EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 26.1.2017 SWD(2017) 21 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT The European Research Area: time for implementation and monitoring progress {COM(2017) 35 final}



Table of content Introduction Priority 1: More effective national research systems Priority 2: Optimal transnational cooperation and competition Priority 2A: Optimal transnational cooperation and competition Priority 2B Research Infrastructures Priority 3: An open labour market for researchers Priority 4: Gender equality and gender mainstreaming in research Priority 5: Optimal circulation, access to and transfer of scientific knowledge. Priority 5a: Knowledge circulation Priority 5B: Open Access Priority 6: International cooperation Conclusion Annexes Annex 1: Statistical notes and footnotes to tables Annex 2: Actions in support of ERA by the various ERA working groups gathering national representatives Annex 3: Actions in support of ERA by the members of the Stakeholders' Platform Tables

Table 1 Adjusted Research Excellence Indicator (2010-2013) Table 2A GBARD (EUR) allocated to Europe-wide transnational, as well as bilateral or multilateral, public R&D programmes per FTE researcher in the public sector( 2010-2014) Table 2B Availability of national roadmaps with identified ESFRI projects and corresponding investment needs Table 3 Number of researcher postings advertised through the EURAXESS job portal, per 1 000 researchers in the public sector (2012-2014) Table 4 Share of women in Grade A positions in the Higher Education Sector (2007-2014) Table 5A1 Share of product or process innovative firms cooperating with public or private research institutions (2008-2012) Table 5A2 Share of product or process innovative firms cooperating with higher education institutions (2008-2012) Table 6 Co-publications with non-ERA partners per 1 000 researchers in the public sector (2005-2014) Growth rates of countries across ERA priorities Performance of countries across ERA priorities Introduction An integrated European Research Area (ERA) leads to 'a unified research area open to the world based on the internal market, in which researchers, scientific knowledge and technology circulate freely and through which the Union and its Member States strengthen their scientific and technological basis, their competitiveness and their capacity to collectively address grand challenges.' The last ERA Progress Report has been issued in 2014. The present report summarises the state of play of ERA and the progress on the implementation of ERA over the period 2014-2016. The accompanying report "Data gathering and information for the 2016 ERA monitoring" by Science-Metrix provides quantitative data on a set of indicators with additional policy relevant qualitative information. This report provides essential and detailed analysis on the basis of the ERA Monitoring Mechanism (EMM) for each of the ERA priorities as well as "Country Profiles". Data and an accompanying analysis for all Member States and Associated Countries that is necessary for the understanding of the current state of play. In line with the Council conclusions on the ERA Progress report 2014 the Commission has further improved the ERA Monitoring Mechanism (EMM) in close cooperation with the Member States and ERA stakeholders' organisations, thereby using as much as possible already existing data, mainly from Eurostat. Almost all of these indicators show considerable progress during the last years, although there are considerable differences between Member States. Another important milestone for this progress Report 2016 was the launch of the ERA Roadmap 2015-2020, a living document to guide Member States in structuring their implementation of ERA at national level by drawing up National Action Plans. The European Research and Innovation Area committee (ERAC) developed also a set of eight core high level indicators for monitoring progress of the ERA Roadmap. These so-called headline indicators form the core of the current ERA Monitoring Mechanism. Recently most Member States have published their National Action Plans 2015-2020. These National Action Plans give a rich insight in all forthcoming ERA-policies and corresponding policy measures in the Member States and Associated Countries. The ERA-related groups operating at the EU-level have contributed to the further implementation of ERA. An overview is presented in annex 2. Finally also the Stakeholders Organisations organized within the ERA Stakeholders Platform have made contributions to the further implementation of ERA. An overview is presented in annex 3.

This report is mainly backward looking focusing on the developments during the last 2 years. For the first time progress on ERA is measured for each priority. Despite being backward looking a first impression of the main policy directions of the National Action Plans is already included. The next ERA Progress Report, which will appear in 2018, will make a full assessment of the actions that are announced in the National Action Plans by comparing the progress on ERA and the related ERA actions identified in the National Action Plans.



Priority 1: More effective national research systems The focus of this first ERA priority "more effective national research systems" has evolved over time. In the 2012 Communication and the 2014 ERA Progress Report the focus was on open, national level competition as key to deriving maximum value from public investments in research and innovation which involved allocating funding and assessing the quality of research-performing organisations by peer review. Main conclusions were that national innovation systems have become more aligned to ERA priorities, competitive funding occurs in all Member States, although with significant variations. Performance based assessment of institutional funding is implemented by the funding organisations in 16 Member States. In the 2015 ERA roadmap 'Strengthening the evaluation of research and innovation policies and seeking complementarities between, and rationalisation of, instruments at EU and national levels' was identified as the top action with the corresponding headline indicator "Adjusted Research Excellence Indicator". Table 1 Adjusted Research Excellence Indicator (2010-2013) Note: See annex 1 Source: Calculations by European Commission, DG Joint Research Centre, Competence Centre on Composite Indicators and Scoreboards. For details on the methodology, please refer to Vértesy (2015) The analysis in the Science-Metrix report shows that in 2016 research excellence measured by the headline indicator has increased over the period 2010-2013 for the EU-28 average. Although there are differences in growth percentage all countries but 4 have increased their level of excellence over this period. Almost all countries have National Strategies for Research and Innovation in place, both single overarching strategies (22) as well as multiple strategies by different government bodies (11). Several Member States are redefining their National R&I strategies based on a broad concept of innovation, encompassing education, research and innovation to achieve greater efficiencies. Recommending further policy alignment remains however pertinent. Looking at the GBARD as a proportion of GDP giving an indication about the share of GDP used for investment in R&D, there is a growing divergence between countries, which may be caused by countries reducing research budgets because of the need for fiscal consolidation or increasing budgets with the goal of using this for further economic growth. The headline indicator and the European Innovation Scoreboard summary index are highly correlated which implies that Research Excellence leads to strong innovation performance. Other findings of the Science-Metrix report are that in the case of multiple strategies by various stakeholders' alignment can still be improved to provide a clearer direction and efficient integration. Funding is a big issue and further streamlining of funding application processes would help reduce existing fragmentation, increasing the return on research funding while facilitating collaboration across national borders and across sectors. It was also found that funding is also allocated through increasingly competitive and transparent processes. The criteria and processes for these funding allocation mechanisms would benefit from further fine tuning, with best practices shared across the ERA. A sustained and appropriate balance between competitive and basic funding is important, at both the project and institutional levels. National R&I funding commitments need to be clear and explicit, and be laid out long term, to provide the environment of predictability sought by the private sector, in addition to facilitating clear expectations with respect to collaboration across national borders within the ERA. In the National Action Plans the following types of actions are intended: Improvement of legal frameworks for national research and innovation systems including innovation friendly regulation and public procurement; Development of long term national Strategies for Research and Innovation and (in some cases also) Education to improve quality and excellence; Development of monitoring and benchmarking mechanisms for better evaluation of Research and Innovation policies in international perspective. New funding mechanisms with competitive elements and complementarities between national and EU funding including public-private partnerships; Strengthening the performance of the European Research Area as a whole including widening participation and strengthening excellence; Actions increasing valorisation and (societal) impact assessments of publicly funded research. Comparing the objectives and measures in the national action plans with the recommendations in the Science-Metrix report shows that the national action plans are having more emphasis on developing the strategies, frameworks evaluation mechanisms whereas less attention is paid to the level of and mechanisms for the funding.

Stakeholders Organisations' contribute to the effectiveness of national research systems by a number of activities and events such as on strengthening Europe’s Innovation Ecosystems, improving financial and auditing rules and state aid regime to best support and achieve ERA objectives. Moreover campaigns for sustainable, sufficient and simple funding for universities in Europe, position statements about more effective National Research Systems and various initiatives in the field of widening participation and strengthening of excellence. ERAC itself was also active in the domain of priority 1 and adopted an opinion on Innovation Procurement in 2015. Innovation procurement has over the last decade become an established part of policies in many EU Member States. The principal aim of the opinion is to identify good practices across Europe and propose ways to promote and implement these good practices. Furthermore, the revised EU procurement legislation combined with financing in Horizon 2020 and in structural funds have increased and widened the interest in the innovation procurement in the EU Member States. Overall Conclusion The analysis shows that most countries have made progress in the field of research excellence and almost all of them have adopted national strategies for research and innovation. Several Member States are redefining their National R&I strategies further based on a broad concept of innovation, encompassing education, research and innovation to achieve greater efficiencies. A first inventory of the National Action Plans shows that this development into the direction of a more holistic strategic approach for research and innovation will be strengthened in the future. A necessary condition is however more stable funding of government investment in the future. Priority 2: Optimal transnational cooperation and competition In the 2012 ERA Communication priority 2 includes both the grand challenges and the research infrastructures. In the 2015 ERA Roadmap it was decided to split priority 2 into two sub-priorities to be able to focus more efficiently on the issues though being closely connected still needs particular attention. Priority 2A: Optimal transnational cooperation and competition According to the 2014 ERA Progress Report transnational cooperation at program level between Member States was increasing and forms part of the national strategies of 16 Member States. Joint Programming Initiatives (JPIs) are increasingly helping to align national programs and activities to common agendas at EU level addressing societal challenges. Several Member States have started to develop national plans, roadmaps and strategies in the domain of the JPIs they participate in, with a view to strengthening their commitment to the Strategic Research Agendas of JPIs. This development was further strengthened by the EU ERA Roadmap 2015, which identified "Improving alignment with and across the Joint Programming Process and the resulting initiatives and speeding up their implementation" as top action priority. The headline indicator is "GBARD allocated to Europe-wide transnational, as well as bilateral or multilateral, public R&D programmes per FTE researcher in the public sector". Table 2A GBARD (EUR) allocated to Europe-wide transnational, as well as bilateral or multilateral, public R&D programmes per FTE researcher in the public sector (2010-2014) Note: The CAGR is computed on the 2010-14 period but the trendline shows data for the period 2007-2014.

Break in time series: EU-28 (2007, 2008, 2012, 2013); 2012 (BE, LV); 2007 (DK, NO); PT (2008, 2013); 2011 (RO, SI, FI); SE (2013); IS (2011, 2013); RS (2014) For further notes see annex 1. Source: Computed by Science-Metrix using Eurostat data (online data codes: gba_tncoor and gba_nabsfin07) The findings in the Science-Metrix report show that this priority, together with the headline indicator for priority 3, has one of the highest growth rates among all 8 ERA headline indicators with an annual growth rate of 7.8. While this result is an indication of the increasing internationalization of science in general, it also underlines the increasing importance that national governments in Europe attribute to transnational and joint programming, which is stronger policy driven as the measured internationalization of science by means of international co-publications. This interpretation is reinforced by the additional EMM indicators, notably the Member States participation in public-to-public collaborations within the EU R&D policy framework per FTE researcher in the public sector. This additional ERA indicator showed at large the highest growth rate of all ERA indicators with an annual growth rate of 42.1 % in the years 2012-2014. Clearly, the provision of a common policy framework on EU level as well as the provision of additional financial resources (for Art 185 initiatives and ERA-NET CoFunds) acted as a catalyst for joint action among Member States and underlines the importance of EU policies for the implementation of the ERA. As this additional ERA-indicator is statistically one part of the headline indicator for this priority, it can be argued that the common EU policy framework and the additional resources provided by the EU R&D framework programs led to a significant leverage effect at national level for participating in Joint Programming – notably as the growth rate for the additional indicator is about four times as high as for the headline indicator. The second additional EMM indicator for this priority, the co-publications with ERA partners, showed a clear growth of 3.6% in the years 2005-2014 also, however significantly lower than the other indicators of this ERA priority. In 2015, about 40% of publications produced by ERA researchers were co-published with a partner in another ERA country, a figure that has been increasing steadily over the last decade.

The main challenges indicated in the Science-Metrix report are that national and international funding arrangements would benefit from further harmonisation, which can also facilitate international researcher mobility. In addition, Joint Programming Initiatives (JPIs) addressing grand challenges could benefit from being more explicitly linked to the smart specialization strategies of the partners involved, and vice versa. The assessment of the societal benefits of research need to be more robust to facilitate improved research management as well as to better communicate the value of research to the public, demonstrating return on investment. National Action Plans present a broad range of measures and activities of Member States and Associated countries to strengthen their participation in Joint Programming and to better align national and Europe-wide R&D programming. These include the following type of measures: Communication and information measures include better information of R&D actors concerning the opportunities and added value from participating in Joint Programming; Governance and coordination measures are introduced by a number of Member States. Dedicated funding measures are introduced by a number of Member States for the participation in Joint Programming; Harmonisation of funding rules is introduced by several Member States aiming at facilitating the national participation in the JPI’s; Outreach measures towards smart specialization strategies and sectorial policies, especially focusing on a better articulation between the European Structural funds (ESIF), notably the regional smart specialization strategies, and the SRIA’s of the JPI’s. Comparing the objectives and measures identified in the National Action Plans with the main challenges stated in the Science-Metrix report it is clear that the national action plans are responding to the main challenges identified. Stakeholders organisations have contributed by an EARTO position on ‘The Role and Future of Joint Programming’ in 2015 and more general actions regarding funding transnational research. The High Level Group for Joint Programming (GPC) has taken several actions, among others exploring ways on how to best contribute to foster the Joint Programming Projects and established new working methods in order to become more operational. In particular, there is focus on the long term strategy of the Joint Programming, the relationship between the GPC and the JPI and focus on monitoring and evaluation. These result in an evaluation exercise, a mutual learning exercise and a development of a future vision. GPC was also involved in the Lund Declaration 2015 which resulted from a high level conference, ‘Lund Revisited: Tackling Societal Challenges‘. Overall Conclusion The analysis shows substantial progress in most Member States concerning their participation in the JPI’s over the last years. Referring to past trends and measures implemented and/or planned in the National Action Plans, it can be assumed that volume, quality and impact of Joint Programming will continue to grow substantially, notably when an EU policy framework and additional financial means from EU budgets continue to act as a catalyst for Member State action. Priority 2B Research Infrastructures At the moment of the ERA Progress Report 2014, 22 Member States had adopted National Research Infrastructure roadmaps of which 5 had been updated since 2013. These national roadmaps did not consistently indicate the links with the ESFRI roadmap and the financial commitments to the development of Research Infrastructures identified by ESFRI and other world-class Research Infrastructures. In the 2015 ERA Roadmap "Making optimal use of public investments in Research Infrastructures compatible with the ESFRI priorities and criteria taking full account of long term sustainability" was identified as top priority. Achieving this goal will accelerate the development of state-of-the-art services needed by European and global scientific communities and create a more efficient European Research landscape. The headline indicator is "Availability of national roadmaps with identified ESFRI projects and corresponding investment needs". Table 2B Availability of national roadmaps with identified ESFRI projects and corresponding investment needs Note: References to a ‘Latvian Roadmap of National Level Research Centres’ may be found online (see e.g. http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/77424776/latvian-roadmap-national-level-research-centres ), which describe it as a ‘long-term planning instrument that lists research infrastructures on national importance, either new or in need of upgrading’ but the roadmap per se is not available. Source: National roadmaps for research infrastructures: https://ec.europa.eu/research/infrastructures/index_en.cfm?pg=esfri-national-roadmaps Currently 21 Member States and 3 Associated Countries have adopted national roadmaps of which 13 have been introduced or updated since 2014. There are 12 countries that have national roadmaps in place with both ESFRI projects and funding needs identified. Additionally another 9 countries have roadmaps identifying ESFRI projects but no funding requirements. The evolution of national roadmaps in the last years suggests a greater alignment of national processes with the European priority setting. This trend is underpinned by the large number of national roadmap updates since 2014 and in the frequent use at national level of the methodology consistent with the ESFRI Roadmap.

Also according to the Science-Metrix report many countries have developed and implemented national roadmaps for research infrastructures aligned with the overall ESFRI roadmap. However, these national-level roadmaps would benefit from more clearly and consistently outlining the financial needs associated with the development of prioritised research infrastructures. Furthermore, their long-term sustainability, including prospects for stable funding of operational costs should be considered from the inception phase of the project. National funding mechanisms and decision making processes should also be further coordinated to speed up the infrastructure development. In addition the main findings for further policy discussions in the Science-Metrix report point out that national roadmaps, in place in most countries, would benefit from more explicitly outlining the financial requirements to reach the operational phase, and to sustain the operational phase once initiated. Tackling regional disparities in research capacity should be to a certain extent addressed through the selection of locations for research infrastructures. In addition, smaller-scale research infrastructures could benefit from similar strategies that have been successfully applied to larger installations: comprehensive national inventories to promote awareness, and time-sharing arrangements to promote efficient usage. Finally, including the private sector in the conception, development and operation of research infrastructures could help to catalyse private-sector involvement in R&I more broadly. A similar approach could be taken with third-country partners to increase international collaboration. Also in the National Roadmaps a lot of attention is paid to concrete actions fostering the coordinated development of research infrastructures at European level. These include: Support actions to strengthen national involvement in pan-European research infrastructures and foster participation in Horizon 2020 activities funded under the 'Research Infrastructures, including e-Infrastructures' part; Funding research infrastructures that are included in the national roadmaps; Fostering communication and strengthening collaboration of academic and business communities as well as highlighting to the general public the importance of research infrastructures; Monitoring of implementation of national research infrastructure roadmaps; Periodic revision and update of national roadmaps following strategic priority setting; Stimulating use of and aligning activities with structural funds; Information gathering about the use of infrastructural resources for better alignment of investment policies; Facilitation of use by researchers from other Member States which are not in a position to invest in large scale infrastructures themselves. Comparing the objectives and measures chosen in the national roadmaps with the main challenges found in the Science-Metrix report shows that they do pay attention to the funding though in a smaller scale than is indicated to be necessary by the report. The national roadmaps also often emphasise the need to evaluate the current situation for an optimal implementation. Some roadmaps also include planning at national level on e-infrastructures, the horizontal elements that enable networking, processing, data management and open access. In 2014, ESFRI published a prioritisation report, identifying a limited number of projects from the ESFRI roadmap, which were mature enough to be under implementation by 2015-2016 and were considered essential to extend the frontiers of knowledge in the fields concerned. This report led to the revision of the ESFRI Roadmap methodology and structure for the 2016 update. The ESFRI Roadmap 2016 was launched in Amsterdam and consists of three Parts. Part 1 provides the outline of the ESFRI strategic considerations in the development of research infrastructures in Europe as well as gives an overview of projects included in the Roadmap, the methodology, lessons learnt and the outlook into the future. The Roadmap contains 21 ESFRI Projects and 29 ESFRI Landmarks, whose detailed descriptions are included in Part 2. The Landscape analysis contained in Part 3 of the Roadmap document provides the current context, in each domain, of the ecosystem of national and international research infrastructures open to European scientists and technology developers. The ERA stakeholder's organisations contributed together with ESFRI and e-IRG to the “Charter for Access to Research Infrastructures” (RI) that was released in March 2016. The charter followed the 2012 ERA Communication and set out principles and guidelines for access to Research Infrastructures. Overall Conclusion The analysis of national roadmaps for research infrastructures demonstrates a significant progress in aligning priority setting at national level with the European strategy for research infrastructures developed in the framework of ESFRI. This growing alignment increases the coherence of the European research infrastructure ecosystem and fosters the competitiveness of the European Research Area. However, in order to further strengthen the effectiveness of public investments in research infrastructures, a strategy on long-term sustainability of research infrastructures should be agreed between the Member States.

Priority 3: An open labour market for researchers Priority 3 focuses on Open and attractive labour markets for researchers where the main goal is to improve the attractiveness of researchers careers by removing or alleviate barriers to their mobility, ensure an open, transparent and merit based recruitment (OTM) and improve innovative doctoral training. The ERA Progress Report of 2014 highlighted that implementing open, transparent and merit-based recruitment practices is an important element for having an open research system which will allow competition, hence attracting the best researchers. The report also stresses that open research systems perform better in terms of innovation and that mobile researchers tend to have a greater research impact than their non-mobile colleagues. In this context a tool such as EURAXESS facilitates geographical mobility by helping matching job supply and demand for researchers, and ensuring equal OTM practices across Europe. Additional findings are the lack of skills for doctoral candidates in the private sector that do not receive adequate intellectual property management training. In the 2015 ERA roadmap the top action priority was identified as 'Using open, transparent and merit based recruitment practices with regard to research positions' with as corresponding headline indicator "the number of researcher job postings from a given country that are advertised through the EURAXESS job portal, per 1 000 researchers in the public sector". With 7.8% compound annual growth rate in the period 2012-2014 in the EU-28. This indicator reached 47 % in 2014. Table 3 Number of researcher postings advertised through the EURAXESS job portal, per 1 000 researchers in the public sector (2012-2014) Note: Break in time series: EU-28 (2012, 2013); BE (2012); 2013 (PT, SE, IS); RS (2014) For further notes see annex 1 Source: Computed by Science-Metrix from EURAXESS historical data and from Eurostat data (online data code: rd_p_persocc) The complementary indicator share of doctoral candidates with a citizenship of another EU Member State shows that only few countries are below the EU average. The third complementary indicator is the share of researchers expressing satisfaction that the hiring procedures in their institution are Open, Transparent and Merit-based for which figures show a well-balanced performance distribution of countries across clusters. Globally the use of the EURAXESS portal seems to be growing strongly in a handful of countries, while only starting up in others. Meanwhile, roughly one out of every dozen PhD candidates in the ERA comes from another European country, and about half of all researchers expressed satisfaction in the hiring processes in their home institutions. Main findings from Science-Metrix study show the growth of EURAXESS usage varies remarkably across Member States and Associated Countries, depending partially on the availability of alternative vacancies advertising and other factors such as the mandatory requirement to use the EURAXESS portal. It is shown that the benefits of open, transparent and merit-based recruitment policies implementation seem to have more impact on early career stage compared to later career stages where other criteria seem to have more influence toward hiring and promotion decisions. Data highlights that further policy efforts aiming at increasing the portability of grants ("Money Follows Researcher" model) and increasing the degree of openness of national grant programmes to foreign researchers can contribute remarkably to a further improvement of researchers' international mobility. It is also worth mentioning that heterogeneity in social security coverage remains and discourages mobility from countries with more protective systems. Another finding is that a broader conception of human resourcing is urged in order to improve recruitment as well as working conditions. Pension right transferability and language competency for teaching requirements are flagged as two salient topics here. To address the first issue the Commission put in place a pan-European supplementary pension funds for researchers called Retirement Savings Vehicle for European Research Institutions (RESAVER). This consolidated pension arrangement was launched in 2015 and important steps have been taken to set up the legal structure for the pension vehicle to be running by the end of 2016. Progressive roll out across the European Economic Area will continue. Regarding the second issue legal barriers seem to have been removed in most countries and the major remaining issue for recruiting established foreign researchers seems to be the national language requirement for teaching. The most attractive systems, such as Switzerland, the United Kingdom and Ireland, do not present this language barrier. Heterogeneity on how countries faced the 2008 economic crisis, working conditions and salary levels must be considered when discussing mobility. Differences in levels of salary can remarkably hinder mobility to low paying countries for example; foreign researchers must currently be paid local salaries when recruited with Horizon 2020 funds. At the same time, incentives for collaboration within Europe usually reinforce the north-western European nexus. Another finding is that legal barriers seem to have been removed in most countries and the major remaining issue for recruiting established international researchers seems to be the national language requirement for teaching. The most attractive systems, such as Switzerland, the United Kingdom and Ireland, do not present this language barrier. In the National Action Plans the following types of actions are intended: Intensify the usage of EURAXESS network for increasing researchers' mobility and ensure compliance with OTM practices across Europe. Therefore the majority of countries have foreseen to increase the number of researchers' position in the field of higher education and research institutions as well as enterprises;

Foster geographical and intersectoral mobility of researchers by addressing a broader spectrum of social security issues and promote innovative doctoral training to make them more open internationally and to the non-academic sector; Promote the Human Resource Strategy for Researchers and aim at acquiring the "Human Resource excellence" award; Increase the number of tenure track positions and where necessary implement a new legal basis to facilitate tenure track careers. Comparing the objectives and measures in the national action plans and the findings of the Science-Metrix report shows that the national action plans are putting adequate attention to the open ad transparent recruitment procedures and are paying attention to the challenges in relation to the social security. The ERA Stakeholders Organisations have contributed to the effectiveness of national research systems by a number of activities and events such as participating to the Steering Group on Human Resources and Mobility (SGHRM), organising parallel taskforces, common support to the Human Resource Strategy for Researchers trough promotion activities and also monitoring activities such as the survey on "career development for researchers" and "leadership training for researchers" led by CESAER. LERU gathered facts and figures on tenure-track positions at LERU universities (2014). EUA’s Council for Doctoral Education (EUA-CDE) hosted the Third Global Strategic Forum on Doctoral Education in May 2015 and held its ninth annual meeting in June 2016. ERAC related groups and especially the Steering Group on Human Resources and Mobility can list several achievements, namely the strengthened HRS4R implementation procedure to obtain the 'HR excellence in research' award now incorporates elements of earlier internationalization, open recruitment, international peer review and reinforced monitoring. The SGHRM also produced reports on Doctoral Training and Professional Development of Researchers as well as establishing a working group tasked to elaborate sound recommendations easily usable for Open, Transparent and Merit-Based Recruitment of Researchers which lead the OTM-R toolkit to be translated in institutions. For 2016 the SGRHM sets itself the goals of creating two working groups focus on 'intersectoral mobility, asymmetric mobility and skills' and 'welcoming culture for non-EU researchers',thus supporting the Open science agenda. Overall Conclusion The analysis shows that more attention is paid to open, transparent and merit-based recruitment as the use of EURAXESS has increased. Also the national action plans are emphasising the importance of the open and transparent recruitment and are focusing on increasing the use of EURAXESS. Potential measures to further facilitate researchers international mobility, are ensuring equal access to national granting programmes for foreign researchers and increasing the portability of research funds granted. Of other measures could be a broader conception of human resourcing to improve recruitment as well as working conditions. Pension right transferability and language competency for teaching requirements are equally important topics. Priority 4: Gender equality and gender mainstreaming in research In the 2012 ERA Communication three main objectives were identified for priority 4: 1.remove legal and other barriers to the recruitment, retention and career progression of female researchers 2.address gender imbalances in decision making processes 3.strengthen the gender dimension in research programmes.

The ERA Progress report 2014 noted the progressive policy switch towards institutional change in research organisations, including universities, with longer-term structural effects. However the pace of change was too slow and there were still many disparities among countries. The report called for more joint efforts and systematic strategies. The 2015 ERA Roadmap called for translating national equality legislation into effective action to address gender imbalances in research institutions, and decision-making bodies and to integrate better the gender dimension into R&D policies, programmes and projects as its topaction prioriy. In addition, the Council Conclusions of 1st December 2015 on "Advancing gender equality in the European Research Area" reinforced the message of the Roadmap. The Science-Metrix report shows progress in the headline indicator "share of women in Grade A positions in the Higher Education Sector", with 3.4% compound annual growth rate in the period 2007-2014 in the EU-28. This indicator reached 23.5 % for the EU-28 in 2014. Progress is observed in almost all Member States. Table 4 Share of women in Grade A positions in the Higher Education Sector (2007-2014) Note: Trend column not presented due to sparse time-series. For further notes see annex 1 Source: Women in Science database, DG Research and Innovation The share of female PhD graduates, considered as an input indicator, increased by 1.2% between 2005 and 2012 reaching, 47.3% in the EU-28. This comforts the potential pool for the early phase of researchers' career. The proportion of published scientific papers that have included the gender dimension in research content can give a very preliminary proxy related to objective 3. For the period 2011-2014 it ranges from 0.34% to 2.88% within the EU-28. A slight decrease of 0.5% in the growth rate of the EU-28 was registered in the period 2011-2014 compared to the period 2005-2008. The analysis in the Science-Metrix report shows that one of the main challenges the countries are facing in this area remains the glass ceiling impeding women to reach higher positions. This is reflected in the fact that one third of the researchers are women and at higher level positions the shares of women drop below one fourth. Although data show that a catch up process is ongoing, its pace remains slow. Concerning the national policies, the National Action Plans show a significant improvement from the state of play reported in the 2014 ERA Progress Report with regard to adopting a systemic strategy and covering the three objectives with specific measures. The National Action Plans show also that the monitoring of the implementation of gender equality is ongoing or planned, which indicates the growing interest and commitment at national level towards the achievement of gender equality in their research and higher education system. In the National Action Plans the following types of actions are identified:

A large number of Plans highlight the development of national strategies including binding laws specific for the research and higher education sector. The implementation includes identifying the causes of existing imbalances and drawing up action to promote equality; In relation to objective 1, some Plans include targets for women in professor positions and initiatives promoting work-life balance, raising awareness on unconscious gender bias and attracting young women into science, technologies, engineering and mathematics; In relation to objective 2, several Plans include targets for gender balance in executive board and/or board level positions, as well as in recruitment committees and/or evaluation panels in universities and research institutions; In relation to the objective 3, some Plans focus on integrating the gender dimension in research and innovation programmes and projects. Grant applicants will be required to consider gender analysis in their research whenever relevant; Concerning monitoring, some Plans introduce indicators in addition to the headline one, e.g. the share of universities and public research organisations adopting Gender Equality Plans or the percentage of funds in R&I projects that include gender dimension as a cross cutting issue. Globally in the National Action Plans the Member States and Associated Countries are paying high attention to gender equality in their implementation of the ERA Roadmap. The extent and quality of ongoing and/or planned actions for gender equality vary a lot. The integration of the gender dimension in research programmes (objective 3) remain a challenge in many Member States. Almost all ERA Stakeholders Organisations have made contributions and regularly reported their activity. Notably, CESAER launched a survey, EARTO Human Resources working group discussed gender balance, EUA performed data analysis on the gender composition of university leadership and top management, LERU published various articles on gender and EU-life organized various gender related project including training activities. Overall Conclusion The analysis show that the majority of Member States have made progress in setting up or planning more systemic strategies for gender equality in research, including the gender dimension in research programmes. Considering the measures described in the National Plans, it can be assumed that the ERA policy based on institutional change through gender equality plans continues to act as a catalyst for Member States' action. The three objectives remain unevenly covered across Member States. The high number of planned measures creates expectations of significant progress in the coming years. The actual improvement will depend on the capacity of the Member States to maintain and reinforce on a longer term the institutional change strategies adopted so far. In this perspective, the mobilisation of Member States for a proper monitoring mechanism is most valued. Priority 5: Optimal circulation, access to and transfer of scientific knowledge. In the 2012 Communication the priority 5 focused on optimal circulation, access to and transfer of scientific knowledge including digital ERA. In the ERA Roadmap it was decided to split the priority into two sub-priorities; knowledge circulation and open access to be able to pay adequate attention to the two subjects individually. Priority 5a: Knowledge circulation The aim of the priority 5a is to foster the potential for knowledge transfer and open innovation between the public and private sectors across all ERA countries. In the 2014 Progress Report it was found that there is a strong support in most countries to knowledge transfer but that in half of the countries there is no frequent financial support. The support to knowledge transfer was mostly seen through: improved recognition and professionalisation of knowledge transfer activities, a strengthened role for knowledge transfer offices and through measures to facilitate interaction and development of strategic partnering and joint research agendas between academia and industry, including small and medium sized enterprises. This would enable a better uptake of research results in the market. In 2014 75% of the surveyed Research Producing Organisations (RPOs) in EU answered that they have a structure for knowledge transfer and for 66.3% they have staff employed to deal with knowledge transfer activities whereas only 6.8% of the RPOs' budget was financed with private funds. The ERA Roadmap, as a direct follow up to the 2014 ERA Progress Report, focuses on the top action for ERA countries to "Fully implementing knowledge transfer policies at national level in order to maximize the dissemination, uptake and exploitation of scientific results. RPOs and Research Financing Organisations (RFOs) should make knowledge transfer second nature by integrating it in their everyday work." The agreed headline indicator , "the share of product and/or process innovative firms cooperating with public or private research institutions" , is a proxy which is measuring the private sector's willingness to collaborate with public research and higher education institutions. The analysis carried out by Science-Metrix shows that substantial economic benefits can be derived from the transfer, uptake and actual use of the results of research. It can even be seen as a fundamental step to address grand challenges (priority 2a) and enhancing the social prosperity. Despite these obvious benefit of knowledge circulation, Europe is not yet ready to tapping into the potential to capitalise on the investments in research and the potential these have for growth. This indicates that there is a large scope for improvements in this area. Studies show that better cooperation and connection between the RPOs and medium sized enterprises and enhancing of funding schemes for collaboration and knowledge transfer are efficient measures. Besides it would be also necessary to focus on the legal side and the educational issues. The main obstacles seem to be missing mutual trust, the lack of entrepreneurial orientation of the RPOs and their private sector partners and issues with the language. The issue is that efficient knowledge transfer and circulation includes also broader range of processes and stakeholders that are involved in Research and Innovation.

The agreed headline indicator, the share of product and/or process innovative firms cooperating with public or private research, is a proxy which is measuring the private sector's willingness to collaborate with public research and higher education institutions. The average annual growth rate is 3.5% over the period 2008-2012 for innovative firms cooperating with public or private research institutions and 1.3% for innovative firms cooperating with higher education institutions. Table 5A1 Share of product or process innovative firms cooperating with public or private research institutions (2008-2012) Note: Definition differs (added by Science-Metrix): 2012 (EU-28, BE, BG, CZ, DK, DE, EE, IE, EL, ES, FR, HR, IT, CY, LV, LT, LU, HU, MT, NL, AT, PL, PT, RO, SI, SK, FI, SE, UK, NO, RS, TR) For further notes see annex 1 Source: Computed by Science-Metrix using Eurostat data (online data codes: inn_cis6_coop, inn_cis7_coop, inn_cis8_coop, inn_cis6_type, inn_cis7_type, inn_cis8_type) Table 5A2 Share of product or process innovative firms cooperating with higher education institutions (2008-2012) Note: Provisional: 2008 (EU-28, DK) For further notes see annex 1 Source: Computed by Science-Metrix using Eurostat data (online data codes: inn_cis6_coop, inn_cis7_coop, inn_cis8_coop, inn_cis6_type, inn_cis7_type, inn_cis8_type) According to the Science-Metrix study approximately 1 in 9 innovative firms collaborates with academia and about 1 in 12 have partnership with research institutes (private or public) but both indicators are increasing. The data shows that for the innovative firms' cooperating with research institutes more than 50% of the countries have a performance below the ERA average. The EU average is in addition relatively low at 7.3%. For the second indicator measuring the innovative firms' cooperation with higher education institutions the distribution is more even with approximately 50% of the countries either above or below the EU average. The EU level is in this case 12%. The general obstacle to the knowledge transfer is the lack of support to the market uptake of research outcome. This issue remains underdeveloped both at EU and national government level. One main obstacle is among others that the private sector employs very few researchers and that the researchers have little experience outside academia. This is particularly true for young researchers. Efforts are being done in many countries and it has been found that technology and innovation centres are very important in a process to ensure that knowledge is circulated optimally. The core businesses of these centres are to match industry needs with research activities and support the commercialisation of research. The National Action Plans contain many actions in the field of knowledge transfer, including: Legislation for intellectual property management of exploiting the research results of public-private cooperation; Establishment of Technology Transfer Offices and their further professionalization; Training Programmes in entrepreneurship and corporate culture;

Development of online tools for IPR issues for public-private cooperation; Development of more different career paths that emphasise education and valorisation in addition to research qualities. Comparing the objectives and measures chosen in the national action plans with the findings in the Science-Metrix report shows that the plans are paying attention to the main challenges of public-private cooperation, entrepreneurship and career development. The Stakeholders Organisations CESAER has a Task Force Knowledge Transfer (TFKT) which selected 12 universities for a survey on technology transfer. The results will be presented in October 2016. ERAC has set up a working group on Open Science and Innovation in 2016 that will cover the issues of knowledge transfer under the umbrella of Open Science and Innovation. The work in the group will start in the autumn 2016. Overall Conclusion The analysis shows that knowledge transfer is extremely diverse in Europe. There is a need to consider how to integrate the funding into each interlink of the knowledge chain and ensure that the research will more often be brought to the market. The survey carried out by Science-Metrix came up with several proposals like joint industry-academic events, joint industry-RPO calls for application and training and career development initiatives integrating doctoral students with private industry to boost the trust and intensify public-private collaboration and promote intersectoral mobility Priority 5B: Open Access Open access has made strong progress since 2014. In the 2014 ERA Progress Report it was observed that open access to research results was backed by a growing number of universities, research centres and funding agencies across Europe. By that time 20 Member States had taken measures to support open access to scientific publications but only 5 had taken measures to have specific provisions on open access to research data. Also the stakeholder organisations had been very active through the ERA Stakeholders Platform set-up in response to the 2012 Communication on ERA. However, despite general support to open access, most policies, initiatives and measures were still fragmented and some did not properly reflect the EU definition of open access. In the 2015 ERA Roadmap the objective of "Promoting Open Access to scientific publications" was given again a top priority status, while fostering open access to research data was identified as another important priority. The headline indicator is "The share of publications available in Open Access". Table 5B Share of publications available in Open Access (2014) Note: The clusters are based on total OA

(:) = missing data Source: Computed by Science-Metrix using 1science data According to the Science-Metrix report 24 Member States have adopted policies in support of open access. The majority of these measures have been adopted since 2012, and some countries that were among the early adopters have since complemented their policy with further measures. The open access movement has evolved very rapidly, from a predominantly subscription based model to articles available in open access, passing the 50% 'tipping point' in recent years. For the publication year 2014 approximately 52% of EU-28 publications were available in open access, approximately 45% through the Green route and 21% through the Gold route. However, open access policies and practices are very diverse and can vary both between countries and Research Funding Organisations. To reach full open access there is a need to further develop publishing models and reward systems, as well as federate infrastructures to share and reuse research data. Following up on the 2012 Commission's Recommendation on access to and preservation of scientific information each EU Member State nominated a National Point of Reference (NPR), with the task of reporting on the implementation of open access at national level. Most Member States reported a national preference for one of the two routes of open access, either the Green (self-archiving) or the Gold (open access publishing). However, the expressed preference for one of the two routes is usually not exclusive of the other which can also be used, resulting in a mixed situation. Only a few Member States have national laws requiring open access to publications. However institutional requirements set by research institutions or funders can prove as effective as legal requirements, for instance when they tie open access to possible withdrawal of funds in the case of non-compliance, or to researchers’ careers. Perceived obstacles to further progress include the cost of switching to open access, diversity of copyright laws across national contexts, opacity of the legal aspects of rights ownership, private sector concerns about obligations to share data. Researchers researchers are also concerned about the consequences of open access publishing on the assessment of the impact of their work and therefore on career progression. Open access to research data has also been developing but is at a less advanced stage. Here again we find a great diversity of approaches, both across national policy contexts and at the level of policy implementation by individual institutions. Important technical and financial barriers impede a transition to effective storage and reuse of data, while the lack of data specialists and the insufficient level of data skills among the population of researchers is a bottleneck for effective implementation.

Member States adopted on 27 May 2016 Council Conclusions on the transition towards an Open Science System. In particular they called for making open access to scientific publications the option by default for publishing the results of publicly funded research and supported a transition to immediate open access as the default by 2020 The ERA National Action Plans pay a lot of attention to concrete actions to promote open access. These include: Creating e-infrastructures to enable access to the results of publicly funded research and storage of science-related digital content; Developing national strategies and action plans, both for open access to publications and research data including monitoring mechanisms; Developing open access policies for business-oriented and applied research; Requirements of open access for publicly funded research including archiving in repositories and promoting data management plans; Supporting and training actions for researchers including aligning with European Initiatives within Horizon 2020; Acquiring licenses for research databases, Concordat on Open research data; Promoting actions in international bodies to achieve better alignments of definitions. An analysis of the objectives and measures in the national action plans against the main challenges identified in the Science-Metrix report shows that the main emphasis is still on soft measures supporting open access to data and publications while there is less attention on regulatory aspects. Effective storage and hosting of data is still hindered by important technical and financial barriers. The ERA Stakeholders Organisations have continued to be very active in the field of open access, through organizing dedicated meetings, publishing statements and principles, participating in expert groups, monitoring developments by surveys and organising training programmes. LERU has made a strong contribution by organising dedicated workshops on big data management. ERAC set up a Task Force on Open Access and Innovation which report was adopted as an ERAC Opinion on Open Research Data on 3 February 2016. The ERAC report aims to contribute to the progress of open research data and the optimal reuse of research data from publicly funded research. It further highlights the potential of open access policy, while stressing the need to remove obstacles and ensure common understanding early in policy development. It presents a list of 11 recommendations that consider the national, European and global state of play with regard to open research data. These recommendations cover four types of policy objectives: Training of stakeholders and awareness raising; Data quality and management; Sustainability and funding; and legal issues. Overall Conclusion Open access to research results (scientific publications and research) is being supported by a growing number of universities, research centers and funding agencies across Europe in recent years. However, as the number of policies and initiatives has increased, this has resulted in a very diverse ecosystem in Europe (e.g. as regards the preference for gold or green open access). As a next step, more coordination and policy convergence across national borders (including at the level of funders and universities) could be useful, based on the sharing and mainstreaming of best practices. In the case of open research data policies, much still needs to be done and Horizon 2020 provides a useful reference model. Priority 6: International cooperation The 2012 ERA Communication sets out that the international dimension in relation to ERA is a so-called cross cutting issue that should be included in each priority. The 2014 ERA Progress Report assessed that it is important that the international dimension is mainstreamed across all priorities. The 2015 ERA Roadmap included the international cooperation as a new individual priority with the main action 'Develop and implement appropriate joint strategic approaches and actions for international STI cooperation on the basis of Member States’ national priorities' with the headline indicator on "co-publications with non-ERA partner per thousand researchers in the public sector".

Table 6 Co-publications with non-ERA partners per 1 000 researchers in the public sector (2005-2014) Note: Break in time series: BE (2012); 2005 (CZ, IT, UK); 2007 (DK, NO); DE (2006); 2011 (EL, RO, SI, FI); FR (2010); PT (2005-2008, 2013); SE (2005, 2007, 2011, 2013); IS (2011, 2013); RS (2014) For further notes see annex 1 Source: Computed by Science-Metrix using WoS data (Thomson Reuters) and Eurostat data (online data code: rd_p_persocc) The analysis in the Science-Metrix report shows a substantive growth rate for the headline indicator at 4.1% in the years 2005-2014. This was slightly higher than the growth rate in the same period for co-publications with ERA partners where the growth rate was 3.6%. This result is an indication of the increasing internationalization of science in general and the appearance of new international partners, notably within the G20 group of countries. The comparison with the other co-publications indicator within the ERA suggests that although there is already a strong cooperation culture in Europe, the growth rate continues to be nearly as high as for the emerging science nations around the globe, reinforcing the importance of ERA. Looking at the absolute numbers, differences between EU Member States in order of a factor ten are found between the leading country and the country at the lower end of the scale. Again, a comparison with the related indicator on co-publications within the ERA, though the difference between the two indicators at EU level, reveals that the difference is substantial for cluster 1 and 2; i.e. the cooperation inside ERA is twice as high as the international cooperation. This result underlines the high importance of intra-ERA cooperation, but also the growing importance of the international cooperation. This interpretation is reinforced by the additional ERA indicators, the percentage of non-EU doctorate students and the license and patent revenues from abroad which shed a light on two other dimensions of international cooperation, notably international mobility and international commercial knowledge flows. Both show as well substantive growth rates over the observed time periods. In 2012, already 25% of doctorate students in Europe came from outside the ERA which strongly displays the degree of international mobility in research. The JRC's RIO country reports as well as the ERA National Action Plans and also the preliminary results of the OECD STI Outlook questionnaire present a broad range of measures and activities of Member States to strengthen their international cooperation dimension. Main findings in the Science-Metrix report shows that international collaborations with third countries are developing, although Western European nations are leading the way and a gap is opening with the rest of the ERA. In addition, international recruitment is advancing as well, although once again Western Europe is leading the charge on this front, and pulling away from the rest. A broader conception of human resourcing will be important to address the disparities in the research environment that have given Western Europe its present advantage. The National Action Plans overview on the scope of activities and measures is presented. Strategy development at national level in order to facilitate international cooperation and/or international mobility, such as the opening-up of national programs or the legal requirements for foreign researchers; Measures towards coherent European approaches; i.e. better coordination between national and EU bilateral cooperation activities, including bi-regional dialogues, and/or between national bilateral cooperation with third countries; Communication and Information measures through improving the information flow between the policy level and the research community on international STI cooperation; Outreach and networking measures focusing on more targeted international cooperation policy. There is a growing recognition among Member States of the relevance of international cooperation and for joint action in particular vis-a-vis the emerging science nations, including China and South-Korea. However, often the described activities are geared towards international cooperation in general and less towards the ERA Roadmap top priority, notably to "develop and implement appropriate joint strategic approaches and actions for international STI cooperation on the basis of Member States' national priorities" which is also in line with the findings in the Science-Metrix report. Major activities contributing to the ‘further development, implementation and monitoring of the international dimension of the ERA’ by the ERA related groups, especially SFIC. This group has been used as a fruitful framework for cooperation between Commission, Member States and Associated Countries for strategic discussions on international cooperation, to develop operational approaches and to engage in the development of multi annual roadmaps. One example of the support is the new working group on a "Toolbox for international cooperation". SFIC also continued work in the country-specific working groups on Brazil, Russia, USA, China and South Africa. ERA Stakeholders Organisations have contributed through e.g. a taskforce on internalization by CESAER and various strategic papers including the international dimension (LERU) Overall Conclusion

Analysis shows that many Member States experience substantial progress concerning their international cooperation capacities over the last years. It seems that the added value from joint approaches in international cooperation between the Member States and the EU as one strategy element beside the existing bilateral cooperation is no longer questioned. Especially smaller Member States underline the need for and the added value of joint approaches in particular vis-à-vis the large existing and emerging science nations. Conclusion It is with the current report the first time that progress on ERA has been measured on the basis of the development of a set of indicators in time. The report confirms that ERA has made strong progress during the last years. All headline indicators show progress over time according to the EU-28 averages, although large varieties, both in performance levels as in growth rates between countries exist, see the overview table of the growth rates. That institutional contexts vary between countries indicates that there is still much room for further progress on all priorities. The EU and its Member States still have not fully implemented ERA as envisaged in the 2012 Communication. Further work is needed by different actors. ERA 'top-scores' can be used as potential benchmarks for countries lagging behind. The ERA national action plans that have been published by Member States and Associated Countries are a clear proof of political ownership on all ERA priorities and show the high level of ambition to make further progress on ERA. The Commission’s policy agenda on Open Science, Open Innovation and Open to the World will also take the ERA to developments of tomorrow like the digital and global levels. This reconfirms that ERA is an evolving concept in time. New challenges arise and it is up to governments to define how to take advantage of it. There are new barriers to tear down. A successful ERA will lead to Open Innovation, Open Science and Open to the World. At the same time focus should now turn towards reinforced implementation to deliver on all ERA priorities. This is the responsibility of Member States, with monitoring and policy support from the Commission. The ERA Stakeholders' Organisations sustained their efforts towards the implementation of ERA priorities. Their commitment was underlined by the signing of a new Joint Statement by the Presidents of the five organisations represented in the ERA Stakeholders' Platform and Commissioner Moedas in June 2015. In addition, the ERA Stakeholders' Platform welcomed new members in 2016, thereby broadening its spectrum of actors. EIRMA, ERF-AISBL, ERRIN, EU-LIFE and TAFTIE were granted observer status after they adopted ERA action plans. The integration of the monitoring of the ERA Roadmap in the current progress report is a powerful tool to help Member States and Associated Countries define and implement the necessary ERA reforms at national level. Also streamlining with other reports on ERA priorities could be considered. Using the ERA Monitoring Mechanism as a backbone could further strengthen the quantitative foundation of ERA NAPs. The ERA monitoring process could further be strengthened by mutual learning exercises on the basis of a combination of the ERA NAPs and the complementary country snapshots for the next ERA Progress Report. Country Growth rates of countries across ERA priorities (headline indicators) JRC Res

Excellence

(2010-2013) GBARD

transnat

(2010-2014) EURAXESS

job postings

(2012-2014) Women Grade A

(2007-2014) Public or Private research insitutions co-op (2008-2012) Higher educ-

private co-op

(2008-2012) Non-ERA pubs

per 1000 res

(2005-2014) EU-28 6.4% 7.8% 7.8% 3.4% 3.5% 1.3% 4.1% AT 2.6% 3.4% 2.3% 6.0% 14.7% 1.7% 2.9% BE 9.5% 1.0% 1.8% 6.4% 0.4% -1.2% 3.0% BG 0.6% 16.0% -2.0% 5.5% -9.3% -1.7% 1.4% CH 4.2% : 4.6% -1.9% : : 1.4% CY 8.7% 0.7% -1.4% 4.6% 11.2% -6.5% 8.4% CZ 1.9% -3.4% -39.1% 1.7% -2.3% 2.3% 6.3% DE 6.0% -1.1% 8.5% 5.9% : : 0.0% DK 8.4% -3.7% 3.0% 5.4% -7.2% -4.6% 3.5% EE 3.8% 25.7% 13.7% 3.2% 10.0% 8.8% 8.4% EL 5.5% -12.6% -8.8% 4.3% : : : ES 5.9% 6.2% 21.3% 1.9% 13.1% 11.9% 9.1% FI 5.6% -0.2% -29.4% 2.5% -0.1% -1.5% 8.9% FR 6.2% : 16.7% 2.5% -1.6% -2.9% 4.2% HR 5.2% 22.5% 308.2% 6.4% -2.2% -0.1% 6.3% HU 5.2% 3.8% -29.4% -0.7% -2.6% -2.3% 3.0% IE 7.3% 5.7% 17.2% 12.7% : : 6.2% IS : : : : : : 9.9% IT 5.6% 18.1% 10.7% 2.1% 12.2% 0.2% 2.9% LT -0.6% 24.8% -19.2% 12.3% 2.9% 9.3% 7.7% LU 13.6% 35.2% -26.0% 8.6% -12.0% -12.3% 13.8% LV 4.1% 47.1% 72.3% 2.8% 0.1% -9.8% 13.8% MT 8.0% -100.0% : 34.6% -0.6% 7.6% 16.4% NL 9.1% 10.4% 13.4% 6.3% : : 5.4% NO 7.1% -3.9% 11.2% 5.4% 0.8% 0.3% 6.0% PL 3.6% 76.8% -4.7% 1.6% -3.8% -3.0% 3.0% PT 4.7% 1.4% 31.0% 2.0% 3.5% 1.2% 11.1% RO 1.3% 9.5% -34.8% -1.1% 22.9% -4.0% 8.6% RS -1.5% : -12.1% : : : 4.6% SE 5.2% -2.5% 17.0% 4.3% 8.9% 4.2% 3.8% SI -1.0% -18.4% 21.2% 6.0% : : 5.3% SK 4.0% 15.7% 111.8% 3.3% -11.5% 0.1% 1.6% UK 9.1% 11.0% 4.9% : : : 5.7% Country Performance of countries across ERA priorities (headline indicators) JRC Res

Excellence

(2013) GBARD

transnat

(2014) Part ESFRI

Landmarks

(2014) EURAXESS

job postings

(2014) Women Grade A

(2013) Res Inst-

private co-op

(2012) Higher educ-

private co-op

(2012) Total OA pubs

(2014) Non-ERA pubs

per 1000 res

(2014) EU-28 44.4 3,511 30.2% 47.0 20.9% 7.3% 12.0% 52.2% 50.7 AT 48.6 6,958 27.6% 71.3 20.3% 12.6% 20.9% 53.3% 57.7 BE 57.2 9,251 48.3% 51.9 15.6% 13.3% 18.1% 57.9% 62.8 BG 17.2 97 6.9% 1.4 31.7% 2.6% 4.4% 59.0% 10.5 CH 97.5 27,941 24.1% 16.1 19.3% : : 58.0% 96.6 CY 36.6 3,018 3.4% 81.7 10.8% 4.7% 4.7% 56.4% 86.5 CZ 23.4 1,245 48.3% 11.4 13.1% 5.7% 14.3% 53.2% 34.3 DE 49.9 4,686 69.0% 5.5 17.3% 5.9% 13.9% 49.8% 49.6 DK 70.2 2,787 44.8% 17.8 19.2% 10.9% 14.7% 55.9% 72.2 EE 29.7 939 20.7% 21.8 17.2% 4.4% 9.9% 57.7% 24.6 EL 28.7 1,098 34.5% 78.8 19.6% 15.7% 18.6% 52.0% 21.2 ES 33.9 2,385 31.0% 13.0 20.9% 10.6% 9.2% 53.0% 48.7 FI 54.5 3,795 44.8% 5.4 26.6% 23.0% 26.2% 54.1% 50.5 FR 46.5 : 82.8% 49.8 19.3% 8.0% 11.0% 55.8% 59.7 HR 17.8 1,569 3.4% 362.0 38.0% 10.1% 14.4% 60.4% 20.8 HU 29.7 194 13.8% 1.0 24.1% 5.9% 17.0% 59.2% 33.2 IE 47.3 2,951 6.9% 139.1 28.2% 7.1% 9.8% 54.6% 87.5 IS 40.2 6,927 0.0% 42.6 26.3% 9.7% 8.4% 56.4% 62.2 IT 33.0 8,395 65.5% 26.4 21.1% 2.8% 5.3% 53.5% 51.4 LT 16.4 220 10.3% 1.7 14.4% 10.7% 18.1% 57.6% 10.6 LU 44.6 3,387 3.4% 73.7 16.5% 7.7% 7.0% 61.0% 44.7 LV 20.1 1,030 0.0% 2.7 34.4% 6.8% 7.0% 50.0% 8.1 MT 22.8 0 6.9% : 44.5% 1.5% 4.1% 46.6% 28.4 NL 70.1 4,101 58.6% 98.7 16.2% 6.6% 8.3% 58.7% 87.1 NO 56.5 4,414 34.5% 69.1 25.2% 13.8% 12.8% 57.4% 55.3 PL 18.2 678 31.0% 146.7 22.6% 7.8% 9.4% 55.1% 16.8 PT 27.0 749 31.0% 7.3 25.0% 6.5% 9.3% 59.0% 32.2 RO 15.7 1,191 13.8% 17.0 29.7% 6.9% 4.3% 56.0% 20.9 RS 14.3 101 6.9% 0.6 : 0.0% 0.0% 59.7% 16.3 SE 66.6 6,067 55.2% 156.1 23.8% 10.8% 17.1% 57.0% 85.1 SI 26.3 955 20.7% 28.0 22.5% 14.3% 22.0% 53.2% 37.2 SK 18.6 52 6.9% 1.4 23.7% 5.3% 12.6% 53.2% 10.5 UK 72.5 2,561 55.2% 63.8 17.5% 10.0% 15.9% 56.4% 62.8



Annexes Annex 1: Statistical notes and footnotes to tables The European Research Area and Innovation Committee (ERAC) selected eight core high level indicators (one per priority or per sub-priority for priorities 2 and 5) that are regarded as the most relevant in monitoring progress in achieving the ERA. In addition to these Headline indicators, the ERAC selected two complementary ERA Monitoring Mechanism (EMM) indicators per priority (including the sub-priorities for priorities 2 and 5), resulting in a total of 24 EMM indicators (including the Headline indicators). Because the goals to be reached in achieving the ERA constitute moving targets, it is difficult to establish reference values to be attained in relation to specific ERA policy actions; some of these targets could become obsolete in between each EMM round. Each table shows country-by-country scores for national performance based on the indicator in question. In the tables, the countries are sorted in descending order of performance, meaning that the strongest performers appear at the top, with softer and softer performance results as one reads down the table. The countries are clustered into groups based on performance for the same purpose. This clustering operation is based on the distribution of scores for all of the ERA countries for which data is available; countries more than one standard deviation above the ERA average (unweighted) average across the MS/AC for which data is available) for a given indicator are in Cluster 1, the strongest cluster; those at or above the ERA average but within one standard deviation are in Cluster 2; those below the average but within one standard deviation are in Cluster 3; those more than one standard deviation below the ERA average are in Cluster 4, being the least performing cluster. For each country and cluster, the percentage of the ERA GDP that is accounted for by each country and cluster is provided as a reference of the country/cluster GDP weight among the ERA countries; at the cluster level, this helps in appreciating the share of the ERA’s global economy that is found in each performance cluster, as well as the importance of the progress — from an ERA-wide perspective — made in each cluster. In addition to a measurement of performance in 2015 (or the most recent reference year for which sufficient data was available at the time of producing this report), the indicator tables also assess changes in national performance over time, computed as a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) Country-by-country results for performance and growth have been colour-coded to ease the reading of tables, with blue representing the lower scores and orange representing the higher scores. The connection between performance and growth is a point of interest to follow throughout this report, as it shows whether countries lagging somewhat behind are catching up to their stronger counterparts in progressing towards the ERA, or whether the stronger performers are pulling further away from the pack. The performance–growth connection for each indicator can be assessed visually based on the colour-coding of results: performance scores will always be sorted from orange at the top to blue on the bottom, so if growth scores are predominantly orange at the top and blue towards the bottom, one can conclude that the leaders are pulling away from the pack; contrarily, if growth scores are predominantly blue at the top and orange towards the bottom, this finding shows that those behind are catching up, closing the gap to the leaders.

The footnotes for each table have been gathered hereunder: Table 1 Adjusted Research Excellence Indicator (2010-2013) The adjusted REI is a composite indicator integrating of four components: share of top 10 % most highly cited publications per total publications (data source: CWTS); PCT patent applications per population (OECD); ERC grants per public R&D (DG-RTD, Eurostat, OECD) and participation in Marie Skłodowska-Curie fellowships (DG-EAC). Dates refer to actual data years, except for MSC fellowships. It was calculated using the latest available data as of April 2016 (i.e. 2013), taking into consideration the presence of a citation window for the highly cited publications indicator. Source: Calculations by European Commission, DG Joint Research Centre, Competence Centre on Composite Indicators and Scoreboards. For details on the methodology, please refer to Vértesy (2015) Table 2A GBARD (EUR) allocated to Europe-wide transnational, as well as bilateral or multilateral, public R&D programmes per FTE researcher in the public sector (2010-2014) The CAGR is computed on the 2010-14 period but the trendline shows data for the period 2007-2014.

Break in time series: EU-28 (2007, 2008, 2012, 2013); 2012 (BE, LV); 2007 (DK, NO); PT (2008, 2013); 2011 (RO, SI, FI); SE (2013); IS (2011, 2013); RS (2014) Definition differs: 2007-2014 (EU-28, NL, SK); HR (2012-2014); NO (2007-2009); CH (2008, 2010, 2012) Estimated: 2007-2014 (EU-28, BE, NL); DK (2014); IE (2007, 2014); HR (2013); 2012-2014 (IT, SE); LU (2007, 2014); AT (2008, 2010, 2012, 2014); SK (2007); FI (2011-2014); UK (2010-2014); CH (2008, 2010, 2012) Provisional: 2014 (EU-28, BE, CZ, DK, IT, CY, LU, MT, NL, AT, PT, SI, UK Potential outlier: EE (2009); CY (2008); HU (2012) Eurostat country flags have been retained in the EU-28 aggregate Missing countries in EU-28 aggregate: Performance (FR); Growth (DE; EL; FR; IT; RO; SI; FI; SE) Exception to reference year: DE (2013); IS (2013); CH (2012) Exception to reference period: DE (2011-2013); 2011-2014 (RO, FI); 2012-2014 (EL, IT, SE) Data unavailable: FR, ME, MK, AL, TR, BA, IL, FO, MD, UA (:) = missing data CH is more than four standard deviations away from the mean and was therefore not used in establishing the clusters' boundaries. The data for Researchers in FTE in the Swiss Government sector are only covering the Federal or central government. However, recall that public sector researchers in this study refer to the sum of the Government and Higher Education sectors, the latter usually being much larger than the former. As a result, a bias favouring Switzerland is possible, although likely not that large. For the Netherlands, data for the category ‘National contributions to Europe-wide transnational public R&D programmes’ do not include the joint programmes as defined in the JOREP project. All projects have to be approached separately. An "Estimated" flag is used in Eurobase, but it is likely that the real value is underestimated.. Source: Computed by Science-Metrix using Eurostat data (online data codes: gba_tncoor and gba_nabsfin07) Table 2B Availability of national roadmaps with identified ESFRI projects and corresponding investment needs

References to a ‘Latvian Roadmap of National Level Research Centres’ may be found online (see e.g. http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/77424776/latvian-roadmap-national-level-research-centres ), which describe it as a ‘long-term planning instrument that lists research infrastructures on national importance, either new or in need of upgrading’ but the roadmap per se is not available. Source: National roadmaps for research infrastructures: https://ec.europa.eu/research/infrastructures/index_en.cfm?pg=esfri-national-roadmaps Table 3 Number of researcher postings advertised through the EURAXESS job portal, per 1 000 researchers in the public sector (2012-2014) Break in time series: EU-28 (2012, 2013); BE (2012); 2013 (PT, SE, IS); RS (2014) Definition differs: EU-28 (2012-2014); HR (2012-2014); NL (2012-2014); SK (2012-2014); CH (2012) Estimated: EU-28 (2012-2014); 2014 (BE, DK, DE, IE, LU); AT (2012, 2014); SE (2012-2014); UK (2014) Provisional: 2014 (EU-28, BE, CZ, DK, DE, FR, IT, CY, LV, LU, NL, AT, PT, SI, UK) Eurostat country flags have been retained in the EU-28 aggregate Missing countries in EU-28 aggregate: MT Exception to reference year: CH (2012) Data unavailable: MT, MK, AL, BA, IL, FO, MD, UA (:) = missing data The data for Researchers in FTE in the Swiss Government sector are only covering the Federal or central government. However, recall that public sector researchers in this study refer to the sum of the Government and Higher Education Sectors, the latter usually being much larger than the former. As a result, a bias favouring Switzerland is possible, although likely not that large. HR is more than four standard deviations away from the mean and was therefore not used in establishing the clusters' boundaries. Source: Computed by Science-Metrix from EURAXESS historical data and from Eurostat data (online data code: rd_p_persocc) Table 4 Share of women in Grade A positions in the Higher Education Sector (2007-2014) Exception to reference year: 2013 (BE, LV, LU, AT, RO, CH); 2012 (IE, PT, IS, MK); TR (2007); 2006 (UK, IL)

Exception to reference period: BE (2007-2014), DK (2006-2014), EE (2004-2014), IE (2003-2012), EL (2000-2014), FR (2006-2014), CY (2006-2014), LV (2007-2013), LU (2006-2013), MT (2004-2014), AT (2006-2013), PT (2003-2012), RO (2007-2013), IS (2007-2012), CH (2007-2013) Data unavailable: ME, AL, RS, TR, BA, IL, FO, MD, UA Data prone to yearly fluctuations due to small denominator: MK (6/9 = 66.7 %) (:) = missing data MK is more than four standard deviations away from the mean and was therefore not used in establishing the clusters' boundaries.

Trend column not presented due to sparse time-series. Source: Women in Science database, DG Research and Innovation Table 5A1 Share of product or process innovative firms cooperating with public or private research institutions (2008-2012) Definition differs (added by Science-Metrix): 2012 (EU-28, BE, BG, CZ, DK, DE, EE, IE, EL, ES, FR, HR, IT, CY, LV, LT, LU, HU, MT, NL, AT, PL, PT, RO, SI, SK, FI, SE, UK, NO, RS, TR) Provisional: EU-28 (2008); DK (2008) Low reliability: EU-28 (2008); SE (2008) Eurostat country flags have been retained in the EU-28 aggregate Missing countries in EU-28 aggregate: Growth (DE, IE, NL, SI) Exception to reference year: 2010 (DE, IE, NL, SI, IS) Data unavailable: CH, ME, MK, AL, BA, IL, FO, MD, UA (:) = missing data Source:Computed by Science-Metrix using Eurostat data (online data codes: inn_cis6_coop, inn_cis7_coop, inn_cis8_coop, inn_cis6_type, inn_cis7_type, inn_cis8_type) Table 5B Share of publications available in Open Access (2014) The clusters are based on total OA

(:) = missing data Source:Computed by Science-Metrix using 1science data Table 6 Co-publications with non-ERA partners per 1 000 researchers in the public sector (2005-2014) Break in time series: BE (2012); 2005 (CZ, IT, UK); 2007 (DK, NO); DE (2006); 2011 (EL, RO, SI, FI); FR (2010); PT (2005-2008, 2013); SE (2005, 2007, 2011, 2013); IS (2011, 2013); RS (2014) Definition differs: FR (2005-2009); HR (2012-2014); NL (2005-2014); SK (2005-2014); SE (2005-2007); NO (2005-2009); CH (2006, 2008, 2010, 2012) Estimated: EU-28 (2008-2010); 2014 (BE, DK, DE); IE (2007, 2014); EL (2006, 2007); LU (2007, 2014); AT (2005, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014); SE (2005-2014); UK (2005-2008, 2014) Provisional: 2014 (EU-28, BE, CZ, DK, DE, FR, IT, CY, LV, LU, MT, NL, AT, PT, SI, UK)

Eurostat estimate: PT (2005) Exception to reference period: CH (2006-2012); RS (2008-2014) Data unavailable: AL, BA, IL, FO, MD, UA (:) = missing data Source: Computed by Science-Metrix using WoS data (Thomson Reuters) and Eurostat data (online data code: rd_p_persocc)







Annex 2: Actions in support of ERA by the various ERA working groups gathering national representatives Under the authority of the European Research and Innvovation Advisory Group (ERAC) Steering Group, each specialised working groups bringing together representatives of Member States is in charge of one of the ERA priorities. The aim is to foster implementation through reforms at national level. Although an effort has been made to harmonize their mandates, each working group retains its own characteristics, inherited from a complex history. Each operational working group was asked to report on the success achieved in its activities since the last ERA Progress Report, i.e. over the period 2014-2016. ERA Priority 2A: High Level Group for Joint Programming (GPC) Fostering the Joint Programming Process The first task of the High Level Group for Joint Programming (GPC) mission was to identify and establish the Joint Programming Initiatives (JPIs). By the end of 2014, all ten JPIs had fully functioning governance systems in place. The GPC considered that development as a remarkable success. Althgough the GPC considered that developement as a remarkable success, it acknowledged that this achievement fulfilled only part of the objectives of the Joint Programming Process (JPP). As a result, the GPC explored ways on how to best contribute to foster the JPP and established new working methods in order to become more operational. Four Working Groups (WGs) were set up dealing with issues related to the collaboration between the GPC and JPIs, the promotion of alignment, the Framework Conditions for JP and the JPIs’ progress and impact. The final reports of the WGs were adopted by the GPC in September 2014. Building on the WGs’ reports, the GPC considered, among others, the following elements as being crucial for the development of the full potential of the JPP: Commitment and support from both the participating countries and the EC towards the JPP and the JPIs must be strengthened; Following the adoption of Strategic Research Agendas in the context of JP, the participating countries should follow a strategic approach to, when appropriate, align their national programmes, priorities or activities, with a view to implementing changes to improve efficiency and effectiveness of investment in research; JPIs must become strategic hubs or platforms for research and innovation in their respective challenge and be used as such by all relevant actors and stakeholders; The interoperability of national research systems should be spurred also by reducing the degree of divergence of terminology, rules and procedures for funding R&I throughout MS and AC; Effective methods, parameters and indicators for measuring the impact of the JPIs on their respective societal challenge, and of the JPP in general, must be developed and implemented.

GPC Self-Assessment During the last months of 2014, the GPC has gone through a self-assessment of its activities. The exercise indicated a widespread willingness to enhance and streamline the cooperation between the GPC and the other ERA-related Groups, including ERAC, to produce a more comprehensible and coherent picture. Furthermore, the GPC clearly expressed its wish to see its mandate updated, according to the requirements of the new scenario, and to be involved in the preparation of the relevant aspects of the ERA Roadmap. Implementation Groups In early 2015, the GPC established 3 Implementation Groups (IGs), in order to build on the work of the previous WGs and to promote and facilitate full implementation of their recommendations. The IG1 on “Fostering Relationships among the JPIs and the GPC” provided the essential elements for the drafting of a document on “Keeping the GPC up to the job – Tasks and Profile of the GPC Delegates” and led to the decision of inviting, wherever possible, the JPIs’ Representatives to the meetings of the GPC. The IG2 on “Improving Alignment and Interoperability” performed an alignment mapping exercise which highlighted the importance of a high level national commitment, of an overarching inclusive national strategy, and of using the national budget as an instrument for promoting alignment. Interestingly, also the national governance of the JPP was explored, which led to a set of recommendations. The IG3 on “Monitoring and Evaluation” mainly focused on the establishment of minimum conditions for JPIs to be used both for possible new JPIs, as well as for the assessment of the existing ones. The final reports of the IGs were adopted by the GPC in late 2015 and 2016. Lund Declaration 2015 In December 2015, a high level conference, entitled ‘Lund Revisited: Tackling Societal Challenges‘, was organised to discuss the progress that had been made since the Lund Declaration of 2009 and propose an updated Lund Declaration 2015. The updated Declaration identifies four priority areas (alignment, frontier research and European knowledge base, global cooperation and achieving impact on challenges) and calls on all stakeholders to take these priorities into account in their field of responsibility. Revision of the GPC Mandate The revision of the GPC mandate was accomplished according to the main concept that “the focus of the GPC activity should shift from the JPIs to the JPP”. After extensive discussions, the renewed mandate was adopted by the GPC on 12 February 2016 including the ‘common clauses’ of all the ‘ERA-related Groups’. Hernani’s Report In June 2015 the EC established an Expert Group (chaired by J. Hernani) to carry out an ‘Evaluation of Joint Programming to Address Grand Societal Challenges‘. The key message from the Hernani Report (March 2016) is that the ‘Joint Programming Process does not yet have sufficient Commitment from national stakeholders to achieve its potential‘. The final recommendation of the Group is therefore addressed to all policy stakeholders who will play an influential role in the planning process, due to start in 2017, for the next Framework Programme (FP). The Group recommends that ‘each of the JPIs should be invited to consider their longer term strategy in terms of socio-economic impact objectives/deliverables and what support instruments they would need from the next FP‘. WG on the “Long Term Strategy of Joint Programming» Following the Lund Declaration 2015, the output of the Annual Conference of JP (organized by ERA-LEARN 2020 in Jan. 2016) and the recommendations given by the Hernani Report, the GPC decided (April 2016) to establish a WG on the ‘Long Term Strategy of Joint Programming‘. The WG is composed of volunteering GPC delegates, JPIs representatives and representatives of the EC. The main output of this WG is not an additional evaluation of the JPIs, but a general framework for JPI long- term strategy which will serve as a basis for GPC recommendations regarding the future of JP in the next FP. Moreover, as a first step towards a common approach for connecting the JPIs and the next FP, the Working Group will also prepare a proposal for the positioning of JPIs in the Work Programme 2018-2020. Mutual Learning Exercise In addition, to enhance the alignment process, the GPC decided to launch in collaboration with the EC a Mutual Learning Exercise (MLE) on "Alignment and Interoperability of Research Programmes" using the 'Policy Support Facility' (PSF) under H2020. The MLE will run in sequences and is expected to support the countries to find solutions for increasing MS/AC and EC commitment to the joint programming process and to the JPIs, for enhancing alignment of strategies and programmes and for improving interoperability among MS/AC instruments and with the EC instruments.

Future Vision A synthesis of the GPC view on the state-of-the-art and its vision for the near future includes the following: a genuine joint programming of research strategies, programmes and activities is at the core of the full implementation of the ERA in the corresponding priority area of the societal challenges; joint funding activities are not per se making a genuine JPP to develop and grow; a stronger effort of the national scientific communities and an effective political will of the decision makers are required for aligning strategies, programmes and activities on major societal challenges; most likely, a more visible role of the JPIs within the H2020 could contribute to effectively developing JPIs as strategic hubs for the European research on major societal challenges. ERA Priority 2B: European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures (ESFRI) In 2014, ESFRI published a prioritisation report , identifying a limited number of projects from the ESFRI roadmap , which were mature enough to be under implementation by 2015-2016 and were considered essential to extend the frontiers of knowledge in the fields concerned. This task implied a strong involvement of the different ESFRI Strategy Working Groups. The prioritisation exercise started from the report of the Assessment Expert Group (AEG), published in September 2013. This AEG report provided a snapshot of the status of implementation of 36 projects on the ESFRI Roadmap, not including the already implemented “success stories” and two other projects that fall within the domain of EURATOM. ESFRI Chair communicated the short list of projects to the Greek Presidency of the Council. The Competitiveness Council conclusions (adopted on 26 May 2014) acknowledged the work done by the ESFRI on prioritisation of projects for implementation and welcomed plans to update the ESFRI roadmap with new research infrastructures of pan-European interest. In 2014 ESFRI revised the structure of the ESFRI Roadmap and the methodology to be followed for the 2016 update. Main innovations were a) the ten-year rule that limits the permanence of a proposal on the Roadmap: implementation is expected to occur within ten years of the first entry; b) after ten years the project leaves the Roadmap unless it moves to the list of implemented/science performing research infrastructures newly defined as ESFRI Landmarks, or it can re-apply as project in competition with new proposals and only after deep revision or reorientation; c) the extensive Landscape Analysis of all the RIs performing services and open access to the European scientists in all the domains covered by ESFRI. Consequently in 2014 the Strategy Working Groups started developing a landscape analysis in their respective scientific fields - Energy, Environment, Health and Food, Physical Science and Engineering, Social and Cultural Innovations. The Physical Science and Engineering Strategy Work Group (PSE SWG) created an ad-hoc Working Group to develop a thorough analysis of the European Landscape of Research Infrastructures devoted to Neutron Scattering and Spectroscopy, and its evolution in the next decades. The rationale behind this decision was that on one hand the ESFRI project ESS-neutrons was launched. But on the other hand, a number of national facilities, based on nuclear reactor sources, had announced their termination creating a complex cross-over dynamics that needed to be well understood in order to plan strategically the availability of neutron resources for European science in the period 2020-2050. This Neutron Landscape Group (NLG), co-chaired by Prof. Colin Carlile (former Director General of the ILL and of the ESS-Scandinavia) and Prof. Caterina Petrillo (now vice-chair of the ESS Council) has delivered a report that was published in 2016 as the first “ESFRI Scripta”. Following the 28-29 May 2015 Competitiveness Council meeting, ESFRI was invited to explore mechanisms for better coordination of Member States' investment strategies in e-infrastructures, covering also HPC, distributed computing, scientific data and networks. For this purpose, ESFRI launched a Working Group on investment strategies in e-infrastructures, chaired by Mr. Sverker Holmgren (also e-IRG Chair). This Working Group will provide its final recommendations in late 2016. ESFRI activities in 2015 focused on implementing the innovative scheme of the 2016 ESFRI Roadmap. The process included the following steps: Assessment of Implementation of projects which entered the Roadmap in 2008 and 2010; Collection of new proposals submitted to the 2016 ESFRI Roadmap; Evaluation of proposals consisting of scientific assessment and the assessment of maturity; Selection of ESFRI Projects and ESFRI Landmarks to be included in the Roadmap;

Preparing the landscape analysis of large-scale research infrastructures in Europe; Drafting of the 2016 ESFRI Roadmap document. The ESFRI Roadmap 2016 document consists of three Parts. Part 1 provides the outline of the ESFRI strategic considerations in the development of research infrastructures in Europe as well as gives an overview of projects included in the Roadmap, the methodology, lessons learnt and the outlook into the future. The Roadmap contains 21 ESFRI Projects and 29 ESFRI Landmarks , whose detailed descriptions are included in Part 2. ESFRI selected new projects following evaluation by a) the Strategy Working Groups with respect to their scientific excellence, pan-European relevance and socio-economic impact and b) with respect to their degree of maturity as benchmarked against an “assessment matrix” developed by the ESFRI Implementation Group (IG). Other proposals that did not enter the Roadmap were described in the landscape analysis as having a high potential of scientific excellence and/or complementarity to existing ESFRI Projects or Landmarks. These are expected to compete for future updates or coordinate with existing RIs. The landscape analysis contained in Part 3 of the Roadmap document provides the current context, in each domain, of the operational national and international research infrastructures open to European scientists and technology developers through peer-review of competitive science proposals. It represents an impression of the European RI ecosystem. This responds to the invitation by the Competitiveness Council to broaden the view of ESFRI beyond the Roadmap list of projects. It has been produced by the five Strategy Working Groups (SWGs) of ESFRI that are composed of well-recognized scientists and are coordinated by a member, or a permanent expert, of the ESFRI Forum. The e-infrastructures landscape, transversal to all domains, has been elaborated by the e-Infrastructure Reflection Group (e-IRG). The landscape analysis is a key ingredient of the new ESFRI evaluation methodology as it supports the understanding of the impact of new projects. It does not represent in any way the view or prioritization of ESFRI or of any Member State for commitments or future investments. ESFRI in no case acts as an advocate of specific potential future projects. ESFRI and its Member States have taken note of it. With the 2016 ESFRI Roadmap update, the process incorporated the necessary steps to further strengthen the RI ecosystem in the years to come. ESFRI will continue to update its roadmap in 2018, further refining its methodology, and offering opportunities to new projects in all fields of science. The ESFRI Roadmap 2016 was launched on 10 March 2016, in Amsterdam. The event was organized under the Dutch Presidency by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) in close cooperation with ESFRI, the European Commission and the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. Discussions focused on strategic road-mapping, long-term sustainability and the socio-economic impact of research infrastructures. In 2016 the ESFRI Innovation Working Group published its report to contribute to the development of a strategy aimed to strengthen and improve the relations between Research Infrastructures and Industry and to promote the potential for innovation of Research Infrastructures. ESFRI presented the 2016 Roadmap in the Competitiveness Council meeting of 27 May 2016. The Council conclusions welcomed the identification of ESFRI Landmarks and recognised their continued strategic role in driving scientific excellence and innovation in Europe and called on ESFRI to closely monitor the implementation of ESFRI projects, to periodically assess the scientific status of ESFRI Landmarks, and to prepare the next ESFRI Roadmap update in 2018. As a follow-up of the May Council conclusions, ESFRI started to streamline the Roadmap methodology in order to prepare the 2018 Roadmap Update. Specifically on Long term sustainability of Research Infrastructures, the Competitiveness Council conclusions invited the Commission to prepare together with ESFRI and relevant stakeholders a targeted action plan". As a follow-up, ESFRI created a dedicated Working Group on Long term sustainability of Research Infrastructures, which will start its' activities in the last trimester of 2016. ERA Priority 3: Steering Group on Human Resources and Mobility (SGHRM) The SGHRM aims to advise and support the Commission on aspects related to the implementation of ERA and its impacts at national level, monitoring developments related to researcher careers and mobility at EU level. In this respect, ERA priority 3 is 'key' for the work of the group which is focusing on this priority since its establishment in 2001 while priorities 1, 2 and 4 are inextricably linked. The group contributes to creating