EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  The current international policies and activities of the Research Councils lack cohesion. This mirrors the low priority and lack of coordination of international research across UK government departments. A lack of vision and inadequate resources curtail the development of strategic international research policies and priorities.

  An increasing amount of research is being undertaken collaboratively through networks of world leading organizations that will move towards coherent virtual institutes. The Research Councils must transform their international policies and activities if the UK is to secure a leading research role, and deliver an innovation and knowledge based economy.

1.  The NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH) is the UK's Centre of Excellence for research in the land and freshwater environmental sciences. Research is aimed at improving understanding of the natural processes that underlie the Earth's support systems (eg climate, water resources, natural hazards, ecosystem services), and of the impacts of human activity on the natural environment. CEH provides the knowledge base for UK government, European and international policies to underpin solutions to environmental issues arising from global change and the need for sustainable economies.

2.  Many of the scientific issues that CEH addresses are global in extent, and require studies to be undertaken at key sites around the world. In order to benchmark and improve its knowledge, CEH works with, and learns from, other world leading research organizations. Through its international activities CEH is able to attract world class scientific staff. CEH has undertaken research in more than seventy countries.

3.  While CEH's science falls mainly within the remit of NERC, the new and increasingly complex challenges that CEH is seeking to tackle often cut across several RCs (ESRC, EPSRC, BBSRC and MRC). CEH is therefore affected by the international policies and activities of these different RCs.

4.   The International Dimension to Research

  The international policies and activities of the Research Councils must be assessed in terms of how current, and expected future, research will be undertaken.

  4.1  Understanding and finding answers to the large and complex challenges facing individuals, nations, and the global community requires the mobilization of massive resources. These resources can only be realised through international coordination and collaboration between teams, using costly research infrastructures that are established and operated on the basis of shared financial support, and levels of usage.

  4.2  Other drivers of change include the advances in Information and Communications systems, the standardization of English as the language of research, personal (hyper-)mobility and global environmental monitoring.

  4.3  In the future far more research will be undertaken across globally networked organizations acting as virtual institutes. National research organizations will increasingly commit resources to collaborative programmes that are agreed and implemented thorough both bi-lateral agreements, and as part of formal multinational research networks.

  4.4  These international programmes will need far greater mobility, including secondment, of researchers between collaborating institutions, and between research organizations, RCs and UK government departments.

  4.5  International policies and activities must progress from mere communication, through coordination into mature strategic research collaboration.

  4.6  If the UK is to be a world leading knowledge and innovation based economy, it must have research organizations, Research Councils, and government departments that have the policies, strategies, structures and programmes in place to develop and benefit from international collaboration. This vision is largely lacking from the UK government departments and the RCs.

5.   Research Councils, UK Government Departments and International Research

  It would be a mistake to review the international research policies and activities of the RCs in isolation from those of UK government departments. Many of the short-comings of RC international policies and activities are linked to a lack of vision and collaboration between UK government departments.

  5.1  The international research activities of some of our EU partners (eg France and Germany) are more strategically planned and executed with greater coordination between the research organizations, RC equivalents, and government departments. This coordination is embedded in the French systems, and evidenced by established mechanisms for exchange of research policymakers, managers and administrators between research organizations, other government ministries and overseas postings.

  5.2  The French and several other European research communities enjoy high level diplomatic support in establishing long term international research collaboration. This long term commitment encourages research organizations to commit their resources to participate in and support these strategies.

  5.3  In implementing the Lisbon Agenda, the European Commission has launched a number of initiatives to change the industrial culture of Europe. These initiatives increase the opportunities for UK RCs to work collaboratively with the private sector in industrially relevant international research.

  5.4  Within the DTi, research capacity is not adequately prioritized as an asset to international trade, essential if the UK is to be seen as a country of innovation.

  5.5  Compared to other European Ministries of Foreign Affairs, the FCO does not make adequate use of scientific research as an instrument of foreign policy. While recent expansion of the FCO Global Opportunities Fund is welcome, the implementation mechanism is pre-disposed to short term collaboration.

  5.6  The primary role of the recently expanded FCO S&T network is to identify S&T advances in other countries and drawn these to the attention of UK industry. There is scope for a similar network to actively promote and support the participation of the UK research community in international activities.

  5.7  The overseas offices of the British Council have high a degree of autonomy in setting their own funding priorities. While the BC provides "pump-priming" support for individual scientific exchanges, it can not make commitments to tackle large complex scientific challenges.

  5.8  Historically, the UK research community has been mobilized to provide information whenever a UK minister makes a science related visit to an overseas country. These enterprises typically involve a trawl of what research collaboration already exists, followed by a few short-term actions—eg organize an exchange visit or participate in a workshop to define research needs. There is almost never funding for any collaborative research, leaving both sides with the impression that the objective of these events is media impact.

6.   The role and activities of UKRO

  6.1  NERC, the other RCs and subscribing Universities support the UKRO office in Brussels. While this provides an adequate level of information through e-mail, visits, training programmes and its annual conference, UKRO operates within well defined constraints. UKRO will need to innovate if it is to maintain its historical superiority as a national research support service.

  6.2  NERC does not engage with the European Commission in the same way as its European counterparts. While its EU research council partners are able to "command" the regular presence of very senior DG Research staff at national events—this is rarely the case in the UK. This is attributable to a lack of political muscle in Brussels in support of the UK research community.

  6.3  UKRO operates in a neutral information gathering and advisory capacity, and not in a proactive promotional role for UK science in Brussels. It should be noted that the various Member State research offices in Brussels offer quite different services. For example, the Italian research office in Brussels is headed by a diplomat.

  6.4  There is a need for an additional Brussels based service to promote and facilitate the involvement of the UK research community in long term collaborative Agreements. This function would therefore be better delivered through a different office (UKREP?) so that UKRO's effectiveness as a neutral advisor is not compromised.

  6.5  The establishment of a RCUK office in China is a welcome step. This office needs to have access to specific and adequate funds for new UK-China collaborative research, and enjoy high level political/diplomatic support.

  6.6  NERC does not provide funding to support long term strategic research collaboration with research organizations (eg CSIRO, CSIR) elsewhere in the world. There are no mechanisms within NERC by which the objectives and potential benefits of such collaborative research agreements could be evaluated and approved.

7.   International Activities with NERC

  7.1  NERC has responsibilities for financial support of various international research programmes and infrastructure (eg the International Geophere Biosphere Programme IGBP), and hosts Programme Offices. This support can be detached from the mainstream activities. The RCs could do more to ensure maximum involvement of UK researchers in, and return from, these programmes.

  7.2  NERC has longer term policy commitments and mechanisms to support international collaborative research in some areas of science (eg. marine, ocean drilling and atmospheric sciences). However, in the area of terrestrial sciences, there is not this level of activity.

  7.3  The new science strategy being developed by NERC comprises seven thematic areas. As yet it is unclear how international science will be funded within the new strategy, particularly when issues cut across the proposed NERC science themes and across RC interests (eg economic sustainability of the Amazon rainforest).

  7.4  Thematic Programme mode is typically for 4-5 year duration, and hence is not designed to support long term strategic partnerships with major research organizations.

  7.5  The CEH benefits from the work of the NERC International Strategy Group. This Group is hard working, diligent, and able to provide high quality strategic insight into the Environment Priority of the Framework Programme. However, the constraints on their role, responsibilities, and resources means that the Group is not able to fulfil its potential.

  7.6  This NERC International Strategy Group probably provides some of the best European support of any of the Research Councils.

  7.7  A prime responsibility of NERC ISG is to provide scientific support to DEFRA in the EU Framework Programmes. As an outcome of this role, NERC ISG is therefore able to provide information to the UK research community, and feed information back to DG Research—but only on the Environment Programme. NERC International does not provide information about other FP priority areas—eg Biotechnology, Energy, ICT, Nanotechnology etc that are of interest to CEH.

  7.8  For the last four years NERC has supported the participation of its Centre/Surveys in the EC Framework Programme through the "NERC Incentive Fund". This is a significant step in the right direction and should be continued throughout FP7.

  7.9  When there has been an explicit NERC International policy (eg the SE Asian "Tiger Economies" as a priority for collaboration), this has not been supported by any financial resources to implement the policy.

  7.10  The importance of international research is not adequately represented across the whole NERC structure. There is a lack of high level staff with the specific authority and responsibility to promote international activities.

  7.11  When considered in terms the need for international research, the rapidly developing globally networked research community, and the activities of EU counterparts—NERC's international policies and activities, together with those of the other Research Councils, lack cohesion.

  7.12  Fine tuning existing policies and procedures is not an option.

8.   A Vision for future International Research

  8.1  In order to deliver its mission, CEH needs to be able to establish long term collaborative research programmes with other major research organizations around the world. This "bi-lateral" collaboration will occur within the context of coordinated programmes involving several (sometimes many) other world leading research organizations.

  8.2  There must be a framework within which CEH and similar organisations can proceed with developing strategic long term collaborative research programmes with specific international research partner organizations. This framework should include both the RCs and UK government departments. It should be supported by experienced senior staff in RC international groups, with high level political support from the UK representative offices overseas, and in Brussels.

  8.3  More generally, this framework should facilitate better integration of UK foreign policy (FCO), trade (DTi), environmental (DEFRA) and development (DFID) policies.

  8.4  This framework should enable delivery of the strategic vision, but not be so rigid that it constrains opportunistic collaboration arrangements that are identified by the research community.

  8.5  Funding to support this framework should be distributed between government departments, the RCs and research organizations to ensure both a strategic and responsive implementation.

  8.6  This requires a change in current policies, priorities, and resourcing by both the RCs and the UK government departments involved in international research activities.

April 2007