15th governing board meeting european studies institute Moscow, 26 April 2012 (стр. 2 )

Mr. Sergey PRIKHODKO

Well, as far as I understand, Prof. Hafner asked about a specific item of spending, on human resources.

Mrs. Tamara SHASHIKHINA

The actual spending was to the tune of 84%, because budgeted spending also included the salary of the EU Deputy Director. And we did not absorb all the money because there was no Deputy Director from the EU. We don’t have any increase, we only spent 84% out of the 100 % that was to be absorbed. And you can see it in the chart.

Mr. Sergey PRIKHODKO

But I understand that professor Hafner asked about an increase for the next year. What is the problem? Are we speaking about some incomparable data?

Mrs. Tamara SHASHIKHINA

The two reports are difficult to compare, because in the old contract we had one format, and in the new one it is a different format contract. In , we were spending the money on the items so as to pay off all our debts, including the debts to the College of Europe. And as of today, the two budgets are incomparable because there are two different contracts.

Mr. Sergey PRIKHODKO

I’m afraid, I don’t quite understand. Professor Hafner is asking why we are planning an increase of 65 % on human resources.

Mrs. Tamara SHASHIKHINA

Where does it follow from? Where did you find this figure?

Mr. Sergey PRIKHODKO

It is in the chart, I presume.

Mrs. Tamara SHASHIKHINA

In the material which we handed out, we don't have this figure. I don’t see this figure anywhere.

Mr. Sergey PRIKHODKO

Professor Hafner, could you please explain what you had in mind?

Mr. Gerhard HAFNER

Thank you very much. Maybe I was not clear enough. The budget for was approved unanimously, and for and , there is a forecast of 1 million 266 thousand 546 Euros, while the old one was about 700,000 Euros. That is quite an increase. The difference is big enough. What is the reasoning? I understand that there is a difference in the number of items, and different contracts. But still it's quite a large increase in roughly the same item of expenditure. Why such a change?

Mrs. Tamara SHASHIKHINA

Is your chart part of what we have handed out? I don’t think we have any increase in the charts that we have handed out. You can see the figures in the budget: it is split into three parts: , and . They are all identical as far as the human resources item is concerned, which is one million two hundred and sixty-six thousand five hundred and forty-six Euros per year, and it is repeated for every year - 3,799,638 Euros all in all for three years. If we compare these figures with the actual spending for , then you must take into account the differences that were planned for all the costs of the third Deputy Director: accommodation, travel and the salary. This is the only variance that we have from the previous contract. But from year to year the budget is absolutely the same. And all the three columns are absolutely identical.

Mr. Sergey PRIKHODKO

Thank you Tamara Victorovna. Mr. Triantaphyllou.

Mr. Dimitrios TRIANTAPHYLLOU

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Listening to what is being said and also keeping in mind the Chairman's remarks at the beginning of the meeting, I think what my colleague is alluding to is the budget absorption rate through this period. When we started in 2006, the first grant period was for three years, which went into four years. And we started a year later the second period, so the issue is, and I think it may happen in the end, that we would be unable to absorb all the money by the end of 2013. Prof. Hafner said, ultimately, the absorption is 81%. But it may be less. I understand, the projection is based on two million a year, right? More or less 1 million and 1 million, and we do not absorb all the money. The question is: what happens? Does the money go back and that’s it? Or do we continue? For another half year or a year or until the money is absorbed, however long it may take? I was thinking of this, keeping in mind the Chairman's remarks in the beginning about the project ending by the end of 2013. We know that financially we may have more money available. I think, the EU Delegation will tell us more about this. This is just a question I had as I was listening to this discussion.

Mr. Mark ENTIN

Dear colleagues, as far as the absorption of the budget is concerned, we cannot compare the second three-year period with the first three-year period, which turned into a four-year one. It would be incorrect. Why? Because we only recruited in the first year of our work 50 students and, in proportion, a number of those who taught them languages - French, German, English and so on. We had one situation. And now we have 150 people enrolled. So the reasons for the under-absorption of the budget during the first period were there only because the Institute was being established. Now we had to artificially curb our activities and not spend the money because we did not receive the money timely and also because there emerged several "sleeping items" in the budget and we cannot spend the money earmarked for the third Deputy Director even though we have taking a decision not to have this position. But the money was already allotted for this and after we redistribute this money we'll simply continue working and some changes that have been made in the budgets for the first, second and third year of our functioning are explained only by the fact that the some of the directions of our activities were to be expanded. So the Director's office of the ESI believes that worries about the under-absorption of the budget are somewhat exaggerated. If we take all the right decisions now, we should be able to do all the things that we are planning and absorb all the money. Anyway, the money will not go anywhere, because MGIMO has been funding the activities of the European Studies Institutes on the basis of the contract, and proceeding from the fact that the Institute should continue functioning. So, I think this discussion of a possible under-absorption is probably premature. We can discuss it in more detail when we speak about the audit we had. As experience shows, MGIMO has funded the Institute to a greater extent than was originally expected on the basis of parity funding. And this should be taken into account when we draw the conclusions.

Mr. Sergey PRIKHODKO

Mr. Webb, you have the floor.

Mr. Michael WEBB

With all due respect to Prof. Entin, it seems to us that if we look at the history of the ESI, not only the initial years, but right up until now, the average level of spending between September until (....), which means that the money under the contract, that is, the money already transferred, will last until September-October 2013. And if these estimates are correct, the amount still to be disbursed, i. e. 1.4 million Euros, will last until the end of 2014. This is on the understanding that the ESI is able to absorb, on average, one and a half Euros a year: delivering every year one Master's program for 120 students, six short-term training programs, four or five conferences and round-tables, organizing study sessions abroad and carrying out other ESI-related activities. All of these things amount, on average, roughly to one and a half million Euros a year. So, I can certainly confirm that on our side, there will be no problem in extending the contract until the end of 2014. This would give more time for the transition which Mr. Prikhodko already mentioned in his opening remarks, the transition from a jointly financed project to one which is financed by the Russian side. And we can look at the possibilities of funding from the private sector, and it's important that we set up a Board of Trustees and, maybe, a trust fund, which will contribute to the funding of the ESI once the EU is no longer funding it on a regular basis. In addition, of course, we would be able to make available project funding, and I refer you to the letter from Gunnar Wiegand to Professor Entin, which has been circulated to all members of the Board. It seems to us that we would have an interest in maintaining the current relationship until the end of 2014, working towards a transition, whereby the ESI becomes a wholly Russian-owned Institution after that. But let me also underline that having said this, this in no way implies that the EU wants to get rid of its obligations to the ESI, and its relationship with the ESI after that. We have fully the intention to maintain our input in the form of project financing, in the form of contributing expertise and making contacts. We will facilitate the relationship with the College of Europe. The EU Delegation here, in Moscow, remains absolutely open and willing to assist the ESI as far as it possibly can. That's our way of looking to the future. Thank you.

Mr. Sergey PRIKHODKO

Thank you very much, Mr. Webb.

Mr. Jaap Willem de ZWAAN

In the light of the discussion, I am wondering whether we could proceed to the following. When we referred to the budget which was adopted nearly two years ago, I was wondering if we could invite the ESI management to draw up an adjustment of the budget for and eventually , which is more in conformity with the level of expenditure, because - and I follow up on what has been said by my colleagues before - it was not only with regard to human resources, but also to other categories, that the level of expenditure was below, sometimes even far below, the amounts which had been budgeted, and perhaps it could be a contribution to the discussion about the future of the Institute when we ask the management to draw up a budget which is more adjusted to reality, also in the light of what you said in the beginning about austerity measures etc. etc. But at the same time we could profit from these developments by allowing the ESI to have a future in 2014 and perhaps 2015. So, the essence of my observation is that I am wondering if it is realistic to work on the basis of estimations what we adopted two years ago, whereas it is clear now that expenditure is below these amounts. So, for reasons of clarity, transparency and also in order to contribute to the future discussion, I am wondering whether it would not be appropriate to invite the management to draw up adjusted budgets. I would also be happy to hear the comments of the EU Delegation because they have a clear interest in the issue as well.

Mr. Sergey PRIKHODKO

Would you like to answer the question, Mr. Entin?

Mr. Mark ENTIN

Dear colleagues, I have already said that we'll come back to the issue of the audit and discuss it in more detail. The audit has actually shown that MGIMO has to spend more on funding the European Studies Institute than was planned, from 2006 to 2010, which was actually done. But we must take into account the fact that the financial report for , the sums that Mr. Webb mentioned, does not take into account the sum of 144,000 Euros, which was actually spent. The European Commission suggests that we should take this money into account in our report on actual expenditures for , which increases drastically our absorption of the budget. And the second consideration: the money from the European Union has only come in April of this year, - I mean, the second tranche. Though the money came late, it does not mean we did not spend it. It simply means that it was MGIMO that had to advance the money to us, and now we are going to present the report on the expenses in the second year, and it will all become evident when we talk about . Therefore, suggesting that we decrease the activities of the Institute or reduce them somehow, or abandon some of our activities will not be correct, I believe. As to the "sleeping" budget item, the money was not spent, this money can now be used to finance our normal regular activity. As to the situation that will emerge by the end of 2013 and what it will look like, let's remember that we do not cease our activities. The Governing Board will have a chance to look at the forecast later and then it will be the time for us to discuss those forecasts.

Mr. Anatoly TORKUNOV

I think the interest in whether we'll be able to extend the activities of the ESI on the basis of the current format of joint financing is a very correct approach, but we should take into account current realities. And I am afraid that now, in 2012, it’s difficult for us to be certain and to say whether we will be able to reserve some money for us to receive financing from the European Union in 2014. We have a three-year contract, and we have joint financing for these three years, and the dates of financing by the EU don’t coincide with the dates of financing by the Russian side... And we must remember that when the European financing comes to an end, we'll have to ask the Russian government to increase financing of the Institute and use, of course, other channels of financing - getting grants, and support from the business community. But we will still have to ask the Russian government to increase financing for the ESI for it to be able to preserve the same level of its activities. Therefore, now, at this moment in time, I think it is too early to discuss whether the money can cover a longer period or if we'll be able to absorb all the money or not. This will put us all - and first of all, the Russian participants - into a corner. We have a contract which is coming to an end in 2013. It does not mean we should squander the money. And here, I think, members of the Governing Board (and the members of the GB from the European Union side) should analyze things on a regular basis to see how the money is being spent, what the money is spent on, and whether the expenditure is justified. I think it will only assist the European Studies Institute in its work.

Mr. Sergey PRIKHODKO:

I think we must thank our colleagues on the Governing Board who represent the European Union, for their attentive, thorough and profound attention given to the technical aspects of financing. That is a good example for all of us: how to be rational in financing the ESI, for the Russian side is also providing a lot of financing. So we must be grateful to our colleagues for helping us, prompting the correct approach to analyzing the financing. Mr. Webb spoke of attracting private business and arranging some private programs. Well, these are additional, optional problems. They do not have a direct bearing on the financial situation of the Institute, and cannot be connected with the joint management of the Institute. This is an absolutely different sphere of activity. We are now discussing with you the parity financing by Russia and the European Union. As to individual programs, we will have to convince Rector Torkunov that they are realistic and useful. They don’t have anything to do with our joint financing. This is an absolutely different sphere and whether to agree to them will be up to the administration of MGIMO to decide, and we'll have to try to convince Professor Torkunov to take a favourable view of such possibilities and do it in accordance with the Russian legislation provisions, because at the moment we rely on the ESI contract, which means that it is exempt from the provisions of Russian law. At present, our work at the ESI is exempt from the legislative field of the Russian Federation. At our previous session I said that we are interested in preserving this situation and we would like our foreign colleagues to be able to take part in running our Institute, but life turned out to be different from our wishes. Professor Entin, how are we going to arrange our discussion further on? Do you want to continue elaborating on item four?

Mr. Mark ENTIN

I think that we have smoothly moved to talking about the future financing of the ESI. And Mr. Webb wanted to provide additional comments. Did we understand you correctly?

Mr. Sergey PRIKHODKO

Mr. Webb, did you want to provide additional comments on future financing? Did we understand you correctly?

Mr. Michael WEBB

I expressed this wish, but, in fact, I’ve already commented.

Mr. Sergey PRIKHODKO

Thank you. On the financial issues, have we discussed everything or is there anything left? Is there anything which is not clear in our interpretation of this situation? Any uncertainties? I apologize for being impolite: I would like to express our appreciation to Mr. Wiegand for his letter relating to further intentions of support, political and moral, to the ESI. These are important pledges for us and we appreciate this support, which came before the meeting of our Governing Board. This is very good, and we will study the issues raised in this letter very attentively with our colleagues from the ESI and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. We cannot reject any assistance. Of course, we ourselves must also evaluate where we need such assistance... Well, if there are no other comments on this item of the agenda, we could give the floor to ... Yes, please, Mr. de Zwaan.

Mr. Jaap Willem de ZWAAN

Are we going to close the issue of financing?

Mr. Sergey PRIKHODKO

Yes, unless you want to raise additional questions...

Mr. Jaap Willem de ZWAAN

I would like to ask for clarification. Because on the website an interesting text appeared, drawn up, I think, by the legal department of MGIMO. It is deals with the Board of Trustees, and this is connected with the future funding of the Institute. What is the objective of this text, which is placed on the website of MGIMO? What should we do with it? Could you please explain?

Mr. Sergey PRIKHODKO

I have not seen the text that you are referring to. So we would all be interested in Mr. Entin's clarification, including the Russian participants, I think.

Mr. Mark ENTIN

Dear colleagues, as far as I understand our esteemed representatives of the European Commission and the European Delegation to the Russian Federation, on the question related to financing the ESI beyond 2013, we presume that the contract will have come to an end and the financing of the ESI will be done by the Russian Federation from the budget of the Russian Federation. But we must consider whether it would be possible to preserve the international status of the Institute, how we can preserve institutionally our cooperation, our partnership and the useful traditions that we have accumulated, - and some options have been proposed. Some options are related to the new instruments of financing which the European Union is elaborating at present. The old instruments will be abolished and after 2013, new instruments will emerge. The European Union is not prepared at present to discuss them because the internal decisions are not yet ready. Therefore Mr. Wiegand in his letter very clearly and politely is saying that they would like to continue the dialogue with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs but let's return to the issue after this situation has been clarified inside the EU. And at the same time, the letter says, there are possibilities of such cooperation and some financing, which will help preserve the current status of the ESI.

There is another very important element, non-financial. This is the participation of the European Delegation, the involvement of the members of the Governing Board, the involvement of foreign professors, the ongoing activities that we have been carrying out together, and the non-material input is considerable as well. The conferences which we organize, with the regular involvement of the European Commission, the brainstorming sessions which we organize together, our joint work within the framework of "Partnership for Modernization" - these are all highly valuable. The European Union said that there is some funding available within this program, which can be used for the ESI, but we are to come forward with relevant initiatives.

Another possibility of attracting additional funding is the European business community in the Russian Federation, commercial projects, various other instruments of additional financing, maybe, setting up the Board of Trustees or a special foundation. We should not cease working in this field. There is Mr. Valenzuela’s letter in which he asks for these issues to be considered urgently by the Executive Committee. The mandate of the EC expressly includes such issues, and, no doubt, it will devote its attention to these issues. I think, the documents which have been prepared for this session can be forwarded to the Executive Committee, so that at the request of the Governing Board the Executive Committee could start working specifically in this sphere.

Mr. Sergey PRIKHODKO

Thank you, Prof. Entin, for your explanation. Dear colleagues, are there any more comments on this item of the agenda? You are welcome, Mr. Triantaphyllou.

Mr. Dimitrios TRIANTAPHYLLOU

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am slightly confused and I'll tell you why. In your opening remarks you did talk about the transition. Let’s assume we are operating on a contractual basis until the end of 2013. And the ESI, as we know it today, comes to an end and some other structure comes up, some questions arise: as an individual member of the GB on the EU side, I do feel a moral obligation, as I've been on the Board since 2006. And I make my assessment of what this Institute has or has not done and whether it has been a worthwhile project. My colleagues and I are here for a particular purpose: to somehow be able together to contribute, even in an advisory capacity, this transition to take place. I think, in what Mark Entin has just told us, this came out. But in your previous remarks, you were telling us, I had a feeling, "Hands off!" So, I'm trying to understand. I mean, we are still around here till the end of 2013. How can we (because it is linked to the financing as well), how can we as a Board move ahead and provide, individually or collectively, advice through discussion and dialogue, to help this next phase, because I am wholly committed to what is happening, and, I am sure, so are all my colleagues here on the EU side, so I just sense two different perspectives here, and I'm a bit confused about it.

Mr. Sergey PRIKHODKO

Thank you for reaffirming your personal commitment to and involvement in supporting the work of our "common baby," so to speak. And, like other members of the Governing Board, we shall appeal to you and to others not to decrease your level of involvement and criticism, on the one hand, and on the other hand, - offer sensible solutions and advice which help us work better here. Because here in Russia the ESI has better conditions than some other educational institutions, but we are trying to improve the management of this Institute, thanks, among other things, to your involvement. If you heard in my introduction some intimidating threats about cutting you off, cutting off all the European colleagues from decision-making here, I apologize: that’s not the case. I will be frank: the system of management will change. It is one thing for us all to take binding decisions together. And we will be doing this for another year to come, and those people who are responsible for the regional programs will exert pressure on both sides. But objectively, the decision-making system of managing this Institute will change. And, of course, we are very much interested in all those who are now involved in the work of the Institute maintaining their involvement. Are you satisfied with my explanation? Thank you, Mr. Triantaphillou. Mr. Segbers, you are welcome.

Mr. Klaus SEGBERS

Personally, I did not feel that much threatened or confused, but still I have some need for clarification. I think there is consensus that until the end of 2013 we'll continue work on the current basis. Ok. Now let’s assume for a moment the money from the European side will still be left for continuing into 2014. Let’s assume this for a moment, ok? Now, under what kind of conditions would this money be tallied? Do you imagine that the Russian side can use this money without European participation? (Voices of Chairman and others: "No,.. Of course, not...) But if not, then let us discuss how the European participation can be organized and whether the governance formula which is operating now will continue? This is my first question: how do you see it? And the second question is: "Do you have some preliminary ideas on the Russian side or can you imagine whether financing from the Russian side will continue? Two questions, thank you.

Mr. Sergey PRIKHODKO

As for the Russian side, I can be quite straightforward in my answer. That was the question raised by Academician Torkunov: after, as we call it, centralized parity financing on the part of the European Union under the contract comes to an end, after it ceases, we'll turn to the Russian government with the request for the same amount of funding. We'll ask them not to interrupt the educational process for the 150 students enrolled, maintaining the scale of the ESI activities. Maybe, we'll even have a chance to increase the enrollment. So, we'll ask for an adequate sum. This will be our internal request and our internal decision. We'll ask the Russian government for compensation of these expenses, we'll approach the authorities of the Russian Federation. As to the additional instruments which our colleagues and professor Entin have mentioned, such as setting up the Board of Trustees, attracting private business financing, maybe, making use of other possible channels, as I said, these are optional issues, and they will not make up for the deficit of financing that we'll have. We'll be dealing with this problem in a centralized way. Though we have three-year budget planning in Russia, I have already talked to the Finance Minister and we do have our plans for 20Maybe, we'll try to stretch the present funds to cover 2014, but at present none of us can be quite certain and give an answer to this question. Are you satisfied with my explanation of the Russian approach? Mr. Webb, you are welcome.

Mr. Michael WEBB

I think there was also a question to me as to what the EU Delegation's view is. It's very straightforward: as long as there is a financial relationship between the ESI and the European Commission under the existing contract, we are legally obliged to respect the existing arrangements.

Mr. Sergey PRIKHODKO

We fully confirm what you have said. Well, nothing more - nothing less.

Mr. Anatoly TORKUNOV

Can I say a couple of words?

Mr. Sergey PRIKHODKO

You are welcome.

Mr. Anatoly TORKUNOV

I must say that we at MGIMO and the ESI and, I'm sure, the head of the Governing Board, - we are all willing to preserve the international status of the ESI. The international status of the ESI, of course, involves commitments and obligations, including financial ones. And now, when we talk about asking our Executive Committee to think of some other instruments, other options and proposals, with the participation of the European Union Delegation, still I would like to call upon you in the framework of new projects of the EU and the Russian Federation to think of other possibilities - maybe, in some other form, not the present one - but still to preserve this kind of financing. That would enable us to preserve the present system of management. Just keep in mind that this is a pioneering project. You can’t find anything else like this in the field of education. You are all working in the field of education, and I'm sure you realize that this is a ground-breaking and unique project, and, of course, we would like to see it continued. Well, we understand that not everything here depends on us. Nevertheless, this is our wish.

Mr. Sergey PRIKHODKO

Well, I would be prepared to engage in some fantasy. The legal provisions of Russia and the EU three years ago did not allow us to have anything else but a contract, - maybe, what should have been done was joint management of the Institute. It was not the financial support that was *****ssia now has enough financing, but this is a managerial project. Maybe, three years ago we were not insistent enough to advocate this stand. We can do without grants, but the presence of the expert community here is much more important for us. Financing is important, but not that vital in the framework of this project, in view of the scope of Russian financing. If there are no other proposals, I would suggest moving forward. You are welcome, Mr. Segbers.

Mr. Klaus SEGBERS

Do I understand it correctly: we have a consensus or an emerging consensus that from the very moment when the Russian side takes over the funding completely, the governance format will be exclusively decided on by the Russian side, but as long as the funding comes from the two sides, as now, even by prolonging the project to include 2014, the current form of governance will be preserved. Do we have consensus on that?

Mr. Sergey PRIKHODKO

Yes. But, of course, we get together here in order to get the best results. And we will be asking you in the European Commission in the future for consultation, for advice, to preserve some kind of link institutionally, ... (Another voice heard, prompting: "for example, an International Board of Directors"), - yes, an International Board of Directors. We shall inform you in advance, and even after that period we'll be turning to you, there will be a transfer of competences, but on the subject you mentioned, yes, we have a consensus.

Mr. Jaap Willem de ZWAAN

I would like to make one comment. I could imagine that in view of the willingness of all members of the Governing Board here around the table, which is clearly to continue the project, and to profit from the fact that we have not fully complied with the estimations of the budget, so there is some money to enter in the year 2014, we should have here a more vivid debate on how to organize the financing after 2014. So, on the one hand, I notice that everyone wants to continue, and on the other hand, I have an impression that when it comes to future financing, in fact, we are suspending a discussion. And that makes my position a bit awkward. So, are you willing to enter the debate? We have two and a half years. That is my understanding. Of course, certain conditions must be fulfilled. We are members of Governing Board, from the Russian side and from the EU side, and if you ask people around the table, everyone would like to continue. Let’s enter the debate on how to overcome the difficulties to guarantee a future after 2014. This is reference to the letter from the European External Actions Service and also a reference to the Board of Trustees.... Alternative is that you give a mandate to whatever committee will be deciding this,... but I think the Board has to take its responsibility.

Mr. Sergey PRIKHODKO

Thank you, Mr. de Zwaan for your very responsible and frank attitude. I agree with you: discussion is very important. We – I am talking about the Russian side – we don’t want to lose anything: we don’t want to lose the real achievements which we definitely have. We don’t want to lose the involvement of the EU to a certain degree in the educational process. We don’t want to lose the advice of our esteemed colleagues, who have put so much effort into the education and upbringing of our students. Therefore, I call on you all to work together, there is no doubt about it. Thank you very much.

And there is the proposal, as Academician Torkunov is prompting to me, to entrust the Executive Committee with elaborating more specific recommendations, i. e. all of the ideas "beyond the horizon of at least a year and a half", to be implemented in, maybe, 18 months. So, let us start thinking about these possibilities and making our plans to make sure that nothing from what we have achieved should be lost... It is my third attempt to try and give the floor to Academician Torkunov, to speak on the next item of the agenda.

Mr. Anatoly TORKUNOV:

Which is financing, and we have covered it.

Mr. Sergey PRIKHODKO

Mrs. Shashihina, do you want to add anything to this item? Please, be brief.

Mrs. Tamara SHASHIKHINA

Thank you. At present, in executing the budget we have items, which we have already mentioned, providing for the post of Deputy Director from the EU in the Russian Federation. These items are not active, they were only used partially. A very small sum of money was actually spent on the selection and election procedure. Items 1.2.3 - basic allowance and salary of the third Deputy Director; 1.2.4 - you remember, a sum of money was allotted for the accommodation and stay here, in Moscow, of the Deputy Director of the ESI from the EU and his/her family, and the third item - travel costs (item 2.5); and the item which now, in accordance with the report which you have received, can be conditionally called a "sleeping item," - our spending on the so-called grants or sub-grants for students who could come here for training periods. We don’t see any problem in absorbing the money from these items, and, in view of what Mr. de Zwaan has suggested, we could continue along the working channels with the Delegation to redistribute the money from these items, taking into account the overspending, which we have had on certain items, like, for example, the additional new training trip, which is very popular with students. It has been assessed very favourably by both the students and the receiving side, the Aston University in Birmingham. The trip is for those Master's degree students who have a good command of the language and can freely communicate in English. Our Selection Committee works in a way which ensures that many more people have a good command of English than during our first year and can benefit from a training trip to Britain. We are also studying proposals, including ones from the Governing Board members from the EU, on different other study trips, and we believe that our students would benefit if we could send groups to study not only in Vienna and Belgium, but also in other member-countries.

We have received a letter from the Rector of the College of Europe requesting a higher salary for Mariusz Sielski, who is permanently representing the College of Europe here, in Moscow... Now his trips home are not paid for, so, logically, we can make a certain redistribution of the sleeping items within the same headline item. I think that we'll make this redistribution within the same item, which is allowed under our rules.

Comparing budget spending for (absorption at the level of 81% as I have already said, plus 144 thousand Euros) and the way we have been absorbing the budget (as things were on the 1st of April), we have spent not less money than in the previous year, even though there was some delay in receiving money from the EU. MGIMO advanced the money to us.

Question (asked without a microphone) could not be heard.

Mrs. Tamara SHASHIKHINA

And we started the discussion when we received the request from the College of Europe. We received a special form to fill in from Mr. Scaramuzzo, but the redistribution was not discussed specifically because the Governing Board has to sanction work in this direction, so that we could redistribute the money.