EN    EN EN 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 29.10.2009 
SEC(2009) 1475 final 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
IMPACT ASSESSMENT 
  
Accompanying document to the 
  
Proposal for a 
 
DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN P ARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 
 
on the participation by the Community in a Joint Baltic Sea Research and Development 
Programme (BONUS-169) undertaken  by several Member States 
  
{COM(2009) 610} {SEC(2009) 1476} 
EN 2   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES... 4 
1.1. Context and legal basis – Why an Article 169 Initiative for the Baltic Sea Region? .. 4 
1.2. Organisation and Timing ............................................................................................. 5 1.3. Consultation and expertise ........................................................................................... 7 1.4. Opinion of the Impact Assessment Board.................................................................... 9 2. PROBLEM DEFINITION ......................................................................................... 10 2.1. What is the issue or problem that  the initiative must address? .................................. 10 
2.2. Drivers of the poor State of the Baltic Sea environment ........................................... 13 2.3. Who is affected, in what ways? ................................................................................. 16 2.4. Does the EU have the right to act – Subs idiarity, proportionality  (‘necessity test’), 
Treaty base ................................................................................................................. 16 
3. OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................ 17 3.1. General policy objective ............................................................................................ 17 3.2. Specific objectives ..................................................................................................... 18  
3.3. Operational objectives................................................................................................ 18 4. POLICY OPTIONS ................................................................................................... 18 4.1. Lessons from the Van Velzen report.......................................................................... 22 5. LIKELY ECONOMIC, SOCIAL A ND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS............... 23 
5.1. Effect of changes in parameters on impacts............................................................... 28 5.2. Potential obstacles and risks....................................................................................... 29 6. COMPARING THE OPTIONS ................................................................................. 30 6.1. Comparing the impacts of the different Options........................................................ 30 6.2. Summary of the advantages and disadvantages for each Policy Option.................... 31 6.3. The Preferred Option ................................................................................................. 30 7. EX-ANTE EVALUATION AND COST -EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS ............. 34 
8. MONITORING AND EVALUATION ..................................................................... 36 
Annex I.  Bonus EEIG Action Plan 2008 – 2016 Part I Scientific goals  and activities  
Annex II Bonus EEIG Action Plan Part II Govern ance, Administration and Management  
Annex III Draft BONUS 169 Strategic Resear ch Agenda version 2008-11-10 
Annex IV  Outline Research Agenda of BONU S-169 Baltic Sea Research Programme 
(version July 2009) Annex V  Baltic Sea - Stock taking  
Annex VI  EU Policies of key relevance to the Baltic Sea Region  
EN 3   EN Annex VII Glossary 
Annex VIII  List of Abbreviations and Acronyms  
EN 4   EN 1. PROCEDURAL  ISSUES  AND  CONSULTATION  OF INTERESTED  PARTIES 
1.1. Context and legal basis – Why an Arti cle 169 Initiative for the Baltic Sea 
Region? 
The Baltic Sea ecosystem is  seriously impacted by many natural and human-induced 
pressures. The sea and coasts are particularly  affected by combined and increasing negative 
impacts from pollution, eutrophication, climate change, acidification, invasive alien species, 
overexploitation of livi ng resources and biodiversity loss . These threats are reducing the 
capacity of the Baltic Sea to sustainably pr ovide the goods and serv ices upon which humans 
depend. This has critical implications for th e entire Baltic Region, an d the wider European 
Community.  
Knowledge-based solutions and measures are ur gently needed to address the environmental 
problems and ensure a sustainable use of the goods and services of the Baltic Sea System 
which necessitate new scientific knowledge to  understand and predict the behaviour of the 
extremely complex Baltic Sea System, its interactions and feedbacks with the multiple natural and anthropogenic drivers. Furthermore, the regional and sometimes global nature of these 
drivers (e.g. climate change) calls for the deve lopment and implementation of a sustained and 
fully-integrated approach, tapping upon the research  capacities and resources of all the Baltic 
Sea States. 
However, the current research system in the Baltic region, still being too fragmented, can not 
respond to these great challeng es. Urgent actions are needed  to enhance the coordination, 
cooperation and synergies among all relevant national research prog rammes and activities 
funded by the bordering Baltic States in order to improve the overall coherence and efficiency 
of the Baltic research system and capacitat e it to address the complex and pressing 
environmental problems at hand.. To this effect , there has been long-st anding political support 
for an improved coordination of research activ ities in Europe and for the BONUS Article 169. 
In 2001, the Competitiveness Council considered th at the use of Article 169 of the EC Treaty 
could lead to greater coherence and integra tion of national and Co mmunity programmes and 
research policies, and invited the Member States  to identify possible specific topics for pilot 
programmes where the use of Article 169 w ould be appropriate. The Commission was 
requested to come forward by early 2002 w ith proposals to the Council and European 
Parliament for participation by the Community in any such pilot programmes
1 
In 2002, the Competitiveness Council recognised the importance of the mutual opening of 
national research programmes and the need for more coordination between national research 
programmes, as well as between national a nd Community programmes, and indicated its 
support for the use of Article 1692 
In 2005, the Presidency invited Member States to set priorities and define which national 
programmes should be co-ordinated.  
In 2006, the European Parliament reporting on  the Commission Proposal for the Seventh 
Framework Programme (FP7), recognised that "…it is vital that the Seventh Framework 
Programme should support the coordination of national and regional research policies and 
                                                 
1 2380th Competitiveness Council Meeting, Luxembourg, 30 October 2001. 
2 Informal ministerial meeting of Industry and Research Ministers in Girona (Spain) in February 2002 
and conclusions from the 2467th Council meeting (Competitiveness), Brussels, 26 November 2002 
EN 5   EN programmes" and that in order "to avoid frag mentation and overlapping competencies, there 
should be more cooperation between national and European research programmes, and 
between economic actors in the long-term research agenda." . Four potential Article 169 
initiatives were included unde r the FP7 Cooperation Specifi c Programme and Capacities 
Specific Programme3 with an indicative roadmap fo r their implementation. Whilst BONUS 
ERA-Net (2004-2006) had made a good progre ss in initiating co mmunication between 
research funding institutions  in the region, analysing th e landscape and developing the 
preconditions for further integration by elaborat ing a series of Analytic Papers, a Science 
Plan, Legal basis for a Decentralised Impl ementation Structure (DIS), the BONUS-169 
initiative was not considered mature enough to be  included in the ‘first train’ of Article 169 
initiatives. Instead, an ERA- Net Plus (2007-2011) was offere d as a bridging measure to 
further develop and test the identified mechanis ms in practice through a joint call before 
adopting a fully-fledged  BONUS-169 initiative. 
During the BONUS ERA-Net Plus, the BONUS participating Stat es have clearly recognised 
that irreversible and true in tegration can only be achieved through durable c ooperation and to 
this end they have clearly demonstrated their wi llingness and their intention to act together in 
implementing a Joint Research Programme under an Article 169 initiative. Furthermore, the BONUS EEIG
4 (the BONUS consortium), a European Economic Interest Grouping based in 
Helsinki, consisting of 9 institutions from 8 Pa rticipating States, was set-up to serve as the 
Dedicated Implementation Structure (DIS) for the administration of the joint call under BONUS ERA-Net Plus and as the joint governan ce structure for the implementation of the 
BONUS-169 initiative.  
The FP7 Cooperation Specific programme refers spec ifically to an "Artic le 169 initiative in 
the field of Baltic Sea Research": 
The aim will be to launch and implement a joint R&D programme integrating a number of national 
programmes in the field of marine science and sustai nable development of the Baltic Sea. In line with 
a number of international, European and regional conventions dealing with the Baltic Sea, this 
initiative will enable the creation of a platform for synthesising and disseminating findings in the field 
and will create the necessary R&D to support sustainable development of the Baltic  Sea. 
In March 2008, the European Council pointed out that the decisions on Article 169 initiatives 
and additional research initiatives s hould be taken as soon as possible  and as reported in the 
minutes of the Competitiveness Council of  5 and 6 March 2009, "The  Council invites the 
Commission to submit in early 2009 to the Council and the European  Parliament a proposal to 
transform the ERA-NET+ "BONUS for the Baltic Sea Science – Network of Funding 
Agencies" into a joint research programme  based on Article 169 of the Treaty." 
1.2. Organisation and Timing 
On the basis of a thorough scoping exercise, a detailed analysis of the gaps in cooperation of 
past Baltic Sea System research and extensive consultations with the marine research 
                                                 
3 2006/971/EC, Council Decision of 19 December 2006 concer ning the specific programme ‘Cooperation’ 
implementing the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, 
technological development and demonstration activities (2007 to 2013); 2006/974/EC:Council Decision 
of 19 December 2006 concerning the specific pr ogramme ‘Capacities’ implementing the Seventh 
Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and 
demonstration activities (2007 to 2013) 
4 Established in 2007, Hämeentie 33, FI-00500 Helsinki, Finland  
EN 6   EN community and key stakeholders carried  out by BONUS ERA-Net, a Science Plan5, a 
Tentative Action Plan (2008–2016)6 and Draft Strategic Research Agenda7 were elaborated. 
They served as basis for the first joint call in 2008 organised within  the framework of the 
BONUS ERA-Net plus. In addition to thes e documents, BONUS produced a series of 
publications on issues such as the baseline situation in the Baltic Sea environmental research, funding, consultation process that were followed,  etc. These documents were submitted to the 
Commission as background documents for the preparation of a BONUS 169 initiative. The 
scientific content and the overall implementa tion context described in these documents is 
being analysed in this report under Section 4 as Policy option 3, through approach A. It 
formed the basis for the analysis and assessmen t by a panel of five i ndependent experts – the 
Impact Assessment Expert Group (IAEG) – th at was set up by DG RTD to assist the 
Commission's services with the preparati on of the BONUS 169 Impact Assessment Report 
(IAR).  
Following this analysis, the IAEG identified a number of elements that would need to be 
taken into account for further optimising B ONUS-169 in line with the boundary conditions 
laid down in the Van Velzen report
8, and enhancing its impact in supporting sustainable 
development of the Baltic Sea. This "op timal" Article 169, incorporating the IAEG's 
recommendations, is being analysed in this re port under Section 4 as Policy option 3, through 
approach B. A report entitled “Operational Conclusions” with  the IAEG's recommendations 
was communicated by the Commission to th e BONUS EEIG in December 2008 with a 
request to revise their documentation accordingly. 
In tandem, and following a letter by DG Research Commissioner Poto čnik, the Ministers of 
Research from the BONUS partic ipating countries reaffirmed their political and financial 
commitment to the initiative and endorsed the need for revision of the original BONUS 169 
version in line with the IAEG's recommendations. The services of two additional independent experts (the External Expert Group) were c ontracted by the Commissi on and made available 
to the BONUS EEIG to assist them in the revision. 
A revised BONUS 169 Outline Research Agen da was submitted to DG RTD in July 2009
9 by 
the BONUS consortium taking full account of the input by the IAEG. It was assessed and 
analyzed by the Commission services with th e assistance of the IAEG. This revised BONUS 
169 Outline Research Agenda is being analysed in this report under Section 4 as Policy option 
3, through approach C. It foresees a two-stage Article 169 Initiative comprising an initial 
Strategic Phase (2010-2011) to lay the foundations  for the subsequent Implementation Phase. 
In the context of the preparation of the Imp act Assessment and legisl ative proposal for this 
Article 169, a formal Inter-Service St eering Group (ISSG) was set up by DG RTD 
(Directorate I), in May 2008. Representatives fr om 14 Directorates General were formally 
invited to form part of the group10. The group has been kept regularly informed on the 
                                                 
5 BONUS Publications Nr. 5 BONUS–169 Baltic Sea Science Plan and Implementation Strategy 
http://www.bonusportal.org/file s/40/Publication_Nr._5.pdf 
6 Annex I Bonus EEIG Action Plan 2008 – 2016 Part I Scientific goals and activities and Annex II Bonus 
EEIG Action Plan Part II Governance, Administration and Management  
7 Annex III Draft BONUS 169 Strategic Research Agenda  
8 Independent External Review Report, 12 July 2007, EDCTP Programme, 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/health/povertydis eases/doc/final_ier_report_12july2007_en.pdf 
9 Annex IV BONUS 169 Outline Research Agenda   
10 DG Energy and Transport, DG Enlargement, DG Enterprise and Industry, DG Environment, DG 
External Relations, DG Health and Consumers, DG Information Society and Media, DG Maritime 
Affairs and Fisheries, DG Regional policy, DG Trade, DG Budget, DG Agriculture and Rural 
Development, the Legal Service and the Secretariat-General  
EN 7   EN progress, and its views and recommendations were systema tically taken on board. By the time 
of the present Report, the ISSG met six times11 during the course of the preparation of the 
initiative. The Joint Research Centre was not i nvolved in the ISSG sin ce it would be eligible 
to participate in future BONUS-169 calls for proposals.  
1.3. Consultation and expertise 
External scientific expertise 
The IAEG has held eight meetings12. The role of the External Expert Group in advising the 
BONUS consortium during the re vision process has also be en greatly appreciated and 
acknowledged by the consortium. 
Consultation of relevant stakeholders carried out by the Commission 
Consultation within the context of the elaboration, adoption and implementation of the 7th EU 
RTD Framework Programme  
BONUS 169 has formed integral part of the sp ecific programme ‘Cooper ation’, and has been 
subject to and benefited from the very broad co nsultation process organi sed within the context 
of FP7. Furthermore, falling under the remit of  the thematic area Environment (including 
climate change), it is subj ect to regular consultations with the corresponding Programme 
Committee and Programme Advisory Group. 
Consultation on a European Strategy for Marine and Maritime Research  
BONUS 169 has formed an integral part of the European Strategy for Marine and Maritime 
Research and has thus benefited from the cons ultation process undergone in the framework of 
the Strategy.  
Consultation with Ministers of the EU Baltic Member States regarding political engagement 
in a future BONUS 169 (see section 1.2)  
Stakeholder consultation within the framework of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region  13  
The EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUS BR) in its very broad scope and coverage 
makes explicit reference to the BONUS 169 in itiative both under the policy oriented action 
and the detailed action plan. In this context, it has largely benefitted from the public and stakeholders consultation carried out  within this framework in 2008/2009
14. 
Consultation of Stakeholders carr ied out by the BONUS Consortium 
As mentioned above, the original BONUS 16 9 scientific framewor k (BONUS-169 Science 
Plan and Implementation Strategy) was base d on a thorough analysis of the gaps in 
cooperation of past Baltic Sea System researc h, and extensive consulta tions with the marine 
research community and relevant stakeholders and served as a basis for the first joint call 
under BONUS ERA-NET Plus that was published in 2008. 
                                                 
11 29 May 2008, 12 December 2008, 11  February 2009, 18 June 2009, 23 July 2009, 18 September 2009 
12 17 July, 8 - 10 September, 6 - 7 and 20-21 November 2008, 26-27 February 2009, 15 April, 3-4 June 
and 11-12 June 2009 
13 COM 2009, 248/3 
14 Consultation on the EU Baltic Sea Strategy 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/consultation/baltic/consultation_en.htm.  
EN 8   EN In developing them, the BONUS consortium e ngaged with many groups of stakeholders 
between the period of June 2005 and Nove mber 2006. The process, as presented in the 
BONUS Publication No. 1015, included a variety of consu ltation mechanisms and feedback 
procedures in all nine Baltic Sea countries (i.e . 8 EU countries and Russia) with a broad range 
of academic and governmental scientists in all relevant disciplines and spheres of marine 
science, the BONUS consortium funding agencies, relevant ministries and their associated 
specialised institutes, intergovernmental and in ternational organisations with major interests 
and influence in science and the provision of sc ientific advice for management, as well as 
management and regulatory decision makers.  
Furthermore, extensive consultations took pl ace with the Advisory Board (set up by the 
BONUS PLUS Steering Committee for the implementation of the BONUS PLUS Call for proposals) for the preparation of the BONUS-1 69 Science Plan and Implementation Strategy. 
The Advisory Board comprises a broad sp ectrum of stakeholders (HELCOM, ICES, DG 
MARE, WWF, and Finnish Farmers Association). 
The more recent communication activities of the BONUS-169 initiative include the 
organisation of a seminar on ‘Marine Science C ontribution to Regional Se as Strategies, held 
in Brussels in December 2008. This was a culmination of a series of workshops between BONUS and other relevant research communiti es knowledgeable of European regional seas 
(Black Sea, Mediterranea n and North Atlantic).  
In the spring of 2009, four pr esentations were given to a wide range of European 
stakeholders:  
• HELCOM’s 4
th Stakeholder Conference,  
• European Maritime Day: Stakeholder Conference in Rome 
• Baltic Marine Innovation Forum in Klaipeda 
• Baltic Operational Oceanographic Sy stem Annual meeting in Sopot  
Furthermore, the revised BONUS 169 Outline Re search Agenda (see Section 1.2) has its 
beginning in the former work, building on the 20 06 plan which, as mentioned above, has been 
the subject of a broad consultation.  
Its draft version was presented in Warsaw in June 2009 at th e Conference on the EU Strategy 
for the Baltic Sea Region entitled “Building Partnership for Entrepre neurship, Innovation and 
Competitiveness” and at the 7-th Baltic S ea Science Congress (BSSC) that took place in 
Tallinn in August 2009. On the occasion of this latter Congress, several organisations invited 
BONUS-169 to join them for the organisation of the next BSSC  which will take place in 
Russia in 2011. It will be presented again, this  time in a more intern ational context, in 
October 2009 at the Atlanta Conferen ce on Science and Innovation Policy.  
This Outline is intended to serve as a first ba sis for the elaboration of the full-scale BONUS-
169 Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) during the two years Strategic Phas e of the initiative 
(under policy option 3  through approach C). Under this policy option and in line with the new 
strategic and policy-driven or ientation of the BONUS progra mme, the SRA will constitute the 
subject of an extensive cons ultation with a much broade ned stakeholders community 
                                                 
15 BONUS publication No 10, Consultation Process for the BONUS-169 Baltic Sea Science Plan and 
Implementation Strategy, h ttp://www.bonusportal.org/file s/68/Bonus_10_VerkkoPDF.pdf 
EN 9   EN engaging all sectors with potential interactions w ith the Baltic Sea System and its wide range 
of goods and services.  
To summarise, it is considered that the general princi ples and standards for consultation have 
so far been respected and th at the proposed BONU S-169 initiative enjoys a very large 
consensus among the scientific, in stitutional and governmental inst ances as to it s importance 
for furthering Baltic Sea region research.  
However, it is quite clear that the Science Plan  for an initiative like BONUS-169 must be kept 
a ‘living’ document, evolving along with th e development of knowledge and scientific 
thinking and responsive to emerging stakehol der’s needs and associat ed knowledge gaps. In 
this sense, the stakeholder consultation has been conceived and is planned as a dynamic 
process to be actively pursued throughout the li fe of the initiative. The Commission will make 
sure that the right mechanisms and provisions will be put in place following the implementation of the Strategic phase that w ould guarantee that the c onsultation process will 
be continued throughout the life of the initiative.  
1.4. Opinion of the Impact Assessment Board 
On 9 September 2009 the draft impact assessment report was presented to the Impact 
Assessment Board, a body made of high-level Co mmission's officials with a mandate to 
ensure high quality impact assessments of the Commission's most signifi cant initiatives. In its 
first opinion of 11 September 2009, in addition  to some "technical" comments, the Board 
made several substantial suggestions for im provement. In the revised version that was 
submitted to the Board on 21 September 2009, thes e comments were taken into account in the 
following way: 
• Clearer evidence has been provided for the frag mentation of research on the Baltic Sea and 
to substantiate the claim that this fragment ation is an important obstacle to filling the 
identified knowledge gaps. 
• The value added of EU action ha s been detailed more clearly 
• The differences between this initiative compared to previous attempts to overcome 
research fragmentation ha s been further clarified. 
• The ways by which this initiative will change  the financing of Baltic Sea research and 
mobilise additional funds as a result of addr essing existing duplication have been explained 
more clearly. 
• The objectives and monitoring indicators have been revised with a view to making them 
more operational and to ensu re their relevance with re gard to monitoring needs. 
• The potential impact of the preferred option on capacity building in the Member States 
with lower research capacities, and in particul ar how it would bridge the capability gap in 
Baltic Sea research, has been further detailed. 
In its final opinion of 29 September 2009, th e Board acknowledged the efforts made during 
the revision and gave a positive opinion. It did however make some  recommendations for 
further improvement. In the current version of the Impact Assessment Report and in line with 
the recommendations of the Board the fo llowing modifications have been made: 
EN 10   EN – additional specific objectives (page 17) and in dicators (page 37) have been added referring 
to the research integration and the reduction of the gap in research capacity between 
Member States 
– further evidence for the research frag mentation was provided on page 11 and 12 
In the absence of a similar initiative in the pa st by the Baltic Sea Member States to address 
fragmentation and enhance co-ordination in rese arch, there has been not attempt to "scope" 
and "map" the baseline of the Baltic Sea System  research. The first attempt to establish a 
baseline was undertaken by the BONUS ERA- NET through a comprehensive survey on 
funding of the Baltic Sea research for the year 200416. This study being the only reference 
available, it has been used as such in th e current IAR and this inevitably has led to 
comparisons of "amounts referring to differe nt timescales" (see point 1 of the Board's 
opinion). 
The authors of this Impact Assessment have sy stematically tried to provide "evidence" only 
when based on factual information publicly available. They have abstained from references to 
hypothetical figures that can not  be easily defendable.  
In this context, the authors find themse lves unable to properl y address the Board's 
recommendations referring to: 
– "what percentage would allow for the conclusion that this research is sufficiently 
integrated, and further strengthen the evidence for the research fragmentation by providing 
concrete examples of poor coordination, dupli cation or insufficient capacity and of their 
link to the identifie d knowledge gaps". 
– "assess the order of magnitude of additional funds, including from the EU, which would be 
mobilised as a result of removing existing duplication. In the absence of aggregated data/indicators, this could be illustrated by examples" 
For the same reasons, the authors of the report are not in a position to  "assess the order of 
magnitude of additional funds, including from th e EU, which would be mobilised as a result 
of removing existing duplication", nor to pred ict the attitude by the Participating States 
regarding funding in the presence of an article 169 and hence provide any credible 
explanation as "to what extent  providing additional (centrally coordinated) funding for Baltic 
Sea research could result in a reduction in the level of financ ing outside the joint programme". 
2. PROBLEM
 DEFINITION 
2.1. What is the issue or problem that  the initiative must address? 
The Baltic Sea is bordered by 8 EU Member States (Sweden, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, 
Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland) and the Russian Federation.  Moreover, Belarus, 
Ukraine, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Norway are partly within the drainage basin of the 
Baltic Sea.  
                                                 
16 BONUS Publications Nr. 3, Baltic Sea Research And R&D Funding In 2004, where NCM is the Nordic 
Council of Ministers. 
EN 11   EN The Baltic Sea Region (BSR) represents 23% of the EU population (106 million inhabitants), 
whereas its aggregated GDP is 16%.17 
As mentioned under section 1.1, the Baltic Sea ecosystem is seriously impacted by a 
combination of multiple natural and human-i nduced pressures which have significantly 
reduced the capacity of the Baltic Sea to su stainably provide the goods and services upon 
which humans depend, and with negative consequences for the region and for the wider European Community
18. Furthermore, the poor state of th e Baltic Sea environment has serious 
effects on the health of citizen's and ecosystems. This already crit ical situation risks to further 
deteriorate in the years to come endangering th e sustainable development of the entire Baltic 
region and therefore sound management measures must be put in place to mitigate the impacts 
– both direct and indirect – of  many human activities at sea and in the catchment area.  
Furthermore, legislative regulati ons directly or indire ctly related to  the European waters (e.g. 
fish, drinking and groundwater, bathing waters , dangerous substances, shellfish, birds, 
habitats, sewage, nitrate, urban waste) have, si nce the 1990s, seen a shift towards integrated 
management approaches, such as the Water Fr amework Directive and the Marine Strategy 
Framework Directive.  
The 2005 European Thematic Strategy on the Pr otection and Conserva tion of the Marine 
Environment19 and the Marine Strategy Directive20 – which forms the environmental pillar of 
the emerging integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union21– stress the importance of 
an ecosystem-based approach as a means to achieve the full economic potential of oceans and seas, through their sustainable use whilst conser ving marine ecosystems and aims at achieving 
a good environmental status of the Community’s  marine waters by 2021. It requires Members 
States to cooperate wherever possible at th e level of existing Regional Seas Conventions. 
Furthermore, the EU Maritime Policy must be  based on excellence in marine research, 
technology and innovation.
22 In the 2007 Action Plan for the Baltic Sea, HELCOM Parties 
agreed to jointly develop, in cooperation with other relevant international bodies, large-scale, 
cross-sectoral, marine spatial planning pr inciples based on the Ecosystem Approach.23  
Additionally, the rene wed EU Sustainable Development Strategy24 aims at improving 
synergies and reduce trade-offs, and proposes a more integrated approa ch to policy making, 
based on better regulation and on the guiding pr inciples for sustainable development.  
The development and implementation of an ecosyst em approach in the Baltic Sea necessitates 
a research strategy striving for a holistic, integrated, inter-disciplinary scientific approach addressing both the natural and socio-economic systems. Furthermore, such an approach must 
                                                
 
17 IP/08/1430, Brussels, 30 September 2008 
18 A more extensive analysis of the State of the Baltic Sea environment as well as a list of EU Policies of 
key relevance to Baltic Sea can be f ound in Annex V and VI respectively. 
19 Thematic Strategy on the Protection and Conservation of the Marine Environment, COM(2005) 504 
final.  
20 Marine Strategy Framework Directive, OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p. 19–40.  
21 Communication from the Commission – An Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union 
COM(2007) 575 final 
22 Communication from the Commission – An Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union, 
COM(2007) 575 final. 
23 HELCOM. Baltic Sea Action Plan. HELCOM Minist erial Meeting, Krakow, Poland, 15 November, 
2007. 
24 COM/2009/0400, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the 
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Mainstreaming 
sustainable development into EU policies, 2009 Review of the European Union Strategy for Sustainable 
Development. 
EN 12   EN strive to effectively foster the close collaborat ion of research communities across different 
geographical and disciplinary bor ders, including highly trained researchers (of current and 
future generations) and well-functioning interf aces between science and policy that allow for 
genuine dialogues between scientists, policy-makers  and other stakeholders  in order to ensure 
policy-relevance of the research and the rapid translation of research  into policy advice at 
different levels (from local to regional). 
Whilst there is a long tradition in Baltic Sea re search cooperation with countries both within 
and outside the Baltic Sea area, collaborative efforts so far ha ve lacked adequate financial 
resources for the optimal exploitation of the research potential due to the unequal economical 
and development situati on in the countries as well as highly diverse national research 
agendas, research themes and priorities. Furt hermore, international research projects and 
programmes implemented so far in the region have  not been able to actually restructure the 
research fabric in the region in a more dur able manner and extending beyond their life cycle, 
nor there has been a structured attempt to pr ovide an effective science policy interface.  
The spectrum of different forms of funding Ba ltic Sea research by the various countries 
surrounding the sea is quite broad. How the R&D funding is organised in  each country is a 
result of each country’s own hist orical development. Some of the Baltic Sea scientists work in 
governmental institutes, some in  universities. Some scientists have a permanent position and a 
fixed monthly salary, others work for shorte r periods with project based funding. In some 
countries, a major part of the research fundi ng goes directly from the respective ministry 
budget to the research institute, and the am ount of funding based on competition and peer 
review is small, while in other countries the situation is the oppos ite. The funding periods 
vary from one year to longer periods.  
This mosaic of research funding and implementa tion modalities has as a result that research 
and development programmes, or activities unde rtaken by Member States individually at 
national level to support R&D in the Baltic S ea region, are not sufficiently coordinated at 
European level and do not allow for the critical mass required  in strategic research and 
development areas to be achieved. Furthermor e, the existing sector -specific research 
structures, which have evolved through a long history of national policies, are d eeply rooted 
in the national governance systems and preven t the development and funding of the multi, 
inter and trans-disciplinary envi ronmental research. This situa tion has hindered the potential 
to achieve research outputs of significant impact to policy making.  
A comprehensive survey on funding of the Baltic Sea research for the year 200425 showed 
that, as shown in the figures below, out of the total funding of about EUR 52 million, around 
18 million (35%) was national funding going di rectly and without competition to various 
sectorally oriented institu tions and research groups; 18 million (35%) was national funding 
distributed nationally through competition and peer-review, and EUR 16 million (30%) 
originated from EU and Nordic Council of Mi nisters was distributed  through international 
calls. The amount of national competition-ba sed funding in relation to other funding 
forms/sources varied between 13 – 44 % in MS  and was 75% in the Russian Federation. In 
conclusion, the survey demonstrates that only 30% of the total funding on Baltic Sea research 
can have an impact to trans-national integration through in ternational calls. 
                                                 
25 BONUS Publications Nr. 3, Baltic Sea Research And R&D Funding In 2004, where NCM is the Nordic 
Council of Ministers. 
EN 13   EN 
 
Figure: The share of Baltic Sea research funding sources in 2004, NCM= Nordic Council of Ministers 
Mainly in the area of marine research, which only represents a sub-set of the Sustainable 
Development research, 882 resear ch projects were carried out  in 2004 in the countries 
surrounding the Baltic Sea. A majority, of these were funded by national sources. The two 
countries having most of the national projects  were Poland and Finland. Regarding the EU 
funding in Baltic Sea research the most went to Swedish projects (4.9 M€ and 32%). In 
Denmark, EU funding was EUR 4.6 million and hi ghest in percentage (about 57%) of the 
total funding. Of the new Member States, Latv ia, Lithuania and Esto nia had only a few EU-
funded projects whereas the number of EU-funded pr ojects in Poland was close to that of the 
old Member States.  
The different economies of the countries are re flected in their funding allocation for Baltic 
Sea research. For the new EU Member States, a re latively high percentage of the funds is used 
for carrying out the monitoring and observat ion obligations rather than research.   
Also the existing lack of co-ordination is dem onstrated by the considerable variety in the 
priority fields. Sweden, Poland and Latvia had the largest financial i nput to the ‘Fish biology 
and fisheries’ research projects, whereas  in Finland most of the funding was for 
‘Eutrophication’. In Germany, ‘Climate change’ was the most funded field. In Estonia, 
Lithuania and Russia most of the f unding went to ‘Basic Research'. 
In line with the FP7 approach and as ack nowledged in the stakeholder consultations 
undertaken during the BONUS ERA-NET, there is a need for policy-driven integrated 
research programmes in the Baltic region.  
2.2. Drivers of the poor State of  the Baltic Sea environment 
The drivers of the environmental degradation in  the Baltic Sea are the same as for global 
environmental change. Drivers can be of a soci al, technological, environmental, economic or 
technological nature.  
These human drivers result in pressures due to26, 27 
• Changes in land-use and cover 
                                                 
26 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, 
Washington, DC. 
27 Europe's Environment. The Fourth Assessment. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen. 2007 
EN 14   EN • Industrial and infrastructure developments (including urbani sation ,tourism and transport 
infrastructures) 
• Unsustainable harvest and resource consumpti on, including agriculture , fishing and fish 
farming 
• Emissions of pollutants from industr ial production, households and transport 
• Climate change and acidification; Introduction and removal of species 
One of the key pillars of sustainability governan ce is good quality scientific knowledge of the 
environment. Research fragmentation can be cons idered as an additiona l driver (see section 
2.4), in that it weakens appr oaches to address the environmental challenges, and in 
consequence to inform policy making with hi gh relevance to the drivers identified above. 
Remedying this may constitute a necessary factor  for improving sustainability governance in 
the Baltic Sea area.  
The barriers to combat fragmentation and enhan ce integration between the relevant national 
research institutions that BONUS ERA-Net identified (publication no 228) were the following: 
• lack of a durable mechanism for integration of  national research fundi ng (ca. 70% of funds 
are distributed through purely national sources); 
• motivation level of cooperation between the f unding agencies is too low to boost removing 
of the existing legal barriers and elimina ting their internal pr ocedural obstacles; 
• no mechanism of regional integration of  marine research infrastructures; 
• lack of a joint Strategic Research Agenda supported by the stakeholders; 
• imbalance of research capacity and availa ble resources between the developed EU, MS, 
new MS and Russian Federation; 
• fragmentation of Baltic Sea research funding sources at national level; 
Numerous efforts have been made to address this fragmentation: 
• Since the 1990s, several projects funded by the Nordic Council of Ministers have provided 
new platforms for the networking of scientists  within and outside the Baltic Sea region.29 
• An important existing regional networking foru m is the Baltic Sea Science Congress which 
has taken place regularly since 1997 and brings together the disciplines of biology, 
oceanography and geology. At th e Congress, "marine scientists  from different disciplines 
can exchange the ideas and knowledge, enhanc e the cooperation and integrate the marine 
science community". 30 
                                                 
28 BONUS Publications Nr. 2, The joint Baltic sea research programme- best practice, possibilities and 
barriers http://www.bonusportal.o rg/files/26/Publication_Nr._2.pdf  
29 For more information, see BONUS Publications Nr .3: Baltic Sea Research and R&D Funding in 2004, 
at: 
http://www.bonusportal.org/modules/syste m/stdreq.aspx?P=663&VID=default& SID=251931988345479&S=1&A=closeall&C=2
7397.  
30 7th Baltic Sea Science Congre ss 2009, first announcement, at: 
http://www.msi.ttu.ee/files/0/7th_Baltic_S ea_Science_Congress_First_Announcement.pdf  
EN 15   EN • The "Baltic Sea System Study (BASYS)", a large ta rgeted research project funded under 
the Marine Science & Technology (MAST III ) programme of the 3rd EU Framework 
Programme, as well as other RTD marine sc ience projects funded under successive EU 
Framework Programmes, though not exp licitly focusing on the Baltic Sea 
• The BONUS ERA-Net funded under FP6 was la unched in December 2003 to strengthen 
the cooperation between environmental research  funding agencies in the Baltic region. 
• The BONUS ERA-Net+ funded under FP7 from  May 2007 to January 2012 to organise 
and implement a joint call for research proposals.  
BONUS ERA-Net was particularly successful in initiating a first communication between 
research funding institutions, analysing and sc oping the research lands cape, and developing 
preconditions for further integra tion (Series of Analyt ic Papers, Science Plan, Legal basis of 
the DIS). BONUS ERA-Net Plus, in turn, has se rved as a bridging measure to test these 
mechanisms in practice through the implemen tation of a EUR 22 million call, and launch 
some horizontal capacity-building and dissemina tion activities as well as preparation of 
BONUS-169 proposal. Following a detailed an alysis by BONUS ERA-NET, the following 
observations were made regarding the baseline situation of the current Baltic Sea research 
(publication 5, 2007)31: 
(1) "Although the Baltic Sea is one of the most scie ntifically investigated sea areas in the 
world, research traditions and capability va ry substantially among coastal States, and 
also with respect to the breadth and depth, as well as degree of development, of the 
various relevant sc ience disciplines." 
1. "The amount of data a nd literature concerning the chemistry, hydrography, 
fauna and flora of the Baltic Sea is abundant  but often nationally scattered in 
numerous languages. Thus, studies synt hesizing and combining the data and 
information sources across and between sub-regions of the Baltic Sea are 
generally scarce. A thorough exploitation of the existing knowledge is the 
foundation of new research."  
2. "Each State has tended to develop its own particular funding priorities and 
activities in basic and applied research independently of the other States. Thus, 
at an overarching level, there is a lim ited awareness of each other’s research 
portfolio and how and why it is deployed. In  turn, there is a lack of Baltic-wide 
trans-boundary research consultation, planning, coordination and concerted 
action necessary to provide the scientif ic knowledge and predictive capacity to 
effectively tackle the en vironmental challenges facing the Baltic Sea 
ecosystem."  
3. "An obvious gap in the Baltic Sea science networking is the lack of a platform 
for wider interdisciplinary communication which would give scientists from the 
natural, social, economic and other fields an opportunity to learn from each 
other and consider Baltic Sea environmenta l issues in multi-, inter- and trans-
disciplinary ways." 
                                                 
31 BONUS Publication No. 5, BONUS-169 Baltic Sea Science Plan and Implementation Strategy. 
BONUS Publications Nr. 9, http://www.bonuspor tal.org/files/69/Bonus_ 9_VerkkoPDF.pdf BONUS 
Publications Nr. 6, Identification of cooper ation areas and Gaps in existing programmes, 
http://www.bonusportal.org/file s/29/Publication_Nr._6.pdf  
International Publication Of Baltic Sea Science 2002-2006 
EN 16   EN Unlike efforts undertaken in the past, a new init iative must be launched aiming to address, in 
addition to science, also the structural defic it in the regional research system, but equally 
science policy and science management which hitherto has not been addressed. 
2.3. Who is affected, in what ways? 
In view of the fact that this initiative aims to reverse the poo r environmental st ate of the Baltic 
Sea region, and to enhance its "governance", integration and co-ordination in Baltic Sea research, it is mainly the science policy co mmunity, the research f unding agencies and the 
scientific community that will be mostly aff ected by this initiative. The area concerned is 
primarily the Baltic basin, but also the rest of  the European Union and neighbouring countries 
through sharing of existing expertise and pos sible exemplary value. The socio-economic 
impact will mostly be felt at the level of research orientation and research volume.  
However, in view of the positive contribution th at this initiative is expected to make to 
promote better environmental management and su stainable development in the Baltic Sea, it 
will have important consequences for the quality of  life, health of citizens in Baltic States and 
economic consequences in neighbouring countries. Several categories of actors are effectively 
and potentially affected by the poor environmental state of the Sea, including in particular: 
• Rural and urban populations living in the area 
• Businesses and industries directly depending on the resources provided by the Sea (e.g. 
small and big-scale fishing industry, a quaculture industry, tourism industry) 
• The businesses that indirectly depend on thes e resources through thei r connection with the 
former 
• Citizens from other areas of the EU who place value on the su stainability of the European 
Union as a whole  
• Ecosystems and species 
2.4. Does the EU have the right to act – Subsidiarity, proporti onality (‘necessity 
test’), Treaty base  
As explained in section 2.1, all efforts undertak en so far were not designed to address the 
causes of fragmentation of research, nor the barriers to integration between the relevant 
national research institutions and programmes identified under section 2.2 , although the need 
for the integration of the national Baltic Se a environmental research programmes of the 
surrounding States to address urgent environmen tal problems in the Baltic Sea and underpin 
sustainable development in the region is as pres ent as ever. Furthermore, collaborative efforts 
so far have lacked adequate financial resource s for the optimal exploitation of the research 
potential for better informed, knowledge-based  policy making due to the unequal economical 
and development situati on in the countries as well as highly diverse national research 
agendas.  
The causes leading to the fragmentation and th e barriers to the trans-national integration 
cannot be addressed by Member States acting in isolation and in the framework of their 
national constitutional system. Only a co-ordinat ed approach pooling together each country’s 
research efforts and resources under a unified  management structure would encourage the 
integration of National Research systems and wo uld create the critical mass needed to address 
the challenges. It will also, through the pub lication of joint calls for proposals, the 
EN 17   EN development of shared traini ng and educational programmes and the sharing of research 
infrastructure, assist in capacity building in th e Member States with lower research capacities, 
and bridge the gap in Baltic Sea research. Fi nally, it would offer a c onstructive platform to 
support cross-thematic funding includin g, for example, projects combining 
natural/social/humanitarian/science. 
This has been also acknowledged by the very strong political support and endorsement by the 
national governments of the Baltic States, the various European Councils and the European 
Parliament.  
The rationale for EU action is to provide incentives, in the face of the trans-national 
environmental challenges to be addressed, for th e Member States to act together to properly 
tackle the environmental challenges faced effectively, economically and efficiently.  
Whilst alternative solutions may exist, through the setting up of inter-governmental 
agreements for example, as already mentione d, the administrative and legal processes which 
typically have to be followed under such in tergovernmental schemes, would be lengthy, 
difficult and cumbersome and as su ch are not appropriate in view  of the urgent environmental 
problems of the Baltic sea loosing the right  momentum for action. Furthermore, inter-
governmental actions aimed at the coordination of public environmenta l funding in the Baltic 
Sea have not expanded in recent years and have not , as yet, been able to address successfully 
the Environmental challenges faced. 
Last but not least, further to the Baltic-speci fic expected added-value, the initiative will 
inspire other European seas for developmen t of similar research governance models.  
Article 165 stipulates that "the Community and the Member States shall coordinate their 
research and technological development activities so as to ensure that  national policies and 
Community policy are mutually consistent". It also allows the Commission, in close 
cooperation with the Member States, to "tak e any useful initiative" to promote such 
coordination. 
In addition, Article 169 of the Treaty stipulates that "i n implementing the multiannual 
Framework programme, the Community may make provision, in agreement with the Member 
States concerned, for participation in resear ch and development programmes undertaken by 
several Member States, including participation in  the structures created for the execution of 
those programmes." 
3. OBJECTIVES 
3.1. General policy objective 
The general policy objective  of the current initiative is to  enhance the Baltic Sea Region's 
research capacity to underpin the development and implementation of 'fit-for-purpose' regulations, policies and management practi ces, to respond effec tively to the major 
environmental and key societal challenges the region faces and will face in the coming years and to improve the efficiency and effectiv eness of the Baltic Sea Region's fragmented 
environmental research programming and approach  by integrating the rese arch activities in 
the Baltic Sea System into a durable, cooperative, interdis ciplinary well integrated and 
focussed multi-national programme. 
EN 18   EN 3.2. Specific objectives 
The specific objectives of  the initiative are to:  
• Establish a policy-driven Strategic Research Agendas 
• Increase sustainable cross-border and cr oss-sectoral public research programme 
coordination and integration  
• Raise the research capacity level of the new EU Baltic States  
• Mobilise additional financial resources from enhanced cross-sectoral Baltic Sea 
system research collaboration 
3.3. Operational objectives 
The operational objectives  of the initiative are to:  
• Establish appropriate Stak eholder Consultation Platfo rms including representation 
from all relevant sectors 
• Establish appropriate Implementati on Modalities enabling an effective 
implementation of the programme through a joint management legal entity and governance structure  
• Launch at least three cross-thematic, stra tegically focussed and multi-partner joint 
calls for proposals  
4. POLICY
 OPTIONS 
Three Policy Options are considered for mee ting the general, spec ific and operational 
objectives outlined in Section 3. They are: 
• Policy option 1: The continuation of policies so far developed under FP 7 
(“business as usual”) 
• Policy option 2: The recourse to regiona lly-oriented trans-thematic call(s) under 
the Framework Programme (FP) 
• Policy option 3 - Recourse to  Article 169 with three alternative approaches (A, B 
and C) varying in the extent and dept h of the strategic orientation and the 
stakeholder involvement in the streamlin ing and implementation of the calls for 
proposals. 
– - Policy option 3 through approach A – R ecourse to an Article 169 with a focus 
limited to marine research and with the immediate launching of science-driven calls for proposals 
– - Policy option 3 through a pproach B – Recourse to an  Article 169 with a focus 
broadened to include the Baltic Sea drainage basin and with a Strategic vision and roadmap to be developed prior to the start of the initiative and Commission proposal 
EN 19   EN – - Policy option 3 through a pproach C – Recourse to an  Article 169 with a focus 
broadened to include the Baltic Sea draina ge basin and with a strategic vision and 
roadmap developed during the firs t phase of the initiative.  
The difference between the three options considered lies in the way in which the Community 
intervention is set up, as an indi rect action or a direct one, in  the way underlying strategies are 
developed and implemented, and in the scope of  the research field, exclusively marine or 
encompassing a basin approach. The main char acteristics of each policy option are discussed 
in detail in the following sub-sections. 
Policy Option 1 - The continuation of polic ies so far developed under FP 7 "Business as 
usual" 
This policy option has been consid ered as the baseline. It assu mes that EU support for Baltic-
basin oriented research will,  once the currently ongoing BONUS  ERA-NET PLUS project is 
terminated, be stopped. Continuing funding a new phase of the presently ongoing BONUS 
ERA-Net PLUS32 would have meant a thematic re-orientation towards themes that are 
currently not addressed through the joint call. Such an approach would have been utterly 
counter-productive in as far as pr omotion of a holistic, integrate d, inter-disciplina ry scientific 
approach to underpin ecosystem-based manageme nt. Any EU research related support will 
from there on be channelled through FP 7 ecosy stem-based management relevant thematic 
calls. These calls will address rese arch topics of interest to all European regional seas with no 
explicit focus to Baltic Sea. It would be left  to the Baltic Member States to decide upon 
further actions, if any, to further pursue a nd follow up achievements from the two BONUS 
ERA-NETs, engage appropriate financial resour ces to fund them and put in place appropriate 
governance scheme to implement them, with or  without further involvement of the EEIG.  
Policy Option 2 - The recourse to regionally -oriented trans-thematic call(s) under FP7 
For reasons of inter-comparison, this policy optio n is assumed to mobilise an EU contribution 
of the order of 50 Mio €, an amount equal to the one expected to be mobilised by policy 
options 3 through approaches B and C. 
This policy option explores the full use of targeted Baltic Sea multi-thematic call(s) or 
succession of calls under FP7. The challenge  presented by the complexity of the 
environmental degradation of the Baltic, with marine as well as catchment-basin related components, intersects several thematic prio rities in FP7, in particular “Environment 
(including climate change)” a nd “Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, Biotechnology”, but also 
“Socio-economic sciences and Humanities”, “Ene rgy” and “Transport”. This makes the Baltic 
Sea region appropriate for a region ally-oriented Trans-thematic call
33. The call(s) could make 
use of large as well as small and medium Colla borative Research Projects in addition to 
Coordination and Support Actions.  
Policy Option 3 - Recourse to Article 169 
Policy option 3 (through approaches A, B and C), supposes application of Article 169 to 
enable the Community to support the integra tion of national research programmes and it 
implies that the participating Member States integrate their research  efforts by defining and 
committing themselves to a joint research programme, and that the Community goes beyond coordination of research programmes by partic ipating actively in a voluntary integration 
process (scientific, management and financial).  
EN 20   EN The differences between the approaches 3A, B and C mentioned below mainly concern the 
extent to which the initiative addresses righ t from its onset a strategic vision, is policy-
orientated, responsive to policy needs, embodi es a basin approach and foresees clear 
mechanisms for a continuous and active involvement of all key stakeholders in the formulation and prioritisation of the research themes, the identification of critical gaps and the streamlining, synthesis, dissemination and uptake of the research outputs.  
Policy option 3 through approach A
34 - The use of Article 169 with a focus on marine 
science, with a strategic vision and a road map developed in parallel with the launching 
of substantive open-field calls 
This approach is based upon the original BO NUS 169 Science Plan, Tentative Action Plan 
and Draft Strategic Research Agenda, as descri bed in section 1.2. This Article 169 initiative 
would build upon progress already achieve d by the previous ERA-Nets and its 
implementation relies entirely on calls for propo sals. As it was, it met many of the objectives 
and boundary conditions, in particular common de finition and implementation of scientific 
and technological activities unde r a joint programme, a dedicated  management structure and 
some financial integration by centrally admini stering, through a virt ual common pot, the cash 
and in kind infrastructure contributions from th e Participating States (PS) mounting to a total 
of 36 million € to be matched by an equivalent  EU contribution. However, it does not include 
a strategic vision and clear roadmap about how  to achieve the stated goal, aims and 
objectives, neither it foresees pre-established mechanisms to fill any gaps in the responses. It derives from a science plan which is predominan tly driven by sectoral interests of the marine 
scientific community rather than responsive to the needs of policy formulation and 
implementation in a sustainable development cont ext. Although the initia tive aimed at being a 
comprehensive environmental research progra mme, its focus was exclusively on the marine 
ecosystem and did not sufficiently encompass the river basins and catchments surrounding the 
Baltic and their influence on water quality, mate rials and energy inputs into the Baltic Sea 
System or preoccupations with the terrest rial coastal and near-coastal areas.  
Policy option 3 through approach B - The use of Article 169 with a focus broadened to 
the Baltic drainage basin, with a strategic vision and a roadmap developed prior to the 
launching of the initiative 
For reasons of inter-comparison, this policy optio n is assumed to mobilise an EU contribution 
of the order of 50 Mio € as it  is assumed to be the case for policy options 2 and 3 through 
approaches C. 
This approach would adhere to  the overall scheme of Policy option 3 through approach A, but 
in addition it would embed, right from its ons et, the following "strategic" elements:  
• Include a more explicit strategic vision with clear mechanisms to develop an 
effective, targeted, joint research programme, achieve planned outcomes and 
address critical gaps  
• Strengthen the involvement of stakeholders such as industry, ag riculture, fisheries 
and certain user groups to ensure that the research is relevant to policy and 
management that will influence the qualit y, functional integrity and sustainability 
of the Baltic Sea ecosystem and that priori tisation of research themes is driven by 
implementation needs and fill gaps in current information and to develop integrated approaches to the research programme.  
EN 21   EN • A ‘baseline’ has been es tablished along with measures for the effective 
assessment of progress of the initiative in  meeting its goal and specific objectives. 
• Broaden the research focus beyond the stri ct marine ecosystem, to embody a basin 
approach that addresses the key issues affecting the qua lity and productivity of the 
Baltic Sea Region ecosystems and to include research fields of crucial importance 
for the improvement of the state of  these ecosystems and the support of 
sustainable development in the area35, whilst mobilising additional financial 
resources of approximately 14 million € (to be matched by an equivalent EU contribution), as compared to policy opti on 3 through approach A, from enhanced 
cross-sectoral Baltic Sea system re search collaboration. The financial 
arrangements allow the development of  a strong EEIG that  provides dynamic 
leadership in developing a truly integrat ed, interdisciplinary research programme 
for the Baltic Sea, including the river basins and catchments where natural and man-induced change will affect the Baltic Sea ecosystem and the sustainable use of its resources.  
• Demonstrate long-term commitment to fu ll and durable integration of national 
schemes.  
• Strengthen inter-basin collaboration 
This Policy Option would have enabled the implementation of policy-driven calls for 
proposals right from the onset of the initia tive. However, in the present Baltic Sea 
environmental research landscape the critical issues mentioned above are not in place. 
Establishing them and having them in place before the launching of the initiative would 
necessitate additional preparation time and resources. This would mean delaying the 
launching of the initiative until  these conditions are in place wh ich could lead to a loss of 
momentum due to discontinuity in the e fforts made under BONUS ERA-NETS and the 
uncertainties regarding the future of th e EEIG during this preparation period.  
Policy option 3 through approach C - The use of Article 169 with a focus broadened to 
the Baltic drainage basin, with a strategic vision and roadmap developed in a first phase 
of the programme, prior to th e launching of the calls  
For reasons of inter-comparison, this policy optio n is assumed to mobilise an EU contribution 
of the order of 50 Mio € as it  is assumed to be the case for policy options 2 and 3 through 
approaches B. 
This approach adopts the main thrust of Opti on 3B in terms of vision, ambition and financial 
resources and is based on the revised BONUS 169 Outline Research Agenda (see section 1.2). It is developed to reconcile the objectives of 3B with the constraints currently present in the 
Baltic Sea research landscape. It takes account of the fact that under present circumstances, 
additional preparation and resources are needed to  establish the "strategic" elements identified 
under 3B (and completely missing under 3A). To  this end, this approach envisages two 
phases, namely a first strategic phase
36 during which all these "critical" elements mentioned 
under 3B would be established and put in place (as opposed to policy option 3 through 
                                                 
35 Article 169 initiative in the field of Baltic S ea Research. Council Decision of 19 December 2006 
concerning the Specific Programme "Cooperation" implementing the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities 
(2007 to 2013) (2006/971/EC) 
36 To be closely monitored and reviewed by the Commission's services 
EN 22   EN approach B where they are supposed to be al l present right from the onset), and a second 
phase referring to the implementation of the calls. Broadening and deepening of the 
stakeholder consultation will be further pursued  during the strategic phase of the initiative 
when the detailed Science Plan and the content of the calls will be defined (as opposed to policy option 3 through approach B where the detailed Science Plan and the content of the calls has been defined from the onset). This will further enhance the strategic focus of the initiative. It supposes however, that progress fr om the initial, strategic,  phase to the second, 
implementation, phase, in which the calls are fo rmulated, relies upon and is conditional to the 
successful completion of the first phase. The Co mmission's services with the assistance of an 
Independent Expert Review Panel will verify whether the goals and objectives set out in the 
initial Strategic phase have been achieved accord ing to the criteria spelled out in section 6.  
4.1. Lessons from the Van Velzen report 
In setting up the possible action under an Ar ticle 169 and providing for proper monitoring and 
evaluation, the lessons from the Van Velzen repo rt have to be taken into account. One major 
condition for success is the existence of a tr ue cross-European ownership, with joint 
programmes between the interested Member St ates and autonomous and well functioning pre-
existing structures. More generally, Van Ve lzen's prerequisites set standards for any 
forthcoming initiative. The report sums up “Sug gestions to the European Commission for new 
Article 169 initiatives”. The most relevant va n Velzen recommendations  are listed below in 
bold and the BONUS status in italic: 
Assess the performance and suitability  of pre-existing common structures  
The structures are established and have been  successfully tested in the BONUS-Plus ERA-
NET Plus.  
Require a clear joint ownership statement, a pa ct with long-term obligations and sanctions 
The BONUS EEIG was jointly es tablished under BONUS ERA-NET plus and the Article 169 
has been fully endorsed by the ministries from  8 Member States. Whilst all countries are 
somewhat limited in making long-term budget comm itments due to national law, the initiative 
effectively switches part of the budgets already existing nationally. 
Define general rules for the common funding pot or other possible national contributions 
Whilst policy options 3 through approach B and C would follow a model concerning its 
financial integration with a centrally-administered, real common pot with pre-defined financial commitments from each of the particip ating States, policy option 3 through approach 
A would follow a virtual common pot where cont ributions from PS are to be matched up by 
EU contribution to reimburse na tional participations in th e projects selected for funding. 
There must be pre-exis ting national programmes 
Pre-existing Environmenta l R&D programmes have exis ted for many years in each 
participating State and have been further de veloped and coordinated during the course of 
BONUS-Plus in preparation for an Article 169.  
There must be available budgets, or a st rong commitment to make them available 
A budget of the order of EUR 26 millions fresh money has been pledged by the participating 
States for all policy options 3 th rough approach A, B and C. An  additional 14 millions Euros 
EN 23   EN will be sought by engaging additional nationa l Funding Agencies under policy option 3 
through approach B and C. 
There must be a common work-plan, obj ectives, milestones, sound governance; 
The basic common work plan - the BONUS-169 Action Plan and Sc ience Plan - is in place 
already, and will be implemented as such unde r policy option 3 through approach A. A more 
strategically driven and policy-orientated work plan is assu med to be in place right from the 
onset under policy option 3 through approach B. It is assumed to be sought through active 
Stakeholder consultation during th e initial 2-year stra tegic phase of the initiative under policy 
option 3 through approach C. To this end, the consortium has submitted informally an outline 
time plan for the Article 169 which foresees a tw o-stage approach, namely  an initial strategic 
phase (2010-2011) and an implementation phase  (2012-2016). Sound governan ce is already in 
place under all Article 169 (pol icy option 3 approaches A, B and C) and demonstrably 
working stakeholders consultation has been  described in detail in section 1.3. The 
Commission will be formally consulted on a call-by-call basis during the implementation phase of the initiative under all article 169 policy options and will follow very closely and review the progress made duri ng the strategic phase  of the initiative under policy option 3C.  
The Article 169 entity has full cont rol on how to spend the money 
The BONUS EEIG was already established in 2007 in order to look after the administrative 
activities and the implementa tion of the joint call of BO NUS-Plus. Under the BONUS-169 
initiative the BONUS EEIG will expand its role to concluding all funding contracts following 
the joint calls for proposals. 
There is adequate representation at a leve l where individuals can take decisions 
The decision-making structures have been ex tremely well planned (see Annex IV) and have 
demonstrated already that they place appr opriate representation at the right levels. 
There is a clear evaluation procedure; th e overall criterion is one of excellence  
This was indeed the case for the ERA-NET Plus . Independent Observer(s) that have followed 
the BONUS ERA-NET Plus evalua tion have shown an overall sati sfaction with the process. 
During the negotiations, the Commission’s servi ces will make sure that all comments and 
recommendations made by the observers will be  fully incorporated into the evaluation 
procedures and practices for the Article 169. The Commission’s negotiation position will be 
that the evaluation procedures should adhere as closely as possible to the approach and 
criteria of FP7. 
5. LIKELY
 ECONOMIC,  SOCIAL  AND  ENVIRONMENTAL  IMPACTS 
The impact of Policy option 1 can not be pred icted since the attitude by the PS to further 
pursue objectives and achievements by ERA-Nets in the absence of any EU FP funding can 
not be anticipated. However, it is highly unlikely that with out a EU´s catalysing action, a 
considerable action towards improving the status of the Baltic Sea research system will be 
undertaken through a proper initia tive by the Participating States. 
Policy options 2 and 3A, B and C, by simply a dding a considerable and centrally co-ordinated 
amount of "fresh" money into research in the Baltic Region are expected to have a positive 
contribution to: 
EN 24   EN • The creation of new jobs for researcher s, post-docs and PhD scholars through the 
implementation of new projects. creation of  a strong and well consolidated Baltic 
Sea System scientific community with an  enhanced international "visibility" and 
recognition and internationally co mpetitive should world-wide; 
• Enhancing expertise and capacity th rough training activities for all PS  
• Assisting other economic sectors such as maritime infrastructure, mining, and 
windmill parks, transport, fishing, oil, gas and telecommunication companies to 
adopt more environmentally friendly, ecosystem based, operations  
• Assisting Member States to implemen t knowledge-based and science-informed 
environmental policies  
• Assisting SMEs and private companies to become more competitive and raise 
their "in-house" knowledge and expertise by being part of the research efforts 
Policy option 3 through approaches A, B and C ar e expected to have ma jor positive impact in 
improving the efficacy of the Baltic Sea Region's and reducing fragmentation in the Baltic Sea Region's environmental research system th rough enhanced co-operation at the scientific 
as well institutional (nationa l funding agencies) level.  
Policy options 2 and 3 through approaches A, B and C will provide a significant (and durable) 
means to increase involvement of the “trans ition” countries (Poland, Estonia, Latvia, 
Lithuania) in international projec ts thus assist these countries in  raising their ov erall quality of 
research, since according to a bibliometric an alysis of publications  on Baltic Sea Science
37, 
there is a strong correlation be tween the level of in ternational collaboration and quality of 
research, the “transition” countries currently having weaker involvement in international 
research projects as compared to the ‘develop ed” countries of the Re gion (Germany, Finland, 
Sweden, Denmark)38. It is to be noted that the curren t BONUS+ projects involve in average 
five different countries and out of the 16 cu rrently funded projects , 13 of them involve 
participations from ‘transition’ countries.  
Policy option 3 through approach es B and C would allow for a re-distribution of EU-funds 
being pooled together with nati onal funds in a ‘common pot’ to  be administered by a joint 
management structure (EEIG), entirely on the ba sis of scientific excel lence and without any 
national concerns and biases. This will also enhance the alignment of national and Community funding for development of research  programmes in a more coordinated manner. 
On the basis of the experience with the joint call organised under BONUS ERA-Net+, 
‘transition countries’ (and particularly Estoni a and Poland) received significant additional 
funding on top of what was committed by their national sources. One can therefore assume 
that through policy option 2 and 3 A, B and C, th ere will be greater benefits for the transition 
countries in the Baltic region as  compared to their national co ntributions to the initiative. 
Under policy option 2 such possibilities wi ll be smaller due to the smaller national 
                                                
 
37 BONUS Publications Nr. 9, International Publication Of Baltic Sea Science 2002-2006 
http://www.bonusportal.org/files/69/Bonus_9_VerkkoPDF.pdf  
38 BONUS Publications Nr. 6, Identification of co operation areas and Gaps in existing programmes, 
http://www.bonusportal.org/files/29/Publication_Nr._6.pdf  
EN 25   EN contributions this policy is likely to mob ilise in line with the Framework Programme 
participation rules regarding "own res ources" from the project beneficiaries39.  
Policy option 3 through approaches A, B and C will enhance significantly  the visibility of 
Baltic Sea System research in the Participating States and particularly  in the ‘transition’ 
countries because of the "ownership" of the ini tiative by the latter States and the consequent 
closer interactions with the local and regiona l actors, unlike policy option 2 which is being 
run and managed by the European Commission and as such will be more distant from local 
and regional actors. 
Policy option 3 through approaches A, B and C is e xpected to have strong  leverage effects by 
"injecting" and additional 36 (for option 3A) to 50 million (for policy options B and C) 
"fresh" money through contributions by all partic ipating States, money that would not have 
otherwise been mobilised. Such leverage effects can not be expected from policy option 2 due to smaller "own resources" from beneficiaries expected under FP 7 rules. 
Policy options 2 and 3 through approaches A,  B and C will allow for a better access to 
scientists to sophisticated and sometimes extremely expens ive infrastructures and this 
represents a significant capacity-building benefit to scientists, particularly from ‘transition’ countries. Policy option 3 through approaches A,  B and C have a much higher probability 
than policy option 2 that resear ch results will be better st reamlined and thus taken up by 
stakeholders because of the possibility to ha ve large and "institutionalised" through the 
programme stakeholders platforms managed by the DIS. Such possibility can not be 
implemented by scientific consorti a under FP projects (policy option 2). 
Unlike policy option 2, policy option 3 throu gh approaches A, B and C can make a far 
reaching restructuring in the governance of th e Baltic Sea Region's environmental research 
system due to the pivotal role that the dedicated implementation structure (DIS) will be entrusted to play in administering central ly the Community as well as the national 
contributions. Such a new governance mode l once tested and validated following 
implementation of this policy option, can serv e as a new paradigm for implementing similar 
initiatives in the ot her regional seas of the European Union. 
A detailed description of the likely impact  per policy option is presented below.  
Policy Option 1 – The continuation of polic ies so far developed under FP 7 (“business as 
usual”) 
With the collapse of the former Soviet Unio n, there has been increased cooperation and 
collaboration between the new Member States, su ch as Latvia and Lith uania and other Baltic 
Sea states such as Sweden and Finland in c onducting fundamental and ap plied research on the 
Baltic ecosystem. Actions undertaken by the EEIG under ERA-NET and the ERA-NET Plus 
have contributed to strengthening such collabo ration and the development of new cooperative 
research initiatives. One of the obstacles to  greater collaboration is however the limited 
funding available for Baltic Sea research in some of the ne w Member States, although this 
situation has improved through the opening of opportunities for new an d innovative research 
under the FP6 and FP 7 programmes to the former Soviet states.  
The impact of this policy option, however, is di fficult to predict, since the willingness of the 
PS to engage substantial financ ial resources to further pursue  the integration of national 
                                                
 
39 In the Framework Programme, own resources from beneficiaries varies from 25 to 50% depending on 
their status (Universities, SMEs, private companies) 
EN 26   EN research programmes in the absence of EU funding following the achievements by the two 
ERA-Nets is questionable. 
There would be a danger that advances in pr omoting more coordina ted research among the 
Baltic Sea states achieved under the EEIG will not evolve, and the EEIG may lose momentum 
and develop into a loose network of individual research groups with research priorities. This 
would hamper the development of inter-di sciplinary competences and the corresponding 
ability to integrate natural scienc e and social science outputs into  information of direct utility 
for users, including policy makers and natural resources development agencies. 
Policy Option 2 - The recourse to regiona lly-oriented trans-them atic call(s) under FP 
Through Cross Thematic Call(s) and Coordinated Actions targeted to the Baltic Sea, it would 
be possible to develop and implement a policy driven research agenda and roadmap that 
would meet the needs of a broad range of stak eholders and end users in the Baltic region. 
Although this option could build on  the ERA-NET, there is no gua rantee that the use of the 
FP research call(s) would secure the activ e involvement of the EEIG and the further 
pursuance of the “structural”  integration among the funding agencies achieved under the 
previously funded ERA-NETs. This policy op tion could indeed promote circumstantial 
integration of the research partners with no guara ntee that this integration will be sustained in 
the absence of FP. Also, there will be no "ownership" by the Member States and it is not evident that it would tap upon and establish sy nergies with nationally funded environmental 
research programmes. This would limit the amo unt of co-ordinated research that could be 
conducted. Due to its failure to mobilise financia l resources of equivalent size from the PS as 
the policy option 3 through approach A and even  more significantly through approach B and 
C are expected to do. It would most likely resu lt in a significantly smaller research effort. 
Hence it would be less likely to address th e very significant environmental challenges 
identified and the stated objectives of the in itiative under considerati on. This approach would 
also result in loss of momentum  and lack of continuity in the progress achieved through the 
BONUS ERA-NETs. 
Policy option 3 through approach A - The us e of Article 169 with a focus on marine 
science, with a strategic vision and a road map developed in parallel with the launching 
of substantive open-field calls  
This option offers the potential for a number of positive benefits that could improve the 
environment in the Baltic. Under this option, no ne w institutions would be required as there is 
a dedicated research programme and network of  major national funding ag encies with a clear 
Baltic Sea marine research focus. The role of  the EEIG in the network provides opportunities 
for stronger international cooperation and potentia l for concerted research efforts and inter-
basin exchanges of information and experience. The EEIG and the preparatory work carried out within the frame of the ERA-NET and ERA- NET Plus provide an opportunity to improve 
the efficiency of allocation and application of  available resources to better address emerging 
environmental issues. However, due to the missing "strategic" elements that are mentioned under section 4, the poten tial positive impact of this option would be rather limited. Relying 
primarily on ad-hoc calls for proposals, lacking an overarching  research development strategy 
with no mechanisms to ensure active stakeholder part icipation, there is no guarantee that the 
calls for research proposals or at least the on es to be published whilst these mechanisms are 
still not in place would be res ponsive to the needs for inform ation to better support policy 
formulation and implementation in the Baltic Sea and that the research and policy outputs 
would help to address cross-boundary, trans na tional issues. Because of these limitations, it 
would not be possible to develop a more co mprehensive understanding of how the Baltic 
ecosystem responds to natural and anthropoge nic pressures and th ere would be limited 
EN 27   EN opportunities to attune national re search strategies to priority  issues affecting the Baltic 
environment so as to meet the objectives of  the Water Framework Directive, Marine and 
Maritime Research Strategy and Maritime Policy and sustainable development objectives at 
both a Baltic region scale and at a wider inter-ba sin and/or regional seas scale. The potential 
contribution of this option on a Europe-wide level could be limite d due to a lack of potential 
links with other river basins and regional seas wi thin Europe. There is also a serious risk that 
presenting this option as a comprehensive en vironmental research programme could lead 
member States to reduce thei r national funding under the misc onception that the Article 169 
initiative would cover all research needs en tirely. Expected integration will also have a 
significant contribution in raising the capacity level of some of the new EU Baltic States in 
marine science. 
Policy option 3 through approach B - The use of Article 169 with a focus broadened to 
the Baltic drainage basin, with a strategic vision and a roadmap developed prior to the 
launching of the initiative 
This Policy Option would build upon progress al ready achieved through previous ERA-NETs 
and would provide a major stim ulus in developing a truly in tegrated research programme 
endowed with substantial additional financial resources and harness the competences within 
an effective network of scientists, policy makers, development planners, and resources 
managers for the Baltic Sea Re gion. It would provide a str ong base for developing tighter 
integration of the research efforts and more effi cient use of resources in the Member States in 
addressing policy issues and stra tegic environmental, social an d economic objectives. It gives 
a good chance of a policy driven programme with a clear vision and roadmap. The quality and 
volume of research and its dir ect applicability to policy impl ementation are expected to be 
enhanced due to strengthening of integrati on. This policy option will be predominantly 
policy-driven rather than science-driven. Ther efore, it foresees cha nnels through which the 
results of research will be translated into policy formula tion and implementation (as policy 
option 3A). The impact on the Baltic Sea status biological diversity, conservation of the 
natural and cultural heritage, ecosystem servic es, environmental quality, human health and 
quality of life, sustainability  of economic activities associat ed with fisheries, coastal 
exploitation, agriculture, mari ne and coastal biotechnologies, t ourism, recreation and transport 
will be considerable. However, it is fair to say that due to absence of similar blueprint of integration at the European, and indeed at the in ternational level, there is no factual evidence 
to support that the integration of national research  schemes will, per se, result in an enhanced 
environmental impact. The socio-economic imp acts will be mostly felt at the level of 
strengthening the integration of research efforts, which is likely to improve cost effectiveness (see also section 7). The groups most concerne d will be the people who live on or near the 
shores of the Baltic, both in ru ral and in urban areas, fishermen, farmers, foresters, naturalists, 
and tourists due to better informed policy making. The region primarily concerned is of 
course the Baltic. This option carries a potentially very high European added value for the entire Union since it can serv e as a new blueprint for organi sing environmental research to 
address the environmental proble ms of the other European regi onal seas. Expected integration 
will also have a significant contribution in rais ing the capacity level of some of the new EU 
Baltic States. However this option assumes that certain critical issues clearly identified under 
section 4 have been addressed prior to the launch ing of the initiative and this is not the case in 
the present Baltic Sea environmental research landscape. Establishing them and having them in place before the launching of the initiative would necessitate additional time and resources. 
This would mean delaying the launching of the initiative until these conditions are in place 
which could lead to a loss of momentum in  efforts already made  under BONUS ERA-NETS. 
These uncertainties are t hus limiting the potential im pact of this option.  
EN 28   EN Policy option 3 through approach C - The use of Article 169 with a focus broadened to 
the Baltic drainage basin, with a strategic vision and roadmap developed in a first phase of the programme, prior to the launching of the calls 
This option supposes that all conditions underlined under policy option 3 through approach B 
that are critical for the success of the initia tive are addressed via a two-stage approach. As 
such, in addition to a potentia l impact identical as for polic y option 3 through approach B, it 
would allow for continuity and maintenan ce of the momentum developed by the BONUS 
consortium through the ERA-NETs and as such it has the potential to make full and effective 
use of the funding that could be provided s hould an Article 169 be approved. Indeed, the 
adoption of a two staged approach set out in the revised initiative- “Strategic” and 
“Implementation” - provides opportunities fo r developing and implementing appropriate 
intergovernmental accords, allows for completion of the steps required to ensure full stakeholder participation in identification of research priorities and the formulation of 
integrated research programmes to be im plemented through policy-oriented calls for 
proposals. With appropriate f unding, the EEIG can be strengthene d and has the potential to 
provide dynamic leadership in  developing a comprehensive and world class integrated 
research programme. This can provide a robust basis for examining the environmental, social 
and economic factors that influe nce the sustainable use of th e natural coastal and marine 
systems of the Baltic. Through its involvement in  the management bodies of the initiative, the 
Commission will retain a strong orientation and priority setting power through the design of 
calls.
 The “Two-Stage” approach also allows th e European Commission the opportunity to 
review and verify whether the goals and objecti ves set out for the initial Strategic phase and 
assess readiness of the initiative to pass to the subsequent implementation have been achieved before engaging investments for the implementa tion phase. A set of Indicators and Measures 
for assessing progress towards meeting the obj ectives of the “Strat egic” phase under this 
Policy Option are set in Section 6. 
5.1. Effect of changes in parameters on impacts 
Policy option 1 foresees no further Community  intervention to address the identified 
objectives. As said already, the risk  is that the EEIG may lose mo mentum or cease to exist. In 
this case the efforts and investments made so  far through ERA-NETs will no longer continue 
and the Baltic research governance will return to what it was before. 
Policy option 2 would be implemented by the European Commission who would define and 
implement the research agenda under FP7. Theref ore, no changes in the relevant parameters 
are expected. 
Under policy option 3 through approaches A, B and C, there might be changes in the 
composition of the EEIG with some of the curren t funding agencies. This will mean that the 
corresponding research programmes and effort s funded by the withdraw ing funding agencies 
will be taken away and this will inevitably underm ine somehow the impact of this initiative in 
proportion to the withdrawn components. Ho wever, policy option 3 through approach C 
foresees, among others, efforts during the st rategic phase to invol ve additional funding 
agencies for an equivalent amount of approximately 14 million Euros. This amount, after being matched by the EU contribution, will increase quite significantly the total budget to the initiative and benefits of the integration will touch a much broader institutional structure and 
scientific community. 
Clearly, environmental and socio-economic parame ters are likely to evolve over time because 
of changes in climate, land use, human beha viour, human perceptions  and technologies, as 
well as the development of new environmental hazards. Policy options 3 through approach B 
EN 29   EN and C will provide the best  guarantees and possibilities for adoption, modification or 
redirection in response to these changes since they wi ll include mechanisms to anticipate and 
monitor these changes and to adapt to them. Policy options 1, 2 and 3A approach are less 
adaptive in this respect since they do not foresee such mechanisms. 
5.2. Potential obstacles and risks 
No potential obstacles and ri sks are envisaged under policy op tion 1, the latter having no 
related Baltic specific financial implications for the EU. 
It is assumed that all policy options  3 (through approach A, B and C) would effectively 
address all recommendations made in the Van Velzen report. This will secure an optimal 
implementation of an article 169. The only exception is for option 3  through approach A  
adopting a virtual common pot instead of a real one.  
A potential risk, valid for all poli cy options, is that the outcomes  of the research would not be 
sufficiently taken into account by policy makers  and therefore the investments made in the 
context of this initiative will not be fully valorised. This however is unavoidable, since environmental management is and will always be part of a democratic decision making process that seeks to address in a satisfactor y manner the socio-economic interests and stakes 
with due regard to the environmental issues.  
A potential obstacle, common to all wide-ranging regionally-focused res earch initiatives, and 
thus to policy options 3A, B and C, is the abse nce of the required expertise or interest. This 
could undermine the impact of the initiative in adequately addressing so me of the identified 
problems. However, both policy options 2 and 3 address this issue by providing full openness 
to participation by research partners from th e entire Union, the emphasis being given to the 
scientific excellence irrespectivel y of national or regional bias.  
In principle the following potential risks could be  envisaged as associated to policy options 
3A, B and C: 
• Failure by the Member States to fulfil the financial and political commitments 
regarding their partic ipation in the Article  169. This risk however appears not so 
likely to occur in view of the preparatory work during the BONUS ERA-NET and 
BONUS ERA-NET-PLUS and the written commitments by the responsible Ministers (see section 1.2).  
• Risk linked to the DIS and its capacity to implement an  Article 169. This risk is 
mitigated to a large extent by the fact that the BONUS EEIG has already implemented the BONUS ERA-Net Plus pr oject successfully. In addition, the ex-
ante audit of the DIS prior to the launching of the initiative will ensure that all necessary conditions are in place for a successful implementation of the BONUS-
169. 
• A possible obstacle to an a ppropriate and justified use of Article 169 is for the 
integrated part of research to remain  a small fraction of the research being 
conducted in the area and to lack visibili ty outside the scientific community. The 
possibility for such a risk to  materialise is howev er very small if one is to compare 
the 72-100 M that BONUS-169 in itiative is expected to mobilise (EU and national 
contributions pooled together), with the 36 million of total na tional funding (see 
section 2.1) allocated to Baltic research in 2004.  
More specifically, risks asso ciated to policy option 3 B and C could be related to:  
EN 30   EN • If efforts to engage additional sectoral funding agencies (currently anticipated of 
the order of EUR 14 M) would fail. Whils t engaging sectoral funding agencies 
will be a big achievement of the initiative since it will break long-standing traditions and tap upon national resources (e quivalent to 35% of the total national 
funding in the region-see section 2.1) that  are canalised dire ctly and without 
competition to various sectorally oriented  institutions and research group, failing 
to do so will simply mean that this compone nt of the research sy stem in the Baltic 
will not be impacted through this initiative and the current status quo in the region 
for this component will remain whilst the re st of the system will be significantly 
impacted.  
More specifically, risks associated to the strate gic phase of policy optio n 3C could be related 
to:  
• Possible failure by the consortium to put in place the appropriate mechanisms and 
achieve the set milestones and deliverables  during the first "strategic" phase of the 
implementation. If such a risk is materi alised, either the consortium could be 
provided additional time for addressing satisfactorily the expected milestones through use of "own" resources or the Community will abstain from funding the 
implementation phase of the initiative. In the latter case the total loss for the Community will only be EUR 1.25 million,  i.e. the EU contribution for the 
funding of the strategic pha se of the initiative.  
• Political pressure during the review of  the strategic phase by government(s) 
involved in the Article 169 to influen ce its outcome. However, the Commission 
should guarantee a fully transparent revi ew process by inviting internationally 
renowned independent reviewers to make  their assessment on the basis of a 
number of appropriately selected indicators. 
6. COMPARING
 THE  OPTIONS 
6.1. Comparing the impacts of the different Options 
The table below summarises the analysis a bove and shows how policy option 2 and policy 
option 3 through approaches A, B and C compare in terms of positive impact of a Community 
action in relation to the defined general, spec ific and operational objectives. An analysis of 
the potential Impacts of Policy option 1 (Continuation of policies so far developed under FP 
7, business as usual) is not included in the ta ble given that this option forms the baseline. 
These scores are made relating to the baseli ne scenario (Policy option 1-Continuation of 
policies so far developed under FP 7, business as usual) which is considered as zero. The 
comparison illustrates that the impact of policy option 3 through approach C is the most significant. 
Overview of potential impacts of the Policy Options 
Potential Impact of the defined objectives :  Option 2 Option 3 A Option 3 B Option 3 C 
GENERAL OBJECTIVE 
Enhance the Baltic Sea Region's research 
capacity to underpin the development and 
implementation of 'fit-for-purpose' regulations, 
policies and management practices, to respond effectively to the major environmental and key Medium Medium High Very High 
EN 31   EN societal challenges the region faces and will 
face in the coming year s and to improve the 
efficiency and effectiveness of the Baltic Sea Region's fragmented en vironmental research 
programming and approach by integrating the 
research activities in the Baltic Sea System into a durable, cooperative, interdisciplinary well 
integrated and focussed multi-national 
programme. 
SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES 
Establish a policy-driven Strategic Research 
Agenda  Very Low Very Low High Very High  
Increase sustainable cross-border and cross-
sectoral public research programme coordination and integration Medium High High Very High 
Raise the research capacity level of the new EU 
Baltic States High High High High 
Mobilise additional financial resources from 
enhanced cross-sectoral Baltic Sea system research collaboration Low Low High Very High 
OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVES 
Establish appropriate Stakeholder Consultation 
Platforms including representation from all 
relevant sectors Low Medium High Very High 
Establish appropriate Implementation Modalities enabling an effective 
implementation of the programme through a 
joint management legal entity and governance structure  Low Low High Very High 
Launch at least three cross-thematic, 
strategically focussed and multi-partner joint 
calls for proposals  Medium Medium High Very High 
6.2. Summary of the advantages and disa dvantages for each Policy Option 
A brief analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each Policy Option is presented in the 
table below. Policy Option 1 (Continuation of policies so far developed under FP 7, business 
as usual) has not been analysed as it forms the baseline scenario. 
Advantages and disadvantages of the Policy Options  
Option Advantages Disadvantages 
Option 2 
The recourse to 
regionally-oriented trans-thematic call(s) under FP Multiple options for funding.  
EU policies and the FP7 research programme would form 
the basis for developing a vi sion for stronger coordination 
of research on priority issu es affecting the sustainable 
development of the Baltic S ea Basin; Reduced need for 
new research delivery instituti ons; Effective and targeted 
use of EU funding; Integration with other research themes MS role in leading research and hence enhances ownership of 
the research programme would be reduced; Obstacles that 
hinder a reduction in research fragmentation would not be 
addressed in a sustainable way;  Openness of system may not 
increase; In the absence of a coherent, integrated, long-term 
strategic research approach there is a risk that individual 
projects may not yield information that can be integrated to support policies and management actions to address critical 
environmental issues; Reduced opportunities to create a 
EN 32   EN Option Advantages Disadvantages 
of FP7 will be easier; Intrinsic integration with EU 
policies and stakeholder requirements;. Potential European level added value for other regional seas and 
associated drainage basins. sustainable critical mass; Risk of duplication due to multiple 
actions; Lower levels of inte gration across disciplines. No 
guarantee that there will be subs tantive integration of national 
agencies and therefore sustainab ility of integration of research 
among MS in the absence of EU funding is questionable. Momentum and progress achieved through the Bonus 
initiative may be lost. No guarantee that the gulf between the 
“new” Baltic States and the more established ones would be reduced. 
Policy option 3through approach 
A 
The use of Article 169 
with a focus on 
marine science, with a 
strategic vision and a roadmap developed in 
parallel with the 
launching of substantive open-field 
calls No new institutionalisation; Dedicated programme with 
clear Baltic Sea thematic focus; Will be more accessible 
for associated marine research groups; Provides 
opportunities to focus on emerging environmental issues. 
Maintains momentum and builds upon advances achieved 
under ERA-NET. Rationalisation of research in some 
countries; improved use of FP resources. Development of strategic vision in parallel would not ensure 
effective prioritisation of re search effort and resource 
allocation in respect to Article 169 objectives; with no clear 
policy-orientation; reduced potential for understanding the 
Baltic ecosystem and establishi ng a cause-effect relationship 
between drivers and impacts to mainstream research findings 
to other policy domains due to lack of conceptual framework incorporating inputs from catchments surrounding the Baltic. 
No joining up or coordination of  all best potential in Baltic 
Region to tackle sustainable development issues; Science 
driven, not policy driven; Relia nce on response to call for 
proposals that do not appear to be  linked to vision or priorities; 
Lower levels of integration; strengthening of institutional 
capacities and human resources slower and more 
heterogeneous; Gulf between larg er and smaller partners could 
grow; Lack of emphasis given to inter-basin transfer of knowledge 
Policy option 3 through approach B 
The use of Article 169 
with a focus 
broadened to the Baltic drainage basin, 
with a strategic vision 
and a roadmap developed prior to the 
launching of the 
initiative; Broadened conceptual fram ework that would allow 
integration of critical enviro nmental, social and economic 
factors that influence the health, productivity of marine 
and coastal systems, and potential sustainable use of 
resources. Potential strengthening of research efforts to address priority issues; rationa lisation of research in some 
countries; improved use of FP resources. 
EU policies would be better taken into account in 
developing a strategic vision and establishing research 
priority issues affecting th e sustainable development of 
the Baltic Sea Basin; EU political buy in – support to EU policy making;; Opportunities for new funding institutions 
to join in and support EU and MS research objectives 
supporting broader integration of research addressing cross-sectoral end user needs, enhancing ownership of the 
research programme, and helping ensure effective use and 
uptake of results Improvements in trans-disciplinary research supports improved policy and resource 
management arrangements for sustainable use of the 
Baltic Sea system across a wide array of economic sectors; Long term programming to address policy issues 
through concerted Baltic S ea and Drainage Basin 
research; Attuning national research strategies to European strengths and competences; Obstacles that hinder a reduction in research fragmentation would be 
addressed; Financial levera ge by mobilising additional 
resources from enhanced cro ss-sectoral Baltic Sea system 
research collaboration; Enhanced linkages with 
stakeholders and end user could strengthen uptake of 
research outputs; Critical mass in research effort; Mainstreaming integrated, inte rdisciplinary research to 
other policy domains; Alignment to industries; Ability to 
deal with trans-boundary issues; Implementation of EU regulations; Reduce duplication of research efforts; Better 
conditions for cross-fer tilisation between people, 
institutions, countries. A stronger common Baltic Sea System research community voice. High potential for 
reducing the gaps between la rger and smaller partners; 
New emphasis given to catchment and sea interactions and potential for inter-basin transfer of knowledge. Will take time and there will be  need for additional resources 
to implement appropriate intergovernmental accords and structures and linkages with i ndustry and other stakeholders 
and users that would facilitate integrated research programmes 
The time to “maturity” will break the continuity and hinder the 
maintenance of momentum and the capitalisation upon the 
advances achieved under BONUS ERA-NETs 
  
Policy option 3 
through approach C: Idem as policy option 3 through approach B with 
additional advantages entailed by the two staged 
approach- “Strategic” and “I mplementation” that would 
allow continuity and maintenance of the momentum There are no major perceived disadvantages. However, the 
success of this option will depe nd to a large degree on the 
successful implementation of the strategic phase. This will 
need to be examined carefully by the EC. 
EN 33   EN Option Advantages Disadvantages 
 
The use of Article 169 
with a focus 
broadened to the 
Baltic drainage basin, with a strategic vision 
and roadmap 
developed in a first phase of the 
programme, prior to 
the launching of the calls. developed by the Bonus consortium and further 
capitalisation on advances achieved under BONUS ERA-NET. Through the involvement in the management bodies 
of the initiative, the Commission will retain a strong 
orientation and priority setting power through the design of calls.  
  
6.3. The Preferred Option 
Based on the above review of potential Policy Options, Policy  option 3 through approach C 
could, if fully developed, lead to substantive improvement of the research capacity in the 
Baltic region to better underpin sustainable development in the area. 
Policy option 3 through approach C provides ad ditional time and resources for establishing 
the necessary mechanisms that would bring the Article 169 initiative more  closely in line with 
the letter and the spirit of Article 169, would create a platform for joint EU and Member State research programming, thus creating a coherent  and long term research agenda with critical 
mass. Through the involvement in the manage ment bodies of the in itiative, the active 
participation of the European Commission can  safeguard an emphasis on mobility, openness 
and a focus on emerging areas. The combination of EU and national funds creates a critical 
mass in terms of capacity, expertise and resources  that would stimulate structural changes in 
the national Baltic Sea and related river basin research systems and would promote the development and implementation of a durable, c ooperative, interdisciplin ary well integrated 
and focussed multi-national programme in suppor t of the region's sustainable development. 
The linkages with industry and ot her stakeholders and users woul d be strengthened at national 
level. This option would not require substan tial institutional change as the EEIG is well 
established; however, it would open up opportuniti es for other funding institutions to provide 
support in financing the Road Map for strate gic research that would benefit a wider 
community of economic and social interests th at depend upon resources derived from the 
Baltic System. It is the most promising polic y option in terms of achieving long-lasted and 
durable integration at th e institutional (funding agencies) as we ll as research community level.  
Policy Option 3 through approach C could be eff ective in the application of the intent and 
spirit of Article 169 and has strong potenti al for gaining added value from other 
complementary research activit ies funded under FP6 and FP7. It s success, however, relies 
heavily upon the achievement of  the objectives of the strategic phase. To affirm this 
achievement, a review of the strategic phase will be undertaken by the Commission's services 
together with an Independent Expert Review Committee in order to ve rify whether the goals 
and objectives set out in the initial Strategic phase have been achieved.  
The extra amount of resources that this option would mobilise for the Ba ltic sea research of 
the order of 100 million (EU and national contribu tions pooled together) to be channelled 
through the DIS instead of bei ng distributed randomly through various national calls over the 
5-year period (7 year period for policy option 3C ) is expected to make a considerable impact 
in terms of achieving unprecedente d "critical mass" in the syst em. Its shear size compares 
very favourably to the 36 million total nationa l contributions in 2004 to fund "competitive" 
and "no-competitive" research (see section 2.1).  This rather large significant increase in 
resources, complemented by the "qualitative" st ructural changes that this policy option is 
EN 34   EN expected to bring to the overall Baltic sea rese arch system, provides some guarantees as to the 
unquestionable potential of this pol icy option to achieve the genera l, specific and operational 
objectives set out for this initiative. 
7. EX-ANTE  EVALUATION  AND  COST-EFFECTIVENESS  ANALYSIS 
Policy options 2 and 3 B and C assume an EU contribution of the order of EUR 50 million. 
Policy option 3A assumes an EU contribution of EUR 36 million. 
Although there is not an explicit EU contribution under policy option 1, implicitly and in the 
absence of any Community-drive n, Baltic-specific initiative unde r FP7, the "liberated" 36-50 
million will be spent to fund other RTD pr ojects and other regul ar FP activities. 
Under Policy options 1 and 2, own resources to be  mobilised from the participating research 
institutes vary between 25 – 50 % of th e EU contribution depending on their status40. 
Under policy option 3A, B and C a financial co mmitment of the order of EUR 26M fresh 
money has been pledged by the Participating St ates together with additional "in-kind" and 
"infrastructure" contributions of EUR 10M. Under policy option 3 B and C and unlike policy 
option 3A, an additional funding of the orde r of EUR 14M will be sought from the 
Participating States by engaging further nationa l Funding Agencies during the strategic phase 
of the initiative. Projects to be implemented under the Article 169 initia tive will be funded by 
a shared financial contribution by both the Co mmunity and the Participating States. The EC 
would match the contributions made to the B ONUS-169 by the Participating States and this 
sharing will be done according to a ceiling to be fixed in the Commi ssion proposal for a co-
decision.  
Under policy option 3 through approach C an d unlike policy options 2, 3A and 3B, a 
maximum of 1.25 million Euros (to be matched by an equal amount by the PS) out of the total 
EU contribution will be provided to cover the eligible costs incurred during the strategic phase. This amount will be subtracted from the total EU contribu tion. This amount will 
however enhance the cost-effectiveness of this option since the strategic "mechanisms" to be 
put in place will greatly enhance the added value of the initiative and will strengthen 
considerably the policy relevance, effectiven ess and impact of the research activities 
envisaged under the implementation phase.  
The demand for Commission's staff to ensure th e scientific monitoring of the project(s) will 
be identical for all policy options, namely at least one AD 8-12 full-time Programme Officer, 
although with the expected EU contribution of 36-50 million Euro, five to ten RTD projects 
will, most likely, be funded under policy option 1 and 2 as opposed to a single Article 169 under policy option 3 A, B, C. However, expe rience with other Articles 169 shows that, 
whilst there will be less workload for the Commission's staff for everyday scientific monitoring of the Article 169, ther e will be much more demand for the processing of the legal 
procedures and for tasks relate d to communication (re plies to questions from EP and Council, 
briefings to Commissionaire, Dire ctor General etc) because of the high visibility and political 
sensitivity inherent in these initiatives.  
                                                
 
40 Guidance to Financial Issues relating to FP7 Indirect actions 
ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/ fp7/docs/financialguide_en.pdf 
EN 35   EN Under option 3 A, B and C however, there woul d be lower demand for Financial Officer to 
follow up the initiative in view of the fact th at the management will mostly be done by the 
DIS of the Article 169. Therefore,  the equivalent of half-time AD 8-12 for a Financial Officer 
will be required under option 3 A, B and C,  instead of one AD 8-12 full-time Financial 
Officer under policy option 1 and 2. 
Instead, an estimated amount of 5 M€ in total is  foreseen by the DIS for covering all costs for 
the programme management. This amount will be  shared by EU and Participating States 
according to a percentage to be fixed in the Commission decision, which will be considered as a ceiling to be respected by the DIS. This figure, approximately 5 % of the total programme 
cost, represents a very good value for the impl ementation of such an ambitious international 
joint research programme
41. 
Unavoidably, the assessment of the expected co st-effectiveness of the various policy options 
and the quantification of the role of region-wide  coordination of marine and maritime research 
is associated with remarkable uncertainty. In addition there is no similar blueprint in the EU or indeed worldwide to use as a benchmark fo r inter-comparison. As the ultimate product of 
such an initiative is new knowledge utilized to achieve sustainable use of the goods and 
services generated by the marine ecosystem and protecting the quality of the environment in 
longer perspective, it is  anticipated but without any hard  evidence to prove it, that co-
ordination and integration of national schemes that are envisaged to be addressed (to a 
varying degree of success) by policy option 3 through approaches A, B and C will be the more cost-effective way to achieve better quality knowledge in terms of reliability, 
comprehensiveness and relevance to the needs formulated by the users. 
Furthermore, building on existing programmes,  infrastructures and experiences and taking 
stock of the achievements made through th e previously funded BONUS ERA-NET and 
BONUS ERA-NET PLUS projects and implemen ting integrated research activities would 
promote synergies, optimise the use of new investments, avoid duplication of efforts and 
facilitate optimal trans-national use by the Baltic Sea scientific community of a large number of, sometimes extremely expensiv e, environmental research infrastructures, including marine 
research vessels. This will lead to more integr ated, synthesized and robust research "outputs" 
that would be more readily available to be up-taken by the policy domain. In contrast, whilst 
policy option 2 might well achieve new knowledge and research quality of an equally high 
standard as policy optio n 3 through approaches A, B and C, this policy option would not 
benefit from the solid basis regarding “institutio nal” integration that would allow a high level 
of integration (scientific, mana gement and financial) and syne rgies that the former ones are 
likely to yield. 
From the above analysis, policy option 3 through approach C also  represents the option with 
the highest impact and cost-eff ectiveness and efficiency.  
Also the role of science in the protection of th e Baltic Sea environment and sustainable use of 
its resources may be generalized as providi ng knowledge and decision support instruments 
enabling policy-makers and economic practitioners  to find and apply the most cost-efficient 
solutions and mitigation measures.  
Financial integration and role of BONUS EEIG 
                                                
 
41 To be born in mind that under the 6th Framework programme, the Commission would consider 
management costs up to 7 % of total project costs as refundable at 100 %   
EN 36   EN Projects to be implemented under the Articl e 169 initiative will be  funded by a shared 
financial contribution by both the Community and the Participating States. The administration 
of the Joint Research Programme will be ma naged centrally by the DIS according to common 
implementation and contractual rules. This a pproach demonstrates the absence of any "re-
nationalisation" of Community funds. The Community Contribution will be managed 
centrally by the DIS and will be directly provide d to final research bene ficiaries participating 
in research projects. This m odus operandi assures full transpar ency concerning the use of the 
Community contribution and contributes to the protection of the Community financial 
interest.  
Under Policy Option 2, no formal ro le would be given to DIS and no scientific, managerial or 
financial integration would be  achieved. Clearly the impact on existing national programmes 
will be minor and no long term perspective concerning research coordination can be expected.  
Other issues illustrating efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the chosen approach are raised in 
section 4. Many lessons learned fr om the EDCTP implementation ha ve and will be taken into 
account during the preparation and th e negotiations of the initiative. 
8. MONITORING  AND  EVALUATION   
The preferred option (policy option 3 through approach C) foresees a  BONUS-169 initiative 
implemented in two distinct phases - A first,  2-year strategic phase and a second 5-year 
implementation phase during which a minimum of 3 calls for proposals will be published.  
In addition to the ex-ante evaluation of the DIS th at will be carried out prior to the beginning 
of the Implementation Phase according to the Financial Regulation, the evaluation and monitoring of the BONUS initiati ve will be conducted by the Commission together with the 
assistance of independent expert s. Three reviews will  be conducted; a firs t review at the end 
of the strategic phase, a mid-term review dur ing the implementation phase and an ex-post 
review at the end of the im plementation phase. The Commissi on will evaluate the progress 
made towards each of the general, specifi c and operational objectives using a list of 
measurable indicators indicat ed below. The three planned independent reviews shall be 
complete and thorough and, with regard to the first review carried out at the end of the 
strategic phase, enable an informed decision re garding the progress of the initiative into the 
implementation phase to be taken. The result of  these three reviews could be published by the 
Commission. It should be noted that the main impacts of the initiative are expected to take 
place mainly towards the end of the BONUS programme. 
Each review will consider the relevant indicators detailed be low and will comprise a thorough 
assessment of those objectives that cannot be re presented by one or more simple indicators. 
Such a process will allow the intrinsic complex ity of objectives and risks, which span across 
scientific, societal, economic and environmental dimensions and which are also influenced by 
factors that are beyond the control of the initiative, to be fu lly taken into account. This review 
process will include both record able integration indicators and qualitative progress indicators. 
The following indicators could be used for mon itoring the initiative and would be assessed in 
line with the proposed objectives. 
Indicators at the level of the general  objective :
 
• The development and implementation of 'f it-for-purpose' regulations and policies 
and management practices aimed at sa feguarding the sustainable use of the 
ecosystem’s goods and services. 
EN 37   EN • The degree to which the initiative contribu tes to the establishment and structuring 
of the ERA in the Baltic Sea Region (e.g. increase in the percentage of the total 
funding going through the DIS) 
• The sustainability potential of the struct ures, mechanisms and procedures in place 
for guiding and managing research to underp in a sustainable development in the 
Baltic Sea region (e.g. decisions made by th e PS to prolong the existence of the 
DIS) 
• Active collaboration between the regiona l environmental research programmes 
and the relevant science communities in the other European sea basins is taking 
place  
Indicators at the level of the  specific and operational  objectives : 
• Strategic Research Agenda (scientific content of the programme focusing on the 
calls for proposals); 
• Setting-up of appropriate Stakeholder Cons ultation Platforms and mechanisms to 
promote active involvement of stakeholders 
• Establishment of Implementation Modalities: legal and financial rules, 
appropriateness of human resources of the DIS and communication modalities. 
• Number of joint researcher-stakehol der workshops for jointly identifying 
problems and knowledge gaps and for form ulating pertinent research questions. 
Additional national funding brought in by including new funding agencies 
• A list of all infrastructures and their av ailability potential for use by the funded 
projects 
• Number of international, national and regional stakehol der events organised and 
number of participants and sectors represented  
• Number of BONUS-driven joint events /cooperation activities/p artnerships with 
non-Baltic research actors and other European basins 
• Number of working days spent by scient ists from other national institutes on 
research vessels or shared use of other major infrastructures and the number of 
research infrastructures jointly used in BONUS-funded projects 
• Number of peer-reviewed publications arising from the Bonus Initiative and 
jointly-funded BONUS research projects with  authors from, at least, two different 
participating States  
• Number of peer-reviewed publications ar ising from the Bonus Initiative with 
authors from the new Baltic Member States 
• Number of common databases, merging ex isting and new data from the entire 
Baltic Sea System, that are openly acces sible and would allow comparative 
analysis and synthesis 
EN 38   EN • Number of international,  national and regional communication, dissemination and 
public outreach ini tiatives to disseminate BONUS-s pecific research results  
• Number of post-graduate c ourses and students participa ting in them organised by 
BONUS-169 projects 
• Number of SMEs and private companies pe r MS participating in BONUS projects  
• Number of BONUS-related mobility grants implemented 
• Total number of PhDs and post-docs funded by BONUS projects and/or 
supervised by institutes from other, th an native, participating Member States 
• Total number of researchers and resear ch organisations involved in BONUS 
projects by age class,  seniority and gender