Version of June 23, 2005
A Template for Establishing, Funding, and Managing an International Scientific Research Project Based on an Agreement Between Governments or Institutions
Introduction
This paper describes a template for establishing and managing international collaborative research, based on an agreement by governments, governmental institutions, or other organisations. This is one of many possible ways to organise scientific collaboration; indeed, there is no “one size fits all” formula for international projects. This document is intended to serve as a starting point for those seeking to create an institutional venue for joint research. It is based on experience acquired during the work of the Global Science Forum of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)[1].
Appended to this paper is an annotated sample Memorandum of Understanding, to be signed by the parties of the collaboration. It covers the key areas where agreement should be reached before the project can begin. It is presented as a generic template; for any given project, text could be edited, deleted or added according to the requirements of the partners. In the attached document, the template text is in regular font, with explanatory annotations in italics[2]. In addition, a sample Request for Proposals to Host the Secretariat is provided, in case the partners envisage a competition for hosting the headquarters of the project.
Rationale/Requirements
International cooperation is a hallmark of modern science. At the smallest scale, it can consist of visits or sabbatical leaves by individual scientists, based on informal agreements between individuals or laboratories. At the other end of the scale, a major long-term project, involving the construction of large infrastructures and the employment of hundreds of staff members, may require inter-governmental treaties and their approval by parliaments. Between these extremes, the need sometimes arises for a project that is to last at least several years, with an annual budget of one to several million USD, and with a modest central administrative structure. For the purposes of this paper, it is assumed that the following pre-conditions apply:
A. The scientific imperatives are well understood and have been thoroughly discussed within the scientific community, so that the principal remaining challenge is to design and implement an international cooperative project. Ideally, consensus has been achieved within the scientific community, perhaps as a result of deliberations under the aegis of a respected international scientific union.
B. At the national or regional level, the appropriate officials (heads of agencies, senior programme managers, laboratory administrators, etc.) have been thoroughly briefed about the proposed work, and have acknowledged its desirability within the context of wider science policy goals and priorities.
C. The participating countries and institutions are strongly motivated to collaborate internationally, based on some of the recognised benefits of cooperation, such as: taking advantage of scientific expertise in other countries, access to unique resources or sites, sharing of costs[3].
If these conditions are met, the following requirements will probably be applicable:
1. A written agreement is needed to confirm the commitments of the parties, but without the legal, financial and political consequences of a treaty. The agreement should not be legally binding[4].
2. The project requires an independent legal identity, with the ability to enter into contract agreements with vendors, consultants, etc.
3. A full-time staff is needed, consisting of a minimum of one or two persons, with office and/or laboratory space in a host country.
4. The identity and status of each participant must be specified, along with the goals, procedures, funding, staffing, administrative structures and work programme of the collaboration. A minimum set of new agreements, institutional structures and bureaucratic procedures should be created: just enough to carry out the scientific work. This accommodates the often expressed aversion of national administrations to the establishment of new international institutions and bureaucracies[5].
5. Funding arrangements and amounts must be stated explicitly, and in a way that maximises the degree of commitment of the participants, while recognising the non-binding nature of the agreement. The funds are to be held in a central account, and spent in well-specified ways. Participants will expect to receive the maximum of benefits from the funds that they contribute. Ideally, there should be no penalty for conducting the project on an international basis, compared with an equivalent national project.
6. Maximum advantage should be taken of existing institutions, especially for providing staff offices and non-scientific functions such as contract and travel management, personnel services, purchasing, information technology, and secretarial support. Typically, a significant fraction of the scientific work should be undertaken by the participants themselves using their own resources, with the central secretariat of the collaboration serving an enabling and coordinating role.
The Elements of the Template
The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
This document needs to be carefully prepared by a group that represents as many potential Participants as possible. The effort involved should not be underestimated: several months (and most likely more), and at least two physical meetings, will probably be needed to reach consensus on the MOU. Strong leadership is essential: the effort is unlikely to succeed without the personal dedication of at least one individual who has the necessary personal skills, authority, and professional reputation. One of the leader’s more difficult tasks is to judge the level of commitment of the entities that take part in drawing up the MOU. That is, he or she will want to avoid a situation where one party imposes significant conditions during the negotiations, but does not ultimately sign the negotiated document.
As the text of the MOU is refined, the participants in the negotiations may need to change. In the initial stages, scientific expertise is vital, whereas legal and political skills may be more valuable as the process nears its end[6].
The term “Memorandum of Understanding” may not be acceptable to all potential Participants, since it may imply a degree of legal commitment that they find unacceptable, or that may require burdensome administrative authorisation at the national level. If this is the case, an alternative formulation can be adopted, for example “Understanding”.
The MOU should be devoted to the most basic fundamental matters, and should not over-prescribe the details of how the collaboration will operate[7]. Operational minutiae are best left to the Board itself once it has acquired practical experience, and based on actual need. Once the project actually gets started, the Governing Board will probably establish its own Rules of Procedure during the course of its deliberations. Furthermore, disagreements over small details and formulations can slow down the MOU negotiations.
The Participants
The Participants are the parties to the MOU and partners in the scientific collaboration. They fund and collectively make all important decisions concerning the project. It is desirable for all of them to be of the same or similar type, e.g., governments (countries), government laboratories, academic institutions. This simplifies the issue of representation on the Governing Board. Intergovernmental organisations (for example, the European Commission) present a special challenge, due to a possible perception that a country can acquire an unfair advantage by being a Participant and a member of the organisation.
It may be useful to define two or more categories of participation, depending on the degree of involvement required (especially in terms of making a financial contribution). Thus, there can be Observers, Associate Participants, etc. In each case, the categories should be clearly described in the MOU, along with the associated rights or lack thereof.
The Collaboration
The Collaboration is established through the MOU. The Collaboration and the Secretariat have legal identities in the host country, allowing such functions as the hiring of staff and consultants, purchasing equipment, and entering into contracts of various kinds.
During the negotiations for the MOU, potential participants should pay particular attention to the level of specificity used in the description of the Collaborations work programme (which is not the same as the description of the rationale, mandate, and goals of the project). The description should be sufficiently specific to motivate interested parties to join, to satisfy reviewing and authorisation processes of the appropriate funding bodies, and to avoid having to re-discuss the same issues each time a new potential participant steps forward. On the other hand, it may be unwise to be too specific, in order to allow the collaboration to establish its own goals and projects, once it begins operations.
The Governing Board
This is the principal decision-making body for the collaboration. Typically, it will meet once or twice a year to review progress and to decide on major issues. Normally, each Participant nominates one representative to the Governing Board. If there is more than one category of participant, the roles on the Board must be precisely specified in the MOU. Each representative can cast a single vote. A possible complication arises if there is more than one Participant per country. Does each one have a representative and a vote on the Governing Board? Does each one have to make a separate financial contribution? If the Governing Board is very large, it may be useful to establish an Executive Committee to which the Governing Board will delegate much of the authority for decision-taking, especially in between Board meetings.
In general, it is desirable to achieve consensus for Governing Board decisions, without the necessity of voting. Major decisions (for example, approval of the budget and work programme) may require voting, in which case the procedures must be spelled out in detail. It may be desirable to adopt different voting schemes for different classes of decisions, but this should probably be a last resort.
The Host Country and the Country Agreement
The host country provides the physical venue for the Collaboration (offices, laboratories, etc) within a designated Secretariat Host institution. The Collaboration and Secretariat will be subject to the laws of that country, but their precise status, rights, and obligations have to be clearly defined, with two main considerations built into the agreement that should be negotiated by the host country authorities and the Collaboration’s Governing Board.
Firstly, all of the Participants must be satisfied that the host country will not exert an excessive influence within the Collaboration simply by virtue of being its physical host. This should not be confused with any natural, legitimate advantage that the country may have due to its excellence in the relevant scientific fields. Furthermore, it is understood that the host country will derive some legitimate rewards (for example, international prestige, attractiveness to students and researchers, employment of local support staff).
Secondly, Participants will want to derive maximum benefits from their financial contributions, so they will be very reluctant to augment the national treasury of the host country, for example, in the form of customs duties or income/sales taxes. Thus, the host country will be well advised to offer the appropriate special status or exemptions that are compatible with its national laws, and to specify the details of these concessions in the agreement.
The country agreement has to ensure that the local regulations and procedures do not impose undesirable restrictions on the Collaboration. Thus, for example, if the Host Country proposes that the Secretariat staff be employees of the Secretariat Host, the Participants may object to certain rules and regulations of that institution, for example, in the matter of employment, evaluation, promotion, etc.
The Secretariat Host and the Host Agreement
The Secretariat Host is an institution designated by the host country. It provides the essential practical services that the Collaboration needs. It is in the interests of the Collaboration (and the Participants) to have the Host provide as many services as possible at zero or highly reduced cost.
The Host Agreement defines the exact nature of the relationship between the Host and the Collaboration, and the Host and its Secretariat. It is finalised in negotiations between representatives of the Host, and the Governing Board assisted by the Director. From the beginning of the negotiations, the Participants need to have a clear understanding of the degree of legal/administrative independence that they wish the Collaboration to have. Thus, for example, if the Secretariat staff are employees of the Host, then there will be no need to deal with personnel issues such as pensions. Similar considerations will apply to purchasing and contracts. As noted above, however, the associated loss of independence may be seen as unacceptable by the Participants[8].
Typically, the agreement covers the following matters:
o The duration of the agreement.
o Physical space (offices, laboratories, etc.) provided to the Collaboration, including services such as air conditioning, electricity, water).
o ICT infrastructures (telephones, faxes, personal computers, workstations, servers, peripherals, etc.)
o Software (for security, archiving, accounting, file and document management, project/personnel management, etc.)
o Office supplies and the like.
o Budget management.
o Personnel services (recruitment/advertising, hiring/contracts, review/promotion, leave management).
o Support staff (secretarial, janitorial, equipment maintenance, security, full- or part-time).
o Legal advice (e.g., intellectual property, national laws and regulations).
o Purchasing and contracts services, including details of mechanisms and schedules of reimbursements.
o Travel services.
o Confidentiality, liability, resolution of disputes.
To facilitate and manage the Collaboration/Host interactions, the Host may wish to identify a coordinator from among its staff to serve as an official Liaison Officer.
The Secretariat
The Secretariat are the staff (whether full- or part-time) who are paid by funds provided by the Participants. They are supervised by the Director, and, through him/her, answer to the Governing Board. Depending on the provisions of the Host Agreement, some or all of the Secretariat may be employed directly by the Host.
Most likely, the Collaboration will welcome detailees from various institutions. They will not be paid out of the Participants’ contributions, but provision will need to be made for office space and other needs. More importantly, there needs to be agreement among the Participants (spelled out in the MOU, if appropriate) about responsibility, accountability, and the chain of command. There is a natural tendency to have the smallest possible Secretariat, with the bulk of the scientific work being carried out by persons who are employed by institutions in their home countries. While this offers obvious advantages, it has the potential of weakening the Collaboration if it leads to lack of coherence and an inability to work on long-term goals in a concerted way.