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

c) with a strong jointly accessible and usable analytical back-up function
building on already existing knowledge (see section on indicators)
d) with an ambition to establish coordinated pilot activities, which could be <strong>of</strong>
structural or <strong>the</strong>matic nature (e.g. <strong>the</strong>matic working groups to coordinate STI
efforts; promotion <strong>of</strong> European research capacities)
e) by including third partner countries case-by-case (variable geometry)
f) with a strong focus on global challenges
g) financed by <strong>the</strong> European Commission.
As regards <strong>the</strong> external policy dialogue support, benefits for MS should be better worked
out and procedures should be developed to better respond to <strong>the</strong> needs <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> participants.
The policy dialogue should involve policy makers and policy-delivery systems (not
necessarily as partners but as participants in various activities), analytical intelligence
providers and multiplicators from <strong>the</strong> EU, <strong>the</strong> Member States and <strong>the</strong> international partner
countries. Outreach activities to o<strong>the</strong>r stakeholders, measures to put STI into practice and
support for capacity building for STI at a strategic level (e.g. through joint S&T policy
mix peer reviews), both at <strong>the</strong> side <strong>of</strong> EU MS and associated countries and third partner
countries, should be a priority at several stages <strong>of</strong> such projects. Capacity building should
be an element <strong>of</strong> joint efforts to address global challenges.
In this context, <strong>the</strong> increasing attention by <strong>the</strong> EU to address regions as a level (to better
engage groups <strong>of</strong> countries in dialogues and cooperation) deserves a comment. In line
with a key argument in this <strong>Report</strong>, priorities should be based on challenges and <strong>the</strong>mes,
while partner countries are seen as channels for implementation. The EG does not see
regions as channels for implementation in this sense, but ra<strong>the</strong>r as potential mechanisms
for dialogue to address framework conditions and include STI in wider political and
diplomacy concerns. Approaching multiple countries for cooperation within a given
priority should give rise to (external) variable geometries with those that share those
priorities.
3) Support <strong>the</strong> implementation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> results <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> external S&T internationalisation
policy dialogue between <strong>the</strong> EC plus MS (variable geometry) and partner countries
with whom <strong>the</strong> EC has a S&T agreement with <strong>the</strong> aim to implement <strong>the</strong> jointly
developed roadmaps
a) in bilateral settings
b) which facilitate a stronger participation <strong>of</strong> excellent researchers in HORIZON
2020 projects AND <strong>the</strong> participation <strong>of</strong> excellent researchers from <strong>the</strong> EU in
national programmes <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> partner countries through different instruments
(<strong>the</strong>matic workshops, procedural advisory services, promotion activities etc.)
c) in principle across all HORIZON 2020 priorities (but in practice limited by <strong>the</strong>
<strong>the</strong>matic or structural priorities agreed and stipulated by <strong>the</strong> S&T agreement
under scrutiny)
49