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

intrinsic objectives <strong>of</strong> science and research as well as international academic values at
different multilateral policy fora;
• a retention <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> general opening up approach <strong>of</strong> FP7 in H2020;
• an extension <strong>of</strong> targeted international STI cooperation measures based on matching
funds, reciprocity and variable geometry with major economically potent cooperation
partner countries;
• a close division <strong>of</strong> labour with <strong>the</strong> EU’s External Action Service and development aid
actions to unilaterally fur<strong>the</strong>r support S&T capacity development and excellencebased
research for development to address global and regional challenges.
Table 1 sums up some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> arguments described above by attaching to each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> three
aggregate intervention levels <strong>of</strong> international STI cooperation, which are basically identified
in fig. 1, <strong>the</strong> major driving rationale (<strong>the</strong> why?), <strong>the</strong> major operational instruments for <strong>the</strong>ir
implementation (<strong>the</strong> how?) and <strong>the</strong> actors responsible for <strong>the</strong>ir realisation (<strong>the</strong> who?). In
addition, table 1 highlights in <strong>the</strong> bottom-row <strong>the</strong> role <strong>of</strong> international STI policy (i.e. science
diplomacy), which influences all o<strong>the</strong>r levels <strong>of</strong> international STI cooperation. Also at this
generic horizontal level, <strong>the</strong> main rationales, common available instruments and main
responsible actors are shown. The EU as global player has to be in <strong>the</strong> position to make <strong>of</strong>fers
to all regions <strong>of</strong> this planet and to provide – at least – policy dialogue fora (by including <strong>the</strong>
Member States on variable geometry) and to stimulate good practice exchange and learning
exercises by employing a variety <strong>of</strong> methods.
A major rationale <strong>of</strong> international STI policy cooperation is to conduct and support priority
setting towards joint objectives. Fig. 2 shows <strong>the</strong> different arenas, where priority setting
towards international STI cooperation is currently taken place in <strong>the</strong> EU. It shows a complex
picture. The following arenas influencing priority-setting can be distinguished:
• intelligence measures to support priority setting (e.g. benchmarking);
• stakeholder consultation and buy-in;
• priority setting stipulated by overarching European STI policy (e.g. priorities <strong>of</strong>
H2020);
• priority-setting negotiated within bilateral S&T agreements (<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EC but also <strong>of</strong>
single Member States with a number <strong>of</strong> third countries), which are <strong>of</strong>ten implemented
by matching fund based instruments such as joint or coordinated calls;
• priority-setting across several Member States exercised by SFIC (<strong>the</strong> Strategic Forum
for International S&T Cooperation);
• a number <strong>of</strong> policy support projects which facilitate international policy dialogue and
which lead to priority-setting in certain problem areas;
• a number <strong>of</strong> multilateral funding initiatives and projects, which – although sometimes
geographical by initial orientation – focus on certain <strong>the</strong>matic priorities when it comes
to specific research funding agreements respectively calls for proposals.
31