EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 15/07/2008 
SEC(2008) 2281 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying document to the 
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSI ON TO THE COUNCIL, THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EU ROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMI TTEE OF THE REGIONS 
  
TOWARDS JOINT PROGRAMMING IN RESEARCH : 
Working together to tackle comm on challenges more effectively 
  
IMPACT ASSESSMENT  
 
{COM(2008) 468 final} 
{SEC(2008) 2282} 
 
EN 2   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES... 4 
1.1. Introduction.............................................................................................................. .... 4 
1.2. Organisation and timing............................................................................................... 4 1.3. Policy Background....................................................................................................... 4 1.4. External consultation and expertise ............................................................................. 7 1.5. Opinion of the Impact Assessment Board.................................................................. 14 2. PROBLEM DEFINITION ......................................................................................... 15 2.1. Europe's societal challenges and the role of research ................................................ 15 2.2. The need to improve the organisation of Europe's public R&D investment ............. 16 
2.3. European cooperation in public R&D – impr essive history, but progress is slow .... 21 
2.4. Why Europe needs a new process for joint strategic agenda sett ing and coordination 
of public R&D............................................................................................................ 23 
3. OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................ 27 3.1. General policy objectives........................................................................................... 27 3.2. Specific objectives: .................................................................................................... 27  
3.3. Operational objectives:............................................................................................... 27 3.4. Ensuring consistency with othe r EU policies and strategies...................................... 28 
4. PRESENTATION OF THE OPTIONS ..................................................................... 29 4.1. "Business-as-usual" option......................................................................................... 30 4.2. "Article 169 maximization" option ............................................................................ 30 4.3. "Community-driven strategic" option ........................................................................ 30 4.4. "Strategic European process" option.......................................................................... 31 5. ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACTS OF THE OPTIONS ........................................ 34 5.1. Level of stakeholder support and 'ownership'............................................................ 34 5.2. Strategic focus........................................................................................................... . 35 
5.3. Structuring effect........................................................................................................ 38 
5.4. Horizontal policy consistency.................................................................................... 39 5.5. S&T Impacts .............................................................................................................. 4 0 
5.6. Economic impacts ...................................................................................................... 44 
 
EN 3   EN 5.7. Social and environmental impacts ............................................................................. 45 
5.8. The preferred option and its impacts on different actors ........................................... 47 
6. RISK AND RISK MITIGATION.............................................................................. 48 7. MONITORING AND EVALUATION ..................................................................... 51 
ANNEX.......................................................................................................................... .......... 52 
 
EN 4   EN 1. PROCEDURAL  ISSUES  AND  CONSULTATION  OF INTERESTED  PARTIES 
1.1. Introduction  
This Impact Assessment accompanies the Co mmunication "Towards Joint Programming in 
Research", which is included in the Comm ission Legislative and Work Programme 20081 as 
one of the priority initiatives.2 Towards Joint Programming (JP) is one of five policy 
initiatives planned by the Commission in 200 8 as a follow-up to the Green Paper “The 
European Research Area: New Perspectives”.3 It responds to the dimension "Optimising 
research programmes and prioriti es" referred to in that paper. 
Conceived within the context of the revise d Lisbon Strategy, JP is  the process whereby 
Member States engage on a voluntary and à la carte basis in the definition, development and implementation of common research agendas addr essing a specific field or specific topic. 
This can involve the coordina tion of existing national progra mmes, or the setting up of 
entirely new ones, putting resources together  and collectively monitoring and reviewing 
progress. Through increasing and improving the cr oss-border collaborati on, coordination and 
integration of Member States' publicly funded research programmes in a limited number of 
strategic areas, it aims to he lp Europe to boost the efficiency  of public funding and to better 
address major societal challenges. The proposed approach is to promote JP through a high-
level political process driven by the Member Stat es, which would offer fl exibility in terms of 
instruments, geometry, and the level of prog ramme coordination and in tegration pursued. JP 
targets first and foremost public research programmes and thus public-public cooperation 
rather than public-private cooperation. Howe ver, industry may play a role in the 
implementation of partic ular JP initiatives. 
1.2. Organisation and timing  
Consultation with other Directorate-Generals  was carried out through an inter-service group 
composed of DG Education, DG Energy and Tr ansport, DG Enterprise, DG Information 
Society, DG Regional policy an d the Secretariat-General. Set up in November 2007, the 
group met three times and provided contributi ons during the preparation of the impact 
assessment. In addition, bilateral contacts were taken with DG Economic and Financial Affairs, DG Environment and the Joint Research Centre. 
1.3. Policy Background 
For many years, the Community has made us e of the various provisions of the Treaty
4 in 
order to encourage greater coordination and coope ration in research in Europe. However, over 
the last 15 years, the political support for enhanced and better coordination of research 
activities in Europe has strengthened consid erably, and has been reiterated many times by 
both the Council and the European Parliament.  
                                                 
1 Commission Legislative and Work Programme 2008 COM(2007) 640 final, Brussels, 23.10.2007. 
2 2008/RTD/035. 
3 COM(2007) 161. 
4 Notably, articles 165, 169 and 171of the Treaty establishing the European Community, Official Journal 
C 325 of 24 December 2002 
 
EN 5   EN In 1993, the European Council adopted an action plan5 in response to the White Paper on 
Competitiveness, Employment and Growth6 which highlighted the lack of coordination of 
Europe's R&D activities, programmes and strate gies, and recommended that measures should 
be taken to further effective coordination of these activities . The following year, the Corfu 
European Council concluded that particular  emphasis should be given to reinforced 
coordination of research policy to give new impetus in the follow-up debate on the White 
Paper. It invited the Council to  pursue a more systematic coordination of Community and 
national research policies a nd invited the Commission to take  any useful initiatives to 
promote such coordination.7 This concern was also shared by the European Parliament, which 
adopted a resolution on th e subject the same year.8 
A new impetus came in the year 2000 when the Lisbon European Council  in its endorsement 
of the Commission communication on the European Research Area (ERA)9 concluded that 
research activities at national and Union level must be better integrat ed and coordinated to 
make them as efficient and innovative as possible.  They also stated that the instruments under 
the Treaty and all other appropriate means, in cluding voluntary arrangem ents, must be fully 
exploited to achieve this objective in a flex ible, decentralised and non-bureaucratic manner. 
The Lisbon European Council reque sted that the Council and th e Commission, together with 
the Member States take the necessary steps as  part of the establishment of a European 
Research Area to develop appropriate mechanisms  for networking national and joint research 
programmes on a voluntary basis around freely chosen objectives.10 In the same year the 
Research Council held a debate in the light of the conclusions of the Lisbon European 
Council and the Commission Communication on ERA.  The Ministers encouraged the 
networking of national and joint research pr ogrammes on a voluntary ba sis to take greater 
advantage of the concerted resources de voted to R&D in the Member States.11 The Research 
Council also noted in the same year the importa nce for Member States of coordinating their 
R&D activities to ensure that national pol icies and Community policy were mutually 
consistent, and acknowledged the role that th e Commission could play  in promoting that 
coordination in cooperation with the Member States.12 
In 2001, the Research Council considered that th e use of Article 169 of  the EC Treaty could 
lead to greater coherence and integrati on of national and Community programmes and 
research policies. The Council invi ted the Member States to iden tify possible specific topics 
for pilot programmes where the use of Article  169 would be appropriate, in close liaison, 
where necessary, with the Commission, and also invited the Commission to come forward by 
early 2002 with proposals to the Council and Eur opean Parliament for participation by the 
Community in any such pilot programmes.13 In 2002, the Competitiveness Council 
recognised the importance of the mutual openi ng of national research programmes and the 
need for more coordination between national research programmes, as well as between 
                                                 
5 Presidency Conclusions, European Council, Bru ssels, 10-11 December 1993 . The Fourth Framework 
Programme for Research (1994-1999) was an integral part of the Action Plan. 
6 COM(1993) 700, 5 December 1993. 
7 Presidency Conclusions, European Council, Corfu, 24 - 25 June 1994. 
8 COM(1994) 438 final, Brussels, 19 October 1994. 
9 COM(2000) 6 final, Brussels, 18 January 2000.  
10 Presidency Conclusions, European Council, Lisbon, 23-24 March 2000. 
11 2272nd Council meeting (Research), Brussels, 15 June 2000. 
12 2305th Council meeting (Research), Brussels, 16 November 2000. 
13 2380th Council meeting (Research), Luxembourg, 30 October 2001. 
 
EN 6   EN national and Community programmes, and indica ted its support for the use of Article 169.14 
As a result, CREST launched five pilot ac tions for the mutual opening of national 
programmes. These actions were subsequently transformed into ERA-NETs, but the need for 
a framework for further discussi on on mechanisms was recognised. 
In 2004, the Competitiveness Council acknowledged the widespread interest in the ERA-NET 
scheme and encouraged the Commission to furt her develop it in FP7, supplemented by a new 
ERA-NET Plus tool which would allow the Comm unity to top-up Member States joint calls 
with EU funding. The Council also invited Memb er States and the Commission to identify a 
limited number of areas for furt her application of Article 169.15 In 2005, the Presidency 
invited Member States to set priorities together, to define  which national programmes should 
be co-ordinated and to consider the need for developing together a European strategy.16 
In 2006, the European Parliament put emphasis on better coordination of  regional, national 
and European research programmes and policie s in its proposed amendments. Their report on 
the FP7 proposal recognised that fragmentati on was a major obstacle to the success of the 
European research agenda, and suggested that "…it is vital that th e Seventh Framework 
Programme should support the coordination of national and regional research policies and 
programmes" and that in order  "to avoid fragmentation and overlapping competencies, there 
should be more cooperation between nati onal and European research programmes, and 
between economic actors in the long-term research agenda." 17 
In 2007, the Competitiveness Council invited Member States to " encourage Research 
Councils and National Funding Agen cies in Member States, as well as intergovernmental 
European Research Organisations, to expand thei r collaboration and to devise innovative 
forms of pooling together thei r expertise and resources on a mut ual voluntary basis for joint 
objectives ",18 and called on the Commission to cata lyse progress when ever appropriate.19 In 
February 2008, the Competitiveness Council adopted a key issues paper20 to be submitted to 
the 2008 Spring European Council encouragin g the Commission and Member States " to 
continue developing initiatives for joint prog ramming of research in areas where this 
approach is appropriate, allowing a more stra tegic and better structured approach to the 
launch of new joint programmes and common calls for projects from the end of 2010 ", and it 
welcomed the Commission's intention to pres ent a communication on JP in 2008.21 Again, in 
March 2008, the European Counc il urged the Member States and the Community to make 
swift progress on further initiatives for JP of research, mutually complementary international 
                                                 
14 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. 
15 2605th and 2624th Council Meetings (Competitiveness), Brussels, 24 September and Brussels, 25 and 26 
November 2004. 
16 UK Presidency Conference, Conference on the coordination of national research and development , 
Manchester, 21 October 2005. 
17 Report on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the 
seventh framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development 
and demonstration activities 2007 to 2013, (COM(2005) 0119 – C6-0099/2005 – 2005/0043(COD)) Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. Rapporteur: Jerzy Buzek. A6-0202/2006 (final), 1 June 
2006. 
18 These might include R&D infrastructures, collaboration in the creation and strengthening of pools of 
excellence of critical mass, the full internationalisatio n and/or shared approaches to research evaluation 
across Europe and to the encouragement of broader competition for research funding at national level. 
19 2832nd Council meeting (Competitiveness), Brussels, 22 and 23 November 2007. 
20 Council document 6933/08, Brussels, 26 February 2008. 
21 2852nd Council meeting (Competitiveness), Brussels, 25 February 2008. 
 
EN 7   EN S&T cooperation strategies and th e strengthening of research in frastructure of pan-European 
interest.22  
The above list of declarations and actions de monstrates the clear a nd long-standing political 
support for the improved coordination of research  activities in Europe. As will be shown in 
the next section, there is also a strong and sustained stakeholde r support for initiatives in this 
direction.  
1.4. External consultation and expertise  
In developing the Communication and the imp act assessment, the Commission services 
consulted stakeholders and drew upon exte rnal expertise in the following ways: 
• an open consultation was carried out on th e "The European Research Area: New 
Perspectives" Green Paper,23 which included detailed questions relating to the optimisation 
of research programmes and priori ties through JP type activities; 
• an expert group was set up to deliver analys es and views concerning the optimising of 
research programmes and priorities for the development of the ERA;24 
• a dedicated debate on the same topic was he ld at the Portuguese Presidency conference 
"The future of Science and Technology";25 
• and views expressed in a variet y of other public consultations  and opinion surveys relating 
to science and technology and research policy is sues were analysed and taken into account. 
1.4.1.  Consultation on the ERA Green Paper - St akeholders’ opinions concerning JP 
The open consultation on the "The European Re search Area: New Perspectives" Green Paper 
invited responses on a number of issues re lating to optimising research programmes and 
priorities in Europe and the importance of JP type activ ities. The consultation gave 
stakeholders the possibility to respond in two ways - via an on-line questionnaire and via more detailed position papers (for a more detailed analysis of the findings see Annex 1). 
Views expressed in the position papers 
Table 1 summarises the opinions expressed in  the position papers responding to the ERA-
Green Paper consultation on the topics related to research c oordination (see Annex 1). There 
was a general convergence in the opinions of the different groups of stakeholders, with some divergences on certain specific issues. All more  or less agreed on the principal issues of 
fragmentation and the need for coordination, as well as the importance of  shared principles 
                                                
 
22 Presidency Conclusions, European Council, Brussels 13 and 14 March 2008. 
23 COM(2007) 161, Brussels, 4 April 2007.  
24 The work of the ERA expert group on " Optimising public research programmes and priorities " was 
carried out in 2007-2008 and relates to the core objective of JP, i.e., to  ensure effective European-level 
coordination of national and regional research activitie s, programmes and policies, especially on issues 
of European interest . 
25 Held in Lisbon on the 8-10 October 2007, the conference was a key stakeholder event that brought 
together nearly 500 representatives of the MS, in dustry, academia, and civil society and was jointly 
organised by the Portuguese Presidency of the EU  and by the EC DG-Research. One session was 
dedicated to the limitations and enabling factors of national research programme coordination.  
 
EN 8   EN for evaluation, peer review, accountability, etc of  public research programmes. There was also 
a high level of consensus that JP should be focussed on societal issues. Foresight and 
participative processes or platforms - such as European Technology Platforms adapted to 
societal issues - were suggested as approaches for identifying the areas for JP. No particular 
instrument or mechanism was favoured, but flexibility, variable geometry and bottom-up 
processes were stressed. Some f ear was expressed concerning too prescriptive models dictated 
by the Commission. The favoured role of the Co mmission was that of facilitator and soft 
coordinator. 
 
EN 9   EN Table 1 : Stakeholders' positions relative to JP 
Questions / Issues Member States  Funding agencies Higher Education 
Institutions Other publ. sector R&D 
performers  Business organisations 
Challenges & 
priorities Focus on societal challenges 
and issues , e.g., climate change, 
health, food, energy and 
globalisation (also long–term 
priorities, and focus on strategic/emerging areas and own 
strengths.) (long-term orientation, 
optimising general conditions for science) Society driven 
research, e.g., ageing 
 (Societal issues related 
to the maritime world, e.g., management of 
natural and living 
resources, climate change, marine energy, 
…) Mainly societal issues 
with European added 
value ; (focus on critical 
mass in areas related to 
competitiveness) 
Coordination / 
fragmentation Need for coordination especially 
linked to common challenges, 
but with the reserve that diversity must be preserved. 
Fragmentation recognised as a 
problem in certain areas (yes)  Little recognition of 
fragmentation as a 
problem  Coordination through 
selective, stepwise  
approach respecting 
subsidiarity principle, 
Fragmentation a real 
problem, but diversity 
also positive  (protected 
national systems 
limiting competition as much a problem as 
fragmentation)  Fragmentation and 
duplications recognised 
as problematic 
How? - 
Identification of 
areas/topics for JP  Engagement of  civil society and 
"users" through  foresight  and 
other participative processes emphasised; Impact assessment and evaluation also seen as 
important (IPCC pointed to as 
model). Stepwise ; not just 
foresight but also high-
level workshops; mix 
bottom-up with top-
down approach  ETP type platforms 
adapted for societal 
issues Strong support for 
Foresight, Technology 
Platform and ESFRI inspired activities; CREST could play a 
role. 
 Further development 
of ETPs  strongly 
supported, also other participative and exploratory forums; user 
focused research 
emphasised 
How? - Common 
principles for peer review, quality 
and joint 
evaluation, as well as the 
accountability of 
public research funding?  Importance of shared principles 
through bottom-up approach and sharing of best practice but 
divergence on degree of 
centralisation . Yes, through flexible 
bottom-up approach ; 
helps assessing the 
European added value 
and advancement of ERA Yes: to be developed 
through bottom-up 
approach rather than 
top-down approach 
(building on ERC experience) Yes, would provide 
synergies and increase 
competition ; better 
policymaking (through 
common indicators) Strongly supported , to 
increase effectiveness and efficiency of R&D 
system although 
voluntary approach 
favoured  
 
How? - National 
programmes 
opened to 
participants from other Member 
States? YES: Especially for "curiosity 
driven"/basic research and in 
areas of common interest.  (Yes), through step-
wise approach (Yes, if in 
partnership with 
national research 
groups) 
 Mixed; common pots 
would increase 
competition but not 
always appropriate or 
feasible ; on voluntary 
basis.  YES; through  gradual 
approach ; (support to 
opening to third 
countries on a reciprocal basis) 
How? - Most 
appropriate 
instruments? Support for existing 
instruments (Article 169, ERA-
NET, etc); need for better use 
and evaluation of existing ones 
before new ones are introduced - 
too many instruments risks 
creating fragmentation (combination of 
national and European 
evaluation and 
funding); (ERA-NET scheme needs more 
coherence and 
consistency)  Divergence in 
preferences from 
public-private 
"Knowledge and Innovation Centres" 
led joint programmes 
to OMC ERA-NET good but not 
sufficient; flexible and 
variable geometry 
schemes needed; bilateral cooperation as 
starting point for multi-
lateral cooperation;  Development of 
existing instruments  
rather than new one, 
especially make ERA-NET Scheme more 
effectives 
How? - Role for 
EC/Commission? Commission to act as a 
facilitator; 
Case- by-case approach to JP on 
a voluntary and variable 
geometry basis; importance of 
OMC stressed (EC as coordinator and 
facilitator of European research policy; more coordination of 
initiatives in place) EC should help to 
join identification and to agenda-setting for society-driven 
and coordinate 
national funding of research to mobilise 
critical mass EC to act as  facilitator 
and coordinator  of 
actions and priority setting (facilitator)  
The role of demand 
oriented policies and public procurement 
stressed; closer links 
between research and innovation needed 
( ) = limited number of answers. Source: "The European Research Area: New Perspectives"  Green Paper open 
consultation position papers. 
 
EN 10   EN Position papers were also received from Eur opean institutions. The European Parliament 
considered that it was appropriate to implemen t reciprocal opening of national programs to 
participants from other Member Stat es, especially in frontier research. 26 It also considered it a 
step forward to exchange information on existing national program s and to encourage 
evaluation of national research activities by in ternational panels. The Parliament considered 
variable geometry mechanisms suitable to devel op adequate flexibility in the realisation of 
thematic programs. It believed that actions should be taken to upd ate existing forms and 
instruments of cooperation, incl uding COST and EUREKA, and to adapt them to the ERA 
perspective, and that the priorities for public research funding shou ld be based on a broad 
approach, incorporate long-term strategies and involve both public and private stakeholders.27 
The European Economic and Social Committee indicated that it was in favour of open 
coordination based on a bottom-up approach and rejected any far-reaching attempts to apply top-down coordination and standa rdisation. It also emphasised the need for a plurality of 
methods, approaches and choice of issues.
28 The Committee of the Regions put forward a 
similar opinion.29 It emphasised the role of regional and local authorities in the coordination 
of research activities. The Committee endorsed  the ERA-NET scheme and believed that it 
should be developed further, but regretted that "social platforms" were not addressed in the 
ERA Green Paper, which it considered "a  genuine innovation […] to formulate and 
implement strategic research efforts around major challenges facing Europe an society, e.g. the 
environment, ageing population and integration."30  
Responses to the on-line questionnaire 
The responses to the online questionnaire (see  annex 1) confirmed the opinions provided 
through the position papers. The overwhelming majority respondents were in favour of 
increased coordination through join t research programming activities, especia lly as far as the 
identification of future res earch challenges and opportuniti es was concerne d (Figure 1). 
Although both small and large company responde nts strongly supported the coordination of 
programming activities (88% a nd 82% respectively), small firms were much less favourable 
to a structured dialogue at the EU-level, wh ich might be explained by their more limited 
capacities to part icipate in such dialogues.  Governmental bodies we re also highly supportive 
                                                 
26 European Parliament, Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. Draft Report on Commission 
Green Paper "The European Research Area – New Perspectives", 26 August 2007. 
27 " This New Deal would involve a more ambitious a pproach towards the realis ation of the ERA. Unlike 
the original initiative, it does not simply promote the establishment of links between existing European 
S&T players, each with their own existing roles and responsibilities. […] It could mean an expansion of national or regional activities in some areas or it could lead to an increase in EU-level actions in 
others. It may even result in a need to build ne w, common European S&T institutions, looking at 
organizations like CERN and ESA, good examples of success stories. The New Deal would mean preparing these decisions together based on solid, shared evidence, and bravely facing the changes. 
The EU ability to do so could herald a new phase for European research. " Ibid, p. 12. 
28 Opinion of the European Economic and Social Co mmittee on the Green Paper "The European Research 
Area – New Perspectives", INT/358, Brussels, 24 October 2007. 
29 The Committee of the Regions stated that "the  EU should only legisl ate where this appears 
indispensable to the creation of a European Research  Area and where coordinating measures, inter alia 
under the open method of coordination, are not sufficient. Beyond this, the Committee continues to 
reject any centralised planning at European level; supports the idea of coordination of regional and 
national research programmes and priorities". Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Commission Green Paper "The European Research Area – New Perspectives", EDUC-IV-011, 10-11 October 2007. 
30 Ibid, p. 7.  
 
EN 11   EN of stronger coordination action, especially in  basic research, favouring a more bottom-up 
approach. 
Figure 1: Responses of R&D Actors to the question "D o we need to work together, more closely, at EU 
level " 
Is E U action needed for the purpose of:
406080100Structured dialogue
Identification of challenges
Selection of research priorities Project peer reviewProgramme evaluation
Commercial organisation (<250 emp.)
Commercial organisation (>250 emp.) 
 
Is EU action needed for the purpose of:
406080100Structured dialogue
Identification of challenges
Selection of research priorities Project peer reviewProgramme evaluation
Governmental body Research funding organisation
Higher Education Institutions Public sector research performer
 
Source: "The European Research Area: New Perspectives"  Green Paper open consultation on-line responses.  
An analysis by nationality of respondents al so revealed some interesting differences. 
Respondents from a cluster of large member states (Germany, France,  Italy, Spain and 
Poland) together with Belgium, the Netherla nds, Denmark and Estonia showed a marked 
support for several aspects of JP . In particular, the need for EU action in the field of the 
identification of challenges was supported by almo st 90% of the respondent s in this cluster. 
There was very strong support for EU action in the field of project peer review (82%) and 
programme evaluation (79%). The selection of the research pr iorities and the structured 
dialogue also received signifi cant support (69% and 65% respectively). Respondents from a 
second cluster of small and medium-sized me mber countries (Port ugal, Greece, Finland, 
Ireland, Bulgaria and Romania) indicated a stro ng support for JP. Over 96% considered that 
EU action is needed in the identification of challenges. Project peer review and programme 
evaluation also scored very high (88 and 91% respectively). Finally, th e support for increased 
 
EN 12   EN cooperation was less marked amongst respondents from a third group of countries consisting 
of Sweden, the UK, Austria and the Czech Republic. Here too, however, support for EU 
action in the identification of challenges (80% ), Project peer review (72%) and Programme 
evaluation (62%) was substantial.  The pattern of responses i ndicates that th e size of the 
country and the relative strength in research might influence the views of the stakeholder with 
respect to the potential benefits from  the coordination of  national programmes.31 
Figure 2 Responses of the Member States to the question " Do we need to work together, more closely, at EU 
level " 
 Is EU action needed for the purpose of:
020406080100Structured dialogue
Identification of challenges
Selection of research priorities Project peer reviewProgramme evaluation
CZ, A T, SE, UK DK, NL, EE, FR, BE, IT, DE, ES PT, GR, BG, FI , RO, IR
 
Source: "The European Research Area: New Perspectives"  Green Paper open consultation position papers. 
1.4.2.  Experts’ opinions on JP 
The expert group on "Optimising research progra mmes and priorities for the development of 
the ERA" was set up to debate the issues rela ted to the coordination of national research 
effort. It concluded that "toda y’s fragmented and sub-critical research efforts need an 
optimised framework for the funding and executi on of research", and th at "coordination and 
cooperation between research a nd technology policies and program mes in Europe presents a 
huge opportunity for mobilising the research pote ntial, capacities and ca pabilities across all 
European regions". The expert group recommen ded that the Member States, under the aegis 
of the Competitiveness Council, should develop a common vision  with priorities for trans-
national research; establish a co mmon set of principles and ope rative guidelines, as well as 
eliminate legal barriers and administrative obstacles for trans-na tional collaboration; 
implement more strategic, sustainable a nd efficient trans-national programming and 
coordination of national research programmes, using differentiated approaches for frontier 
science, applied research and societal resear ch; and, ensure the invol vement of programme 
owners and managers and other research  actors in the whole policy design and 
implementation process. The expert group al so recommended that the Commission should 
evaluate all ERA mechanisms individually and systemically to support the development of a 
common set of principles and ope rative guidelines (in what it terms the "ERA-Frame"); that it 
should, together with Member States and stak eholders, provide common guidance and tools 
                                                 
31 Countries with less than 5 participants in the survey were omitted. 
 
EN 13   EN for the implementation of each of the different  ERA mechanisms; and, that it should promote 
and disseminate best practices and results  from trans-national coordination and JP.32  
Another important debate on the issues relati ng to research coordination in the ERA took 
place at a major conference in Lisbon organised by the Portuguese Presidency in the autumn of 2007. A session dedicated to optimising research  programmes and priorities concluded that 
it is now up to the Member States to move, by developing a strategic policy framework. This 
framework should determine which policy acti ons should be done regionally, nationally 
and/or internationally. Principles  such as variable geometry a nd subsidiarity should be an 
integral part of this strategy. The session also concluded that there is a need for a high level 
process and platform to discuss these national strategi es and the European vision or long term 
strategy that transpires from these. Participants felt that there was no one-size-fits-all approach to JP - different types of research ha ve different dynamics and drivers; that serious 
legal, administrative barriers still hamper  the process of JP, opening up programmes and 
policy coordination, and that a lack of political will at the Member State level is preventing 
these forms of coordination to be taken a step  further. A plethora of instruments already 
exists, as do successful examples of trans-na tional cooperation. Learning from the evidence of 
current mechanisms should be made before in troducing new ones, and too many instruments 
may cause further fragmentation. There was also  a general agreement of the need to move 
swiftly - that time is of essential importan ce and any process of strategy formulation and 
vision building should not hold up actions in the short term.
33 
1.4.3.  Stakeholders' opinions on the key role of  research and the need for enhanced 
coordination  
As well as examining the responses from the open consultation on the ERA Green Paper, an 
analysis was also made of a variety of ot her public consultations and opinion surveys in 
which citizens, policymakers and other stakehol ders expressed their vi ews on matters relating 
to the role of research in addressing Europe's societal challenges, and the need for enhanced 
coordination of public R&D in Europe (f or detailed findings see Annex 2).  
Theses sources show that citizens, policymakers and other stakeholders are of the view that 
the challenges requiring coordi nated European action are incr easingly societal and cross-
border in nature. There is also a strong consensus that research can play a significant role in 
facing these challenges which correspond clos ely to the concerns of citizens.  
There is also clear and general support for jo int EU-level action to improve the coordination 
of public research efforts, and in particular  the coordination of national programmes which 
many believe can increase the efficiency  of the overall EU research system. 
1.4.4.  Summary of the stakeholders’ opinions 
Four main messages emerge from the opinions e xpressed by stakeholders and experts, which 
can be summarised as follows: 
                                                 
32 Expert group on "Optimising research programmes  and priorities for the development of the ERA" 
Final Report, Brussels, 26 February 2008. 
33 Session on " Optimising research programmes and priorities ", "The future of Science and Technology " 
Presidency Conference, Lisbon, 8-10 October 2007 (rapporteur P. Boekholt, director Technopolis 
Group). 
 
EN 14   EN (1) There is very strong support for the identifi cation of future research challenges and 
opportunities through foresight, as well as th e use of "Social Platforms" (in analogy 
with Technology Platforms). In the areas iden tified as being of common interest, there 
is a broad consensus on the necessity of launching joint foresight and joint evaluation 
before launching new targeted policy initiatives. 
(2) There is a need for more efficient, eff ective and strategic c oordination of Member 
States' research programmes, especially for tackling common societal challenges. 
Stakeholders agree that addressing res ource-intensive and complex scientific 
challenges requires cross-borde r cooperation between public authorities. Reinforced 
coordination of national programmes and targ eted joint actions are considered as a 
mechanism for realising the ERA. 
(3) A voluntary, bottom-up approach coupled with strategic top-down guidance is 
considered indispensable for ensuring flex ibility and customisation to programme 
specificities. Stakeholders al so stressed the need for a differentiated approach to 
coordination on a case-by-case basis respecting the principles of subsidiarity, variable 
geometry and real European added va lue. There was support for shared and 
transparent principles for funding and ev aluation; too rigid top down EC level 
coordination was not favoured, as it coul d reduce positive competition and diversity. 
(4) A one-size-fits-all approach is rejected; a majority of the stakeholders agree that 
specific research areas demand specifi c modes of coopera tion and tailored 
instruments. For instance, for basic/curios ity-driven research th ere is strong support 
for the opening up of national programme s. The appropriate use of existing 
instruments (e.g., ERA-NETs, ERA-NET Plus , Article 169, JTI, OMC, creation of 
new European research institutes, etc.) in sp ecific areas is prefe rred to inventing new 
ones.  
1.5. Opinion of the Impact Assessment Board 
The draft Impact Assessment was submitted to the Impact Assessment Board on 14 April 
2008. It issued its opinion on 14 May 2008. In a ddition to some technical comments, the 
Board made several substantial suggestions for improvement. These comments have been 
taken into account in the following way: 
• The options section 4 has been further develope d in order to make the differences between 
the options more distinct, including with regard to the role of the Community and the Member States, and the selection of themes and instruments under option 4. 
• A more detailed explanation has been provided in sections 5.8 and 6 on how the preferred 
option addresses the reluctance of public bodies and other stake holders to take forward the 
integration of national pub lic research programmes. 
• Further clarification has been  introduced in section 2 a nd 6 regarding the issue of 
collecting information on nati onal programme activities. 
 
EN 15   EN 2. PROBLEM  DEFINITION 
2.1. Europe's societal challenges and the role of research 
2.1.1.  Research can contribute to tacklin g Europe's societal challenges 
Europe will face a substantial number of major so cietal challenges in the coming years: from 
boosting economic growth and competitiveness to  tackling climate change and securing its 
energy supply. The challenges referred to in the Commission consultation paper adopted in 
view of the 2008/2009 budget review include  increased global competition; the 
transformation to a knowledge and service ec onomy; demographic sustainability; social 
justice; climate change; secure , sustainable and competitive energy; migratory pressure; and 
security and safety.34  
Research has a pivotal role to play in addressing these priorities on the EU agenda in the 
coming decades, precisely because science and te chnology can help provide solutions to all of 
the major challenges facing the EU. For example,  in the new global landscape, with emerging 
economies such as India and Chin a increasingly competing not just  on price but also in terms 
of innovative products, science, technology a nd innovation will be the main engines of 
Europe's economic growth and competitiveness. When it comes to tackling public health and other social challenges - includi ng the consequences of an ag eing population - science and 
technology can also help th rough developing new medicine s and treatments, improving 
prevention and diagnosis, and delivering better treatments for age-related illnesses. And in 
finding solutions to the problems of energy su pply and environmental degradation, S&T will 
play a key part, for example, through provi ding new technologies for reducing energy 
consumption, and through developing new energy sources. 
2.1.2.  The need to raise S&T performance by in vesting more efficien tly and effectively 
A pre-condition for Europe to be able to meet these societal challenges is that its research 
system must be capable of producing results of the highest standard . However, Europe's 
performance in science and tec hnology presents a mixe d picture, and in many important areas 
it needs to raise its level if it is to meet the ma jor challenges it faces. To do this, it will have to 
adopt a two-pronged strategy: it must try to stim ulate higher levels of investment in R&D, and 
it must try to use this investment more efficien tly and effectively. The so cietal nature of the 
challenges moreover implies that the pub lic sector must take the lead. 
The first of these strategies – investing more – has proven extremely difficult in practice. 
Europe is currently unde r-investing in research compared wi th its main partners. Although the 
3% target for R&D spending has been a ma jor EU goal since 2002, research spending has 
largely stagnated over the past  decade. In 2006, the EU27 sp ent 1.84% of GDP on Research 
& Development (R&D). In 2000, R&D intens ity for the same EU27 countries was 1.86%
35. 
The part funded by government has also been fl at over the same period, with Member States 
unable to expand their R&D budgets  significantly owing to macr o-economic pressures. At the 
same time, Europe's share of global R&D sp ending is falling, as ne w research-intensive 
                                                 
34 SEC(2007) 1188 final, Brussels, 7 July 1997. 
35 Eurostat, Gross Expenditures on Research &Development (GERD) data. 
 
EN 16   EN countries emerge on the world stage. The share of EU-25 in the R&D e xpenditure of a set of 
major 20 OECD and non-OECD economies dec lined from 28.9% in 1995 to 25% in 2005.  
If Europe cannot rapidly increas e spending on research, then it must pursue with even more 
vigour the complementary strategy of trying to make better use of its scarce R&D resources 
by investing them more efficiently and effectivel y. In this context, the public sector has an 
important role to play by seeking, against th e background of budgetary re straint, to increase 
the return on public R&D funds. 
There are many ways of trying to boost the impact and efficiency of public R&D, and 
Member States have pursued numerous approaches in recent years. However, as the next section will show, one of the paths which has been under-exploited and which offers great 
potential gains relates to improving the orga nisation of Europe's public R&D investment 
through increased cross-border progra mme collaboration and coordination. 
2.2. The need to improve the organisation of Europe's public R&D investment 
2.2.1.  Performance in key S&T fields is not ju st a matter of levels of investment 
In some fields of research, under-investment in R&D compared with its global partners, may 
be part of the reason for Europe's weaker perfor mance. Yet raising levels of public investment 
has proven difficult, as outline d above. However, in other fi elds Europe is investing 
generously by international standards, but it is sti ll lagging when it comes to the impact of this 
research. In both cases – where there is under-investment and wh ere funding is adequate – if 
S&T performance is weak then this will make it more difficult for Europe to tackle the 
challenges it faces. The solution lies in trying to get more out of the research system by 
improving the organisation of Eu rope's public R&D investment 
The most obvious example of an S&T fiel d particularly affected by public R&D 
underinvestment is health research, in which th e US spends more than twice as much as 
Europe relative to GDP, and almost three times as  much when measured re lative to the size of 
the respective populations.
36 It is no surprise then that in these areas, Europe's S&T 
performance lags behind that of its main partne rs. For instance, while the number of European 
scientific publications in the field of medicine is comparable to that of the US, they receive 
far fewer citations.37 Another field where Europe budget is far below the public funding in US 
is biotechnology. In 2005, the total public funding of biotechnology in all 32 European 
countries amounted to 4 077M PPP$ (€3 540M) while federal public funding of 
biotechnology in the United Stat es amounted to 23 200M PPP$, whic h is more than five times 
more than Europe's funding.38 Not surprisingly, at both the European and the US patent 
offices, the US seriously outperforms Europe in terms of biotech patents.39 
                                                 
36 Public R&D investment in the field of health amounts to 0.14 % of GDP in Europe but no less than 0.33 
% of GDP in the US (European Medical Research Council White Paper 2007, European Science 
Foundation). 
37 Science & Innovation Investment Framework 2004-2014: Next Steps . A report by the Department of 
Health, the Department for Education & Skills, the DTI and HM Treasury, March 2006. The 
pharmaceutical industry in figures . A report of the European Federa tion of Pharmaceutical Industries 
and Associations (EFPIA), June 2006. 
38 BioPolis, Final Report, March 2007, pp. 52-53. 
39 European Commission, Europe in the global research landscape , 2007, p. 57. 
 
EN 17   EN However, there are counter-examples of S&T fi elds addressing societal challenges where the 
problem does not appear to be one of resource s and where Europe's public sector appears to 
be investing (almost) as much as or even mo re than its main partners. In those fields, 
however, Europe does not appear to  perform as well as or better than its pa rtners, which given 
comparable or higher levels of funding one would expect.  
For instance, in 2005, government budgets for e nvironmental research (" control and care of 
the environment") amounted to €2.2 billion in Europe, compared with €0.5 billion in the US.40 
In the same year, government budgets for ener gy research overall (" production, distribution, 
and rational utilisation of en ergy") amounted to €2.2 billion in  Europe, compared with €1.2 
billion in the US.41 In specific energy research sub-fields  as well, the public sector invests 
substantially more in Europe than in the US.42 For example, the public sector invested about 
350 million Euro in hydrogen and fuel cell resear ch in Europe, and about 240 million Euro in 
the US in 2005. However, in te rms of performance Europe need s to do better. In hydrogen 
and fuel cells research, Europe is leading in terms of scient ific publications in  the fields of 
'hydrogen production' and 'hydrogen storage', but wh ile in the former the gap with its nearest 
competitor (US) is still comfortable, in the latt er the gap with its nearest competitor (China) is 
very small. And in the field of 'fuel cells', Europe has already been overtaken by the US in 
terms of scientific publications. In terms of patents, Europe is seriously outperformed by the 
US and Japan as far as both 'conversion and utilisation' and 'hydrogen production' are 
concerned.43 In bioenergy, the average level (f rom 2000 to 2004) of Europe's public RTD 
funding has been a third higher than that of its main competitor, US. However, while US are heavily focused on a limited number of projects such as  integrated bio-refi neries with greater 
chances of success, European rese arch, despite some countries be ing very active, appears still 
"random" and ends up deliveri ng fewer results in return. 
Another example is in the field of nanotechnologies, wher e European public research funding 
is almost comparable to th at in the US. In the period 2004-2006, European public funding in 
the field of nanotechnology, was even  higher in Europe (4.7 billi on Euro) than in the US (3.8 
billion Euro) with Germany as top spender, followed by France and UK.
44 Yet, since 2002, 
Europe's leading position in nanotechnology publica tions is weakening in  relation to the US,45 
and there is also clear evidence that th e US is outperforming Europe in terms of 
nanotechnology patents.46 For example, the top ten patenting institutions at the US Patent and 
                                                 
40 Eurostat, Government Budget Appropriations or Outlays on Research &Development (GBOARD) data 
41 Ibid. 
42 In photovoltaic research, the public sector invested about 110 million euro in Europe compared with 
about 55 % of that amount in the US. In biomass-bioenergy research, the public sector invested about 
103 million euro in Europe, or about 50 % more than in the US. The European public sector invested about 100 million euro in CO2 capture and storage research, and the US one about 50 million euro. In 
wind research, Europe's public sector investment was about 57.7 million euro compared with 32.1 
million euro by the US one. 
43 HY-CO (ERA-NET), Report on indicators of hydrogen and fuel cells research, 27 September 2006, p. 
33. 
44 Angela Hullmann European Commission, DG Research, Unit “ Nano S&T - Convergent Science and 
Technologies ”, November 2006. 
45 European Commission, Europe in the global research landscape , 2007, p. 45. 
46 Ibid, p. 46; OECD, Compendium of Patent Statistics, Paris, 2007; Masatsura Igami and Teruo Okazaki, 
Capturing Nanotechnology’s Current State of Development via Analysis of Patents, in: STI Working 
Paper  2007/4, OECD, Paris, 2007. 
 
EN 18   EN Trademark Office are all from the US, and only four of the institutions in the European Patent 
Office top ten are from Europe.47 
S&T fields differ hugely in terms of, for exampl e, the amount of R&D invested, the degree of 
existing coordination/fragmenta tion and performance – and ther e is no straightforward linear 
relationship between these fact ors. The graph below shows the size of public funding, an 
assessment of the degree of coordination/fragme ntation at European le vel, and the relative 
size of European public funding compared  to the US for some S&T fields. 
The graph below (Figure 3) is not exhaustive, bu t serves to illustrate that each S&T field is 
unique and requires its own tailo red approach to Joint Programming, the development of 
which should be evidence-based and grounded in th e strategic analysis of detailed information 
on respective S&T fields. 
This will require the full involvement of Member States. 
Figure 3 A scattered public research in the European Research Area  
Ocean energy
Hydrogen and
 fuel cellsCO2 capture and storage
Wind energyBiomass - Bioenergy
Geothermal
Grids electricity
Cancer 
Brain diseases
Dementia - Alzheimer NANOTECHNOLOGIES
BIOTECHNOLOGIES INFORMATION AND COMMU-
NICATION TECHNOLOGYSPACEPOLLUTION AND ENVIRONMENT 
PROTECTION
Polar programsAGRICULTURE PRODUCTION AND 
TECHNOLOGYNuclear fusion 
PhotovoltaicConcentrated solar thermal
CIVIL SECURITYNanosafety
Rare diseases
Low coordination/ High fragmentation Low fragmentation / High coordinationInvesting less 
than the  US Investing more than 
the  USInvesting as 
much as the US
Medium
 
X-axis : This estimates the degree of coordinati on among Member State (MS) research programmes 
and of funding and institutional fragmentation, based on qualita tive assessments from scientific 
publications, strategic reports, etc;  Y-axis
: This presents the logarithmic ratio of publ ic R&D investment in Europe (MS+European 
Commission (EC)) compared to US, 
Size of bubbles : This is directly proportional to the am ount of European public funding (MS+EC), 
based on New Cronos (e.g. GBAORD) and US govern ment data as well as scientific publications  
                                                 
47 Hsinchun Chen, Mihail C. Roco, Xin L. and Yiling Lin, Trends in nanotechnology patents, In: Nature 
Nanotechnology , Volume 3, March 2008. 
 
EN 19   EN 2.2.2.  Europe's S&T performance can be impr oved by better organ ising public R&D 
investment 
The above examples indicate that raising levels  of public investment should not be the only 
solution to improving Europe's performance in S& T. In those fields where R&D is generously 
provided for, but where Europe's performance shows cause for concern, there is reason to 
explore how these funds can be spent more effici ently and effectively. This is even more the 
case in those low-performing areas where pub lic research investment is too modest by 
international standards, and wh ere it is difficult for governments to radically increase funding.  
There are of course many factors that Europe could try to tackle to boost its performance in 
certain areas, and which it might try to tackle. These include, for example, problems related to 
the transformation of research results into marketable products and services, or to the 
governance of research institutions, notably un iversities, and their systems for managing 
research. However, a glaring weakness rela tes to the way it organises its public R&D 
investment, and more specifically the lack of cross-border progr amme collaboration and 
coordination. Today, barely 15 % of European pu blicly financed civil R&D, and less than 6% 
of total R&D investment is financed in partne rship and coordinated at European level (see 
Figure 4). This is done mainly through the Framework Programme (FP) and other 
Intergovernmental schemes (see Annex 3). Add itional coordination of industry financed R&D 
takes place through exclusively private joint ventures as well as through the newly introduced Joint Technology Initiatives. In addition, the Framework Programme indirectly coordinates 
part of the industry financed R&D through its leverage eff ect, by requesting that private 
companies co-finance publicly supported research projects.
48 JP nevertheless targets that 85% 
of government financed R&D which is currently programmed, financed, monitored and 
evaluated in a nationally fragmented landscape. 
As seen in Section 1, key stakeholders have  identified this lack of collaboration and 
coordination of public R&D investment as on e of the most importa nt problems currently 
affecting Europe's capability to address societal  challenges. Within the context, of the ERA 
Green Paper stakeholder consultation, for in stance, 80% of respondents agreed that 
addressing resource-intensive and complex sc ientific challenges requires cross-border 
cooperation between public authorities. 
And in fact, when one looks at particular S&T fields, there is su bstantial evidence of 
institutional, programme, procedural and other ki nds of diversity and a lack of joint agenda 
setting and coordination. While diversity can be considered an asset, research practitioners 
have identified the lack of coordination as a problem in a wide range of S&T fields. For 
example, it has been noted that research into ageing "seems to be well established though not 
nationally coordinated […] and th ere is an urgent need to pl an and coordinate it strategically 
                                                 
48 Other schemes, such as COST, ESF also play an important coordination role, but they do not directly 
finance R&D investments. The Structural Funds too provide a significant amount of funding to RTD 
related activities: 13 billion euro in the period 2000-2006 and 50 billion euro for the period 2007-2013 (roughly as much as the 7th Fram ework programme). The bulk of the funding has a strict geographical 
distribution and is non-coordinated between Member States. However, a smaller part, is dedicated to 
regional cooperation activities - many linked to diffe rent aspects of the prog ramming cycle; 292 million 
euro in the period 2000-2006, which will increase to 842 million in the period 2007-2013, i.e., an 
average of 120 million per year. Since these funds are transferred and administrated by 
national/regional authorities, however, they are included in the public financed civil R&D. Additional information on the statistical sources and methodology to construct the above estimates is provided in 
Annex 3. 
 
EN 20   EN at the national as well as the European level" .49 Similarly in the area of hydrogen and fuel 
cells it has been observed that " the EU25+ is spending too much on research into stationary 
applications, and not enough on research into hydrogen production, storage and distribution 
and portable applications. [...] cooperation betw een small research programmes in different 
countries can deliver benefits to the EU25+ as a whole by ef ficiently allocating resources 
according to which areas require further research"50. As highlighted in the previous chapters, 
coordination problems have been found in numer ous other research fields, for instance in 
cancer, Alzheimer, rare diseases, biodiversit y, climate change assessment and adoption, 
marine pollution, bioenergy, organic food & farming, industrial technology, security and 
transport. In cancer research, for example, tw o agencies in the US (NCI and NIH) provide 
85% of total public funding (equal to 4.5 billion dollars) whereas Europe has many 
governmental agencies as funders, each providin g on average 30-35 million euros. In the field 
of Alzheimer, the National Institute of Ageing fu nds a large part of public research in the US, 
whereas in Europe there is no similar institutional driving force.51 
This lack of pan-European cross-border progr amme collaboration and co ordination is giving 
rise to a number of serious problems. From a pan-European perspectiv e, European research 
efforts often unnecessarily duplicate each other and/or they lack the required programme 
scope (some topics are not researched at all) and scale or depth (ins ufficient resources are 
allocated to the research on each issue). Th e multitude of national procedures makes it 
difficult for cross-border projects and multin ational actors (e.g. MNEs) to access research 
funding. The resulting lack of cross-border proj ect collaboration makes it difficult to address 
common challenges jointly. It complicates th e necessary pooling of scattered data and 
expertise, cross-border human resources training and mobility, and the rapid dissemination of research results. And it hampers pan-European pub lic-private strategic re search agenda setting 
and horizontal policy coordination. 
Figure 4 : R&D financed in partnership as a share of  public financed civil R&D (left panel) and total 
R&D (right panel) 
 
Source : DG RTD estimates, for details on statis tical sources and methodology see annex 3. 
                                                 
49 ERA-AGE (ERA-NET):  Summary recommendations from the report of the first meeting of the 
European forum, 16 and 17 February 2005, p. 2. 
50 HY-CO (ERA-NET): Report on indicators of hydrogen and fuel cells research, 27 September 2006, 
p.19 and p.35. 
51 France is making Alzheimer's disease and other dementias (AD+) a priority under the French 
Presidency of the EU (second semester 2008) and setting up a national plan for fighting AD+. For more 
information, cfr: Menard Joël, Rapport au Président de la République, Commission Nationale chargée 
de l'élaboration de propositions pour un plan national concernant la maladie d'Alzheimer et les maladies 
apparentées, 8 Novembre 2007, pp. 118.  0102030405060708090100
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007Defense R&D financed by national government
Civil R&D financed by national government
Framework ProgrammesR&D financed by business enterprises
Resources to be 
coordinated through 
Joint Programming
Intergovernmental schemesR&D financed by governments
R&D financed in partnership
051015202530
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007R&D financed b y national government
Framework Pro grammesIntergovernmental schemesR esources to be 
coordinated through 
Joint Programming
 
EN 21   EN 2.3. European cooperation in public R&D – im pressive history, but  progress is slow 
2.3.1.  Europe has developed a variety of tr ansnational cooperation activities 
The role of R&D cooperation in producing more  efficient and effective research has long 
been recognised, and this is why numerous efforts have been made over the years by 
European countries to co -invest in research.  
The main complementary funding schemes designed to promote trans-national R&D 
cooperation are the EU Framew ork Programme, and the inter- governmental schemes COST 
and EUREKA. In addition, there are the variou s inter-governmental research organisations 
which have emerged over the last fifty years, such as CERN, the European Molecular Biology 
Organisation, the European Space Agency and the European Science Foundation. The result 
of this process is a landscape of different mechanisms for collaboration and coordination, 
each with its own rationale, advantages and disadvantages. (Annex 3 gives a more detailed analysis of these various cooperation schemes.) 
The European cooperative research landscape also includes the various bilateral R&D 
agreements that have been established between  EU Member States. A study in 2001 identified 
over 800 bilateral agreements in Europe.
52 For example, the Nordic countries have been very 
active in promoting bilateral cooperation involvi ng Nordic research institutions, fixed-term 
research programmes, Nordic Centres of Ex cellence (NCoE), grant schemes and the co-
ordination and planning of major in frastructure investments, with the recently created Nordic 
Research Board (NordForsk) as a central actor  
Despite these efforts, the share of inter governmental and Community actions for trans-
national R&D cooperation in total government financed civil R&D has stagnated over the 
past 10 years between 16 and 14%. Thus, despite the political consensus over the last 15 years 
that more needs to be done to coordinate na tional programmes (section 1), the situation on the 
ground has evolved at a very slow pace. 
Some recent initiatives have also tried to tack le the coordination of national programmes, but 
as will be seen below these have been very modest and limited in their impact.  
2.3.2.  Recent steps by the Community to enhan ce coordination – useful effects, but 
modest impact 
Recognising that more coordination was neede d, the Community has tried to reinforce its 
efforts to address this issue. The Open Me thod of Coordination was introduced in 2000 and 
has been applied to research policies. In  addition, under the 6th and 7th Framework 
Programmes new instruments were introduced to enhance the coordination of national 
programmes – ERA-NETs and Ar ticle 169 initiatives (see A nnex 4 for a more detailed 
presentation of these efforts). They have been widely welcomed and first results are 
promising. However, these instruments remain extremely modest in volume compared with 
total EU public R&D spending. Moreover, as will be seen below, all these new measures have 
their limitations. 
                                                 
52 Bilateral International R&D Cooperation Policies of  the EU Member States, 2 volumes, Report for the 
European Commission, DG Research, 2001 
 
EN 22   EN Open Method of Coordination 
The Open Method of Coordination was intr oduced by the European Council of Lisbon 
(March 2000) as an instrument to help Member States progress jointly towards the common goals of the Lisbon st rategy, particularly in the domains  – like research - where policy 
competence lies mainly with the Member Stat es. The OMC is a soft governance tool, based 
on benchmarking, policy learning, and id entification of best practice.  
OMC established a structured discussion amongst national policy makers about certain topics, 
and there are indications that  it may have had some effect  on the way Member States 
construct their nati onal policy mixes. 
Nevertheless, it is designed consciously as a so ft tool of coordination. It is a voluntary and 
non-committing process relying on goodwill, ope nness and peer pressure. As there are no 
means for ensuring a follow-up, progress is likely to be slow in materialising. OMC has also 
suffered from limited visibility and fo llow-up at the higher political levels. 
Crucially, OMC has focused on policy coordinati on and not programme coordination as such, 
in other words on the non-funding re lated aspects of research policy. 
ERA-NETs 
ERA-NETs were conceived under the 6
th Framework Programme as a bottom up approach for 
bringing together managers a nd owners of national research  programmes in fields they 
identified as needing more coordination. 71 ERA-NETs were launched under FP6, which 
have resulted in about 85 joint calls totalli ng over 800 million euros. ERA-NETs have been 
widely welcomed by the research funding bodies , who appreciate their bottom-up nature, and 
their variable geometry. The mid-term review fo und that they fulfilled a real need and helped 
to overcome barriers to coordination. 
ERA-NETs have been successful in creatin g a European networked "community" of 
programme owners and managers. However, their impact in financial terms is limited to a very small proportion of the total national res earch budget in the EU. Moreover, they suffer 
from certain weaknesses. Administrative and le gal barriers to cross-border funding have 
hindered their expansion. There is still a re luctance to open up programmes and funding to 
foreign participants. Also, ER A-NETs have been initiated in a bottom-up way, which meant 
they were not always well embedded in national research strategies.
53 
Article 169 initiatives 
Article 169 is another instrument of coordi nated programming launched under FP6 and FP7. 
The main objective of an Artic le 169 initiative is to go beyond the mere coordination of 
national programmes to achieve the real inte gration of different national and regional 
programmes into a single joint programme. An Ar ticle 169 initiative is implemented jointly, 
and funded through integrated financial support. 
Unlike an ERA-NET, in an Article 169 initiat ive the Community does not just support the 
simple coordination of the national programme s undertaken by Member States but rather 
participates actively including a Community financial contribu tion for research. While some 
                                                 
53 Report of the ERA Expert Group on Optimisi ng Research Programmes and Priorities, 2008 
 
EN 23   EN new 169s have just been launched, so far real experience has been limite d to a single pilot 
initiative: the European  & Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP). The 
main drawback found in the application of this instrument in the case of EDCTP has been the 
difficulty in identifying the relevant national programmes and in achieving a full integration of these programmes through a "common pot" of  funding. A limitation in scope is, that the 
Article 169 instrument is re stricted to the topics cove red by the Framework Programme 
Accordingly, its applicability and effectiven ess could be enhanced by making it part of a 
coherent framework that would provi de a higher level strategic focus. 
Nevertheless, it is evident that ERA-NETs and Article 169 initiatives, while promising, are 
still the tip of the iceber g, at least in financial terms. It is also evident that these instruments 
have their limitations, that ca nnot be resolved by mi nor adjustments. Nor is it possible to 
exploit the other inter-governmental mechanis ms described earlier in order to rapidly 
strengthen the coordination of national pr ogrammes. These various schemes and bodies 
accomplish their different goals, but they are no t appropriate instruments for achieving large 
scale coordination of national programmes. In short, the existing modes of cooperation have 
proven to be insufficient for rapidly advancing the structural coordina tion of national public 
R&D programmes.  
2.4. Why Europe needs a new process for joint strategic agenda setting and 
coordination of public R&D  
What is needed is a new, more strategic approach for the coordination of public R&D 
programmes in Europe, focussed on those areas that can contribute solutions to Europe's 
pressing societal challenges, and where coordina tion can deliver gains in the efficiency and 
impact of research. Over the last 15 years a series of steps (outlined in section 1) have been taken at EU level in an effort to stimulat e greater coordination of  national public R&D 
programmes. Yet little progress has been made . Since 2000 some innovative instruments have 
been added to existing arrangements in order to further encourage this trend towards more 
coordination, but these ar e not enough (section 2.3). 
Past efforts to promote improved collaboration and coordination have clearly been hampered 
by a lack of high-level Member State political  commitment, by a lack of sufficient and 
credible data on and insights in to the particular structure an d organisation of respective S&T 
fields, and by instrument rigidity. 
Now, however, is a good time to launch a new initi ative. There are two basic reasons for this. 
Firstly, the wider policy context has changed as  commonly faced major societal challenges 
(climate change, energy security, etc.) have moved decisively to the top of the policy agenda in each Member State and at Community level, and Member States are now well aware of the 
costs of non-coordination and the benefits of more coordination at both S&T and societal 
level. 
Secondly, in this supportive c ontext, there is now a unique opportunity to le arn from and 
build upon the valuable recent experience with  coordination instruments by setting up a 
properly structured policy proc ess based firmly on the princi ples of Better Regulation: 
working closely with the Member States in a tr ansparent manner; respecting the principles of 
subsidiary, European added value and propor tionality; preparing an d launching concrete 
initiatives on the basis of an extensive, credible evidence-base; and ensuring the 
accountability and transparency of the process via proper monitoring and evaluations systems. 
 
EN 24   EN 2.4.1.  Benefits of cross-border programme  collaboration and coordination 
In general, an R&D programme is characteri sed by clearly defined objectives, a set budget 
with often fixed duration, a usua lly targeted set of research actors, a system of selecting 
proposals, and rules for participation. R&D programmes have a number of well-documented 
advantages in relation to more institutional forms of funding: they provide targeted and 
transparent objectives, they induce healthy comp etition between research groups and promote 
research excellence, they offer flexibility an d adaptability of desi gn and goals, and they 
facilitate monitoring and evaluation.  
However, the societal returns to public rese arch programmes can be  increased by improving 
the organisation of European public R&D vi a more and better cross-border programme 
collaboration and coordination. This is because  carrying out research through trans-national 
cooperation can increase its imp act and bring other important benefits such as addressing 
common challenges jointly and developing co mmon solutions, overcoming barriers to entry 
such as high start-up and operating costs in ce rtain S&T fields, pooling data and expertise, 
achieving higher scientific, technological and in novation impacts, eliminating cross-European 
programme duplication, increa sing programme depth, and re ducing programme management 
costs. Concrete examples of th e tangible benefits for S&T, the economy and society are given 
in sections 5.5, 5.6 and 5.7. The costs to Europe  of non-coordination can therefore be viewed 
as the non-realisation of these significant benefits.  
2.4.2.  Subsidiarity and European added value  
It is of course important to establish a clear basis and rationale for Community action in this 
area. The right for the Community to act in this field is set out in several articles of the Treaty which make provisions for research coordina tion and cooperation be tween Member States 
and the Community. Article 165 stipulates that " the Community and the Member States shall 
coordinate their research and technological devel opment activities so as to ensure that 
national policies and Community po licy are mutually consistent ". It also allows the 
Commission, in close cooperation w ith the Member States, to " take any useful initiative " to 
promote such coordination. As already men tioned, Article 169 allows the Community to 
make " provision, in agreement with the Member  States concerned, for participation in 
research and development programmes undertaken  by several Member States, including 
participation in the structures create d for the execution of those programmes ". Article 171 
allows the Community to " set up joint undertakings or any ot her structure necessary for the 
efficient execution of Community researc h, technological development and demonstration 
programmes ".
54 
In order for Community action to be  justified, it is also necessary  for the subsidiarity principle 
to be respected. This involves assessing two aspects.  Firstly, it is important to be sure that the 
objectives of the proposed action could not be achieved sufficie ntly by Member States in the 
framework of their national constit utional system (necessity test).  In the case of the proposed 
process for JP, purely inter-governmental actions  aimed at coordination of public R&D have 
not expanded rapidly in recent years (sect ion 2.3.1), and the only initiatives aimed at 
programme coordination have b een developed within the context of Community activities 
                                                 
54 Treaty establishing the European  Community, Official Journal C 32 5 of 24 December 2002. The Treaty 
of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community left these articles unchanged, with the exception of article 165 (see  Official Journal C 306 
of 17 December 2007). 
 
EN 25   EN (section 2.3.2). Therefore, Member States are un likely to be able to address these problems 
acting alone. 
The second aspect to consider is whether and how the objectives  could be better achieved by 
action on the part of the Community (test of EU value-added). The rationale for EU action 
stems partly from the trans-national nature of  some of the key chal lenges (for example, 
climate change) where Member States need to act together to properly tackle the problems. 
But it can also be justified in terms of offering the potential for greater scale, scope and effectiveness of public R&D programmes in Europe, as set out in section 2.4.1 above. 
2.4.3.  Conclusion – the need for a new process 
There is a growing recognition that a new strate gic approach is needed to strengthen the 
collaboration and coordination of  public R&D programmes. Despite the considerable efforts 
made in the EU to encourage greater coordi nation of public R&D, progress has been very 
limited and slow. Some of this lack of progre ss can doubtless be attributed to the inherent 
complexity of setting up mechanisms for tran snational cooperation. However, Europe must 
also learn from its past experience. A rep eated theme in the evaluation of measures 
implemented so far is that a significant obstacle to real JP – especially  when it involves the 
creation of a "common pot" of f unds – is the innate inertia of public bodi es in the Member 
States due to legislati on, conflicting policy objectiv es, different traditions and procedures, etc.  
This may partly explain why soft approaches like OMC an d ERA-NETs have been popular. 
Nevertheless, as outlined in section 2.3, they ar e recognised as having a limited effect when it 
comes to encouraging JP. The Article 169 instru ment has also been a positive innovation, but 
has had its problems. While these are being addr essed in the new wave of 169 initiatives, the 
volume of such actions (and of the ERA-NETs) in  relation to total public R&D in Europe is 
miniscule.  
There is a need for a new approach. Experience shows that JP will not take off rapidly under 
the present system. What is needed is a pr ocess involving the concerned parties coming 
together to discuss and plan wh at can be done. The proposed init iative on JP is a response to 
this need. JP is a process whereby Member Stat es engage on a voluntary and à la carte basis 
in the definition, development and implementati on of research agendas addressing a specific 
field or specific topic. It can  involve the coordina tion of existing national programmes, or the 
setting up of entirely new ones, putting resour ces together and collectively monitoring and 
reviewing progress. The new initiative should be shaped by the views of stakeholders and by the experiences of the past. 
Clearly, such a process must involve the Me mber States. National programmes belong to 
them, and they must decide what is in their best interest. No progre ss can be made without 
their full commitment to the process. As managers  of the national progra mmes, they also have 
all the information and experience about how funds  are spent in a particular field and with 
what coverage and effect. 
For these reasons, it is important  that a process for moving towa rds JP should not be too top-
down with the Commission in the driving seat. The Commission's role should be acting as a 
facilitator. The process should not be too bottom-up either, be cause this would lead to a lack 
of coherent strategy and focus. 
 
EN 26   EN An effective process would involve Member St ates together identifying areas of common 
concern where collective action can be more effective in tackling important societal 
challenges. In particular, it must use suitable  criteria agreed by all parties in order to 
determine the fields in which JP could most usefully be launched.  
To make these criteria operational there must be a solid information ba se. However, the lack 
of accurate and comparable information on nati onal and regional research programmes is one 
of Europe's fundamental weaknesses at the moment. Best efforts to  obtain data on these 
programmes have provided only a partial picture of the nati onal research landscape, and 
evidence of duplication, gaps and sub-optimal scale still tends to be ad-hoc (such as the 
examples cited by ERA-NETs, or in certain repo rts by research bodies). This is because they 
have tried to be all-embracing, including all fields of S&T for all Member States, and 
providing quite aggregated data and information. For JP a more focussed approach is required 
involving the collection of more  detailed information on sele cted fields of interest. 
This is a matter that can best be tackled th rough a collective process involving the Member 
States. Information needs to be gathered on existing national and regional programmes in 
various areas, their coverage, and issues of ga ps, duplication or lack of scale and scope.  
There is a need for an approach which allows  for flexibility in te rms of participating 
countries. Not all Member States  share the same challenges in every area, especially in the 
expanded EU of 27. There is a need for the us e of variable geometry in setting up joint 
programmes. 
Finally, an effective process must allow for a graduated response. It should make use of 
lighter instruments (e.g. ERA- NETs) where there performance in a field of S&T is good, and 
use stronger JP mechanisms in those areas where performance is problematic. 
 
EN 27   EN 3. OBJECTIVES 
3.1. General policy objectives 
The general policy objectives of the JP initiativ e are to enhance the EU's capacity to achieve 
its high level policy goals and respond to the major challenges it faces in the coming years: 
• To contribute to the achievement of th e objectives of the revised Lisbon Strategy. 
• To help Europe respond more effectively through research to  key societal challenges such 
as climate change, energy supply, ageing population. 
• To contribute to the achievement of the European Research Area (ERA) objectives. 
3.2. Specific objectives:  
In order to contribute to achieving these gene ral policy objectives, it will be necessary to 
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of pub lic research programming in Europe in areas 
where it is facing major societal ch allenges. Specific objectives are: 
• To strengthen the coordination of national public  research programmes in Europe in areas 
which can provide solutions to important soci etal challenges and wher e there is evidence 
of an added value from adopting a joint cross-border approach. 
• In this way, to increase the impact of th ese programmes, both S&T impacts (scientific 
excellence, pooling of resources, data and expertise, achievement of critical mass, 
facilitating programme optimisation) and economic and societal impacts. 
3.3. Operational objectives: 
In order to promote the above improvements in impact and efficiency, the operational 
objectives are:  
• To provide an effective process which w ill promote a more strategic approach to 
coordinating national research programmes aime d at helping to tackle Europe's societal 
challenges. 
• To ensure that this process and the ensui ng joint public research  programming initiatives 
enjoy a high level of stakeholder support and ownership. 
• Through the process, and the use of appropria te instruments, to promote cross-border 
public research programme integration and stru cturing effects, notably the achievement of 
critical mass of R&D effort. 
• To provide a process that allows for a gra duated response in terms of Joint Programming 
instruments, as well as variable geomet ry in terms of country participation. 
• To ensure that joint initiatives are based on up-to-date and accurate information on national 
and regional progr amming activities. 
 
EN 28   EN • To promote stronger horiz ontal policy consistency. 
3.4. Ensuring consistency with oth er EU policies and strategies 
The objectives envisaged are cons istent with other EU strategies and policies. Meeting these 
objectives through the initiative  proposed can contribute to  the overall EU strategy for 
Growth and Jobs, in partic ular its innovation strategy, aimed at strengthening EU 
competitiveness, which depends in part on realis ing the European Research Area. It can also 
improve the transformation of the results of re search into new products and processes, and 
widen the access of industry and in particular SMEs to the public funding of research. In focusing coordinated efforts on major societal ch allenges, these objectives are also coherent 
with the strategy on Climate Change and Sustaina ble Europe, for example, with respect to the 
implementation of the Energy Efficiency Acti on Plan, the new Energy Action Plan and in 
particular the development of low carbon technol ogies. Finally, there is also a clear link with 
the objectives of the EU Health Strategy in the priority area Putting Citizens First, for 
example, by helping to tackle important societ al challenges such as the aging society and 
related sicknesses. 
 
EN 29   EN 4. PRESENTATION  OF THE  OPTIONS   
We now consider a number of concrete policy options to reach the st ated policy objectives. 
Against the background of the progress made so  far in the field of European cross-border 
public research programme coordi nation and collaboration and of  the lessons learned so far 
from the implementation of particular instrument s, four policy options  have been identified 
and developed. These are labelled as follows on the basis of their main characteristic(s): 
(1) "Business-as-usual" option; 
(2) "Article 169 maximization" option; 
(3) "Community-driven st rategic" option; 
(4) "Strategic European process" option. 
The difference between these four options hinges  mainly on two issues: the way in which JP 
areas are identified,  and the range of instruments cons idered for implementation. The main 
characteristics of each policy option are briefly discussed in more detail in the following sub-
sections. 
In addition to the four policy options explored  in more detail below, some other policy 
options were considered initially but rapidly eliminated. The most important one was what 
can be called the "renationalis ation" option. Under this optio n, the Community lets the ERA-
NET scheme and Article 169 initiatives already operating run their course but does not launch 
new ones, thereby gradually sc aling down its involvement in the field of JP. Instead, the 
promotion of JP becomes once more an exclusive responsibility of the Member States, without any Community involvement. This option responds most radically to those 
stakeholders concerned about subsidiarity who demand that the coordination of policies 
should be predominantly left to Member States. The problem with this option is that it more 
or less resembles the pre-ERA-NET and pre-Ar ticle 169 era. Severa l decades ago, useful 
infrastructure-centred initiatives were taken (CERN) and valuable schemes like COST and EUREKA launched, but since then very little pr ogress has been made towards cross-border 
programme coordination and collaboration. That means that, under this option, the lack of 
strategic focus, the lack of critical mass, the coverage ga ps, the wasteful duplication and 
unhealthy competition, etc. found in many areas with regard to pa n-European research efforts 
would persist. Given these great drawbacks, the Community can ha rdly be expected to present 
and seriously assess such an option (see Section 2). 
Another policy option eliminated  at an early stage was the use of the Open Method of 
Coordination (OMC). Since OMC is a soft governance tool, involving benchmarking, policy 
learning, and identification of be st practice, it is not well-ada pted to the cr eation of joint 
programmes. Moreover, OMC as implemented al ready in the field of research focuses on 
policy coordination and not programme coordi nation as such - in other words on the non-
funding related aspects of research policy. 
Finally, the option of adopting an EU regulatory approach to dismantle administrative and 
legal barriers to programme coordination was al so eliminated early on. Not only would this be 
unpopular in the Member States , and counterproductive to th e aim of overcoming national 
 
EN 30   EN reluctance to dismantle obstacles, but also it  would risk impinging on matters which fall under 
national competence. 
4.1. "Business-as-usual" option 
Under this option, JP topics – which do not have to  coincide with those of  the FP (at least in 
the case of ERANET) – are identified in an ad-hoc bottom-up way by a variety of Member 
State stakeholders (see Table 2). Implementa tion takes place through a limited number of 
instruments (essentially ERA-NE T scheme and Article 169) and is loosely coordinated (no 
overall JP coordination mechanism has been put  in place). A flexible approach is taken 
towards critical mass (in terms of number and re levance of partners) a nd towards the level of 
programme integration pursued. 
This option is the baseline option, against whic h the other options are compared. It responds 
strongly to those stakeholders w ho think that, as far as JP is concerned, Member States should 
be in the driver seat, and who favour an appr oach which is bottom-up, flexible (in terms of 
range of possible topic proposers, possible t opics, critical mass, level of programme 
integration pursued, horizontal  policy consistency, etc.) and based solely on existing 
instruments. 
4.2. "Article 169 maximization" option 
This "light intervention" option shares some of  the characteristics of the "business-as-usual" 
option as JP topics are identified in a bottom-up way by the Member States, and implementation takes place through a limited nu mber of instruments (essentially ERA-NET 
scheme and Article 169) (see Table 2). Where this  option differs from the "business-as-usual" 
one, however, is in proposing an approach which is both more intensive (a much larger number of initiatives would be launched) and less soft, aiming for a larger impact.
55 JP topics 
would have to coincide with the FP, ERANET (Plus) would be rigidly positioned as an 
Article 169 preparatory stage, overall hor izontal policy consistency would be more 
systematically pursued (through the Article 169 decision-making process) , and more attention 
would be paid to the critical mass and level of programme integr ation of the initiatives. Under 
this option stakeholders would be consulted by the Commission. 
Like the "business-as-usual" opti on, this option responds to thos e stakeholders who think that 
Member States should be in the driver seat  and favour an approach  which is bottom-up and 
based solely on existing instruments. But it also  responds to those who agree that much more 
needs to be done than is being done now in the fi eld of JP and are prepared to sacrifice some 
of the flexibility of the "busines s-as-usual" option for achieving that. 
4.3. "Community-driven strategic" option 
The most important difference between the "Com munity-driven strategic" option and the two 
previous options is that it is strategic in stead of bottom-up. The starting point is the 
identification of major societal challenges and the assessment of the need for and lack of a 
                                                 
55 The scope for developing Article 169 beyond current activities is clearly  demonstrated by the (ongoing) 
preparation since EDCTP of the Article 169 initiativ es AAL (joint research programme on "Ambient 
Assisted Living"), EUROSTARs (joint research programme for research performing SMEs and their partners), EMRP (joint research programme in the field of metrology) and Bonus-169 (joint research 
programme in the field of Baltic Sea research). 
 
EN 31   EN critical mass of publicly supported research in resp ective S&T fields (see Table 2 ). Under this 
option, it is the Community which takes the lead in carrying out these strategic assessments and proposing suitable JP topics. It is also th e Community which takes the lead in selecting 
the most appropriate instrument from among a well-defined range of already familiar Community instruments which can be implem ented relatively quickly. Under this option 
stakeholders would be consulted by the Commission. 
While it is true that this option seems to go against stakeholder co ncerns about too far-
reaching Community intervention in the field of JP, it would appear to have some important 
advantages as well. It responds well to those stakeholders who agree that the cross-border 
coordination and integration of national public re search programmes needs to be intensified 
and improved, especially where responding to major societal ch allenges is concerned. And it 
proposes to do so in an effective (the "governan ce gap" issue is solved),  cost-efficient (light 
process) and quick (potentially high speed of  implementation) manner building on existing 
instruments. 
4.4. "Strategic European process" option 
The "strategic European process" option rese mbles the "Community-driven strategic" option 
in that it too is strategic, and based on tack ling major societal chal lenges, but it differs 
crucially with regard to the roles played by the Community and by the Member States. Under 
the "strategic European process" option, it is the Member States (not the Community) which 
identify topics for JP. And it is the Member  States which select or develop the most 
appropriate instrument from among a wide range of possible inst ruments in order to 
accommodate in the best manner possible the sp ecific circumstances of the respective S&T 
field (including Community instruments like ERA-NET scheme and Articles 168, 169, 170 or 
171; "SET-Plan" or "security re search" kinds of approaches; the creation of new European 
institutions and/or new kinds  of Networks of Excellence;
56 ERC-kind or Euratom-type of 
initiatives; Structural Funds; etc.). The Comm ission plays the role of  facilitator. It is 
responsible for reporting back to Council at each  stage in the process, and for evaluating the 
process as a whole and the progr ess made in specific areas.  
To be more specific, this option would involve the following steps: 
• The Council would nominate a group of high-leve l representatives to identify possible 
areas for Joint Programming on the basis of cl ear criteria and stak eholder consultations. 
The Commission will act as secretariat of this group. 
• On the basis of proposals and criteria-based  justifications provided by the high-level 
representatives, the Commi ssion would submit recommendations to the Council for 
launching Joint Programming initiatives in selected areas. 
• The Council would ask minister s to nominate representatives to dedicated area-specific 
working groups, which have as their mandate to prepare in each area a particular Joint 
Programming initiative, and for which th e Commission will act as secretariat. 
                                                 
56 Involving the funding not just of integration activities but also of joint research. 
 
EN 32   EN Under this option stakeholders would be consul ted by the Member States themselves. As is 
the case for other stakeholders, industry will be  consulted so that it s views can contribute 
towards the vision and common agenda. 
Like the "Community-driven st rategic option", the "strategic  European process" option 
responds well to those stakeholders requestin g the more intensive and better cross-border 
coordination and integration of national public  research programmes to respond better to 
major societal challenges. But compared to the previous opti on, it sacrifices implementation 
speed and process-efficiency to obtain much greater effectiveness th rough greater political 
commitment, evidence-based policy-making, a nd the selection and/or development of 
carefully crafted instruments accommodating well the specific circumstances of the respective 
S&T fields. 
 
EN 33   EN Table 2 : ERA JP Initiative: Options 
 
 
Options 
 (1) 
"Business-as-usual" 
option (2) 
"Article 169 
maximization"
option (3) 
"Community-
driven 
strategic" 
option  (4) 
"Strategic European 
process" option 
Identification of 
JP topic Bottom-up 
ERA-NET scheme: Calls for 
proposals Article 169: 'Open' call for MS ideas Bottom-up 
'Open' call for 
Member State ideas Strategic  
Identification of 
challenges, Assess of need for critical mass, analysis of 
sub-optimality, etc. Strategic  
Identification of challenges, 
assessment of need for critical mass, analysis of sub-optimality, etc. 
Relation between 
JP topics and FP 
thematic priorities Related and unrelated 
ERA-NET scheme: Related or 
unrelated 
Article 169: Related  
Related   
Related and 
unrelated   
Related and unrelated Selection of JP topics Identifier of JP 
topics Mixed  
ERA-NET scheme: Regional 
and national programme owners and managers 
Article 169: Member States  
Member States   
Community   
Member States 
( facilitated by the European 
Commission services where 
needed) 
Instruments 
considered for 
implementation Limited number 
ERA-NET scheme 
Article 169 Single  
Article 169 
(Rigid positioning of 
ERA-NET scheme as Article 169 
preparatory stage) Broader range 
ERA-NET scheme 
Article 169 
Article 168 Article 170 
Article 171 Wide range 
ERA-NET scheme; Article 
169, Articles 168, 170, 171, 
"SET-plan" or "security research" kind of approaches, 
New European institutions, 
New kinds of NoE, ERC-kind of approaches, Euratom-kind 
of approaches, Structural 
Funds… 
Coordination 
mechanism None Article 169 
decision-making 
process Proposed 
Community-driven 
strategic process Proposed strategic European 
process 
Thematic overlap 
between Not pro-actively avoided Pro-actively avoide d Pro-actively avoided Pro-actively avoided 
Complementarities 
between different 
JP instruments Not systematically pursued 
E.g., ERA-NET scheme: 
promotes mutual opening 
E.g., some ERA-NET scheme 
can result in Article 169) Systematically 
pursued 
Rigid positioning of 
ERA-NET scheme 
as Article 169 preparatory stage Systematically 
pursued  Systematically pursued Instruments 
Consistency 
between JP and 
other instruments Not systematically pursued Systematically 
pursued Systematically 
pursued Systematically pursued 
Critical mass Not systematically pursued Systematically 
pursued  
At least in terms of 
network size Variable geometry 
remains possible Systematically 
pursued  
Variable geometry 
remains possible Systematically pursued  
Variable geometry remains 
possible 
Full programme 
integration Not systematically pursued 
Even non-programmes can 
participate 
4 integration steps (2 highest steps – i.a. joint calls – not 
binding) 
Different possibilities to fund joint calls (common pot not 
obligatory) Systematically 
pursued 
Integration of clearly 
defined national programmes  
Joint calls as 
objective  
Joint financing of 
calls as objective 
(but difficult to achieve)  Systematically 
pursued 
Strategic integration 
of national programmes  
"full policy cycle" 
approach: full programme integra-
tion with joint fore-
sight, planning, im-plementation (joint 
calls financed from a 
common pot), monitoring and 
evaluation  Systematically pursued 
Maximisation of the 
complementarities between 
national programmes  
In some cases, a "partial 
policy cycle" approach: e.g. 
only joint foresight or joint evaluation  
In some cases a "full policy 
cycle" approach: full program-me integration with joint fore-
sight, planning, 
implementation (joint calls financed from a common pot), 
monitoring and evaluation  
 
EN 34   EN 5. ASSESSMENT  OF THE  IMPACTS  OF THE  OPTIONS   
In this section, the imp acts of the four policy options pres ented in the previous section are 
discussed. A wide range of impacts are considered: level of stakeholder support and 
'ownership'  (inclusiveness of topic identification and instrument choice process; topic 
ownership; openness an d participation); strategic focus  (thematic scope; focus on societal 
challenges; ability to set SMART objectives); structuring effect  (instrument flexibility; 
speed of implementation; programme integrat ion; critical mass ( on the input side); policy 
consistency (overlap within JP instruments, comp lementarities between JP instruments; 
consistency between JP and other instruments; impact on ERA governance); and societal 
impacts  (S&T impacts; economic impacts; social and environmental impacts). 
Some important comments are in order here: 
• Since the proposed policy process does not impose any regulatory administrative burden 
on stakeholders, this issu e is not assessed here. 
• The Communication, which this Impact Assessment is acco mpanying, proposes a process  
for identifying suitable topics and implement ation instruments for JP. This means that 
these topics and instruments ar e not known to us at this point in time,  and that no proper 
ex-ante evaluation can be carried  out. Some of the instruments ultimately chosen may have 
implications for the Community budget, howev er. Those budgetary implications will be 
assessed separately in the impact assessments and ex-ante evaluations accompanying the proposals on those part icular initiatives. 
• In a similar vein, issues which are the speci fic object of other Community initiatives in 
follow-up to the ERA Green Paper (mobility, IP R) will not be treated in detail here. 
5.1. Level of stakeholder s upport and 'ownership' 
The level of stakeholder support for a particular option is a function of th e inclusiveness of its 
processes for topic identification and instrument  choice, and of the re sulting topic ownership 
and instrument openness and participation. Ag ainst that background, th e options with the 
greatest stakeholder support are the "strategic European process" and "business-as-usual" 
options, with their inclusive processes and hi gh levels of stakeholder topic ownership and 
participation (see Table 3). They are followed by the "Article 169 maxi mization" option, with 
its more narrow participation. The "Commun ity-driven strategic" option, with its non-
inclusive process, its low level of stakeholder topic ownership, a nd its potentially low level of 
participation, comes last. 
Inclusiveness of topic identificatio n and instrument choice process 
Under the "business-as-usual", "Article 169 maxi mization" and "strategic European process" 
options, outside stakeholders have, as part of an  inclusive process, a great say as far as the 
identification and selection of, respectively, JP t opics and instruments ar e concerned. That is 
much less the case under the "Community-d riven strategic" option, under which the 
Community itself would select th e JP topics and instruments. 
An important question which this raises is wh ether, without the coop eration of the Member 
States, the Community disposes  of a sufficiently detailed  knowledge of Member State 
research programmes to be able to ap propriately select JP topics by itself. 
 
EN 35   EN Topic ownership 
Under the "business-as-usual" option, JP topics  are defined in a bottom-up way. As a result, 
stakeholders have substantial 'ownership' of those topics.57 Such stakeholder ownership can 
also be achieved under the "Article 169 maximi zation" and "strategic European process" 
options - under the former beca use JP topics are defined in  a bottom-up way, and under the 
latter because of the joint MS-Community identifi cation of topics for JP. It is only under the 
"Community-driven strategic" option that such  'ownership' cannot be ensured to the same 
extent as in this case it is the Community itself which, without much consultation with the 
Member States, identifies the topics for JP. 
Openness and participation 
Some of the instruments through which the "busin ess-as-usual" option operates – in particular 
ERA-NET scheme – are 'open', meaning th at they have low barriers to entry.58 This has 
resulted in wide participation. This is reflected, for instance, in the high number of ERA-NET 
proposals (200+), the high number of ERA-NE Ts (71), and the high number of ERA-NET 
participants (1000+ particip ations by 450 different programme owners/managers).59 Both the 
"Community-driven strategic" and "strategic Eu ropean process" options are also marked by 
such openness (since they include accessible instruments such as ERA-NET), while the 
"Article 169 maximization" option is somewhat more restrictive. As a result, similar levels of 
inclusiveness and participation as under the "business-as-usual" option can be achieved under 
the "strategic European process" and "Community -driven strategic" options, but in the case of 
the latter the level of stakehol der support will be decisive. In  the case of th e "Article 169 
maximization" option, the use of a somewhat mo re restrictive instrume nt could result in a 
more narrow participation pattern.  It should be noted that opti ons 3 and 4 allow in appropriate 
cases for the use of Article 170 initiatives wh ich would allow the participation of non-EU 
countries. 
5.2. Strategic focus 
An option's strategic focus is a function of its thematic scope, its focus on societal challenges, 
and its ability to set SMART objectives. Measured  against these criteria, the option with the 
greatest strategic focus is the "strategic European process" option, with its wide thematic 
scope, focus on societal challenge s and ability to set SMART objectives (see Table 3). This is 
                                                 
57 " The ‘bottom-up’ nature of the initiative was much appreciated by the main stakeholders ". ERA-NET 
Review 2006, Report of the Expert Review Group (hereafter Horvat Report ), Brussels, December 2006  
58 " The use of Specific Support Actions as well as Coordination Actions allowed for the possibility of 
initial exploratory approaches "; "The adoption of a four-step process for participants, with the latter 
two steps non-mandatory, was entirely suitable for this first, experimental phase of ERA-NET "; "The 
flexible approach to the use of differe nt funding regimes for joint calls encouraged partic ipants both to 
join in and to explore ways of overcoming some of the practical barriers to the implementation of joint 
actions ", "ERA-NETs were also open to participants from all eligible countries (inside and outside of 
Europe) "; "One of the key attractions of the scheme was the ability to adop t variable geometry 
configurations ". Horvat Report , p. III. 
59 " The success of the ERA-NETs also owes much to th e inclusion of a wide ra nge of stakeholders. The 
inclusion of ‘programme owners’ as well as ‘programme managers’ was particularly important given the longer-term aim of altering perceptions in ministerial circles about the importance of trans-national 
research activities. Extending the invitation to pa rticipate to regional ‘owners’ and ‘managers’ was 
also astute given the importance of regional R&D governance systems in some national settings and the growing importance of the regional  level in European RTD and innov ation policies. The only regret 
here is that more did not accept the invitation " Horvat Report , p. III. 
 
EN 36   EN followed by the "Community-driven strategic" option, where, however, the ability to set 
SMART objectives will depend on the level of stakeholder support. The "business-as-usual" 
and "Article 169 maximization" options, which do not necessarily focus on important societal 
challenges and do not systemati cally involve all stakeholders  in setting SMART objectives, 
come last. 
Thematic scope 
Under the "business-as-usual" option, there is no obligatory coverage of JP topics by the FP 
thematic priorities. As a result, the thematic scope of this option is without limit.60 Such wide 
thematic scope is also achie ved under the "Community-driven strategic" and "strategic 
European process" options sinc e under these options as well JP  topics do not have to be 
covered by the FP thematic priorities. It is only under the "Article 169 maximization" option 
that the thematic scope cannot be so wide si nce coverage by the FP thematic priorities is 
required by the Article 169 criteria. 
Focus on societal challenges 
Under the "business-as-usual" option, JP is pur sued in a number of areas identified in a 
bottom-up manner. Yet the issues covered may not  always respond to a societal challenge, 
and there may not always be a need for critical mass and evidence of sub-optimality. The 
same comment applies to the "Article 169 maxi mization" option. Under the third and fourth 
options, however, only S&T fields corresponding to a societal challe nge, with a need for 
critical mass and evidence of sub-optimality will be covered. 
Ability to set SMART objectives 
Under the "business-as-usual" and "Article 169 maximization", the ability to achieve a wide 
consensus and high level commitment from a ll stakeholders to SMART objectives is not 
systematically ensured. Under the "Community-d riven strategic" option,  it could be greater, 
but depends on stakeholder support. The proce ss envisaged under the "strategic European 
process" option, however, has been de veloped to achieve exactly that. 
                                                 
60 For a list of the areas and topics addressed in each ERA-NET, see Annex 2. 
 
EN 37   EN Table 3 : ERA JP Initiative: Impacts 
Options  (1) 
"Business-as-
usual" option (2) 
"Article 169 
maximization" option (3) 
"Community-driven strategic" 
option (4) 
"Strategic 
European process" option 
Thematic scope + 
(Wide thematic 
scope) +/- 
(More limited 
thematic scope) + 
(Wide thematic scope) + 
(Wide thematic 
scope) 
Focus on societal challenges - 
(No) - 
(No) + 
(Yes) + 
(Yes) Strategic focus Ability to set SMART objectives - 
(Very limited) +/- 
(Limited) (+) 
(Potentially great, but dependent on 
stakeholder support) + 
(Great) 
Inclusiveness of topic identification and instrument choice process + 
(High) + 
(High) - 
(Low) + 
(High) 
Topic ownership + 
(Great) + 
(Great) - 
(Little)  + 
(Great) Stakeholder support Openness and 
participation + 
(Openness, 
inclusiveness, wide 
participation) +/- 
(Less openness, 
more narrow 
participation) (+) 
(Potentially openness, inclusiveness, 
wide participation,  but dependent on 
stakeholder support) + 
(Openness, 
inclusiveness, wide 
participation) 
Instrument flexibility +/- 
(Limited) - 
(None) + 
(Wide) + 
(Wide) 
Identification 
topics, 
objectives, 
etc. + 
(Rapid) + 
(Rapid) (+) 
(Potentially rapid,  but dependent on 
stakeholder support) +/- 
(Medium) Implementation 
speed Launching 
instruments + 
(Rapid) +/- 
(Medium)  (+) 
(Medium to rapid, depending on 
instrument chosen, but dependent on 
stakeholder support) + 
(Medium to rapid, 
depending on 
instrument chosen) 
Programme integration - 
(Not ensured) - 
(Not ensured) (+) 
(Depends on level stakeholder 
support) + 
(Better ensured) Structuring effect 
Critical mass (input side) - 
(Not ensured) +/- 
(Partially ensured) (+) 
(Depends on level stakeholder 
support) + 
(Better ensured) 
Overlap within JP 
instruments - 
(Yes) + 
(No) + 
(No) + 
(No) 
Complementarities between JP instruments +/- 
(Weak) + 
(Strong) + 
(Strong) + 
(Strong) 
Consistency between JP 
and other instruments +/- 
(Weak) + 
(Strong) + 
(Strong) + 
(Strong) Policy consistency Impact on ERA governance +/- 
(Weak) +/- 
(Not very strong) (+) 
(Potentially strong, but dependent 
on stakeholder support) + 
(Strong) 
S&T impacts +/- 
(Weak) +/- 
(Not very strong) (+) 
(Potentially strong, but dependent 
on stakeholder support) + 
(Strong) 
Economic impacts +/- 
(Weak) +/- 
(Not very strong) (+) 
(Potentially strong, but dependent 
on stakeholder support) + 
(Strong) Societal impact Social and environmental impacts +/- 
(Weak) +/- 
(Not very strong) (+) 
(Potentially strong, but dependent 
on stakeholder support + 
(Strong) 
 
EN 38   EN 5.3. Structuring effect 
The structuring effect is a func tion of instrument flexibility, implementation speeds, the level 
of programme integration achieved and the cr itical mass put together on the input side. 
Measured against these criteria, the option with th e greatest structuring effect is the "strategic 
European process" option, with its high level of in strument flexibility and its better guarantees 
for programme integration and input critical ma ss than the other options  (see Table 3). The 
identification of topics, objec tives, etc. may take some mo re time than under the other 
options, which calls for a well structured and we ll governed process. The structuring effect of 
the "Community-driven strategic" option is pot entially large but uncer tain, since it depends 
entirely on the level of st akeholder support. The "busine ss-as-usual" and "Article 169 
maximization" options have much smaller stru cturing effects, mainly because they have 
limited or no instrument flexibility and do not fully ensure programme integration and input 
critical mass.  
Instrument flexibility 
It is important to be able to choose the mo st appropriate (set of) instrument(s) given the 
specific circumstances in and degree of maturi ty of each selected JP area. Yet under the 
"business-as-usual" option, instrument flexibilit y is limited as the choice is only between the 
ERA-NET scheme and Article 169. That is why a December 2005 report by Optimat and VDI/VDE/IT recommended that a wider range of flexible instruments be developed.
61 The 
possibility to choose the most appropriate inst rument(s) is even more restricted under the 
single instrument "Article 169 maximization"  option, which esse ntially centres on a 
maximalist instrument as far as programme inte gration is concerned and which therefore may 
not be suitable for less mature areas where neverthe less fruitful steps in th e direction of JP can 
already be taken. It is only under the third and f ourth options that instrument flexibility would 
be greatly enhanced. 
Speed of implementation 
It is important to be able to start implement ation reasonably quickly, and this to keep the 
political momentum going. Rapid implementation - because of both rapi d identification of 
topics, objectives, etc. and rapid launching of instruments - is possible under the "business-as-
usual" and the "Community-dri ven strategic" options, though under the latter the level of 
stakeholder support is decisive . Under the "Article 169 maximi zation" option, the speed of 
implementation is somewhat lower as it takes somewhat more time to launch instruments. The speed of implementation is also somewhat lo wer under the "strategic  European process" 
option since it takes somewhat more time to identify topics, objectives, etc. 
                                                
 
61 "[…]the transnational strategies being implemented were based on achieving national objectives or 
addressing national weaknesses and […] it would be necessary to provide some incentive, perhaps from 
the Framework Programmes, to enco urage more innovative approaches addressing both national and 
ERA objectives, maybe through a wider range of flexible instruments in addition to both Article 169 and ERA-NET" (Optimat – VDI/VDE/IT, Examining the Design of National Research Programmes, 
Study prepared for European Commission – DG Res earch (Directorate M2), December 2005, p. 27). 
 
EN 39   EN Programme integration 
Under the "business-as-usual" option, full programme integra tion is not systematically 
pursued. While in Article 169 initiatives, the objective is to achieve full programme 
integration, in ERA-NETs this is not necessarily  the case since the two highest of four steps 
towards full programme integration are not obligatory.  
It is questionable whether the "Article 169 maximization" option can achieve a higher level of 
programme integration than the "business-as-usu al" option. The main risk is that through a 
bottom-up process, areas marked by substantial barriers to programme integration could be 
selected for JP and that a pure instrument appr oach without guaranteed high level stakeholder 
support would be unable to eliminate these barr iers (as EDCTP was unable to do). More or 
less the same comment applies to the "Community-driven strategic" option too, since the possible lack of high-level stak eholder support may also prevent the effective elimination of 
barriers to programme integrati on. The "strategic Eu ropean process" op tion constitutes the 
best guarantee for a high leve l of programme integration. It ensures that high-level 
stakeholders are closely involved in the JP ini tiative, and committed to it because they have 
defined the strategic research agenda and iden tified the appropriate instruments. This means 
that they will have full ownership of the pro cess and will thus should play a much more active 
role than in the past in adapting legal a nd administrative rules wh ere needed. Moreover, 
linking the JP process to tackling urgent soci etal challenges will provide an added incentive 
for them to dismantle barriers. The flexible approach to choosing instruments also helps by 
offering alternatives in cases where some inst ruments may be unwieldy for a given purpose. 
Critical mass (on the input side) 
There are several possible approaches to the noti on of critical mass. On e can look at network 
size, network quality, or both. The Community ha s so far approached th e notion of critical 
mass mainly in terms of network size. Under th e "business-as-usual" op tion, critical mass in 
terms of network size is system atically pursued in Article 1 69, but not in ERA-NETs, even 
though in practice, in both schemes, a si zeable number of partners participate.
62 Critical mass 
in terms of network size will be very syst ematically pursued under the "Article 169 
maximisation" option. Under Options 3 and 4, a broader approach towards critical mass, 
taking account of both the number of countries involved and the expertis e/relevance of those 
countries, will be taken. Thes e two options also allow for th e use of Articl e 170 initiatives 
(which would enable the particip ation of non-EU countries ) wher e this is useful, notably for 
further building critical mass. 
5.4. Horizontal policy consistency 
Horizontal policy consistency is  a function of the degree of ove rlap within a particular JP 
instrument (e.g. between different ERA-NETs);  the degree of complementarities between 
different JP instruments (e.g. between ERA-NETs  and Article 169 initiati ves); the consistency 
between JP and other instrument s (e.g. Article 169 initiatives a nd the FP); and the impact on 
overall ERA governance and horizontal polic y coordination (e.g. coordination between 
                                                 
62 In EDCTP, for instance, the number of participating countries is 15. Critical mass in terms of network 
size is not systematically pursued in ERA-NET, however, where the minimum number of participating 
countries is just three. In practice, however, most  ERA-NETs have a reasonable number of participating 
organisations, the median being 13, the average 14, and the maximum 26. 
 
EN 40   EN research policy on the one hand and education, innovation, ICT, energy, environmental, etc. 
policies on the other hand). Against this bac kground, the highest degree of policy consistency 
can be achieved under the "strategic European process" option (see Ta ble 3). The potential 
policy consistency of the "Community-driven stra tegic" option is also great but unsure since 
dependent on the level of stakeholder support. A somewhat lower level of policy consistency 
is achieved under the "Article 169 maximization" option and a very weak one under the 
"business-as-usual" option, sin ce there are thematic overlaps within instruments, weak 
complementarities between JP instruments,  weak consistency between JP and other 
instruments, and weak impact on ERA governance. 
5.5. S&T Impacts 
JP - improving the organisation of European p ublic R&D via more an d better cross-border 
programme coordination and collaboration - increas es the societal returns to public research 
programmes. This is because carrying out research through trans-national cooperation can 
increase its impact and bri ng other important benefits: 
• Overcoming S&T barriers-to-entry : JP enables Member States to pool their financial 
resources to overcome the high barriers-to-ent ry characterising some S&T fields - in 
particular those with high fixed start-up and operating costs depending on "big science" 
and large-scale research infrastructures – and thereby achieve sizeable scientific,63 
technological,64 and other65 impacts (structuring effects,  impacts on human resources, on 
industry, and on local economies). 
                                                 
63 Research infrastructures serve as repositories of kn owledge. See the Note by Panel B, Prepared for the 
Conference and Incorporating Highlights of the Debate in Strasbourg on 19 September. Technological Innovation, industrial and Socio-economic Aspects of Research Infrastruct ures (hereafter Panel B 
Report). They act as hubs which bring together users from different S&T areas and promote inter-
disciplinary research (EC (1 999), p. 3.). The use of research in frastructures helps researchers advance 
their scientific understanding, i.a. through the use of newly acquired methods and techniques. In a 
survey of external research infras tructure users, 65 % of respondents replied that their work at the 
facility had given them use of and insight into important new techniques, and 80 % replied that their work at the facility had advanced their scientific  understanding. European Commission (1999), Training 
and Mobility of Researchers (1994-1998). Mid-term  Review of the Access to Large-scale Facilities 
Activity. Panel's Mid-term Review Report (hereafter TMR 1994-1998). 
64 A not insignificant number of patents are filed based on the work carried out at  research infrastructures 
(TMR 1994-1998, p.11). Research infrastructures also play an important role in the development of 
technological clusters. The ILL was an important factor in attracting the EMBL and the ESRF to 
Grenoble and CERN has also had some influence on inward investment to the locality both in France 
and Switzerland. There is now a global body of evidence  which indicates that real benefits arise from 
agglomerations of research and higher educati on institutes and technology based companies (and 
Grenoble is a frequently cited example). 
65 Infrastructures also generate benefits for human resources. Researchers are able to learn new methods 
and techniques. In a survey of external research infr astructure users, 65 % of respondents replied that 
their work at the facility had given them use of and insight into important new techniques. Research 
infrastructures act as hubs bringing together users from different S&T areas, promoting inter-disciplinary research, and also from different geographical areas thus creating pan-European trans-
disciplinary networks. Research infrastructures have important impacts on industry. In the long run, 
industry is set to benefit significantly from the scientific, technological, training and structuring impacts and effects already mentioned above. Yet the more direct  impacts of research infra structures on industry 
are also large. Industrial researchers and techni cians can receive training in technological and 
knowledge-related aspects, but also in the complex organisational aspects of technological innovation. 
At publicly supported research facilities, industrially  developed materials and products are tested (TMR 
1994-1998). As a result of the strict requirements of scientific projects car ried out at research 
 
EN 41   EN • Facilitating pan-European public research programme optimisation: JP allows for 
pan-European public research programme optimis ation by ensuring - within the context of 
scientific and technological unc ertainty – that all relevant topics and approaches in a 
particular S&T field can be researched in pa rallel (optimising programme scope) and that 
sufficient resources are allocated to the rese arch on each topic (by eliminating wasteful 
cross-European programme duplicati on and increasing programme depth). 
• Promoting scientific excellence: JP promotes scientific excelle nce through joint calls with 
common funding which increase the competition fo r funding and the quality of research 
proposals – a "European Research Council"-eff ect is then obtained. National research 
programmes usually address only domestically based researchers. Where national research 
programmes operate in the absence of domes tic expertise and where research proposals 
and the research carried out ar e of low quality, JP allows fo r avoiding the waste of public 
resources. 
• Addressing challenges jointly, developing  common solutions, and speaking with one 
voice : JP enables several Member States in a particular region (e.g. Baltic Sea area), or 
Europe as a whole, to tackle together co mmonly faced challenges (e.g. climate change, 
ageing), develop common, standardised solutions  (e.g. in the area of transport), and speak 
with one voice in the international scene. Th e latter facilitates the interaction of non-
European countries with Europe  in the field of research. 
• Promoting cross-border project collaboration : JP promotes cross-border project 
collaboration, which brings with it a multitude of benefits: 
– It facilitates the pooling of data and expertise scattered across several countries or 
Europe as a whole (e.g. rare diseases). 
– It promotes the rapid dissemination of research results.66 
– It promotes cross-border human resources mobility and training. 
– And it increases the scientific, technol ogical and innovation impacts of each Euro 
of public research support. International scient ific collaboration and co-publishing 
is facilitated by international science progr ams, and allows countries to reinforce 
                                                                                                                                                         
infrastructures, materials and products are often newly developed or substantially improved, often with 
commercial potential. 
66 If results are not well disseminated, the value of carrying out research is seriously diminished. Indeed, 
one of the key justifications of public expenditure on R&D is to maximize the social return through 
ensuring the widest possible dissemination of research results. Moreover, in the context of the Lisbon objectives, research can only cont ribute to economic growth, to competitiveness and to job creation if 
the results are disseminated to the European business sector so that they can be transformed into new 
products, processes or services. Carrying out this di ssemination at a level higher than that of a single 
Member State – to users, industries, firms (SMEs in particular), citizens, etc. – is more efficient and 
leads to a better exploitation of research, with a larg er impact than would be possible at the level of a 
single Member State. Given the classi cal obstacles of language, proximity  etc., when research is carried 
out purely at national level, it can be difficult for researchers abroad to access this new knowledge if no 
special incentives are provided. In addition, a country  may generate important results in a particular 
area of science, but if it has no industrial activity corresponding to this discipline, then commercial 
exploitation may be severely hampered. Cross-border collaborative projects provide a powerful 
mechanism for disseminating results internationally. 
 
EN 42   EN their domestic specialisation or to compensate for domestic weaknesses.67 
International technological co-operation (i.e . between inventors with residence in 
different country) is even more fr uitful than domestic co-operation.68 The 
empirical evidence that collaboration a ffects innovative performance positively is 
substantial. 69,70 
• Facilitating horizontal policy coordination : The pooling of Member State public 
research support efforts into hi ghly visible, large-scale res earch programmes integrated 
cross-nationally will facilitate horizontal po licy coordination, or th e coordination between 
research policy on the one hand, and education,  innovation, ICT, energy, environmental, 
etc. policies on the other hand.  
• Reduction of programme management costs : It allows for the reduction of the national 
management cost of those national programmes which are integrated cross-nationally (and 
for providing more support for research).71 
• Cross-border policy-learning : It enables cross-border poli cy-learning and improvements 
in the running of non-integrated national programmes. 
• Improved accountability and transparency : Joint evaluation will improve accountability 
and the transparency of public R&D support. 
Box: Positive S&T impacts of JP on industry 
Some of the positive S&T impacts, JP has on industry have already been referred to above: 
• Pooling scattered data and expertise : As already mentioned above, JP  promotes cross- border project 
collaboration, which facilitates the pooling of data and expertise scattered across several countries or 
                                                 
67 Wolfgang Glänzel, National Characteristics in Inte rnational Scientific Co-Authorship Relations, In: 
Scientometrics , Vol. 51, 2001, pp. 101-2. 
68 Dominique Guellec and Bruno Van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, The Value of Patents and Patenting 
Strategies: Countries and Technology Areas Patterns, In: Economics of Innovation and New 
Technologies , 2002, Vol. 11, pp. 133–148. 
69 Chang, for instance,  has found that " the success of firms, regions, se ctors and nations has become 
increasingly dependent on how effec tively they generate and use knowledge in an increasingly growing 
interdependent economy ," that " inter-organisational co-operation is positively associated with the 
firm's innovation performance ," and that " the firm's networking capability with suppliers, customers, 
and knowledge-creating organisations asserts a decisive influence on its innovative performance ". – 
Yaun Chieh Chang, Benefits of Cooperation on Innovative Performance, In: R&D Management , Vol. 
33 2001, pp. 425-437. 
70 The European Commission found for both Germany and Finland that " a positive impact of 
collaboration on the propensity to patent in both countries is…evident " and that " the externalities due 
to clients increase the innovation intensity by half a percentage point. "- European Commission, 
European Competitiveness Report 2004 , 2004, p. 79 and p. 87. 
71 There are many aspects to the management of a pub lic research programme. Prio rities have to be set, 
work programmes developed, calls for proposals launched, proposal evaluations organised, contracts 
negotiated, projects managed, and ex-post evaluations carried out. This means that the management of a 
public research programme is quite intensive in terms of both human and financial resources. The management of public research programmes is also characterised by economies of  scale. As the size of 
a public research programme increases, the share of  resources allocated to its management decreases 
more than proportionally. Joint programming - under which some or all programme management activities (launching calls for proposals, organising proposal evaluations, etc.) are carried out jointly - 
allows Member States to save on their programme management costs and achieve economies of scale. 
 
EN 43   EN Europe as a whole. This enables the private sect or to pursue, much more than it can now, "open 
innovation" strategies. According to the currently dominant "open innovation" paradigm, research and 
innovation are becoming increasingly costly and comp lex, which forces firms to search for outside 
knowledge, and turns networks and partners into important elements in the innovation strategy. This is 
especially important for SMEs, which usually ar e not in a position to access foreign knowledge. 
• Rapid dissemination of research results : Innovation is often accompanied by so-called first-mover 
advantages. The firm which is first to bring a new product or process to the market is often the one which 
can occupy a large share of the market. Rapid innovation, however, depends to a large extent on the rapid 
domestic and cross-border dissemination of research results. JP, by promoting cross-border project 
collaboration, facilitates such rapid dissemination. This  is especially important for SMEs, which usually 
are not easily included in the dissemination loop. 
• Development of common, standardised solutions : Industry has a great interest in market predictability, 
which to a large extent depends on the developmen t and acceptance of common st andards and norms. JP, 
which facilitates the development of common, standardised solutions, contributes to such market predictability. 
In addition, a number of other benefits for industry can be identified: 
• Facilitating access to public research support : Multinational companies often carry out research in 
different European countries. To access public sup port for their research, th ey have to familiarise 
themselves with a multitude of different national an d regional research programmes operating in the 
different European countries, each with their ow n objectives, application,  proposal selection and 
management procedures, and cycles. SMEs and locally embedded universities and research institutes have 
difficulty accessing information on fo reign research programmes. JP will significantly reduce the number 
of public programmes operating in Europe thereby maki ng it easier for companies to access public research 
support.
72 It will reduce the cost of information and the cost of applying for companies and have a positive 
effect on the crowding-in factor or leverage effect of public R&D support, resulting in higher private and 
overall R&D investment. 
• Facilitating the development of joint pub lic-private strategic research agendas : Europe's industry is 
well-networked and able to speak to Member States and to the Community with one voice. On the other 
hand, however, and as already mentioned, a multitude of different of different national and regional 
research programmes are operating in the different Eu ropean countries, preventing the public sector from 
speaking with one voice to industry. JP will enable the public sector to speak with a single voice on particular research subjects and this  will facilitate the interaction and st rategic research coordination with 
the private sector (which can facilitate the develo pment, further down the line, of joint technology 
initiatives). JP also facilitates the coordination of pub lic research support progra mmes supporting industrial 
technologies (see, for instance,  recent ERA-NETs (concerning construction, micro- and nano-
manufacturing) supporting Technology Platforms). 
• Facilitating horizontal policy coordination : The much higher visibility of large-scale joint programmes 
and their results as compared to national programmes  will enable the rapid alignment of non-research 
policies to facilitate the take-up of those research re sults. It will facilitate the coordination of research 
policies with education and innovation policies (an explicit stakeholder demand), as well as with other 
policies. 
It can be expected that all of the aforementioned benefits for industry will make Europe a more attractive place 
for business R&D investment, which will have a positive impact on Europe's R&D intensity.
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
72 According to Lena Lange,  former director of Novo zymes and of Nordforsk: " Whilst industry is 
globalising its research strategy to address global challenges, it needs to interact and depend upon myriads of decision makers for public research ." In The Future of Science and Technology in Europe , 
Lisboa, 8-10 October 2007.. 
 
EN 44   EN The extent to which these aforementioned benefi ts of JP will be achieved depends entirely on 
the extent to which a real structuring effect is  attained. With these considerations in mind, it 
can be argued that the S&T be nefits of JP are best achieve d under the "strategic European 
process" option, which as argued above achieves th e largest structuring e ffect (see Table 3). 
The S&T impact of the "Community-driven st rategic" option is potentially large but 
uncertain, since it depends entirely on the leve l of stakeholder suppo rt. The "business-as-
usual" and "Article 169 maximi zation" options have (much) sm aller structuring effects and, 
therefore, also (much) smaller S&T impacts. 
5.6. Economic impacts 
The Communication, which this Impact Asse ssment is accompanying, proposes a process  for 
identifying suitable topics and implementation instruments for JP. This means that these topics and instruments are not know n to us at this point in time.  This of course hampers the 
precise ex-ante estimation of societal ( economic, social, environmental) impacts. 
Because of the abovementioned reason, it was not  possible within the scope of this Impact 
Assessment to engage in a precise econometri c modelling exercise (as was possible and has 
also been done within the context of the FP7 Impact Assessment).73 Nevertheless, a generic 
argument can be developed. Public investment  in research generates important economic 
impacts. Economic growth, employment and international competitiveness (in terms of, for instance, import and export performance) depend to a large extent on technological 
innovation, which itself depends cr ucially on research. Modern mainstream economic theory 
– whether neoclassical, endogenous  or evolutionary – has recognised for quite some time now 
that technological progress a nd innovation are the main engines of economic growth.
74, 
There is also empirical support for the cont ribution of S&T to economic performance. 
Estimates of private returns to firms’ own i nvestment in R&D still produce varying figures, 
but there is an emerging consensus that gro ss returns between 20 and 30 % are common and 
plausible. Microeconomic studies confirm the ex istence of significant sp illovers of knowledge 
from the firms that perform the R&D to othe r firms and industries.  Taking account of 
                                                 
73 COM(2005) 118, Brussels, 6 April 2005. 
74 According to Baumol, innovation explains much of the extraordinary economic growth record under 
capitalism. The reason is that in important parts of the economy, competition is based on innovation 
rather than price. Firms are th erefore forced by market pressu re to support innovative activity 
systematically and substantially (William J. Baumol, The Free-Market Innovatio n Machine. Analyzing 
the Growth Miracle of Capitalism , Princeton, N.J. and Oxford, 2002, viii-ix). According to Romer, 
productivity growth is driven by  innovation resulting in the creatio n of new though not necessarily 
improved product varieties (Philippe Aghion and Pe ter Howitt, Appropriate Growth Policy: A Unifying 
Framework, 9 August 2005, p. 2-3). And under the Schumpeterian paradigm, growth results from "quality improving innovations that render old products obsolete, and hence involves the force that 
Schumpeter called 'creative destruction'"  (Aghion and Howitt, Appropriate  Growth Policy: A Unifying 
Framework, Paper presented for the 2005 Joseph Schumpeter Lecture, Amsterdam, 25 August, 2005, p. 3). Even basic research generates several direct economic benefits. It is a source of useful new 
information; It creates new instrumentation and methodologies. Those engaged in basic research 
develop skills which yield economic benefits when individuals move from basic research carrying codified and tacit knowledge. Through participation in basic research, access is granted to networks of 
experts and information. Those trained in basic research may be good at solving complex technological 
problems. And, finally, on the basis of basic research, spin-off companies are creat ed (Ben Martin et al., 
The Relationship between Publicly Funded Basi c Research and Economic Performance, A SPRU 
Review, Report Prepared for HM Treasury, July 1996, p. vii.). 
 
EN 45   EN measured spillovers typically raises the estimated gross rate of return on business investment 
into the range of 30 to 40 %. Macroeconomic studies, which by definition cover all sectors of the economy, also find significantly higher re turns to R&D in OECD countries, with 
estimates ranging from 50 % to over 100 %. A recen t Austrian report found that the rise of 
corporate spending on R&D from 0.8 % to 1.1 % of Gross Domestic Product in the second 
half of the 1990s produced a boost of three tenths of a % in growth.
75 Both microeconomic 
and macroeconomic studies find that an importa nt source of productivity growth in all OECD 
countries comes from the international diffusion of technology. A country’s ability to absorb 
those foreign technologies is enhanced by invest ment in education and by investment in own 
R&D. 
The economic literature is not conclusive on  the employment effects of innovation, since 
process innovation (the introduc tion of labour-savi ng technologies) is likely to have a 
negative effect on employment at least in th e short run, assuming all other factors remain 
constant, while product innova tion creates new markets a nd employment opportunities.76 But 
empirical evidence suggests  that technological cha nge promotes employment.77. 
Within this context, what JP – which is best supported through the "strategic European 
process" option (see Table 3) - does (as has been demonstrated in Section 2 and at the 
beginning of this section), is increasing – leveraging as it we re - the societal returns on 
Member State public research investment beyond what can be achieved at the level of a single 
Member State. Compared to purely nationa l programming and funding, JP and funding 
enables the production of useful knowledge wh ich otherwise could not  be produced (by 
overcoming barriers to entry, by  pooling necessary data and e xpertise, etc.), increases the 
quality of the research carried out (by increa sing the competition for funding), ensures that 
more relevant knowledge is produced (by linking research to jointly faced challenges), and 
guarantees a higher societal pay-off through hi gher impact publications and patents, higher 
degrees of innovativeness, rapid dissemination a nd the development of standardised solutions. 
5.7. Social and environmental impacts 
While a generic argument can be developed fo r economic and employment impacts, that is 
not possible for social and environmental impact s since it is not yet clear in which areas JP 
initiatives will be developed. Defining that is exactly what the proposed JP policy process is 
intended to do. What is clear, t hough, is that whatever the social or environmental challenge 
to be addressed, progress will be made most quickly and e fficiently under the "strategic 
European process" option, which is characterised by great strate gic focus - that is, focus on 
major societal challenges - and ach ieves the largest structuring effect and therefore the largest 
S&T impact, which increases the societal returns to public R&D support (see Table 3). 
                                                 
75 Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Culture , together with Federal Ministry of Transport, 
Innovation and Technology, and Federal Ministry of Economics and Labour, Austrian Research and 
Technology Report 2004 , Vienna, 2004, p. 2. 
76 European Commission, Employment in Europe 2004 , p. 77. 
77 Such evidence includes a recent study of the DG Employment which found that the rate of growth of 
total factor productivity (due to improvements in the efficiency of production or to pure technological 
progress) has a positive impact on the employment rate, with a one-year lag, and that both in the short- and long-term, total factor productivity and employment are positively correlated (European 
Commission, Employment in Europe 2004, p. 80). 
 
EN 46   EN Some examples can be provided of the way in wh ich JP could contribute to quicker and better 
solutions for social and environmental problems.  
• In the field of Cancer Clini cal Practice Guidelines (CPGs) research, many CPGs address 
the same topic.78 JP could facilitate pan-European public research programme optimisation 
by eliminating wasteful duplication. 
• Risk of overlaps has also been found in the fi eld of Organic Food Secu rity, especially in 
animal production system research.79 In this field as well JP could contribute to the 
optimisation of the pan-Europ ean public research effort. 
• The countries surrounding the Baltic Sea are affected by common environmental problems. 
JP allows these countries to address the challenges they have in common jointly.80 
• Climate change is a phenomenon producing eff ects on a global, continental, national and 
regional scale. Research into the impact of climate change tends to be organised locally to 
focus on local problems, although some of the le ssons learned could equally be applied in 
many regions. This is just one argument for greater co-operation between Europe’s various 
climate research programmes.81 
• The same argument is valid for research in to ageing. Population ageing is another example 
of one of Europe’s most pressing problem s. In particular, ageing represents a huge 
challenge for health care, social services a nd pension systems, as well as for the medical 
profession. Here too it can help to carry out research jointly.82 
• JP and cross-border project collaboration facilitate the development of common, 
standardised solutions. For example, efficient transport systems are crucial to the efficient 
functioning of the single  market, but transport research a nd policy are still too often seen 
from a national perspective. Closer co-ope ration between national transport research 
programmes can produce economies of scale and greater overall effectiveness, and also 
help to inform transport policy at European level. 
• In some fields of research, complementary data and expertise may be dispersed across 
several countries, and if nati onal research systems do not coor dinate with each other then 
the benefits of pooling these resources will be lost. For example, when researching rare diseases at regional or national level, the difficulty to reach the necessary critical mass of 
                                                
 
78 See the SWOT analysis prepared by CoCanCPG, D 4.5.1, p 7. 
79 Arja Nykanem and Stefano Canali (2006), An analysis of OFF research topics in CORE Organic 
participating countries conducted, Core Organic Project, D4.1.a, p.19. 
80 Efforts are already underway to coordinate marine re search in The Baltic Sea, Europe’s largest internal 
body of water. Ensuring sustainable development requires regional policies based on sound scientific 
knowledge. The BONUS network brings together 11 organisations involved in the funding and organisation of Baltic marine science to pool their research funding and coordinate the use of 
infrastructures. 
81 An ERA-NET project "CIRCLE" is currently preparing the ground for a coordinated information 
network on climate change. 
82 The ERA-AGE project is making some efforts to bring together the national research programmes from 
14 European countries to help Europe address age-related problems in a concerted way. The US, whose citizens are ageing at a slower pace than Europe, iden tified this major issue 30  years ago, and the 2005 
budget for the National Institute of Ageing surpassed US$ 1000 million.  
 
EN 47   EN patients, expertise, and facilities is one of the major obstacles. There are at least 6000 to 
7000 rare diseases, which taken together af fect some 20 million European citizens. 
Research is often hampered by a thin distribution of patient s which impairs gathering of 
enough subjects for suitable studies, few specia lised research groups, and a lack of 
standardisation of available da ta and material collections. 
5.8. The preferred option and its impacts on different actors 
The conclusion of the above argumentation is that  the preferred policy option is the "strategic 
European process" option. The "business-as-usual " option is rejected mainly on the basis of 
its lack of strategic focus, its weak structuring effect, its negative impact on horizontal policy 
consistency, and its weak societal impact. Sim ilarly, the "Article 169 maximization" option is 
rejected on the basis of its lack of strategic fo cus, its "one-size-fits-all" approach and its more 
limited structuring effect and societal impacts. The "Community-driven strategic" option, 
while its potential impact is great, is rejected on th e basis of the risk it entails. It is likely that 
it will not be supported by stakeholders, whic h will negatively affect strategic focus, 
structuring effect, and societal impacts, a nd anyway it is unlikel y that the Community 
disposes of a sufficiently detailed knowledge  about Member State research programmes to 
suitably identify JP topics. 
The "strategic European process" option en joys the highest levels of support from 
stakeholders, who agree that there is a need fo r the definition of stra tegic research agendas 
and their implementation in a coordinated mann er, especially for tackling common societal 
challenges; that a partnership, which couples a voluntary, bottom-up approach with strategic 
top-down guidance, is indispensable for ensuri ng flexibility and customisation to programme 
specificities; that the principles of subsidiari ty, variable geometry a nd real European added 
value need to be respected; and that a one-size-fits-all approach cannot be pursued. 
It is precisely by proposing a proc ess in which Member States feel  secure and in  control that 
the preferred option seeks to overcome the relu ctance of public bodies a nd other stakeholders 
to take forward the integration of national research: it is an entirely voluntary process, which gives full ownership to the Member States, who decide in a bottom-up way what they want to 
do; it is selective, allowing Member States to choose the JP initiatives they are interested in 
and want to be associated with, a nd to opt out of those they do not  wish to be involved in; it is 
also flexible, allowing countri es to choose between various instruments which can promote 
stronger or looser forms of coordination as a ppropriate and as desired by Member States.  
Because of these high levels of stakehol der support and the joint programme area and 
instrument choice process proposed, the "strategic  European process" option provides the best 
guarantees for obtaining the largest aggregate sy stemic structuring effects (by, for instance, 
increasing the competition for funding and providing under-performers with incentives to improve their performance, instituting common evaluation, etc.). 
This in turn will allow for th e full realisation of the benefi ts of cooperation. These include 
overcoming barriers to entry; pan-European pr ogramme optimisation; scientific excellence; 
jointly tackling commonly faced challenges, de veloping common, standardised solutions, and 
speaking with one voice; cross-bo rder project collabora tion (with its own set of benefits such 
as the pooling of data and expertise, rapi d dissemination, cross-border human resources 
mobility and training, and increased scien tific, technological and innovation impacts); 
reduced national management costs of integrated programmes; the improvement of non-
 
EN 48   EN integrated programmes; and improved accountability  and transparency. Mo re specifically for 
industry, the benefits include 'open innovation', th e rapid dissemination of research results, the 
development of common, standardised solutions , better access to pub lic research support, 
easier development of joint public-private strate gic research agendas, and quicker horizontal 
policy coordination. Ultimately, these S&T impacts translate into a higher societal return on 
public research investment, which means hi gher economic growth, competitiveness and 
employment, and quicker and be tter solutions for social and environmental challenges. 
Under this option, Europe 's citizens will benefit from higher economic growth, 
competitiveness and employment, and from qui cker and better solutions for social and 
environmental problems. These will result from  the important S&T benefits derived from JP 
and its significant structuring effects. 
Europe's enterprises will benefit from a greater ability to pool scattered data and expertise and 
pursue open innovation strategies, from the more rapid dissemination of research results, from 
the development of common, standardised soluti ons, and from better access to public research 
support [through reduced information costs (c oncerning the existence of programmes and 
their procedures) and reduced administrative burden (concerning actual grant applications)]. 
In addition, the development of joint public-private strategic re search agendas and horizontal 
policy coordination will be facilitated. 
Europe's scientists will benefit from larger and more strategically targeted research programs, 
a greater ability to pool data and expertise scat tered across several countries or Europe as a 
whole, from the more rapid dissemination of research results, from increased cross-border 
human resources mobility and training, and from the ability to achiev e higher scientific, 
technological and innovation im pacts. These impacts are of  particular importance for 
scientists in regions  and countries catching up in term s of research investment and 
performance.  
Europe's research programme owners will benefit from a larger scientific, technological, 
innovation and societal return on their investment in public research support, as well as from 
reduced programme management costs (which can be disproportionate ly high, especially 
where small research programmes are concerned, gi ven the need to launch separate calls for 
proposals, evaluate those proposal s, etc.), cross-border policy learning (which will improve 
the quality of research programmes), and in creased accountability a nd transparency (through, 
for instance, joint evaluation). These impacts are of particular importance for research 
programme owners and managers in regions an d countries catching up in terms of research 
investment and performance. 
6. RISK  AND  RISK  MITIGATION 
With the preferred "strategic European pro cess" option are various risks associated. The 
various S&T and societal impacts discussed above are the impacts which can be achieved if the proposed JP policy process is implemented successfully. Yet, its full success is not guaranteed a priori. This is very  clearly demonstrated by the last fifteen years' of slow 
progress in the field of Europ ean cross-border programme c oordination and collaboration 
(discussed in section 1). In order for this pr ocess to be successful, a number of important 
boundary conditions have to be met convincingly. 
 
EN 49   EN The proposed JP policy process foresees th at this Communication and its accompanying 
Impact Assessment constitute the basis for the development of a common vision on and a 
clear shared understanding of what JP is and what it enta ils in terms of funding, joint 
ownership, sharing of expertise, opening, etc. Th e careful drafting of these documents, as well 
as the subsequent in-depth discussions to be held on these documents at Council level and in 
other for a, will ensure this. Yet hitherto acqui red experience from JP at various levels has 
shown that a sine qua non conditi on for success is the existence from the very outset of a 
strong political impulse and of a deep and sust ained commitment at the highest political level 
in the Member States. The risk exists, howev er, that this required commitment will not 
materialise, which could result in a heavily bureaucratised "empty" and ultimately 
unsuccessful policy process. This is what has ha ppened time and again over the course of the 
past fifteen years. 
First, this risk would appear to be smaller now than it was perhaps in the past and this because 
of the growing recognition in the Member States of the societal challenges Europe is facing 
and of the S&T and societal costs of non-coordina tion and of the S&T and societal benefits of 
JP. Second, the proposed policy process has been designed specifically to mitigate this risk. A 
high-level political process is proposed, as di fferent from a regular consultation approach, 
which rests squarely on the Member States, w ith the Commission services in a facilitating 
role. The process assigns an important and c ontinuing role to the Council in terms of: 
• Inviting Member States' and Associated Countri es' research ministers to mandate personal 
representatives for an ad-hoc gr oup to identify suitable JP areas.  
• Mandating JP area specific high-level Member  State working groups to define SMART 
objectives, formulate strategic research agendas, etc. 
• Closely monitoring the process on an annual ba sis (via obligatory a nnual reporting by the 
Commission), and 
• Evaluating the process after 3 years. 
The proposed process is evidence-based and grounde d in an in-depth st rategic analysis of 
respective S&T fields, which will ensure that only feasible JP initiatives are taken. An 
accommodating approach is proposed, which is marked by instrument flexibility (a wide range of possible Community and other instrume nts for implementation), variable geometry, 
and flexibility in terms of the extent of progr amme integration pursued (partial cycle, full 
cycle). 
A second risk is that of institutional inertia and "field-level" operational stakeholder resistance 
to, for instance, integrated, jointly funded, mo re competitive calls for proposals. Evaluations 
of past coordination measures have suggested that this inertia may be due to a number of 
factors: fear of losing c ontrol of programmes, non-existe nce of well-defined national 
programmes, national legislation that does not a llow support to foreign institutions, lack of 
multi-annual budgets and requirement of yearly parliamentary approval, a desire not to lose the visibility of some  key national projects.
83 The "strategic Europ ean process" option has 
important features which will help to overcome th ese obstacles and assuage any potential 
                                                 
83 Optimat – VDI/VDE/IT, Examining the Design of National Research Programmes , Study prepared for 
European Commission – DG Research (Directorate M2), December 2005 
 
EN 50   EN concerns of Member States. Firstly, it is an  entirely voluntary process which gives full 
ownership to the Member States who decide in a bottom-up way what they want to do. 
Member States have the full power to define particular JP actions  and can decide to opt in or 
opt out of them as they wish. Where they choo se to participate in a JP action, they will not 
lose control as such, but the form of contro l they have will depend upon the nature of the 
action. The key calculation for Member States, how ever, will not be about control per se, but 
rather about whether any percei ved losses from doing JP are out weighed by the benefits to be 
obtained from cross-border cooperation (impact on scale, scope etc.). Secondly, the process 
offers flexibility in the choice of instrument s, which means that new programmes could be 
created if desired, even where well-defined national programmes do not exist. It is also a 
targeted and gradual process which allows ar ea-specific obstacles to be tackled over a 
reasonable period of time. And by focussing on pressing societal challenges of common 
concern, it provides a serious incentive to mobilize efforts and break down barriers. 
A third risk is that the proposed JP policy proc ess will lack the requir ed evidence base. The 
identification of suitable JP topics, the fo rmulation of SMART objectives and strategic 
research agendas, etc. will re quire the collection of strategic intelligence on what specific 
kinds of research each Member State is supporting, through which programmes and 
institutions, etc. 
To mitigate this risk, the involvement of expe rts in the respective S&T fields is foreseen. 
They would identify the necessary information, and takes steps to ensure its collection. The 
approach would differ from previous efforts at  information gathering which tended to cover 
all Member States and all fields of science, and as a result were time-consuming and produced 
quite aggregated results. Instead, it would focus only on the selected specific fields (probably 
around three in the first phase of JP) and only on th e Member States that wish to participate in 
JP in each field. This focussed approach. would a llow data to be collected more rapidly and at 
a much greater level of detail. Since a JP init iative in a given area would necessarily involve 
the key players in the field, this would also f acilitate the task of gathering the information 
required. 
This information gathering process should use da ta already available in the Member States 
and thus should impose no additional reporting obligation. Member States may decide to 
update the information collected over the course of  time if this is useful. It is also a voluntary 
exercise limited to those Member States partic ipating in a specific JP area, and it is the 
Member States themselves, not the Commi ssion, who will decide upon the best method for 
gathering information. 
In summary, it can be argued that the main risk mitigation strategy underlying the proposed 
process is that of learning from and build ing upon the valuable recent experience with 
coordination instruments by setting up a properly structured policy process based firmly on the principles of Better Regulation: working clos ely with the Member States in a transparent 
manner; respecting the principles of subsidia ry, European added value and proportionality; 
preparing and launching concrete initiatives on the basis of an extensive, credible evidence-
base; and ensuring the accountabi lity and transparency of the process via proper monitoring 
and evaluations systems. 
 
EN 51   EN 7. MONITORING  AND  EVALUATION   
An important role will be played in the mitigat ion of risks by the creation of suitable systems 
for monitoring and evaluating the process proposed in this communication for the 
identification of topics and areas for JP , the formulation of SMART objectives, the 
development of strategic research  agendas, the launching of specific JP initiatives, etc. Within 
this context, it is of key importance that sufficient human and financial resources are dedicated to monitoring and evaluation. 
Regular monitoring and evaluation of progre ss against the SMART ob jectives should be 
ensured. 
Based on expert reports, the Co mmission will inform the Council of progress at each stage of 
the process so that it can provide adequate st eering and allow more interested countries to 
join. 
The Commission together with the Member States will evaluate the Joint Programming 
process as a whole. This evaluation will be commenced three years after the launch of the 
process.  
 
EN 52   EN ANNEX  
Annex 1 
ERA Green paper open consulta tion: on line consultation and 
positioning papers. 
Following the publication of the Green Pape r "The European Research Area: New 
Perspectives" (COM(2007)161, Brussels April 4 2007), the European Commission launched a 
broad institutional and public debate on what needs to be done to give renewed impetus to the realisation of an open, competitive and attractiv e European Research Area. An on-line public 
consultation was opened between 1 May 2007 and 31 August 2007. 474 i ndividuals and 211 
organisations including large companies, SM Es, associations of commercial interests, 
governmental bodies, funding agencies, universit ies, etc. from across Europe and other 
countries responded to the consultation.
84  
The following tables summarises the distributi on of the responses to a selected set of 
questions relevant for the purpose of Joint Prog ramming. Table IV, in particular, presents the 
respondents' view on the need to open the nationa l programmes in basic research and how this 
should be achieved, whereas Table II presents  the distribution of respondent's answers 
concerning the need to open applied resear ch and on how this can best be achieved. 
Table VI presents the distributi on of respondents' views with resp ect to the perc eived benefits 
of cooperation in different domains. These figures in particular were used for figures 1 and 2 
in section 1.4.1. Note that in the figures, th e percentages of respondents agreeing with the 
statements were presented as a pe rcentage of non missing answers. 
In the same open consultation, there were an additional 146 free-format positioning papers, 
from MS, NGOs, industry associations, SMEs; la rge companies, European bodies, etc. Table 
IV presents a list of the positioning papers used as input for table 1 in section 1.4.1. 
                                                 
84 For further details see http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/p rogress-on-debate/stakeholder-
consultation_en.html  
 
EN 53   EN Table IV: Green Paper open consultation: Opening of basic research 
  If in agreement, this can be achieved by:  
 National and regional investigator 
driven (basic) research programmes should be opened to the participation of persons from all EU Member States. Full opening of programmes to 
applications from all (mutual opening). Limited opening of programmes to 
applications based on bilateral agreements The networking of research activities 
conducted at national or regional level, and the mutual opening of national and regional research programmes with the Commission 
taking a facilitating role (ERA-Net 
type) Unilateral opening of national and 
regional programmes to some or all EU Member States  
 
No answers 
Disagree No opinion Agree No answers Disagree No opinion Agree No answers Disagree No opinion Agree No answers Disagree No opinion Agree No answers Disagree No opinion Agree Total 
Individuals 29 11 7 53 52 11 4 34 60 17 3 20 58 5 7 30 63 15 8 14 69 
Association representing 
commercial interests / Chamber of Commerce 44 11 11 33 78 11 0 11 89 0 0 11 78 0 0 22 89 0 11 0 1 
Commercial organisation 
(including consultancy) fewer than 250 employees 27 0 0 73 27 27 0 45 36 18 0 45 27 27 18 27 27 36 9 27 2 
Commercial organisation 
(including consultancy) more than 250 employees 14 14 21 50 50 36 0 14 57 7 0 36 50 0 7 43 57 14 0 29 2 
Governmental body 23 8 0 69 46 23 15 15 46 15 8 31 38 0 8 54 54 8 23 15 2 
Higher Education Institution 
(University, University College, Polytechnic etc) 13 18 3 67 44 28 0 28 49 15 5 31 46 5 3 46 51 26 5 18 6 
Public sector research performer 
other than Higher Education Institution 26 6 6 62 44 21 18 18 53 21 3 24 44 6 0 50 44 18 6 32 5 
Research funding organisation 13 13 0 75 25 25 13 38 38 13 13 38 25 0 0 75 25 25 13 38 1 
Non-Governmental, not for profit, 
not representing commercial interest Organisation 40 17 5 38 74 2 5 19 71 7 12 10 69 2 12 17 71 12 12 5 6 
Other 29 12 12 46 56 29 2 12 54 15 5 27 56 5 0 39 56 27 5 12 6 
Total 28 12 7 53 52 14 4 30 59 16 4 22 56 5 6 33 60 16 8 15 100 
 
 
EN 54   EN Table V: Green Paper open consulta tion: Opening of applied research 
 If in agreement, this can be achieved by:  
 National and regional 
socially driven (applied) 
research programmes 
should be opened to the participation of persons from all EU Member States. Full opening of programmes 
to applications from all 
(mutual opening). Limited opening of 
programmes to applications 
based on bilateral 
agreements Networking of research 
activities done at national or 
regional level, and the 
mutual opening of national and regional research pro-grammes with the Commission taking a facilitating role (ERA-Net 
type) Unilateral opening of 
national and regional 
programmes to some or all 
EU Member States  
 
No answers 
Disagree No opinion Agree No answers Disagree No opinion Agree No answers Disagree No opinion Agree No answers Disagree No opinion Agree No answers Disagree No opinion Agree Total 
Individuals 34 12 10 43 64 7 2 28 70 15 3 13 68 4 4 24 71 14 5 11 69 
Association representing commercial interests / Chamber of Commerce 56 11 22 11 89 0 0 11 100 0 0 0 89 0 0 11 100 0 0 0 1 
Commercial organisation (including consultancy) fewer th an 250 employees 27 9 0 64 36 18 0 45 45 27 0 27 45 27 9 18 45 36 0 18 2 
Commercial organisation (including consultancy) more than 250 employees 21 14 21 43 57 29 0 14 64 7 0 29 57 0 7 36 71 7 0 21 2 
Governmental body 31 23 0 46 62 15 8 15 62 15 0 23 62 0 0 38 69 8 8 15 2 
Higher Education Institution (University, University College, Polytechnic etc) 21 21 8 51 56 21 0 23 59 21 0 21 56 5 0 38 59 28  3 10 6 
Public sector research performer other than Higher Education Institution 26 0 12 62 53 26 3 18 44 21 0 35 41 3 0 56 44 18 6 32 5 
Research funding organisation 13 25 0 63 38 13 13 38 50 13 13 25 38 0 0 63 38 13 13 38 1 
Non-Governmental, not for profit, not representing commerc ial interest Organisation 43 12 7 38 74 7 0 19 71 5 12 12 71 5 5 19 7 4 10 10 7 6 
Other 29 15 12 44 59 24 2 15 59 10 5 27 59 7 0 34 56 29 5 10 6 
Total 33 13 10 45 62 10 2 25 67 14 3 16 65 5 3 28 68 15 5 12 100 
 
 
EN 55   EN  
Table VI: ERA Green Paper open consultation: Distri bution of responses by category of respondent. 
 Do we need to work together, more closely, at EU level for the planning of research priorities, implementation of research pro grammes and the evaluation and review of research? Specifically, do we 
need to work together on:  
 Participatory processes: 
structured dialogue between stakeholders including civil society to prepare informed decisions / opinions Foresight: identifying future 
research challenges and opportunities. Programming: selecting 
research priorities based on measurable objectives and deadlines (programming). Project peer review: 
evaluation of publicly funded research proposals by peer review. Research evaluation: 
evaluation of ongoing publicly funded research programmes. Programme peer review and 
evaluation structures: European, national and regional research programmes should agree to be evaluated together in joint 
evaluations by similar teams 
of experts according to common and shared practices.  
 
Agree 
Disagree No opinion Missing Agree 
Disagree 
No opinion Missing Agree Disagree No opinion 
Missing 
Agree 
Disagree No opinion Missing 
Agree 
Disagree No opinion Missing Agree Disagree 
No opinion 
Missing Total  
Individuals 40 14 11 35 59 7 3 31 44 16 7 32 56 7 5 32 51 11 5 32 49 10 6 35 69 
Association 
representing commercial interests / Chamber of Commerce 56 0 0 44 56 0 0 44 56 0 0 44 56 0 0 44 56 0 0 44 33 0 0 67 1 
Commercial 
organisation with fewer than 250 employees 36 18 18 27 55 9 9 27 64 9 0 27 45 18 9 27 64 9 0 27 45 9 9 36 2 
Commercial 
organisation with more than 250 employees 64 7 14 14 79 0 7 14 79 0 7 14 57 14 14 14 64 7 7 21 36 36 14 14 2 
Governmental body 31 23 15 31 69 0 0 31 54 15 0 31 69 0 0 31 62 0 8 31 62 0 8 31 2 
Research funding 
organisation 75 0 13 13 88 0 0 13 63 13 13 13 75 13 0 13 63 13 13 13 50 25 13 13 1 
 
EN 56   EN  Do we need to work together, more closely, at EU level for the planning of research priorities, implementation of research pro grammes and the evaluation and review of research? Specifically, do we 
need to work together on:  
 Participatory processes: 
structured dialogue between stakeholders including civil society to prepare informed 
decisions / opinions Foresight: identifying future 
research challenges and opportunities. Programming: selecting 
research priorities based on measurable objectives and deadlines (programming). Project peer review: 
evaluation of publicly funded research proposals by peer review. Research evaluation: 
evaluation of ongoing publicly funded research programmes. Programme peer review and 
evaluation structures: European, national and regional research 
programmes should agree to 
be evaluated together in joint evaluations by similar teams of experts according to common and shared practices.  
 
Agree 
Disagree No opinion Missing Agree 
Disagree 
No opinion Missing Agree Disagree No opinion 
Missing 
Agree 
Disagree No opinion Missing 
Agree 
Disagree No opinion Missing Agree Disagree 
No opinion 
Missing Total  
Higher Education 
Institution (University, 
University College, Polytechnic etc) 62 23 3 13 79 5 0 15 59 21 3 18 64 13 3 21 67 13 3 18 59 21 8 13 6 
Public sector research 
performer other than 
Higher Education 
Institution 62 18 3 18 82 0 0 18 68 15 0 18 71 12 0 18 74 3 3 21 41 15 26 18 5 
Non-Governmental, 
not for profit, not 
representing 
commercial interest organisation 48 5 12 36 64 2 2 31 45 10 12 33 55 2 12 31 55 7 7 31 50 10 7 33 6 
Other 59 17 2 22 73 7 0 20 44 29 5 22 59 22 0 20 59 20 2 20 54 15 12 20 6 
Total 59 18 11 37 82 7 2 34 62 21 8 35 74 11 5 35 71 13 6 36 63 15 11 37 100 
 
 
EN 57   EN Table VII: ERA Green Pap er open Consultation: f ree format contributions 
Member States Higher E ducation Institutions Public sector research perf ormers other than higher 
education Research funding organisations Associat ions representing commercial interests 
Austrian Ministry for Economics and Employment A group of leading Universities Academy of Science of the Czech Republic Academy  of Finland Advanced R&T for Embedded Intelligence & Systems, 
(ARTEMISIA) 
Belgian Science Policy, Commission for International Cooperation (CIC) CSE-CNE Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique 
(CNRS/CSIC/MPS) Biosciences Federation (BSF) Association of the German Chambers of Industry and 
Commerce (DIHK) 
Czech Senate Chalmers University of Technology Commissariat d'Énergie Atomique Cyprus Research Promotion Foundation (RPF) BUSINESSEUROPE (The Confederation of European 
Business) 
Czech Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports Conférence des Présidents d'Université Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German 
Research Foundation) Danish Councils for Independent Research (DCIR) CBI - The voice of Business 
Danish national position paper European Law and Policy Research Group Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron (DESY) European Research  Council Chambre de Commerce et d'Industrie de Paris (CCIP) 
Danish Parliament European University Association (EUA) European  Heads of Research Councils (E UROHORCs) Royal Netherlands Acade my of Arts and Sciences Confederation of Netherlands Industry and Employers 
(VNO-NCW) 
Ministry of Education and Research Higher Education Researcher Development (UKHERD) Europe's intergovernmental Research Organisations 
(EIROforum) Scientific and Technological Research Council of 
Turkey (TUBITAK) DRIVE for Growth 
Finnish Ministry of Trade and Industry & Ministry of 
Education Index Copernicus International S.A Fraunhofer Gesellschaft Scottish Funding Council ETP Plants for the Future 
Former Republic of Macedonia Ministry of Education 
and Science League of European Research Universities (LERU) German Aerospace Centre (DLR) - contribution  European Association of Research and Technology 
Organisations (EARTO) 
Center for Strategic Analysis (France) National Oceanography Centre German Aerospace Centre (DLR) - position  European Chemical  Industry Council (CEFIC) 
German Ministry for Education and research SHERPA – University of Nottingham Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft  European Confederation of Iron and Steel Industries 
(EUROFER) 
Research Council (Germany) UK HE Higher Education sector Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD)  European Digital Te chnology Industry (EICTA) 
Irish Department of Enterprise, trade and employment University of Hertfordshire Institut Français de Recherche pour l'Exploitation de la 
Mer (IFREMER)  European Rail Research Advisory Council (ERRAC) 
Italian Ministry for University and Research  Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA)  European Road Transport Research Advisory Council 
(ERTRAC) 
Dutch Government  Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche 
Médicale (INSERM)  European Steel Technology Platform (ESTEP) 
Norwegian Ministry of Research and Higher Education  Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en 
Automatique (INRIA)  European Technology Platform Food for Life 
 
EN 58   EN Member States Higher E ducation Institutions Public sector research perf ormers other than higher 
education Research funding organisations Associat ions representing commercial interests 
Poland's position  Institut Pasteur  European Technology Platform for Global Animal Health 
(ETPGAH) 
Romanian Ministry of Education, Research and Youth  Le Haut Conseil de la Coopération Internationale 
(HCCI)  European Technology Platform Nanoelectronics 
(ENIAC) 
Spanish Ministry of Education and Science  Max-Planck-Gesellschaft / Gesamtbetriebsrat  European Technology Platform of the Waterborne 
Industries (WATERBORNE) 
Swedish Ministry of Education and Research  Research Information network  European Technology Platform on the Future of 
Manufacture (MANUFUTURE) 
Swedish Parliament    German Publishers and Booksellers Association 
Swiss State Secretariat for Education and Research    InnovaWood 
Turkish Scientific and Technological Research Council    International Association of Scientific, Technical & 
Medical Publishers (STM) 
UK Government    Networked European Software and Services Initiative 
(NESSI) 
    Syndicat National de l'Edition (SNE) 
    The Publishers Association 
    Trade Marks, Patents & Designs Federation (TMPDF) 
    Electricité de France (EDF) 
    ELSEVIER 
    ERICSSON 
    Philips Research 
    QinetiQ - leading international defence and security 
technology company 
 
EN 59   EN Annex 2 
Stakeholder opinions on the key ro le of research and the need for 
enhanced coordination  
As well as examining the respons es from the ERA Green Paper ope n consultation, this Impact 
Assessment exercise also considered a variet y of other public cons ultations and opinion 
surveys in which citizens, policymakers and ot her stakeholders expres sed their views with 
respect to: 
• the role of research in addressing Europe's societal challenges, and  
• the need for enhanced coordination in public R&D in Europe. 
The challenges that require coordinated Europe an action are increasingly societal and cross-
border in nature (for example, agei ng population, climate change, energy).85 These challenges 
correspond closely to the concer ns of citizens.  For instance  96% of  Europeans feel that 
protecting the environment is an important cha llenge. Climate change stands out clearly as 
one of specific the issues that citizens wo rry about, followed by water pollution, air pollution 
and man made disasters.86  
It is widely recognised - by e xperts, citizens and R&D actors - that research will play a key 
role in responding to these challenges. A Eu ropean-wide network of national foresight 
managers carried out a mapping of S&T topi cs responding to pan- European societal 
challenges, and identified the foll owing S&T topics as the top-ten in terms of trans-national or 
European interest: (1) developing new tec hnologies for monitoring and preserving the 
environment; (2) developing clean and altern ative energies; (3) developing converging 
technologies for medicine; (4) early stage dete ction and identificati on of micro organisms 
responsible of infectious di seases; (5) solving the energy problem fo r transport; (6) 
evaluating, anticipating the imp acts of the climate change; (7 ) better understanding of the 
brain: neurology and neurobiology ; (8) increasing information security; (9) exploring new 
applications for nano-materials and processe s; (10) shifting to a hydrogen based economy.87 
Citizens too are convinced that research can play a significant role  in facing Europe's 
challenges. 94% of EU citizens believe that medicines and new medical technologies will 
have a positive effect on our way of life in the next 20 years; 91% believe that solar energy 
will have a positive effect on society and 92% declare that energy saving measures in the 
home will impact society in a positive way. Citi zens would appear to be confident of the 
advantages of new energy sources to power cars , with 90% declaring th at this will have a 
positive effect on our way of life.88 In the context of climate change and energy supply, the 
                                                 
85 The public consultation paper on the review of the future EU budget – a review motivated by the need 
for Europe to better cope with its future challenges – identifies the most pressi ng societal challenges as: 
the capacity to further adjust to structural change, globalisation, the transformation to a knowledge and 
service economy, ageing and demography, solidarity with in the EU and with the rest of the world, the 
impact of climate change, energy, security, etc. "Reforming the budget, changing Europe", SEC(2007) 
1188 final Brussels, 12.9.2007 
86 Special Eurobarometer 295, “Attitudes of European citizens towards the environment”, March 2008 
87 FORSOCIETY ERA-NET 
88 http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf  
 
EN 60   EN majority of EU citizens consider that energy related research should be a priority for the 
European Union. 89 
In the open consultation on th e Strategic Energy Technology plan, 321 individuals and 283 
institutions expressed their views (betw een 7 March 2007 and 13 May 2007) on Europe's 
energy challenges. More than 95% of the responde nts agreed that techno logy had a vital role 
to play, that 'business as usual' was not an option, and that the EU must act jointly and urgently. In the same consulta tion, around 95% of the respondents considered that there was 
an added value in undertaking actions at the European level to promote energy technologies, 
and that taking the right actions to develo p and introduce in the market new energy 
technologies now could lead to sustainable energy in the future (see Table VIII).
90 
Table VIII: SET–Plan  open consultation (percentage  distribution of responses) 
  Do you think that 
there is added 
value in European 
Union level action to promote energy 
technologies? In the 21st century technology 
has a vital role to play 
enabling economic growth 
without environmental degradation, by ensuring 
sufficient clean and affordable 
energy. To continue developing energy 
technologies 'business as 
usual' is not an option.  The European Union must act 
jointly and urgently. It will take 
decades to progressively 
transform the energy system, but we must start now. It is a 
process that requires strategic 
and coordinated action at European, national, regional 
and local level, pro-active 
planning and a comprehensive policy framework.   
  
Do not know 
No 
Yes 
No o pinion 
Stron gly disa gree 
Somewhat disa gree 
Undecided 
Somewhat a gree 
Stron gly agree 
No o pinion 
Stron gly disa gree 
Somewhat disa gree 
Undecided 
Somewhat a gree 
Stron gly agree 
No o pinion 
Stron gly disa gree 
Somewhat disa gree 
Undecided 
Somewhat a gree 
Stron gly agree 
Total 
Individual 3 2 94 0 0 1 1 19 78 0 1 2 2 22 73 0 0 1 3 10 85 53 
Organi-
sation, institution, 
company 1 1 98 0 0 1 0 19 80 0 0 1 4 27 68 1 0 1 1 16 81 47 
Total 2 2 96 0 0 1 0 19 79 0 0 1 3 24 71 0 0 1 2 13 83 100 
 
Joint EU-level action is also supported at a more  general level: a large majority of European 
citizens thinks that decisions should be made  jointly at EU level for scientific and 
technological research (72%),91 and a greater majority still beli eves that there should be more 
coordination of research be tween the member States of the European Union (83%).92 This 
view was also supported by the open consulta tion for the Seventh Framework programme.  
                                                 
89 Special Eurobarometer 262, “Energy Technologies: Knowledge, Perception, Measures”, January 2007 
90 Commission Staff Working Document Accompanying document to ”A European Strategic Energy 
Technology Plan (SET-Plan) COM(2007) 723 final, full impact assessment, SEC(2007) 1508, Brussels, 
22.11.2007 
91 Eurobarometer 68 “Public  opinion in the Europe an Union", December 2007 
92 Special Eurobarometer 224, “Europeans, Science and Technology”, June 2005 
 
EN 61   EN Between 30 July and 15 October 2004, 1730 indi viduals and organisations including 
universities, large companies, SMEs, associat ions and government bodies responded to the 
consultation. 84% considered the improvement of coordination of na tional programmes as a 
very important or important objective.93 More than 80% of stakeholders also believed the 
impact of coordination on the effi ciency of the overall EU res earch system would be greater 
or substantially greater. However, there were some differences between different categories of 
stakeholders: for example, the percentage of  SMEs, universities an d of public research 
organisations considering the improving of c oordination of national programmes as very 
important was higher than the pe rcentage of large industrial companies. These differences 
may reflect their individual access to research  funding and their ability to influence policy 
making at different governance level. (see Table IX).  
Table IX: FP7 open consultation (perce ntage distribution of responses). 
 How important is the objective of 
improving coordination of national 
programmes? If the coordination of national research 
programmes is improved, the impact on the 
efficiency of the overall EU research system 
compared to the current situation will be:  
  
Don't know 
Not important 
Unnecessary 
Important Very important Don't know Substantially less Less 
The same 
Greater Substantially greater Total Individual person 5 8 4 40 43 9 1 4 8 47 32 31 
Association  2 3 5 47 43 4 3 4 3 50 36 7 
Commercial organisation 
with less than 250 
employees 4 5 2 48 41 6 1 1 10 52 31 8 
Commercial organisation 
with more than 250 
employees 9 10 3 41 37 10 1 1 17 50 23 7 
Governmental body 4 4 0 38 54 6 0 1 5 49 39 8 
University/higher 
education 6 10 3 39 42 9 2 5 8 48 28 26 
Other 3 6 2 47 41 6 0 3 6 55 32 13 
Total 5 7 3 42 43 8 1 3 8 49 31 100 
                                                 
93 An online consultation on the Commission Communication “Science and Technology, the key to 
Europe’s future – Guidelines for future European Union policy to support research”, COM(353)2004, 
was open to all interested organisations and indi viduals to participate in between 30 July and 15 
October 2004. Over 1700 organisations and individuals from across Europe and other countries, and including universities, large companies, SMEs, associ ations and government bodies responded to the 
consultation. 
 
EN 62   EN Similar views on the need to improve the coor dination of public R&D in Europe have been 
expressed by the R&D actors (mainly nationa l research programme owners and funding 
agencies) that participate in the ERA-NET scheme.94 They provide some striking examples of 
the need for more coordination in specific S&T fields. Virtually all of the 71 networks have 
reported that their specific areas of science and technology are fragmented or sub-optimally 
organised at the European level and that m easures need to be taken to increase the 
coordination of the national public research e fforts. Table X presents some of the most 
significant quotes extracte d from ERA-NET reports. 
                                                 
94 Set up in the sixth framework programme for research and technological development to support the 
networking of national and regional research programme owners and managers. 
 
EN 63   EN Table X: Evidence of fragmentation and c oordination failure from ERA-NET reports. 
ERA-NET Quotes from reports/websites  
HY-CO The study will help to overcome the fragmentation and compartmentalisation of 
research efforts in the EU through better coordination and cooperation . (HY-CO, Co-
ordination Action to Establish a Hydrogen and Fuel Cell ERANET, Hydrogen Co-ordination,  
Report on analysis of data collected Work Package 2, Deliverable D2.2,  10 Feb 2006, p. 11) 
; "The public funding for H&FC programmes  varies significantly between countries " (HY-
CO, Report on indicators of hydrogen and fuel cells research, 27 Sep. 2006, p.19), "Overall, 
it appears that the EU25+ is spending  too much on research into stationary 
applications, and not enough on research into hydrogen production, storage and 
distribution and portable applications.  [...] cooperation between small research 
programmes in different countries can deliver benefits to the EU25+ as a whole by 
efficiently allocating resources according to which areas require further research" (HY-CO, 
Report on indicators of hydrogen and fuel cells research , 27 Sep. 2006, p. 35).  
PV-ERA-NET 
SP1 "national efforts from the European point of view are still relatively fragmented  in the way 
that they often lack transnational coherence in terms of mutual knowledge, topics, 
approaches and cooperation " (PV-ERA-NET SP1, A Programmers' Approach to 
Strengthen Europe's Position in PV Research and Technology Paper, p. 1) 
BONUS "Baltic Sea research is carried out  in all riparian countries in tens of research institutes 
and universities and through hundreds of projects and thousands of scientists. " 
(BONUS REPORT on Task 2.1 Identification of areas for cooperation in existing 
programmes and gaps,  p. 3), "A recent summary (Re port of the CREST Working Group on 
the Mutual Opening of Member State Marine  RTD Programs (Final report, October 2003) 
revealed that the concepts, strategies, and the scientific and technical implementation 
of European marine research programmes vary in general and in the Baltic Sea region 
in particular . The national research policies and legal and administrative procedures for 
funding research programmes differ for each country and, therefore, no coordination 
exists between these disparate approaches ." BONUS Publication n. 1, Baltic Sea 
Research benefits from funding cooperation,  p. 6.) "The amount of data and literature 
concerning the chemistry, hydrography, and f auna and flora of the Baltic Sea is abundant 
but often nationally scattered in numerous languages. Thus, studies synthesizing and 
combining the data and information sources ac ross and between sub-regions of the Baltic 
Sea are generally scarce." (BONUS Publication n. 5, BONUS-169 Baltic Sea Science Plan 
and Implementation Strategy  p.13 ) 
EUROPOLAR "There is a high diversity of organisations that manage and fund research in the Polar 
Regions in Europe. A key challenge in the overall system is that management strategies 
are not sufficiently harmonised ."p.6, "The assessment indicates that direct financing 
models for research in Polar Regions are complex. There are a multitude of systems 
operating in the current polar RTD landscape." p. 10. "Another  obstacle [...] is a general 
fragmentation of scientific activities and in frastructures which may cause overlapping and 
increase of costs of research in Europe an polar regions." (European Polar Consortium, The 
landscape of European Polar Research VOLUME I: An assessment of current strategic 
management, polar programme definition and processes ) 
BIODIVERSA "Both the European Commission and the Research Ministers of the Member States have recognized 
the need for improved European co-ordination specifically in Biodiversity science. While the diversity of biodiversity funding programmes poses many challenges , many Member States have 
fundamentally similar aims and objectives , implementation and evaluation procedures etc. 
BiodivERsA will address this and the priorities of  the ERA, to cultivate and support Europe’s 
biodiversity research capacity and capability." 
(http://www.eurobiodiversa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=78&Itemid=91) 
 
EN 64   EN  
CIRCLE "Before the CIRCLE SSA: The EU has many excellent Climate Impact Assessment and 
Adaptation related research units in different countries focussing especially on the topics 
relevant for their distinct geo- climatic situation. Research projects are carried out either 
nationally or in European consortia wi thin the Commission’s Framework Programme . 
Cooperation on a  regular basis between the national programmes  is almost impossible. 
Links between the national programmes and the Framework Programme  are very weak. 
There are almost  no pertinent  research funding activities in the candidate or new 
Member States ". (CIRCLE, Continuously Open Call Coordination Action (Ca) Proposal, Part 
B, 2005, p. 18)  
 
CRUE "The collation of information from CRUE partners yielded a remarkable result: 33 FRM-
linked research programmes, about 180 research projects, 57 principal FRM funding bodies, 
92 national “think-tanks” regar ding FRM research, and 27 national and international FRM 
research networks have been identified." (CRUE, Ma in Report, 2007, p. 4) "In recent years, 
Europe has suffered a number of severe rive r and coastal floods [...] National governments 
have responded with research into flood risk management and mitigation,  but there has 
been little coordination of their programmes ." "Sometimes within a single country, 
several organisations, such as agricultural and environmental agencies, research 
councils and water boards, may carry out uncoordinated programmes . One of the aims 
of CRUE ERA-NET is to reduce this fragmentation  by synthesising information on 
Europe’s flood risk management research programmes and enabling partners to share 
insights into flood risk management. Flood processes and mitigation measures often apply 
to similar situations in different countries and a given flooding event can cross a frontier in 
seconds. Co-operation within and between natio nal programmes – on research, prevention 
and mitigation – should therefore greatly increa se the effectiveness of flood management." 
http://www.crue-eranet.net/about_CRUE.asp?more=1  
NETBIOME "the European Biodiversity research is highly fragmentised within and between the 
Member States . [..] This fragmentised situation is am plified in the overseas regions and 
territories. Several critical barriers hinder coop eration of the overseas regions and territories 
between themselves, with continental Europe and with third countries, among which very long distances, isolation and time differences between these regions spread over the world, 
deficiency of resources and critical mass, lack  of timely access to facilities, lack of 
awareness and difficult access to information. 
Thus, both  cooperation and coordination of research programmes on these issues  are 
poorly done , between the regions themselves and between them and continental EU 
countries and funding is scattered. […] There is a specific need of better coordination at 
regional levels of these differ ent tropical and subtropical regions  and to improve 
relationships within different levels of R&D governance: EU, national, territorial/regional. 
This would avoid this fragmentation and dispersion of resources and would allow 
implementing a durable co-operation between the different regional funding agencies and 
those acting at the national and EU levels, and even international." (Source: NETBIOME, 
Annex I – « Description of Work », 30 11 2006 ) 
 
 
EN 65   EN SNOWMAN "more than half of Europe has no special funding programme related to contaminated soil 
and groundwater and those countries which have, have no coordination what so ever 
among them " ("A SNOWMAN´s Navigator through Re search Funding Programmes across 
Europe”; http://www.snowman-era.net/downloads/Navigator.pdf.p.3) 
ERA-AGE "Ageing research in all ERA-AGE partner countries seems to be well established though 
not nationally coordinated . [...] Ageing research on the Eu ropean landscape is fragmented 
and there is an urgent need to plan and coordinate it strategically at the national as well as 
the European level." (Summary Recommendatio ns From The Report Of The First Meeting 
Of The European Forum, 16th and 17th February 2005, p. 2) 
NEURON "while the cooperation level among research in stitutions in the various European countries 
appears satisfactory, clear deficiencies are present with regard to the coordination of 
respective research funding . Funding activities are fragmented and scattered at national 
and regional levels, and only few approaches have been undertaken to phase them. Thus,  
the coordination of national and regional funding programs can improve efficient use 
of high but still limited resources,  and increase their impact. Coordinated funding 
activities can avoid redundancy, fill gaps, and use synergies." (sourc e: http://www.neuron-
eranet.eu/en/118.php)  
CoCanCPG Life 
Science "The analysis of this survey shows that the management and funding of Cancer CPG 
research is very fragmented . In some countries and regions, such as France, Netherlands 
and Spain, there are specific organisations responsible for these programmes. In other countries, the cancer clinical practice guide lines research programmes are integrated in 
programmes that cover other medical specialties, in some cases, and in programmes that 
have a much wider scope than clinical practice guidelines in other cases. This research domain is at the intersection between health services research (e.g. quality of care, 
accreditation, evaluation) and medical specialities research. There are also spectacular 
differences in the level of funding available for these research programmes ." 
CoCanCPG, Final report on survey  of organisations, 2004, p. 7) 
PathoGenoMics "In contrast to human or plant genome resear ch with long-lasting and well-cooperating 
national programmes in several European count ries, the present programmatic situation 
concerning genome research on human-patho genic micro-organisms (in the following 
termed as “pathogenomics“) is rather  dispersed and non transparent . Specifically 
matching programmes are rare  (at present only in DE, formerly in the UK), whereas the 
most funding activities are spread into more general programmes for biotechnology, 
genomics, or general microbiology (as e.g. specific  action lines, priority thematic areas, or 
sub-programmes).” ( COORDINATION ACTION (CA) PR OPOSAL PART B “PathoGenoMics 
p.7) 
E-RARE Research needed to tackle rare diseases is "hampered due to their special idiosyncrasy: 
complex phenotypes, thin distribution of pat ients (which impairs gathering of enough 
subjects for suitable studies),  isolation and low number of specialized research groups 
for each specific disease, fragmentation and lack of standardisation of available data 
and material collections ." http://asso.orpha.net/ERANET/cgi-
bin/articles.php?lng=en&pg=17  
HESCULAEP  "the overall objective of HESCULAEP is to  coordinate the National /Regional Research 
Programmes in the field of the management of medical emergencies, thus overcoming 
their current fragmentation, and creating a sustainable long term cooperation , in order 
to improve their overall management, and im prove the overall Eu ropean EMS.p.7 [...] 
Research programmes are scattered, inhomogeneous, very often not related to a EMS 
specialty, but linked with other transversal topics , such as cardiology or traumatology." p. 10 
(HESCULAEP, Speakers Presentations, European EMS: the HESCULAEP projec t, March 
2005) 
 
EN 66   EN  
Annex 3  
Main inter-governmental and Community  actions for trans-national R&D 
cooperation 
A variety of schemes and institutions have evol ved in Europe over the last fifty years which 
involve trans-national research cooperation. 
The first important steps in European scientif ic cooperation were made in the 1950s in the 
form of CERN and Euratom, which emerged from the post-war pol itical environment of 
cooperation-building Europe. During the 1960s and 1970s more instituti ons were created – 
including the European Southern Observat ory (ESO, funded in 1962), the European 
Molecular Biology Organisation (EMBO, funded in 1964), the Institut Laue-Langevin (ILL, 
funded in 1967), the European Space Agency (E SA, funded in 1974), the European Molecular 
Biology Laboratory (EMBL, funded in 1974) and, more recently, the Eu ropean Synchrotron 
Radiation Facility (ESRF, funded in 1988). Th e 70s also witnessed the creation of the 
European Science Foundation – and a multi-sector cooperation scheme COST was established. By the 1980s Europe was increasi ngly concerned with a growing technology gap 
vis-à-vis its global competitors, and this peri od saw the arrival of two important multi-sector 
programmes: the EU RTD Framework Progr amme and EUREKA, wh ich became major 
elements of the European c ooperative research  landscape.  
CERN, in particular, is the world's largest pa rticle physics centre. It s main mission is to 
perform fundamental research in  particle physics and provide th e necessary infrastructure and 
facilities. It also defines, c oordinates and follows up the stra tegy for development of Europe-
wide programme in particle physics. 
EMBL is one of the leading research organi zations in molecular biology in Europe. Its 
missions are to perform basic research in mo lecular biology, scientif ic service provision, 
advanced training, development of new tec hnologies and instrumentation and technology 
transfer. 
ESA promotes cooperation among European St ates in space research and technology for 
scientific purposes and for operational space a pplications systems in terms of national and 
European space policy, elaboration and implem entation of space activities and programmes, 
coordination of European and national sp ace programmes, and by elaboration and 
implementation of a coherent industrial polic y. The MS funding cha nnelled through ESA is 
predominantly based on the principle of geographic juste-retour. The domain of space stands 
out in that the area is highl y coordinated at European leve l through ESA (representing some 
65% of the total funding in Eu rope) whilst the R&D is carried  out individually at national 
level. The area is also somewhat  apart in that the funding is predominantly industry oriented 
and passed via procurements. 
These inter-governmental organisa tions – along with the others – have become world leaders 
in their fields. Moreover, they offer benefits  of pooling resources to share the costs of 
developing large-scale and expans ive research facilities, and th ey promote a greater coherence 
and effectiveness of research activity 
 
EN 67   EN However, inter-governmental organisations have  certain limitations. For example, it has been 
remarked that the time taken to establish and raise funding is frequently very long; that they have a 
certain conservatism resulting from their fixed orientation towards specific disciplines 
(although over time, many are able to  evolve to meet the needs of different sets of users or are 
upgraded to meet the evolving needs of the origin al scientific community); and that they have 
difficulty in growing sufficiently  in areas of extremely rapid scientific or technological 
development (requirement for additional reso urces which cannot be generated easily by 
shifting priorities amongst compartmentalised institutions ).95 The main complementary 
funding schemes which exist which encourage trans-national R&D cooperation are the EU 
Framework Programme, COST and EUREKA.  
The EU Framework Programme for Resear ch and Technological Development is a 
Community instrument. It has proven to be a very effective mechanism over the last two 
decades for promoting trans-national coopera tive R&D in Europe, and has been able to 
provide an increasing source of f unding in recent years. Because it operates as a fixed-length 
multi-annual programme, it has been able to re -shape itself and innovate over the years. The 
7th Framework Programme launched in 2007 introduced two major new cooperative 
initiatives: the European Research Council – a competitive funding scheme at a European 
level for investigator-driven frontier research – and the ITER projec t a world-leading 
international collaborative project with the go al of taking the next major step in the 
development of fusion energy. 
COST is an inter-governmental scheme wh ich facilitates and funds coordination and 
exchanges between nationally funded researcher s across Europe, in a variety of research 
fields. It is bottom-up and wholly financed by the FP. COST has receiv ed strong support from 
stakeholders, and is more open to new areas and has wider geogr aphical coverage than the FP. 
However, its complicated governance structur e is not well embedded in the national and 
European research po licy strategy processes.96  
EUREKA promotes collaborative industrially and market orient ed research projects. It 
generates bottom-up “innovative” projects, as well as "Clusters" and "Umbrellas". EUREKA 
has a strong networking capability, a flexible bo ttom-up approach particularly geared towards 
SMEs. However, some shortcomings of EUREKA  have also been the subject of debate, 97 for 
example the lack of central evaluation, pr oject monitoring and decision-making capacity, 
leading to asychronic funding of different partners in a given project. It has also been 
suggested that the predominantly bottom-up char acter of EUREKA leads to a lack in focus 
                                                 
95 Note of panel F of the Conference on research infrastructures of 19-20 September 2000 in Strasbourg. 
96 The COST Final Review in FP6 concludes "Of great concern to the Panel is that despite several 
improvements, the governance stru cture of COST remains extremely complicated. The review panel’s 
main concern is that there is little clarity on th e roles and decision-making powers of each of the 
different actors, in the overall governance picture and for the final responsibilities for COST activities 
in particular. The current governance arrangement does not provide sufficient impetus particularly 
concerning the strategy formulation and positioning of COST…. The Panel makes the observation that overall the Committee of Senior Officials is not well embedded in the research policy strategy process 
in their member States nor in wider EU research policies. The strategic development of COST remains 
relatively isolated from research policy in their Member States, which hampers the visibility and leverage effect of COST." Final review of COST in the Sixth Framework programme, High Level Panel 
Chaired by Mrs Monfret, 31 May 2007. As follow up to the recommendations of the Final Review, 
COST has set up a small group to identify solutions to the governance issue. As a further step, COST 
legal status and governance is expected to be disc ussed at the COST Ministerial Conference in 2009. 
97 Impact Assessment of the Artemis Joint Technology Initiative (2007). 
 
EN 68   EN and impact of national efforts. In the Eurost ars programme (a joint initiative by the EC and 
EUREKA, based on Article 169) these shortcomings have largely been addressed, with, 
amongst other things, a central evaluation mechan ism and pre-defined financial commitments. 
Scale of inter-governmental and Co mmunity actions for trans-national 
R&D cooperation – me thodological note 
As discussed in section 2.2.2, according to our es timates, the share of inter-governmental and 
Community actions for trans-national R&D coope ration in total government financed civil 
Gross Expenditures in R&D (GERD) has remained  relatively stable over  the past 15 years, 
oscillating between 16 and 14%.  
This ratio was derived by several statistical  sources. Total government financed GERD for 
EU27, EFTA countries, Switzerland, Turkey and Croatia comes from EUROSTAT. The 
disaggregation between civil a nd defence GERD is estimated by applying the percentage of 
civil and military Government Budget Outlays or Appropriations of R&D (GBOARD) in the 
total R&D appropriations.  
The government funded R&D expe nditures of intergovernmental organisations are obtained 
by summing up national contributions to th e budget of CERN, ESO, EMBO, ILL, ESA, 
EMBL and ERSF. These data were kindly pr ovided by the organisations themselves.  
Estimates for the intergovernmental scheme EUREKA were obtained by adding up the total 
budget of Clusters and Umbrellas. Roughly 99% of  these expenditures ar e originated within 
the ERA. The yearly amounts were then subtr acted from the industry financed GERD (50%) 
and from the government financed GERD (5 0%) to correct for dou ble counting. Public 
funding schemes within EUREKA differ significan tly across member stat es and the 50% key 
was a rough estimate.  
Finally the R&D expenditures financed through  the FP programmes were obtained from the 
EU budget. 6% of the total amounts were subt racted to take into  account the non R&D 
administrative costs necessary to manage the FPs. Consistently with the FRASCATI manual 
only the administrative cost s of the indirect actions within the FP were deducted. The share of 
6% is also consistent with the Parliament  and Council decisions fixing the Commission's 
administrative expenditure for the management of FP7 programmes at less than 6% - apart 
from the ERC whose administrative expenses will be less than 5%. 
 
EN 69   EN Annex 4 
An assessment of recent attempts to enhance coordination of public 
R&D through the Community Resear ch Framework Programme (FP6) 
ERA-NETs  
ERA-NETs were conceived under the 6th Framework Programme as a bottom up approach for 
bringing together managers a nd owners of national research  programmes in fields they 
identified as needing more coordination. 71 ERA-NETs were launched under FP6, which 
have resulted to end 2007 in more than 80 jo int calls totalling over 800 million euros. ERA-
NETs have been widely welcomed by the re search community who appreciate their bottom-
up nature, and their variable geometry. The mid- term review found that they fulfilled a real 
need and helped to overcome barriers to coordination, by creating a European networked 
"community" of programme owners and managers. 
The ERA-NETs' inclusion of ‘programme owners’ as well as ‘programme managers’ has been 
an important aspect of their success, given th e longer-term aim of altering perceptions in 
ministerial circles about the importance of trans-national research activities. Extending the invitation to participate to regi onal ‘owners’ and ‘managers’ was also seen as astute given the 
importance of regional R&D governance systems in  some national setti ngs and the growing 
importance of the regional level in  European RTD and innovation policies.
98 
A report by OPTIMAT99 concluded in 2005 that the bo ttom-up ERA-NET Coordination 
Actions have significantly incr eased networking activity across all types of programmes, but 
there is still a lack of high-l evel, strategic action to increase the alignment and coordination of 
national programmes. ERA-NETs suffer indeed  from certain structural weaknesses: 
administrative and legal barriers to cross-border  funding have hindered the setting up of joint 
programmes and there is still a reluctance to open up programmes and funding to foreign 
participants. More specifically, ERA-NETs ha ve been initiated in  a bottom-up way, but 
without being embedded in national research stra tegies. Also, the bottom up nature sometimes 
resulted in fragmented coordination of a give n research field, where a "larger topic" might 
have resulted in more critical mass, strategi c focus or national commitment. Whilst the ERA-
NET scheme is only 4 years old, only in a few cases have national programmes been modified 
as a result of ERA-NET actions.100 
More in detail, the mid-term revi ew of ERA-NET concluded that:  
(1) The ERA-NET experience was positive for ne tworks of national/ regional programmes 
willing to set up a central monitoring facility  and information resource, as far as the 
programme owners were sufficiently invol ved and committed, and where a long-term 
approach was taken and intelligence shared. 
(2) The experience was less positive in cases where the levels of decision-making were 
not well connected, where ri ng-fenced budgets to support joint activities were not 
                                                 
98 ERA-NET Review 2006 (2006). 
99 Examining the Design of National Research Programmes - Optimat Ltd and VDI/VDE-IT GmbH 
(European Commission, DG Research , Directorate M2) - December 2005 
100 Report of the ERA Expert Group on Optimisi ng Research Programmes and Priorities, 2008 
 
EN 70   EN available, where the strategic positioning was insufficient with respect to both home-
based activities and Framework Programme activities, and where efforts to build case history were not strong enough. 
(3) A major drawback was the lack of inform ation on respective programmes, activities 
and governance modes. Implementation of  common, transparent information and 
learning platform is urgently needed.  
(4) The success of integrated programmes manage d jointly requires the prior commitment 
of participating countries, the common unders tanding with regard to expectations, and 
a more accurate design phase to ensure that joint activities and pre-existing national assets enhance each other. 
In ERA-NETs full programme integration is not obligatory (although it is a target in the later 
steps in the process), and has not really been achieved so far. Through ERANET, some 
progress has been made towards cross-borde r programme integration. The Optimat report
101 
concluded that " bottom-up ERA-NET Coordination Acti ons had significantly increased 
networking activity across all types of programme ". There have been examples of systematic 
exchange of information and good practices  on existing programmes, as well as the 
development of joint activities between national or regional programmes and the 
implementation of joint transn ational research activities.102  
Yet ERA-NETs are unable to fully overcome the many persisting Member State domestic 
barriers to cross-border programme integrati on and achieve full programme integration. In 
some cases countries, do not have clearly id entified pre-existing national programmes which 
can be integrated into a cross-border programme . In certain cases, nati onal legislation makes 
it impossible to contribute to a multi-annual common pot financing joint calls. And sometimes there is a lack of political comm itment to cross-border programme integration (because of fear 
of loss of control, loss of visibility, etc.). 
In conclusion, despite the increasi ng number of joint calls it appear s that there still is a lack of 
high-level, strategic action to increase the alignment a nd coordination of national 
programmes, and that anecdotal evidence suggest ed that a lack of political will was holding 
back progress towards Joint Programming in  many ERA-NET projects. The report also 
detected a high degree of resistance within the ERA-NET community to contributions to 
multilateral programmes with a central budget because  of the loss of fina ncial control that it 
would entail, and the Optimat report concluded that ERA-NETs could create more alignment 
if they could influence policy at the critical design or evaluation milestones in programme life 
cycles.  
                                                
 
101 Examining the Design of National Research Programmes - Optimat Ltd and VDI/VDE-IT GmbH 
(European Commission, DG Research , Directorate M2) - December 2005. 
102 Including the adoption of standard operation procedures (ERASYSBIO); the development of common 
evaluation procedures (Safefoodera); the developm ent of an electronic proj ect proposal submission 
system and project management web tool (Acenet); the exchange of evaluators between programmes 
(MATERA); the exchange of programme managers (Norface); and the development of multinational 
evaluation procedures, common programme monitoring and evaluation, personnel exchange at 
programme manager level (Bioenergy). 
 
EN 71   EN European & Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP)  
Article 169 is another instrument of coordi nated programming launched under FP6 and FP7. 
The main objective of an Artic le 169 initiative is to go beyond the mere coordination of 
national programmes to achieve the real inte gration of different national and regional 
programmes into a single joint programme. An Ar ticle 169 initiative is implemented jointly, 
and funded through integrated financial support. 
Unlike an ERA-NET, in an Article 169 initiati ve the Union does not just support the simple 
coordination of the national programmes undertaken  by Member States but rather participates 
actively including a Community fi nancial contribution for research. While some new 169s are 
currently being launched, so far experience has been limited to the first one EDCDP. The 
main drawback found has been the difficulty in identifying the relevant  national programmes 
and in achieving a full integration of thes e programmes through a "common pot" of funding. 
The Article 169 instrument is also  limited to the themes of th e Framework Programme. It also 
arguably lacks a higher level strategic focus. 
Experience from the first Article 169 initiative,  EDCTP, has been useful in learning lessons 
for the future. Full programme integration re mains a long-term objective. Indeed, most 
Member States signing up to EDCTP were not aware of the implications of Article 169 in 
terms of fresh funding, joint ownership and sharing of expertise.103 In most countries, research 
activities were not integrated into a credible  national programme, which made it difficult to 
integrate national programmes into a Community programme.104 In some Member States, 
legislation does not allow for providing public financial support to fore ign institutions. In 
others, annual parliamentary appr oval is required for such support. Some di d not really wish 
to abandon their nationa l programme. For instance, Member  States with a high political 
profile in Africa did not want to lose control over or the visibility of their own national 
flagship projects. Several Member States were  not yet ready to accept that their money could 
be spent on foreign research teams. As a re sult of all this, programme integration, while 
progressing, remained limited.  
National activities were labelled 'EDCTP' when  adjusted to EDCTP goals. "The so-called 
"integrated activities" referred to national activities related to EDCTP (clinical trials on the three main poverty-related dise ases in sub-Saharan Africa). The concerned Member States 
certified the activity as of potential interest  for the EDCTP and, in the case of including a 
minimum of 2 EDCTP participating countries (f ulfilling the "European Integration" objective 
of Art. 169), included it as a budget contribution to the Joint Programme" .
105 Most national 
agencies were not yet able or prepared to finance EDCTP activities directly. They often 
required separate calls and evaluations and insisted on a systematic “juste retour” for their own researchers. Such legal and administrativ e limitations proved an obstacle to programme 
integration and made the EDCTP coordinatio n complex, bureaucratic and unattractive for 
industry as well as fo r African researchers.
106 The Independent Extern al Review panel felt 
that Member States should accept that progr amme integration takes place through a single 
EDCTP procedure for planning, launching and ev aluating calls, with no national strings 
                                                 
103 Van Velzen et al. (2007), Independent External Review Report, European and Developing Countries 
Clinical Trials Partnership, p. 21. 
104 Ibid., p. 22. 
105 Ibid., p. 23. 
106 Ibid., p. 21. 
 
EN 72   EN attached, and should agree to contribute to a “commo n funding pot” according to a 
predetermined allocation key.107 
On overall, although EDCTP encountered many di fficulties from 2003 to 2006, in part due to 
its ambitious goals, the last year has brought to EDCTP clear and promising progress, with 
renewed administrative structures, additional calls for proposals in all main scientific topics, and new budget contributions and commitmen ts from participating Member States. 
The lessons learned from these first experien ces have been crucial in developing and 
improving the next generation of ERA-NETs and Article 169s .  
In particular, a pre-requisite for Article 169 Initiatives under FP7 is that they should 
demonstrate a high level of integration at three levels: scientific, management and financial. 
Reflecting the EDCTP experience, financial integr ation is considered particularly important.  
The scientific, management and financial inte gration represent essential boundary conditions 
which must be met satisfactorily before br inging forward a proposal for an Article 169 
Initiative under FP7. These boundary conditions ha ve been applied in the case of the four 
Article 169 initiatives relating to programmes for research pe rforming SMEs ("Eurostars"), 
use of information technology for assisted  living for the elde rly ("AAL"), metrology 
("EMRP") and research in the Baltic Sea area ("BONUS-169"). 
                                                
 
107 Ibid., pp 28-29.