EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 15/07/2008 
SEC(2008) 2282 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying document to the 
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSI ON TO THE COUNCIL, THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EU ROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMI TTEE OF THE REGIONS 
  
TOWARDS JOINT PROGRAMMING IN RESEARCH : 
 
 Working together to tackle co mmon challenges more effectively 
   
SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT  
 
{COM(2008) 468 final} 
{SEC(2008) 2281} 
 
EN 2   EN 1. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  
1.1. Introduction 
This impact assessment is in support of the in itiative presented in the European Commission's 
Communication entitled "Towards Joint Progra mming in Research". The Joint Programming 
(JP) initiative is one of five policy initiatives planned by the Commission in 2008 as a follow-up 
to the Green Paper on “The European Resear ch Area: New Perspectives” responding to the 
"Optimising research programmes and priorities" dimension. JP is  the process whereby Member 
States engage on a voluntary and "à la car te" basis in the definition, development and 
implementation of common research agendas addressi ng a specific field or specific topic. This 
can involve the coordination of existing nationa l programmes, or the setting up of entirely new 
ones, pooling resources and collectively monitori ng and reviewing progress. By increasing and 
improving the cross-border collaboration, coordi nation and integration of Member States' 
publicly funded research programmes in a limited number of strategic areas, it aims to help 
Europe to boost the efficiency of its public funding and to better address major societal challenges. The proposed approach is to pr omote Joint Programming through a high-level 
political process driven by the Member States, which would offer flexibility in terms of instruments, geometry, and level of programme coordination and integrat ion. Joint Programming 
is targeted at public research  programmes, and therefore invol ves public-public rather than 
public-private cooperation. However, industry may play a role in its implementation. 
1.2. Political and stakeholder support 
At the political level, clear s upport for enhanced and more eff ective coordination of research 
activities in Europe has been reit erated over the last 15 years: 
the 2008 Spring European Council 
encouraged the Commission and Member States " to continue developing initiatives for joint 
programming of research in areas where this approach is appropriate, allowing a more 
strategic and better structured approach to the launch of new joint programmes and common 
calls for projects from the end of 2010 ". 
Amongst policy shapers, researchers and citizens , too, there is a widesp read consensus that 
Europe's pressing and common challenges – such as  climate change, energy, security, health and 
ageing – need to be tackled jointly at the Europ ean level. These stakeholders also believe that 
research has a key role to play in addressing these challenges, but feel that joint agenda setting 
and enhanced coordination of research in Europe will be necessary if research is to make an 
effective contribution.  
 
EN 3   EN 2. PROBLEM DEFINITION  
2.1. The need to improve Europe's capacity to  meet its societal challenges through 
stronger coordination and joint strategic focus of public R&D 
To be able to meet its societal challenges, Europe's research system must be capable of 
producing results of the highest st andard. However, Europe has b een unable to ra pidly increase 
its spending on resear ch, and must therefore continue its effo rts to make better use of its scarce 
R&D resources by investing them more efficiently  and effectively. In th is context, the public 
sector has an important role to play by seeki ng to increase the retu rn on public R&D funds. 
There are many ways of trying to  boost the impact and efficiency of public R&D. One of the 
paths which has been under-exploited and which o ffers great potential gains is to improve the 
organisation of Europe's public R&D investme nt through increased cross-border programme 
collaboration and coordination. 
While Member States have set up many mechanis ms over the years to enable trans-national 
R&D cooperation, it is still the cas e that around 85% of civil publ ic research in Europe is 
programmed, financed, monitored and evaluated at national level. By comparison with other 
structural policy areas, such as competition, tr ade, industry, etc., R&D remains less integrated 
and coordinated in Europe.  
In response to this problem, several recent init iatives have been launched at Community level 
aimed at stimulating coordination of nationa l public R&D, such as the Open Method of 
Coordination, the ERA-NET scheme for networki ng national and regional  research programme 
owners and managers, and taking advantage of Article 169 of the Treaty which enables the 
Community to participate in research and development programmes undertaken by several 
Member States. However, these efforts are sti ll extremely modest in terms of the volume of 
funding involved, and have had limited success in  achieving full programme integration owing 
to a lack of strategic direction and support from the Member States. 
2.2. The need for a new approach 
There is a growing recognition that a new, more strategic approach is needed for the 
coordination of public R&D programmes in Europe , focused on those areas that can contribute 
solutions to Europe's pressing societal challenge s, and where coordination can deliver gains in 
the efficiency and impact of research. Past e fforts to promote Joint Programming have clearly 
been hampered by a lack of high-level political commitment on the part of Member States, by a 
lack of sufficient and credible da ta on and insights into the part icular structure and organisation 
of respective S&T fields, and by the rigidity of the instruments used. 
Now, however, is a good time to launch a new policy in itiative on Joint Programming. The wider 
policy context has changed, as commonly faced majo r societal challenges have moved decisively 
to the top of the policy agenda in every Member State and at Community le vel, and the costs of 
non-coordination is becoming apparent. Combined e fforts need to be channelled towards areas of 
pan-European challenges, and for this to succeed  the full commitment of the Member States will 
be essential. The new initiative should be sh aped by the views of stakeholders and by past 
experience. 
 
EN 4   EN It is important that a process for moving toward s Joint Programming should be neither too "top-
down", with the Commission in the driving seat, nor too "bottom-up", resulting in a lack of 
coherent strategy and focus. 
An effective process would involve Member St ates together identify ing areas of common 
concern where collective action can be more effec tive in tackling important societal challenges. 
In particular, it must use suitable criteria agreed  by all parties in order to  determine the fields in 
which Joint Programming could most usefully be  launched. To make th ese criteria operational 
there must be a solid information base. Information on existing national and regional programmes in various areas has to be gathered , including what they cover and where there are 
gaps, duplication or a lack of scale and scope.  
There is also a need for a variable-geometry appr oach which allows flexibility in terms of the 
participating countries. Not all Member States  share the same challenges in every area, 
especially in the expanded Eur opean Union of 27 countries.  
Finally, an effective process must allow for a gr aduated response by selec ting the most efficient 
instruments to use in a given field. 
2.3. Subsidiarity and European added value 
The right for the Community to act in this field is enshrined in several articles of the Treaty 
which provide for research coordination and cooperation between Member States and the 
Community (Articles 165, 169, 171). The proposed  process for Joint Programming can 
justifiably be considered as necessary because it is unlikely to be achieved sufficiently by 
Member States via purely inter-governmental acti ons. Expansion of such actions has stalled in 
recent years, and most initiatives aimed at multilateral programme coordination have been 
developed within the context of Community activit ies. Member States ac ting alone are therefore 
unlikely to be able to address these problems. 
The European added value of the proposal stems in  part from the trans-national nature of some 
of the key challenges (climate change, for example) where Member States need to act together in 
order to properly tackle the problem s. It can also be justified in terms of offering the potential for 
greater scale, scope and effec tiveness of public R&D programm es in Europe by addressing 
common challenges jointly and developing co mmon solutions, overcoming barriers to entry, 
such as high start-up and operating costs in certain S&T fields, pooli ng data and expertise, 
achieving higher scientific, technological and i nnovation impacts, eliminating cross-European 
programme duplication, increa sing programme depth, and reduc ing programme management 
costs. 
 
EN 5   EN 3. OBJECTIVES  
3.1. General policy objectives 
The general policy objectiv es of the JP initiative are to enha nce the EU's capacity to achieve its 
high-level policy goals and respond to the major challenges it faces in the coming years:  
(1) to contribute to the achievement of the obj ectives of the revised Lisbon Strategy;  
(2) to help Europe respond more effectively thr ough research to key societal challenges; 
(3) to contribute to the achievement of the European Research Area (ERA) objectives. 
3.2. Specific objectives:  
In order to contribute to achieving these ge neral policy objectives, it will be necessary to 
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of pub lic research programming in Europe in areas 
where it is facing major societal ch allenges. Specific objectives are: 
(1) to strengthen the coordination of EU national public research programmes in areas which 
can provide solutions to important societal ch allenges and where there is evidence of an 
added value from adopting a jo int cross-border approach;  
(2) thereby to increase the impact of these programmes, in terms of both S&T impacts 
(scientific excellence, pooling of resources, data and expertis e, achievement of critical 
mass, facilitating of programme optimisati on) and economic and societal impacts. 
3.3. Operational objectives: 
In order to promote the above improvements in impact and efficiency, th e operational objectives 
are:  
(1) to provide an effective process which will promote a more strategic approach to 
coordinating national research programmes aimed at helping to  tackle Europe's societal 
challenges; 
(2) to ensure that this process and the ensuing joint public research programming initiatives 
enjoy a high level of stake holder support and ownership; 
(3) through this process, and the use of appropria te instruments, to promote cross-border 
public research programme integration and st ructuring effects, notably the achievement 
of a critical mass of R&D effort; 
(4) to put in place a process that allows fo r a graduated response in terms of Joint 
Programming instruments, as well as variable ge ometry in terms of country participation;  
(5) to ensure that joint initiatives are ba sed on up-to-date and accurate information on 
national and regional programming activities; 
(6) to promote stronger consistency across policies. 
 
EN 6   EN 4. PRESENTATION OF THE POLICY OPTIONS  
In order to meet these objectives, four policy options were considered. The main differences 
between them centred on two key issues: the way in which Joint Programming areas are 
identified and the range of instru ments considered for implementation1. 
Under the "business-as-usual" option (Option 1), Joint Programming topics are identified in an 
ad hoc, bottom-up manner by a variety of Member  State stakeholders. Implementation takes 
place through a limited number of instruments (essentially the ERA-NE T Scheme and Article 
169) and is loosely coordinated. Moreover, a flexible approach is adopted towards critical mass 
(in terms of number and relevance of partners) and towards the level of programme integration 
being sought. 
The "Article 169 maximization" option (Option 2) shares some of the characteristics of the 
"business-as-usual" option, as Jo int Programming topics are iden tified in a bottom-up manner by 
the Member States and implementation ta kes place through the same two instruments 
(essentially the ERA-NET Sche me and Article 169). Where th is option differs from the 
"business-as-usual" option, however , is in proposing a proactive approach in which . ERA-NET 
and ERA-NET Plus Actions part of the ERA- NET Scheme would be rigidly positioned as a 
preparatory stage for Article 169.  Joint Programming topics would have to coinci de with the 
Framework Programme, ensuring systematic over all horizontal policy consistency, and more 
attention would be paid to the critical mass and the leve l of programme integration. 
The main difference between the "Community-dri ven strategic option" (Option 3) and the two 
previous options is that it is strategic ra ther than bottom-up. The starting point is the 
identification of major societal challenges and the assessment of the need for a critical mass of 
publicly supported research in the respective S&T fields. Under this option, it is  the Community 
which takes the lead in carrying out these st rategic assessments and proposing suitable Joint 
Programming areas. It is also the Community that  selects the most appropriate instrument from 
among a broader range of familiar Community instruments. 
The "strategic European process"  option (Option 4) resembles th e "Community-driven strategic" 
option in that it, too, is  strategic and based on t ackling major societal challenges, but there is a 
crucial difference as regards the roles played  by the Community and by the Member States. 
Under the "strategic European process" option, it is the Member States (not the Community) 
which identify topics for JP. It is also the Me mber States which select or develop the most 
appropriate instruments to the specific circum stances of the respective S&T field (including 
Community instruments like the ERA-NET Sc heme and Articles 168, 169, 170 or 171; "SET-
Plan" or "security research"-type approaches; th e creation of new European institutions and/or 
new kinds of Networks of Excellence2; ERC-type or Euratom-type initiatives; Structural Funds; 
etc.). The Commission plays the role of facilitator.  It is responsible for reporting back to Council 
at each stage in the process, and for evaluating the process as a whole as well as the progress made in specific areas.  
                                                
 
1 See Table 2 in the Impact Assessment Re port for an overview of the four options. 
2 Involving the funding not just of integration activities but also of joint research. 
 
EN 7   EN 5. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS  
For each option, a wide variety of impacts were assessed, including the level of stakeholder 
support and 'ownership', strategic focus, structur ing effect, policy consistency, S&T impacts, and 
wider societal impacts3. The conclusion of this assessment was that the pr eferred policy option is 
the "strategic European process" option.  
The "business-as-usual" option was rejected because  of its lack of strategic focus, its weak 
structuring effect, its negative impact on horizontal policy consis tency, and its weak societal 
impact. The "Article 169 maximization" option wa s rejected because of its lack of strategic 
focus, its "one-size-fits-all" approach, and its limited structuring effect. The "Community-driven 
strategic" option, which has great po tential impact, was rejected becaus e of the risk it  entails: i.e. 
it is very likely that it will not be supported by st akeholders. This in turn will negatively affect its 
strategic focus, structuring effect, and societal  impact. In addition, it is unlikely that the 
Community by itself would have a sufficiently deta iled knowledge of Member States' research 
programmes to propose suitable Joint Pr ogramming topics and instruments. 
The "strategic European process"  option enjoys the highest levels  of support from stakeholders, 
who agree: that there is a need to define strate gic research agendas and to implement them in a 
coordinated manner, especially for the purpose of  tackling common societal challenges; that a 
partnership, which combines a voluntary, bottom-up approach w ith strategic top-down guidance 
is indispensable for ensuring flexibility and cust omisation to programme specificities; that the 
principles of subsidiarity , variable geometry and r eal European added value need to be respected; 
and that a "one-size-fits-all"  approach is not workable. 
The process proposed for choosing Joint Programm ing topics and instruments, combined with 
the high levels of stakeholder support, means that option 4 provides the best guarantees of 
obtaining the greatest aggregate systemic structuri ng effects This in turn will create the ideal 
conditions for fully realising the S&T bene fits of Joint Programming, which include: 
• Overcoming barriers to entry 
• Pan-European programme optimisation 
• Scientific excellence 
• Jointly tackling common challe nges, developing common, st andardised solutions, and 
speaking with one voice 
• Cross-border project collaboration (with its own set of benefits, such as the pooling of data 
and expertise, rapid dissemination, cross-bord er human resources mobility and training, and 
increased scientific, technologi cal and innovation impacts) 
• Reduced national costs for managing integrated programmes 
• The improvement of non-in tegrated programmes, and 
                                                 
3 Table 3 in the full Impact Assessment Report provides an overview  of these impacts. 
 
EN 8   EN • Improved accountability and transparency. 
The benefits for industry includ e 'open innovation'; the rapid disse mination of research results; 
the development of common, standardised solu tions; better access to public research support; 
easier development of joint public-private strategi c research agendas; and faster horizontal policy 
coordination. 
Ultimately, these S&T impacts translate into a higher societal return on public research 
investment, which means higher economic grow th, competitiveness and employment, and 
quicker and better solutions for soci al and environmental challenges. 
For these reasons, option 4 – th e "strategic European proces s" – is the preferred option. 
6. RISK AND RISK MITIGATION  
There are various risks associated with the prefe rred option. The main risk is that the required 
political commitment does not materialise. 
While this risk would appear to be smaller now than it perhaps was in the past (due to the 
growing recognition in the Member States of th e societal challenges Europe is facing, of the 
S&T and societal costs of non-coordination as well as of the S&T and societal benefits of Joint 
Programming), the proposed policy process has also  been designed specifically to mitigate this 
risk. A high-level political pro cess is proposed,, which rests square ly on the Member States with 
the Commission services in a facilitating role. The process assigns an important and continuing role to the Council in terms of : 
• Inviting the Research Ministers of the Member States to mandate personal representatives for 
an ad-hoc high–level group to  identify suitable JP areas;  
• Monitoring the process on an annual basis (through obligatory annual reporting by the 
Commission); and 
• Reviewing the process after three years. 
The proposed process is evidence-based and gr ounded in an in-depth strategic analysis of 
respective S&T fields, which will  ensure that only feasible Joint Programming initiatives are 
taken. Moreover, the proposed approach is characterised by instrument flexibility
4, variable 
geometry, and flexibility in terms of the extent of programme integration pursued (partial cycle, 
full cycle). 
Other risks include institutional inertia and the lack of the requisite evidence base. However, 
appropriate risk mitigation strategies have been put in place. 
In summary, the main risk mitigation strategy underlying the proposed process is that of 
respecting better regulation practices: i.e. work ing closely with the Member States in a 
transparent manner; respecting the principles of subsidiarity, European added value and 
                                                 
4 The full tool box of public research instruments (National and regional research programmes, 
Intergovernmental research organisations and collabo rative schemes, Research infrastructures, Mobility 
schemes…) should be explored and used to implement the individual Joint Programming Initiatives. 
 
EN 9   EN proportionality; preparing and launching concrete initiatives on the basi s of an extensive, 
credible evidence base; and ensuring the accountab ility and transparency of the process via 
proper monitoring and evaluation systems. 
7. EVALUATION AND MONITORING  
Appropriate arrangements have also been made  for monitoring and evaluation. These are based 
on the Commission reporting to the Council after each  of the phases of the JP  process, and an in-
depth review of the process by the Commission, t ogether with the Member States, after three 
years. Regular monitoring of and evaluation of  progress towards the (SMART) objectives in 
each JP area will also be ensured. 
In addition, an increased transparency will be provided on collaboration and coordination of 
national and regional research programmes by developing a specific module for the 
ERAWATCH web service.