Increasing impact of the EU’s International S&T cooperation for the transition towards sustainable development

8/14/2019 Increasing impact of the EUs International S&T cooperation for the transition towards sustainable development

1/32

Increasing Impact of the

EUs International S&T Cooperation

for the Transition towards

Sustainable Development

Cornelia E. Nauen

(Editor)

in collaboration with:Claudio BogliottiNorbert Fenzl Judith Francis John Kakule

Konstantin KastrissianakisLizette MichaelNeville ReeveDirk Reyntjens

Vandana Shiva Joachim H. Spangenberg

BrusselsMarch 2005

Directorate-General for Research International Scientic Cooperation EUR 21719 EN

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

2005


2/32

Europe Direct is a service to help you nd answersto your questions about the European Union

Freephone number (*):

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed.

LEGAL NOTICE:

Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might bemade of the following information.

The views expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reect the views of theEuropean Commission.

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet.It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu.int).

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.

Luxembourg: Ofce for Ofcial Publications of the European Communities, 2005

ISBN 92-894-9794-7 European Communities, 2005Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in Belgium

Printed on white chlorine-free paper


3/32

Increasing impact of international S&T cooperation Page (iii)

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not implythe expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the European Commissionconcerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, orconcerning the delimitation of frontiers or boundaries.

Copyright belongs to the European Commission. Nevertheless, permission is herebygranted for reproduction in whole or part for educational, scientific or developmentrelated purposes, except those involving commercial sale on any medium whatsoever,provided that (1) full citation of the source is given and (2) notification is given inwriting to the Eu ropean Commission, Director ate Genera l for Research, In terna tionalScientific Cooper at ion, 8 Squar e de Mees, B-1049 Brussels, Belgium.

Copies are available free of charge upon request from the Information Desk of theDirectorate General for Research, International Scientific Cooperation, 8 Square de Mees,B-1049 Brussels, Belgium; e-mail: [email protected].

The electronic version of this brochure can be downloaded from the cordis website athttp://www.cordis.lu/inco2/src/library.htm .

A great deal of information about the European Commission is moreover available on theeuropa website at http://europa.eu.int/comm/

For bibliographic purposes, this report should be cited as follows:

Nauen, C.E. (ed.), 2005. Increasing Impact of the EUsInternational S&T Cooperation for the Transition towardsSustainable Development. Luxembourg, Office for OfficialPublications of the European Communities, 26 p.


4/32

Increasing impact of international S&T cooperation Page (iv)

Preparation of this discussion paper

This discussion paper is based on two ad hoc expert meetings convened to reflect from the

quite different perspectives of the diverse group of participants on how the Unionsinternational S&T cooperation could be made more effective in support of the much-neededtransition towards sustainable development. Additional contributions were made throughcontinued informal exchanges in the period since the first workshop in October 2003, thesecond workshop in February 2004 and a small study on three water-related scientificcooperation projects in the Mediterranean. The objective of the authors is to furtherstimulate collective analysis and exploratory action to increase the impact and shortenimpact times - of many a collaborative quest for knowledge essential for solving societalproblems.

Par ticipants and contributors were:

Claudio Bogliotti, Istituto Agronomico Mediterraneo di Bari (IAMB), geologist, ItalyNorbert Fenzl, Centre for Advanced Amazonian Studies (NAEA), Federal University of

Par (UFPA), hydrogeologist, sustainable development, BrazilJudith A. Francis, Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation ACP-EU

(CTA), Senior Programme Coordinator S&T Strategies, Trinidad and TobagoJohn Kakule, ACP General Secretariat, Expert in charge of S&T, physicist, UgandaLizette Michael, Centre Africain de Formation et de Recherche Administratives pour le

Dveloppement / African Training and Research Centre in Administration forDevelopment (CAFRAD), expert in public administration capacity building,Morocco

Cornelia E. Nauen, EC-RTD, International Scientific Cooperation, Chair, supported byMarlene Flageollet andKonstantin Kastrissianakis, EC-RTD, International Scientific Cooperation, intern from

October 2003 to February 2004Reeve Neville, EC-RTD, Evaluation UnitDirk Reyntjens, Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), London, UK (now

EC-DG EMPL)Vandana Shiva, Director, Navdanya / Research Foundation for Science, Technology &

Ecology, IndiaJoachim H. Spangenberg, Sustainable Europe Research Institute (SERI), biologist/

ecologist/ economist, Germany

For bibliographic purposes, this report should be cited as follows:

Nauen, C.E. (ed.), 2005. Increasing Impact of the EUsInternational S&T Cooperation for the Transition TowardsSustainable Development. Luxembourg, Office for OfficialPublications of the European Communities, 26 p.


5/32

Increasing impact of international S&T cooperation Page (v)

Table of Content

In tr oduction .....................................................................................................................1

Factor s bear ing on societal impact of science In itial inputs .....................................3

What does inter nat ional cooperat ion mean for public investor s and the S&T

commun ity in a knowledge society? .............................................................................10

Highlights from three Mediterranean water research projects................................17

Initial consider at ions on impact a t p rogra mme/policy level .....................................19

Con clusion ......................................................................................................................23

Fur ther r ead ing .............................................................................................................25


6/32


7/32

Increasing impact of international S&T cooperation Page (1)

Introduction

The EC has responded to therecommendations of the 1979 UNConference on Science and Technologyfor Development by setting up aprogramme for Science and Technologyfor Development (STD) in 1983. Over thelast more than 20 years this internationalS&T cooperation programme has evolvedinto a constituent part of the ECsresearch framework programmes (FPs)becoming INCO since FP4.

International S&T cooperationthroughout focused on mobilisingscientific capacity in Europe and partnercountries and regions foremost aroundsolutions to basic needs such as healthand public health, rational use of naturalresources and environmental protectionand food security. However, in variablegeometry and in response to historical orregional priorities, this collaboration hasalso supported some work on economiesin transitions, particularly in post-conflictsituations or other institutionalinstabilities, cultural heritage, energy andknowledge policies. It has been firmly

based on the principle of partnershipamong equals seeking mutual benefits.

The experience has shown over time, thatproject approaches targeting newtechnologies are insufficient to producebroad-based societal impact. Moreover,as a result of the paradigm shifts arisingfrom the debates surrounding the RioEarth Summit and Agenda 21, increasingemphasis has been placed on systems

approaches and policy. In tune with thesubsidiarity principle, European supportto international S&T cooperation ispitched at problems of regionalimportance in partner countries.

Research priorities for international S&Tcooperation sponsored by the Union areidentified through bi-regional dialogue orthrough reference to commitments of theEU at international negotiations, e.g. theKyoto Protocol, the Convention onBiological Diversity (CBD), theMillennium Development Goals (MDGs)and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPoI) adopted at theWorld Summit on SustainableDevelopment in 2002. Overall,recognition of the continuum betweeneducation, life-long learning, research andinnovation as a core factor for sustainabledevelopment is rising and informingpolicy formulation in Europe andelsewhere.

Recently the European Commission hasoverseen the development of the LisbonStrategy for the social and economicrenewal of Europe, which is beingenergised through a number of initiatives(European Commission, 2004, 2005). Theemphasis on the International dimensionof the European Research Area (ERA) isa response to growing importance of science, technology and innovation forthe transition towards sustainabledevelopment and thus also forinternational relations. The latter has


8/32


resulted in the generalised internationalopening of the 6 th Research Framework Programme (its major policy instrument).

The overall allocation to internationalS&T cooperation in FP6 has risen to 600MEuro. The allocation is split into twoparts:

" 285 MEuro for the participation of INCO partner country teams inconsortia addressing thematicpriorities of European or globalimportance with an emphasis onEuropean interest;

" 315 MEuro for joint research andresearch coordination among teamsfrom Europe and one or more INCOpartner regions addressing problemsin INCO countries under their specificsocio-economic and environmentalconditions and based on mutualinterest.

" In addition, the international part of

the Marie Curie researcher mobilityscheme is open for scientificexchange in both directions, for non-Europeans to do research for sometime in Europe and for Europeans tocarry out research in other parts of theworld.

As a result of continued monitoring of scientific relations with other parts of theworld and the internationalisation of science and the knowledge labour market,the importance of an enabling policyenvironment is recognised as of everincreasing importance when it comes toreaping the benefits of the S&Tinvestment in Europe and elsewhere.With weak policies influencing basic andhigher education and innovation, theability to make use of research results andtranslate them into organisational, process

or product improvements is also expectedto be weak.

According to e.g. official estimates of theCGIAR (Consultative Group of International Agriculture Research) in1999, of the more than US$ 3 billioninvested during the previous 10 years inagricultural research through its researchcentres, 40% were destined to Africa. Asa result of underdeveloped linkages withnational research systems and policy, theCGIAR estimates that the impact of thatinvestment is low.

Many questions arise from such pastexperience and its interpretation, but it isuseful to focus first on the followingquestions:

1. WHAT is IMPACT and whatdetermines impact?

2. HOW can we improve theinterface between science and

technology (S&T) and society?3. WHAT is required to increase the

impact of internationalcooperation projects?

4. HOW can we increase theparticipation and involvement of the political, societal and politicalstakeholders as one of theapproaches to increasing impact?

Impact is particularly examined from theperspective of strengthening S&Tcapacity of partner countries andcontributing knowledge that helps solvesocietal problems in their specificcontext.

The policy/programme context of international scientific cooperation willbe explored in the last part of this

discussion paper.


9/32


Factors bear ing on societal impact of science Initial inputs

In an initial brainstorming of findings andexperiences emphasis was put onbottom-up perspectives and theirimplications to the way societies organisetheir learning and innovation processeswith an implicit emphasis on thetransition towards sustainabledevelopment which underpins researchcooperation of the INCO type based onthe principle of mutual interest andbenefit. Only a small selection out of therich material presented is cited here tooutline the boundaries of the analyses.

J oachim H. Spangenberg:

1. Participation of social actors inresearch undertakings is hard to keepalive over a longer time-period,because they need to see a tangiblebenefit for themselves fromparticipation. Perceptions and roles of social actors and scientists differ a lotin that process, as the benefits theycan expect differ as well. In thiscontext some skepticism is in order onthe kind of foresight that essentiallyextrapolates current trends, as pastexercises have often proven wrongand systematic analysis shows thatthis is indeed to some extent inevitable. Mention is also made of anEEA study suitably entitled Latelessons from early warning(European Environment Agency,2001) which shows that politicalaction to scientific findings may be

delayed by between 30 and 150 years.

2. Theoretical concepts of policyimpacts may be very attractive, butreality checks often cast doubt on theassumed harmony between scientistsethical attitudes and practicalimperatives, e.g. when a projectcoordinator submits a proposal: Howdo I package what I want to do suchthat the Commission thinks that whatI do is what they want me to do?Would less ambitious demands forconnecting research with policy goalspermit more realistic, down-to-earthpromises better suitable forevaluation? Or should projectsbecome more ambitious in meeting

policy goals and thus some form of societal demand? In this light, onemight ask: What is the definition of success in such a process? For a start,we need to start to make ourdefinitions more accurate. Forexample: is competition excludingcooperation? Social actors expertiseand scientists competence are notnecessarily in line. Why do someconcepts get accepted and others not?

3. Exclusion by inclusion: Participationis en vogue in many programmes.However, every inclusion of somegroup into the decision makingprocess implies that those notinvolved are more excluded thanbeforehand. Thus, those not capableof using the mechanisms of participation offered are deprived of the (limited) opportunity for influence


10/32


they had beforehand, be it throughelections or other formal procedures.This refers to electronic

communication and web basedparticipation as well as to round-tables and other discourse-orientedsettings, which are specific to acertain communication culture,neither shared internationally nor byall members of European societies (infact, about 1/3 is believed not to sharethis attitude). In the end, opening updecision making processes might alsodiminish the relevance of formal

democratic mechanisms, at least whenno compensatory measures areforeseen for those who cannotrespond to a specific kind of inclusionoffer.

4. To deepen the impact of science insociety, we need to look at themotivation of the various playersfrom their point of view. As long asscience does not provide the means to

meet the ends societal stakeholdershave defined, the impact will belimited. Science as a social system isbut one amongst many albeit acrucial one - and cannot alone set thestandards as to which kind of knowledge is relevant. Furthermore,the knowledge society implies thatthere is knowledge within the society,not only within the scientific system.Science is not well prepared tointegrate these different but equallyimportant kinds of knowledge.

5. Do not be over-optimistic regardingthe importance of the expectedresearch results in each case orproject. We need to understand thatsociety is a moving target and aknowledge product, which might havehad an impact in society by the timethe project was designed could be

rather irrelevant by the time it iscompleted. However, over time, theaccumulation of many individual

research efforts does lead toqualitatively new understanding.Moreover, making negative resultsknown is also important by way of eliminating false hypotheses anddiscourage policies based upon them.

6. We need to realize that we live in alargely unpredictable world where wehave to live with uncer ta inty. Thuswe should not look for simple

causalities, as identifying them maybe often impossible or - in the bestcase - impracticable due to the effortsneeded. We should instead look forplausible probabilities as a basis forproject and programme evaluation. If no impact is detected, we should look at the problem, which was to besolved and ask: what has changed,what other impact factors have beenat work? Given this dynamic

development of projects, it wasoverdue that projects are permitted tobe more dynamic regarding theirobjectives as is now the case underFP6. The need for relevant researchquestions requires the participation of social actors in the definition of theresearch questions, becausestakeholders are experts on relevance.The moving target character makesthem essential throughout the project.However, the composition of suchsocial actors may change over time atdifferent phases of the project cycle,as appropriate. Such a process obligesthe scientists to explain: (a) what isthe importance of the research? (b)why is it important? (c) what effect,what impact do we expect?

7. Good projects should have an impacthypothesis establishing a


11/32


plausibility, which can be assessedby evaluators. The impact hypothesissuggests what impact is plausibly

expected and how it is assumed to beachieved, thus reducing hyperbole inmany proposals (Baur et al ., 2001). If a project generates results without anysocial impact, this has to beconsidered as a falsification of theimpact hypothesis, and thus as ascientific way of institutional learningfor the programme as a whole.

8. Institu tional lear ning is a process to

be perceived as reliable when thepartners care about the content andprocess. This institutional learning isachieved by networking, workshops,post-workshops activities, train-the-trainers activities, etc.

9. An example from a DG Environmentresearch project: 29 assessments inEuropean countries to implementsustainable development programmes

resulted in great interest in differentcountries from Norway to Cyprus andfrom Ireland to Ukraine and theBaltic. Eventually, however, theresults were implemented to a verydifferent degree for a variety of site-specific reasons. If the demand isnot sufficiently organ ised andarticulated, capacity to use researchr esults is low. This is why lifelonglearning is so necessary for politiciansand other social actors: sustainabledevelopment issues are complex,which should not be oversimplifiedand dealing with them competentlyrequires willingness and aptitude toengage with a range of knowledgesystems.

10. Questions to ask are: Has the politicaldiscourse impacted science? Has thediscourse changed? Has anybody

funded parallel research on the sameproblems to scientifically testhypotheses? We need to distinguish

between conventional science andsustainability science. Has there beenany rise in sustainability scienceacknowledgement in researchsystems?

Claudio Bogliotti:

1. The major challenge of international scientificcooperation is to mainta incommunicat ion with the keysocial actors. The advancedtechnologies like the internet donot necessarily enhanceinformation, as it is overcrowdedwith useless material. Anybodymay experience this situationwhen seeking consistentinformation e.g. about water akey theme for food security,

health outcomes and sustainabilityin general.

2. The Lisbon Strategy focusesstrongly on EU competitiveness inrelation to the US, Japan andKorea and not on syner gy withdeveloping countries andemerging economies like China,India, Brazil, South Africa, butalso Nigeria, Senegal and others.

Do we need a new definition orunderstanding of the continuumbetween competition andcooperation?

3. If we want to search for betterimpacts we need to determine atwhich level we have to look forindicators. Using a logframeapproach may help structure thediscussion and increase clarity of


12/32


objectives, means and hypothesisto be met (Bogliotti &Spangenberg, in prep.).

4. The transition towards sustainabledevelopment depends also on howthe EU imperatives of sustainability (i.e.:competitiveness, cohesion,ecosystem protection, improvingknowledge and governance in aninterconnected world etc.) areframed in research project designand assessment. A large number

of projects are funded andimplemented every year in theResearch Framework Programme.But are all these projects co-axially aligned in the samedirection and orientation given bythe key concept and ethics of sustainable development? Arethey linked to each other by acommon interpretation of ethicalpaths towards sustainability? It is

difficult to answer this question,because many funded best-practice projects are well pursuedat a certain community level butdisregarded at other levels or byother communities of the samelevel. Orienting research projectstowards sustainable developmentrequires a suitable methodology todevelop well-framed projectsacross a large diversity of variables and perspectives.

5. The diversity and often chaoticuse of these variables and thesubjective perceptions of theconcept of sustainabledevelopment imply difficulties indeciding which among thepossible early-stage projectschemes is oriented towardssustainability and whether these

schemes align with a commonethical interpretation of sustainability and are likely to

produce real impact.

Cornelia E. Nauen:

1. By way of an example of how aninternational science-basedcooperation has been built toprovide global pu blic knowledgegoods for a level playing field inaccess to basic knowledge neededfor the transition towardssustainable development, we canlook at an electronic archive on allfish in the world called FishBase(www.fishbase.org) . It now covers28,800 known fish species withtheir valid and synonym scientificnames, >200,000 local names in>300 languages, distributions,biology, physiology and manyother fields of information

relevant to managers, conserva-tionists, anglers, aquariumhobbyists, industry, students and avery wide range of other citizens.It organises scattered knowledgefrom currently about 35,000publications and allows analyseson the fly via the internet. Itcurrently attracts about 11 millionhits/month from about 400,000users. This rather impressive use

of science-based information isslowly showing wider impact insociety and has influenced severalglobal or regional exercises indocumenting biodiversity,modelling ecosystems andintroducing notions e.g. of sustainable aquarium trade (a $5billion/year business). It isinfluential in science asascertained by > 650 citations.


13/32


2. How to make r esear ch resultsmore policy relevant? Forexample, after analysis of almost

1000 pages of a report of theInternational Council for theExploration of the Sea (ICES),based on indicators for size atmaturity and optimum biomassproduction contained in FishBase,advice has been extracted thatwould allow to set managementperformance indicators which canbe monitored involving even awider public. A short paper

summarising the approach waslater published in a thematicallyoriented journal (Froese, 2004)and the same indicators are nowbeing used for a more bottom-upapproach to fisheries managementin the Philippines supportedthrough a bilateral developmentproject, though not yet in Europe.FishBase has also laid thefoundations for transformationalcommunication of science to thepublic through cartographicpresentations as one way of increasing the spectrum of perceptions (Nauen, in press ),thus increasing the chances of connecting scientific knowledgewith peoples life stories (Elvin,1997).

3. This begs the question: How canwe become more organised aboutcommunicating science to citizenson a broader front, be moreresponsive to other knowledgefabrics and help shorten theacceptance time of newapproaches in the face of extendedhuman life cycles and stillunderdeveloped lifelonglearning? Bringing diversity of perspectives to the task seems to

be one of the most effectiveapproaches as eloquentlyillustrated by Surowiecki (2004),

something internationalcooperation is inherentlypredisposed to, but which can bepursued in a more explicit andorganised way.

4. Another question: Should wespend more resources on gapanalysis rather than spending onresearch as such as a way toincrease social added value of

public research spending? Thisalso implies directing more efforttowards organising existing, butscattered research results andother knowledge so as to enhanceaccumulation effects through timeand space (Pauly, 2001), a basicapproach now very common inmany fields of science as diverseas palaeontology, medicine andclimate research and considered

crucial for innovation (Dantas,2005). An associated concernwould be to devise structuredways to be on the outlook forunintended consequences seethe CFC and synthetic pesticidestories (European EnvironmentAgency, 2001; Osborn et al. ,1995). Unintended consequencesare not confined to threats. Indeedit can be argued that much of thetrue value of research andtechnology oriented towards aspecific purpose accrues on abroader, unanticipated front.Fishbase is an excellent case inpoint. Initially intended to supportthe work of government resourcemanagers, its very wide use inmany different additional contextsmuch exceeds the original target.


14/32


Lizette Michael:

CAFRAD, as an organisation

promoting the professionalisation of public service with particularemphasis on Africa, has demand forclearly articulated and targetedresearch, particularly as mind-sets areinfluenced by pre-scientific societiesin many places.

1. In many knowledge-intensiveprocesses, we may be confrontedwith the fact that results achieved

do not correspond to initialobjectives. Efficiency can beincreased by adoption of betterplanning and feedback loops. Butthis is only part of the issue.Effectiveness could be increasedby changing attitudes andenforcement, which may beachievable only over longer time-frames. More sensitive leaders andstakeholder participation are

expected to be critical to thatprocess.

2. Some training programmes fortrainers in anglo/franco/arab-speaking African countries did notgenerate the expected outcomes,presumably because of a policy orinstitutional environmentunconducive to the sort of changeencouraged by the training.

3. While some local publicadministrations also in Africahave started collaborating withInitiatives such as LocalAgenda21 (ICLEI) to explore howthey can contribute to makingdevelopment more sustainable,those involved with CAFRAD donot yet generally see science andresearch as a resource for their

own work as there are preciouslyfew examples of packagingresearch results in ways that make

the relevance to publicadministrations more directlyvisible.

Norbert Fenzl:

1. The potential impacts of S&T onpolicies are important in severalLatin American countries, notonly in Brazil. There is a certaindisposition of social actors,especially politicians, to listen toscientists. The problem is ratherthat scientists find it difficult tobreak their knowledge down totheir needs and the time scale.Example: the governor of theBrazilian state of Par asked theNAEA (Institute for AdvancedAmazonian Studies) to developconcrete political guidelines for

his 4-year political and economicplan. However, the scientists werenot able to provide a practicalaction plan on short notice andthere was no institutionalmechanism in place to developsuch a plan in a widerparticipatory fashion.

2. The NAEA has a PhD programme Sustainable Development for the

Humid Tropics which tries todevelop methods and activities forcapacity building to bridge exactlythat gap.

3. In the cooperation programmesfrom so-called developedcountries and the resultingprojects, it can be observed thatdecolonisation is a still on-goingprocess and not yet completed in


15/32


that insufficient attention is paidto the perspective of developingcountries or emerging economies

with processes drivenpredominantly by the model of thedeveloped country(ies).

4. That creates a situation wheremotivations of cooperation are notalways clear. Once motivationsand needs (the real interests) of allthe involved actors and partners ina cooperation programme areidentified synergies between these

different interests can be morereadily created. Constructingcollaboration around suchsynergies is a major factor toincrease the impact of theprojects. Example: Commonexploration of biodiversity. A fairsharing the responsibilities and theeconomic results of biotechresearch is a necessary basis for asuccessful cooperation. A more

complete list of negative effects of cooperation not based on firmpartnership principles are listed byOldham (2005).

5. The INCO calls suggestsensitivity to human rights,sustainable development,

environmental issues, and combatof poverty. These may be veryimportant and goodrequirements, but often do notcorrespond to the politicaldecisions of even more influentialcomponents of EU governments ata global economic level (the lastCancn Conference may be a casein point). Such discrepanciesinduce a certain suspicious

feeling about the real intentionsand motivations of the call.

6. Also, when research is close tocommercial exploitation, thebalance between cooperation andcompetition may need to be betterdefined and safeguards built in,particularly if some participantsare scientifically weaker thanothers. However, even among

large industrial companies,cooperation on some aspectscoexists with competition onothers.


16/32


What does inter nat ional cooperation mean for public investorsand the S&T community in a knowledge society?

Several topics need to be discussed withthe interests of various players consideredamong the central issues for exploringcurrent impact conditions of publiclyfunded international S&T cooperation

with emphasis on supporting thetransition towards sustainabledevelopment and future opportunities:

" The interests (motivations, needs,etc.) of pub lic administra tionsinvesting in research: spheres of interest, delegation or sharing of responsibilities, political interests,investments in future economic ties,competitiveness, diversification of

international relations, delivery onpolitical commitments;

" What are the inter ests of the S&Tcommunity: enriching views andexperience through cross-culturalcooperation, contribution toknowledge about global and localproblems, positioning researchcentres/teams in the face of globalisation, labour markets, tracecareer tracks for scientists etc.

" The conditions for developing ashar ed knowledge ba se: sharingunderstanding, speaking ordeveloping common language,recognising legitimate interests,recognising the diversity of knowledge built in networks of networks, underpinning mutualbenefits by transparency, developing

trust. Given the advanced decline of ecosystems around the worlddemonstrated by the MillenniumAssessment in March 2005, sharingscientifically validated knowledge is

of particular, even critical,importance. Particularly for countrieswith limited science and technologycapacity, collaboration with others isnow recognised as the single mostimportant way to advance towardsrealisation of social and economicobjectives (Oldham, 2005; Barnet,2005).

" Building a knowledge-society does

not mean a monopoly of science; associety has a wide range of differentways of knowing, though sustainingthe human population can be barelyimagined without science andtechnology. A redefinition of whatknowledge in this context means maybe warranted. Consilience (mutualcompatibility) of different disciplinesand ways of knowing (Wilson, 1998)is required so that information andknowledge can serve as the basis forconsensus-seeking, not conflict.Lowering the access barriers toknowledge for all citizens is anoverriding need, but remains a majorchallenge.

The key condition to increase theimpact of international S&Tcooperation on societal processes is thatthe knowledge produced is taken note of,


17/32


perceived as relevant, and believed to bereliable. These conditions are onlyfulfilled, if the source of information is

considered trustworthy, scientificallycompetent and capable of identifying themost relevant information, and to deliverit effectively. This requires

1. Confidence

Transparency, openness of motivesand actions, accountability, dialogueand communication;

2. CompetenceFactual relevance, quality of information and knowledgerecognised by others (social actors insociety), mutual recognition amongscientists, credible products, meetingsocieties needs;

3. Capability

Elements to be considered are: (i)Knowledge, which is not onlyfactually, but also politically relevant.The more people believe in someone(something), the more the impact of action or attitudes based on thatconfidence will increase to the pointwhere it may become self-fulfillingprophecy. (ii) Ability to support theprocess. (iii) Installed capacity of hardware, software, and infrastructure

for networking.All three criteria need to beconcomitantly met to create impact withinthe respective society, but, similarly, toengage other scientific institutions andhave an impact in the scientific system.

In the course of the debate, these factorshave been disaggregated into sub-issuesas highlighted below. These may serve

e.g. to assess the current profile and thus

the impact potential of a researchinstitution. The key question for researchcooperation is then, whether or not the

projects funded help to improve thisprofile, thus making it more probable thatthe output of the research will be activelyused by the respective society, thuscreating some form of societal impact.

For this purpose it was considered usefulto summarise the usual set of measuresincluded in projects under the 5 th Research Framework Programme (FP5 1998-2002) in view of addressing/

generating impact as follows:1. Extending bi-regional discourse,

platforms / fundraising2. Creating networks of competent

partners3. Defining a desirable scientific

innovation /activities /results4. Reviewing of information, data in

order to build a knowledge base5. Allocating responsibilities according

to perceived responsibilities,competences, responsibilities

6. Planning individual continuous plans /information dissemination

7. Research proceeding information /data

8. Involving peers and social actors tocreate ownership

9. Giving meaning to data /interpretation / contextualisation / creatingnarratives around research results

10. Harmonisation (methodology,standards)

11. Dissemination of research" regarding methodology" data" interpreted data" encouraging action

12. Training PhDs13. Exchange visits14. Gender concern/female participation

15. Websites


18/32


16. Books/ e-mail lists

Comparing these measures to the needs

and to the impact conditions identifiedabove is the basis for discussing break-off points between business as usual andtaking adequate action to generate suchimpact in a plausible way.

By implication, this supposes a widerdefinition of research to incorporateactive concern for enabling the uptake of research results blurring somewhat theinterface to education/learning and

innovation.Moreover, a study on the impact of healthcare research suggests that efforts inproducing information material with clearactionable take home messages fordifferent target groups, often combiningknowledge from more than one specificresearch study has been found a usefulmeans to transfer knowledge from theresearch environment to decision makers,

practitioners, service providers or thegeneral public. The study also shows thatin the case of Canada, a large percentageof research institutions allocateconsiderable resources for the production

of such messages, on a diversity of delivery routes and particular on themessenger, who must be trusted by the

target audience. Finally, manyorganisations have found it necessary toassociate representatives of the targetaudience with the preparation of themessages as well as with certain stages of the research itself (Lavis et al ., 2003).Such outreach touches on the three keyfactors of trust (messenger), the relevance(message) and the communication(how) identified here in a broader trans-sectoral context. It is now more widely

understood that all have to be in place foraction outside/beyond the researchenvironment, though attention to the fullrange has remained largely outside theremit of conventional research.

In other words, all processes needsystematic attention: knowledgeproduction, its transfer to and betweensocial actors and the context in whichsocietal use of scientific knowledge

generates a maximum of benefits. Thedifferent ways in which scientificknowledge gets then used in therespective contexts, is yet another aspectof impact requiring separate analysis.


19/32


Table 1. Setting the usual pr oject appr oach against impact conditions

A. Impact conditions insociety

B. Impact conditions inscience

Pr oject business as usual

I. Confidence I. Confidence ActivitiesI. 1. Transparency in actions andmotives (1, 8)

I. 1. Trustworthiness 8. Involving peers andstakeholders to create ownership

I. 2. Trustworthiness of persons,social competence

I. 2. Sharing intellectual property(IP) / sharing knowledge (13)

13. Exchange visits

I. 3. Establish dialogues (1) I. 3. Sharing responsibilities (5) 1. Extending bi-regional platforms / fund raising

II . Competence / Capacity(product)

II . Competence / Capacity(product)

Activities

II. 1. Recognised by society II. 1. Mutually recognised (5, 13) 5. Allocating responsibilitiesaccording to perceivedresponsibilities, competences,responsibilities

13. Exchange visits

II. 2. Factually relevant (14) II. 2. Adding to research networks(2)

2. Creating networks of competentpartners

II. 3. Meeting Societysknowledge needs (9)

Creating narratives aroundresearch results

II. 3. Factually relevant (3, 9, 14) 3. Defining a desirable scientificinnovation /activities /results

9. Giving meaning to data / interpretation / contextualisation

14. Gender concern/femaleparticipation

II. 4. Credible products II. 4. Creating protected IP (tokeep knowledge in the publicdomain)

Develop socially accepted andoriented innovation/technology.

II. 5. Planning / managementcapacity building (6, 12).

Preventive planning for mitigationof system perturbation.

6. Planning individual continuousplans /information dissemination

12. Training PhDs


20/32


III. Capability / Infrastructure(process)

III. Capacity/ Infrastructure Activities

III. 1. Making oneself understood(6, 11, 15)

III. 1. Making oneself understoodto peers (6, 8, 11, 15)


8. Involving peers andstakeholders to create ownership

11. Dissemination of research

15. Websites

III. 2. Self-fulfilling prophecies III. 2. Ability to resonate incommunity (3, 6)

Collective ability of co-decision todetermine the future (ability tobuild democratic (co-decision)

processes using sustainabilityprinciples and values as reference.

3. Defining a desirable scientificinnovation /activities /results


11. Emphasizing action (doing).

III. 3. Ability to support process infrastructure (8, 10, 15)

III. 3. Harmonisation of researchagenda (3, 10, 11, 13)

3. Defining a desirable scientificinnovation /activities /results

10. Harmonisation (methodology,standards)

11. Dissemination of research

13. Exchange visits

III. 4. R&D networks with SMEsand other actors supporting socialand technological innovation (incl.

those involved in education andlife-long learning)

Determine socially sharedknowledge to enhanceinnovation(mostly use existing

knowledge in new ways)

III. 5. Responsible, appropriateknowledge management

Develop institutional mechanismsto ensure equity of access toknowledge and lower accessbarriers for citizens

III. 6. Creation of comprehensiveknowledge (4, 7, 9, 13, 15)

4. Reviewing of information, datain order to build a knowledge base

7. Research proceedinginformation /data

9. Giving meaning to data /interpretation / contextualisation 13. Exchange visits 15. Websites (demand and not-project driven e-knowledge/ information)

Factors creating impact potential, which do not have an obvious match in ordinary projectactivities are shaded. Some others, such as bi-regional discourses and dialogues, giving meaning todata and creating narratives around research results have great potential to create or enhance impact,but may not be sufficiently developed in ordinary projects to realise their full potential.

As a matter of fact, integrating the list

with the columns in the table gives clear

evidence, that neither are all measures

generally foreseen in project planning


21/32


adequate for the purpose of enhancing itsimpact, nor are all key conditions forimproved impact covered by measures

routinely envisaged in research projects.In other words: there was a systemicdeficit in addressing the topics, whichwas an obstacle to creating enhancedimpact of research results, especially inthe shorter term.

This table does not only illustrate thatthere are deficits, it also permits toidentify priorities for improvements.

In FP6 (2002-2006) under the influenceof these considerations small adjustmentshave been made in the requested formatfor project proposals in internationalscientific cooperation (INCO), namely inrelation to requesting plausible andtestable impact hypotheses. This wasintended to encourage more carefulthought about how impact could beplausibly generated, e.g. through closerassociation with relevant social actors at

different stages of the activity cycle (notonly towards the end) and otherwiseaddressing the identified missing links.

It is desirable to take these factors evenmore into account in the preparations andimplementation of FP7 if the impact of research processes is to be improved.

Finally, the list of societal criteria is theone from which indicators for project

impact potentials can be derived ex ante ,not the internal criteria and indicatorsused by the scientific community (whichhave their own merits, but serve differentpurposes).

Monitoring and evaluating the realimpacts can then be based (at the projectlevel) on validating the impact hypothesis , and the results of this

assessment can be used to validate theimpact potential criteria.

This prepared the way for some initialdiscussion on

" What do we do to achievepurposes/characteristics, impactopportunities in the shorter term andlong-term potential?

" What could be suitably aggregatedindicators of achieved projectpurpose, which can be collected and

shared cheaply.Among such aggregated indicators thefollowing may be tentatively listed:

" AI Confidence building: how oftenhas the institution/project partner beenentrusted with coordination,management? Have project resultsbeen requested by others (politicaland economic decision makers at

various levels)?" AII Competence: How often are

the researchers invited to parliament,(political, economic) meetings orhearings involving civil society? Howmuch funding does an institution raisefrom various sources? Hits/visitors onwebsites?

" AIII Capabilities: Number of

citations in press or other media, useof research results in investmentplanning e.g. of regional developmentbanks, parliament minutes, legislationcomments, requested consultancies.

There are thus opportunities to increaseproject impact through judicious planningand implementation putting explicitemphasis on involvement of social actorsfrom the design stage and on the


22/32


interfaces to education and innovation.All of these are now part of the evaluationprocess in FP6, examining whether such

cross-cutting issues have been takenadequately into account, though noformal points are assigned.

Within the context of project levelevaluation at the present time, it is not(yet) feasible to cover the full range of enabling conditions that would providegreater assurance of social impact.However, the emphasis on plausible

impact introduced, among others, as aresult of the ad hoc groups discussionssignals encouragement to incorporate

more resources within the project conceptand implementation for participatoryforms of research and for disseminationas the natural conclusion from theempirical evidence not only arising out of the European Unions own internationalS&T cooperation, but increasinglyrecognised by others as well (KFPE,1998; Dantas, 2005).


23/32


Highlights from three Mediterr anean water r esearch projects

The following section summarises initialfindings of K. Ka str issianakis from ananalysis of questionnaires and directinteraction with project coordinators of three international water research projectsin the Mediterranean carried outfollowing the first workshop.

The analysis focused on four differentperspectives to uncover the pertinence of actual or potential activities that couldhelp overcoming some obstacles toimpact.

" Consortium formation, duration andeffectiveness;

" Networks of partners beyond the

consortium and beyond the sciencesystem;" Research results write-up and

dissemination; record keeping;" Efficiency of tools used towards

reaching the socio-economic targets.

WADI - WAter supply watersheDplanning and management: An Integratedapproach ( http://www.ercim.org/wadi/ ).This r esearch project mobilises teamsfrom northern and southernMediterreanean countries and isdeveloping an integrated informationsystem devoted to computer assistedwatershed planning and management tomeet water demand requirements, foroperational use by engineers and decisionmakers. This system will provide toolscapable to process data and handle all theother computational aspects throughmathematical models, optimisation

schemes and visualization through GIStechniques and viewer tools. End userrequirements are taken into account andthere is some involvement.

MedAqua II - The INCO Project Clusterfor Water Application Projects in the

South Mediterranean Countries(http://www.medaqua.org/default.htm )was an accompanying measur e tostrengthen synergies and cross-fertilisation among past and presentprojects in the South Mediterranean waterprojects through (i) a web-basedcatalogue of projects www.MedAqua.orgcontaining a short description with theexpected and achieved results; and (b) a

joint conference in early 2004 in Ammanfollowing the success of the first Amman2001 Conference.

WASAMED - A platform for effectiveMediterranean communication and debateon water saving in agriculture(http://wasamed.iamb.it/ ). Thiscoord inat ion act ion mobilises a largenumber of scientific teams, agricultureand environment administrations andfarmers and water users organisationsfrom almost all Mediterranean countrieswith a focus on joint learning throughconfronting diverse experiences. Theambition to create a body of commonunderstanding is structured around thewebsite acting as a repository of experience and support for dialogue andfive workshops spread between 2003 and2006 providing opportunities for in-depthdiscussion of subsets of themes.


24/32


The three projects are each of a differentnature, which translates into differentstrengths and limitations concerning the

degree and nature of impact beyond theresearchers and others directly involved.

In the case of WADI, naturally theemphasis is on new scientific knowledgeand capacity building through investmentin young scientists by enabling southernMediterranean PhD students toparticipate. In a number of situationsother institutional and capacity creationeffects are visible through the intensive

use of the research tools such as GIS(geographical information system) onspecific watersheds within and beyondthe directly involved teams. But therelatively high degree of skills requiredfor active involvement in the actualmanipulation of the system limits thescope for direct use by non-specialists.The degree to which this can realisticallybe opened to other social actors duringthe lifetime of this still on-going project

is difficult to assess, though a useful stepinto opening new ways of thinking aboutthe planning at watershed level isapparent with emphasis on the physicalparameters and efforts to capture at leastsome of the socio-economic features.

In the case of the other two projects, theemphasis on coordination and exchangetargets a complementary mode of learningfocused on breadth rather than depth anddraws on networks of professionalcontacts which existed in most casesbefore the projects started. In the case of the accompanying measure the interactionand networking was limited in time andmostly confined to the conference itself,while they can develop over a longerperiod of four years in the case of thecoordination action. However, continuedmaintenance of the web-based projectdatabase containing summary information

about 58 water research projects in theMediterranean between 1997 and 2006,providing contact points and links to

project websites to many of these tofacilitate access to more information onthe projects and the relevant expertise invarious countries concerned is a usefulservice to the public at large, whichcontinues to be used well after the formalend of the AM.

In the WASAMED coordination actionwith its heavy emphasis on web support,ease of access to the technology and

language are arising as a particularchallenge. Many researchers from theregion find that formal communication of research results in English and Frenchcreates barriers to Arabic or Berberspeakers. The need for communicationacross different language and culturalrealms represents a particular challenge todeveloping more shared understanding asthe concepts and a priori assumptionsmade by different social actors and

different scientific disciplines are notnecessarily the same (see also Eco, 2003).Moreover, while efforts at outreachthrough websites are noteworthy, cheapand reliable internet access can not betaken for granted throughout.

Accepting that full inclusiveness remainselusive at project level, some usefuleffects are being noted by loweringaccess barriers to information andknowledge elsewhere and stimulatingbroader-based confrontation of conceptsand solutions. Societal impact of thisuseful potential is hard to quantify, butproject communication events(workshops, seminars, conferences) areset up in such a way as to enableparticipation and active involvement of citizens in ad-hoc panels/sessions, wherescientific discourse and interrogations areshared in order to increase uptake.


25/32


Initial considerations on impact at programme/policy levels

The impact of individual projects can bemuch enhanced by explicit attention tothe factors identified above, but will of necessity remain limited unless theireffects are amplified as a result of enabling policies and their effectiveimplementation. Examining what suchconditions could be and whether and towhich degree they are achieved is thefocus of this section. In the future, theability of countries to access,comprehend, select, adapt, and usescientific and technological knowledgewill increasingly be the determinant of material well being and quality of life (Watson et al ., 2003).

Programme and policy levels of international S&T cooperation areexplored from several perspectives,namely of

a. the macro-context at global level, e.g.in the context of decisions and thePlan of Implementation (JpoI)adopted at the 2002 World Summit onSustainable Development;

b. various European policies with aninternational dimension;

c. research, education and innovationpolicies in partner countries andregions.

Ad a . Already in the run-up of theWSSD, science and technology havereceived increased attention. Not theleast, the African, Caribbean and Pacific(ACP) Ministers of Science and

Technology adopted their Cape TownPlan of Action on Research forSustainable Development in July 2002(ACP Council of Ministers, 2002) with aview to engage the EU more strongly intheir efforts to build capacity in thisarena. The chapter on means toimplement the JPoI is eloquent onpromoting the research capacity building,appropriate technology transfer andscientific and technological cooperation,putting S&T right at the heart of thetransition towards sustainabledevelopment together with trade, debtrelief and focus on health and naturalresources.

Scientific cooperation within and acrossregions has been an important mechanism- as also reflected in growing numbers of scientific publications by authors fromdifferent countries to build politicaltrust much beyond the researchcommunity itself. One case in point is theway in which International S&TCooperation opened the way for easternneighbours of the European Union tobecome candidates and ultimately

members. Another is associated with therelations between the Union and theGroup of 77 in the context of theConvention on Biological Diversity(CBD) and the Cartagena Protocol onBio-Safety, reflecting extensive biotechS&T cooperation between the parties.

This illustrates the importance of combinations of informal and formaltypes of cooperation, with informal


26/32


networks operating against the backdropof a positive policy environment beingparticularly important.

Without a minimal infrastructure rangingfrom electricity supply, communicationsystems, at least basic banking facilitiesto functioning universities andengineering capabilities, countries orregions find it difficult to reap all thebenefits from S&T cooperation.

Thus, there continues to be a gap betweenthis recognition and its translation into

large-scale programmes, though someprogress is being made in Unesco, inglobal ocean observation, various arenasof bilateral and multi-lateral sciencecooperation and other suitable contexts. Itshould be expected that pressure will bemounting to invest in more harmonisedways both in the capacity building andactual research collaborations towardsclosing the gap.

Ad b. Likewise, various Europeanpolicies such as the Action Plan forSustainable Development, the WaterFramework Directive, work on theratification of the Kyoto and theConvention on Biological Diversity andthe Cartagena Protocol on Biosafetytogether with commitments to contributethe Monterrey Consensus and theimplementation of the Doha Declarationin conjunction with development

cooperation policies and last, but notleast, several Communications by theCommission on science and technologyand particularly international scientificcooperation between 1997 and 2003represent a framework conducive formobilising the knowledge fabrics of partner regions and the EU. The researchframework programmes are the principalmeans to implement the policies, though,increasingly, emphasis is also put on

coordinating research policies and thrustsof EU Member States (ERA-Nets) inselected priority areas, such as the recent

case of an ERA-Net on internationalscience cooperation on water issues.

Since the late 90s policy dialogue withmany countries or groups of countriesbelonging to the groups of developingcountries, emerging economies oreconomies in transition and industrialisedcountries was taken up in an increasinglystructured way. Starting initially withbilateral S&T cooperation agreements

with countries wishing to coordinate theirresearch policies with the Union(http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/iscp/index_en.cfm?page=Cooperation%20Agreements&type=other), wider S&Tdialogues became a feature of e.g. theAsia-Europe Meetings (ASEM) initiatedby the current Director General of theWTO, Supachai Panitchpakdi, or theequivalent with Latin America and theCaribbean (ALCUE). As part of the

Barcelona Process, S&T dialogue withMediterranean Partner Countries isinstitutionalised since many years in theform of Mediterranean Coordination(MOCO). Such frameworks often havebi-annual meetings of heads of state orgovernment, ministerial meetings andvarious forms of cooperation at moretechnical levels.

To make such multi-stakeholder dialoguea standing feature, platforms with athematic focus to promote S&Tcooperation and offshoots into education,innovation and investment have been setup e.g. for health with Latin America,aquaculture and water in the ASEMcontext. They offer a range of formal andeven more informal possibilities forcooperation, coordination and building of trust. The consolidation of the EuropeanResearch Area in years to come will


27/32


create a vast intellectual, scientific andcultural space which the European Unionis willing to share with other countries for

the benefit of global sustainable andequitable development (EuropeanCommission, 2002).

Over the last 20 years, some 40,000researchers from all partner countrieshave been mobilised together with theirEuropean peers in joint research andresearch coordination, mostly with afocus on meeting basic needs attuned totheir regional specificities in health and

health care systems, sustainabale foodproduction, processing and conservation,sustainable use of natural resources andenvironmental risk management, energypolicy and knowledge policies.

European level policies and the specificefforts towards international S&Tcooperation have pioneered new types of international relations based on mutualinterest and benefit. But more decisive

steps towards implementation on a muchbroader front and with deeperengagement with a wider range of European and partner institutions arerequired to shorten impact times andengendering more structural effects.

With the general opening of FP6 tointernational cooperation the political willwas signalled to go beyond the well-proven framework of international

scientific cooperation for meeting basicdevelopment needs. However,implementation was so far only partiallysuccessful. The preparations for FP7 offeropportunities to learn the lessons. Thegeneralised references to internationalcooperation in almost all majorcomponents of the initial FP7 proposal(European Commission, 2005a) couldopen opportunities to connect specificEuropean concerns with those of partners

in other parts of the world and thus spellout possibilities to work together on theincreasing number of themes of mutual

interest. The degree to which this willsucceed hinges, among others, onimproved articulation of demand on allsides and practical implementationconditions backed up by widest possibleinformation of researchers and researchmanagers inside and outside the Union.

Ad c. More than 100 countries haveengaged in various forms of scientificcooperation and capacity building with

the EU, foremost developing andemerging economies in the middle-income bracket with an existing researchinfrastructure. Few developing countriesin the low-income bracket below annual

per capita income of


28/32


and economic viability (Bruland, 2001),inviting new thinking on what might beappropriate for developing countries.

Middle-income countries tend to havedual economies with well-connectedelites with advanced research capabilitiesin several areas of particular interest tothem, while large segments of thepopulation are somewhat disconnectedand continue struggling with problemsotherwise typical of developing countries.As the Japanese example shows,however, suitable knowledge policies and

their implementation (in this case earlyhigh literacy rates) are not necessarily theresult of economic development, butrather its precursor (Sen, 1999).

Investing in people and their institutions,particularly in a period of majortransformations taking place in societiesaround the world, is one of the tenets of international scientific cooperation basedon mutual interest and benefits and

grounded in partnership principles.

Distance learning is an innovative way toaddress weaknesses in infrastructure andbuilding capacity in regions unlikely todevelop a fully-fledged university systemin the near future. Several INCO activitiesalready support such strategies puttingemphasis on public knowledgerepositories on the web to cost-effectivecontent delivery. More systematic

approaches would be needed to makebroader inroads, such as illustrated by theIndian and South African programmes fordistance learning.

What seems to be relevant across theboard

Contrary to most other goods, knowledgedoes not get consumed and is not

governed by scarcity. Quite the opposite,the more it is shared, the more it becomesand the more it becomes useful. As

Drucker (2003) observes, it is not subjectto the same economic principles as goodsand services in short supply and thusrequires entirely different approachesmaking cooperation a particularlyattractive course of action.

The more this basic observation informsexploration of such forms of knowledge-based cooperation with particularattention to knowledge in the public

domain, the greater the benefits in storefor partners involved and well beyond.The more enabling policies create thespace and opportunities for practicalexperience to be gained in this arena, thebetter the wide array of possible uses indifferent socio-economic and ecologicalcontexts. It is on the strength of thisinsight that scientific cooperation is set informal agreements, e.g. between Braziland India, between China and India.

Accepting the largely unpredictablenature of value of new knowledge tosocial actors outside the directly involvedresearch teams and the often unexpecteduses to which new scientific findings areput in addition to the originally intendedpurpose (see the case of FishBase above),the European Unions international S&Tcooperation has consistently invested inpeople and their institutions for learning,research and social and technologicalinnovation.

Giving partners a greater stake in theEuropean knowledge landscape andparticipating actively in the programmesof institutions and countries elsewhere inthe world will further amplify the mutualbenefits arising from the past 20 years of experience.


29/32


Conclusion

The starting point for this brief analysiswas the question how to increase societalimpact of the European Unionsinternational scientific cooperation in thedesirable and necessary transition towardssustainable development. Impact wasanalysed with emphasis on increasingS&T capacity in partner countries of theUnions international scientific andtechnological cooperation andcontributing knowledge that helps solvesocietal problems with emphasis on thespecific context of partner countries.

In refining what impact is, which factorsdetermine it and which ones can best beacted upon and how, three parameters

emerged as particularly important fordetermining impact at project level: (i)trust of peers and social actors inscientists, (ii) the perceived relevance of social actors of the research thrust and(iii) communication capability conveyingan ability to listen and convey both theprocess of research and its results inunderstandable and credible ways.

Trust is perhaps the single most important

factor to enable scientific partnershipsbased on mutual respect and benefit.Partnerships provide a critical link between internationally agreedsustainable development goals and theon-the-ground ideas, efforts and scientificand other resources of governments, civilsociety, academia and the private sector.

Governments alone cannot solve theworlds problems. So, mobilising

different social actors - the more risk-inclined private sector together withusually risk-averse civil society groupsand the best available science, can fillgaps and niches that official developmentaid, traditional diplomacy or trade alonecan not.

Such investment in human andinstitutional capital benefits partners indeveloping countries, emergingeconomies and the Union equally. Theprocess of scientific and technologicalcooperation for sustainable developmentaddresses all aspects of the knowledgegeneration and use process, covering thevirtuous triangle from research to

innovation and education / life-longlearning. The potential impact on theoperating system of developing andemerging economies is far-reaching. Thisgives international scientific cooperationa long-term geopolitical dimension andprovides a much enhanced role forscientific knowledge and the ability to usesuch knowledge in problem solving andas an engine of growth and source of employment in todays highly

interconnected world.While attention to the impact parametersfrom the conception phase of a researchcollaboration enhances plausible impactboth in shortening impact times andmagnitude, further analysis showedclearly the limits of potential achievementof individual projects working inisolation.


30/32


Larger-scale societal impact dependsheavily on an enabling policyenvironment that recognises the strategic

importance of science in internationalrelations and in national policies of eachcountry. This needs to translate intominimum infrastructure for research,organisation of demand for knowledgeand its uptake and upstream anddownstream linkages to education andinnovation.

It also needs to be understood that impactat such scales takes time to materialise

and is usually the result of a mosaic of iterative steps taken on several fronts.Evidence shows, however, that such timescales are compressible when suitablepolicies are in place and acted upon.These need to comprise a combination of

investment in people and institutions on along-term basis carefully avoiding stop-and-go situations which are destructive

for social and institutional capital. Policymixes adapted to the respective specificconditions and interests need to beendorsed and implemented both by theEuropean Union and its partners in otherparts of the world to be effective.

Further development and dynamicimplementation of European internationalS&T strategies and their connectivitywith other relevant policy areas, together

with the explicit S&T and innovationpolicies of partner countries, are a priorcondition for reaping the full benefits of scientific cooperation based on mutualinterest.


31/32


Fur ther r eading

ACP Council of Ministers, 2002. Cape Town Plan of Action (on Research for SustainableDevelopment). ACP/84/048/02 Final , 8 p. http://knowledge.cta.int/en/content/view/full/305

Barnet, A., 2005. Reducing poverty needs and innovation system approach. Science andDevelopment Network, http://www.scidev.net/dossiers/ 4 April 2005

Baur, H., M. Bosch, S. Krall, T. Kuby, A. Lobb-Rabe, P.T. Schuetz & A. Springer-Heinze, 2001.Establishing plausibility in impact assessments. Eschborn, Gesellschaft fuer TechnischeZusammenarbeit mbH (GTZ), 19 p. (mimeo)

Bogliotti, C. & J.H. Spangenberg, 2005. A conceptual device for framing sustainability in projectdevelopment and evaluation. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment , 84:347-357.

Bruland, K., 2001. Technological revolutions, innovation systems and convergence from ahistorical perspective. Prepared in the context of the CONVERGE project funded by DGResearch (XII) under contract SOE2-CT98-2047 as part of the TSEP Programme.http://pascal.iseg.utl.pt/~converge/pdfs/(45).pdf

CTA, 2005. Knowledge for Development. http://knowledge.cta.int/

Dantas, E., 2005. The system of innovation approach, and its relevance to developing countries.Science and Development Network. Policy Briefs. http://www.scidev.net/dossiers/ April2005

Diao, X. & Y. Yanoma, 2003. Exploring dynamics in Sub-Saharan African agriculture.

International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Development Strategy andGovernance Division, DSGD Discussion Paper , 2:44 p.

Eco, U., 2000. Mouse or Rat? Translation as negotiation. London, Phoenix, 200 p.

Elvin, M., 1997. Changing stories in the Chinese world. Stanford, USA, Stanford University Press,265 p.

European Commission, 2002. Capitalising on people and institutions. Ten years of EC scientificcooperation for the transition towards sustainability. Luxembourg, Office for OfficialPublications of the European Communities, 23 p. EUR 20351

European Commission, 2004. Facing the challenge. The Lisbon strategy for growth andemployment. Report from the High Level Group chaired by Wim Kok. Luxembourg, Office

for Official Publications of the European Communities, 51 p.European Commission, 2005. Communication to the Spring European Council. Working together

for growth and jobs. A new start for the Lisbon Strategy. European Commission,Comm(2005)24 final, 31 p.

European Commission, 2005a. Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and the Councilconcerning the seventh framework programme of the European Community for research,technological development and demonstration activities (2007 to 2013). Proposal for aCouncil Decision concerning the seventh framework programme of the European AtomicEnergy Community (Euratom) for nuclear research and training activities (2007 to 2011).Building the Europe of Knowledge (presented by the Commission) {SEC(2005) 430,SEC(2005) 431}. European Commission, COM(2005) 119 final, 105 p.


32/32

European Environment Agency, 2001. Late lessons from early warnings: The precautionaryprinciple from 1896 to 2000. Environmental Issue Report 22. Luxembourg, Office forOfficial Publications of the European Communities, 210 p.

Drucker, P.F., 2003. Management challenges for the 21st century. New York, Harper Business, 207p.

Froese, R., 2004. Keep it simple: three indicators to deal with overfishing. Fish and Fisheries , 5:86-91.

Gaillard, J., 1999. La coopration scientifique et technique avec les pays du sud. Peut-on partager lascience ? Paris, Karthala

Gardiner, R. & K. Le Goulven, 2001. Sustaining our global public goods. Towards the EarthSummit 2002. Heinrich Boell Stiftung, Economic Briefing , 3:15 p.

Kastrissianakis, K., 2004. Impact assessment of three water-related projects set in theMediterranean: WADI, MedAqua and WASAMED. European Commission, Directorate

General for Research, Stage Report, 27 p. (mimeo)KFPE, 1998. Guidelines for research in partnership with developing countries. 11 Principles. Swiss

Commission for Research Partnership with Developing Countries, 32 p.

Lavis, J.N. D. Robertson, J.M. Woodside, C.B. McLeod and J. Abelson, 2003. Knowledge TransferStudy Group. How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledgeto decision makers? The Milbank Quarterly, 81(2):221-248.

Nauen, C.E., in press. Implementing the WSSD decision of restoring marine ecosystems by 2015 Scientific information support in the public domain. Marine Policy .

Oldham, G., 2005. International scientific collaboration: a quick guide. Science and DevelopmentNetwork. http://www.scidev.net/dossiers/ Policy Briefs, April 2005.

Pauly, D., 2001. Importance of the historical dimension in policy and management of naturalresource systems. pp. 5-10 In: E. Feoli & C.E. Nauen (eds.). ACP-EU Fisheries ResearchInitiative. Proceedings of the INCO-DEV International Workshop on Information Systemsfor Policy and Technical Support in Fisheries and Aquaculture. Los Banos, Philippines, 5-7June 2000. ACP-EU Fish.Res.Rep. , (8)

Sen, A., 1999. Development as freedom. New York, Anchor Books, 366 p.

Spangenberg, J.H., 2003. Sustainability Science: Science must go public for SustainableDevelopment. Paper presented at the Frontiers 2 Conference, 12-15 February 2003,Teneriffe, Canary Islands, Spain. http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/BCSIA/forum.nsf/ people/SpangenbergJoachimH

Surowiecki, J., 2004. The wisdom of crowds. Why the many are smarter than the few and howcollective wisdom shapes business, economics, societies and nations. Little Brown, 320 p.

United Nations, 2002. Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development.United Nations Department of Economics and Social Affairs, Division for SustainableDevelopment, 62 p. http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/docs.htm

Watson, R., M. Crawford & S. Farley, 2003. Strategic approaches to science and technology indevelopment. The World Bank, Policy Research Working Paper , WPS 3026:52 p.http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDS_IBank_Servlet?pcont=details&eid=000094946_03051404103334

Wilson, E.O., 1998. Consilience: the unity of knowledge. New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 332 p.

Documents

Increasing impact of the EU’s International S&T cooperation for the transition towards sustainable development