EU science, expertise and external action

This is a note about how the EU gathers knowledge and expertise about countries outside the EU; and how this knowledge might be used to guide policy. Herein, we are obviously entering a vast world of academic and other kinds of information. Below is simply a place to gather information I have stumbled upon that seemed relevant to the topic.

European External Action Service (EEAS): types of expertise

[T]ypical foreign service characteristics (education in history, political science or law, multi-lingual, and experience abroad)…specific expertise in the field of security and defense through previous experience…clearly different from the supranational Monnet-ideal type civil servant, serving a life-time promoting European interests.

Vanhoonacker, et al., 2010, p. 16

Science Diplomacy is still a relatively new topic in the EEAS.

ERAC-SFIC 1352/20, p. 3

The EEAS was ‘launched’ in 2011 (created by the Treaty of Lisbon, signed 2007). The purpose of the EEAS is to ‘support the High Representative, who is also a Vice-President of the Commission and the President of the Foreign Affairs Council, in fulfilling his/her mandate to conduct the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) of the Union’ (COUNCIL DECISION 2010/427/EU).

CharacterDetailCitation
Educational background‘typical foreign service characteristics (education in history, political science or law, multi-lingual, and experience abroad)…specific expertise in the field of security and defense through previous experience…clearly different from the supranational Monnet-ideal type civil servant, serving a life-time promoting European interests.’Vanhoonacker, et al., 2010, p. 16
AgeThe average age of EEAS staff was 47.3 years (end of 2019).EEAS, Human Resources Report 2019, p. 46.
GenderWomen represented 34.8% of the AD population
with the gender distribution more balanced in the
lower grades AD5 to AD8 with 49.1% women. In the grades AD9 to AD13, 32.9% of staff were women while in the highest grades AD14 to AD 16 the percentage dropped to 20.4%…The majority of staff members under 30 years were women with 66.2%, while the majority of staff members older than 60 years were men with 64.5%.		EEAS, Human Resources Report 2019, pp. 39 & 46.
EthnicityNo published data.EU Whoiswho
Nationality‘The most represented countries remained Belgium, France, Germany, Italy and Spain that together made up 53.44% of the EEAS population.’EEAS, Human Resources Report 2019, p. 41.
Contractual relationship to EU4474 headcount (2019) of the EEAS is dominated by temporary staff seconded from national governments, etc. What one might call the actual core staff (i.e. full-fledged EEAS officials) indeed comprise only 35% of total headcount (2019).EEAS, Human Resources Report 2019
Background in science & technologyNo published data.‘Science Diplomacy is still a relatively new topic in the EEAS’ (ERAC-SFIC 1352/20, p. 3)
Geographic expertiseFive departments cover areas of the world – Asia-Pacific, Africa, Europe and Central Asia, the Greater Middle East and the Americas (organogram). It is not known what expertise these officials have in the relevant languages.Organogram; EU Whoiswho
Types of personnel and expertise in the EEAS

International scientific cooperation

The major area of scientific cooperation for the EU concerns regulatory cooperation between the EU executive agencies, and overseas counterparts, e.g. relations between EMA, EFSA, & FDA (USA), such as the EMA-FDA bilateral regulatory dialogue. Regrettably, not much has been written on this topic. Teixeira, et al. (2020) published a survey of such regulatory cooperation which shows it happens at a large scale.

[T]he information provided here addresses a common misconception or request-heard very often-that the FDA and the EMA “should start talking to each other…or should talk more often.” …Dialogue between the EMA and the FDA and other regulatory authorities is an established, near daily activity. Areas of cooperation have been growing and deepening for over a decade and represent substantial effort and engagement by regulators in each agency to ensure robust discussions on sensitive topics and therapeutic areas. These activities…are perceived to be of high added value.

Teixeira, et al., 2020, Are the European Medicines Agency, US Food and Drug Administration, and other international regulators talking to each other? Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics

Compared to the little written on regulatory cooperation, the EU produces vast amounts of material on R&D cooperation with countries outside the EU; the main bureaucratic entities engaged in this talk are ERAC-SFIC and DG RTD. As the table at base illustrates, quite dull reports going back years do indeed harp on the topic, generally making the recommendation that more such cooperation is needed. But, following the general principle that the more the bureaucracy generates reports, the less the significance of the activity, there is not a lot of substance behind it.

The problem is that EU does not, itself, have its own R&D institutions (that is with the exception of the JRC & the European Universities Institute). Therefore, it could not, say, sign a deal with, say, US DOE, to undertake joint R&D activities. The EU is, rather, reliant on independent institutions in the member states, e.g., universities. While it might indeed fund projects within them, it cannot I guess easily sign cooperative agreements on their behalf.

As such, where we see genuine EU-level international collaboration is where there are *actual* EU institutions to collaborate with, notably the executive agencies. Otherwise, the EU is hamstrung, at least on the R&D front, and is left repeatedly calling for greater coordination of national policies, such as through the ERAC-SFIC. This is perhaps not likely to happen as desired, because the member states do not want to hand control of these collaboration policies over to the EU. The European Commission would, perhaps, need to orchestrate a series of consortia of universities &/or research institutes, that would then form alliances outside the union. It seems that would be a difficult task.

If we return to Spinelli’s idea of European-level R&D institutions, targeted at the needs of society, & if such institutions were created (such as a network of EU funded and EU-affiliated institutes within the Eastern European member states), &/or if the JRC and EUI were given the finance and drive to build international collaborations, then one could, though, envisage a genuine European-level policy of international collaboration in science. Until that point, however, it seems unlikely such a policy will ever truly emerge outside very valuable, but inevitably, piecemeal activities within the executive agencies

EU executive agencies

International scientific relations of the European Commission, possibly also the executive agencies, European Parliament, etc. Well, a big topic, and not one I have looked at.

A 2012 EU report argued that ‘most bilateral STI agreements signed by EU Member States are of limited use. Their potential impact on STI cooperation is very small.’ The observation can be read in a number of ways, one of which to my mind is that the purpose of these instruments is not actually to encourage ‘STI cooperation’ as the authors of the report understood it (one guesses, based on the report, that ‘STI cooperation’ sort of means some aspects of publicly-funded R&D, and obviously, unless public funds are forthcoming, such R&D does not occur, internationally or otherwise). Put another way, could we not usefully look beyond R&D?

European Research Area & Innovation Committee Strategic Forum for International S&T Cooperation (ERAC-SFIC)

[C]ooperation patterns where many EU Member States establish a bilateral cooperation with one attractive partner country (e.g. China) create information asymmetries. The one preferred international partner country will have aggregated information on its cooperation with the EU Member States, but no single EU Member State will have sufficient information about the activities of the other EU Member States with the same partner country, unless some information exchange mechanisms among the EU Member States are introduced (which was…a major reason for establishing SFIC). SFIC is already active in balancing out these information asymmetries, but…more should be done

Boekholt, et al., 2020, Mutual learning exercise on national strategies and roadmaps for international cooperation in R&I
International R&I cooperation policies revisited: sustained challenges and new developments, DG RTD, pp. 18-19

The EU’s European Research Area & Innovation Committee Strategic Forum for International S&T Cooperation (ERAC-SFIC), created 2008, sits under the Council (not the Commission). It seems (based on the above quotation), intended to serve as a forum for information exchange about international cooperation between ministries & to set strategy for such activities. But it is not working as effectively as it might (again, according to the above report – and, as we will see below, this is a perennial claim about SFIC).

Like many of these bureaucratic structures, SFIC publishes ‘opinions’ on various topics, sets up working groups, and so forth (the German Federal Ministry of Innovation & Research provides a summary of SFIC). It has met four times a year in plenary since 2008. The chair is elected by SFIC members every three years with most of the SFIC members being representatives of the research ministries of their countries (please see below in the table of reports for some of the SFIC outputs known to me).

In 2020, SFIC published two papers on ‘science diplomacy’, ERAC-SFIC 1352/20 & ERAC-SFIC 1357/20, dated, respectively, 3 March & 21 September 2020 (here). ERAC-SFIC sits under the Council of the EU (not the Commission or the Parliament).

‘Science diplomacy’ seems to be mainly an Anglo-American coinage, with a meaning rather dependent on context. Possibly (?), it once meant mainly scientific exchanges between academic or university-based scientists during the Cold War (such as between USA, USSR, & China).

It seems to have expanded in present use, aligning itself with that more famous term of art, ‘soft power’, which seems to have something to do with propaganda, ‘hearts and minds’, etc. Science diplomacy might also extend, perhaps, to gathering intelligence on technical matters, and protecting intellectual property (& there are now indeed even academic books written that seek to define what science diplomacy was, is, or could be).

Anyhow, in regard to the papers ERAC-SFIC has published, the following thoughts in them caught my attention.

  • [T]he concept [science diplomacy] is still in evolution and there is currently no consensual, final definition…The European Commission itself, based on the Communication from 2012 Enhancing and focusing EU international cooperation in research and innovation: A strategic approach, has developed the concept…”Science Diplomacy is the use of science to prevent conflicts and crises, underpin policy making, and improve international relations in conflict areas where the universal language of science can open new channels of communication and build trust. Scientific evidence and advice are increasingly indispensable for anticipating needs and events and for making informed, forward-looking foreign policy decisions.” (ERAC-SFIC 1352/20, pp. 2-3)
  • The theory of change of science diplomacy is that by engaging in collaborative and mutual research geopolitical differences can be bridged, as supposedly the ‘language of science is universal’. However, very little evidence exists that this theory of change actually stands up to scrutiny. By engaging in long-term research into the effects of science diplomacy (e.g. with respect to SESAME or CERN) further programming in this domain can be strengthened (ERAC-SFIC 1357/20, p. 6).
  • [T]he importance of technology and innovation – and not only science – in shaping international relations. In the expression “science diplomacy”, does “science” include innovation? This question is (almost) never addressed as such, and there is some confusion about the way the science-technology-innovation continuum is understood. There is in particular a need for more scholarship about “innovation diplomacy”: is it a subset of “science diplomacy”, or something different – perhaps closer to economic diplomacy? What is the place of competition in science diplomacy? In techno-diplomacy? In innovation diplomacy? Reflecting on such questions could help clarify the various dimensions of the EU’s foreign policy and related diplomacy needs…In addition to the specific China related issue (that have gained political attention in the last year), a comprehensive topic on the “power of science research and innovation in global competition” covering a broader range of countries could be envisaged (ERAC-SFIC 1357/20, pp. 7-8).
  • European risk assessment to understand natural and anthropogenic risks and the vulnerabilities created by their intersection, to support disaster management capacities in the Balkans and the EU Neighborhood regions…specific cooperation projects which explicitly address issues such as earthquake research, climate risks (floods, landslides, droughts, wildfires, etc.), infectious diseases, contaminations etc. (ERAC-SFIC 1357/20, p. 9).
  • Cyber technologies may represent a qualitative shift in international affairs (as did the atomic bomb in 1945). Cyber security has become a top diplomatic issue for the EU (ERAC-SFIC 1357/20, p. 10).

Besides various calls for networking and information-gathering activities (frequently laid at the door of the Joint Research Centre), we are also informed in document ERAC-SFIC 1352/20 that ‘an update to the international cooperation strategy (from 2012) is currently under preparation as part of the European Commission communication on a “revamped” European Research Area. Deliberations should pro-actively address foreign policy needs within international cooperation’. No idea what happened with this subsequently.

Evaluations

As an aside, one factor missing, as always, is the idea of strengthening & otherwise supporting scientific (and wider intellectual activity) in the Eastern member states & accession countries. Hungary would be a case in point. Such activities would have positive impacts, not least, contributing (a tiny amount) to equalizing power relationships within Europe.

Overall, though, as is pointed out again and again, it is not really clear what the EU is seeking to achieve in terms of the big picture (and is this the ‘EU’ as a separate ‘strategic’ actor, embodied by the Commission, or the Parliament, or is it the EU member states acting separately, or in concert)? Well, no doubt many know answers to these questions, but I don’t, and therefore its hard for me to understand strategy documents because the role scientific activity should play cannot be clarified unless the overall picture is made clear.

The aforementioned 2012 international cooperation strategy, which I think refers to COM(2012) 497 (dated 14 September 2012). COM(2012) 497 was a communication from the European Commission, rather than being delivered by a dependent body of the Council (c.f. ERAC-SFIC).

It seems quite an ambitious document that proposed such measures as ‘multi-annual roadmaps for cooperation with key partner countries and regions’ & ‘enhancing the role of the Union in international organizations and multilateral forums’; as well as information-gathering on such topics as ‘strengths and weaknesses’ of research and innovation systems in third countries, & foresight activities, ‘to identify emerging challenges, future markets and trends’.

As I don’t follow this topic closely, I simply have no idea if the 2012 strategy was implemented, and whether it has been appraised.

The EU has periodically evaluated international cooperation activities, again, very much within an R&D framing. It is worth taking note of the main points made in these reports, and whether they stack up.

Relevant academic literature

Legal scholars and political scientists at Universiteit Maastricht, e.g., Abazi, Vanhoonacker & Blom, appear to be crucial academic writers on the topic of expertise in the EU bodies, having published such works as:

GÉANT

International scientific activities tend to be couched in terms of movement of people and information (or lack thereof). In terms of digital infrastructure required for transmission of scientific information that is, in part, funded by the EU, we should note GÉANT. The organization employs around 130 staff ​based in UK & NL.

GÉANT is a fundamental element of Europe’s e-infrastructure, delivering the pan-European GÉANT network for scientific excellence, research, education and innovation. Through its integrated catalogue of connectivity, collaboration and identity services, GÉANT provides users with highly reliable, unconstrained access to computing, analysis, storage, applications and other resources, to ensure that Europe remains at the forefront of research.

Anon., undated, GÉANT – at the heart of research and education networking

Following on from the first pan-European networks built by DANTE* (TEN-34 and TEN-155), GÉANT was born on 1 November 2000. Since then it has continued to play a key role in transforming the way researchers collaborate. Born out of the telecoms liberalization of the late 1990s, GÉANT enables the best minds across Europe and the world to work together on ground-breaking research activities that were previously not possible or were inefficient due to limited or unstable commercial networks. With fast evolving technology, services and capacity, GÉANT has long been the most advanced research network in the world.

Anon., undated, History of GÉANT. *DANTE.

Conclusion

Overall, it seems that ‘science diplomacy’ is a quite rarefied and hard to grasp policy instrument. It is, it seems, just one of multiple frames for activities outside the EU’s borders that strive for recognition within the policy realm. Perhaps more concrete terms that might have related meanings include co-deployment of subject expertise (advisory services, evidence for decision-making, R&D), & intelligence gathering, etc., and the less noted but perhaps important regulatory cooperation.

The question of exactly how these and other factors play out in an multilateral assemblage such as the EU seems a good question that the various strategies produced by official bodies have tried to grapple with.

Other areas that seemed interesting to me and therefore worth exploration:

  • Not enough attention is probably paid to the the positive input investment in intellectual institutions might deliver in terms of encouraging liberal democracy in the ‘illiberal democracies’ emerging among the EU’s own member states (as well as elsewhere). The closure of the CEU in Hungary is a case in point.
  • Attempts to clarify what role science and technology might play in supporting the goals of the EU’s common foreign & security policy. It would first, presumably be needed to understand what the goals of the CFSP have been, are, and could be.
  • A means of dialogue across the member states to understand what science, technology, and related expertise are considered strategic for the EU (and how this picture might change in different foreign policy scenarios and through time). This would need to be a bit more granular than simply saying ‘AI’, ‘5G’, ‘cyber’, or ‘climate change’ etc. It probably ought not just be those questions that matter to Germany, but also to Bulgaria (as an example).
  • A mapping of the instruments, if any, available, to articulate the role of science and technology through the CFSP and establish the EEAS as a valued actor in this field. These might include identifying relevant external experts who could contribute to working groups, greater use of the overseas missions, co-working with missions of the member states, international meetings with third countries & international organizations, etc.

Note on reports

Generally speaking, one strand that runs through these reports – calls for more international cooperation led at the EU level, possibly mediated through such groups as SFIC (yet the member states want to keep this as a national competence).

Year of publicationReport titleRecommendation (key example)
2020Mutual learning exercise on national strategies and roadmaps for international cooperation in R&I
International R&I cooperation policies revisited: sustained challenges and new developments		SFIC ought to be beefed up (pp. 50-51).
2020Study on ‘Research and innovation international cooperation in the field of renewable energy technologies’New group to discuss renewable energy R&D cooperation, under SET-Plan Steering Group &/or SFIC (p. 10).
2019Final report of the SFIC Benchmarking Working Group on the Benchmarking exercise on strategies and roadmaps for international cooperation in R&I
2019Connecting Europe and Asia; Building blocks for an EU strategy: joint communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the European Investment BankStrengthen student & academic exchanges with Asian countries (p. 10)
2018Europe’s future; Open innovation, open science, open to the world: reflections of the Research, Innovation and Science Policy Experts (RISE) High Level GroupThe ‘knowledge-innovation nexus’ is ‘broken’ in Europe, the USA, & Japan. ‘Open science’, ‘open innovation’ and ‘open to the world’ will bring ‘new dynamics’ to this ‘broken’ nexus (pp. 155 & 159).
2018SFIC Working Group, Overview of Tools for International Research Cooperation in Science and Technology Matters
2016COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Priorities for international cooperation in research and innovation Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Implementation of the strategy for international cooperation in research and innovation.
2014European added value of EU science, technology and innovation actions and EU-Member State partnership in international cooperation
Main report
2014Basic principles for effective international science, technology and innovation agreements
Main report
2014International science and technology cooperation in the EU’s 7th Framework Programme; The specific programme ‘Cooperation’ and its thematic areas : main report
2014COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Roadmaps for international cooperation Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Report on the implementation of the strategy for international cooperation in research and innovation
2014REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Report on the implementation of the strategy for international cooperation in research and innovation
2013Overview of international science, technology and innovation cooperation between Member States and countries outside the EU and the development of a future monitoring mechanism
2013Review of the Science and Technology cooperation between the European community and the United States of America 2003-2008
2013Review of the Science and Technology cooperation between the European community and the government of the people’s Republic of China
2012Projects in support of international research and innovation cooperation; International cooperation activities of the FP7 capacities programme
2012Responding to global challenges; The role of Europe and of international science and technology cooperation
2010International science and technology cooperation in a globalized world; The external dimension of the European Research Area
2009Global governance of science; Report of the expert group on global governance of science to the Science, Economy and Society Directorate, Directorate-General for Research, European Commission
2009Exploring synergies through coordinating policy measures between the EU Member States, Associated Countries and the European Commission; An element of the ’New Partnership’ for ERA governance : summary of discussions and recommendations
2008INCO-NET projects; Supporting international science and technology cooperation with major regions of the world
2008CREST report on the internationalisation of R&D: Facing the challenge of globalisation: approaches to a proactive international policy in S&T
2008Opening to the world; International cooperation in science and technology: report of the ERA Expert Group
2004A worldwide vision for European research; Perspectives for international cooperation in science and technology
EU reports on international strategy in R&D (incomplete list).

Note on sources

The following links might also be relevant, mostly, though, they cover the more prominent (if somewhat well-worn) topic of R&D:

Kong Xinxin [孔欣欣], 2017, French science diplomacy: strategic analysis, Global Science, Technology & Economy Outlook, vol. 2, pp. 10-14. The author is identified as being based at the Chinese Academy of Science & Technology for Development (CASTED), International Research & Training Center for Science & Technology Strategy under the Auspices of UNESCO, Beijing.

European Science Diplomacy Online Course

Nuttall, 2000, European Foreign Policy

Cherry, et al., Africa-Europe Research and Innovation Cooperation Global Challenges, Bi-regional Responses

A new role for EU research and innovation in the benefit of citizens: Towards an open and transformative R&I policy (2015)

Leave a Comment