COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on ‘Enhancing and Focusing EU International Cooperation in Research and Innovation: A Strategic Approach’
Date: 2012-09-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: developing countries, innovation, international cooperation, research policy

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 14.9.2012  
SWD(2012) 258 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying the document 

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the 
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on 

‘Enhancing and Focusing EU International Cooperation in Research and Innovation: A 
Strategic Approach’ 

{COM(2012) 497 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying the document 

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the 
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on 

‘Enhancing and Focusing EU International Cooperation in Research and Innovation: A 
Strategic Approach’ 

This document is a Staff Working Document of the European Commission intended for 
information. It does not represent or prejudge any official position of the Commission on 
this subject. 

INTRODUCTION: AIM OF THE STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

This Staff Working Document accompanies the Communication ‘Enhancing and focusing EU 
international  cooperation  in  research  and  innovation:  a  strategic  approach’.  It  presents 
background information, facts and data to demonstrate how the global picture in research and 
innovation  is  changing  and  how  Europe  is  positioned  within  the  international  context, 
underpinning the need for a more strategic approach to international cooperation in research 
and  innovation  in  Europe.  The  second  part  takes  stock  of  how  international  cooperation  in 
research  and  innovation  has  been  developed  at  Union  level  over  recent  years  under  the 
Seventh  Framework  Programme  (FP7),  through  Science  and  Technology  Agreements,  and 
with the help of funding provided through the Union’s external instruments. The third section 
provides an overview of international cooperation activities developed by the Member States, 
as part of their own policies and programmes and within the context of the Strategic Forum on 
International Science and Technology Cooperation (SFIC). This is followed by a description 
of  international  cooperation  activities  by  third  countries  and  an  overview  of  relevant 
multilateral  fora  and  international  organisations.  A  concluding  section  describes  the  basic 
elements of an information gathering system to be developed to support the implementation of 
the  strategic  approach  to  international  cooperation  in  research  and  innovation.  The  final 
section  also  provides  an  overview  of  indicators  that  can  be  used  to  monitor  the 
implementation and impact of the strategy. 

1. 

A CHANGING WORLD 

1.1 

Evolution to a multi-polar world 

The  EU  maintains  its  top  position  in  science  but  is  losing  ground  in  technology 
development 

The global picture in research and innovation is rapidly shifting. Emerging powers in science, 
technology and innovation, in particular the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China), are 
challenging the USA, the Union and Japan. In this context, the Union’s relative position on 
the  global  scene  has  remained  remarkably  stable  over  the  last  decade,  except  in  R&D 

EN 

2 

   EN 

expenditure and PCT patents1, as illustrated in Figure 1. The evolution in the world share of 
PCT patent applications shares shows that both the Union and the USA are losing ground to 
the dynamic Asian economies. In general terms, the decline is more pronounced for the USA 
and Japan than for the Union. 

Figure 1: World share of researchers, GERD, high-impact publications and patent 
applications, 2000 and latest year 

Given  the  scale  of  the  world’s  major  research  and  innovation  players,  each  Member 
State by itself lacks critical mass 

The  multi-polar  world  of  research  and  innovation  has  reinforced  the  scale  effect,  with  each 
Member  State  becoming  smaller  in  relative  terms.  Nevertheless,  every  Member  State  has 
increased its international cooperation with the emerging economies in absolute terms, as is 
illustrated in Figure 2 for cooperation with China. 

The  largest  Member  States  account  for  only  about  10 %  of  China’s  international  scientific 
cooperation, and most Member States account for less than 1 % of Chinese international co-

1 

Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT): provides for a unified procedure for seeking patent protection for an 
invention in each of a large number of countries, by filling a single PCT application. The granting of 
patents remains under the control of the national or regional patent offices.  

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
publications.  However,  taken  as  a  block,  the  Union  represents  over  one  third  (36 %)  of 
China’s scientific cooperation with other world partners, making it China’s second scientific 
partner after the USA (42 %). 

Figure 2: Scientific co-publication partnerships between China and the world - % 
distribution, 2009 (in parenthesis average annual growth between 2000 and 2009) 

Rest of the World
11% (19%)

United  Kingdom
10% (19%)

Japan
11% (15%)

Germany
7%  (15%)

France
4%  (19%)

Sweden
2%  (21%)

Netherlands
2%  (21%)

Italy
2%  (13%)

Other  EU
9%  (20%)

United  States
42% (19%)

Source:  DG Res earch and Innovation                                                                   

Data:  Science Metrix / Scopus  (Els evier)

1.2. 

Internationalisation of the research and innovation system 

Research and innovation are increasingly international endeavours, with scientists cooperating 
with peers from other countries. Looking at the Union’s overall scientific production, almost 
one  third  (30 %)  involves  cooperation  between  researchers  from  different  countries,  a  trend 
that has grown constantly (+8 %) over the last decade. 

Scientific production is increasingly international. The USA has taken the lead in scientific 
cooperation with Asia. 

It is relevant to monitor more closely the extent to which European researchers reach out to 
cooperate with colleagues from countries outside Europe, in particular with peers in the USA 
and  in  the  rising  Asian  science  and  technology  powers.  Figure  3  provides  an  overview  of 
scientific  cooperation  in  the  world.  The  figure  shows  that  the  major  part  of  world  scientific 
cooperation is still between the Union and the USA. However, the USA has developed greater 
scientific cooperation than the Union with all major research countries in Asia. The Union is 
slowly catching up in its scientific cooperation with Japan and South Korea, but continues to 
lose ground in its cooperation with China. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
Figure 3: Scientific co-publications involving the Union, USA, Japan, South Korea, 
China and Brazil, 2000-2009 

Source: DG Research and Innovation 

Data: Science Metrix/ Scopus (Elsevier) 

There are indications of a persistent brain drain from the Union to the USA 

Scientific  cooperation  involves  intensive  mobility  of  research  students  and  scientists.  As  a 
proxy for the mobility of researchers, Figure 4 illustrates the persistent flow of students and 
doctoral students from the Union to the USA. Over the last decade, the gap decreased slightly 
(it  was  widest  in  2002)  but  remained  significant  in  2009-2010.  In  2009,  58 000  students  or 
early-stage researchers left the EU for graduate, master or doctoral studies in the USA, while 
only about half as many (28 200) left the USA to study or do research in the Union. The gap is 
largest for the Eastern European countries, but also for most of the Mediterranean countries. 
In contrast, the United Kingdom and Ireland have a positive balance for student or early-stage 
researchers. Half of US students and early-stage researchers, 14 300, went to UK universities, 
while 8 500 left the UK to study in the USA. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
Figure 4: Mobility of students (ISCED 5 and 6) between the EU and the USA 

Flow  of students 
(ISCED  5 and 6) from 
the EU  to the US

Flow  of students 
(ISCED  5 and 6) from 
the US to the EU

s
t
n
e
d
u
t
s
f
o

r
e
b
m
u
N

70000

60000

50000

40000

30000

20000

10000

0

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Source:  DG Research and Innovation                                                                   
Data:  UNESCO

While the above data on students provides an indication, there are currently no solid data on 
flows of researchers between the EU and other world regions. However, surveys indicate that 
researcher  mobility  is  still  mainly  between  the  EU  and  the  USA,  with  larger  flows  of 
researchers from the EU to the USA than in the reverse direction. The main reasons cited by 
EU  researchers  for  moving  to  the  USA  are  job  opportunities,  educational  opportunities  and 
the existence of scientific or professional infrastructure. 

Innovation is also becoming more international, within global value chains. The dominant 
investment flows in R&D are still between the USA and the Union. 

innovation 

international.  The 
Economic  globalisation  has  also  made 
internationalisation  of  the  economy  now  covers  the  higher  end  of  the  value  chain  with 
increasing cross-border flows of business R&D. Globally, the internationalisation of business 
R&D is the result of relations between a small number of countries. Figure 5 illustrates these 
relationships  for  the  manufacturing  sectors  of  the  Union,  the  USA,  Japan,  China  and 
Switzerland.  The  size  of  the  pie  chart  for  each  country  indicates  the  total  amount  of  R&D 
expenditure by foreign-owned firms in each country, while the pie slices represent the R&D 
expenditure of foreign-owned firms from a particular country. 

increasingly 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
  
As with scientific cooperation, the figure reveals the importance of the relationship between 
the USA and the Union. Taken together, R&D expenditure by US firms in the Union and by 
Union  firms  in  the  USA  accounts  for  two-thirds  of  the  R&D  expenditure  of  foreign-owned 
firms  in  manufacturing  world-wide2.  The  USA  is  also  the  largest  investing  country  in  the 
majority  of  the  Member  States.  Union  firms  account  for  more  than  65 %  of  the  total 
manufacturing  R&D  expenditure  of  foreign-owned  firms  in  the  USA,  or  more  than  90 %  if 
other  European  countries  not  in  the  Union  (mainly  Switzerland  and  Norway)  are  included. 
However,  the  figure  also  shows  a  deficit  in  the  EU’s  R&D  investment  flows  to  the  USA. 
While Union firms invested EUR 13.2 billion in the USA, US firms invested only EUR 9.5 
billion in the Union. This gap of almost 40 % is a sign of the higher attractiveness of the USA 
compared to the EU. 

Figure 5: Overseas business R&D expenditure in manufacturing by the Union, the USA, 
Japan, China and Switzerland, 2007 

Source: OECD, Eurostat, National statistical offices, DG RTD study calculations 

Notes: 1) EU firms spent EUR 774 m on R&D in Switzerland in 2007; Swiss firms spent EUR 2 470 m on R&D 
in the EU-27 in 2007. 

2) Swiss data also include the service sector; data for China are estimated based on national sources and US and 
Japanese outward data 

2 

The EU is considered as one entity, and intra-EU relationships (for example R&D by German firms in 
France) are not taken into account. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

                                                 
In  recent  years,  China  has  emerged  as  a  new  location  for  R&D  by  foreign-owned  firms. 
However,  the  Chinese  data  are  incomplete  and  plagued  by  methodological  issues,  which 
render comparison with data from OECD countries difficult. The R&D expenditure of wholly 
foreign-owned companies in China is included in Figure 5, which is EUR 2.4 billion for the 
year 2007. No breakdown of this amount by different countries of origin is available. 

The Union remains an attractive place to perform R&D but Asia is gaining ground 

The  evolution  of  these  R&D  investment  flows  from  the  perspective  of  the  Union  is  of 
importance  in  assessing  the  attractiveness  of  the  Union  for  research  and  innovation.  Given 
that the main investment flows are still from the USA, Figure 6 shows the R&D expenditure 
of  US  firms  abroad  between  1994  and  2008.  It  includes  the  Union,  Japan,  other  OECD 
countries  (including  Australia,  Canada,  Korea,  Israel,  Mexico  or  New  Zealand),  non-OECD 
Asia  (including  China,  India,  Taiwan,  Singapore,  or  Malaysia),  and  the  rest  of  the  world 
(including Africa and South America). 

The  figure  tells  two  different  stories.  In  relative  terms,  the  rise  of  Asian  countries  as  R&D 
locations for US firms has led to a shift in the distribution of US overseas R&D expenditure. 
The share of the Union in US overseas R&D expenditure decreased from around 75 % in 1994 
to around 60 % in 2008, with corresponding increases for Asian countries and non-European 
OECD  member  states. Much  of  the decrease  in the Union share occurred during the 1990s; 
since the early 2000s, the EU share has remained remarkably stable at around 60 % 

In absolute terms, however, R&D expenditure increased at each location, with overseas R&D 
expenditure by US firms in the Union more than doubling between 1994 and 2008. This does 
not indicate that US firms increased their R&D efforts in Asia at the expense of locations in 
the  EU.  The  internationalisation  of  R&D  is  therefore  not  a  zero-sum  game.  The  Union 
remains an attractive R&D location for firms from outside the Union. Non- Union firms, in 
particular US firms, have continuously increased their R&D expenditure in the EU since the 
1990s.  Moreover,  China  and  India  are  not  only  host  countries  for  the  R&D  activities  of 
foreign-owned  firms:  multinationals  from  India,  China,  Brazil  or  other  emerging  economies 
are just about to make their first steps into the Union as a location for their R&D activities. 
Some of these activities are not yet fully reflected in the currently available data. 

1.3 

The position of the Union in international research and innovation 

The Union suffers from an innovation gap with the USA and Japan, but is slowly catching 
up 

The innovation performance of most countries in the Union is progressing but not fast enough 
to  close  the  persistent  gap  with  the  global  innovation  leaders,  the  USA,  Japan  and  South 
Korea  (Figure  7).  The  Union  still  maintains  a  clear  lead  over  the  emerging  economies  of 
China, Brazil, India, Russia, and South Africa. China is improving its innovation performance 
and is progressively catching up with the Union. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

Figure 6: Overseas R&D expenditure of US firms, 1994-2008, USD m. 

40,000

35,000

Rest of the world

Non-OECD Asia

Other OECD 

Japan

European Union

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0

D
S
U
o
M
n

i

i

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Source: OECD based on US outward data by the US Bureau of Economic Analysis, own calculations 

Figure 7: Innovation performance and growth in innovation performance of the Union 
and its main competitors 

e
c
n
a
m
r
o
f
r
e
p
n
o
i
t
a
v
o
n
n

I

0.900

0.800

0.700

0.600

0.500

0.400

0.300

0.200

0.100

0.000

US

JP

CA

AU

KR

BR

SA

RU

IN

CN

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

Ave rage  annual grow th in innovation 
pe rform ance

World  scientific  specialisation  and  relative  quality  opens  up  international  cooperation 
opportunities based on complementarities. The European countries are reference points in 
science  for  energy  and  the  environment,  while  they  are  lagging  behind  the  USA  in 
scientific excellence in health, nanoscience, ICT and biotechnology. 

The positional analysis graph, Figure 8, shows at a glance the performance of countries and 
regions  across  several  indicators.  The  scientific  performance  of  the  Union  (presented  in  the 
graph as ERA), China, Japan and the USA in the thematic priorities for the 2000–2009 period 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
is illustrated based on their number of publications (i.e. the size of the bubble), their scientific 
specialisation score (horizontal axis) and their scientific impact (quality) score (vertical axis). 

In  most  thematic  priorities,  the  Union’s  position  reflects  its  level  of  scientific  impact  at  or 
above  the  world  level,  combined  with  a  relatively  low  level  of  specialisation.  In  relative 
terms, the Union performs extensive research in all scientific fields and the only areas where 
it  is  more  specialised  than  the  world  average  is  in  the  areas  of  health  and  humanities.  The 
particular  feature  of  the  Union’s  scientific  production  is  that  it  does  not  have  the  highest 
scientific impact (quality) in the few areas where it is specialised. The scientific performance 
of  the  Union  in  the  FP7  thematic  priorities  rarely  combines  high  scientific  output, 
specialisation and impact. Only the USA achieves this for more than one priority. 

Figure 8 shows that the Union does not have a particularly high impact in the fields of health 
and  humanities,  but  has  the  highest  level  of  impact  in  areas  in  which  it  does  not  specialise, 
such as energy, other transport technologies, new production technologies and security. Note 
that, in all FP7 thematic priorities, the Union’s output (i.e. the total number of publications) 
exceeds or is close to that of the three countries to which it is compared. 

The USA performs well in many fields, and achieves high levels of output, specialisation and 
scientific  impact  in  health,  environment,  socio-economic  sciences,  and  the  humanities.  It  is 
also  highly  cited,  albeit  less  specialised,  in  information  and  communications  technology, 
biotechnology,  new  production  technologies,  materials  (excluding  nanotechnology),  other 
transport  technologies,  and  food,  agriculture  and  fisheries.  In  contrast  to  the  USA  and  the 
Union,  China  and  Japan  systematically  have  fewer  citations  in  the  FP7  priorities,  although 
they  are  specialised  in  several  areas.  There  is  one  exception:  Japan  performs  strongly  in 
energy research, combining a high level of specialisation with a high impact. 

Health  research  (FP7  theme  1)  constitutes  the  largest  area  of  scientific  production  in  all 
regions/countries considered. While the Union dominates in terms of gross output in this area, 
the USA shows a greater level of specialisation and scientific impact. Both Japan and China 
have  a  smaller  output  in  health  research  than  the  Union  and  the  USA,  and  are  cited  less 
frequently than the world average in this area. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

Figure 8: Scientific strengths and weaknesses of the Union, 2000-2009 

Not specialised

Specialised

0.6

0.4

0.2

CN-8b

US-7b

US-2b

US-6

US-4c

US-3

US-4a

US-4b

US-7c

ERA-4c

ERA-5

ERA-7c

US-2a

ERA-10

US-5
ERA-7a & 9

ERA-4b

ERA-6

ERA-2b

ERA-4a

ERA-3

JP-6

CN-7b

US-1

US-8b

US-4d

JP-5
US-10

ERA-2a

ERA-4d

ERA-1

US-8a

US-7a & 9

ERA-8b

)

C
R
A

(

t
c
a
p
m

I

c
i
f
i
t
n
e
c
S

i

0

JP-8b

CN-8a

JP-7a & 9

CN-2a

JP-10

JP-4d

CN-1

JP-8a

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

ERA-8a

CN-2b

ERA
-7b

JP-2a

JP-1

CN-4a

JP-4b

CN-4d

JP-2b

CN-4b

CN-6

JP-4c

JP-7c

JP-7b

CN-3

JP-3

JP-4a

CN-5

CN-7c

CN-4c

CN-7a & 9

CN-10

l

e
v
e

l

d
l
r
o
w
e
v
o
b
a
t
c
a
p
m

I

l

e
v
e

l

d
l
r
o
w
w
o
e
b

l

t
c
a
p
m

I

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Specialization Index (SI)

Legend: FP7 Thematic priorities 

1 = Health 

4a = Nanosciences 
and Nanotechnologies 

5 = Energy 

7c = Other Transport 
Technologies 

2a = Food, Agriculture 
and Fisheries 

4b = Materials 
(excluding nanotech) 

6 = Environment (with 

climate change) 

8a = Socio-Economic 
Sciences 

2b = Biotechnology 

4c = New Production 
Technologies 

7a & 9 = Aeronautics 
& Space 

8b = Humanities 

3 = Information and 
Communications Tech 

4d = Construction and 
Construction Tech 

7b = Automobiles 

10 = Security 

The  technological  specialisation  of  the  world  powers  offers  the  Union  clear  opportunities 
for complementarities 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  major  technological  areas  in  which  Europe  specialises  and  those  where  it  is  not 
specialised can be illustrated by the ‘revealed technological advantage’, which compares the 
relative importance of a given technological area in Europe’s total patent production3 to the 
relative  importance  of  this  technological  area  in  all  patent  production  worldwide4.  Europe’s 
major  areas  of  technological  strength  are  Food,  Agriculture  and  Fisheries,  Construction  and 
Construction Technologies, Aeronautics, Automobiles, and Other Transport Technologies. 

Asia’s  pattern  of  specialisation  is,  to  some  extent,  complementary  to  that  of  Europe.  The 
major  areas  of  technological  strength  are  Information  and  Communication  Technologies 
together with Nanotechnologies, while no specialisation is found in technological areas such 
as  Health,  Food,  Agriculture  and  Fisheries,  Biotechnology,  Construction  and  Construction 
Technologies,  New  Production  Technologies,  and  Aeronautics  and  Space.  The 
specialisation/non-specialisation  pattern  is  much  more  pronounced  in  Asia  than  in  Europe, 
which  means  that  the  level  of  concentration  of  patent  production  in  Asia  in  its  areas  of 
technological strength is higher than in Europe (to the detriment of Asia’s weaker areas). 

In  North  America,  we  observe  that  Health,  Biotechnology  and  Space  are  the  major 
technological fields of specialisation. The fields of technological weakness in North America 
are  Construction  and  Construction  Technologies,  Energy,  Automobiles  and  Other  Transport 
Technologies. 

Table  1  below  provides  a  summary  view  of  the  major  fields  of  specialisation  and  non-
specialisation  for  each  geographical  area,  according  to  three  different  ways  of  classifying 
patents:  by  FP7  Thematic  Priorities;  IPC  fields;  and  NACE  sectors.  The  overall  picture  is 
relatively  consistent  across  the  three  classifications.  In  particular,  Europe  looks  strongly 
specialised  in  relatively  traditional  technological  fields,  related  to  transport  and  mechanical 
technologies, while at the same time major weaknesses are seen in fast-growing technologies 
associated with the ICT and nanotechnology areas. However in these areas there are sectors 
where  European  companies  are  well  positioned5  (e.g.  telecommunications  equipment  and 
services,  automotive  electronics,  semiconductor  manufacturing  equipment  and  medical 
equipment). 

3 
4 

5 

EU-27 and Associated Countries (i.e. countries associated with the research framework programmes). 
Based on patent applications to the European Patent Office (EPO), the US Patent and Trademark Office 
(USPTO), patent applications filed under the Patent Co-operation Treaty (PCT) that designate the EPO, 
as well as Triadic Patent Families.. 
See http://spectrum.ieee.org/static/patentpower2010 

EN 

12 

   EN 

                                                 
Table  1  —  Patterns  of  technological  specialisation  and  non-specialisation  by 
geographical area and type of classification, 2000-2010 

Areas of

FP7 Thematic Priorities

IPC  fields

NACE sectors

Strengths

Food, Agriculture and Fisheries
Construction and Construction Technologies Engines
Aeronautics
Automobiles
Other transport technologies

Handling
Machine tools

Thermal processes
Other special machines
Mechanical elements
Transport

Food products and beverages
Machine tools
Plastic products
Motor vehicles
Aircraft and spacecraft

ERA

Asia

Weaknesses

Information & Communications Technologies Telecommunications
Computer technology
Nanosciences & Nanotechnologies
IT methods for management
Semiconductors

Audio-visual technology

Office machinery and computers
Electronic components
Electricity distribution, control apparatus
Services for computer and related activities

Strengths

Information & Communications Technologies Telecommunications
Nanosciences & Nanotechnologies

Electrical machinery
Audio-visual technology

Electronic components
Electricity distribution, control apparatus

Basic communication processes Electrical motors, generators, transformers
Semiconductors
Optics
Textile machinery

Office machinery and computers

Weaknesses

Health
Food, Agriculture and Fisheries
Biotechnology
Construction and Construction Technologies Civil engineering
Aeronautics
Space

Biotechnology
Pharmaceuticals
Furniture

Food products and beverages
Pharmaceuticals
Plastic products
Medical and surgical equipment
Aircraft and spacecraft

Strengths

Health
Biotechnology
Space

North America

Biotechnology
Pharmaceuticals
Computer technology
IT methods for management
Analysis of biological materials
Medical technology

Services for computer
Pharmaceuticals
Medical equipment
Reproduction of recorded

Weaknesses

Handling

Construction and Construction Technologies Machine tools
Energy
Automobiles
Other Transport Technologies

Engines
Textile and paper machines
Thermal processes
Mechanical elements
Transport

Motor vehicles
Electrical motors
Machine tools
Electroinic components.

Source: European Commission, 2012; SPRU 

The Union’s falling global share in high-tech industries calls for strategic cooperation 

The internationalisation of innovation is linked to the broader globalisation of the economy, in 
particular  the  growth  of  high-tech  industries  outside  the  USA,  the  Union  and  Japan.  The 
general trend over the last 10 years is a continuous fall in the global shares of the USA, the 
Union and Japan in these industries, due to the expansion of the other Asian countries, headed 
by  China.  This  trend  is  particularly  clear  in  pharmaceuticals  and  ICT-based  manufacturing 
sectors, but also in scientific and measuring instruments. The aerospace sector is more stable, 
remaining  dominated  by  the  USA  and,  to  a  lesser  extent,  the  Union.  The  Union’s  share  of 
global value added fell most in the five years up to 2010. Considering the Union’s relatively 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
weaker  scientific  and, 
ICT,  health  and 
nanotechnologies,  this  is  a  worrying  sign.  Enhanced  funding  and  strategic  focus  should  go 
hand-in-hand  with  extended  international  cooperation  in  scientific  and  technological 
development. 

technological  position 

in  particular, 

in 

Figure 9: Value Added for selected manufacturing industries – global shares (%) 

Pharmaceuticals

Semiconductors

%

%

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

40

35

30

25

%

20

15

10

5

0

United
States

EU (1)

Japan

China (2) Asia-8 (3)

United
States

EU (1)

Japan China (2) Asia-8 (3)

1995

2000

2005

2010

1995

2000

2005

2010

Aerospace and spacecraft

Communications equipment

40

35

30

25

%

20

15

10

5

0

United
States

EU (1)

Japan

China (2) Asia-8 (3)

United
States

EU (1)

Japan

China (2) Asia-8 (3)

1995

2000

2005

2010

1995

2000

2005

2010

Scientific  and measuring instruments

Computers

%

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

%

50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

United
States

EU (1)

Japan

China (2) Asia-8 (3)

United
States

EU (1)

Japan

China (2) Asia-8 (3)

1995

2000

2005

2010

1995

2000

2005

2010

Source:  DG Res earch and Innovation                                                                   
Data:  NSF
Notes:  (1) EU does not include Es tonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxem bourg, Malta and Slovenia.
             (2) China includes Hong Kong.
             (3) Asia-8 includes India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Chinese Taipei and Thailand.

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
2. 

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION ACTIVITIES AT UNION LEVEL: TAKING STOCK 

2.1 

Stimulating the participation of third countries in FP7 

The  approach  to  international  cooperation  in  FP7  is  different  from  that  used  in  earlier 
Framework  Programmes.  It  aims  to  mainstream  international  cooperation  across  all  parts  of 
FP7, including the Euratom programme, through a dual approach of general opening and the 
development of targeted international cooperation actions. 

The principle of general opening allows entities from all third countries to participate in FP7. 
However,  not  all  such  entities  are  automatically  eligible  for  funding  from  the  EU  budget. 
Under  FP7,  automatic  funding  —  other  than  to  entities  from  Member  States  —  is  granted 
from  the  Union  budget  to  entities  from  countries  associated  with  the  research  framework 
programmes  (Associated  Countries)  and  the  International  Cooperation  Partner  Countries 
(ICPC). The list of ICPCs is adopted every year as part of the work programme. It contains 
those  countries  classified  as  lower  income,  lower-middle  income  and  higher-middle  income 
by  the  World  Bank.  Entities  from  other  third  countries  are  not  automatically  eligible  for 
funding, but may receive it by way of exception provided it is essential for the project to be 
carried out successfully, as assessed when the proposal is evaluated, or when specified in an 
international agreement or the work programme. 

This  general  opening  is  complemented,  where  appropriate,  by  targeted  international 
cooperation actions where there is a mutual interest. This applies in particular to the themes of 
the Cooperation Specific Programme and parts of the Capacities Specific Programme. To this 
end, the following instruments have been used in FP7: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Joint call: a single call launched, selected, evaluated and funded jointly in the Union 
and the third country in question. 

Coordinated call: a call launched and evaluated in parallel in the Union and the third 
country in question. 

Specific  International  Cooperation  Actions  (SICA):  collaborative  projects  with 
compulsory participation of entities from the third countries or regions in question. In 
addition,  some  calls  for  Coordination  and  Support  Actions  have  also  made 
participation from third countries compulsory. 

Targeted opening: collaborative project or coordination and support action where the 
participation of entities from third countries or regions is evaluated positively. 

Networking (twinning) of entities participating in projects funded by the Union and 
third countries to promote the exchange of knowledge and scientists, mutual access 
to infrastructures or the preparation of further joint projects. 

Across the entire FP7, some 680 targeted international cooperation actions (under the form of 
joint and coordinated calls, SICAs and topics for targeted opening or networking) have been 
included in the work programmes for 2007-2013, with the overwhelming majority (more than 
90 %)  coming  under  the  Cooperation  Specific  Programme.  The  number  of  international 
cooperation actions included in the work programmes has been more or less stable throughout 
FP7, although there appears to have been a drop in the final years of implementation. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

In terms of country groupings, the International Cooperation Partner Countries are the main 
group  (of  which  the  BRICS  are  a  sub-group  in  FP7)  along  with  the  high-income  countries, 
where  the  aim  has  been  in  particular  to  cooperate  with  the  USA  and  Japan.  In  terms  of 
themes,  the  Food,  Agriculture  and  Fisheries  Theme,  the  Biotechnologies  Theme  and  the 
Environment Theme have the highest number of international cooperation topics in their work 
programmes,  followed  by  the  Health  Theme,  the  ICT  Theme,  the  Transport  Theme  and  the 
Energy Theme. 

The  Marie  Curie  actions  under  the  People  Specific  Programme  have  a  substantial 
international dimension. They are designed to enable the best researchers from anywhere in 
the  world  to  develop  their  careers  in  Europe,  including  through  researcher  exchanges  with 
specific third countries. The global nature of many Marie Curie projects is shown by the fact 
that  the  host  institutions  coordinating  Marie  Curie  projects  are  located  in  80  different 
countries,  of  which  half  are  third  countries  (i.e.  neither  Member  States  nor  Associated 
Countries). In terms of mobilising the best talent from around the world, researchers of 130 
different nationalities have so far received Marie Curie funding in FP7. 

As a result of all these actions, about 21 % of the signed grant agreements under FP7 had at 
least one international partner as part of the consortium. Of those agreements: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

about 20 % included a partner from a high-income country or a partner from Eastern 
Europe and Central Asia; 

about 18 % included a partner from Africa or Asia; 

about 14 % included a partner from Latin America; and 

about 9 % included a partner from the Mediterranean region. 

At  regards  countries,  the  top  five  participating  third  countries  in  FP7  are  Russia,  the  USA, 
China, India and South Africa. 

Some  2.3 %  of  the  total  FP7  budget  is  paid  to  international  partners.  Of  this  amount,  about 
26 %  goes  to  African  countries,  about  17 %  to  the  Eastern  European  and  Central  Asian 
countries,  16 %  to  Asian  countries,  about  13 %  to  both  the  high-income  countries  and  the 
Latin American countries, and the remainder to countries from the Mediterranean region. As 
regards  individual  countries,  the  top  five  recipients  of  FP7  funding  are  Russia,  the  USA, 
India, South Africa and China. 

2.2 

FP7 Capacities Specific Programme 

2.2.1  Dedicated international cooperation actions 

The dedicated international cooperation actions under the FP7 Capacities Specific Programme 
support  the  international  cooperation  strategy  of  FP7  through  carefully  designed  funding 
modalities  aimed  at  promoting  the  participation  of  third-country  participants  in  FP7  and 
programmes of the Member States, stimulating  policy dialogue with third countries/regions, 
and launching studies on issues relevant to international cooperation: 

– 

Supporting bi-regional policy dialogues: the INCO-Net scheme aims to strengthen 
and  monitor  progress  in  bi-regional  cooperation  between  research  and  innovation 
actors. Target regions are ASEAN, the Caribbean, Central America, Central Asia and 

EN 

16 

   EN 

the  Southern  Caucasus,  Eastern  Europe  and  Central  Asia,  the  Gulf,  Latin  America, 
the Mediterranean, the Pacific, sub-Saharan Africa and the Western Balkans. 

– 

Supporting bilateral coordination activities: 

• 

• 

BILAT:  supporting  networking  between  stakeholders  in  order  to  strengthen 
capacities  in  third  countries,  focusing  on  providing  information  on  FP7  and 
identifying areas of mutual interest and benefit. Target countries are: Algeria, 
Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Egypt, India, Japan, Jordan, 
Korea,  Mexico,  Morocco,  New  Zealand,  Russia,  South  Africa,  Tunisia, 
Ukraine and the USA. 

ACCESS4EU: aiming to increase awareness among researchers in the Member 
States  and  Associated  Countries  of  opportunities  in  programmes  managed  by 
third  countries,  identifying  projects  open  to  Union  researchers  and  promoting 
their  participation.  This  enhances  reciprocity.  Target  countries  are  Australia, 
Brazil,  Canada,  China,  India,  Korea,  Mexico,  New  Zealand,  Russia,  South 
Africa and the USA. 

– 

Supporting coordination of the policies and activities of the Member States and the 
Associated Countries: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

ERA-NET/ERA-NET+:  aiming  to  step  up  cooperation  and  coordination  of 
research  and  innovation  programmes  at  national  or  regional  level  in  the 
Member  States  or  Associated  Countries.  The  ultimate  goal  is  the  mutual 
opening-up,  development  and  implementation  of  joint  activities.  Participating 
third  countries  and  regions  are:  Africa,  the  Black  Sea,  India,  Japan,  Korea, 
Russia and South East Europe. 

ERA-WIDE: promoting closer cooperation with the European Neighbourhood 
Policy  (ENP)  countries  and  preparing  for  their  possible  association  with  the 
Framework  Programme  by  reinforcing  the  cooperation  capacities  of  research 
centres of the highest quality in  these countries. Target countries are: Eastern 
Europe and the Southern Caucasus countries that are not yet associated to FP7, 
as  well  as  most  Mediterranean  Partner  Countries:  Morocco,  Algeria,  Tunisia, 
Libya, Egypt, Jordan, the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Lebanon and Syria. 

to 

increase  cooperation  with 

INCO-LAB:  aiming 
third  countries  by 
strengthening  the  catalytic  role  of  joint  research  institutes,  centres  or 
laboratories  funded  by  one  or  more  Member  States  or  Associated  Countries 
and located in third countries. Target countries are: Brazil, China, India, Japan, 
Russia and the USA. 

INCO-HOUSE: supporting the opening of joint centres funded by one or more 
Member  States  and  Associated  Countries  and  located  in  third  countries.  The 
target country is India. 

In  addition,  support  has  been  provided  to  the  network  of  National  Contact  Points  for 
Activities  of  International  Cooperation  to  stimulate  transnational  cooperation,  and  to  the 
ERAWATCH project, which provides information on the research policies and programmes 

EN 

17 

   EN 

of  the  Member  States,  Associated  Countries  and  third  countries  to  support  evidence-based 
policy making. 

The  table  below  provides  an  overview  of  the  number  of  projects  supported  and  their 
associated budgets. 

INCO Projects 
Type 

Number of projects 

ACCESS 

BILAT 

ERA-NET 

ERAWATCH 

ERA-WIDE 

INCO-LAB 

INCO-NET 

NCP INCONTACT 

11 

20 

7 

1 

46 

7 

11 

2 

Total cost 
(EUR) 

Total EU 
contribution 
(EUR) 

6 712 146 

5 309 112 

14 224 861 

9 872 969 

20 179 830 

14 898 658 

310 652 

299 997 

26 316 868 

22 517 626 

14 439 929 

11 984 943 

34 945 877 

29 988 074 

2 817 378 

2 369 822 

Total 

105 

119 947 541 

97 241 201 

A  mid-term  review  of  the  international  cooperation  activities  under  the  FP7  Capacities 
Programme and a series of workshops resulted in the following key findings: 

– 

Impact: 

• 

• 

• 

FP7  INCO-NET  generates  visible  impacts,  in  terms  of  the  development  of 
international  networks,  increased  bi-regional  cooperation,  knowledge  of  and 
participation  in  FP7-funded  projects,  visibility,  contributions  to  bi-regional 
policy  dialogues,  effectiveness  of  National  Contact  Points,  and  research  staff 
mobility. 

The  BILAT,  ACCESS4EU  and  ERAWIDE  projects  are  highly  welcomed  by 
both  European  and  third-country  partners.  Knowledge  acquired  through 
ACCESS4EU  projects,  for  example,  can  make  bilateral  cooperation  more 
effective. 

There are positive outcomes from the ERA-NET and ERA-NET Plus projects, 
leading  to  joint  calls  with  third  countries.  However,  their  scale  has  remained 
rather  limited.  It  is  too  early  to  draw  conclusions  for  the  INCO-LAB  and 
INCO-HOUSE projects. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

Instrument appraisal: 

• 

• 

Regardless  of  the  type  of  instrument,  common  interests  and  priorities  are  the 
main driver for a successful international cooperation programme. 

Bi-regional cooperation projects foster intra-regional harmonisation and create 
leverage and critical mass. 

– 

Best practices and lessons learned: 

• 

• 

• 

The  network  approach  helps  smooth  out  the  ‘asymmetry’  in  the  scientific 
capacity of partners. 

To be successful, both top-down (global goals and shared targets) and bottom-
up approaches (demand-driven research) are required. 

The participation/engagement in an international cooperation project increases 
when  there  are  targeted  incentives  and  competent  facilitators  (one  from  each 
region). 

– 

Synergies with other funding schemes and instruments: 

There  is  definitely  room  for  various  types  of  synergies,  although  these  can  vary 
among  the  different  regions.  The  existing  opportunities  are  often  insufficiently 
exploited  because  of  a  lack  of  information  and  redundancies  between  programmes 
and  projects  funded  by  different  instruments.  Such  opportunities  exist  for 
international  cooperation  projects  under  the  FP7  Capacities  Programme  and  with 
initiatives funded by other regional and international organisations such as the United 
Nations  Development  Programme  (UNDP),  the  World  Bank  or  the  European 
Investment  Bank  (EIB),  but  also  for  EU  funding  instruments  such  as  the  European 
Development  Fund  and  the  European  Neighbourhood  Partnership  Instrument. 
Examples of areas of synergy include: collaboration between projects; clustering of 
actions; 
joint 
publications;  back-to-back  events;  better  use  of  ongoing  and  past  project  results; 
results  for  policy  advice;  curriculum  development;  development/access  to  joint 
research infrastructures. 

inter-sectoral  education/training  activities;  use  of  study  sites; 

The  overall  evaluation  of  the  instruments  used  to  implement  the  international  cooperation 
activities under the FP7 Capacities Specific Programme is positive. However, it was noticed 
that  the  number  of  current  funding  modalities  is  rather  high,  so  could  be  reduced  —  as  a 
transition to Horizon 2020 — by consolidating the current instruments in a smaller set. 

2.2.2  e-Infrastructures 

The development of e-Infrastructures has an inherent international collaboration dimension. It 
supports European research by providing the facilities needed to carry out world-class science 
through  the  collaboration  of  research  teams,  regardless  of  their  country  and  geographic 
location.  These  facilities  include  high  performance  computational  and  communication 
resources together with the access to remote instruments and large data-sets. These global e-
Infrastructures constitute a key element of a seamless digital European Research Area open to 
the rest of the world and provide a decisive contribution to tackle global research challenges.  

EN 

19 

   EN 

The  broadband  capacity  offered  by  e-Infrastructures  constitutes  an  important  enabler  for 
development  and  through  their  contribution  to  the  Millennium  Development  Goals6  they 
support  the  Union's  external  policies. In reality, e-infrastructures in developing  countries  go 
beyond  supporting  research  capabilities  and  engaging  these  countries  in  collaborative  work 
with  European  researchers,  by  also  creating  pools  of  expertise  and  promoting  intra-regional 
research collaboration. They also support many other services of general interest (education, 
health, resources management, disaster prevention, etc.). 

E-Infrastructures  allow  the  Union's  researchers  to  reach  their  peers  around  the  world  and 
explore the scientific resources made accessible in many ways. To achieve this it is necessary 
to develop international cooperation activities supporting the global reach and interoperability 
of these e-Infrastructures, such as: 

– 

– 

– 

Development  and  interconnection  of  research  and  education  networks  (e.g. 
synchronised  capacity  building,  technology  alignment  and  standardisation  of 
communication  protocols)  and  interoperability  of  services  (bandwidth  reservation, 
security,  roaming,  authentication  and  authorisation  etc).  For  example,  FP7  co-
finances  (25%  of  cost)  the  ORIENT+  link  connecting  GÉANT  to  Beijing  through 
Russia. 

to  drive  ‘data-driven  science’,  exploiting 

Open  and  interoperable  scientific  data  infrastructures  across  countries  and 
disciplines 
the  vast  amount  of 
observational, sensor, streaming and experimental data in every field of science7. For 
example, following a coordinated call for proposals with NSF, an international forum 
for scientific data access and interoperability will be set up with the US, Canada and 
Australia. 

Computational  infrastructure,  through  the  standardisation  and  interoperability  of 
Grid  and  Cloud  computing  technologies.  Cooperation  in  this  area  is  both  with 
developing countries and the US and several projects have been funded to support it.  

In  addition  to  international  cooperation  activities  focused  on  technical  goals,  it  is  worth 
mentioning  activities  geared  by  the  need  to  establish  common  principles  for  global 
governance.  An  example  of  this  is  the  discussions  with  the  OCI  (Office  of  Cyber-
Infrastructure) of NSF to establish with Japan, Canada, China and India a network of funders 
of research and education networks. 

Regarding  the  role  played  by  e-infrastructures  in  support  of  development  and  cooperation 
policies in developing regions this is an on-going effort being pursued for more than 10 years. 
During this period about EUR 100 million of aid to development and cooperation have been 
mobilised to fund research and education networks in Latin America, Central and South East 
Asia, Africa and in the Mediterranean, and ensuring their connection to Europe. 

Examples  of  active  projects  involving  this  orientation  are  AfricaConnect,  RedCLARA, 
EUMedConnect, TEIN, and CAREN. The prioritisation of these projects has been the object 
of political endorsement in meetings between the Union and third countries or regions, e.g. by 
the  Africa  -  EU  Summit  in  2010  in  the  case  of  AfricaConnect  or  by  the  EU-Latin  America 
summit in Spain in 2011 in the case of RedCLARA 

6 
7 

UN Broadband Commission – Final Report of the Working Group on Broadband and Science 
"Riding the wave" High Level Expert Group on Scientific Data  

EN 

20 

   EN 

                                                 
The following table provides an overview of the on-going international cooperation activities 
being undertaken in the context of e-Infrastructures: 

International Partners 

Areas of cooperation 

USA, CANADA 

Russia, Eastern Partnership 

Asia 

Latin America 

Southern Partnership (MED) and 
Arab countries 

Africa Caribbean and Pacific 
(ACP) 

Other developed countries (Japan, 
Australia, NZ,..) 

International Organisations/Fora 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Global connectivity (interoperability, protocols) 

Data  Web 
Interoperability Task Force (DWF/DAITF) 

Forum/Data 

Access 

and 

Coordinated Calls (on data with NSF) 

E-Infrastructure 

Working 

Group 

(addresses mainly networks, data and grids) 

Connectivity  and  support  to  RENs  (HP-

SEE, ORIENT link to China through Russia)  

Connectivity  and 

to  RENs 
(CAREN, TEIN, ORIENT – link to China, links 
to India)  

support 

Cooperation  with  India  and  China  in  the 
context of cooperation on research infrastructure 
(with RTD) 

Connectivity  and 

support 

to  RENs 

(RedCLARA) 

Grids/Clouds and services deployment 

Coordinated  Calls  (on  data  and  Clouds 

with Brazil) 

Connectivity  and 
(EUMEDCONNECT, ASREN) 

support 

to  RENs 

Grids/Clouds and services deployment 

Connectivity  and 

support 

to  RENs 

(AfricaConnect, Ubuntunet, WACREN) 

Follow-up of C@ribnet 

Support to feasibility study for the Pacific 

RENs 

Connectivity  

DWF/DAITF 

Global  Governance  in  Data  (Chair  of  the 

G8+5 GSO group) 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
– 

ITU/UN  Broadband  Commission  (WG  on 

Broadband and Science) 

2.3 

The Joint Research Centre 

As the Commission’s in-house science service, the Joint Research Centre’s (JRC) mission is 
to  provide  Union  policies  with  independent,  evidence-based  scientific  and  technical  support 
throughout  the  whole  policy  cycle.  The  JRC  addresses  key  societal  challenges  while 
stimulating  innovation  by  developing  new  methods,  tools  and  standards,  and  sharing  its 
know-how with the Member States, the scientific community and international partners. 

To  tackle  challenges  of  a  global  nature,  the  JRC  works  with  international  partners,  such  as 
United  Nation  bodies  (e.g.  International  Atomic  Energy  Agency,  the  United  Nations 
Environment  Programme,  the  United  Nations  Economic  Commission  for  Europe),  national 
research  institutes  (e.g.  the  National  Institute  for  Standards  and  Technologies)  and 
standardisation  bodies  (e.g.  the  European  Committee  for  Standardisation  —  CEN,  the 
International  Organisation  for  Standardisation  —  ISO,  the  Organisation  for  Economic 
Cooperation  and  Development  —  OECD),  on  the  development  and  assessment  of  methods, 
on developing international standards and on harmonised measurement technologies. 

The highest number of non-binding bilateral arrangements — about one third of the total — is 
with US partners: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

NIST (National Institute for Standards and Technology): the JRC and NIST have 
agreed  to  prioritise  standards  in  energy  and  transport,  and  emerging  technologies 
(nanotechnology) as topics for cooperation. Furthermore, the JRC is drafting together 
with  NIST  an  umbrella  arrangement  also  covering  the  three  existing  areas  of 
collaboration (reference materials, security, safety and citizen protection, and marine 
optical  radiometry  in  support  of  remote  sensing).  A  joint  JRC-NIST  seminar  on 
standards for e-mobility is planned for 2012. E-mobility is a key issue for the Trans-
Atlantic Economic Council (TEC). 

AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science): the JRC and NIST 
organised  a  roundtable  entitled  ‘Building  a  Trans-Atlantic  Scientific  Bridge’  in 
November 2011, to discuss the clean energy and mobility revolution and to enhance 
links  between  European  and  US  scientists,  in  order  to  identify  synergies  and 
partnerships in support of policy-making. 

NOAA  (National  Oceanic  and  Atmospheric  Administration):  an  implementing 
arrangement  was  signed  in  May  2012  between  JRC  and  NOAA.  Cooperation  will 
focus  in  the  near  term  on  the  following  four  topics:  climate  data  records,  space 
weather,  tsunami  modelling,  and  fisheries  research.  A  joint  event,  ‘Workshop  on 
Opportunities  for  Transatlantic  Cooperation  in  the  Field  of  Space  and  Climate 
Change’, was held in March 2011. 

National  Nuclear  Security  Agency  (NNSA): 
increased 
collaboration to prepare for the nuclear security summit in April 2012 in Seoul, and 
to take into account developments in Japan. 

there  has  been  an 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
 
– 

In  the  nuclear  field,  there  are  two  arrangements  between  Euratom  and  the  US 
Department of Energy, one on nuclear energy and one on nuclear security, and there 
is another between Euratom and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Brazilian partners have six bilateral arrangements with the JRC, on environmental and crop 
monitoring,  soil  mapping,  life-cycle  analysis,  and  metrology  in  chemistry.  Another  is  under 
preparation  on  sustainable  agriculture.  Under  the  EU-Brazil  sectoral  dialogue  on  flood 
forecasting and monitoring, two Brazilian scientists from Brazil’s National Centre of Natural 
Disasters Monitoring and Alert (CEMADEN) were trained in JRC-Ispra in March and April 
2012,  to  gain  experience  in  flood  forecasting  and  monitoring  of  soil  moisture  using  remote 
sensing. This is one of the concrete results of the Letter of Intent signed between the JRC and 
the  Brazilian  Ministry  of  Science,  Technology  and  Innovation  (MCTI)  in  October  2011 
during the 5th EU-Brazil Summit. 

JRC has has nine bilateral arrangements with Japanese partners, mainly concerning energy. 
Additionally, the JRC has an agreement with the JAEA (Japanese Atomic Energy Agency) 
on  nuclear  safeguards  and  security;  and  with  CRIEPI  (Central  Research  Institute  of  the 
Electric Power Industry) on advanced fuel processing. 

JRC has provided support to Japan after the 2011 disaster: 

– 

– 

– 

Collaboration  in  the  area  of  standards  for  nuclear  safety;  measurement  of 
radioactivity  in  food,  water,  and  the  environment;  development  of  joint  projects 
between the JRC and the JAEA in the area of safeguards (stress tests), security and 
non-proliferation under the 2006 Euratom-Japan agreement. 

The  JRC  has  developed  the  ‘Global  Alert  and  Coordination  System’  (GDACS) 
jointly with the UN and is developing a ‘Tsunami Alerting Device’ with Japan that 
can be connected to Early Warning Systems. 

There  is  continuing  collaboration  between  JRC-ELSA  (European  Laboratory  for 
Structural Assessments) and the Building Research Institute of the Japanese Ministry 
for Construction. 

With Chinese partners, the JRC has 12 bilateral arrangements, on crop forecasting, life-cycle 
analysis, and the peaceful use of nuclear energy. In 2010 three agreements were signed, one 
on a global soil map, one on telecommunications, and one on nanotechnology and alternative 
methods to animal testing. 

Priority objectives and actions: 

– 

– 

– 

The  JRC  participates  in  the  EU-China  task  forces  on  food,  agriculture  and 
biotechnology and innovation. 

As a follow-up to the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on nanotechnology, a 
joint event was held with CAIQ (Chinese Academy of Inspection and Quarantine) 
on safety evaluations for nanotechnology in April 2011 in China. 

Climate change and clean transport: JRC together with DG CLIMA sent a modelling 
expert as part of its collaboration with China. 

EN 

23 

   EN 

– 

The  Chinese  Ministry  of  Science  and  Technology  (MOST)  accepted  the  JRC’s 
proposal during the first meeting of the China-EU Steering Committee on  Peaceful 
Use of Nuclear Energy (PUNE) in March 2011 to exchange experience on the safety 
assessments  of  nuclear  power  plants  in  the  Union  and  China;  to  exchange 
information on the analysis of nuclear incidents in the Union and China; and to work 
together  to  ensure  that  all  new  nuclear  plants  are  based  on  the  best  available 
techniques and comply with the highest nuclear safety and security standards. 

With  regard  to  India,  a  bilateral  arrangement  is  in  preparation  with  the  Indian  Council  of 
Scientific  and  Industrial  Research  (CSIR)  to  coordinate  research  activities  of  common 
interest. An agreement on PUNE is close to conclusion. 

The JRC has long-standing relations with Africa, e.g. with the African Union Commission 
(AUC), with academia and with national administrations. The African Union and the Union 
work in partnership on a range of important issues under the 2007 Joint Africa-EU Strategy 
(JAES) partnerships. 

With  Russia,  an  MoU  on  nuclear  data  exchange  during  emergencies  is  under  preparation 
between the Russian Federation and the JRC. Additional contacts will take place on nuclear 
safety. Under the EU-Russia Common Spaces, areas relevant to the JRC include collaboration 
between standardisation bodies to prevent technical barriers to trade in numerous domains and 
the preparation of a cooperation agreement on Global Satellite Navigation Systems. 

The JRC has six (including two draft) arrangements with UN bodies, covering: open-source 
monitoring  for  situation  awareness;  industrial  accident  prevention  within  developing 
countries;  fuel-cell  testing;  simulation  and  related  educational  activities;  an  information 
management  platform  with  the  World  Food  Programme  (WFP)  and  the  Food  and 
Agriculture  Organisation  (FAO);  and  environmentally  sustainable  development  of  the 
planet,  with  special  focus  on  developing  countries.  UN  bodies  involved  include  the  United 
Nations  Environment  Programme  (UNEP),  the  United  Nations  Industrial  Development 
Organisation (UNIDO), and the United Nations Office in Vienna. 

The IAEA has particular importance for the JRC. There is a separate arrangement between the 
European Atomic Energy Community and the IAEA, under which the JRC provides training 
to nuclear inspectors, as well as a draft arrangement with IAEA regarding nuclear security. 

2.4 

Scientific and Technological Agreements with third countries 

The  Union  has  concluded  208  Scientific  and  Technological  Cooperation  Agreements  with 
third countries under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and with 
15  under  the  Euratom  Treaty.  These  agreements  offer  a  political,  legal  and  administrative 
framework  for  coordinating  and  facilitating  international  cooperation  in  research  and 
innovation between European entities and international partners. 

The  Scientific  and  Technological  Cooperation  Agreements  were  concluded  on  the  basis  of 
Article 186 TFEU. The majority were concluded for an initial period of five years and were 
tacitly renewed based on the results of an evaluation carried out by external experts during the 

8 

The  agreement  with  Algeria  is  provisionally  applicable;  it  will  enter  into  force  once  the  parties  have 
ratified it. 

EN 

24 

   EN 

                                                 
penultimate year of each successive five-year period. Certain agreements are concluded for an 
indefinite period of time (Australia, Jordan, Canada), while a number are tacitly renewed with 
every new framework programme. 

Although their content may slightly differ, the agreements share some common elements: 

• 

• 

• 

Scope and principles: definition of the areas of mutual interest, reciprocal access to 
the  activities  of  the  research  programmes  of  each  party,  protection  of  intellectual 
property rights, researcher mobility. 

Forms of  cooperation: participation and funding in research programmes, exchange 
of 
information,  coordinated  actions,  dissemination  and  use  of  results  and 
information, implementing arrangements for coordinated calls. 

Management  and  coordination:  designation  of  a  Joint/Steering  Committee  and 
definition  of  its  functions,  costs  incurred  by  the  parties  in  the  coordination  of 
research activities, etc. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

S&T AGREEMENTS CONCLUDED WITH THIRD COUNTRIES 

Country 

Entry into force  Observations 

Argentina  28 May 2001 

Next renewal on 28.05.2016.  

Australia 

25 July 1994 

Duration of the agreement not limited in the time. 

Algeria 

Ratification 
pending 

Provisionally applicable since March 2012. 

Brazil 

7 August 2007 

The renewal of this agreement is ongoing.  

Canada 

27 February 1996  Duration of the agreement not limited in the time. 

Chile 

10 January 2007  Next renewal on 10.01.2017 

China 

14 
1999 

December 

Next renewal on 9.12.2014 

Egypt 

27 February 2008  Duration of the agreement not limited in the time. 

India 

14 October 2002  Next renewal on 17.05.2015 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

Japan 

29 March 2011 

This  agreement  is  concluded  for  five  years  and 
continues to be in force unless terminated by either 
party.  

11 

12 

Jordan 

29 March 2011 

Duration of the agreement not limited in the time. 

Korea 

29 March 2007 

This  agreement  is  concluded  for  five  years  and 
continues to be in force unless terminated by either 
party.  

13  Mexico 

13 June 2005 

Next renewal on 13.06.2015 

14  Morocco 

14 March 2005 

Every  four  years  the  parties  will  evaluate  the 
impact  of  the  Agreement  on  their  scientific  and 
technical cooperation.  

15 

16 

17 

New 
Zealand 

30 January 2009 

This  Agreement  will  remain  in  force  for  an  initial 
period of five years.  

Russia 

10 May 2001 

Next renewal on 20/02/2014 

South 
Africa 

11 
1997 

November 

This Agreement is concluded for the duration of the 
Fourth  Framework  Programme  and  will  be 
renewable by agreement between the parties for the 
subsequent framework programmes. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
 
18 

Tunisia 

13 April 2004 

Every  four  years  the  parties  will  evaluate  the 
impact  of  the  Agreement  on  their  scientific  and 
technical cooperation.  

19 

20 

Ukraine 

11 February 2003  Next renewal on 21.12.2016. 

United 
States 

14 October 1998  Next renewal on 14.10.2013. 

The  agreements  are  reviewed  on  a  regular  basis.  In  general,  the  experts  conducting  the 
evaluations believe that the agreements offer a good opportunity for cooperation in research. 
In the latest review of the EU-Chile S&T Cooperation Agreement for instance, the agreement 
was  seen  to  have  contributed  to  fruitful  cooperation  between  the  parties,  which  probably 
would not have happened to the same extent without the agreement. 

As concerns the Steering/Joint Committees, the evaluations note that updating roadmaps adds 
substance  and  gives  guidance  for  all  cooperation  areas  and  instruments.  However,  more 
priority  setting  and  focusing  of  resources,  clearly  set  out  in  the  annual  roadmaps,  would 
improve  cooperation.  In  addition,  more  systematic  examination  of  the  impacts  of  relevant 
developments or pilot activities would add an extra dimension to the work of the Committees. 
Committees normally meet once a year either in Brussels or in the third-country capital. 

In representing the Union externally in the field of research and innovation, the Commission 
also  plays  an  important  role  in  cooperation  with  other  regions  in  the  world.  There  are 
currently six bi-regional dialogues and all have a Joint Committee that meets annually: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

EU-ASEAN  Senior  Officials  Meeting  (SOM):  with  the  member  countries  of  the 
Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN); 

Eastern  Partnership:  with  Belarus,  Armenia,  Azerbaijan,  Georgia,  Moldova  and 
Ukraine; 

Western Balkan Platform; 

EU-African Union JEG8 (Joint Expert Group); 

Monitoring Committee of the Union for the Mediterranean; 

EU-Africa STI SOM; 

EU-Latin American Countries (LAC) SOM. 

Research  and  innovation  are  also  often  important  elements  of  other  instruments  of  Union 
external policy such as the Partnerships and Cooperation Agreements (PCAs), the Association 
and Cooperation Agreements, and the Stabilisation and Association Agreements. 

2.5 

The Union’s external financing instruments 

In  line  with  the  specific  treaty  provisions  laid  down  in  Part  Five  of  the  TFEU,  the  Union’s 
external action shall be guided by the principles pursuant to Article 21 TEU, which include 
the  support  for  democracy,  rule  of  law  and  human  rights  as  well  as  the  strengthening  of 
international  security,  fostering  the  sustainable  development  of  developing  countries, 

EN 

27 

   EN 

including  the  achievement  of  the  Millennium  Development  Goals  and  to  a  post-2015 
international development agenda, demonstrating solidarity with people facing man-made or 
natural  disasters.  Moreover,  in  the  implementation  of  its  external  policies,  the  Union  shall 
respect  the  external  aspects  of  its  internal  policies.  A  set  of  external  financing  instruments 
supports  the  Union’s  external  policies  under  the  current  Multiannual  Financial  Framework. 
These include in particular: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

the Instrument for Pre-accession (IPA), targeting the enlargement countries; 

the European Neighbourhood Policy Instrument (ENPI), to support the countries of 
the European Neighbourhood; 

the  Partnership  Instrument  (PI),  to  support  cooperation  with  the  industrialised 
countries; 

the  Development  Cooperation  Instrument  (DCI)  and  European  Development  Fund 
(EDF), which provide support to the developing countries; 

the Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection instruments. 

While  the  Union’s  research  and  innovation  funding  aims  to  support  excellence,  including 
through  cooperation  with  third-country  partners,  complementary  support  is  possible  through 
the  external  financing  instruments,  notably  to  build  up  research  and  innovation  capacity  in 
countries  targeted  by  the  aforementioned  instruments.  This  can  involve  building  up  local 
infrastructure,  providing  financial  support  to  projects  tackling  local  societal  challenges,  and 
stimulating intra-regional cooperation. 

Funding from the IPA has thus been used by many of the enlargement countries to cover part 
of the contribution these countries make to the Union budget under their association with the 
Framework Programme. 

Other  examples  are  the  two  successive  ACP  (African,  Caribbean  and  Pacific)  Science  and 
Technology Programmes funded with EUR 35 million and EUR 23 million from the 9th and 
10th EDF, respectively. These programmes aim to help achieve the Millennium Development 
Goals  by  enhancing  collaborative  research  and  innovation  capacity,  development,  and 
innovation in the ACP. The thematic focus is on agriculture and agro-industry, energy, health 
care, the environment, and transport. 

In  parallel,  the  ACP  Research  for  Sustainable  Development  Programme  (EUR  20  million, 
from  the  10th  EDF)  is  divided  into  African,  Caribbean  and  Pacific  components,  with  the 
African  component  (EUR  15  million)  being  implemented  through  the  African  Union 
Commission. The aim of the programme is to support research activities contributing to the 
sustainable development of the ACP and to enhance the capacity of the three ACP regions to 
implement and monitor their own collaborative research programmes. 

Besides  these  dedicated  research  and  research  capacity  programmes,  further  support  is 
provided by IPA, ENPI, DCI and EDF through national and regional programmes and through 
the  DCI’s  thematic  budget  lines.  For  instance,  EUR  220  million  (25 %  of  the  2007-2010 
allocation) for the Food Security Thematic Programme went into research and innovation. 

EN 

28 

   EN 

In addition, around EUR 60 million have been provided from the 9th and 10th EDF to support 
capacity  building  for  the  use  of  space  technology  in  Africa  and  EUR  12  million  to  support 
internet connectivity in Africa. 

3. 

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION ACTIVITIES OF THE MEMBER STATES 

3.1  Member States’ policies and programmes 

3.1.1 

Introduction 

Member  States  are  actively  pursuing  activities  for  the  internationalisation  of  research  and 
innovation.  Some  have  developed  coherent  internationalisation  strategies  bringing  all 
activities under the umbrella of a set of common objectives. Others have developed strategies 
for  certain  key  countries,  sometimes  building  on  rather  elaborate  instruments  (such  as 
bibliometric  or  co-patent  analysis,  expert  group  recommendations,  cluster  analysis)9. 
However,  the  involvement  of  Member  States  in  international  cooperation  in  research  and 
innovation differs considerably across the Union10. 

All  key  indicators  show  an  increase  in  international  cooperation  activities  in  the  last  two 
decades.  Countries  with  a  high  R&D  intensity  (GERD  above  the  Union  average,  such  as 
Finland,  Sweden,  Denmark,  Austria  and  Germany)  generally  invest  more  in  international 
activities. These are also the countries that rank highly in the Innovation Union Scoreboard11. 
The  measures  taken  to  stimulate  business  R&D  activities  are  another  key  factor  that  also 
drives research and innovation internationalisation. 

3.1.2  Objectives and goals of internationalisation 

In contrast to the different strategic approaches12, the objectives of Member States are rather 
similar. The quest for excellence and competence is in general the major objective. Getting 
access  to  advanced  knowledge  is  seen  as  the  central  goal  in  pushing  forward  with 
internationalisation. 

Gaining  access  to  new  markets,  talent  and  human  resources  is  also  a  key  objective. 
Strengthening competitiveness by absorbing know-how and talent on a global scale is seen as 
necessary to cope successfully with global challenges. The issue of human resources plays a 
central role: getting access to know-how or markets via talented researchers has become a top 
criterion even for business investments13. 

Coping with global challenges through international cooperation is another central objective, 
for  instance  in  the  areas  of  climate  change,  food  security,  sustainable  development,  energy 
supply,  health  and  security.  Internationalisation  strategies  also  include  cooperation  with 
developing countries. 

9 

10 

11 

12 
13 

Good examples for specific country approaches are the China strategies of e.g. France and Germany or 
Finland’s USA action plan. 
For an overview and more details see http://ec.europa.eu/research/iscp/pdf/drivers_sti.pdf (referred to as 
‘Drivers Study’). 
See  Innovation  Union  Scoreboard  2012,  http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/files/ius-
2011_en.pdf , p. 7. 
For a good overview, see Figure 2 of the above-mentioned ‘Drivers Study’ and chapter 4.2. 
See e.g. OECD, The Internationalisation of Business R&D, 2008. 

EN 

29 

   EN 

                                                 
Historical and geographical roots play an important role in selecting partners. Strengthening 
cultural,  historical  and  linguistic  ties  is  still  a  strong  motive  for  internationalisation.  In 
addition  to  these  cultural  or  historical  factors,  cooperation  with  the  BRICS  country  group 
(Brazil,  Russia,  India,  China,  South  Africa)  has  become  a  priority  for  nearly  all  European 
countries: China and India in particular are of strategic importance for most Member States. 

However, the patterns of research and innovation cooperation show that researchers have their 
own  priorities,  values  and  networks.  Most  international  activities  are  undertaken  bottom-up 
and prioritise partners in the highly industrialised countries. Cooperation with researchers in 
industrialised  countries  —  especially  with  US  partners  —  is  favoured  by  most  European 
researchers14. 

3.1.3 

Instruments and measures of internationalisation 

Member  States  use  a  variety  of  measures  and  instruments  to  strengthen  research  and 
innovation  internationalisation15.  These  range  from  preparatory  measures  and  small-scale 
funding for individual mobility, exploratory visits or brokerage missions to the establishment 
of off-shore units and joint institutes with a third country. These institutional settings often 
function  as  bridgeheads  for  bilateral  cooperation  and  are  linked  to  business  activities  and 
enterprises. Joint institutions may serve as hubs for the exchange of know-how and people. A 
recent trend is the use of internationally open calls by national funding agencies, or the launch 
of joint calls by research ministries and ministries in charge of foreign affairs. 

Joint  funding  mechanisms  and  joint  programmes  with  third  countries  play  a  key  role  as 
well.  These  programmes  often  address  specific  areas  of  common  interest  or  target  specific 
technology fields, integrating researchers from both sides in the decision-making processes as 
well as in the research activities. The integration of private partners (enterprises, SMEs, etc.) 
supports the development and application of new technologies in new environments. 

Science  &  technology  agreements  are  still  used  as  an  instrument  to  establish  a  framework 
for  bilateral  collaboration,  even  if  some  countries  (such  as  the  UK)  generally  do  not  define 
their priorities within this context. Especially for smaller Member States, and the more recent 
Member  States,  S&T  agreements  are  an  additional  measure  to  facilitate  access  by  domestic 
researchers to complementary expertise  and  to promote exchange. Within Europe,  however, 
and  in  relation  to  neighbouring  countries,  S&T  agreements  have  lost  much  of  their 
significance16. 

3.1.4  Thematic priorities 

Various reports underline that thematic prioritisation takes place, but that it is broadly defined, 
mentioning  areas  such  as  reliable  energy  supply,  sustainable  development  or  health. 
Internationalisation  strategies  often  do  not  go  beyond  this  level.  Bilateral  calls  and  funding 
mechanisms, however, often specify the areas of mutual interest. In agreements with Brazil, 
research on bio-fuels is mentioned by several Member States. Cooperation with China often 

14 

15 
16 

Competitiveness  through  internationalisation  —  Evaluation  of  the  means  and  mechanisms  for 
promoting  internationalisation  in  technology  programmes,  ed.  TEKES,  Helsinki  2004,  p.  35, 
http://www.tekes.fi/en/documents/43275/competitiveness_through_internationalisation.pdf. 
For detailed information, see ‘Drivers Study’, chapter 4.5 Policy instruments. 
See ‘Drivers Study’, chapter 4.5. 

EN 

30 

   EN 

                                                 
focuses  on  health/biotechnology,  nanotechnology/material  sciences  and  ICT.  Cooperation 
with  India  covers  biotechnology,  pharmaceutical  research,  ICT  and  research  related  to  food 
and water. For the African countries, health issues — infectious diseases and public health — 
are  highly  prioritised.  Other  areas  are  environment-related  research  (water  technologies/ 
management of water resources) and biodiversity. 

3.1.5  Member State action to support the internationalisation of business R & D 

The  internationalisation  of  business  R&D  has  an  internal  and  an  external  dimension. 
Attracting business R&D investment is often a key objective of internationalisation strategies, 
at  which  some  Member  States  are  quite  successful.  In  Ireland  and  Hungary,  more  than  two 
thirds of business R&D comes from foreign affiliates, while in Belgium the figure is nearly 
60 % and in Sweden and the Czech Republic around 50 %17. 

Business  internationalisation  is  often  supported  by  institutional  arrangements.  France  and 
India,  for  example,  have  founded  the  Indo-French  Centre  for  the  Promotion  of  Advanced 
Research  as  a  joint  venture  in  New  Delhi.  Germany  and  India  opened  a  joint  Indo-German 
Science and Technology Centre in New Delhi in 2008 with the explicit goal of strengthening 
bilateral  business  cooperation.  Several  Member  States  have  opened  Innovation  Houses  or 
innovation  hubs  to  support  the  internationalisation  of  their  firms.  China  and  the  USA 
especially, but also Brazil and Singapore, are target countries for these ambitions. 

3.2 

Strategic Forum for International Science and Technology Cooperation (SFIC) 

3.2.1  History 

In 2008, the Commission adopted the Communication ‘A Strategic European Framework for 
International  Science  and  Technology  Cooperation’18  with  the  objective  of  strengthening 
science  and  technology  cooperation  with  non-EU  countries.  The  Communication  expressed 
the need for a strategy at European level to overcome the duplication of efforts by Member 
States and the Commission to engage with third countries, resulting in a waste of resources 
and  sub-optimal  impact.  A  strong  partnership  between  the  Member  States  and  the 
Commission would be at the core of a strategy to define priorities for cooperation with third 
countries,  based  on  common  interest  and  mutual  benefit,  and  to  pursue  these  in  a  coherent 
way. 

The  Competitiveness  Council  of  2  December  200819  invited  the  Member  States  and  the 
Commission  to  form  a  European  partnership  in  the  field  of  international  scientific  and 
technological  cooperation  and  to  establish  a  Strategic  Forum  for  International  Science  and 
Technology Cooperation (SFIC)20 to drive forward this partnership. 

In May 201021, the Council acknowledged the progress made by the SFIC in developing the 
European  partnership  and  pilot  initiatives  on  cooperation  with  selected  third  countries.  The 

17 

18 
19

20

21 

Here referred to as Foreign Direct Investments in R&D; for details see OECD, Internationalisation of 
Business R&D. 
COM(2008) 588. 
Council Conclusions 16763/08. 
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/policies/era/sfic 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/areas/cooperation/sfic_en.html. 
Council Conclusions 11032/11. 

EN 

31 

   EN 

                                                 
 
 
Council invited Member States and the Commission to consider supporting implementation of 
the pilot initiatives, to build upon these initiatives when developing a future European strategy 
for international cooperation, and to work towards coordinated positions on research-related 
topics in international summits and fora. 

Commitment 3122 of the Innovation Union Flagship23 recalls that the Union and its Member 
States should treat scientific cooperation with third countries as an issue of common concern 
and develop common approaches. 

3.2.2  Mandate and structure of the SFIC 

The Council gave the SFIC the following mandate: 

‘To  facilitate  the  further  development,  implementation  and  monitoring  of  the  international 
dimension  of  ERA  by  the  sharing  of  information  and  consultation  between  the  partners 
(Member  States  and  the  Commission)  with  a  view  to  identifying  common  priorities  which 
could lead to coordinated or joint initiatives, and coordinating activities and positions vis-à-
vis third countries and within international fora.’ 

The  SFIC  is  composed  of  two  representatives  of  each  Member  State  and  the  Commission. 
Associated  Countries  participate  as  observers.  The  General  Secretariat  of  the  Council 
provides  the  SFIC  secretariat  and  the  Chair  and  Vice-Chair  are  elected  from  Member  State 
delegates. A taskforce composed of voluntary SFIC members and observers assists the Chair 
in  the  preparation  of  plenary  meetings.  The  Commission  provides  the  secretariat  for  the 
taskforce.  The  SFIC  develops  two-yearly  work  programmes  and  reports  annually  to  the 
Council and the Commission. 

3.2.3  Achievements 

India initiative 

In 2009 the SFIC chose India for a pilot initiative. A technical group was set up to develop the 
India initiative, which in the first instance focused on water-related challenges. In November 
2010, a conference was organised in New Delhi with the Indian Department of Science and 
Technology. The results of the conference provided input for the development of a strategic 
research  and  innovation  agenda  (SRIA).  In  June  2011  a  joint  EU/MS  awareness-raising 
campaign was launched in India by the Science Counsellors in Delhi. 

During  preparation  of  the  SRIA,  it  was  expanded  to  cover  bioresources,  energy,  health  and 
ICT.  The  SRIA  is  strongly  coordinated  with  other  EU/MS  initiatives  in  the  thematic  areas 
addressed.  The  SRIA  was  transmitted  to  the  Indian  government  in  November  2011.  A  joint 
declaration  on  research  and  innovation  was  signed  at  the  EU-India  Summit  of  10  February 
2012 and a large stakeholder event and a ministerial meeting were held in Brussels on 31 May 
and 1 June 2012 to officially promote the SRIA. 

22 
23 

http://i3s.ec.europa.eu/commitment/35.html. 
COM(2010) 546. 

EN 

32 

   EN 

                                                 
USA initiative 

In  2010  the  SFIC  selected  the  USA  for  a  pilot  initiative  on  an  industrialised  country.  A 
questionnaire  collected  information  about  SFIC  members’  and  observers’  cooperation  with 
the USA and a report summarising the results was produced24. 

In October 2011 a workshop on EU/MS-USA cooperation was organised. In December 2011 
SFIC  delegates  participated  in  a  conference  under  the  auspices  of  the  Polish  Presidency  in 
Washington on enhancing EU/MS-USA collaboration. The SFIC was also involved in the first 
‘Destination Europe’ conference in January 2012 in Boston. 

These  activities  resulted  in  a  concept  paper  for  the  USA  initiative  roadmap,  which  was 
discussed in the SFIC plenary in March 2012 and will be further developed in 2012. 

China initiative 

The third geographical choice made by the SFIC in 2010 was China. The initial focus was on 
collecting information about Chinese research and innovation systems, policies and strategies. 
In  2011  two  workshops  were  organised  to  improve  knowledge  of  EU/MS  activities  on 
research and innovation with China, identify policy priorities and understand the possibilities 
for cooperation with China. Based on their outcome, a rolling roadmap for the development of 
an  EU/MS-China  strategic  research  and  innovation  agenda  (SRIA)  has  been  established.  In 
March 2012 the SFIC agreed on a first set of thematic areas — energy, urbanisation, health, 
ICT — on which to develop an SRIA. 

Bi-regional relations 

In  2009  a  strategic  approach  to  multilateral  and  bi-regional  research  cooperation  was 
explored. The SFIC decided to contribute to such initiatives through the appropriate channels 
and defined its role as a platform to facilitate a common European position at an early stage. 
As a result, the SFIC contributed to the research and innovation aspects of the EU-AU summit 
in 2010 and the EU-LAC summit in 2011. 

3.2.4  Outlook 

The second strategic SFIC seminar took place in May 2012. The focus was on: defining the 
added  value  of  joint  European  international  cooperation;  articulating  the  vision  of  the  SFIC 
for a European strategy on international research and innovation cooperation; deciding on the 
main  focus  areas  of  the  SFIC’s  forthcoming  work;  and  on  evaluation  and  monitoring 
mechanisms to assess impact. 

The 2011-12 work programme refers to Brazil and Russia as the next geographical priorities 
to be explored, and the taskforce is preparing for a plenary discussion by the end of the 2012. 

For the India initiative, the implementation phase of the SRIA is approaching. The holding of 
a Senior Official Meeting was announced in the joint EU-India declaration in May 2012. 

24 

http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/pdf/report-on-sfic-questionnaire_en.pdf  

EN 

33 

   EN 

                                                 
The  USA  and  China  initiatives  should  move  towards  strategic  research  and  innovation 
agendas building on existing EU/MS thematic initiatives and the experience gained from the 
India pilot. 

In developing SFIC initiatives, interaction with other ERA groups, Science Counsellors of the 
Commission  in  third  countries,  stakeholders  and  other  European  initiatives  will  be  actively 
pursued to ensure European coherence. 

4. 

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION ACTIVITIES OF THIRD COUNTRIES 

4.1 

Developments on the global scene 

Over the last decade, the centre of gravity of world research and innovation has shifted. While 
the regions bordering the Atlantic Ocean remain a focal area — and will continue to do so — 
for many disciplines or key technologies, there have been shifts towards greater dominance by 
Asian  countries.  However,  despite  their  impressive  and  growing  research  and  innovation 
capacities, Japan, South Korea, China, India and other ‘Asian Tigers’ all approach the West 
separately,  looking  for  cooperation.  For  historical,  political  and  economic  reasons,  they 
merely share geographical proximity rather than constituting an integrated community. 

There has been a tangible increase in collaboration between countries outside the Union, USA 
and  Japan,  in  what  was  formerly  called  the  BRICS  ‘South-South’  partnership.  However, 
cooperation  between  the  BRICS  themselves  or  between  the  BRICS  and  less  developed 
countries  —  observable  through  co-publications  for  instance  —  still  remains  marginal.  In 
many cases, existing collaboration appears to support specific national economic interests (i.e. 
high-technology equipment exports, access to natural resources) rather than reflect real win-
win partnerships. 

Countries  grouped  in  regional  organisations  such  as  MERCOSUR  and  ASEAN,  which  face 
economic  hurdles,  are  making  continuing  efforts  to  better  integrate  their  research  and 
innovation systems. In recent years, Russia and the countries of the Eastern Partnership have 
been pursuing an active policy of integration with the global community and have singled out 
Europe as their priority partner for international cooperation in research and higher education. 

Many of the developing countries which, until now, were integrated in international research 
and innovation cooperation primarily in the form of support provided by developed countries, 
are now asking for their own demands to be taken on board more directly. 

During  the  last  decade,  interest  in  international  cooperation  in  research  and  innovation  has 
grown rapidly in many countries, in terms of visibility, geographical scope and also budgetary 
size. As an example, Japan, which has historically been relatively self-centred, is modifying 
its policy and is moving towards openness to foreign partners. 

The  post-2008  financial  and  economic  crisis  has  reduced  the  resources  devoted  to  research 
and  innovation,  while  at  the  same  time  there  has  been  a  strong  need  to  stimulate 
competitiveness  to  restore  weakened  national  economies.  This  has  considerably  influenced 
the drivers for international cooperation, with great attention now being given to innovation as 
a catalyst for growth. 

EN 

34 

   EN 

4.2 

Drivers of international cooperation strategies 

As  is  the  case  for  Europe,  the  main  driver  of  cooperation  activities  by  third  countries  is,  to 
improve  the  quality,  scope  and  critical  mass  of  research  and  innovation  by  linking  national 
and international financial and human resources. 

The aim is to have access to state-of-the-art knowledge abroad — for instance in Europe — 
and  to  attract  it  back  to  the  home  country.  Joint  research  activities  are  conducted  to  tackle 
common challenges. In emerging countries, an additional aim is to build up national capacity. 

The common objectives of different third countries are: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Achieving  research  excellence  and  improving  competitiveness  (emerging  and 
industrialised  economies).  In  terms  of  thematic  areas  of  collaboration,  there  are  a 
limited  number  of  areas 
to  select:  nanotechnologies, 
that  countries  seem 
biotechnologies  (and  life  sciences),  research  related  to  climate  change,  physics,  big 
science projects, ICT, and, on a second level, oceanography and medical research. 

Attracting  human  resources.  The  advanced  countries  are  mostly  in  search  of 
excellence and aim to attract human resources. On the other hand, countries such as 
China, which have seen significant outward mobility, have launched major incentive 
measures to repatriate researchers who have gone abroad. 

Sharing  the  growing  cost  of  big  science  research  facilities,  e.g.  ITER,  where, 
besides the Union, there is support from the USA, Japan, China, India and Russia. 

Building research and innovation capacity through people and institutions. This is 
especially the case for emerging countries. 

Tackling  global  challenges  such  as  climate  change,  natural  disasters,  epidemic  or 
pandemic diseases, biodiversity, new energies. 

Supporting  less  developed  countries  by  developing  research  and  innovation 
capacity, often related to global challenges. 

Creating good and stable diplomatic relationships (e.g. the USA, Russia, Australia). 

Creating regional research and innovation cooperation areas (e.g. South Africa). 

There  is  no  clear  pattern  as  to  which  of  these  drivers  defines  the  geographic  direction  of 
research and innovation cooperation. Regarding the search for excellence, however, the focus 
is  clearly  on  establishing  cooperation  with  world-class  research  and  innovation,  located 
mainly in the USA, the Union and, to a lesser degree, Japan. 

There  are  differences  between  the  advanced  countries  (such  Australia,  Canada,  Japan,  US, 
etc.)  and  those  that  are  in  the  process  of  becoming  more  internationally  connected  (such  as 
India or China), or which have significant catching up to do in terms of building or reforming 
their research and innovation capacity (such as Brazil, Mexico, Russia or South Africa). For 
the first group, the most common driver is to connect domestic researchers with the best in the 
world,  regardless  of  location.  The  second  group  suffers  from  brain  drain  rather  than  brain 
gain. Building research and innovation capacities is a way for these countries to attract (back) 

EN 

35 

   EN 

or  retain  researchers  in  the  system,  and  to  open  up  the  national  system  to  bring  it  up  to 
international quality standards. 

Development aid research collaboration has a strong synergy with tackling global issues such 
as fighting infectious diseases and mitigating the effects of climate change. The geographical 
linkages  of  collaboration  in  the  field  of  development  aid  are  mostly  influenced  by 
international diplomatic and cultural ties. 

4.3 

Forms of cooperation 

Even  in  the  few  countries  with  an  overarching  research  and  innovation  internationalisation 
strategy, the policy on cooperation is mostly a mix of actions and individual measures taken 
by  different  actors  rather  than  a  well-developed  policy  mix:  administrations  directly 
responsible  for  research  and  innovation;  public  or  non-profit  organisations  tasked  with 
funding  of  research  and  innovation;  research-performing  institutions  and  academia; 
multilateral  research  organisations;  enterprises;  and  clusters.  In  this  respect,  in  the  most 
advanced  and  emerging  economies,  basic  and  applied  research  collaboration  appears  to 
remain largely researcher-driven. 

Regional  government  plays  a  growing  role  in  research  and  innovation  internationalisation. 
Several  larger  countries  (Australia,  Brazil,  Canada,  Mexico,  and  the  USA)  —  apart  from 
having national policies — now have regional governments actively involved in international 
cooperation. 

International  cooperation  is  supported  through  many  policy  instruments,  most  with  a  long 
history.  Third  countries  use  bilateral  or  multilateral  S&T  agreements.  More  recently,  many 
countries are opening up national programmes to attract research and innovation investment 
or the collaboration of foreign public or private research organisations. 

5. 

MULTILATERAL FORA AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS 

5.1 

European intergovernmental research organisations and initiatives 

5.1.1  Research as a precursor of European unification 

Post-Second  World  War  Europe  concentrated  on  research  and  innovation  cooperation  as  a 
means  of  advancing  knowledge  and  consolidating  peace,  initially  within  the  continent  but 
then beyond. CERN and COST (Cooperation on Science and Technology) are early examples, 
which  inspired  over  the  next  30  years  the  blossoming  of  other  world-leading  research 
organisations such as EMBL (European Molecular Biology Laboratory) and ESRF (European 
Synchrotron  Research  Facility),  which  come  together  under  the  EIROforum25  (European 
Intergovernmental  Research  Organisations)  partnership,  as  well  as  initiatives  such  as 
EUREKA (launched in 1985). These European intergovernmental research organisations and 
initiatives  are  essentially  based  on  Member  State/EEA/EFTA  membership,  but  with  recent 
opening to the rest of the world. 

These  organisations  and  initiatives  together  command  a  significant  annual  budget,  which, 
without  being  part  of  the  Union  budget,  is  still  European  in  the  sense  that  each  of  these 

25 

http://www.eiroforum.org. 

EN 

36 

   EN 

                                                 
organisations  has  to  a  greater  or  lesser  extent  a  European  vocation  beyond  that  of  its 
members. 

Since the intergovernmental character of such research organisations is not easy to duplicate 
today, more flexible forms of organisation for large- and medium-scale international research 
organisations  are  being  sought.  To  this  end,  a  new  legal  structure  called  ERIC  (European 
Research  Infrastructure  Consortium)  has  been  created  for  research  infrastructures  involving 
the collaboration of several Member States and possibly international partners as well. ERICs 
are not limited to traditional single-location physical infrastructures, but can also be used for 
e-infrastructures such as GEANT, whose importance is growing. 

ITER  is  an  example  of  an  organisation  conceived  from  its  inception  as  global,  but  which 
would  not  have  been  possible  without  a  strong  European  core  built  over  the  years  around 
EFDA-JET. 

5.1.2  Strong Union support for EIROs and European research initiatives 

From the early days of the Framework Programme, cooperation links have been forged with 
several  European  research  organisations.  For  example,  an  administrative  arrangement  was 
signed  between  the  Commission  and  CERN  in  1985,  putting  collaboration  between  the  two 
organisations on a firm footing and according the Commission observer status on the CERN 
Council.  Similarly,  since  the  mid-eighties,  the  Framework  Programmes  have  funded  the 
networking  activities  and  central  administrative  costs  of  COST.  Furthermore,  the  Rules  of 
Participation  have  been  changed  since  FP6  to  recognise  international  European-interest 
organisations as special entities, thus facilitating their participation. 

Partnership with these organisations and initiatives has grown through the European Research 
Area  initiative.  Already  in  2003,  a  statement  of  intent  to  strengthen  cooperation  was  signed 
between  the  Commission  and  EIROforum.  Following  the  2008  ERA  initiatives,  and  the 
increasing  global  opening  of  EIROs,  a  new  generation  of  arrangements  was  signed  with 
CERN (2009), EMBL (2011) and EIROforum (2010). The partnership covers a broad range 
of  issues,  from  fundamental  research  and  future  infrastructures  to  mobility  of  researchers, 
science  education,  the  promotion  of  innovation,  the  development  of  European  strategic 
research  agendas  and  global  initiatives.  A  recent  example  is  the  collaboration  with  CERN 
under  FP7  for  equipping  the  Jordan-based  international  synchrotron  facility  SESAME  with 
state-of-the-art magnets, thus helping to promote ‘peace-through-science’ in this troubled part 
of the world. 

Equally  important  has  been  the  strengthened  partnership  with  EUREKA,  of  which  the 
Commission  is  a  member,  which  resulted  in  the  launching  of  the  highly  successful 
EUROSTARS initiative under Article 185 TFEU in FP7, as well as a number of strategically 
important Joint Technology Initiatives (ARTEMIS, ENIAC) under Article 187 TFEU. 

The  Union  as  a  strong  partner  of  global  international  organisations  and 

5.2 
multilateral fora and initiatives 

A variety of international organisations and multilateral fora address research and innovation 
issues to a greater or lesser extent. In recent years, this tendency has accelerated, as tackling 
global challenges is increasingly relying on international cooperation. 

EN 

37 

   EN 

The  Commission  has  long-standing  cooperation  with  many  UN  group  organisations, 
subsidiary agencies and Conventions or Conferences under its auspices. Cooperation with the 
UN is explicitly recognised in the TFEU. 

For  example,  there  is  cooperation  at  both  project  and  policy  dialogue  level  with  UNEP  on 
environmental issues and resource efficiency (International Resource Panel), with the WMO 
on ozone depletion and climate change issues, with WHO on world health issues, including 
environmental  impacts  on  health,  with  UNESCO  and  its  subsidiary  bodies  on  a  variety  of 
issues,  such  as  ethics  in  science,  cultural  heritage  or  marine  science  and  the  sustainable 
management  of  the  oceans,  and  with  the  IAEA  and  its  subsidiary  bodies  on  nuclear  safety 
issues. 

DG  RTD  participates  actively  in  negotiations  under  the  UN  Framework  Convention  on 
Climate Change (UNFCCC), both in terms of providing policy advice to DG CLIMA as well 
acting as lead service for the EU Council Expert Group on Climate Science in the Working 
Party  on  International  Environmental  Governance.  Equally  important  is  participation  in  the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity 
and Ecosystem Services and the work of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. 

There  is  also  strong  engagement  in  various  OECD  committees  (notably  the  Committee  on 
S&T  Policy  —  CSTP),  fora  (notably  the  Global  Science  Forum  —  GSF),  various  working 
parties  (e.g.  on  nanotechnology  and  biotechnology),  or  affiliated  organisations  such  as  the 
International  Energy  Agency,  as  well  as  with  OECD  specialised  services,  notably  on 
indicators. 

There  are  also  autonomous  organisations  dealing  with  important  global  issues  where  Union 
engagement  is  important,  for  example  the  Consultative  Group  on  International  Agricultural 
research (CGIAR) and the Group on Earth Observation (GEO). 

Moreover,  there  are  international  scientific  and  technological  initiatives  where  the 
Commission has a strong presence, notably the Human Frontier Science Programme (HFSP) 
and Intelligent Manufacturing Systems (IMS). 

Issues  of  research  and  science  governance  at  global  level  are  becoming  increasingly 
important, and strong engagement is essential. This is already being seen, for example, in the 
work by the OECD GSF on Scientific Misconduct, or by UNESCO on scientific ethics issues. 
Particular attention also needs to be paid to global initiatives like that recently launched by the 
US NSF on a Global Research Council. 

Formal agreements (often in the form of MoUs) exist between the Union or the Commission 
(sometimes  in  the  form  of  implementing  arrangements)  and  many  of  these  organisations. 
Research  and  innovation  are  sometimes  explicitly  identified  as  cooperation  fields.  Such 
agreements allow for recognition of the cooperation at the highest political level, and create a 
framework  for  structured  policy  dialogue  or  joint  actions.  Many  of  these  organisations 
participate in actions under the Framework Programme. 

Engaging  with  international  organisations,  international  fora  and  other global  initiatives  can 
be  mutually  beneficial,  but  can  also  be  time-consuming.  Therefore,  careful  prioritisation 
against  specific  research  and  innovation  objectives,  as  well  as  more  general  Union  policy 
objectives, needs to be carried out on a case-by-case basis. The potential benefits are many: 
access to truly global fora, often at the highest political level; keeping in touch with the latest 
thinking  and  deliberations  on  global  research  and  innovation  issues,  and  being  able  to 

EN 

38 

   EN 

influence  agenda  setting  and  the  shaping  of  global  research  agendas;  contributing  to  their 
implementation by incorporating parts of them in FP actions; ensuring that the latest scientific 
information  feeds  into  relevant  international  negotiation  processes;  obtaining  the  necessary 
scientific  advice  to  develop  sectoral  policies,  such  as  on  climate  change;  and  enhancing  the 
visibility of the Union. 

6. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

6.1 

Information gathering system 

To support the new strategic approach to international cooperation, an enhanced information 
gathering system is required to provide timely information both to guide the choice of areas 
and  help  identify  appropriate  international  partners.  This  should  be  distinguished  from  the 
information  required  to  monitor  and  evaluate  international  cooperation  activities  and  their 
impact — as discussed in the following section. 

In essence the information system will provide: 

(i) 

(ii) 

(ii) 

foresight/horizon scanning to establish the global potential of an area and to identify 
emerging challenges; 

analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT analysis) for 
each  of  the  Horizon  2020  challenges  and  enabling  and  industrial  technologies,  in 
terms of both research potential and market potential; 

country-specific qualitative and quantitative information for charting and analysis of 
the  research  and  innovation  landscape  (research  &  innovation  policies,  research 
capacities,  programmes,  infrastructures,  actors,  etc.)  and  other  political,  social, 
economic and legal information pertinent to international cooperation. 

The  enhancement  and  greater  focusing  of  international  cooperation  in  Horizon 2020  will 
require  foresight/horizon  scanning  actions  to  establish  cooperation  areas  with  a  view  to 
pursuing  a  global,  rather  than  intra-European,  approach.  Programme  managers  will  need  to 
consider,  over  a  long-term  perspective,  where  global  innovation  ‘hotspots’  are  likely  to 
emerge and how this will influence future European research capacity and market prospects. 

Information on research capacities and policies in Member States and selected third countries 
is currently systematically collected under ERAWATCH26 and ‘ERAWATCH International’ 
activities. In future, as indicated in the Communication, increased attention will be paid to the 
systematic  collection  of  both  qualitative  and  quantitative  information  on  international 
cooperation as part of the new Research and Innovation Observatory (RIO). This will include, 
for  the  first  time,  the  systematic  collection  of  information  on  the  international  cooperation 
actions of the Member States, for which a pilot study is already underway. Data collected on 
third  countries  under  the  Innovation  Union  Competitiveness  (IUC)  database  will  also  be 
further  differentiated  to  give  a  clearer  quantitative  picture  of  trends  developing  in  selected 
countries. 

26 

http://erawatch.jrc.ec.europa.eu. 

EN 

39 

   EN 

                                                 
Another  new  element  in  the  data  and  information  gathering  system  will  be  the  systematic 
inclusion of third countries, where a SWOT-type analysis will be carried out by programme 
managers  to  determine  areas  for  cooperation.  The  assessment  of  opportunities  for  enhanced 
international  cooperation  in  research  and  innovation  will  be  particularly  important.  In 
preparation, action will be taken to establish the basis for internationally comparable analyses 
and to conduct analyses on selected non-EU countries. This information, together with much 
of  that  collected  under  RIO,  will  be  publically  available  and  will  thereby  underpin  the 
determination of common priorities and joint actions by the Union and Member States. 

6.2 

Indicators to measure progress 

6.2.1 

International cooperation in Horizon 2020 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Number of targeted international cooperation actions and the total budget associated 
with them; 

Total  budget  invested  by  Member  States  in  international  cooperation  through 
Horizon 2020; 

Total budget invested by third countries in international cooperation through Horizon 
2020; 

Number of projects with participants from third countries and their share of the total 
number of projects funded through Horizon 2020; 

Number of participants from third countries and the amount of funding they receive 
from Horizon 2020, and their shares in the total number of Horizon 2020 participants 
and Horizon 2020 budget. 

International  cooperation  policies  and  programmes  of  the  Member  States  and 

6.2.2 
Associated Countries 

– 

– 

Number of joint programmes of Member States and Associated Countries with third 
countries and the total budget associated with them; 

Investment of Member States and Associated Countries in international cooperation 
activities coordinated at European level (e.g. through the SFIC). 

6.2.3 

Internationalisation of research and innovation 

Indicators reflecting the internationalisation of research and innovation: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Scientific co-publications with authors from different countries; growth over time; 

Exchange of researchers, notably between the Union and key third countries; growth 
over time; 

World  map  of  innovator  networks  based  on  co-patent  activities  between  different 
countries; growth rates over time; 

Overall cross-country flows of business R&D; 

International flows of royalties and licences. 

EN 

40 

   EN