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

third countries, while <strong>the</strong>se have also been cast in nationally grounded priority setting
processes.
• Regular negotiation takes place with key international partner countries <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> FP7 in
<strong>the</strong> context <strong>of</strong> various agreements such as international cooperation agreements where
priority setting is normally on <strong>the</strong> agenda.
• The need to link priorities from “bottom up” (<strong>the</strong> research performing community)
with “top down” (from <strong>the</strong> policy making community) is typically underdeveloped.
Better mechanisms for stakeholder involvement and communication <strong>of</strong> priorities are
among key elements to develop this link into a viable negotiation and exchange
system. An example may be that research actors define international partnerships and
<strong>the</strong>n can apply and negotiate for support in a competitive allocation process.
From this simplified picture one can deduce that a coherent international cooperation strategy
is hardly feasible. The transaction costs involved are high and <strong>the</strong> sum <strong>of</strong> compromises great.
To better achieve a strategic approach for international cooperation in STI, it might be
necessary to reduce <strong>the</strong> scope and scale <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> negotiation system, taking into account <strong>the</strong>
following levels <strong>of</strong> priority-based rationales for international cooperation:
1) National priorities limited to available national resources and capacities: No
international cooperation;
2) Regional, neighbour (e.g. defined through <strong>the</strong> European Neighbourhood Policy) based
focus on cooperation based on priorities that can be met with such limited
cooperation;
3) Bilateral cooperation based on priorities linked to specific objectives in <strong>the</strong> national
policy making system, such as market growth in China or aid in developing
countries;
4) European cooperation in areas <strong>of</strong> greater European concern and where <strong>the</strong> issues at
stake warrant pooling <strong>of</strong> resources at this level;
5) Global or multilateral cooperation to meet global or large scale challenges with
matched resources.
A general approach to priority setting that will enhance strategic direction, create momentum
and synergies and reduce transaction and negotiation costs would be to exploit <strong>the</strong>
Framework Programme’s (soon H2020) weight and position to leverage multilateral
cooperation with <strong>the</strong>matically oriented priorities towards challenges while ensuring <strong>the</strong>
attractiveness <strong>of</strong> ERA for investment in R&D and innovation. Key principles should be
• impact and value added
• effective internal and external variable geometry
• synergy and incentives
• <strong>the</strong>matic targeting towards global challenges
• framework conditions for industrial involvement for innovation
• mutual benefit
27