905, has Lithuania is and
nd st l National Context National Fellow, Academy Croatian of Arts Sciences and University of Zagreb Professor, of Philosophy, Faculty
ir : : *m tu 10/7 3/ al ee 9/ Au ) 13 /13 ti g ng
s Se p
Oc t
Nov by Si 11
te -1
EC De
3/ Vi &ES 11/13 si c
t
Jan F
Fe b
2014
M
ar 3
It regained
Ap of re r De
liv Ma port er y y
- Technology to (MITA)measure important an was 2012), more be done should to improve although the from 2007 to early participants 280 Lithuanian decreased budget by R&D national 2009, the and 1.9% of GDP by 2020. It is clear that reaching this 1.9% of this GDP by 2020. reaching that It clear is Union in 2004. With the recent the Union 2004. economic With in reces- However, the country also faces many issues, such as as such issues, facesmany However, also country the Domestic Expenditure (GDE) Domestic Expenditure Lithuania in on R&D Government and as a research funding and imple- and Government aresearch as funding and Strategy 2010-2020 Gross to the increase Strategy aims of demonstrated has signs country the then, Since from 0.92% of ofgoal 2011 ambitious GDP to in an ing via the RCL, reforms in doctoral education reforms doctoral and in RCL, the via ing of competitive introduction the fund- institutes, recentin years to improve reor- e.g., situation, the major are challenges. mobility outward inward and the forindicators in are 2013, Lithuania’s strengths future. the in etc.) clusters, to science-industry infrastructures, and instruments of number new policy alarge ing continuity providing source of funding, important drawdown of FP funding by Lithuanian researchers by Lithuanian drawdown of funding FP recession. the Tenduring per centEU total of the policy advisory body for the Parliament and the the and for body Parliament the advisory policy science. and business between promote links for Innovation and Science, ment Agency of the of new doctoral graduates and unattractiveness of unattractiveness graduates and of new doctoral low numbers companies, of knowledge-intensive or 670 M€, for been earmarked has research, allow- tution with a dual function, acting both as a as both acting function, adual with tution creationthe of fiimprove to ‘valleys’, clusters, ve the to scientifi activity. and patenting c publishing e Th behind the EU average the behind related indicators on various bers of science newengineering. graduates in and EU Frameworkbe launched. off Programmes er research and the private sector. Lithuania also lags lags privateresearch also the and sector. Lithuania education, between links weak research and careers, research careers, (on research programmes research another important source of funding (33.8 M€ for source of funding important another research budget national the in of cuts at atime research development the and actors in system. all half between 2007 (95.7 M€) between half 2010 and (47 M€). economic Innovation recovery, Lithuanian the and links between science and industry. Th science between industry. and links establish- e lowlack and of research of openness system the low and numberslow investment R&D business in size of its public research sector and the high num- of high research itssize public the sector and for period of the 2007-2013, assistance structural sion, GDP real by per capita 14% fell from 2008 to ganisation and reducing the number of number research the reducing and ganisation eff require substantial would goal of the part on orts Thinsti- an is Lithuania of Research Council e According to the Innovation Union to the performance According European Union Structural Funds have Funds been an UnionEuropean Structural Several important reforms have important Several out been carried - increased drastically from 600 k€ 2008 to in over - increased drastically 4. Th e Law on Higher Education and Research of the Republic of Republic the of Research and Th4. Education Higher on Law e 29 M€ in 2013. in Th29 M€ source emain is RCL the now 5 6. 2013_en.pdf 2013_en.pdf (Parliament) in 1991 as the Lithuanian Science (Parliament) 1991 in Lithuanian the as which accounted forwhich 29.6% research oftotal the Council, it underwent several it reforms underwent beforeCouncil, being for competitive funding for research in Lithuania, for Lithuania, research in for competitive funding Lithuania (OffiLithuania 54-2140)No. 2009, Gazette, cial in 2007, thus also becoming the main funder for funder main the 2007,in becoming also thus prior advisory role. advisory prior menting institution. both state budget and EU Structural Funds funding funding Funds EU Structural and state budget both research onto aits competitive addition in basis of Lithuania Council Research into the reorganised state budget in 2013. in state budget change in remit, the total RCL budget - including RCL -including budget total the remit, in change . h Self-evaluation report submitted by RCL, October 2013 October RCL, by submitted report Self-evaluation Some facts and fi and facts Some gures • • • •
ttp://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/files/ius- =table&init=1&language=en&pcode=tsc00001&plug ••• The Gross Domestic Expenditure (GDE) on R&D R&D on (GDE) Expenditure Domestic Gross The The European Innovation Scoreboard 2013 Scoreboard Innovation European The was government Lithuanian by the R&D on GDE According to the 2020 Strategy, the Lithuanian Lithuanian the Strategy, 2020 to the According GDP. GDP. GDE on Research and Development is aimed aimed is Development and Research on GDE only country which managed to improve its its to improve managed which country only equal to 28.1%equal 2011, in GDE total the of the was sectors to 42.3% business for and equal was fiwas (e.g.,Structural abroad EU from nanced sc00031&language=en] 2010/2011). EU the behind lagging still While 2000 to 0.92% 2011. in 2000 signifi still is This cantly Scoreboard, which refl which in Scoreboard, performance ects to reach 1.9% of the GDP by 2020, with at least 1.9%least at by with 2020, to reach GDP the of EU doctoral students, R&D expenditure in the the in expenditure R&D students, EU doctoral non- as indicators such on especially average, to amoderate Scoreboard) Innovation European Funds). R&D. R&D. innovator (in the 2013 European Innovation 2013 Innovation the (in innovator European and innovators moderate followers, innovation four performance groups: innovation leaders, leaders, innovation groups: performance four in Lithuania increased from 0.59% of GDP in in 0.59% GDP of from increased Lithuania in refreshTableAction.do?tab=table&plugin=1&pcode=t funding in the EU. 28.5% of the GDE on R&D EU. R&D the on in 28.5% GDE the of funding position from a modest innovator (in the 2011 the (in innovator amodest from position [http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/ [http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab modest innovators. However, Lithuania is the the is However, Lithuania innovators. modest in=1] half contributed by business investments in in investments by business contributed half ranks Lithuania as a moderate innovator, of out amoderate as Lithuania ranks lower than the EU average of 2.03% of total of EU average the than lower latter being one of the lowest shares of business business of shares lowest the of one being latter ⁴ 5 First established by the Seimas Seimas by the established First Because of this reform of and Because this 6
11 Organisational Evaluation of the Research Council of Lithuania (RCL) 12 Organisational Evaluation of the Research Council of Lithuania (RCL) • • • •
The only indicator that demonstrates significant significant demonstrates that indicator only The Annual Report on Lithuania for 2011, for Lithuania on higher public Report Annual business sector, public-private co-publications, co-publications, sector, public-private business In In 2011 (Full-Time Equivalent) FTE 8,390 were there Lithuania has a higher number of new graduates in in graduates new of number ahigher has Lithuania 41 2012, ranked In was Lithuania According to the ERAWATCH Scientific and Policy Policy and ERAWATCH to the Scientific According very high human development countries on the the on countries development human high very decline is sales of new-to-market and new-to-firm new-to-firm and new-to-market of sales is decline on level country the at growth demonstrated government sector accounting for 16.4%, for in accounting and sector government carried out in Lithuania was attributed to the to the attributed was Lithuania in out carried governmental and (HEIs) institutions education at_country_level_2013.pdf] sites/default/galleries/generic_files/file_0310.pdf] state-of-the-union/2012/innovation_union_progress_ that doctoral studies and research careers are not not are careers research and studies doctoral that the business & enterprise sector 16.3%. sector &enterprise business the the in researchers with researchers, FTE total the aged 25-34 than the EU average. However, EU average. the the than 25-34 aged Latvia and Croatia. Croatia. and Latvia Portugal, above and Slovakia and Hungary Poland, below slightly (HDI), Index Development Human PCT patent applications, etc., Lithuania has has etc., Lithuania applications, patent PCT pdf] [http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/LTU.pdf] students. for attractive sufficiently 2011, in to 0.92 0.87 2000 in from slightly remains population thousand per engineering and science innovations. in the country (53.2% for HEIs and 17.6% and HEIs for (53.2% country the in for below the EU-27 average of 1.69%. This suggests 1.69%. of EU-27 average suggests the This below increased having while 25-34, aged population been growing since 1995. Researchers in the the in 1995. Researchers since growing been private sector. sector. private [http://erawatch.jrc.ec.europa.eu/erawatch/export/ [http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/ [http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR2013_EN_Statistics. [http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=ta number of new doctoral graduates per thousand thousand per graduates doctoral new of number most European Innovation Scoreboard indicators. indicators. Scoreboard Innovation European most higher education sector accounted for 67.2% for accounted of sector education higher ble&init=1&language=en&pcode=tsc00004&plugin=1] researchers in Lithuania, and this number has has number this and Lithuania, in researchers research institutes in 2010). in 29% R&D of Only institutes research R&D the of most out carry institutions research html]
st among the 47 the among Progress report report Progress Union Innovation the in 2009-2012 for available is data No ** http://www.scimagojr.com/countrysearch.php?country=LT * • • • • • • 172,191 doctoral students (ISCED level 6) enrolled 172,191 enrolled 6) level (ISCED students doctoral In 2009, Lithuania had 1,493 high technology 1,493 technology had high Lithuania 2009, In co-publica scientific international of number The Lithu in publications scientific of number total The ERAWATCH to the the in website, According However, Lithuanian researchers have not been been have not researchers However, Lithuanian EU the from 33.8 M€ about by benefited Lithuania vs 21.5%vs EU overall. the for early 2012, with a good success of rate of 19.4% of rate of 2012, success early agood with cil (ERC) funding: during 2007-2012, during funding: (ERC) 51 the cil of none 5.3% (from 2008** and 2000 between slightly only grown has worldwide publications scientific cited at_country_level_2013.pdf] at_country_level_2013.pdf] at_country_level_2013.pdf] state-of-the-union/2012/innovation_union_progress_ state-of-the-union/2012/innovation_union_progress_ state-of-the-union/2012/innovation_union_progress_ than the EU average of 19,319. of EU average the than 77 from increased has population million per tions 2011/2012 about were there year academic 300. of average FP7 for 280 Lithuanian participants from 2007 to 2007 from participants Lithuanian 280 FP7 for 1996 to in 2,708 482 2012 in from grew ania successful in attracting European Research Coun Research European attracting in successful submitted eligible proposals were funded. funded. were proposals eligible submitted ns] [ in 2000 to 265 in 2011, in to 265 2000 EUin the below somewhat colleges. and universities Lithuanian in in 2000 to 6% in 2008). This ratio remains rather rather remains ratio This to 6% 2008). in 2000 in rchPerformers&subsection=HigherEducationInstitutio patents per million inhabitants, significantly lower lower significantly inhabitants, million per patents percentage of publications within the 10% the within most publications of percentage [http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/ [http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/ [http://erawatch.jrc.ec.europa.eu/erawatch/opencms/ [E-CORDA data on 19-06-2012] on data [E-CORDA [http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=ta information/country_pages/lt/country?section=Resea ble&init=1&language=en&pcode=tsc00010&plugin=1] low compared to the EU average (10.9%). EU average to the compared low http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/ * The * The - - - • • • • The structure of the Lithuanian R&D system issystem R&D Lithuanian the of structure The R&D policy in Lithuania. in policy R&D http://erawatch.jrc.ec.europa.eu/erawatch/opencms/information/country_pages/lt/country?section=Overview&subsection=StrResearchSystem) ERAWATCH: (source: system R&D Lithuanian the of Structure 3. Figure 2.6.1 depicted in Figure 3, followed 3, by brief Figure depicted introductions in to the main institutions shaping and implementing implementing and shaping institutions main to the The ministries sharing the main responsibilities in in responsibilities the main sharing ministries The The Agriculture, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry Ministry the of Justice, Ministry the Agriculture, the Govern the and Parliament) Seimas The (the Transport and Communication also contribute to to contribute also Communication and Transport Parliament with functions to advise on the formu on to the advise functions with Parliament Committee (IVPK) under the Ministry of Ministry the under (IVPK) Committee Economy Several other ministries such as the Ministry of Ministry the as such ministries other Several funding. implementation bodies in Lithuania. in bodies implementation the Ministry of Ministry the and Science and of Education development. development. public institution accountable to the Lithuanian accountable Lithuanian to the institution public main funding agency for fundamental research for fundamental agency funding main of Culture, and Information Society Development Society Information and of Culture, tional funding for project-type basic research with funding tional Ministry innovation the are and system R&D the ment research policy and the development the and research policy of highly- and researcherand complementing mobility, institu and R&D policy. Since 2008, the RCL is also the the policy.2008, Since RCL also the is R&D and SME and for latter innovation the policy and lation and implementation of science, education education science, of implementation and lation setting the research the agenda. setting innovation, resources and for human R&D skilled Innovative Economy Council Council Economy Innovative INVEGA Policy making institutions Key Players at the National Level National the at Key Players Research Council of Lithuania of Council Research are the key research policy development key research the are policy and (IET) . The former is directly responsibledirectly . The formerfor is Enterprise Lithuania Lithuania Invest Invest Strategic Council for Research Research for Council Strategic Innovation and Knowledge Ministry of Economy (Ū Economy of Ministry Economy Department and Innovation (SMIT) Innovation and Policy advising institutions advising Policy Lithuanian Lithuanian Business Business Support Support Agency (LVPA) M)
(RCL) technology incubators business Science Science parks parks and and and and Central Project Management Management Project Central is a Ministry of Finance Finance of Ministry Agency (CPVA) Agency Government Parliament Lithuanian Lithuanian Innovation (SEIMAS) - - - Policy implementing institutions implementing Policy Centre (LIC) (FM) • • • • • • The The The Centre for Quality Assessment in Higher Higher in Assessment Quality for Centre The Sciences of Academy Lithuanian The 23 universities in Lithuania, of which 14 are public, public, are 14 of which Lithuania, 23 in universities The Research and Higher Education Moni Education Higher and Research The Universities are the state research and institutes Education and Science dealing with quality assur quality with Science dealing and Education Education (SKVC) Education administer Agency R&D Management Project Science and the Ministry of Economy, is and Ministry Science the and Structural Funds. Structural funding for human resources and RIs from the EU from EU the resources for RIs human and funding toring and Analysis Centre (MOSTA) Centre an is Analysis and toring main knowledge producers in the Lithuanian producers Lithuanian knowledge the in main peer review and evaluation. making policy programmes It administers Lithuania. in policy nology (MITA) nology of Education and Science. of and Education research and innovation system. There are in total in are Theretotal research innovation system. and innovation of implementation the for responsible analytical and advisory body to the Ministry of Ministry to body the advisory and analytical accountable to the Ministry of and Education accountable Ministry to the and 13 public and 9 private research institutes. 13 9privateand and public research institutes. for aforum as serves able Parliament, to the collaboration. R&D and innovation at aimed ance and higher education standards. education standards. higher and ance eminent scientists, and participates in research in participates and scientists, eminent the Central Central the and Agency Support Business anian Technology Innovation Science, Science, Agency Agency for Science, Innovation and Tech and Innovation forScience, Agency European Social Fund Agency Fund Social European (MITA) and and for for
Lithuanian Research Council Council Research Lithuanian and Technology Department Technology and Higher Education, Science Science Education, Higher State Studies Foundation Ministry of Education Education of Ministry and Science (ŠMM): Science and Integrated Integrated centres – centres business ‘valleys’ science science science science and and (LMT) (VST) is a governmental institution agovernmental is institution is accountable to the Ministry accountable is Ministry to the Fund Agency Agency Fund European European (ESFA) Social
Assessment Higher Education Council Council Education Higher for Quality Quality for Education in Higher Higher in Academy of Sciences Sciences of Academy (SKVC) Centre (AMT) (LMA)
, the Lithu , account and Higher Higher and Monitoring Education Research Research (MOSTA) Analysis Centre and and - - - - - 13 Organisational Evaluation of the Research Council of Lithuania (RCL) 14 Organisational Evaluation of the Research Council of Lithuania (RCL) Lithuanian Law on Higher Education and Education Higher on Law Lithuanian Innovation Strategy for 2010-2020Innovation Strategy Research 7. http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter3/dokpaieska.showdoc_l?p_ (‘valleys’) with EU structural support projected to EU structural with (‘valleys’) to 47.(HEIs) Lithuania in National policy for higher education and research in education research and for in higher policy National were integrated The intoof universities. number Lithuania, as well as other ministries and author and ministries other as well as Lithuania, (the formed is Seimas by the Parliament) Lithuania February 2010. February 8 five integrated research, HE and Business Centres andfiveintegrated Business HE research, 2.6.2 ing business investment in R&D and production and of investment R&D business in ing reform, the number of the Following institutions. several years of discussions 1990in following and its independence regaining Since ised institutions. ducing several measures to increase the linkages linkages to the several increase measures ducing for research of a system competitiveducing funding physical research infrastructures, technology parks parks technology infrastructures, research physical of financial incentivestri the as such for ofbusiness financial reform creation HE the and was ofof R&D the intro research public of institutes, and universities of Council Research the Science, of and Education to modernise the Lithuanian economy, is Lithuanian the which to modernise to the development of valleys and the introduction introduction the developmentto and the of valleys and resources agriculture, and natural technologies, science, chemical physicaltechnology, and materials (23), same the almost universities remained 24 and regrouped others some institutes while to with 11, bringing the number of higher education institutes education institutes of number higher the bringing education, science business. and higher between intro as well as aresearch council by establishing reach 500 M€. The funding is aimed aimed developingat is reachfunding 500 M€. The reduced from 45 drastically was research institutes assur principles the of quality research, including network the rationalising and reforms reorganising agriculture, and to introduce measures encourag tomeasures introduce and agriculture, and management of higher education research and management ofand higher funding provisions and ance, for restructuring, of undergone anumber has debate, Lithuania and implementedand Government, by Ministry the the and knowledge transfer in such priority areas as bio as areas priority such in transfer knowledge and high value added products and services. In addition addition In services. products added and value high engineering and IT. strategy_20102020.pdf largely based on traditional manufacturing and and manufacturing based on traditional largely lishes state regulation of higher education (HE) of higher and state regulation lishes id=438419 colleges were given the status of higher school, thus thus school, wereof higher colleges given status the Lithuanian Lithuanian the is R&I in goals and situation current . http://www.mita.lt/uploads/documents/innovation_en/ The main policy document outlining Lithuania’s outlining document policy The main Another important step in the implementation the step in important Another The reformsThe led adoption to the of the Main Policy Frameworks Frameworks Policy Main 7 adopted 2009. on 30law The April estab 8 The document stresses the needstresses document The , adopted on 17 ------The RCL is composed of the Board, two expert com twoexpert The is composedRCL theBoard, of Technical Sciences – and the Research Foundation, Technical Foundation, Research the Sciences –and Research Infrastructures, 9. http://www.lmt.lt/en/about.html Education and Science, a working group of experts group aworking Science, of and experts Education (MITA) admin and to coordinate innovation policy which carries out the administration (see 4). Figure out administration the carries which 10. http://www.lrv.lt/bylos/veikla/lithuania2030.pdf 10. http://www.lrv.lt/bylos/veikla/lithuania2030.pdf Social Sciences and the Committee of Natural and and of Natural Committee the Sciences and Social tate the formation of a creative, responsible and open open and responsible of acreative, tate the formation future development, highlighting four areas: clean clean areas: four development, highlighting future 2.7.1 2.7 included into relevant pan-European consortia. The The intorelevantincluded consortia. pan-European to reduceimproving research career opportunities for programmes research and ister joint funding of establishment for the called 2008, strategy the in promote fundamental changes in society and to facili and changes society in fundamental promote personality”. decision making with regard to the funding of infra regard funding to the with decision making for aid future an to as serve expected is document debates, making it a result of joint efforts between between itof joint aresult efforts making debates, most promising sectors should be identified for sectorsbeidentified most should promising Roadmap for National Roadmap Lithuania’s prepared services. wellness and pharmacy, medical were that for deductions introduced R&D ple tax “to providebut actions of “to seeks specific rather alist science art, culture, in business, prominent figures preparation involved ofstrategy the extensive public provides overview ofwhere areas an progress should mittees – the Committee of the Humanities and and Humanities of the Committee –the mittees majority of the Council members not are Council of RCLmajority the or updated in the upcoming 10-15 upcoming the or updated in to be and years, technologies, future energies, creative industry, and creative and energies, industry, future technologies, that a few suggests strategy The drain. brain the for Technology Innovation Science, and Agency the the State Progress Council. The strategy does does not Thestrategy State Progressthe Council. tives, brought together in the three task forces task three of the broughttives, together in “to create a a forbe made Lithuania’s development create “to businesses. Among other objectives, the strategy strategy objectives, other the Among businesses. reflects the needs of society and the andeconomy, the of society needs reflects and reforming the education system so that it sobetter educationthat system the reforming and public life, as well as government as well representa as life, public and of Lithuania of Lithuania modern, dynamic, open, and patriotic state” patriotic and open, dynamic, modern, lists the development of research infrastructures, development the oflists research infrastructures, structures of national importance to be funded to be funded of importance national structures structures. The Council The Lithuania’s Progress Strategy ‘Lithuania 2030’ ‘Lithuania Strategy Lithuania’s Progress In 2011, at the initiative of the Ministry of Ministry of 2011, the initiative atIn the The Research Council Council The Research RCL Organisation and Governance is composed is of 29 members. The 9 which identifies infra identifies which . The 10 ------
Ministry of Finance and the Lithuanian Academy of Lithuanian the and of Finance Ministry Resolutions of the Committees adopted within the the adopted within Committees Resolutions of the which are submitted by members submitted are and Board ofwhich the afiwith exten- of the possibility andve-year mandate Parliament following proposal Government, by the following Parliament Council to the Parliament and the Government. the and Parliament to the Council of the activities on the reports submits Chairperson of basis approved on the Council, and programmes considers adopts resolutions and issues Committees; concern- presents Council to proposals the Council; as well Foundation, as Research the and Committees of the chairs the and Council of the Chairperson of Education Ministry by the managed is Council Scientifi the and Committees, two of the Chairs c Sciences. ThSciences. the of activities the Boardcoordinates e members of selection Secretary. The the of the formulating and implementing national research national implementing and formulating ing of projects for the RCL funding programmes. programmes. of projectsing for RCL the funding for research programmes of funds allocation the ing discussions of the Council; represents the Council in represents in ofCouncil; Council the the discussions mit proposalsonmit topics management of and national criteria prepare development; for proposals prepare of proposes the for meetings agendas policy; other managerial duties. By 1 March each year, each By1March the duties. managerial other responsible is of work and the of Council for the by proposals the remuneration,of their following the Science, and of Education Ministry of the Science on Education, Committee of Parliament the compulsory is membersof the of Committee each the Director of the Research Foundation; Director appoints Research ofthe the institutions and Council the between interaction the appointed an representative Committees, expert two the Republic of Lithuania and abroad and conducts and of Republic Lithuania the of the of funds use for the as well as Council the to assigned functions of the performance the Foundation; Director Research ofandthe the research programmes; and approveresearch and programmes; fund- the scientifi fromresearch their results and domains c also approvealso prepare results; evaluation sub- and the research higher ation and of in research activities evalu- for the appoint ofand experts commissions Foundation. approves Research of the structure the approves of Council; the activities other and the arepresentative Culture, Government, ofand the RCL Science. membersand appointed are by education institutions, afteducation institutions, theCommittees which er public and meetings chairs and organises estimates; years. ahalf and two every the Chair, employees, the exceptions the being scope of their competencescope of their considered are fi nal. sion for asecond fi ve-year term. half erotation of Th composition of panels of experts and conditions and composition of experts of panels Th the Council of Chairperson e ard o B e Th The Committees The has nine members, including the the members, including nine has summarise and evaluate and summarise is in charge charge in is • • • • • • As part of its advisory activities, the RCL is expected RCL the expected is activities, of its advisory part As 6.4% for Scientifi Organisation for Netherlands the c Research (NWO) and 7% for the Swedish Research (NWO) Research forSwedish Research 7% the and Education and Science and to the Parliament to Science the and and Education (including the state and Structural Funds budget), Funds Structural state and the (including with 1,788,404 with et al et Arnold Erik 11. Technopolis: report to the Ministry of Education and Culture and Education of Ministry the to report Technopolis: working groups, experts, research stud- and groups, experts, working hoc ad Council (VR). Council funding programmes run by the organisation, the the organisation, by the run programmes funding for propos- calls schemesadministering and funding 2.7. 2 2 2.7. in the level of management costs, which might be be might level which the of costs, management in concerning decisionsimplementing Council of the ies and other public authorities. Th authorities. public other ies and eRCL provides due to the rather rapid increase in new funding pro- ratherdue torapid the new funding in increase policy issues and their implementation. to Inputs their and issues policy ment control projects. over funded of tasks. Clearly the RCL upper towards the is the Clearly end of tasks. tend from to 3.0% range for Academy the of Finland Foundation increased from Research 18 tothe 77. Council. of the Chairperson to the projects of and research programmes funding the the RCL decisions are submitted by its Committees, RCLthe decisions by its submitted Committees, are of to provide recommendations Ministry to the regarding various research and higher education research higher various and regarding advice on the following matters: advice following on the and 3.5% for the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) to 3.5% Science Fundand (FWF) forAustrian the countries small a broad similar science in mission Thals. Director Research e the of reports Foundation Council, of duties the out administrative carries and average size of grants, as well as the level the of as manage- average well as of size grants, e.g., draftand e.g., procedures the for RCL ing regulations such differences, such as the range of different range the as such differences, such complexity of the funding body and the diversity diversity the and body funding of the complexity with Management of costs researchcosts. councils grammes, the very high number of calls per year and per and year of number calls high very the grammes, Academic ethics, via the selection of the candi- of selection the the via ethics, Academic Minimum qualifi cation requirements for research for research qualifi requirements cation Minimum Regulations for doctoral studies and assessment and studies for doctoral Regulations Recognition ofdegrees; foreign doctoral Recognition Evaluation of the research and art works of the Evaluation art research of and the Lithuanian higher education and research education insti- and higher Lithuanian Classifi cation of research and branches; elds fi institutions to studies; conduct doctoral institutions of applications by higher education and research educationof and applications by higher tutions; allocations; for abasis funding is which tutions staffandinsti- educationhigher research at public Th in 2013RCL e was budget 29,326,055 total M€ Th Foundation Research e From 2008 to 2012 of number employees the at R Activities CL Advisory 11 ., 2013, Evaluation of the Academy of Finland, Finland, of Academy the of Evaluation 2013, .,
Thdiff be ere can erent reasons for € (or 6.1%) spent on management is responsible for responsible is 15 Organisational Evaluation of the Research Council of Lithuania (RCL) 16 Organisational Evaluation of the Research Council of Lithuania (RCL) • • The RCL relies on the state budget and the European theEuropean and the state The on budget RCL relies Lithuania and abroad, postdoctoral fellowships fellowships abroad, postdoctoral and Lithuania Organisational structure of RCL of structure Organisational 4. Figure Grant scheme supporting world class scientists, in in world scientists, Grant scheme class supporting RCL 2009 the 2012, between and Overall, Structural Funds (around Funds 61.5%Structural 37% and respec funded on of acompetitive 20% -evaluations basis, funded 2.7.3 2.7.3 institutional research programmes, etc. etc. research programmes, institutional authori the pursuing for applications institutions’ projects projectsinternational and on based interna of which 70%of which were of research evaluations projects over over pro 6,000 2,200 funded and proposals tively in 2013),tively in forGlobal used the being latter the 3% agreements, of research -evaluations tional and jects. Over 17,000jects. were evaluations out performed, activities in 2009, aiming to support excellent and to and support excellent 2009, in aiming activities e.g., evaluations, -other 7% and performance, art and other schemes. The RCL started its funding funding its schemes. other The and started RCL announced over received for proposals, announced 130 calls sation for conducting doctoral studies, long-term studies, doctoral sation for conducting cutting edge projects in all areas of science. Between of science. areas Between all projects edge in cutting Research Infrastructure Consortia (ERIC)]. Consortia Infrastructure Research Evaluation of draft programmes in long-term long-term in programmes draft of Evaluation Procedures; and Ethics Providing expert advice, for instance regard for advice, instance expert Providing ing EU R&D policy and funding opportunities opportunities funding and policy EU R&D ing institutions; dates fordates position the of of Academic Supervisor [FP7 Horizon 2020, and European ERA-NETs, or newly established universities and research and universities or established newly research and development and drawing upresearch development conclu and drawing and sions about the research performance of existing sions about research of existing the performance Research Council of Lithuania of Council Research
RCL Funding Activities Funding RCL Research Foundation The Council Direct Direct subordination Assessment Policy and and Policy Science Science Unit Chairperson of Committee of Chairperson Committee of Humanities Humanities of Committee and Social Sciences Social and Programmes International
Unit Global Grant Grant Global Coordination of activities Unit Scientific Secretary Chairperson Programmes ------Research Research Director Board Unit – National Research Programmes and the national national the and Programmes Research – National • Agency for International Science Technology for and International Agency 2009 to 40/60 2010 in 50/50 and 2011. in 2009 and 2012 the RCL announced 2009over 2012 RCL and the announced 130 calls various funding schemes. In 2010 schemes. In RCL the took funding various Vilnius. (currently The State Studies Foundation, VSF) Foundation, (currently State The Studies Lithuanian studies development programme: development studies Lithuanian Foundation Studies and Science State Lithuanian 12. 12. Development (TPA), Programmes sub was which for proposals, and received and for proposals, over 6,000 propos- ing, has steadily increased, from aratio of increased, 30/70 steadily has ing, in overall acceptancerateoverall of 36.7%). of a result As over research funding functions from the former from the functions over research funding top-down funding schemes with pre-defined schemestopics with funding top-down for regulations and number upof a large guidelines of competitive the workthe funding RCL, of the recent RCL developed years the has its management along with part of the functions of the previous of the functions of the part with along als, out of which over 2,200 were funded (i.e., an out over (i.e., of an were which 2,200 funded als, evaluation of proposals and the management of of the evaluation the proposalsand drawn and proposalelectronic management system scheme 2009-2012 is provided in Appendix III. scheme 2009-2012 III. provided is Appendix in into MITA. sequently reorganised compared as country, the toscience basic fund in capacities: increased its staff numbers, set up an set up capacities:numbers, increased its staff National Research Programmes Research National portfolio (aboutportfolio or 17 M 60 MLTL, schemes with the largest overall budget in the RCL the in budget overall largest the schemes with cated over 2010-2012), societal to address aim and Research Council of Lithuania: 2011-2012. Start of the new decade. decade. new the of Start 2011-2012. Lithuania: of Council Research The RCL funding portfolio includes two large includes portfolio funding The RCL A table showing funding for each funding for funding each funding A table showing Personnel Personnel Legal and and Legal Unit
Chairperson of Committee of Chairperson and Technical Sciences Technical and Committee of Natural Natural of Committee Administrative Administrative Affairs Unit Affairs are the funding funding the are Finance and and Finance Accounting Accounting Unit €, was allo was €, 12 During During - - - • • • Th schemes the are two funding major e bottom-up Researcher Teams’ Grant Global Projects the and measure: measure: Thare open to researchers ese non-thematic calls Thscheme Grant e Global Th e Welfare Towards technologies, society, the future 25% 2010-2012). in of applications received funding 2014-2015: Healthy ageing Healthy Unlike the Researcher Teams’ Researcher the Unlike Projects scheme, were launched in 2010 and will come to an end in come end in to an were 2010 in launched will and Lithuanian researchers. ThLithuanian e average success rate Societal challenges to national security to national challenges Societal Researcher Teams’ Projects Structural Funds and is designed to support designed is and Funds Structural for the programme overfor programme the years 2009-2012 the was innovative interdisciplinary research and the dis- research the and innovative interdisciplinary in any fi any in eld science.of scheme e represents a Th groups help the of expert doneis RCL by the with overis 40%. Five new are envisaged programmes programmes six for for proposals all calls the in climate change and human impact change human climate and national review panels and experts. Global Grant Global experts. and review panels national est and aquatic ecosystems aquatic and est projects researchers. of and world scientists class programmes problems Six of importance. strategic programmes being the most popular among most popular the being programmes or teams of researchers fior any teams in eld: humanities, of grant paymentsof grant over 2011-2012. Th e average suc- under the Global Grant scheme are Global proposals the under sciences. agricultural and technological fi this research academic in tal and eldpromotes to start in 2014/2015: in to start rate compared to RCLother schemes (less than non-infectious diseases non-infectious programme allocated over 2010-2012)allocated lowest the and success approximately allo- budget 44% overall the and It enables RCL. fundamen- by the administered and and amounting to approximately 24 MLTL, or 7 to approximately MLTL, 24 amounting research the community. with consultations and ers for implementation research projects of their large amount of funding (47.5 of funding amount large or 13.8 M€ MLTL, a researchers, with scheme Lithuanian among lar social sciences, physical sciences, biomedicine, biomedicine, sciences, physical sciences, social of itsfisemination ndings. e average success rate Th signifi portfolio, funding the of portion RCL cant support open is foreign to domestic research- and by evaluated are inter- and English in submitted cated to it over was 16.5 or 4.6 MLTL, cess ratecess for fi the was 30%. three calls rst national Lithuanian studies development development studies Lithuanian national Healthy and safe food, Healthy safefood, and State and nation: heritage and identity and heritage nation: State and (2009-2015) fi the was rst programme and and Thfor- agro, of sustainability e , Modernity in Lithuania, Lithuania, in Modernity Ecosystems in Lithuania: Lithuania: in Ecosystems . Thselection e of topics is funded by the EU by the funded is with the fi the with three rst is the most popu- the is , Future energy Future M€. , Chronic Chronic M €, €, , Thuni- allocated the by RCLgoes to both funding e Th allocatedinternational these to ebudget overall As one can see, the success rates the see, one for RCL various can As versities and research institutes. In 2012, Vilnius Vilnius 2012, In versities research and institutes. University (VU) receivedUniversity share of largest (VU) the by far RCL funding for both programmes funded from funded programmes for both RCL funding Research Teams’Research Projectsover and 40% for the Exchange Programme between the new EU the member between Programme Exchange National Research Programmes. In comparison, In Programmes. Research National was 31% in 2011, in 24% 31% was 2012 30% in forand NWO for FWF in 2012. in FWF et al et Arnold Erik 13. Technopolis: report to the Ministry of Education and Culture. Culture. and Education of Ministry the to report Technopolis: Development’ funding instruments range between 25% between range for instruments funding for publications or academic promoting students’ for researchor scientifi visits andsupport c events, 2.7.4 2.7.4 Swiss cooperation programme ‘Research and and ‘Research programme cooperation Swiss international partnerships include bilateral part- bilateral include partnerships international early-stage researchersing compared number to the nerships with Belarus, France and Ukraine as well well as France Ukraine and Belarus, nerships with measures such as postdoctoral fellowships, promo- fellowships, postdoctoral as such measures projects and encouraged collaborations between projects between encouraged collaborations and research, innovation business-orientedmental and forprogrammes 2009-2012 about was 2.5 MLTL, of schemes researchers. for established or 0.7 M€. Th Scientifithe in part takes also eRCL c of the RCL activities, of which the of which of RCL the activities, NWO, FWF: annual report 2012. report annual FWF: NWO, the RCLthe off support scale of smaller ers a variety there are few funding schemes directed at support- schemes directed there few are funding support candidates, for doctoral scholarships tional averagethe success rate for Academy the of Finland the state budget (National Research Programmes, Programmes, Research (National state budget the been allocated only approximately 8 MLTL, or approximately only 8 MLTL, been allocated business and research. Another call launched in 2013 launchedin call research. Another and business research activities. Togetherresearch activities. have measures these researchers. Thbe will calls pilot theseimpact e of research have considered been generally to beout- about over 2.3 M€ 2009-2012. Ththat suggests is and encourages collaborations between artists and and artists between collaborations encourages and development projects to on attract cultural aims Taiwan. and Latvia with partnership a tripartite as activities will be continued. becontinued. will activities evaluated and RCL will then decide whether these decide these whether then RCL and evaluated will side its scope.Yet, RCL 2012, apilot launched in (Sciex-NMS Switzerland states and call which was aimed at technology development at technology aimed was which call get of almost 8 get of almost International programmes form another part form part programmes another International programmes, scale large to these addition In Since the RCL focuses on supporting funda- on RCL supporting the focuses Since RCL Clients Clients RCL 13 ., 2013, Evaluation of the Academy of Finland, Finland, of Academy the of Evaluation 2013, .,
M€ for earmarked 2013-2016. Other is the largest, with an overall bud- overall an with largest, the is ch). Lithuanian- 17 Organisational Evaluation of the Research Council of Lithuania (RCL) 18 Organisational Evaluation of the Research Council of Lithuania (RCL) Mykolas Romeris University (MRU) interest an is Researcher Teams’Researcher etc.) Global Projects, the and (FTMC). These get similarly high shares of fund shares of high (FTMC). These get similarly University (VDU), Magnus Vytautas (LSMU), (GTC), University Sciences of Health Lithuanian State funding allocated by RCL to Lithuanian higher education and research institutions in 2012, according to its funding funding its to 2012, in programmes according (LTL) institutions research and education higher Lithuanian to RCL by allocated funding State 6. Figure Figure 5. Grant scheme (see 7below). 6and 5, Figures Other from the national budget and the Global Grant Global the and budget national from the ing from RCL from both programmes funded from RCL funded programmes ing from both of Technology Centre Research Nature (KTU), top-funded institutions included Kaunas University University Kaunas included institutions top-funded and Centreand for Physical Technology Sciences and scheme funded from the EU Structural Funds. Funds. EU fromStructural the scheme funded 1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000 5 000 6 000 7 000 8 000 9 000 National ResearchProgramme State funding allocated by RCL to Lithuanian higher education and research institutions in 2012 in (LTL) institutions research and education higher Lithuanian to RCL by allocated funding State
0 14 762 900
6 057 760
4 301 140
4 278 650
4 097 460
s 3 612 000
2 001 500 Development programmesandResearch TeamProjects 1 888 200
1 797 700
1 595 960
1 499 600
1 320 400
1 141 080
832 000 - - 818 800 World University Rankings 2013World –e.g.,Vilnius University Rankings University (601-650), Vytautas Magnus University University (601-650), Magnus University Vytautas (701+)fund less RCL receives which significantly ing than the other three best ranked Lithuanian Lithuanian best ranked otherthree the than ing in sixteenth place when it comes state sixteenth budget to the in Grant scheme, for Global it only the is institutions five it the exception: among is top-funded ing while programmes. programmes. and Kaunas University of Kaunas Technologyand (701+). One QS the 800 in universities best placed within also 762 400 Technical University Gediminas exception Vilnius is
595 000 Most are universities RCL of the top-funded
417 560
352 900
352 100 Support 275 000
263 650
193 750
International PartnershipProgrammes 164 360
146 100
119 500
84 600
78 300
74 000
69 800
6 000
-
Th isakeyplayerin Lithuania of Council Research e Vilnius University dropped has itssince 2008 posi-Vilnius 701+ 2012 2013. between and For two comparison, 2012, but dropped in their position from 601+ but2012, their dropped in to Estonian universities fi universities Estonian the2013 in gure rankings, For decision the RCL reasons, of the to these com- 2.8 increased emphasis on innovation, and the ability of ability increased emphasis the on and innovation, mission this evaluation is timely and appropriate. and timely is evaluation this mission universities started to figure in the ranking in in ranking the in to figure universities started attion 501+. above-mentioned Other Lithuanian Compareduniversities. to previous years’ rankings, this will be a key factor in the success of this strategy. successof this the beakey factor in will this education to support system research higher the and research and higher education that has undergone education has that research higher and 441-470, between ranked univer- one and Latvian a complex ofmulti-faceted and landscape national EU Structural Funds (Global Grant) allocated by RCL to Lithuanian higher education and research institutions in 2012 in (LTL) institutions research and education higher Lithuanian to RCL by allocated Grant) (Global Funds 7. Structural EU Figure seeking to modernise its economy through an its economyan to modernise through seeking recent in Th years. change substantial is e country sity, at ranked 701+. Summary 1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000 5 000 6 000 7 000 8 000 0
7 033 000
2 217 000
1 439 000
1 085 000
630 000
508 000
459 000
456 000 LLTI LKTI LKI LII LEU LEI LAMMC KU KTU KSU KMTI LKA ISM IMC GTC FTMC EHU BI ASU List ofabbreviations VU TVM VU VPVI VGTU VDU VDA TI SU MRU LSU LSMU LSTC LMTA
445 000
International BusinessSchoolatVilniusUniversity International Vilnius University Public PolicyandManagementInstitute Vilnius GediminasTechnical University Vytautas MagnusUniversity Vilnius AcademyofArts Institute ofLaw Siauliai University Mykolas RomerisUniversity Lithuanian SportsUniversity Lithuanian UniversityofHealthSciences Lithuanian SocialResearch Centre Lithuanian AcademyofMusicandTheatre The InstituteofLithuanianLiterature andFolklore Lithuanian CulturalResearch Centre Institute ofLithuanianLanguage Lithuanian InstituteofHistory Lithuanian UniversityofEducationalSciences Lithuanian Energy Institute Lithuanian Research Centre forAgriculture andForestry Klaipeda University Kaunas UniversityofTechnology Kazimieras SimonaviciusUniversity Space ScienceandTechnology Institute The General Jonas Zemaitis Military Academy of Lithuania ISM UniversityofManagementandEconomics Centre ofInnovativeMedicine Nature Research Centre Centre forPhysicalSciences andTechnology European HumanitiesUniversity Institute ofBiotechnology Aleksandras StulginskisUniversity 433 000
294 000
204 000
140 000
138 000
137 000
112 000
19 Organisational Evaluation of the Research Council of Lithuania (RCL) 20 Organisational Evaluation of the Research Council of Lithuania (RCL) The findings of the Evaluation Committee are sum are the of Committee Evaluation findings The l l l RCL personnel, both Council members staff and Council RCL both personnel, II I Conclusions and recommendations are summarised Conclusions recommendations and are summarised few years, which has required has considerable which few years, vision, schemes. It delivered has a transformation funding is also noteworthy that the RCL has managed to RCL managed the noteworthyhas that also is elements of this substantial implementing and ing for tois its achievements be congratulated lead in research national implemented Lithuanian the in chapters. following the in norms, improving its ability to compete. The RCL itsability improving norms, marised in this chapter under the agreed headings: chapter the under this in marised of the Research Foundation. The RCL is fortunate The Foundation. is fortunate Research ofRCL the over system space the of a researchof the funding underpinning this support is the high quality of quality high support the is this underpinning to beable of to rely dedicated commitment on the relevant governmentthe of sections both the and has change This to RCL much ofthe central this. been has that change context substantial ofthe the Findings Evaluation of the brought the national system of research and higher of research higher system national brought and the research community. Oneresearch of community. of anumber factors achieve this while retaining strong support within strongsupport within retaining while achieve this recent in with years, education landscape higher and education into greater alignment with international international with education intogreater alignment strength of purpose and organisational ability. It ability. organisational and of purpose strength 3. change and introducing numerous competitive introducing and change All these detailed findings must be viewedin be must findings detailed these All The assessment of the scientific quality of quality thescientific of assessment The The assessment of the organisation of assessment The the Research Council Research the b) b) a) a) Governance management and The scientific quality and impactand ofits quality scientific The programmes Its internationalisation Analysis of the strategy for the funding forfunding the strategy of the Analysis schemes - - Although this evaluation is focused on the RCL, it is RCL, on the focused is evaluation this Although RCL. WeRCL. not do recommendations any make on the where improvement of opinion the in necessary is within the wider context of the Lithuanian R&D R&D context Lithuanian of wider the the within 3.1 for funding and setting policy for higher education for higher policy setting and for funding is not in any event within the scope of this evalu scope the of this event any notis in within the theto consider situation first of RCL important might merit separate review.might ognise the significant achievementsthe of RCL over significant the ognise on the other, following legal changes in 2008, a in as changes legal other,on the following respects certain in to hinder likely is of system the norms may international not that of systems, such the Evaluation Committee, while continuing to rec continuing while Evaluationthe Committee, ofLithuanian the potential full the ted to realising to a large extent the freedom the extent to of a large operation of the to compete constrains and internationally, RCL, the and research system, Lithuanian of the ability the consideration of detailed broaderthat the system govern development the circumstances national ular mechanisms national various of complexity the the five past the years. body to the Parliament and to the Government to the and Parliament tobody the and, the it since broader not is system, within national and circumstances, be appropriate those within research system. However,research system. the and gaps remain, and knowledgeable individuals, strongly commit strongly knowledgeable individuals, and and research in Lithuania. We partic that recognise Lithuania. researchand in ation. However,ation. complexity note the that we also and Management scope of the evaluation, butscope of weevaluation, the note it a topic as that by struck was The Committee Evaluation system. current evaluation will point out the various areas areas point out various the will evaluation current The RCL serves, on the one hand, as an advisory an advisory as the oneThe on hand, serves, RCL RCL Governance RCL - - - - Ministry as well as from the research community, research from community, the as well as Ministry RCL in appliedRCL Th research. in eforce real the pol- of RCL: a the and expertise disciplinary the has RCL certainly Parliament the under institution RCL aunique is Evaluation Committee formed the impression that that impression the formed Committee Evaluation yield a better result from the resources from the result available. abetter yield well as other agencies could pave agencies other could as way the forwell amore upon. Perhapswhen called amore structure formal Lithuania 2030 Strategy was mentioned2030 was a having Strategy as Lithuania During the interviews it not what was clear quite interviews the During Parliament. All higher education research and insti- higher All Parliament. Science fi nalises the list of candidates that then Sciencethatgoes fi list of candidates the nalises in evaluation of research performed in Lithuanian of researchLithuanian evaluation performed in in role the and unclear, role currently is advisory icy needimplications to beexamined. resourcing and Ministry, the with collaboration in disbursement of funds and as an advisory body advisory an as and of funds disbursement decisions. Th the in is RCL embodied expertise e ment, and hencement, and rolewhat the of RCLan the as is for and evaluation a service as ment, but primarily forplayer research plans develop- national and in responsible agency for the functioning permanently of continuing science foresight and planning would would science foresight planning of and continuing the 2030 strategy is to be developed further then then 2030to is be developedthe strategy further were formulations the If that of ageneral nature. develop- strategy in role is the Parliament of the not does RCLakey strategic see the as Ministry the Parliament. to however, RCL; and ofthe Education Minister the membership for involved are tutions suggesting in research defi RCL of to the needs mission becarefully the ned Th schools. doctoral and oftion research institutes e refifuture. theandnedagenda foreducation research and through its schemes, membership and networks membership networks itsschemes, and through and role the around of the some uncertainty with albeit the For Parliament. instance, to body the advisory Ministry the but close, with Science very is and membersand RCL of the appointed are by the has broad insight into and links with national and and national with links and into broadhas insight the in is education research and institutions higher early stages of development. stages early sory role sory cant role here. If this role is to develop in the future, role role future, cant to is develop the here. this in If to play system amore the signifi within credibility - coordinated effthe as RCL ministries, between ort chapter on research education and but it stressed was appreciated However, Ministry. by certainly the the at major decisive the role arriving playing clearly in Th of research programmes. competitive funding e Th Education of Ministry the ewith relationship Thsignifi eRCL commands cantthe respect from A developing role for the RCL lies in the evalua- A developing the role in forRCL the lies One can distinguish, then, three roles three for the then, distinguish, One can research funding roleresearch funding . Th e quite clearly is fithese rst of ned, defi and an an and emerging role in evaluation of of evaluation in role emerging , a policy advi- policy R&D strategy. ThR&D discussions more us, meaningful development the RCL in could of research policy would require a change of mindset not only within within not only of mindset require achange would while the RCL reports to the Parliament. In actual actual In RCL the reports toParliament. the while Lithuania involved in funding research, and the the research, and involved funding Lithuania in Parliament on the one hand and the academic com- academic the one on and the hand Parliament Committee met with seven R&D agencies with agencies with seven R&D met with Committee from the fact that such a strategy would bewelcome, would astrategy such that fact from the in research development. and in Th and Ministry e it have would anational accordance to with be in Th systems. international for assets areimportant ese is an implementing body under two ministries, ministries, two under body implementing an is MITA Lithuania. on research in decision making in day to day functioning, the responsibilities of the of responsibilities the the today functioning, day munity on the other. the on munity the relationships with more structured and intense respect. Th implies this also in partnership turn in is principle, the RCL is concerned with fundamental RCLprinciple, fundamental concerned the is with confimum country. forguration a relatively small overall landscape is very complex. very is Th landscape overall e Evaluation the moment formedthe RCL not the does have afully At RCL the itself. but broaderthe within system, develop amore future active the in RCLthe could of research system RCL forLithuanian the and the to diffhierarchy’ erentthe ‘political levels of overall research system, and it how not and research was clear always system, relationships is between MITA and the RCL. In In RCL. the MITA and relationships between is research. In addition, the RCL MITA belong the and addition, research. In MITA concerned is appliedresearch, while with diff the between responsibilities erent organisations and higher education. Amore higher proactiveand role for the and more intensive ties between all relevant play- moreand intensive all between ties agencies has not yet crystallised into the most into the opti- agencies not has yet crystallised Th or shared. distributed are e Committee Evaluation has the impression that the current pattern of R&D of impression pattern R&D current the has the that enhance the process of setting national priorities national process the of setting enhance ers would be welcome in developing strategies at all ers be welcome would developing at strategies all in levels. strategy even for its own future development. even for future strategy its Apart own complementary and overlapping functions in the the complementary overlapping in and functions Th an organisation as e be seen RCL could Lithuania. Its relationships with the Ministry Ministry the Its relationships with Lithuania. ity in the wider context of research policy in in context of wider research the policy in ity nities on the other mean that it has the po- it the that has mean other on the nities research commu- international and national that commands more author- respect commands than that tential to deliver greater value to the national togreater deliver national to value the tential be found through which this can beachieved. can this which through be found and Parliament on the one hand and with the the with one on and the hand Parliament and system at a strategic level, and routes at level, astrategic and system need to The RCL is one of many organisations in RCLThe one is of organisations many For a more RCL the tostrategic role undertake One of the most important and interesting interesting and One most of important the 21 Organisational Evaluation of the Research Council of Lithuania (RCL) 22 Organisational Evaluation of the Research Council of Lithuania (RCL) A higher level of coordination between all relevant level all of between coordination A higher Academy of LVPA, Sciences, ESFA,CPVA well as vision that could determine a future research and afuture determine could vision that RCL and MITA. The The theneed forRCL MITA. RCL to have and a primar is and RCL-MITA exists, body coordination An RCL MITA hard sometimes to are and delimit. would benefit from a repositioning of the boundary from benefitthewould boundary a of repositioning Foundation staff is very close, if not too close, with with if not close, close, too is very Foundation staff Committees in relation to very minor changes to changes relation minor to in very Committees focused coordination would be welcome with the the bewelcome would coordination with focused ing them short of time to devote shortof them time issues toing wider leav brought are RCLissues to the Committees, on applications. materials on exchanging focused ily national goal of 1.9% expenditure/GDP, goal national R&D with projects underway. are staff that the Empowering more developing and prominent role supporting in in increase one. targeted ambitious The ment, an is production future of inform a joint could vision that of research policy and strategy. and The of relationship research policy of the Research Foundation to deal with issues of issues with Foundation to Research of deal the activities. and deadlines coordinating other on the tion. tion. the staff having to consult with thememberswith of to consult having staff the between the two Committees and the Research Research the and Committees two the between between governance Toobetween management. and many pave could bodies way the for producing a joint require particu will on R&D expenditure business relatively low level bureaucratic management and The for Lithuania. research innovation and strategy applied research is discussed further in the next sec next the in further applied research discussed is as MOSTA, overcomingas overlaps on one and hand morea closer and strategic relationshipthe between the including RCLMITA, the and between aged half of the expenditure coming from business invest from business coming expenditure of the half education strategy for Lithuania. education strategy lar attention within the system, and will necessitate will and system, the attention within lar lesser importance could effectively effectively open up could space lesser importance considered in the same way.considered same the in More more specifically, The research and innovation system in Lithu in innovationandsystemThe research RCL. on R&D. This might include formal include represenformal might This on R&D. tation of industrial/economic interests on the of Economy, merits par RCL MITA, the and ticular attention, given the national target for target given attention, national the ticular The agencies. RCL other relationship the and interaction between and communication ular between the Ministry of Education, Ministry Ministry of Education, Ministry the between or more RCL MITA, the and broadly between ania would benefit from benefit would and more reg ania formal significant increase in business expenditure expenditure in increasebusiness significant The relationships with other agencies be other should with The relationships The Evaluation Committee believes that the that RCL believes The Committee Evaluation A higher level beencour of should collaboration A higher ------RCL project funding. In principle, of a division In RCL project funding. RCL but due to requirements from the Ministry of RCL but due to requirements Ministry from the Finances, this is implemented is this there consumes and Finances, Procedure. The internal RCL Research Integrity Integrity internal Research Procedure.RCL The Commission. However, these should be further However,Commission. be further should these Commission could together with the Supervisor Supervisor the with together could Commission Central aims of any research council are to are foster of research any council aims Central 3.2 funding and evaluation activities via a dedicated adedicated via activities evaluation and funding for Committees to deal with larger strategic issues. strategic larger with to deal for Committees ing adjustments within the overall budget envelope, budget overall the within adjustments ing prescriptive heavily the concerning and ings, national Supervisor for Academic Ethics and for Ethics Academic Supervisor national developed in collaboration with the recently the elected developed with collaboration in projects. In comparable international systems, systems, international comparable In projects. progress the of in their changes minor manage main constituency) that research funds are allo are constituency) research that funds main (as research the funder) the community and main or not RCL members to compete are allowed for the relationship between the RCL and its funded RCL relationshipits the funded the and between by not the initiated on research projects.ture While time-consuming micro-management of expendi time-consuming research excellence, and to assure the state (as the to assure and the research excellence, recognising that the detail of scientific advancement of scientific detail the that recognising researchers have spend freedom the to minor make researchers, to damages no productive It also end. researchers, who feel that they are not trusted to notresearchers, are trusted who they feel that and the Supervisor. the and its Fundingits Schemes enormous effort on the part of theand of of RCL the part enormouson effort labour on questions pertaining to research integrity to research integrity on questions pertaining labour should be achieved between the RCL Ethics body body RCL be achievedthe Ethics should between cannot be predicted years in advance. bepredicted years in cannot clarify issues of conflict of interest whether as of such of issues conflict clarify The ethical guidelines and procedures forex guidelines The ethical Academic Ethics and Procedure. Procedure. and Ethics Academic Additional freedoms, consistent with those those consistent freedoms, with Additional devolve routine oversight to some remaining propriate relationship with the Supervisor forpropriate Supervisor the relationship with permitted to RCL researchers, the needs permitted and to rid itself of muchto micro-management rid itself and norm need the are internationally, that to be time freed its RCL by up used the is totime expand amination of infringements of ethical prin of ethical of infringements amination strategic capacity. strategic the that so theResearch Foundation, in staff ciples should be further developed in an ap developed an in ciples befurther should A related complaint arose in a number ofA related anumber meet complaint in arose RCL issues ethical guidelines for its research guidelines RCL ethical issues RCL Strategy for Strategy RCL ------4. 4. Ththat ere has is nodocument strategic overarching Th as well is for holds established research councils 5. 5. 6. 6. 3. 3. 2. 2. 1. 1. 14. Appendix 6 of the self-evaluation report is the most complete complete most the is report self-evaluation the 6of Appendix 14. Projects, to instruments that give small extra fund- extra give that small to instruments Projects, Committee has counted 28 programmes in total, but total, counted in has programmes 28 Committee for a country that regained independence only a short ashort independence only regained that for acountry at targeted specififunds andstrategic pri- c national ing programmes. Instead the RCL responded the has Instead to programmes. ing none that it indicative is offi of the documents cial one the of for as research, aspect only such ing provide that researchers with from instruments ing developed a diverse research funding portfolio rang- portfolio developed adiverse research funding programmes. travel Th grants. forprogramme small e Evaluation Appropriateplayers research the system. in balance ment of scientifiknowledge c orities. orities. tion addresses not only the RCL, but also the other other the but also RCL, the not only addresses tion to asetof more specifi aims. strategic c is implica- Th to compete historically with seeking is and ago, time Th research national system. the challenge is a is real the needs and opportunities of the Parliament, the the Parliament, of the opportunities needs and the research intensive societies. Lithuania is in need in of is research intensive Lithuania societies. a substantial grant, such as the Researcher Teams’ Researcher the as such grant, a substantial applied research across and research disciplines. contributing instruments, setof funding a balanced for develop- the apply research to funds both aims Th RCL. the as such research younger councils as ese schemes, along the spectrum from fundamental to to from fundamental spectrum the along schemes, of funding scale and across be sought type should consulted nor the RCL website had a full list of these of these list nor RCLconsulted the website had afull to strengthen aim cately connected national to the cated research best to the and/or researchers. best guided the development the of fund- guided portfolio of the list of 28 programmes 28 of list hree e r Th e e r Th We can identify six kinds of programmes: kinds six We identify can young researchers; young In Lithuania, fostering research excellence is intri- is research excellence fostering Lithuania, In Lithuanian studies and on economics; and studies Lithuanian Four Four Four Four Four Over the past fi past Over the the quickly has RCL very ve years, Lithuanian research Lithuanian Six Six of substantial size through a fully open competi- afully through size of substantial tries; tion; priorities area; specifithe of aspects research process. c bilateral programme bilateral programmes fostering research careers research fostering programmes funding schemes providing subsidies providing schemes funding schemes to promote the integration of promote to integration schemes the programmes funding research projects research funding programmes programmes aiming to fund national national fund to aiming programmes 14 14 , including the programmes on programmes the , including into the European research European into the s with selected coun- s with per se per and research research and for for of of Thdisplayed inare survey the of e Tableresults 1. 2012 (Figure 8). Th thatshow e the40% results of was 1%. 1%. was In the self-evaluation report, RCL scoredreport, self-evaluation has the mostIn Government, the European Framework Programme, Programme, Framework European the Government, Structural Funds. Funds. Structural funding by discipline. In both of these cases, it cases, of these both In by discipline. funding further in this report indicates, the state budget the report indicates, this in further for over programmes of each the years 2009- the zontal priority, is zontal about 10% only of RCL funding is important that the funding breakdown bein funding the that important is interest of the Lithuanian research to main- system interest Lithuanian of the careers national priorities national priorities grew between 2009 and 2012, there was there 2009 2012, was priorities and between grew priority. on national priorities. About 20% was spent 20% priorities. About on was national on of the funding programmes against these goals, as as goals, these against programmes funding of the fostering excellence fostering bilateral international and Funds EU Structural the that itthat bemonitored basis. on acontinuing strategic investments attention and on this tain that most of these activities are funded from EU funded are most activities ofthat these between 2011 and 2012 (although increasing sharply 2011 sharply 2012between and (although increasing 30% and excellence for used fostering was budget between 2009 2012). between and future the It bein would respectively, while the budget for dissemination respectively, for budget dissemination the while research 10% careers and on internationalisation, relationships. reserved for this strategic objective strategic reserved of for consider- this a hori- as internationalisation report characterises accordance with agreed strategic objectives, agreed strategic and accordance with a slight decrease in support for decrease in research careersa slight of RCL the membersofa result a survey staff and . addition, as the section on internationalisation internationalisation on section the as addition, In country. of given the size the able importance has decreased between 2010 and 2012, meaning decreased 2010has between meaning 2012, and scores from the survey to the actual budget fi budget actual to the scores survey from the gures share for international cooperation programmes programmes cooperation international for share strategic objectives strategic Th would the eand research RCL community ing programmes. Decision making around around Decision making programmes. ing ment appropriately of an setof fund- balanced proach defi to the nition of national research objectives and the corresponding develop- corresponding objectives the and this should bemore more should and explicit visible, this benefisystematic andagreedap- froman t and engage abroad engage of stakeholders. and range The Evaluation Committee has related has the EvaluationThe Committee It can be noted that, while spending on most spending bewhile notedIt can that, e v fi itsRCL report self-evaluation the lists In Figure 9 shows the distribution of research 9 shows distribution Figure the Despite the fact that the RCL the Despite self-evaluation that fact the dissemination of scientifi dissemination c and results for its funding programmes: programmes: funding its for , development of research research of development , internationalisation . , 23 Organisational Evaluation of the Research Council of Lithuania (RCL) 24 Organisational Evaluation of the Research Council of Lithuania (RCL) The correspondence of the RCL funding schemes to the strategic goals (as perceived by 66 RCL members and Research Foundation Foundation Research and staff) members RCL 66 by perceived (as goals strategic the to schemes funding RCL the of correspondence 1. The Table Figure 8. Global Grant programmes (6) National research cooperation programme Lithuanian-Swiss Researcher teams’projects Studies 2009-2015 Programme forLithuanian National Development BiodivERsA) schemes (e.g.,Mera-net, BONUS, JPI,ERA-net agreements) programmes (bilateral partnership International COST programme Postdoctoral fellowships Support forresearch visits events Support forscientific of research results Support forthepublication for doctoralcandidates Promotional scholarships research activities Support forstudents’ 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 RCL budget portfolio according to strategic objectives, 2009-2012 (in thousand LTL) thousand (in 2009-2012 objectives, strategic to according portfolio budget RCL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 research adequate levelof and ensuring excellent science Fostering 69.0% 26.7% 20.3% 70.2% 36.2% 6.9% 6.9% 6.9% 13.8% 8.3% 10.0% 6.9% 26.2% 27.9% research dimension of international Fostering 13.8% 66.1% 10.5% 82.8% 84.5% 81.0% 51.7% 10.0% 17.2% innovation) (including state issues pressing Addressing 70.0% 6.9% 8.8% 55.2% 10.3% 5.2% 5.2% 5.0% careers of researchers’ development Ensuring the 8.6% 8.5% 7.0% 5.2% 82.8% 26.7% 6.7% 67.2% 60.7% Dissemination Development ofresearch National prioritie Internationalisatio Fostering Excellenc careers achievements of scientific dissemination the Strengthening 13.3% 73.3% 72.4% 8.2% s n e e.g. in 2013 for research agricultural sciences the RCL spent 2 189 700 Litai, that is around 634 181 Eur The funding of research in Lithuania through the RCL, 2009-‐2013 (thous. Litas) The funding of research 6,000 were proposals received projects 2,200 and M€ in 2012)M€ in processed 3,724 2012. Th in proposals e RCL staffthat amongprocedures , clear it became for competitive sum total research the with RCL, Vilnius. For comparison, the Academy of Finland, whose For Academy the comparison, of Finland, 15. 15. funding in 2012 processed of in 1,500 21 M€, propos-funding Thfunded. for propos- on is means average42 calls is complicated for the research community to complicatedfol-is for research the community period from 2009 to 2012, 130 calls forperiod from proposals: 2009 to 130 2012, calls the various schemes benefi various would the from har- t being would of number calls the down Cutting future. the also bebenefialso theimproving administrative for cial Thals. in calls e fewer RCL consider should having (327 much is budget larger research funding annual year each per year. of number calls alarge Such als The funding of research in Lithuania through the RCL, 2009-2013 (in thousand LTL) thousand (in 2009-2013 RCL, the through Lithuania in research of funding The 9. Figure low, represents and workload aheavy RCL. for the capacity of the RCL. During the interviews with the the with interviews the During RCL. ofcapacity the 10000 15000 20000 25000 Research Council of Lithuania: 2011-2012. Start of the new decade. decade. new the of Start 2011-2012. Lithuania: of Council Research Th be monitoredshould funding of balance e Two merit that particu- portfolio of the areas further proliferation of calls and small grants. small and proliferation of calls further other grant schemes grant other where possible, to avoid against assessed and basis, on a continuing the agreed objectives. agreed the researchers. Th within be embedded ese could of reer researchers mobility international and lar examination are the support of the are early-ca- examination lar 5000 Referring to the RCL to the booklet Referring 0 F i g 9 – technological sciences T–technological sciences; B –biomedical sciences; A–agricultural sciences; P–physical M–art; sciences; S–social H –humanities; H S 15 15 there were, in the there the were, in M P 2012 with an average an 2012 of size 38,719 with LTL (18,500 €) 80,000 LTL (23,000 €) per year. For second the call RCL and was meant also to attract foreign talent. foreign talent. to attract meant also RCL was and Research Programmes. Th Programmes. Research due tolikely is is most (NRP) there were 144 projects funded, of there average were(NRP) projects 144 funded, Lithuanian Studies Development in Studies Programme Lithuanian imately 380,952imately LTL (110,331 €). Th Grant e Global in the research community, and this demand is demand research this the and community, in monised wherevermonised possible. Thdiffiis is more cult to projects have average an been awarded of size with Programmes Research National per the year, in and of the Global Grant, 35 Grant, Global of the projects were awarded with the bottom-up nature of the calls (researchers bottom-upthe can calls of the nature approx- perbeing year average amount the allocated Teams’ Grant Researcher scheme. 241 Global the two schemes than, for instance, forNational the for instance, schemes than, two aft most sought schemes the latter as two the er a research (e.g., independent project fashion an in of number calls. large a very absorbed is capacity by achieve when administrative also demonstrated by loweralso success rates for the size of the grants awarded. Th of grants size the the schemes ese build projectssubmit topic) on any larger the as well as scheme offthe disbursed by grants thelargest ers Researcher Teams’ as such Projects particularly and of 165,000size LTL (11,260 €) size per year. Larger capacity of researchers, allowing them to manage to manage them ofcapacity researchers, allowing grants of suffigrants a small allowengaging for cient to size off are grants schemes open thematically eredthe by Th ere were 141 projects the in nanced National fi Various researchers interviewed highlighted Various researchers highlighted interviewed A B T 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 25 Organisational Evaluation of the Research Council of Lithuania (RCL) 26 Organisational Evaluation of the Research Council of Lithuania (RCL) – either through dedicated schemes or indirectly via via schemes dedicated or indirectly – eitherthrough The RCL manages the national programmes. Apart Apart the programmes. national The manages RCL 2012in schemeamounted this for budget The total National Research Programmes formulated after formulatedafter Programmes Research National Programmes there are several other priority lists, lists, there priority several other are Programmes fellowships are the largest instrument for building for building instrument largest the are fellowships from the National Lithuanian studies development studies Lithuanian National from the role RCL aprime fos research, the has - in funding national programmes are important and may and func important are programmes national development be of researcher also careers should doctoral researchers doctoral have sufficient opportunities programme in economic research, in there six programme are institution-based long-term the and programme order to enhance research in such areas. such order research in to enhance of priorities. national funding the in is organisations researchof the teams. there are a large number of small scale support scale number ofthere are a small large time, and to the research community they present they a research to community the and time, developmentthe over of longer of Lithuania periods ways: two Government to the tion in wider and and internationalisation research excellence, tering to 5,792 600 LTL (1.6 M€). it general, would In required the of researchersteam acquiring and the quality and the impact of the work as well as as work of impact the well the as and quality the research career grants. The main overlap other The main with research career grants. Funds. by EU Structural research funded careers, available at an appropriate scale. At the moment, moment, the At scale. appropriate an at available attention should be paid to ensuring that early post early that to bepaid ensuring attention should at least researchersat with established those and Postdoctoral bestreamlined. might which activities to raise likely is of size grants the increasing and equipment). Streamlining funding opportunities like those on national complex on national those researchlike pro society they indicate the importance of research importance for the indicate they society research larger projects. schemes supporting are aimed RCL largest instruments seemthe that collaborative international the potential strengthen some years of independent research. Therefore, challenge to coordinate knowledge development to knowledge coordinate in challenge Such relevant the communities. with consultation RCL funding programmes and calls require calls and programmes RCL funding focus on innovation, or on supporting various various on innovation, or onfocus supporting ness. This does not rule out the establishment the establishment out rule does not This ness. phasis on larger grants that are likely to raise to raise likely are that grants onphasis larger quality, impact and international competitive international and impact quality, of new programmes, particularly ones with a a ones with particularly of new programmes, undertaken with an eye to appropriate an with scale undertaken and efficiency. efficiency. and streamlining, with a need for with increased em streamlining, stages of research careers, but this should be be should of researchstages but careers, this Among all organisations in Lithuania involved Lithuania in in organisations all Among In addition to the National Research National to the addition In However, mentioned as before, support for the - - - - - MOSTA. with other organisations and especially with MITA with especially and organisations other with If it wants to maintain and expand its position it expand and to it maintain wants If 16. http://www.mosta.lt/en/reports-and-analyses fundamental science, a role it exercising to is con fundamental ing synergy. ing it effective is to haveagen the the andother RCL involvement in this area. The The considershould involvement RCL area. this in section, last werethe ofimplications which in raised nationally) moves in the direction of applied research. movesnationally) direction the in posed list of smart specialisations in areport from in specialisations of smart posed list pursue its role as currently defined in thesupport in of defined its rolepursue currently as our regret we found little evidence that the RCL the is evidence that regretour we little found of considerable attention in Lithuania, as in other other in as of considerable Lithuania, attention in the EU Structural Funds – the latest being the pro the latest being – the Funds EU Structural the to find position toits the find eroded centre as of overtime to it involve this wishes to which extent in the itself related to funding schemes of agencies other or to related to funding research resource nationally will not succeed it if pro research will resource nationally require further comment. Applied research and the comment. Applied research the and require further area, and the mechanisms it might use. it might mechanisms the and area, actively involvedactively innovation policy. Coordination in applied research governance innovation, the and emphasised that the developmentemphasised the that applied of the subject the economic of naturally, impact research is, seems to aim at avoiding overlap,- toseems aim of realis instead should look to expand its horizons. lookshould to expand However,siderable satisfaction. national it likely is cies each formulate their own national priorities. To national own cies their formulate each doubts whether Evaluation the chosen, Committee countries. To countries. RCL not the has had significant date, gravity in research funding (domestically and inter (domestically and research funding in gravity either specialisation, smart and valleys grammes, valleys and smart specialisation. specialisation. smart and valleys For development the research of the system Programmes are the appropriate instruments instruments appropriate the are Programmes for this. The Evaluation Committee sees two sees The Committee Evaluation for this. innovation system. The National Research Research The National innovation system. broaderintegrated into the and knowledge nomic development of Lithuania as a modern nomic amodern development as of Lithuania main challenges: (i) sciences and social challenges: the in main of Lithuania it is of the utmost importance it importance utmost of is the of Lithuania medicine, to develop programmes that link to develop link that medicine, programmes that contribute to the socio-cultural and eco and contributethat socio-cultural to the and connected is scientific research well that humanities, to develop programmes national humanities, scientific research to the development scientific research to the of state within Europe and in the broader global broader the global in and Europe state within context; (ii) in the sciences, engineering and and (ii)context; sciences,engineering the in The RCL could of course choose The exclusively of to course could RCL choices strategic The before theto RCL relating To it be should area, this stakeholders other in 16 Though there is some Though theoverlap fields in ------• • • An expansion of the RCL funding in this direction direction this in RCL of the funding expansion An Lithuania in the future. future. the in Lithuania international examples) that link scientifi examples)international link that c research based valleys the up competences within building in diff have could a RCL, erentincluding stakeholders, prioritised areas in a coordinated eff in prioritised areas between ort have they organisa- an RCL, the In period of time. of cooperation. Possible (drawn programmes from Th specialisation. on smart implement to e ability that has an understanding of and the support of the support of ofthe the and understanding an has that implemented practice, best successfully has that tion joint research and business projects within specifi projectsjoint research business within and c forces MITAother organisations and with joining best national researchers, and that can be used more be used can researchers, that national best and resource that has been built up over beenresource built has aconsiderable that effinnovation. for goals of national in pursuit ectively should be undertaken in collaboration with MITA. with collaboration in be undertaken should signifitheimpact economic on development cant of scientifisupport the the valleys, of underpinning c ceeds without reference to the fundamental research research reference without ceeds fundamental to the groups with industrial activities include: activities industrial groups with that Funds round for of next Structural the grammes Launching research funding schemes are that research funding Launching Funding sabbaticals of academic researchers of academic sabbaticals Funding Co-funding of PhDs based in research groups in based but of PhDs Co-funding ing by industry. ing research researchers Lithuanian in industrial (domestically or or internationally) industry in and cooperativeand doctorates); ence and the impact on the national innovation national on the impact the ence and sci- fundamental of basis both onevaluated the linked closely with industry (including industrial industrial (including industry with closely linked goals, possibly requiring some element possibly of requiring co-fund- goals, groups; MITA, so as to enhance coherence to enhance so as avoid and MITA, It bebenefi would the for RCL to cial consider unproductive proliferation of programmes. fo- oftion the applied losing research, without has characterised its ambitions to date. Th its ambitions to date. characterised has is direc- the in beexpanded can how its portfolio could be undertaken in collaboration with with collaboration in beundertaken could research that fundamental in on excellence cus Thdiff are ere kind erent this ways develop to The RCL The seek should to pro-come up with Th announcedthe on are for proposals calls eRCL Thselection of fairness procedures and were quality e The RCL was established in 1991, and radically 1991, in RCLThe established was radically and The Review Process Review The RCL website, and applicants submit their propos-RCL website, submittheir applicants and working days. working would require a more detailed review. requirewould a more detailed We have It is normal practice to have two to three external practiceIt to normal have is external to three two 3.3 funding better aligned to international norms. In In norms. to international aligned better funding funding allocation, and is committed to continu- committed is and allocation, funding investigated whether the operationinvestigated the whether RCL of the and a merit-basedin of research competitive allocation improvement have been mentioned. also review, some the of areas while during interviewed pete internationally. internationally. pete for new research- createsprinciple opportunities this modernisation the step in positive necessary and peer review (with reviewers diff being erentfrom (right A rebuttal to response meeting. panel by the pan- expert by the project undertaken is proposals Th for eligibility. posals e ofevaluation research of the Lithuanian research system. It has resulted It resulted has research system. Lithuanian of the open funding calls – to consider introducing remote –to consider introducing calls open funding improvementous procedures. and RCL of the rules research research and in standards of international the nature of the international published output output published international the of nature the internationally research that councils standards the processes RCL of consistent the are with quality the research to national of com- system the ability the to the panel’s preliminary evaluation is only three three only is evaluation preliminary panel’s to the joint and decisions reached meetings to panel at the staffthe pro- all checktheResearch Foundation of by the Evaluation Committee and by stakehold- and Evaluationby the Committee be advisable – especially for larger, thematically for larger, thematically be advisable – especially reorganised in 2007. in reorganised Thviewedis is reorganisation required to evaluate their allocated proposals prior proposals allocated required their to evaluate attributable to RCL funding. RCL to attributable although the time given to applicants to respond time the the although applicant) reviewof process; the a built-in is part Prior form. evaluation, to electronic any an via als attested to stakeholdersof number by the a large have developed over We time. have considered also Impact of RCL Programmes of Programmes RCL Impact ers, new researchers, fiimprovesand and new ideas, elds extremely an review as the during ers interviewed expert panel members) panel expert prior evaluations. to panel members with set up byRCLels the Committees, contain expertise in all scientifi all in it would expertise domains, contain c grammes or projects funded by the RCL by the –that or projects funded grammes Thstrong ethe hasa leadership of RCL awareness As expert panels are limited in size and cannot cannot and size in limited are panels expert As This review not separate has assessed pro- This Sc Sc ientifi and Quality c 27 Organisational Evaluation of the Research Council of Lithuania (RCL) 28 Organisational Evaluation of the Research Council of Lithuania (RCL) RCL definitions of conflict of interest. Instead, Instead, interest. of of conflict RCL definitions Lithuanian-Swiss Cooperation Programme ‘Research Cooperation ‘Research Programme Lithuanian-Swiss Foundation. Thus, in the case of National Research Research the of case National in Thus, Foundation. Programmes, applicants cannot be part of of any bepart cannot applicants Programmes, for schemes, a simple various one-page schematic ing schemes, only the Global Grant call and the the and Grant call Global the only schemes, ing RCL fund moment, the At out of all English. in ing group. The latter two cases two group. considerationcases require ing latter The research and for Lithuanian exposure international involvedinternause process.of selection The the in development programme, applicants can be both both be can applicants programme, development processes be criteria and should evaluation and dures members of the Council and the Programme’s the and draft members ofCouncil the RCL on the website. English available in made requires applications to be written this practice, it is members individually, whoproposals evaluate the above. In the case of Teams’ Researcher case above. the the In grants, group, theResearch or drafting programme the reasons: many for advantageous is evaluators tional by RCL used the to evaluate pool ofto the experts thereby allowing international evaluators to international be thereby allowing by the RCL. RCL. by the standards, international against benchmarking avoidance of conflicts of interest that arise in a small in a small interestarise that avoidanceof of conflicts Development’and English, invite in proposals Netherlands) the and countries Scandinavian the as to proposal. each assigned recommended of are them at two least that also and in the case of the national Lithuanian studies studies Lithuanian national of the case the in and however, bemembers Council, of can applicants the peer depend reviewers.heavily on international In expert reviewers panel it Where perthe expert proposal. is community. In the same vein, all application proce all vein, same the In community. (such countries those and competent peers small, is can be members of the Council, the expert panel, panel, expert the be memberscan of Council, the applicants provided whether is depicting chart grant applications. In small countries the number of number the countries small applications. In grant viewers different from the expert panel mem panel fromtheexpert viewers different where required by law) pro ahigher that and It is advisable that grant applicationsIt grant advisablesub are is that It would be advisable to adjust the peerIt beadvisablereview to would the adjust Lithuanian expatriates) to evaluate used is Lithuanian portion of international experts (including (including experts of international portion mitted in English (and also in Lithuanian, Lithuanian, (and in also English in mitted process for larger thematically open calls so so open calls process for thematically larger that itthat involves remote peer re international bers responsible prioritisation of proj for final ects. such applications. applications. such There is no detailed document describing the describing document Thereis detailed no Another area for quality improvement area for quality relatesAnother ------The impact of the RCL programmes is difficult to difficult theimpact is The of RCL programmes very significantly just before just 2007-2008, significantly a with very within the RCL the took 2007, place in within be it cannot engi in relevant, especially output also –is written Scopus. Of course, this is not the full output of not is full the this course, Of Scopus. issue. issue. increase. It is more likely that the sharp growth in in growth sharp the that It more is increase. likely visibility. and output international It research. of would ‘problemimportance focused’ neering, social sciences and arts and humanities. On On humanities. and sciences arts and social neering, discussing peer review based selection processes, peer review selection based discussing might be worthwhile to appropriate develop an beworthwhile set might It proposals. multi-, cross- transdisciplinary and more gradual increase since then. As the changes changes the As then. since increase more gradual similar. is proposals plinary of procedures for evaluating such proposals, espe proposals, of such procedures for evaluating output and the reorganisation of the RCL are both RCL of reorganisation the both are output the and this regard, but RCL to regard, consider the may wish the this concerns feed the interviews during raised was that this change that resulted in the period of period greatest the in resulted that change this applied and national quality high hand, other the Web citationtwo databases, of Science (WoS) and back supplied to applicants, which was described bydescribed backwas supplied which to applicants, basis that the success rate the of that mono-basis interdisci and for RCL the tobe important monitor on a regular research outcomes to correlate expected are with much patents outputresearch, other and as –such indexed in as researchers journals international in and so no specific recommendations are made in are sono specific made and recommendations any particular provisions of for evaluation inter-, the particular any a general(andwhenissue Lithuanian) not aspecific and artefacts, books, reports and national language language national and reports books, artefacts, and in a stage this at bequantified easily cannot and indicator, alagging is impact Such yet. as assess experts evaluating proposals for proposals RCL various evaluating experts Impact of the RCL programmes RCL the of Impact schemes, the Evaluation Committee did not see did Evaluation Committee the schemes, some researchers of and short the as interviewed show in Figures 10 and 11 the output of Lithuanian output 10 the 11 ofshow Lithuanian and Figures in system that has recently undergone substantial substantial undergone recently has that system could have been more insightful. Suchcriticism is havecould been more insightful. change. As a preliminary and partial indicator, we partial and apreliminary As change. context apparent of the the in of increase cially Conflict of interest rules interestneed ofrules to be harmon Conflict ised for various schemes and described in de schemesin ised for described various and normally address both perceived both address real and normally tail in one document which should be avail should one which in document tail able on the RCL website. The rules would able RCL onwould the website.rules The conflicts of interest. of conflicts The graphs suggest that increased research output graphs The suggest Another aspect of the application of the aspect procedures Another Finally, when examining RCL guidelines for RCL guidelines when examining Finally, ------As Figure 10 shows, this number has increased numberhas 10 Figure shows, this As RCL has done a good job of managing this newly newly this RCL done has job agood of managing Lithuanian address in 2012 containing areference 2012 containing in address Lithuanian that besaid also It can research system. Lithuanian Growth of output – Web of Science – various domains. –various Science of –Web output of Growth 10. Figure funding, the number of papers with areference of number papers the with to funding, over 16% recent a with papers of years, the with the RCL can be identifi RCLthe can from ed about2007 onwards. effthe ect thethatof other processes tookin place as research activity (by this measure) (by this grew signifi researchas activity - enlarged activity. activity. enlarged grew, the that also and disbursement and evaluation cantly, the necessity for better practices in grant grant cantly, for necessity practices in the better Number of articles, reviews and conference papers with affi liation country Lithuania, Scopus Lithuania, affi with country papers liation conference and reviews articles, of 11. Number Figure 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 1000 1500 2000 2500 500 As the WoS the As about now information includes 500 0 0 1991 1992 1993 BUSINESS ANDECONOMICS SOCIAL SCIENCES ALL 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 17. Th e following acknowledgments were included: included: were 17. Thacknowledgments following e 2002 MITA in its various versions. various its in MITA Research Foundation Of Th e Research Council Of Lithuania Of Th Of Council Foundation Research e Research Lithuania Of Council Research Lithuanian Council Of Science Of Council Lithuanian ScientifiCouncil c Lithuanian Foundation Science Lithuanian Award Fellowship Research Student Council Science Lithuanian Council Science Lithuanian Council Research Lithuanian Science Council Of Lithuania Of Council Science Not included are the various Ministries and the acknowledgements acknowledgements the and Ministries various the are included Not to the RCL. to the to universities and research institutes or the acknowledgements to to acknowledgements the or institutes research and universities to some papers may have referred incorrectly to the 2003 2004 RESEARCH COUNCILOFLITHUANIA AR SCIENCES 17 TS ANDHUMANITIES Th as underestimate, is is probably an 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
29 Organisational Evaluation of the Research Council of Lithuania (RCL) 30 Organisational Evaluation of the Research Council of Lithuania (RCL) WoS. On the other hand, the selected references the WoS. hand, other On the may RCL to assess the impact of RCL funded work of impact RCLRCL the going funded to assess in of not names identified oravariety used RCL, Lithuania as affiliation country are Engineering, Engineering, are country affiliation as Lithuania Lithuanian publications for the different publicationsresearch fordifferent the Lithuanian Figure 13. The blue bar represents the share of all 13. The blue Figure representsbar all theshare of Physics Astronomy, and Medicine, Science, Materials fields during 2008-2012; the the same does red during bar fields Scholarly output by journal category, Lithuania, 2008-2012, Scopus 2008-2012, Lithuania, category, journal by output Scholarly 12. Figure for those Lithuanian publications that have publications that arefer for Lithuanian those RCL steps it the take advisable and is that forward, per journal category during 2008-2012 (Figure 12), during category per journal the for it make more attribution matches in difficult the WoSthe reference that RCL support shown is in with categories publication prolific most the this. to address also contain non-RCL- gaps Such contain or mis also funders. and Agricultural and Biological Sciences. Biological and Agricultural and ence RCL. to the To of trackimpact research over it im is time, Measures such as grant supplements grant as such Measures or other incentives might increase the number of number pub the increase incentives might national journals. national portant that all publications arising from re publications arising all that portant be captured systematically, and that such ref such that and be captured systematically, erencing bemonitored compliance. to ensure lications in high impact, peer inter reviewed, impact, high in lications support in an agreed fashion, so that they can can they so that agreed fashion, an support in RCL by the reference funded search RCL the The distribution of publications by discipline in in discipline distribution of publications by The According to the Scopus data on scholarly output on scholarly data Scopus to the According 1088 1058 1130 985 924 1718 783 1925 3135 ------2702 9, and merits further investigation by the RCL. The The RCL. by investigation the merits9, further and RCL needs to consider setting up aframework forRCL to needs consider setting strength 9) (Figure traditional the and RCL funding funding from these agencies are expected to be agencies expected are from these funding impact of research, and applicants for applicants of researchimpact research, and disciplines and also an emphasis on Lithuanian cul emphasis an on Lithuanian also and disciplines in shareFigure shown funding notdoes the reflect measures could be expected, given their share of given their beexpected, could measures both in sciences engineering and mathematical methodologies to isolate impact. impact. isolate to methodologies profile. quantitative fashion. We not fashion. quantitative receive did sense the - research sys Lithuanian the in disciplines of these that the RCL has as yet grappled with this topic. The yet RCL as grappled this the has that with Funding by RCL. the of impact researchthe funded of international expense at the language and ture science biological the categories, other hand, on the under The lowtem. databases level both in of output but this may reflect the publication outlets in these in maythe reflect publication outlets but this appropriate methodologies (e.g., counterfactual counterfactual (e.g., methodologies appropriate adetailed in impact expected able the to describe cat broader developing are internationally agencies incomplete of evaluation a necessarily is stage at this evaluating broader of impact research develop and evaluating and economic societal scientific, ofegorisations the share for humanities and social sciences is also low, sciences also is social and share for humanities The exercise be conducted bibliometric that can The strong relative showing of the physical andthe strong The physical of relativeshowing Accounting Business, Managementand Mathematic Chemistr Social Sciences Computer Science Sciences Agricultural andBiological Medicine Materials Scienc Physics andAstronomy Engineering y s e
- - will require data about the outputs and outcomes outcomes and outputs the about data require will fi or proposals).reports nal methodologies Various acknowledgement (red bars) (red acknowledgement Figure 13: factual analysis, data on unsuccessful applicants on unsuccessful data analysis, factual for assessmentbeexplored impact should on based most research. Since RCL of the funding funded international good practice. To good practice. international counter- facilitate data in an unsystematic way, unsystematic not does haveand an in data of funded projects. Currently, the RCL collects this this projects. Currently, RCL the collects of funded and to exploit the data already available (e.g., project to already exploitand data the appropriate of impact the the to assess mechanisms should beretained. should from start the for collection data set up mechanisms recently,schemes haveonly to it begun important is Th e question be ofimpact to research needs To underpin its articulation and delivery of of delivery and To its articulation underpin funding priorities and measurable objectives, objectives, measurable and priorities funding impact, it would be important forRCL the it beimportant would impact, of supported successof or impact the pro- to develop defi document a strategic its ning of impact RCL expected funded oftion the research. research. and methodologies for the regular evaluation evaluation forregular methodologies the and framework evaluation overall of an part as cants developing an evidence based articula- evidence based developing an cants RCL its appli- the and both considered, with grammes and of individual projects. of individual and grammes To RCL the of evaluation impact, support an 25,0 10,0 15,0 20,0 0,0 5,0 Distribution of papers by discipline. All Lithuanian publications (blue bars) and all Lithuanian publications with RCL RCL with publications Lithuanian all and bars) (blue publications Lithuanian All discipline. by papers of Distribution 2010-2012 RESEARCH COUNCILOFLITHUANIA Although some progress recent been in made has Although approach years, the internationalisation of higher education of higher internationalisation the years, 18. For the list of possible indicators of internationalisation, please please internationalisation, of indicators possible of list For the 18. Indicators of Internationalisation for Research Institutions: a new anew Institutions: Research for Internationalisation of Indicators 3.4 Publications/mof_indicators2.pdf Publications/mof_indicators2.pdf from international databases and country reports. reports. country and databases from international factory. While measuring internationalisation measuring factory. While indicators to evaluate its progress in enhancing itsprogress to enhancing indicators evaluate in internationalisation, and the Evaluation Committee Evaluation the Committee and internationalisation, number of indicators, related ofnumber produc- indicators, to knowledge therefore looked has data at and indicators available fl funding circulation, and tion ows or governanceits rank, the share ofco-publications the international (pub- rank, and processes. RCLand not does yet have of a system developing slowly is and Lithuania research in and has nothas satis- yet reached be called a level could that see a report by the ESF Member Organisation Forum on Evaluation Evaluation on Forum Organisation Member ESF the by areport see complex endeavour, a funding agency can develop a can agency complex endeavour, afunding Data collection for evaluation purposes could could for purposes evaluation collection Data through an annual electronically administered administered electronically annual an through be rationalised and standardised, for example standardised, and be rationalised census of funded researchers. of funded census According to the SCImago Journal and country country and Journal SCImago to the According RCL Internationalisation Internationalisation RCL . http://www.esf.org/fi leadmin/Public_documents/ 18 is a a is
31 Organisational Evaluation of the Research Council of Lithuania (RCL) 32 Organisational Evaluation of the Research Council of Lithuania (RCL) “horizontal priority” by RCL the priority” “horizontal +Europe&c3=SI&c4=EE&area=0&category=0&in=ic 21. RCL Strategic Activity Plan (cf. 28f.) p. Plan Activity Strategic RCL 21. Lithuania pages: country Erawatch 20. Evaluation Committee lookedEvaluation Committee participation at the (265 2011) in compared EU average to the (300), and (almost 50% 1999), at in its peak trend but overall the (with Switzerland, Belarus, France, Ukraine, Latvia Latvia France, Ukraine, Belarus, (with Switzerland, which could help to measure and evaluate inter help evaluate could toand measure which to 2010. dropping 29% downwards, in was then, Since In comparison with FP6, Lithuanian applicants FP6, Lithuanian comparison with In However, RCL yet the has to and develop a strategy Lithuania is 24 is Lithuania Lithuania should be seeking to outperform the EU EU to the outperform beseeking should Lithuania Funds, a number of ERA-Nets and related and schemes, of anumber ERA-Nets Funds, 19. http://www.scimagojr.com/compare.php?c1=LT&c2=Western By March 2013, the number of Lithuanian applicants applicants 2013,By March of number Lithuanian the for reached FP7 1,744, 20.3% with of receiv them ing funding, which is lower than the EU average. the lower is which than funding, ing 1996 2010 and during rather high was Lithuania in nantly fostered through bi- and trilateral agreements bi- trilateral fostered and nantly through nationalisation and the success of RCL funding success of the RCL and funding nationalisation programmes (FP7, ERC, Marie Curie actions, etc.). (FP7,programmes actions, Curie Marie ERC, monitor for instance the share of non-Lithuanian non-Lithuanian of share the instance for monitor of Lithuanian researchers in international funding funding researchers international in of Lithuanian the total number of applications during 2007-2012 of number applications total during the to learn from international best practice. best from international to learn averageto the for Western Europe. share increased closer tothe 36% coming 2012, in tions per million population, the numbers increase numbers increase the population, per million tions being 51. being but the success rate has been decreasing over time. overbut rate success been the decreasing has time. are becoming more active in applying for funding for more funding applying active becoming are in average in internationalisation indicators, as it as seeks indicators, average internationalisation in as such Acountry Slovenia Hungary. and Estonia, as co-publica scientific of number at international the and COST actions. In particular, the Global Grant Global the particular, In actions. COST and EU fromStructural Taiwan), the and funding RCL. of grantees the and applicants indicators and a setofobjectivespriorities, specific have demonstrated amore over steady growth the even lower compared to new other EU members such last decade, reaching 45-55% reaching decade, last looking 2012.When in authors from one with more lications country) than states. Lithuania has no ERC grantees to date, with with todate, no ERC grantees has Lithuania states. scheme funded by the EU Structural Funds has been been has Funds EU byStructural the scheme funded schemes. funding existing the throughout streamed 2000-2012, rather low but remain during steadily schemes in this regard. It would be important to It be important regard. would this schemes in contribution per participant than most EU member than contribution per participant 25 and contracts Slovenia Hungary and Estonia, as such countries The international dimension of internationaldomi is research The With regard to attracting EU funding, the EU funding, regard to attracting With Internationalisation of a research seen as is Internationalisation th th th (out of 27) of number by signed the by budget share, receiving less EU receiving by share, budget 21 19 and it and main is By comparison, comparison, By 20 - - - - -
vary from to year year, of fund novary proper stability 22. 22. 23. Erawatch country report: Lithuania 2012 Lithuania report: country Erawatch 23. Vilnius. In addition, the state budget share statefor budget the RCL inter addition, In However, as some of these funds, in particular fund particular However, in some funds, as of these Lithuanian. If we further note there a sizeable that is we further If Lithuanian. for a number of reasons: lower salaries, national national for of anumber reasons: lower salaries, ing funding, and a language policy emphasising emphasising policy alanguage and funding, ing ing internationalisation activities in research can research can in activities internationalisation ing may Funds, Structural the through channelled ing is largely dominated by short international visits (up byvisits dominated shortinternational largely is section. last the in highlighted been has journals international impact indicator of internationalisation. While outward outward While internationalisation. of indicator national research programmes and international international and research programmes national networks of research; moreover, 3% only of them national budget for internationalisation activities. activities. for budget internationalisation national doctoral theses as well as grant applications are in applications grant in are as well as theses doctoral mobility of Lithuanian researchers is increasing, it researchers increasing, is of Lithuanian mobility tion is characterised as a horizontal priority, ahorizontal as hardly characterised is tion the importance of the Lithuanian language. Most language. Lithuanian of the importance the months). three than to 60% researchers of the go abroad for no more be achieved. be achieved. balance has not has yet been found. balance it becomesaproper that clear mobility drain, brain from access- research institution by a Lithuanian Centres of Research Excellence. tobelong European back Lithuanian researchers from abroad well back as Lithuanian researchers are actively engaged in international international researchers in engaged actively are high publication in reviewers of and incentivising any funds are made available by the RCL availableby made are the from the funds any noted internationalisa despitethat fact that the also top foreign to researchers attract as into Lithuania. highlighted as an appropriate an as scheme to attract highlighted laws preventing foreign researchers not employed one about year. 8%longer of Only Lithuanian than students to Lithuania appears to be a challenge, appears to beachallenge, to Lithuania students for institutions foreign researchstay in or scientific commitments has decreased has 2010. since commitments Research Council of Lithuania: 2011-2012. Start of the new decade. decade. new the of Start 2011-2012. Lithuania: of Council Research An appropriateAn to long-term medium- strat internationalisation activities (including at (including activities internationalisation tracting researchers abroadtracting back to Lithuania). evaluation mechanisms) for the internationali the for mechanisms) evaluation and indicators, goals, timeline, (including egy state budget funds need to for beearmarked funds state budget and sation of research needed Lithuania is in Attracting top-level foreign researchers PhD and Attracting The importance of using international peer international of using importance The Mobility of researchers is another important of researchers important another is Mobility In terms of funding, the Evaluation Committee Evaluation the Committee of terms funding, In 23 About 10% About of researchers 22
------Researcher Teams’Researcher Research National Projects, Evaluation Committee developedEvaluation aperception Committee that Programmes). This is a rational reaction Programmes).a rational is from This fi to cult the severalsupport outside nd mobility fi Committee. However,Committee. not do enough. go they far Some of the interviewees mentionedSome it interviewees of dif- is that the for example support by for providing travel and internationalisation are welcomed Evaluationinternationalisation by the and mobility RCL byintroduced the to enhance same the At research infrastructures. international doctoral schemes for which the RCL schemes responsible) the is fordoctoral which Thdents. self-evaluation the ethat states RCL report postdocs (perhaps in the framework of evaluating (perhaps frameworkpostdocs the of evaluating in of research periods abroad and students for doctoral in importantly, ERA-NETs and, in participation Lithuanian to developplans schemes supporting of the Global Grant scheme with its two catego- its two Grant scheme Global of the with where suc- the of competitive national funding the preparationthe Th of proposals. FP7 schemes ese research- Lithuanian schemes encouraging time, there is low motivation among Lithuanian research-there low is motivation Lithuanian among researchers the stakeholders, with and meetings the for funding. eligibility levels with at all talent bilateral agreements established with a number of anumber with agreements established bilateral researchers, but a danger for the research system, forresearchresearchers, the system, but adanger schemes dueavailability to the research funding researchers to travel networking to international and should be addressed by the RCL. Introduction Introduction RCL. by the beaddressed should and specifiand international research import steps c to RCL to strengthen events, and match-making and have also been introduced: e.g., schemes providing schemes providing have e.g., been introduced: also ers to participate in the European competitive European the ers in to participate programmes funding European in ers part to take short-term for trips researchers stu- doctoral and schemes of to promote researchers,scale mobility cess rate is much higher (e.g.,cess rate Grant much scheme, is Global higher countries. compensation of VAT for projects FP7 or for costs Th ereclear needis a for moreschemes promot- It bebenefi would and the Parliament if cial ing international mobility of researchers. mobility international ing nationalisation should become should a criterionnationalisation for doctoral schools. doctoral of researchers and relaxing bureaucratic ob- of researchers relaxing and the responsible Ministries become more responsiblethe pro- Ministries active in reducing the legal and political barri- political and legal the reducing active in evaluating proposals to establish and continue continue and to proposals establish evaluating mobility outgoing and incoming ers hindering stacles. Furthermore, a certain degree of inter- acertain Furthermore, stacles. Th include, example, forobligatory might ese The RCLThe introducedof a number has small- EU funding should be a particular focus. During During focus. be aparticular should EU funding EU funding targets for researchers targets or institutions EU funding who receive large funding from the RCL, making making RCL, from the who receive funding large it clear that failure to meet these targets will be will to targets meet these failure that it clear improve capacity and a way seenis as to build the national expertise, to be placed either in the RCL the to beplaced eitherin expertise, national performance of Lithuanian researchers in European researchers European in ofperformance Lithuanian or in the institutions. the or in the RCL; and supporting the upskilling of research- upskilling the supporting and RCL; the decisions by funding future into account in taken by hiring dedicated EU grants offi EU dedicated grants by hiring inter- with cers ries similar to ERC Starting and Advanced grants Advanced and grants to ERC Starting similar ries als evaluated as ‘excellent’ by the ERC or EC; setting ERC by ‘excellent’ or setting the EC; as evaluated als ers and institutions in the acquisition of EU grants of acquisition EU grants the in institutions ers and competition. competition. In view of the opportunity represented by opportunity ofHo- the view In propel Lithuanian researchers towards greaterpropel Lithuanian spe- funding, that targeting are countries other rizon 2020, and the focused manner in which which in manner focused the and 2020, rizon success in the drawdown of European funding. funding. drawdown of the European success in cial measures might need to beintroduced to might measures cial Th propos- funding include: might ese measures 33 Organisational Evaluation of the Research Council of Lithuania (RCL) 34 Organisational Evaluation of the Research Council of Lithuania (RCL) The Lithuanian research system has seensubstan system has research Lithuanian The We were impressed very with interactions by our vation and higher education, and to enhance the the to education, enhance and vation higher and RCL as the main funding agency for fundamental for fundamental agency funding main RCL the as RCL and to the values of excellent fundamental of fundamental values excellent RCL to the and found evidence of a strong commitment to fairness found evidence of to a strong commitment fairness funding landscape while retaining the support of the retaining while landscape funding its research base. The designation in 2008in the designation Theits researchof base. competitiveness and of standing international funder of fundamental of fundamental its role afunder as discharging is and to be able to fortunate relyis on expertise such change aperiod of disruptive support through ing national and transnational systems. It appropri is systems. transnational and national practice in research and research funding. The RCL research research and practice funding. in played work to the commitment astrong of the research the RCL has done an outstanding job in this regard. regard. this job in RCL outstanding donethe has an ofretain difficulty relevant the The stakeholders. research national of funding the modernisation the research, inno in ambitions challenging to realise over seeks change recent country the tial as years, by the manner in which the RCL delivered the has which in manner by the research, and an appreciation an research, and best of international newreviewed role. some years into this akey step in was research researcher and mobility and merit, and no major lapses in standards came came no major and merit, standards and lapses in ate that the performance of the RCLbe of the should performance the ate that across a diverse and vocal system ofacross system research vocal adiverseand and higher education is not to be underestimated, and and education not is tohigher beunderestimated, significant change within the national funding funding the national within change significant several excellent RCL members and staff, who dis severalwho RCL excellent members staff, and of the amodernisation achieving skilfully system, other in those with aligns that ofsystem funding it amove with to amerit-based bringing system, commitment. l l l Conclusions 4. The Evaluation Committee was highly impressed highly was The Committee Evaluation The Evaluation Committee believes that thethat RCL believes The Committee Evaluation in a satisfactory manner. The Committee manner. TheCommittee a satisfactory in - - - - - Ministries of Science Economy and Education and Ministries RCL should communicate their expectations that that expectations their RCL communicate should in international publication statistics, it early is publication statistics, international in if the research community is to is compete for research interthe community if internationally. compatible management is its grant normal with micro-manageissue The of experts. international national funding where outputs given are these funding national to is reap system national economic other and to include focus broadennow their increasingly days, but to see it oneThe days, soon. expect quite would diminished if the considerable expertise of the RCL of the considerable the if expertise diminished ment of research expenditure on grants was brought was ment on grants of research expenditure innovation and impact and innovation of national success in applied research will be greatly be greatly appliedof successresearch in national will the RCL supported this impression. In terms of impression. terms RCL In the supported this frominterviewed Thoseoutside attention. to their the view of the Evaluation Committee, the prospect the of Evaluation view the Committee, the evidenceof saw little Evaluation Committee the level the that of management be relaxed to a level by stakehold many Evaluationto Committee the The should RCLRCL performance. the to evaluate this should serve as one to as help indicators serve of the should this between RCL researchers. and between It recommended is rewards from its investment in research, and also fromrewards its also investment research, and in and avoidthedamaging risk of research flexibility active involvement process. In this byRCL the in pool of reviewers their tomore expand include also peer reviewed in journals; publish awardees will have rightly sharpened their focus on innovation, focus their sharpened have rightly ers interviewed. The RCL needs to ensure that The RCL ensure to needs ers interviewed. seeing the enhanced competitiveness within the the competitiveness enhanced within the seeing system translate intomore translate obvious improvementssystem substantial weighting. Although the Lithuanian Lithuanian the Although weighting. substantial compatible with that permitted in leading agencies leading in permitted compatible that with relationship the competitiveness undermining and Research funding agencies throughout Europe Europe agencies throughout funding Research . This is important if a important is . This - - - The RCL itsstakeholdersThe may to and not wish Ministry of Education and Science and Parliament Parliament Science of and and Education Ministry RCL in collaboration with the Ministry and the the and Ministry the with collaboration RCL in will require resourcing in both fi both requirein resourcing will andstaff nances . amore in evaluated becaptured and turn in would innovation ambitious system. needsof an the with fun- the which mapping out schemeswith though Parliament should fi should Parliament this which nd through routes Committee saw little evidence of overarchingstrat- saw little Committee formed the impression that strategy formulation formulation strategy that impression the formed applied asuccessful to build on which foundations there no are which research, without fundamental is not harnessed in this endeavour. this Th not in is harnessed require will is not be too dramatic for fear of destabilising the the for of destabilising fear not betoo dramatic needed is to give A strategy shape ofnumber calls. mean other on the researchnational communities open collaborative mind- an and new programmes for cooperation agencies, between new structures damental research base can productively research can base interface damental most important. Thmost important. success e in sometherates of the Its relationships with Lithuania. in policy of a system. Some funds might be diverted here bediverted to might Some funds of asystem. inter- and national the one with on the and hand to the national system at a strategic level, and the at the level, astrategic system and national to the to greater deliver potential it the valuethat has in of values excellence the beto guard could this underpin new activities, though this shift this though new activities, underpin should competitiveness the limit cases certain in can this but at speed, of number changes alarge undertake schemes,which and new partnerships undertake which be measured, RCLthe will programmes to have It agencies. other be helpful would with tion bureaucratic demands of managing an overly an large ofbureaucratic managing demands schemes. Thbottom-up funding thematic and e more commands that organisation an be seen as RCL give the should more that to believes thought respect than power in the wider context of power wider research the respect in than becharged also It could research infrastructure. a strategy that identifi that a strategy which es outcomesagainst projected an to RCL the of the in scale activities and Th capability. its strategic enhance and eRCL could has been sacrifihas and thetheface logistical in of ced how exercise best it can its effi cient and coordina- manner,ective including eff and schemes, roll-out of RCL the funding in egy system. what is determining rather beselective in should heretofore. than manner systematic involved. those One roleset by RCL of all the in case internationally and, as has been pointed has out, as and, internationally case the normally is than higher are programmes current be achieved. can Thlargenumber of a includes e RCL portfolio More broadly, Evaluation the Committee Clearly in the current climate it is a challenge to it achallenge is climate current the in Clearly policy advisory role advisory policy would like to express their gratitude to all stake- to all gratitude to express their like would holders with whom they interacted during the interacted during whomholders they with level of professionalism responsiveness. and staffleadership and high the their of very RCL for course of this evaluation, and in particular to the to the particular in and evaluation, ofcourse this The members The Evaluation of Committee the 35 Organisational Evaluation of the Research Council of Lithuania (RCL) 36 Organisational Evaluation of the Research Council of Lithuania (RCL) • • • (including the acquisition of EU funding), as two of two as of acquisition EU funding), the (including Based on the evaluation summarised in Chapter in 3, summarised evaluation on the Based Committee believes that the RCL is a highly valu RCL ahighly the is that believes Committee immediately leads to considerations leads ofroleimmediately the of The achievementsEvaluation and RCL. of the ing opinion formed by the Committee of the stand of the formedopinion Committee by the the most pressing concerns of the national research most concerns pressing national the of the internationalisation innovation RCL in the and in ability to deliver value to the national system. system. national to tovalue the deliver ability of research system and Lithuanian able of the asset are presented of recommendations these below. All Committee Evaluation the of recommendations all and higher education system in Lithuania. Lithuania. education in system higher and here are intended to strengthen the RCL its here the and intended are to strengthen education. The recommendationshigher contained externally on the strategic role of the RCL. This This role strategic on the RCL. of the externally RCL governance and management Recommendations: should be viewed in the context of the very high high very context of the the beviewed in should core need for an enhanced focus internally and core internally focus need enhanced for an l l l Recommendations Recommendations 5. The RCL, MITA, the Ministry of Education andEducation of Ministry the MITA, The RCL, and more regu The establish should formal RCL and Ministry the with in collaboration The RCL value to the national system at level. astrategic system national tovalue the RCL and other agencies in the Lithuanian R&D R&D Lithuanian the agenciesRCL other in and national research communities, should find routes find should researchnational communities, the Ministry of Economy should clarify their their of Economy clarify should Ministry the advi play RCL itspolicy the can which through inter and national the with and Parliament, the roles improve and given collaboration, the their landscape. the interactionbetween and communication lar sory role amore to greatersory deliver in active manner Most of recommendations the flowfromthe - - - - - • • • • • RCL strategy for its funding for funding its strategy RCL Recommendations: schemes The RCL should consider a reduction in theThe considershould in RCL num a reduction The RCL should particularly examine two areas two of examine The particularly should RCL should theand The research community RCL These should be embedded within other grant other within be embedded should These The RCL should develop a more ‘hands off’ off’ RCLThe develop should a more ‘hands The RCL should further develop commu and RCLThe further should RCL Committees is used to expand their strategic strategic their to expand used is RCL Committees freed by the time the so that Foundation, Research Ethics and Procedures. and Ethics with the newly elected Supervisor of Academic elected newly Supervisor the with ing developmenting appropriately of an set balanced national target for significant increase in business increasein business for significant target national national researchnational objectives correspond the and on those (including guidelines nicate its ethical of funding should be monitored on a continuing bemonitored should on acontinuing of funding around Decision making programmes. of funding the RCL. the the portfolio: the support of the early-career research portfolio: the bemore more should and and explicit visible, this basis, and assessed against the agreed objectives. the against assessed and basis, representation of industrial/economic interests on agree onagree approach a systematic of definition to the approach devolve and management to grant expenditure on R&D. This should include formal include formal should This on R&D. expenditure eration of calls and of small grants. of small and eration of calls researchers. of mobility international and ers abroad ofThe engage balance stakeholders. range some remaining routine oversight to staff in the routinein oversight some to staff remaining schemes where prolif possible, to avoid further conflicts of interest) of an appropriateconflicts in relationship capacity. - - - - - • • • • • of programmes RCL Recommendations: Recommendations: scientifi impact and quality c – schemes are that research funding Launching – of researchers academic sabbaticals in Funding – research groups in based of PhDs Co-funding Th measures: e RCL theconsider should following Th ebe can RCL consider should how its portfolio Th of the new establishment out rule does is not Th the peer review e RCL consider should adjusting Th that grant applications e ensure RCL should Research Programmes – and (i) –and sci- Programmes social Research the in (ii) in the sciences, engineering and medicine, medicine, and (ii) sciences, engineering the in where required by law) propor- ahigher that and coherence to enhance so as avoid and MITA, with context; broader the global in and Europe, within In order scientifiIn that to ensure c is research well for prioritisation of projects. ferent members panel responsible from expert the innovation, but this should be undertaken with with beundertaken should butinnovation, this involves remote peer reviewers international dif- date. Thdate. in collaboration undertaken be should is scientifidevelop link that programmes c research statedevelopment amodern as of Lithuania programmes, particularly ones with a focus on afocus ones with particularly programmes, process for larger thematically open calls so that it so that open calls process for thematically larger out losing the focus on excellence in fundamental fundamental in on excellence focus the out losing competitiveness. international and impact quality, tion of international experts (including Lithuanian Lithuanian (including experts oftion international unproductive proliferation of programmes. spe- smart and developmentto the valleys of the balanced in the direction of applied research, with- direction the in balanced – National instrument of use its funding better increased an with of calls, and ber of programmes research that has characterised its ambitions to characterised research has that an eye to appropriatean effi and scale ciency. are submitted in English (and also in Lithuanian, Lithuanian, (and in also English in submitted are ences and humanities, develop that programmes ences humanities, and RCL make the should innovation and system, edge to raise likely are that emphasis grants on larger cialisation. economic and contribute socio-cultural to the connected integrated broader and into the knowl- industrial researchers in Lithuanian research researchers Lithuanian in industrial (domestically or or internationally) of industry doctorates); industrial tion goals, possibly requiring some element possibly requiring of goals, tion but linked closely with industry (including (including industry with closely but linked evaluated on the basis of both the fundamental fundamental the of basis both onevaluated the science and the impact on the national innova- national on the impact science the and co-funding by industry. co-funding groups; • • • • • • • • • • RCL internationalisation RCL Recommendations: Th e an RCL consider developing should appropri- Th edevelop anRCL should appropriate medium- Th consideration ecareful give RCL should to Th examination particular make e a RCL should Th e RCL consider grant supplements should or Tharis- allpublications e that RCL monitor should Th the conflharmonise e RCL should ict inter- of Th theMinistries and responsible Parliament e To underpin its articulation and delivery of impact, of impact, delivery and To its articulation underpin RCL support in an agreed fashion, so that they can can they so that agreed fashion, an RCL support in RCL and its applicants developing an evidence- developingRCL an its applicants and EU Structural Funds) forare earmarked interna- EU Structural Data collection for evaluation purposes should should purposes evaluation for collection Data funded research. funded sciences. biological the research in from itsfunded factual analysis, data on unsuccessful applicants applicants on unsuccessful data analysis, factual of evaluation success framework for regular the ing from research funded by the RCL by the reference from research funded ing the ing bureaucratic obstacles. Furthermore, the RCL the bureaucratic Furthermore, obstacles. ing and ofLithuania, research in internationalisation mechanisms) evaluation and forindicators the consider use the projects. It also should individual described in detail in one document that should one should that in document detail in described defining its funding priorities and measur- priorities and itsfunding defining peer reviewed, international journals. peer international reviewed, of the apparentlyof the low level of publications arising impact, incentivesother high for publications in of counterfactual methodologies to methodologies isolate impact. of counterfactual of supported ofor and impact the programmes the RCL developthe should document a strategic the legal and political barriers hindering incoming incoming hindering barriers political and legal the tionalisation activities. goals, to timeline, long-term (including strategy the question of research impact, with both the the both question with ofthe research impact, through an annual electronically administered administered electronically annual an through based articulation of the expected impact of impact RCL expected of the articulation based be captured systematically. RCLbe availableon the website. be rationalised and standardised, for example standardised, and be rationalised ate set of procedures for evaluating trans-, multi-, ate trans-, set of procedures for evaluating able objectives, as part of an overall evaluation evaluation overall of an able part objectives, as and outgoing mobility of researchers relax- and mobility outgoing and est rules for various schemes. for Th various rules est be should ese expatriates) applications. tosuch evaluate used is ensure that state budget funds (in addition to the to (in the addition funds state budget that ensure should consider introducing a certain degree of acertain considershould introducing to reduce becomeshould more pro-active trying in beretained. should cross- or interdisciplinary proposals. proposals. cross- or interdisciplinary census of funded researchers. To of funded census counter- facilitate 37 Organisational Evaluation of the Research Council of Lithuania (RCL) 38 Organisational Evaluation of the Research Council of Lithuania (RCL) • • • – – – – The RCL could consider the following measures: measures: the The consider following RCL could The The accelerateshould RCL schemes its to promote 2020, and the focused manner in which other which in manner focused 2020, the and In view of the opportunity represented of opportunity by view the Horizon In funding. international mobility of researchers. mobility international continue and doctoral proposalsto establish ing evaluat for criterion a as internationalisation ures to propel Lithuanian researchers towards to propelures Lithuanian - meas of consider special introduction should the schools. countries are targeting that funding, the RCL the funding, that targeting are countries greater success in the drawdown of the greater European in success ERC or EC; Funding periods of research periods abroad for doctoral Funding Supporting the upskilling of researchers and upskilling the Supporting Supporting the import of research international import the Supporting Funding proposals evaluated as ‘excellent’ by the ‘excellent’ by evaluated as proposals the Funding institutions in the acquisition of EU grants by of acquisition EU the grants in institutions national expertise, to be placed either in the RCL to bethe placed either in expertise, national or in the research the institutions. or in talent at all levels with eligibility for funding; eligibility levels with at all talent hiring dedicated EU grants officers with inter with officers EU grants dedicated hiring students and postdocs; and students - - Appendices 40 Organisational Evaluation of the Research Council of Lithuania (RCL) • • • RCL Staff • Representative of the Parliament • • Ministries the of Representatives • • Committees and Board RCL Consulted Appendix I: Stakeholders and Clients RCL • • • • • • • Foundation Science of and Education formerand Minister Science of and Education Ministry Dr Aistė Vilkanauskytė Aistė Dr Unit Analysis and Stumbrys Eugenijus Dr Vilutienė Aušra Steponavičius Gintaras Žalys Albertas Dr Pavalkis Dainius Professor Butkus Eugenijus Professor Council the of Pauža Haroldas Dainius Professor Affairs Unit Affairs Science of and Education Ministry Technology, Science and Education, of Higher Sciences Social and for Humanities Committee of the Council the of Unit Kaveckas Andrius Programmes Unit Dr Vaiva Priudokienė Kalytis Romualdas Dr Vansevičius Vladas Professor Sciences Technical and of Natural Committee of the Pileckas Professor Konstantinas Petrauskaitė Rūta Professor Ministry of Economy of Ministry Department, Society Knowledge and Innovation Sciences Technical and of Natural Committee of the Chairman the Board of the RCL of Board the the Serafinavičiūtė Brigita Dr , Director of the Research , Director Research of the , Head of Department Head, of Department , Head of Individual Grants Grants , Head of Individual , Head of Research , Chief Specialist, Specialist, Chief , , Member of Parliament Parliament of Member , , Head of Science Policy , Head of International , Scientific Secretary, , Scientific , Minister, Minister, , , former Chairman , former Chairman , Chairwoman , Chairwoman , former former , , Chairman , Chairman , Chairman , Chairman
• • • • • • • Lithuanian R&D Agencies and Institutions • • • • • • Process Review Peer RCL on Experts Management Agency (CPVA) Agency Management Vizbaraitė Eglė (LVPA) Support Agency Business Paukštys Ignas Centre (MOSTA)Analysis and Monitoring Education Higher and Research Stračinskienė Laura Academy of Sciences Professor Valdemaras Razumas reports Erawatch country author ofand Lithuania Paliokaitė Agnė Social Fund Agency Kišūnienė Gražina for Technology, Innovation Science, and MITA Bukauskaitė Birutė University Vilnius Literature, of Lithuanian Department Abukevičienė, Pociūtė Dainora Professor Oxford of University Relations, International Lašas Ainius Dr Trento (COSBI), Systems Biology and University of FerencDr Jordán University Vilnius Biochemistry, Professor Narimantas of Čėnas, Institute University Vilnius Baršienė Janina Professor UniversityResearch, of Tampere Alestalo Matti Professor , Deputy Director, Lithuanian Director,, Deputy Lithuanian , The Central Project Central , The , Department of Politics and of and Politics , Department , Director, Visionary Analytics, Analytics, Visionary Director, , , Centre for Computational Computational for Centre , , Deputy Director, , Deputy European , Deputy Director, , Deputy Agency , Deputy Director, Director, Deputy , , Department of Social of Social , Department , Institute of Ecology, , Institute , President, • • • • • • • • • Established and early-career Researchers • • • • • • • • Institutes Research and Universities of Representatives Consulted Appendix I: Stakeholders and Clients RCL University Vilnius Semiconductor Physics Department, Tamulaitis Gintautas Professor University Technical Gediminas Sereikaitė Jolanta Professor University Vilnius Science, Political and Relations International Ramonaitė Ainė Professor Centre Research Nature Radušienė Jolita Professor University Vilnius Philosophy, Norkus Zenonas Professor Sciences Agricultural Menkis Audrius Technology of University Kaunas Engineering, Environmental Martuzevičius Dr Dainius Technical University Technology,of Gediminas Business Vilnius Davidavičienė Vida Professor Medicine Innovative of Centre Aldonytė Rūta Dr Vilnius Folklore, and Literature of Lithuanian Institute Žemaitytė Gintautė Dr Vilnius University, Mykolas Romeris Relations, International and Žalėnienė Inga Dr Technology Center (FTMC) ,Vilnius for Physical Science and Institute Research Valušis Gintaras Dr Kaunas University of Technology, Kaunas Research, Pundzienė Asta Professor Technical University,Gediminas Vilnius Daniūnas Alfonsas Professor Klaipeda University,Klaipeda Affairs, Research Dailidienė Inga Professor Vilnius University, Banys Juras Professor University, Magnus Vytautas Research, Kaunas Augutis Juozas Professor , Swedish University, Swedish of , State Research Institute, Institute, , State Research , Vice-Rector for Research , Director, National National Director, , , Acting Rector, Vilnius Rector, Vilnius , Acting , Academic Director,, Academic , Vice-Rector for for Vice-Rector , , Vice-Rector for for Vice-Rector , , Vice-Rector for for Vice-Rector , , Department of , Department , Institute of , Institute , Institute of Botany, , Institute , Faculty of , Faculty , Vilnius Vilnius , , Rector, Vilnius , Rector, Vilnius , Department Department , , 41 Organisational Evaluation of the Research Council of Lithuania (RCL) 42 Organisational Evaluation of the Research Council of Lithuania (RCL) The Research Council of Lithuania: Resolution Resolution Lithuania: of Research Council The Resolution Lithuania: of Research Council The Resolution Lithuania: of Research Council The 2011-2012: Lithuania. of Research Council The Activity Lithuania. of Research Council The Activity Lithuania. of Research Council The Resolution Lithuania: of Research Council The Resolution ofLithuania: Republic ofthe SEIMAS and Education Law Higher on Lithuanian Lithuania. of Research Council The of Lithuania 1. Council Research context. related R&D to the more RCL those to the and generally pertaining over those divided sections: are two Documents providedare where available. weredocuments sourced ESF. by the Web links were other these provided RCL by the directly; of Anumber general context. RCL the and on the them to inform Evaluation Committee of 33 wereA total documents provided to the Appendix Documents II: Background List of and Reference Funding of of Projects Groups of Researchers, of the the Procedure for Description N° VII-114. 2013Budget AllocationN° VII-138. . Vilnius. 2012Budget AllocationN° VII-121. . Vilnius. html>. 2013].
European Science Foundation 1 quai Lezay-Marnésia • BP 90015 67080 Strasbourg cedex • France Tel: +33 (0)3 88 76 71 00 Fax: +33 (0)3 88 37 05 32 www.esf.org
July 2014