EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 3.12.2008xxx 
SEC(2008) 2948 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying document to the 
 
DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIA MENT AND OF THE COUNCIL ON THE 
PARTICIPATION BY THE COMMUNITY IN A EUROPEAN METROLOGY 
RESEARCH PROGRAMME UNDERTAKEN BY SEVERAL MEMBER STATES  
  
SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT  
 
{COM(2008) 814 final} 
{SEC(2008) 2949} 
 
EN 2   EN EXCECUTIVE SUMMARY 
Introduction and Procedural Issues 
The earliest example of the importance of quality of measurement in the construction of society can be 
traced back as early as 3000 BC. The “ cubit ” introduced as the first known unit of length  and used 
to construct the pyramids,  was defined as the length of the Pharaoh’s forearm plus the width of his 
palm. During the time of King Cheops, the great py ramid of Giza was built with this system and the 
uniformity of length measurement was achieved to a relative accuracy of 0.05 % over a distance of 
230 m. Modern European metrology has its roots in the French Revolution, with the political 
motivation to harmonize units all over France and th e concept of establishing units of measurement 
available " for all people, for all time ".  
In today's global economy, metrology is vastly  contributing to technological and economical 
development of many nations in the world. Metrology  research is needed to solve societal problems, 
and examples affect areas such as satellite navigation, healthcare,  semiconductor industry and climate 
change. The European Union was confronted in the nineties with the "mad cow disease" or BSE crisis. 
We all remember the urgent need for metrology research and new reference materials in support to 
regulation and in order to re-establish consumer c onfidence helping to save th e European beef market. 
Metrology research being a key su pporting activity for re gulation and standardisation has therefore 
traditionally been a high national priority in many economies.  However looking back to the French 
Revolution, European countries are since that  time operating their national metrology research 
activities in full isolation. Still today EU Member stat es have been unable to get their acts together and 
to create on their own a single, modern and truly integrated European Metrology Research Programme 
(EMRP).  
For many years, the Community has made use of the various provisions of the Treaty in order to 
encourage greater coordination a nd cooperation between national research programmes. In 2000 the 
Lisbon European Council concluded that research act ivities at national and Union level must be better 
integrated and coordinated to make them as efficien t and innovative as possible. In 2006, the European 
Parliament put emphasis on better coordination of national and European research programmes. In the 
FP7 Cooperation Specific programme an Article 169  was announced to implement a joint European 
metrology research programme via the existing National Metrology Laboratory networks.  
Beside the well documented support from European Pa rliament and Council for such an initiative an 
extensive stakeholder consultation confirmed th e need for Community action in the envisaged 
direction of integration and m odernisation of the European Metrology system. The concerned 
Commission services using metrology research results in their respective fields to prepare modern 
regulation/legislation (e.g. SANCO, ENV, ENTR) also confirmed in inter-service meetings the 
usefulness of an integrated programme embedding largely the existing national research programmes. 
Problem Definition 
Metrology is hidden from public view yet it is essential for the facilitation of modern trade and 
communications. Access to markets can be hampered by incompatible standards or the lack of uniform 
and accurate weights and measures. Metrology research has a strong public good  character and is a 
main supporting activity for government regulation and standardisation. All major economic powers in 
the world have recognized that technology R&D in metrology is critical to an advanced nation’s long 
term economic growth. Against this background Europe is facing what is called the European 
metrology dilemma; the “European metrology dilemma” is to permanently align metrology research 
efforts with societal needs which both are more demanding, more complex and therefore more 
resource intensive whilst still servicing existing "trad itional" demands without any new or additional 
resources. At the same time, global needs for accurate and speedy measurement in traditional 
industries are increasing, new, emerging technolo gies put additional pressure on the measurement 
system and necessitate “entirely new types of meas urement” and in many societal areas such as 
 
EN 3   EN health care, environment protection, food safety or transport the recognition as to the importance of 
standards and measurement is grow ing rapidly and relate directly to  legislation, while available 
European resources are not increasing no r used in an optimal manner.  
The European metrology research community is a specialised community only loosely linked to 
research organisations or academia. It is largely fragmented comprising a few centres of global excellence which would benefit from wide compe tition on an international scale. Duplication of 
research clearly exist as for example in the so  called "Calibration and Measurement Capability 
Statements" (CMCs), where the "big 4" Europ ean metrology R&D performing countries (Germany, 
UK France and Italy) hold 4050 CMCs compared with  the a total of 2250 CMCs for the whole U.S. 
Smaller Member States have excellent scientific knowle dge in different metrology relevant fields (e.g. 
Nanotechnologies) but are unable to build their own metrology research capacities due to the lack of critical mass and the huge start-up investments. Syst em failure has been recognised also at national 
level, and an Europeanization and modernisation of  programming can change th is situation and solve 
the key problem : 
The European metrology research system supporte d by solitary national intervention logic concerning 
research programming has to overcome the "Metro logy dilemma". The European potential in 
metrology research is not fully exp loited to assure the optimal answ ers to societal challenges. Joint 
action between Member States and Community is missing in order to provide for a modern and 
challenge oriented research effort in metrology. Any new approach needs to increase the available 
resources and can only be successful if it takes fully  the existing national systems into account, 
integrates them into a true European progr amme which should lead to a real step-change and 
modernisation for the existing national systems.  
The right for the Community to act in this field is set out in several articles of the Treaty providing for 
research coordination and cooperation between Me mber States and the Community. Article 165 
stipulates that "the Community and the Member States shall coordinate their research and 
technological development activities so as to ensure  that national policies and Community policy are 
mutually consistent". Obvious ly Article 169 invites the Community to make provision for 
participation in research and development progr ammes undertaken by several Member States. 
Community action seems highly justified, as Member States are unlikely to be able to address these 
problems acting alone. Secondly the rationale for EU action stems partly from the trans-national nature 
of some of the key challenges (for example, health care, environment protection or food safety) where 
Member States need to act together to properly tackle the problems at trans-national level.  
Objectives  
The general policy  objectives of the initiative is to enhance the EU's capacity to achieve its high level 
policy goals and respond to the major challenges it faces in the coming years: 
• To contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the revised Lisbon Strategy  
• In particular to invest more and be tter in knowledge for growth and jobs. 
• To contribute to the realisation of the European Research Area (ERA)  
• To help Europe respond more effectively to key societal challenges such as environmental 
protection, health care, food safety, or public security  
In order to contribute to achieving these general po licy objectives, it will be necessary to improve the 
efficiency and effectiveness of public metrology research. Specific objectives  are: 
• Structuring the ERA through coor dinating and partly integrating national public metrology research 
programmes. 
• Improve the efficiency of Europe’s fragmented public metrology research approach. 
• To increase the impact of these programmes. 
• To remove barriers between national metrology research programmes. 
In order to promote the above improvements in impact and efficiency, the operational objectives  are:  
• Cross-border public research programme  coordination and integration. 
 
EN 4   EN • Address the grand challenges (e.g. climate change ) and areas with pressing metrology needs (e.g. 
new and emerging technologies like for example nano- biotech- healthcare- metrology). 
• Enable some “new” MS or candidate count ries to build metrology research capacity. 
• Open access to unique research infrastructures and facilities  
• Increase generic collaboration between national me trology research programmes with the relevant 
science community at European level. 
• Modernisation in the programming of nati onal and European research priorities. 
• Foster mobility of "early-stage" researchers from National Metrology Institutes (NMI) and 
Designated Institutes (DI). 
• Europe should speak with one voice to st rengthen its influence at global level. 
• Metrology research has to become a suppor ting activity for government regulation. 
• Support to industry and economic growth through up-front public metrology research. 
Presentation of the Policy Option 
The options for Community action are guided by the logic and intervention mechanisms of the 
Framework Programme 7. Beside no action these options therefore refer to either indirect or direct 
Community actions (research funding) under FP7 , which would match the existing national 
intervention logic concerning research programming in different Member States.  
The options are labelled as follows on the basis of their main characteristics. 
(1) Policy Option 1: "No further Community action"; status quo, no further action on 
EMRP - may lead to intergovernmental approach 
(2) Policy Option 2: "Bottom-up community indire ct action – light coordination" under FP7 
programmes and themes (Cooperation – Capacities Programmes). The aim would be to use the 
ERA-NET scheme and/or the ERA-NET Plus scheme but addressing isolated issues theme by 
theme and in the FP programme part by programme part ("business-as-usual" option). 
(3) Policy Option 3: "Top – Down" community indirect  action – Reinstall metrology theme in the 
FP – Part under FP7 or preparation of FP8 and reinstall a Community Programme on Metrology  
(4) Policy Option 4: "Article 169 – programme inte gration through community indirect action"; 
Community action to achieve MS programme integration via Article 169, as indicated in the 
F7 Cooperation specific programme 
(5) Policy Option 5: JRC – direct action; a single European metrology research programme to be 
implemented via JRC to cover metrology needs at European level 
The difference between these five options lays in th e way in which the Community intervention is set 
up – either as an indirect action or a direct action. The main characteristics of each policy option are 
discussed in detail in the following sub-sections. 
Analysis and comparison of the Options   
Should Policy Option 1  be chosen, the situation as we find it t oday may not remain in  place due to the 
absence of any political and/or or financial Communi ty intervention (ERA-NET or other coordination 
tools). It will most likely deteriorate as it could be  foreseen that Member Stat es will invest less if the 
domain of metrology research as the area does not to appear as a European prio rity area. The status 
quo and separation between the Member States' pr ogrammes will remain; the likelihood of research 
groups of newcomer countries to hook up with expe rienced and high level research teams in more 
advanced countries will be low. Policy Option 2  would continue the route that has been taken with the 
ERA-NET in FP6 and ERA-NET-Plus at the start of FP7. EU policy domains and research fields (e.g., energy, environment) can be easily involved direct ly into the coordination with MS programmes and 
well conceived interaction mechanisms with variou s metrology oriented ERA-NETs will be key. A 
coherent joint long term programmatic approach  will not take place as in the case of a genuine 
European research programme. Policy Option 3  needs no major institutional set up. It would create a 
dedicated research programme for metrology wher e the metrology community and the whole science 
community as well as industry in general can compete for funding under FP rules. It provides the opportunity to focus in particular on new tec hnological challenges in emerging fields, thus 
 
EN 5   EN contributing to the modernisation of the sector. This r oute is similar to Option 2. It will have no effect 
on the existing national metrology research systems and integration between the national programmes 
and infrastructures. Policy Option 4  creates a platform for joint EU and Member State research 
programming, thus creating a cohere nt and long term research agenda with critical mass. The active 
participation of the European Commission can safeguard an emphasis on mobility, openness and a 
focus on emerging areas. The combination of EU and national funds creates a critical mass that has certain likelihood to stimulate structural changes in the national metrology research systems. The linkages with industry are not explicit at EU level an d stay rather at national level. This option will 
require substantial institutional changes that will lik ely take time and complex negotiation with MS to 
implement. Policy Option 5  implies that metrology research will take place in isolation from the 
Member States their respective research programmes and related infrastructures and thus having little 
influence on restructuring the national metrology r esearch systems and no feeling for the needs of 
Member States. Additional bottlenecks are the recr uitment requirements for JRC and the lack of 
competition in the metrology field, which by its na ture needs competing research tracks to find the 
most reliable solutions.  
Against this general comparison of all five policy op tions we are of the opinion that Options 1 and 5 
are not viable alternatives to address the problem st ated above and we will therefore limit the further 
detailed discussion to options 2, 3 and 4 to compare the remaining options directly. A wide range of 
impacts is described in relation to the operati onal objectives. The following table summarises the 
analysis made and shows how the three viable optio ns compare in terms on impact on the objective of 
a Community action in metrology research. 
Table: Overview of potential impacts of three options  
Impact on: Option 2: 
Light Coord.  Option 3: 
FP Option 4: Art 
169 
Efficiency of co-ordination, integration of NMI and 
national programmes  Medium  Very Low very High 
Effectiveness of co-ordination, integration of NMI 
and national programmes Medium Low High 
Grand Challenges  Medium High High 
New MS: capacity building Low/Medium Low Medium/High 
Open access to infrastructures Low/Medium Low Medium/High 
Interaction with science community Low/medium very High Medium/High 
Modernisation metrology system Medium Low High 
Mobility and Human Resource development Low Very Low Medium 
Global cooperation and position of Europe Low/medium Low High 
Support to EU regulation Low Low High 
Growth: Service to industry  Low Low Medium 
Growth: Support to emerging sectors Medium High High 
This comparison illustrated that the impacts of an  Article 169 European on the objectives regarding a 
metrology action, are the strongest.  
 
EN 6   EN We come to the overall conclusion that time is ripe for an Art. 169 initiative in metrology. The 
initiative is important both for the advancemen t and modernisation of the European metrology 
research system and as support for those industr ies and scientific fields that need more and 
more sophisticated metrology activities . 
The major findings of the Impact Assessment pro cess are summarised here. The “metrology dilemma” 
is a reality. The examples have confirmed that the demands on the metrology research and service 
provisions are growing. Metrology has a direct importance to contribute to problem solving and policy goals in Europe. The more Europe is defining gran d challenges, the more policy is oriented towards 
those challenges, and the more Europe is also th e reference for crisis management that involves 
accurate measurement and testing. Art. 169 would mobilise additional funds, both at the European 
level and at National level. The Community contribu tion would ensure that tr uly European interest 
would be reflected in the working programme of  the new Art. 169 EMRP, without limiting national 
activities and binding them solely to the European dimension of the programme. From all alternatives 
compared, the Art. 169 would best contribute to a m odernisation of the national structures. The goals 
fit the European context to contribute directly to  the Lisbon process and if implemented appropriately, 
metrology research could be at the forefront of cr eating the ERA based on joint initiatives of member 
states and the Commission.  
Monitoring and Evaluation 
The monitoring and evaluation will be accompanied by an annual reporting done by the Dedicated 
Implementation Structure (DIS) referring to record able integration indicators and qualitative progress 
indicators on the basis of the expected actions with in the EMRP programme. The DIS will be asked to 
submit on a call by call basis the information required for the indicators and for the self-assessment, starting with data for the year before EMRP begins . An expert group in charge of a mid-term and an 
ex-post evaluation will be asked to evaluate the progress in the different actions of the planned 
programme and base its assessment on 13 well define d indicators. The expert group will further assess 
impact of EMRP on the integration of national metr ology programmes, restructuring of the metrology 
networks and programmes, im pact on ERA in general.