Draft Report of the Expert Group on International STI Cooperation to ...

• The EU should develop a strong European voice to influence o<strong>the</strong>r international actors
on regulatory matters
Exploit variable geometry: Internal and external partnerships
A key element <strong>of</strong> any strategy is positioning. In <strong>the</strong> present context this means positioning
European actors relative to o<strong>the</strong>r competitors/partners globally. The European Commission
refers to this as geographical differentiation to help target actions with partners. The
Framework Programmes, including <strong>the</strong> proposed Horizon 2020, have developed groups <strong>of</strong>
countries to aid this targeting, including also principles for funding foreign partners (like
industrialised and emerging countries, neighbourhood and enlargement countries and
developing countries). In addition, <strong>the</strong>re are contractual differentiations between countries:
There are, for example, 20 science and technology cooperation (S&T) agreements in
operation in 2011, and 14 association agreements to <strong>the</strong> Framework Programme.
The EG has <strong>the</strong> following recommendations:
• The overarching perspective should be that international cooperation is integrated into
and across EU STI activities, in particular <strong>the</strong> coming H2020. The guiding principle
for priority setting should be horizontal and <strong>the</strong>matic ra<strong>the</strong>r than geographic, building
on <strong>the</strong> priorities <strong>of</strong> H2020. The strategy should help enhance <strong>the</strong> international
dimension <strong>of</strong> ERA through mutually reinforcing <strong>the</strong> benefits that ERA and
international cooperation may generate.
• There is no great need to let <strong>the</strong> international cooperation be guided by an a priori
geographical differentiation. The FP/H2020 has general opening as its basic principle
for international cooperation, and this principle does not differentiate between groups
<strong>of</strong> countries. The only exception concerns funding, where in specific cases
participants from 3 rd countries may be funded by <strong>the</strong> FP. Such differentiation should
be reduced to a funding rule. The Commission should give priority to developing a
mechanism that allows stakeholders from any country to participate in programmes
or consortia, provided that <strong>the</strong>y add value to <strong>the</strong> consortia. The overall principle
should be to allow and encourage “<strong>the</strong> best and brightest” to participate in projects,
regardless <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir geographic location. International cooperation should be clearly
driven by <strong>the</strong>matic considerations, but implemented by geographical ones. In
addition, a stronger encouragement and support in <strong>the</strong> various <strong>the</strong>mes in <strong>the</strong>
Framework Programme is required to increase <strong>the</strong> level <strong>of</strong> participation from non-
European countries.
• Contractual relations should be used more explicitly to gain a strategic grip on
international cooperation. S&T and association agreements to <strong>the</strong> Framework
Programmes define two important groups for EU/MS, <strong>the</strong> former a potential vehicle
to develop targeted actions with key partners including in multilateral structures, <strong>the</strong>
latter an arrangement for full participation in and co-funding <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> FP. The EG
suggests a third modality: Focused or limited association agreements that allow 3 rd
countries, individually or collectively, to connect to European initiatives. Such
agreements should be linked to ambitious, targeted actions <strong>of</strong> a multiannual nature to
12