Chapter 5.6. of the working document deals with Opening to the world: international cooperation in S&T, it is devided in several sub-chapters and covers several statistics.

Reinforcing coherence, coordination and synergies

A coordinated and efficient use of tools and resources for S&T cooperation is needed
The analysis of the on-line questionnaire shows that there is strong support (86% of respondents) for the European Commission and Member States to work together to define common European priorities for international S&T cooperation. Hence, it is not surprising that 89% also see a need for the EC and Member States to ensure a coordinated and efficient use of tools and resources. It is worth noting that 69% of respondents agree that making S&T cooperation more central to other areas of international relations is vital.
Some respondents propose that the Commission should perform a systematic study on possible research fields where common interests can be identified in order to clearly define the objectives. In this context, it is pointed out that priority-setting for international S&T cooperation could start with assessing the priority goals and mutual strengths of the parties involved.

Ensure joint responsibilities between EU Member States and the Commission
In addition, respondents suggest establishing tools for developing joint responsibilities (e.g. “roadmaps”) including mechanisms that promote the development of a “common position” of the EU, including Members States and the Commission. 84% of respondents agree that communication and coherence between national and Community programmes and policies for international S&T cooperation need to be enhanced and 70% of the respondents would prefer to use the existing coordination mechanisms and instruments (e.g. Member State representatives; advisory groups; Programme Committees, Working Groups; ERA-Nets) to ensure joint responsibility.
Moreover, 57% of respondents to the on-line questionnaire support a dedicated joint forum to identify and agree international initiatives, and 56.5% prefer closer involvement of third countries and/or other stakeholders (e.g. civil society organisations) in setting up policies.
Especially, the governments of Germany, Ireland, and the Netherlands support a more coherent approach with respect to third countries. Germany and the Netherlands even suggest setting up a high-level group or dialogue forum on international S&T cooperation for the purpose of drawing up and implementing an internationalisation strategy for the European Research Area.

Most respondents call for a realistic strategy that sets challenging but limited and pragmatic goals to ensure efficient coordination and a strong “one-voice” policy. Some respondents suggest enhancing coordination between the different Commissions DGs (e.g. Research, Education and Culture, Enterprise and Industry, External Relations, Development). The EU Science Counsellors in Beijing express the need to create in order to support the EU to define common priorities and to “speak with one voice” “focal points” in third countries, which could become a common reference for all Member States in a particular area and a “gateway” towards Europe for third-country authorities.

Flexibility is key to international S&T cooperation with third countries
In the free-form responses stakeholders from industry point out that flexibility is essential.
Various respondents also refer to the principle of variable geometry that would leave Member States the choice of participating in European actions (e.g. ERA-Nets). Furthermore, respondents stress that there should be no obligation to include partners from a particular country for reasons of political and financial equity. A general model for the cooperation between the EU and third countries is not deemed to be realistic because the conditions and requirements vary significantly among third countries. In this context, the Open Method of Coordination should be favoured to coordinate national policies.
In general, a broad majority of stakeholders of all categories express significant support for closer cooperation between the Member States and the Community, in particular in areas of global significance. Indeed, a Chamber of Commerce, for example, proposes that the European tools for cooperation with third countries should support coordination rather than provide financial assistance. Others point out: “There is no possible coordination without a previous sharing of information.”
In this context a closer involvement of third countries in terms of priority-setting or project development and a dedicated joint forum of Member States and the Commission to identify and agree on international initiatives are equally supported by stakeholders. In both cases the public sector research performers and governmental bodies show a high percentage of support.

A differentiated approach to international S&T cooperation

Differentiation into groups of countries is necessary to better tailor international S&T cooperation
Respondents to the on-line questionnaire recognise that a clear differentiation into groups of countries namely neighbouring countries, developing countries, and industrialised/emerging economies is indispensable to develop the respective objectives. The Belgium Federal Science Policy Office, the Irish Government and the European Conference of Transport Research Institutes all point out that differentiation and flexibility need to be combined with a “bottomup” approach since not every Member State may have the capacities to contribute to solving global or multilateral problems. By creating bodies similar to ESFRI or setting up a forum with representatives of the Member States, the research community and third countries, it would be possible to discuss and coordinate initiatives in the area of international S&T cooperation. Moreover, the majority (80% of the respondents to the on-line questionnaire) support programmes of mutual benefit, particularly to address global challenges for “industrialised and emerging countries”. This is also strongly expressed in the free-form
responses.
For those countries where S&T agreements with the EC exist, the structures under these agreements should be used for this purpose. Furthermore, this might argue for the development of regional S&T agreements (rather than bilateral S&T agreements) in future, which could be used as the basis for developing new coordinated initiatives.
Some respondents stress the necessity of intensified cooperation with less developed regions and the support for those countries that cannot solve their problems on their own (some of these problems include global challenges such as energy and water supply, infectious diseases, ageing population). S&T capacity-building for developing countries to develop S&T infrastructures, skills and research resources is considered very important (75% of the respondents to the on-line questionnaire). The International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, for example, stresses that “such collaboration must include a significant focus on strengthening their science and technology capacity, supporting their sustainable development in close liaison with development policy, and working with them as partners in global initiatives”. In this context, a University Association points out that EU instruments should help to facilitate common approaches in areas of mutual interest and benefit for international S&T cooperation between universities in industrialised and developing countries in addressing global sustainable development.

Strengthen the international cooperation tools of the Framework Programme
European research cooperation with partner countries should be organised through the EC Framework Programmes for Research, especially through calls for proposals targeting specific countries or groups of countries (80% of the respondents to the on-line questionnaire). This has to be coordinated with Member State actions. S&T cooperation through the Community and Member States’ bilateral S&T agreements and other external EU policies and programmes (e.g. the European Neighbourhood Policy) is judged less important (60% of the respondents to the on-line questionnaire). In the free-form responses stakeholders point out that a flexible and differentiated approach with regard to regions and topics is needed. The role of the new INCO-Nets that are focused on stimulating dialogue on research cooperation with specific world regions should be analysed in the near future in order to reveal potential for further developing a differentiated approach.

Closer integration of neighbourhood countries is strongly supported
Associating neighbourhood countries with the ERA is considered as an important step by 50% of the respondents to the on-line questionnaire. With regard to neighbouring and developing countries, the Federal Science Policy Office of Belgium stated: “Research cooperation with neighbouring and developing countries should focus on solving societal problems.”
Further to the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) respondents report that they have most contacts with Israel (53.5%) and Ukraine (45.5%). For Algeria, Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia the percentage of respondents is about 30%. In order to better integrate ENP countries into the ERA the importance of availability of funding is judged “very important”, whereas the coordination of research programming and sharing of infrastructures is
considered less important. The exchange and increased mobility of researchers in both directions is also considered important, but efficient “return” systems must be created. In general, a majority of stakeholders, including those from industry, supports closer integration of neighbouring countries into the ERA. However, the objectives for cooperating with neighbouring countries should be clear to all parties, taking into account both the strengths and weaknesses of the EU countries and those of the partners.
In this context, the League of European Research Universities points out that the European Commission and the Member States must work closer together regarding international S&T cooperation for the advancement of the European research systems. The Information Office of the Steering Platform on Research for the Western Balkan Countries adds that the special position of the Western Balkan countries as candidate countries and potential candidate countries (but not being part of the European Neighbourhood Policy) needs to be considered more carefully.

Community S&T agreements are useful but need to be made more effective
While in general knowledge concerning the existence of S&T agreements is rather limited (most of the public sector research performers are aware of one or more of such agreements, the majority of other respondents are not aware of any S&T agreement), 65% of respondents to the on-line questionnaire, nevertheless, mention that S&T agreements between the EC and third countries provide a useful framework for international S&T cooperation. (However, at the same time only 50% of respondents are aware of one or more S&T agreements which have been concluded between the EU and third countries.) However, 52% also think that these agreements need to be made more effective. This position is supported in several free-form responses, for example by the Government of the Netherlands.
The Belgium Federal Science Policy Office suggests “benefiting from the traditional cooperation bonds of the Member States with third countries for enhancing the effectiveness of bilateral agreements”.
On the question of how to achieve more effectiveness, the general number of answers was quite low, which makes it difficult to filter clear preferences for a certain measure. However, it is judged that important measures are the reciprocity of access to R&D programmes and the availability of funding. Targeted calls for proposals with third countries could be helpful based on light and rapid procedures. Some stakeholders (both from industry and academics) find that joint calls for research projects with industrialised countries and emerging economies would be an effective measure, recalling, however, that reciprocity should receive more explicit attention when opening up European research programmes to non-EU participants. In this context co-financing should be a guarantee for the commitment of non-EU countries and the periodic meetings in the context of the Communities’ bilateral S&T agreements could deliver an opportunity for jointly discussing and defining the priorities of the involved countries as well as the usability of the existing instruments.

A stronger presence on the world scene

Better coherence between EU policies and those of regional or international
organisations is needed Almost 80% of the respondents to the on-line questionnaire believe that Europe should take a more active approach to defining the global S&T agenda in multilateral fora. The need for Europe to contribute to S&T initiatives by other international organisations such as UNESCO, OECD, and the G8 as well as with regional organisations such as the African Union, ASEAN and Mercosur also gain ample support (70% of the respondents to the on-line questionnaire agree). Some answers from the free-form contributions show that there is a need to establish more coherence between the policy objectives of the EU and those of regional or international organisations. In this context, 80% of respondents to the on-line questionnaire are in favour of Europe taking a more active approach to define the global S&T agenda in multilateral fora.
The Group of Leading Universities in Socioeconomic and Humanities proposes to bring together internationally renowned scientists in advisory bodies in order to stimulate and to define global research programmes.

“Speak with one voice” wherever appropriate
Last but not least, almost 75% of respondents express the wish that Europe “speaks with one voice” in multilateral initiatives and 69% think that this could be achieved through placing emphasis on a small number of high-priority global research related-themes to champion in international fora.

Nevertheless, also in the free-form responses some stakeholders, but also some Member States’ governments (e.g. Ireland, UK and the Netherlands) raise doubts that “speaking with one voice” is always the right approach. The answers from the free-form responses, however, clearly highlight the need to establish more coherence between the policy objectives of the EU and those of regional and international organisations.

Source: http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/pdf/comm-pdf-sec-2008-0430-1-documentdetravail_en.pdf,
http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/pdf/comm-pdf-sec-2008-0430-1-documentdetravail_en.pdf