Commission staff working document - Accompanying document to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on Public-Private Dialogue in Security Research and Innovation - Impact Assessment {COM(2007) 511 final} {SEC(2007) 1139}
Date: 2007-09-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: impact study, innovation, public safety, public-private partnership, research, research and development

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 11.9.2007 
SEC(2007) 1138 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Accompanying document to the 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 

on Public-Private Dialogue in Security Research and Innovation 

Impact Assessment 

{COM(2007) 511 final} 
{SEC(2007) 1139} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This version of the Impact Assessment takes on board the recommendations contained in the 
opinion of the Impact Assessment Board in the following way: 

(1) 

The problem definition is now only focusing on the fragmentation of security research 
efforts in the EU. This is indeed the main problem we want to remedy by setting up 
the European advisory board ESRIF. The lack of funding is a secondary problem and 
has therefore been deleted from the problem definition. 

(2) 

The  two  sub-options  for  establishing  ESRIF,  including  the  analysis  of  impacts,  have 
been further elaborated, in particular the two sub-options of option 3. 

In addition, we indicated that the creation the board without a Commission decision is 
desirable  in  terms  of  subsidiarity.  This  has  been  further  explicated  under  the  impact 
analyses and under the section on policy options. 

Background/Context 

For  the  first  time,  the  7th  EU  Framework  Programme  for  Research  and  Technological 
Development  (FP7)  comprises  a  special  theme  on  Security  research,  while  several  financial 
programmes in the Justice, Freedom and Security area in the period 2007-2013 will finance 
short-term,  operational  and  policy  oriented  activities,  including  research.  Moreover,  several 
EU Member States have developed and launched their own complementary national security 
research  programmes.  In  this  context,  from  discussions  with  Member  States  and  FP7 
Associated  Countries,  representatives  of  the  European  Parliament,  industry  and  research 
establishments, the need to establish a strategic platform to carry forward security research in 
Europe and to link it to European security policies and their implementation, has emerged.  

As a result, the creation of a “European Security Research and Innovation Forum” (ESRIF) 
was announced at the “2nd European Conference on Security Research” (SRC’07) in Berlin 
on 26 March 2007 by the German Minister for Education and Research, Ms. Annette Schavan 
and Commission's Vice Presidents Günter Verheugen and Franco Frattini.  

The ESRIF should bring together, on a voluntary basis, all relevant stakeholder groups from 
the  demand  and  supply  sides  of  security  technologies  and  solutions.  It  would  have  a 
consultative role and should develop a Joint Security Research Agenda according to the needs 
and priorities of security policy makers and implementers to become the reference document 
for security research programming on European and national levels. Through its operations, 
the ESRIF should at the same time enhance public-private dialogue in the field of European 
security  research  and  increase  transparency  and  coordination  between  the  various  ongoing 
programmes and initiatives.  

DG  JLS  planned  in  the  CLWP  2007  a  Communication  covering  Private  Partnership  in  the 
field of European Security. 

DG ENTR planned in its 2007 agenda the creation of ESRIF, the European Security Research 
and Innovation Forum. 

It was decided to merge both actions. Given the complementary nature of the security related 
activities in JLS and ENTR, it will lead to greater coherence of EU actions in this domain. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
Compared  to  the  original  Commission  (JLS)  planning  to  issue  a  Communication  covering 
Private Partnership in the field of European Security (Option 2), it was decided to concentrate 
on Security Research for different reasons. Legal instruments and budgets exist at EU level: 
FP7  (2007-2013)  with  a  budget  line of  € 1.4  billion  for  the  security  research  theme  and  the 
Framework  Programme  for  Security  and  Safeguarding  Liberties  (2007-2013)  with  € 735 
million. 

Research  is  a  less-controversial  upstream  activity  where  the  Community’,  the  MS’  and 
Industry’s co-ordination activities can yield results in a short to medium time frame. 

It also allows for greater consistency by merging the JLS initiative with the one prepared by 
ENTR.  Two  Communications  on  such  similar  topics  might  have  led  to  duplication  of  work 
and efforts.  

Sub-option 3b (the creation of the ESRIF forum without a Commission Decision) is preferred 
over 3a (creation of ESRIF via a Commission Decision). It is felt ESRIF should not be set up 
via  a  Commission  Decision  in  order  to  preserve  its  independent  advisory  nature  and  the 
neutrality of the Commission. 

The  creation  of  ESRIF  has  been  advocated  in  one  of  the  conclusions  of  the  final  report  of 
ESRAB, the European Security Research and Advisory Board, delivered after more than one 
year of work1. ESRAB was composed of high level persons from public authorities, industry, 
research organisations, civil society organisations and European institutions. 

If  ESRIF  is  created,  a  second  Communication  accompanied  by  a  more  substantial  Impact 
Assessment  is  planned  to  be  delivered  in  the  second  half  of  2008.  It  will  react  to  the 
provisional outcome of the forum’s works.  

Section 1 - Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties 

This Communication is listed in the Agenda Planning of ENTR and in the agenda planning of 
JLS under number 2006/JLS +/012 with the title ‘Communication on Public Private Dialogue 
in Security Research’. 

No specific inter-service steering group was established. Other DGs have been informed and 
consulted informally on this initiative. 

Besides  ENTR  and  JLS,  all  relevant  Commission  services  (INFSO,  RTD,  TREN,  TAXUD, 
SECGEN,  ENV,  RELEX,  SANCO)  have  participated  or  followed  the  work  of  ESRAB  and 
will be involved in the future work of ESRIF.  

1 

Meeting the challenge: the European Security Research Agenda, a Report from the European Security 
Research Advisory Board, September 2006. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
At  the  end  of  2005,  a  major  European  wide  conference  was  organised  around  the  theme  of 
public-private  partnership  for  Justice,  Freedom  and  Security.  To  assist  in  the  preparation  of 
this  conference,  as  well  as  to  support  policy  development,  a  Steering  Group  was  set  up 
consisting of representatives of general business organisations such as UNICE, the ICC, the 
EFMA  and  others,  as  well  as  representatives  of  the  Member  States,  their  law  enforcement 
authorities  and  Europol.  This  Steering  Committee  has  met  regularly  during  2005  and  2006. 
Also,  separate  workshops  and  meetings  took  place,  one  of  which  within  the  Forum  for  the 
Prevention of Organised Crime. 

Security  related  stakeholders,  i.e.  public  end-users,  research  establishments,  industry,  other 
European organisations such as EP and EDA, civil society organisations have been involved 
in the work of the Group of Personalities (GoP)2 and ESRAB paving the way for ESRIF. 

On 26 March 2007, in the European Conference on Security Research, held in Berlin in the 
framework  of  the  German  EU  Presidency,  Vice-Presidents  Franco  Frattini  and  Günter 
Verheugen announced the creation of the European Security Research and Innovation Forum 
(ESRIF).  

A  thousand  delegates  from  the  EU  Member  States,  but  also  from  Norway,  Croatia,  Turkey, 
Switzerland,  Israel,  Russia,  the  United  States  and  Australia  from  public  authorities  and  the 
industry acknowledged the importance of the interface between the user and supply side for 
security solutions. 

Section 2 - Problem definition 

Security research is scattered between the EU level, the national level and the regional level 
with  a  clear  risk  of  duplication,  scientific  and  technological  underperforming  and  lack  of 
vision.  No  exact  data  exist  on  the  number  and  funding  of  security  research  activities  in  the 
MS,  which  are  in  most  cases  spread  thinly  over  different  Ministries  (Interior,  External 
relations,  Defence,  Research,  Industry,  Finance)  or  public  services  (police,  civil  protection, 
border control). 

Five  MS  have  started  or  are  about  to  launch  a  national  security  research  programme.  Other 
MS are thinking of it and most of the MS have recently stepped up co-ordination efforts. 

In order to co-ordinate these nascent and existing national, regional and European activities, 
and  to  avoid  duplication  and  fragmentation,  it  is  important  to  have  a  proper  consultation 
mechanism  and  where  possible  work  out  a  strategic  vision  with  better  defined  roles  for  the 
different stakeholders. 

The  EU  competitors,  the  USA  in  the  first  place,  have  not  remained  idle  and  re-organised 
themselves (e.g. Dpt. of Homeland Security) backed by substantial funding. 

Some confirmation and support is given by the GoP and the ESRAB final reports. 

2 

EN 

The  creation  of  the  Security  theme  in  FP7  was  based  on  the  recommendations  of  a  ‘Group  of 
Personalities’  (GoP),  set  up  in  2003.  In  its  final  report,  Research  for  a  Secure  Europe:  Report  of  the 
Group 
2004, 
of 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/security/doc/gop_en.pdf),  the  GoP  recommended  the  launch  of  security 
research  theme  at  EU  level  and  the  creation  of  the  ‘European  Security  Research  Advisory  Board’ 
(ESRAB). 

Security  Research, 

Personalities 

15  March 

field 

the 

of 

in 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
According to the GoP report3, 

‘Europe  should  be  able  to  get  a  much  better  return  on  its  defence  research  investment. 
European efforts are limited in this area and remain fragmented at national level. Wasteful 
duplication  persists,  particularly  in  product  development,  with  only  a  small  portion  of 
resources  spent  on  European  cooperation.  This  dispersion  is  another  consequence  of 
fragmented  defence  markets  where  the  absence  of  a  single  customer  with  a  single  set  of 
requirements increases costs and leads to inefficiencies. 

In the field of non-military security, these shortcomings are even more prominent, since it 
involves  a  variety  of  customers  within  each  Member  State  with  very  different  tasks  and 
requirements,  e.g.  the  police,  fire  brigades,  civil  protection,  border  control,  Ministries  of 
Interior  and  Defence,  power,  gas  and  oil  suppliers,  air  and  seaports)  .  In  addition,  the 
organizational  and  institutional  affiliations  of  these  customers  differ  greatly  within  and 
between Member States. Consequently, the definition of capability needs and acquisition are 
highly fragmented without any coordination at the European level. Moreover, public funding 
of non-military security research is generally limited.’ 

According to ESRAB, 

‘European  security  research  needs  to  be  complementary  to  national  security  research 
programmes. Where these exist, they should be aligned to the EU programme, and where they 
do  not,  it  is  proposed  that  these  should  be  established,  supported  by  a  critical  mass  of 
resources.  Funding  at  EU  level  should  not  substitute  national  funding  in  this  important 
Area4.’ 

According to the GoP report5, 

the period 2007-2013 appears desirable.’ 

Subsidiarity 

Security  research  is  part  of  FP7,  co-decided  by  Council  and  EP,  and  based  on  art.163  and 
following  of  the  EC  Treaty.  Research  is  a  shared  competence  between  the  European 
Community and the MS.  

There  is  a  need  for  EU  action  because  the  problem  of  scattered  security  research  and  the 
underperforming cannot be solved by individual Member states actions alone. 

The  aim  of  this  Communication  is  to  bring  together  in  forum,  on  a  voluntary  basis,  the 
demand and supply sides of technologies and solutions, the relevant EU Institutions and the 
Member  States  and  prepare  a  Joint  Security  Research  Agenda  which  should  become  the 
reference document for security research programming, both on the European and national / 
regional levels.  

3 
4 

5 

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/security/doc/gop_en.pdf 
Meeting the challenge: the European Security Research Agenda, a Report from the European Security 
Research Advisory Board, September 2006. 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/security/doc/gop_en.pdf 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The Subsidiarity principle will be fully respected. The proposed public private dialogue will 
discuss on a voluntary basis in a bottom up way, how duplication of research activities can be 
avoided  and  synergies  achieved  between  the  different  levels:  EU,  national,  regional  and 
industry.  The  outcome  of  the  discussions,  the  Joint  Security  Research  Agenda,  will  be  an 
advice to the Commission and the MS. 

A similar exercise has been carried out in the past in the field of aeronautical research by the 
ACARE forum6. 

Security is one of the important challenges we are facing at the moment. 86% of the European 
Union (EU) citizens are of the opinion that security questions should not only be dealt with at 
national but also at EU level7. 

Section 3 - Objectives 

The general policy objective is to increase the security of the EU citizens and to strengthen 
the industrial base in the EU. 

The specific policy objectives are: 

–  to draw a shared and clear view of European security research needs and priorities;  

–  to bring together and better use existing capabilities; 

–  to  increase  complementarities  and  synergies  between  the  different  elements  of  European 
security  (policy,  implementation,  standardisation,  research,  and  other  related  activities) 
both at European and national level. 

The  operational  objective  is  to  deliver,  towards  the  end  of  2009,  a  Joint  Security  Research 
Agenda for the coming years.  

Section 4 - Policy options 

Option 1, the no-policy change option would consist in not reflecting on identified problems. 

Option 2 is to establish a forum for a Public Private Dialogue in the area of Security. Its goal 
is to improve the prevention and the fight against terrorism and serious organised crime. 

This was the aim of the original Communication as planned by JLS in the 2006 CLWP. It is 
now proposed to transform this into a Joint Communication with ENTR and create a public 
private  dialogue  forum  in  the immediately operational area of Security Research covering a 
broader set of areas (see Option 3). 

6 

7 

ACARE published its second Strategic Research Agenda in October 2004 
http://www.acare4europe.com/docs/ASD-exec%20sum-2nd-final-171104-out-asd.pdf 
Special  Eurobarometer,  "The  role  of  the  European  Union  in  Justice,  Freedom  and  Security  policy 
areas", Fieldwork: June-July 2006, Publication: February 2007. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
Option 3 is to establish a forum for a Public Private Dialogue in the area of Security Research 
and  Innovation.  Its  scope  would  be  based  on  option  2  by  adding  other  missions  such  as 
improved border control, crisis management, critical infrastructure protection, interoperability 
and  socio-economic  aspects  to  the  two  initially  foreseen  missions  (terrorism  and  organised 
crime).  

The forum will have a consultative role in both options 2 and 3. 

Back ground information on policy option 3 

1. 

2. 

The creation of the Security theme in FP7 was based on the recommendations of a 
‘Group  of  Personalities’  (GoP),  set  up  in  2003.  In  its  final  report  (Research  for  a 
Secure  Europe:  Report  of  the  Group  of  Personalities  in  the  field  of  Security 
Research,  15  March  2004.),  the  GoP  recommended  the  launch  of  security  research 
theme  at  EU  level  and  the  creation  of  the  ‘European  Security  Research  Advisory 
Board’ (ESRAB). 

ESRAB,  the  European  Security  Research  Advisory  Board,  was  created  by 
Commission Decision 2005/516/EC on 22 April 2005 and published its final report 
on  22  September  2006.  It  contains  input  for  FP7,  i.e.  recommendations  on  the 
technologies that should be developed under FP7. 

ESRAB  was  composed  of  high  level  persons  from  public  authorities,  industry,  research 
organisations, civil society organisations and European institutions. 

The ESRAB report also suggested the creation of a European Security Board, (as a follow-up 
of  ESRAB  which  ceased  to  exist  on  31  December  2006)  to  foster  greater  dialogue  and  a 
shared  view  of  European  security  needs.  The  Board  should  bring  together,  in  a  non-
bureaucratic manner, authoritative senior representatives from a cross stakeholder community 
of public and private stakeholders to jointly develop a strategic security agenda and act as a 
possible reference body for the implementation of existing programmes and initiatives’8. 

This Communication is going in the direction of this ESRAB recommendation by proposing 
the creation of the European Security Research and Innovation Forum (ESRIF). 

The  ESRIF  would  develop  its  activities  in  full  compliance  with  fundamental  rights,  in 
particular with the protection of personal data. 

In terms of setting up the Forum, there are two sub-options: 

Sub-option  3.a.  The  European  Security  Research  and  Innovation  Forum  (ESRIF)  would  be 
set up via a Commission Decision. 

Sub-option 3.b. The European  Security Research and Innovation Forum (ESRIF)  would  be 
set up, not via a Commission Decision, but as an independent body with members coming 
from  public  authorities  in  the  Member  States,  industry,  civil  society  organisations  and 
European bodies (including the Commission). 

8 

Meeting the challenge: the European Security Research Agenda, a Report from the European Security 
Research Advisory Board, September 2006. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Under option 3b the Commission would not steer or lead the work of ESRIF. The option of 
setting up the Board without a Commission Decision would increase the co-ownership of the 
Joint Security Research Agenda, the report that ESRIF will deliver. There's an added value by 
integrating  the  opinions  of  the  different  stakeholders  (regional,  national,  European  and 
industrial)  on  an  equal  footing.  One  of  the  elements  of  the  successful  outcome  will  be  the 
extent to which all stakeholders will accept the Joint Security Research Agenda as a basis for 
their  own  funding  decisions.  It  is  therefore  mainly  a  question  of  proportionality  and 
subsidiarity not to decide on the creation of ESRIF by the Commission services. 

With regard to the criteria for membership of ESRIF, they follow from the necessity to have 
the whole security community and continuum covered, i.e.: 

–  Demand side (public authorities, public and private end users) 

–  Supply side (industry, research establishments, and academia) 

–  Civil Society Organisations, think tanks and other relevant expert 

–  Commission services 

–  European organisations and EP 

In  terms  of  process,  nominations  letters  with  requests  for  nominations  are  sent  to  the 
Permanent Representations of the MS and Associated States. 

All  options  considered  are  non-regulatory  except  option  3a  requiring  the  adoption  of  a 
Commission Decision. 

Section 5 - Analysis of impacts 

Given  that  ESRIF  has  not  yet  been  created  and  the  Public  Private  Dialogue  in  Security 
Research not yet started, it’s too early to fully assess the impact of ESRIF’s work. 

As indicated in the Executive Summary, a more detailed impact assessment will be carried out 
in the second half of 2008 when a Communication will react to the provisional outcome of the 
forum’s works.  

Therefore,  we  can  only  indicate  the  impact  assessments  of  the  different  options  for  the 
creation of the ESRIF and the launch of the Public Private Dialogue. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
Policy Option 1: No action is taken 

Economic impacts 

No  positive  economic  impacts.  No  coherence  in  security  research 
programming between EU, MS and Industry.  

No coherent development of a technology base and market for security 
products. 

Comparative  weakening  of  our  competitive  position  with  regard  to 
main competitors. 

Environmental 
impacts 

research  strategy  at  EU 

No  or  negative  impacts.  The  general  objective  of  a  more  coherent 
the 
security 
competitiveness  of  industry  and  to  protect  the  EU  citizen.  The 
environmental  benefit  is  only  a  side  benefit.  E.g.  better  co-ordinated 
terrorist  attacks  on  water  distribution 
research  efforts  against 
surveillance  aims  to  better  protect  the  citizen  but  would  also  prevent 
pollution and environmental disasters. 

to  strengthen 

level 

is 

If no action is taken, there will be no environmental side benefits.  

Social impacts 

No increase of employment, stagnation or decrease. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
Policy Option 2: A Public Private Dialogue in Security is launched 

Economic impacts 

Difficult to predict. 

Start  of  public  private  partnership  in  a  limited  number  of  areas 
(terrorism  and  security)  and  in  the  less  operational  and  broad  field  of 
Security. Limited economic impacts. The development of a technology 
base  is  only  a  part  of  the  wider  security  goals  (e.g.  police  and  justice 
co-operation). 

Not  the  creation  of  the  forum  but  the  work  of  the  forum  could 
contribute  to  the  protection  of  air,  water  and  soil  quality  and  the 
prevention  of  other  environmental  risks,  but  to  a  lesser  extent  than 
under option 3. 

Likewise, not the creation of the forum but the work of the forum could 
contribute  to  the  preservation  and  increase  of  employment  and  the 
labour market in the EU, but to a lesser extent than under option 3. 

Environmental 
impacts 

Social impacts 

Under  Policy  Option  2,  there  are  no  additional  administrative  costs  for  the  stakeholders 
(public authorities, MS) because this initiative is not creating any legal obligation to provide 
information. 

Policy Option 3a: A Public Private Dialogue in Security Research is launched, ESRIF is 
set up by Commission Decision. 

Economic impacts 

The  creation  of  the  forum  and  the  start  of  the  public  private  dialogue 
itself  will not directly lead to positive economic  impacts but  the work 
of the forum itself is expected to contribute to: 

–  A  greater  coherence  of  innovation  and  research  which  will  lead  to 

new technologies and products. 

–  The  gradual  creation  of  an  internal  market  for  security  goods  and 

services. 

The market for security goods and services will gradually be created in 
the  following  way.  Security  authorities  and  services  will  establish 
contacts  with  industry  and  research  communities,  they  will  learn  to 
speak each others language and understand better the requirements and 
opportunities  of  the  sector.  The  demand  side  will  look  for  better 
interoperability of the products and services and the supply side will be 
able to offer it. Prices per unit will go down and markets will grow. The 
delta  can  be  invested  in  better  quality  from  which  competitiveness  of 
the industry will benefit. 

–  The decrease of costs due to terrorist attacks (such as human health, 
disruption of infrastructures and economic processes in general). 

–  There  are  no  additional  administrative  costs  for  the  stakeholders 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
(public authorities in the MS, industry) because this initiative is not 
creating any legal obligation to provide information. 

Environmental 
impacts 

The work of the forum will contribute to the protection of air, water and 
soil quality and the prevention of other environmental risks. 

The  general  objective  of  a  more  coherent  security  research  strategy  at 
EU level is to strengthen the competitiveness of industry and to protect 
the EU citizen. The environment is not the main focus. 

For example research in the area of bio-preparedness would in the first 
place aim to save lives and only secondly to preserve the environment. 
The  environmental  benefit  is  clearly  present  but  only  in  a  preventive 
way and only as a side benefit. 

Social impacts 

Likewise, not the creation of the forum but the work of the forum will 
contribute  to  the  preservation  and  increase  of  employment  and  the 
labour market in the EU. 

Policy Option 3b: A Public Private Dialogue in Security Research is launched, ESRIF is 
set up WITHOUT Commission Decision. 

Economic impacts 

The  creation  of  the  forum  and  the  start  of  the  public  private  dialogue 
itself  will not directly lead to positive economic  impacts but  the work 
of the forum itself is expected to contribute to: 

–  A  greater  coherence  of  innovation  and  research  which  will  lead  to 

new technologies and products. 

–  The  gradual  creation  of  an  internal  market  for  security  goods  and 

services.  

The market for security goods and services will gradually be created in 
the  following  way.  Security  authorities  and  services  will  establish 
contacts  with  industry  and  research  communities,  they  will  learn  to 
speak each others language and understand better the requirements and 
opportunities  of  the  sector.  The  demand  side  will  look  for  better 
interoperability of the products and services and the supply side will be 
able to offer it. Prices per unit will go down and markets will grow. The 
delta  can  be  invested  in  better  quality  from  which  competitiveness  of 
the industry will benefit. 

–  The decrease of costs due to terrorist attacks (such as human health, 
disruption of infrastructures and economic processes in general) 

–  The  main  economic  advantage  of  setting  up  the  Board  without  a 
Commission Decision is that it would increase the co-ownership of 
the  Joint  Security  Research  Agenda,  the  report  that  ESRIF  will 
deliver. By integrating the opinions of the different stakeholders on 
an equal footing , we expect that the Joint Security Research Agenda 
will  be  a  better  accepted  basis  for  the  different  players  -  be  they 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
national, regional or industrial – to adapt their research funding and 
policy in an economically more efficient way for the EU as a whole. 
It is also and mainly a question of subsidiarity not to decide on the 
creation of ESRIF by the Commission services. 

–  There  are  no  additional  administrative  costs  for  the  stakeholders 
(public  authorities,  MS)  because  this  initiative  is  not  creating  any 
legal obligation to provide information. 

As to other costs, the nomination of the members of the Forum (ESRIF) 
will be proposed to the Commission via the Permanent Representations 
of the MS and Associated Countries to the EU. Members of the forum 
will not represent their MS, industry or other employers but participate 
in their personal capacity (nominations are ad personam). 

Members of the forum will pay their own travel and subsistence costs 
for their work and meetings. The Commission will reserve the meeting 
rooms, if ESRIF meets in Brussels. 

Environmental 
impacts 

Likewise, not the creation of the forum but the work of the forum will 
contribute  to  the  protection  of  air,  water  and  soil  quality  and  the 
prevention of other environmental risks. 

The  general  objective  of  a  more  coherent  security  research  strategy  at 
EU level is to strengthen the competitiveness of industry and to protect 
the EU citizen. The environment is not the main focus. 

For example research in the area of bio-preparedness would in the first 
place aim to save lives and only secondly to preserve the environment. 
The  environmental  benefit  is  clearly  present  but  only  in  a  preventive 
way and only as a side benefit. 

Social impacts 

Likewise, not the creation of the forum but the work of the forum will 
contribute  to  the  preservation  and  increase  of  employment  and  the 
labour market in the EU. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
Section 6 - Comparing the options 

Option 1: No Action 

If no action is taken, the security research activities in the EU will remain fragmented among 
the 7th RTD Framework Programme, the FP Security and Safeguarding Liberties, the national 
programmes, the activities of industry and of research organisations. It can be expected that 
the present situation with unsatisfactory dialogue between the public and the private sectors 
on  security  issues  will  continue,  resulting  in  an  unsatisfactory  level  of  security  for  the  EU 
citizen, and a lack of coherent technology development at EU level.  

Option 2: Public Private Dialogue in Security (terrorism and crime) 

This  option  was  originally  planned  in  the  JLS  2006  Work  Programme  but  gradually 
abandoned in favour of a joint initiative with ENTR (Option 3b). 

Option  2  would  not  fully  meet  the  policy  objectives  because,  on  the  one  hand,  it  would 
confine the work to a limited number of Security missions  (terrorism  and  organised  crime). 
On  the  other  hand,  it  is  felt  that  Security  is  a  broad  policy  field  covering  too  many  aspects 
(Co-operation in the areas of police, justice, research, etc.) Hence, co-ordination between EU, 
the  MS  and  Industry  should  start  in  a  concrete  domain  of  activities.  This  could  be  research 
(option 3). 

Option 3: Public Private Dialogue in Security Research 

Advantage to focus on one concrete domain of activities of Security. 

Research is one of the most promising domains because: 

A.  Legal  instruments  and  budgets  exist  at  EU  level:  FP7  (2007-2013)  with  a  budget  line  of 
€ 1.4 billion for the security research theme and the Framework Programme for Security and 
Safeguarding Liberties (2007-2013) with € 735 million. 

B.  Research  is  an  non-controversial  upstream  activity  where  the  Community’,  the  MS’  and 
Industry’s  co-ordination  activities  can  yield  results  in  a  short  to  medium  time  frame,  faster 
let’s say than in the area of sensitive policy making. 

The ESRIF is expected to: 

•  enhance the public-private dialogue in the field of European security research and 
increase transparency and coordination between the various ongoing programmes 
and initiatives by bringing together, on a voluntary basis, all relevant stakeholder 
groups from the demand and supply side of security technologies and solutions.  

•  it should develop a Joint Security Research Agenda according to the needs and 
priorities of security  policy makers  and implementers,  which should become the 
reference document for security research programming both on the European and 
national  levels.  Through  its  operations,  the  ESRIF  should  at  the  same  time 
contribute to promoting a Europe-wide single market for security equipment. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
Sub-option 3.a. In case the European Security Research and Innovation Forum is set up by 
Commission  Decision,  the  Commission  would  clearly  lead  ESRIF.  The  Commission  would 
nominate the members of the Forum and steer the works. The exercise risks being seen as a 
top-down Commission initiative. 

Sub-option 3.b. In case the Commission announces the creation of the Forum and assists in 
the  creation  of  the  Forum  without  adopting  a  formal  Commission  Decision,  the  Forum  is 
expected  to  be  more  neutral,  ensure  the  involvement  of  all  relevant  stakeholders  on  a 
voluntary  basis  and  be  more  effective  in  reaching  its  objective:  to  deliver  a  European  Joint 
Security Research Agenda, in full respect of subsidiarity. Under this option, an example and 
precedent  for  ESRIF  is  ACARE9,  the  Advisory  Council  for  Aeronautical  Research  which 
delivered  a  Strategic  Research  Agenda  for  Aeronautical  Research.  ACARE  was  set  up 
without a Commission Decision. 

Section 7 - Monitoring and evaluation 

The Joint Security Research Agenda will be prepared in a voluntary bottom up way. 

ESRIF will present a report with the first preliminary results of the works in the second half of 
2008. 

The  Commission  will  react  with  a  Communication  and  an  Impact  Assessment  in  the  same 
period. 

ESRIF will present the Joint Security Research Agenda in its final report towards the end of 
2009. 

Policy Objectives 

Indicators 

Sources of Information 

Recommendations  made 
the 
Joint  Security  Research  Agenda 
which can serve as benchmarks for 
later assessment. 

in 

General Objectives 

- Increase the security of 
the citizen 

-  Strengthen  the  industrial 
base 

(police 

- 
Increased  co-operation  by 
industry  and  take  up  by  end-
forces,  border 
users 
civil 
control 
agencies, 
forces)  of  new 
protection 
technologies 
the 
increase 
security of the EU citizen. 

to 

-  The  growth  of  the  Security 
market and the strengthening of 
industrial  base  will  be 
the 
difficult  to  assess  in  terms  of 
numbers  of  companies  and 
employment 
figures.  Precise 
figures  are  not  at  hand  and  the 
security market is scattered over 

9 

ACARE published its second Strategic Research Agenda in October 2004 
http://www.acare4europe.com/docs/ASD-exec%20sum-2nd-final-171104-out-asd.pdf 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Recommendations  made 
the 
Joint  Security  Research  Agenda 
which can serve as benchmarks for 
later assessment.  

in 

Specific Objectives 

-  Clearer  view  of  research 
needs 

- Bring together and better 
use existing capabilities 

- to increase 
complementarities and 
synergies 

a variety of industries ( such as 
ICT,  transport,  biotechnology, 
nanotechnology, 
defence, 
space). 

-  Extent 
to  which  national 
research  programmes  and  EU 
Framework Programmes will be 
gradually geared to one another, 
e.g. 
research 
funding 
programming, 
mechanism  (selection  criteria, 
grants  to  the  budget)  (difficult 
to assess quantitatively). 

annual 

-  Extent  to  which  MS  start 
fitting  their  strategic  research 
planning  into  an  overall  EU 
research  strategy  (difficult  to 
assess quantitatively). 

-  Number  of  research  entities 
research 
participating 
(particularly  SMEs, 
the  big 
industrial  players  in  Security 
research are known). 

in 

Intensity  and  number  of 
research 
national 
(e.g. 

- 
contacts  and 
projects 
security 
between two or more MS). 

joint 
between 
programmes 

Operational Objectives 

Timely  delivery  of  the  report 
containing  the  Joint  Security 
Research  Agenda  at  the  end  of 
2009. 

Recommendations  made 
the 
Joint  Security  Research  Agenda 
which can serve as benchmarks for 
later assessment.  

in 

------------------------------------ 

EN 

15 

   EN