EN    EN EN 
 
EN 1   EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 29.10.2009 
SEC(2009) 1476 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 
  
Accompanying document to the 
  
Proposal for a 
  
DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN P ARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 
  
on the participation by the Community in a Joint Baltic Sea Research and Development 
Programme (BONUS-169) undertaken  by several Member States 
  
{COM(2009) 610} {SEC(2009) 1475} 
 
EN 2   EN 1. Introduction and problem definition 
The Baltic Sea ecosystem is seriously im pacted by many natural and human-induced 
pressures. The sea and coasts are particularly  affected by combined and increasing negative 
impacts from pollution, eutroph ication, climate change, acidifi cation, invasive alien species, 
overexploitation of living resources and biodive rsity loss. These threats are reducing the 
capacity of the Baltic Sea to sustainably pr ovide the goods and services upon which humans 
depend. This has critical implications for th e entire Baltic Region, an d the wider European 
Community. In the coming decades, global change  (including climate change) and long-term, 
as well as long-range influences are predicted to  increase, putting addi tional pressures on the 
Baltic Sea System.  
Sustainable solutions to environmental problems and the use of the goods and services of the 
Baltic Sea System necessitate ne w scientific knowledge to understand the behaviour of the 
extremely complex Baltic Sea System, its intera ctions and feedbacks wi th the multiple natural 
and anthropogenic drivers, t hus requiring the enhanced c oordination and cooperation of 
research among the Baltic Sea States. 
However, while many research activities are taki ng place in the Baltic Sea region these efforts 
remain for a large part uncoordinated and lack  a jointly agreed regi onal action plan. As a 
result, the efforts so urgently required to meet the complex challenges faced are highly 
fragmented. In addition the regional dimension of the problems, and for some of them the 
global dimension e.g. climate change, require a sustained integrated  approach regarding 
research at the regional level.  
This situation calls for the development and implementation of a fully-integrated approach 
whereby the relevant research programmes of all the bordering States can be streamlined and 
focussed in order to address the complex and pressing issues at ha nd, in a coordinated, 
efficient and effective manner. 
To this effect, over the last 15  years, there has been a long-s tanding political support for an 
improved coordination of research  activities in Europe and for coordination of national and 
regional research policies a nd programmes under the suppor t of the Seventh Framework 
Programme (FP7) to avoid fragmentation and over lapping competencies. In  reply to this and 
for the context of the Baltic Sea, the Commi ssion presented a roadmap for the implementation 
of an Article 169 initiative in  the field of Baltic Sea Re search under the FP7 Specific 
Programme1.  
2. Subsidiarity 
Despite numerous research activities and all the efforts undertaken to address the 
fragmentation of research in the region, a reinforced integrati on among nationally funded 
research efforts is still necessary to addres s environmental challenges facing the Baltic Sea 
Region, in their great majority of trans-nationa l nature and the shortcomings leading to the 
fragmentation in research. However, the stra tegic objectives of this action, namely the 
integration of the national Baltic Sea envir onmental research programmes of the surrounding 
States, can not be addresse d by individual Member Stat es acting in isolation. The 
                                                 
1 Council Decision of 19 December 2006 concerning the specifi c programme ‘Cooperation’ implementing the Seventh Framework 
Programme of the European Community fo r research, technological development a nd demonstration activities (2007 to 2013)  
 
EN 3   EN collaboration of the eight Baltic Sea States, and eventually the Russian Federation, would 
bring together an unprecedented critical mass which is so necessary to achieve the Programme's objectives. 
The European added value in the implementation of  an Article 169 initiati ve is fully justified 
by the limited possibilities available at national,  regional or local leve l to individually meet 
the complex environmental challenges of the Baltic  Sea region as a whole. This has been also 
acknowledged by the very strong political  support and endorsement by the national 
governments of the Baltic States, the various European Councils and the European Parliament. Furthermore, such an initiative would, through the joint im plementation of calls 
for proposals, the joint development of shar ed training and exchange programmes and the 
sharing of large-scale research infrastructures , assist in capacity building in the Member 
States with lower research capacities and bridge the gap in Ba ltic Sea research.  
Last but not least, further to  the Baltic-specific expected a dded-value, the initiative will 
inspire other European seas for developmen t of similar research governance models.  
3. Objectives  
The general policy objective  of the current initiative is to enhance the Baltic Sea Region's 
research capacity to underpin the devel opment and implementation of 'fit-for-purpose' 
regulations, policies and management practi ces, to respond effec tively to the major 
environmental and key societal challenges the region faces and will face in the coming years 
and to improve the efficiency and effectiv eness of the Baltic Sea Region's fragmented 
environmental research programming and approach  by integrating the research activities in 
the Baltic Sea System into a durable, cooper ative, interdisciplinary well integrated and 
focussed multi-national programme. 
The specific objectives of  the initiative are to:  
• Establish a policy-driven Strategic Research Agendas 
• Increase sustainable cross-border and cr oss-sectoral public research programme 
coordination and integration  
• Raise the research capacity level of the new EU Baltic States  
• Mobilise additional financial resources from enhanced cross-sectoral Baltic Sea 
system research collaboration 
The operational objectives of  the initiative are to:  
• Establish appropriate Stake holder Consultation Platform s including representation 
from all relevant sectors 
• Establish appropriate Implementati on Modalities enabling an effective 
implementation of the programme through a join t management legal entity and governance 
structure  
• Launch at least three cross-thematic, strategically focussed and multi-partner joint 
calls for proposals  
 
EN 4   EN 4. Policy Options   
Three policy options are considered for meeti ng the general and specif ic objectives of the 
initiative. These are: 
Policy option 1: The continua tion of policies so far deve loped under FP 7 (“business as 
usual”) 
Policy option 2: The recourse to regionally-o riented trans-thematic call(s) under the 
Framework Programme 
Policy option 3: Recourse to Article 169 with three alternative approaches (A, B and C) 
varying in the extent and depth of the strategi c orientation and the stak eholder involvement in 
the streamlining and implementatio n of the calls for proposals  
- Policy option 3 through approach A – Recourse  to an Article 169 with a focus limited to 
marine research and with the immediate launc hing of science-driven calls for proposals 
- Policy option 3 through approach B – Recourse to an Article 169 with a focus broadened to 
include the Baltic Sea drainage basin and with a Strategic vision and roadmap to be developed 
prior to the start of the in itiative and Commission proposal 
- Policy option 3 through approach C – Recourse to an Article 169 with a focus broadened to 
include the Baltic Sea drainage basin and w ith a strategic vision and roadmap developed 
during the first phase of the initiative.  
The difference between the three options consid ered lies in the way in which the Community 
intervention is set up, as an indirect action or a direct one, in the way underlying strategies are 
developed and implemented, and in the scope of  the research field, ex clusively marine or 
encompassing a basin approach. 
5. Assessment of impacts  
The table below summarises the analysis ma de and shows how policy option 2 and policy 
option 3 through approaches A, B and C compare in terms of positive impact of a Community 
action in relation to the defined general and specific objectives. An analysis of the potential 
impacts of Policy option 1 (Continuation of polic ies so far developed under FP 7, business as 
usual) is not included in the ta ble given that this option forms the baseline. These scores are 
made relating to the baseline scenario (Po licy option 1-Continuation of policies so far 
developed under FP 7, business as usual) whic h is considered as zero. The comparison 
illustrates that the impact of policy option 3 through approach C is the most significant.
 
EN 5   EN Overview of potential impacts of the Policy Options 
Potential Impact of the defined objectives :  Option 2 Option 3 A Option 3 B Option 3 C 
GENERAL OBJECTIVE 
• Enhance the Baltic Sea Region's research 
capacity to underpin the development and 
implementation of 'fit-for-purpose' regulations, policies and management 
practices, to respond effectively to the 
major environmental and key societal challenges the region faces and will face in 
the coming years and to improve the 
efficiency and effectiveness of the Baltic Sea Region's fragmented environmental 
research programming and approach by 
integrating the research activities in the Baltic Sea System into a durable, 
cooperative, interdisciplinary well 
integrated and focussed multi-national 
programme. Medium Medium High Very High 
SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES 
• Establish a policy-driven Strategic Research 
Agenda  Very Low Very Low High Very High  
• Increase sustainable cross-border and cross-
sectoral public research programme 
coordination and integration Medium High High Very High 
• Raise the research capacity level of the new 
EU Baltic States High High High High 
• Mobilise additional financial resources from 
enhanced cross-sectoral Baltic Sea system 
research collaboration Low Low High Very High 
OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVES 
• Establish appropriate Stakeholder 
Consultation Platforms including 
representation from all relevant sectors Low Medium High Very High 
• Establish appropriate Implementation 
Modalities enabling an effective implementation of the programme through a 
joint management legal entity and 
governance structure  Low Low High Very High 
• Launch at least three cross-thematic, 
strategically focussed and multi-partner 
joint calls for proposals  Medium Medium High Very High 
 
6. Comparison of the Options: Preferred Option 
 
EN 6   EN Based on the review of the potential Policy Options, Policy option 3 through approach C 
could, if fully developed, lead to substantive improvement of the research capacity in the 
Baltic region to better underpin sustainable development in the area.  
Policy option 3 through approach C provides additional time and resources for establishing 
the necessary mechanisms that would bring the Article 169 initiative more closely in line with 
the letter and the spirit of Article 169, would create a platform for joint EU and Member State research programming, thus creati ng a coherent and long term re search agenda with critical 
mass. Through the involvement in the manage ment bodies of the in itiative, 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 fund s creates a critical 
mass in terms of capacity, expertise and resources  that would stimulate structural changes in 
the national Baltic Sea and related river basi n research systems and would promote the 
development and implementation of a durable, c ooperative, interdisciplinary well integrated 
and focussed multi-national programme in suppor t of the region's sustainable development. 
The linkages with industry and other stakeholde rs and users would be strengthened at national 
level. This option would not require substant ial institutional change as the EEIG is well 
established; however, it would open up opportuniti es for other funding institutions to provide 
support in financing the Road Map for strate gic research that w ould benefit a wider 
community of economic and social interests that depend upon resources derived from the 
Baltic System. It is the most promising polic y option in terms of achieving long-lasted and 
durable integration at th e institutional (funding agencies) as we ll as research community level.  
Policy Option 3 through approach C could be eff ective in the application of the intent and 
spirit of Article 169 and has strong poten tial for gaining adde d value from other 
complementary research activ ities funded under FP6 and FP7. Its success, however, relies 
heavily upon the achievement of  the objectives of the strategic phase. To affirm this 
achievement, a review of the st rategic phase will be undertaken  by the Commission's services 
together with an Independent Expert Review Committee in order to ve rify whether the goals 
and objectives set out in the initial Strategic phase have been achieved.  
Policy Option 3 through approach C would mob ilise additional funds, both at the European 
and at national level. The Comm unity contribution would ensure that truly European interest 
would be reflected in the working programme of the initiative, without limiting national 
activities and binding them solely to the European dimension of the programme.  
We come to the overall conclusion that time is ripe for an Article 169 initiative  bringing 
together the critical mass required to address the complex environmental challenges of the 
Baltic Sea region as a whole to achieve the Programmes objectives. 
 
7. Monitoring and evaluation 
The preferred option (policy option 3 through approach C) foresees a  BONUS-169 initiative 
implemented in two distinct phases - a first, 2-year strategic phase and a second 5-year 
implementation phase during which a minimu m of three calls fo r proposals would be 
published.  
In addition to the ex-ante evalua tion of the DIS that will be ca rried out prior to  the beginning 
of the Implementation Phase according to the Financial Regulation, the evaluation and monitoring of the BONU S initiative would be conducted by the Commission together with the 
 
EN 7   EN assistance of independent experts. Three reviews would be conducted; a first review at the end 
of the strategic phase, a mid-term review dur ing the implementation phase and an ex-post 
review at the end of the implementation phase . The Commission would evaluate the progress 
made towards the general and specific objective s using a list of measurable indicators. It 
should be noted that the main im pacts of the initiative are e xpected to take place mainly 
towards the end of the BONUS programme. Furtherm ore, the Article 169 initiative will fulfil 
to a very large extent the Van Velzen recommendations2. 
Regarding the financial implications of the initiative, under the preferred policy option 
presented above, a financial commitment of the order of EUR 26M fresh money has been 
pledged by the Participating States (PS)  together with additional "in-kind" and 
"infrastructure" contributions of EUR 10M. Under policy option 3 B and C and unlike policy 
option 3A, an additional funding of the order of EUR 14M would be sought from the PS by 
engaging further national Funding Agencies duri ng the strategic phase of the initiative. 
Projects to be implemented under the Articl e 169 initiative would be funded by a shared 
financial contribution by both the Community and the Particip ating States. The EC would 
match the contributions made to the BONUS-169 by the Participating States and this sharing 
would be done according to a ceiling to be fixed in the Commission proposal for a co-
decision.  
Under policy option 3 through approach C an d unlike policy options 2, 3A and 3B, a 
maximum of EUR 1.25 M (to be matched by an e qual amount by the Participating States) out 
of the total EU contribution woul d be provided to cover the elig ible costs incurred during the 
strategic phase. This amount would be subtracted  from the total EU c ontribution. This amount 
would however enhance the cost-effectiveness of  this option since the strategic "mechanisms" 
to be put in place would greatly enhance th e added value of the initiative and would 
strengthen considerably the policy relevance,  effectiveness and impact of the research 
activities envisaged under the implementation phase. In addition, Po licy option 3C also 
represents the option with the highest impact an d cost-effectiveness in administrative costs for 
the Commission.  
Unavoidably, the assessment of the expected cost-effectiveness of the various policy options 
and the quantification of the role of region-wide  coordination of marine and maritime research 
is associated with a certain degree of uncertainty. In addition there is no similar blueprint in the EU to use as a benchmark for inter-co mparison. As the ultimate product of such an 
initiative is new knowledge utilised to achie ve sustainable use of the goods and services 
generated by the marine ecosystem  and protecting the quality of the environment in the longer 
perspective, it is anticipated but  without any hard evidence to prove it, that the co-ordination 
and integration of national schemes that are envi saged to be addressed (t o a varying degree of 
success) by policy option 3 through approaches A,  B and C will be the more cost-effective 
way to achieve better quality knowledge in terms of reliability, comprehensiveness and 
relevance to the needs formulated by the users. 
                                                
 
2 Independent External Review Report, EDCTP Programme review conducted by the IER / EDCTP 
Panel: Wim Van Velzen (Chair), Adetokunbo O. Lucas, Allyson Pollock, Jean Stéphenne and Fernand 
Sauer, 12 July 2007 http://ec.europa.eu/research/health/poverty-
diseases/doc/final_ier_report_12july2007_en.pdf