International STI Cooperation Governance for Green Growth and Global Challenges
Authors:   Asia-Europe Perspective Association, Choi Young-Sik , Oh Young-Dahl 
Published: June 2018

An assessment of the origins of the IAEA and its historical development shows that this organization is highly political unlike many other international organizations. Born out of the threat of the spread of nuclear weapons, the IAEA has developed itself to a ‘development organization' even if the objective to contribute to assisting developing countries has been on the agenda from the very beginning. The international community has greatly neglected this rather ‘new' side of the IAEA and has missed out on significant potential for collaborations in light of global challenges. This is partly to do with the initial image of the organization formulated in the 1960s through the 1980s as the nuclear ‘watch-dog' and has made institutional collaborations with development institutions a challenge for the IAEA. However, today, IAEA's closer collaborations with UN special agencies have furthered the reach of the nuclear and isotope techniques that the organization developed in the areas of health, nutrition and agriculture but more potential lies ahead. The organizational structure of the IAEA has not significantly changed up until today. This rather lean organizational structure forces the organization to rely on other actors for the implementation of its projects. A strong participation and interest generation of member states is therefore required to maintain the drive of the programmes. In a rather complex system of programmes and sub-programmes, the IAEA has managed to develop a sound toolbox of collaboration techniques and mode of science and technology innovation. Overall, the processes behind three of the four hold great potential for addressing the different needs of member states. Each of the programmes present distinct advantages and disadvantages across the governance types. First of all, the IAEA needs to prioritize long-term project implementation. Second, the IAEA's active initiatives to suggest its national counterparts or to speak directly to research institutions, rather than via its member states, may further ameliorate its functions. Third, the IAEA's over-relying on informal processes might create additional parallel processes and add to its already complex system. The three advantages of the IAEA's governance structure was identified as well. The flexible modes of governance creates a comprehensive ‘toolbox' for researchers and member states to pursue researches in areas of imminent global interest. The IAEA's programmes have special means to support developing countries in their collaboration with developed countries through financial means or equipment support. The IAEA seeks to balance the interest of developed countries as well through different governance structures in its funding. Finally, the IAEA proves to set an example in its governance of collaboration with the UN FAO through the activities of their ‘Joint Division'. Although technology transfer remains on the priority of the IAEA, the results have been mixed on the success of long-term technology and use of products by member states. The difficulty in the actual transfer of technology has partially been explained by the ambiguous intellectual property rights regime and the output orientation of scientists at the IAEA. The IAEA currently perceives itself at the brink of change. International organizations can no longer function as they were created fifty or sixty years ago. They should draw on lessons learnt from private sector organizations including leaner modes of governance, image-building, and innovative programme solutions so that it can attract the attention of member states. The IAEA also needs to invite other non-state stake-holders such as non-governmental organizations and private companies to the project implementation phase.