1. 1 NORWAY-US WORKSHOP Financial and organizational implications related to a targeted increase in R&D in the areas of Energy and Environment

2. 2 Background Forum 2003 focused on energy and the environment. Some conclusions: –Diferences in size: US – Norway –How will increased interaction be financed?? –How do we organize a sustained interaction?? The Embassy and Norwegian Research Council financed study on HOW

3. 3 STRUCTURE OF REPORT Observations –Developments in present cooperation –Financing and organizational R&D structure in US and Norway –Reflection on possible challenges related to sustainability in a world of regional secure supply of energy Recommendations –What can Norway do to meet the existing US R&D infrastructure Relating to identified challenges of a more sustainable energy base, ”the follower” approach, and Relating to possible challenges regarding the sustainability of a future regional supply of energy, “the proactive” role

4. 4 OBSERVATIONS Developments in present cooperation Undergraduate and graduate students Norwegian to USA decreasing USA to Norway insignificant (in numbers) Post docs and sabbaticals Stable flows. But more from Norway to USA Movement based on personal links and without institutional links added. Leads to less lasting support for cooperation MoUs and long term programs between selected universities wanted. Viewed as catalyst for development of “lasting” cooperation

5. 5 OBSERVATIONS Developments in present cooperation Major Projects/programs Norwegian authorities normally not supportive of programs outside Norway. Now changing. Last 10 years seen major US projects supported by Hydro and Statoil –AGS at MIT. Has given access to major programs at MIT for the companies and Norwegian academics. No financial support from RCN –TRANSES a spin off of this Norway experience from “Technology agreements” related to North See oil fields

6. 6 OBSERVATIONS Developments in present cooperation Major energy related projects at MIT, Univ. of Maryland and Stanford They work at advanced cutting edge problems They have an extensive industrial sponsorship They are given visible support from their host university and are normally initiated by that university Their major workload are carried out by scientific personnel from the host university They serve as host for foreign participants and enter into cooperation with other universities or centers They get a role as being part of the profile of the host university TRANSES represents a similar project based at NTNU The “Centers of Excellence” at Norwegian universities seems to serve a similar function.

7. 7 OBSERVATIONS Financing and organizational R&D structure The US system DoE runs/finances huge programs on energy, $1.2 billion/year on new/renewable. EPA (Environment Protection Agency) runs/finances programs on sustainable energy. National Laboratories work as governmentally run laboratories seemingly strong link between industry and government in energy related R&D NSF, National Science Foundation, finances academic/basic research Both NSF and the Departments are primarily financing activities in USA sponsorship of programs/projects at a university or national lab may cost $50-150 000 a year just to have access The number of companies taking part as sponsors on the energy projects supported by DoE was told to be ca 250.

8. 8 OBSERVATIONS Financing and organizational R&D structure The Norwegian system Less direct political involvement in energy R&D matters The Norwegian Research Council, NFR, is funded by the different departments with “earmarks“ attached. Norway has nothing quite similar to National Labs The Norwegian universities are state financed with no strong prioritizing body at the top as we find in private US universities. Sponsored or contracted financing is closer to 30 % compared to the 90 % we see in the private US universities. There are no tuitions paid The close research cooperation between SINTEF and NTNU, makes NTNU and US universities less different The understanding of the importance of industrial sponsors in Norwegian industry and is less developed in Norway than in USA It is a major difference between the best, Ivy League, US universities and the Norwegian. The US universities are rated at the world top and the best Norwegian University is rated as no. 53? BUT NORWAY HAS SOME “HOT SPOTS” OF COMMON INTEREST

9. 9 OBSERVATIONS Sustainability in a world of regional secure energy supply USA (as EU and others) give top priority to development towards a secure and sustainable energy “supply and demand” structure Regional differences may give different solutions. We may also have to change how we view sustainability related to energy supply and demand Norway is left with two opportunities Choose the “follower” role or also Choose a “proactive” role by taking initiatives towards better scientific understanding of sustainability in a sustainable energy future

10. 10 Recommendations A prerequisite for any cooperation is that we can Find common interests either in terms of development of knowledge, technologies, products, system understanding or scientific results Establish a certain structural equality in the partnership that allows equal access to benefits/results Establish equality in terms of financial input

11. 11 Recommendations “Follower” approach increased US Norwegian R&D cooperation through: long term organized R&D programs of common US - Norwegian interest financial support to Norwegian universities to enter into long term cooperation with US counterparts. The arrangements will include –exchange of students and faculty – common R&D projects and if possible –development of common educational material. It will be important that support of industrial participation is included in these arrangements.

12. 12 Recommendations “Proactive” approach We recommend that Norway take initiatives to establish joint US Norwegian R&D projects with the specific aim to understand, also from a social science point of view,the prospects for, and consequences of, changes towards a sustainable and regional/national secure technical system of energy supply and demand. Follow up the “follower” approach

13. 13 Where do we go from here ? InvitesWant to expand co-operation -foreign companies at a price- students to US decrease -students at a price- companies to US insignif. Important financial sources -DoE.NCR -NSF -EPA -Foundations ? Industrial Sponsors USA COVERS ALL ASPECTS 250 Norway Hot-spots -Energy -Environment -Complete limited systems 5

14. 14 Where do we go from here? Increase ORGANIZED Co-operation - Common R&D Projects -Paralell R&D activities Ph D`s financed by national sources Shared professorships ( visiting professor in the other country ) Continue exchange at personal level - sabaticals - graduate and undergraduate students

15. 15 OBSERVATIONS Concluding remarks Norway seems to follow “personal/individual” route. Does not show organized strengthening of R&D cooperation Norway probably export talent by following this route alone USA supplement academic freedom with organized large programs