Commission staff working document - Accompanying document to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Towards joint programming in research : Working together to tackle common challenges more effectively - Summary of the impact assessment {COM(2008) 468 final} {SEC(2008) 2281}
Date: 2008-07-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU research policy, cooperation policy, cross-border cooperation, impact study, research and development

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 15/07/2008 
SEC(2008) 2282 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Accompanying document to the 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

TOWARDS JOINT PROGRAMMING IN RESEARCH : 

 Working together to tackle common challenges more effectively 

SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT  

{COM(2008) 468 final} 
{SEC(2008) 2281} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

1.1. 

Introduction 

This  impact  assessment  is  in  support  of  the  initiative  presented  in  the  European  Commission's 
Communication  entitled  "Towards  Joint  Programming  in  Research".  The  Joint  Programming 
(JP) initiative is one of five policy initiatives planned by the Commission in 2008 as a follow-up 
to  the  Green  Paper  on  “The  European  Research  Area:  New  Perspectives”  responding  to  the 
"Optimising research programmes and priorities" dimension. JP is the process whereby Member 
States  engage  on  a  voluntary  and  "à  la  carte"  basis  in  the  definition,  development  and 
implementation of common research agendas addressing a specific field or specific topic. This 
can involve the coordination of existing national programmes, or the setting up of entirely new 
ones, pooling resources and collectively monitoring and reviewing progress. By increasing and 
improving  the  cross-border  collaboration,  coordination  and  integration  of  Member  States' 
publicly  funded  research  programmes  in  a  limited  number  of  strategic  areas,  it  aims  to  help 
Europe  to  boost  the  efficiency  of  its  public  funding  and  to  better  address  major  societal 
challenges.  The  proposed  approach  is  to  promote  Joint  Programming  through  a  high-level 
political  process  driven  by  the  Member  States,  which  would  offer  flexibility  in  terms  of 
instruments, geometry, and level of programme coordination and integration. Joint Programming 
is  targeted  at  public  research  programmes,  and  therefore  involves  public-public  rather  than 
public-private cooperation. However, industry may play a role in its implementation. 

1.2. 

Political and stakeholder support 

At  the  political  level,  clear  support  for  enhanced  and  more  effective  coordination  of  research 
activities in Europe has been reiterated over the last 15 years: the 2008 Spring European Council 
encouraged  the  Commission  and  Member  States  "to  continue  developing  initiatives  for  joint 
programming  of  research  in  areas  where  this  approach  is  appropriate,  allowing  a  more 
strategic  and  better  structured  approach  to  the  launch  of  new  joint  programmes  and  common 
calls for projects from the end of 2010". 

Amongst  policy  shapers,  researchers  and  citizens,  too,  there  is  a  widespread  consensus  that 
Europe's pressing and common challenges – such as climate change, energy, security, health and 
ageing  –  need  to  be  tackled  jointly  at  the  European  level.  These  stakeholders  also  believe  that 
research has a key role to play in addressing these challenges, but feel that joint agenda setting 
and  enhanced  coordination  of  research  in  Europe  will  be  necessary  if  research  is  to  make  an 
effective contribution.  

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
2. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

2.1. 

The  need  to  improve  Europe's  capacity  to  meet  its  societal  challenges  through 
stronger coordination and joint strategic focus of public R&D 

To  be  able  to  meet  its  societal  challenges,  Europe's  research  system  must  be  capable  of 
producing results of the highest standard. However, Europe has been unable to rapidly increase 
its spending on research, and must therefore continue its efforts to make better use of its scarce 
R&D  resources  by  investing  them  more  efficiently  and  effectively.  In  this  context,  the  public 
sector has an important role to play by seeking 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.  One  of  the 
paths  which  has  been  under-exploited  and  which  offers  great  potential  gains  is  to  improve  the 
organisation  of  Europe's  public  R&D  investment  through  increased  cross-border  programme 
collaboration and coordination. 

While  Member  States  have  set  up  many  mechanisms  over  the  years  to  enable  trans-national 
R&D  cooperation,  it  is  still  the  case  that  around  85%  of  civil  public  research  in  Europe  is 
programmed,  financed,  monitored  and  evaluated  at  national  level.  By  comparison  with  other 
structural  policy  areas,  such  as  competition,  trade,  industry,  etc.,  R&D  remains  less  integrated 
and coordinated in Europe.  

In  response  to  this  problem,  several  recent  initiatives  have  been  launched  at  Community  level 
aimed  at  stimulating  coordination  of  national  public  R&D,  such  as  the  Open  Method  of 
Coordination, the ERA-NET scheme for networking national and regional research programme 
owners  and  managers,  and  taking  advantage  of  Article  169  of  the  Treaty  which  enables  the 
Community  to  participate  in  research  and  development  programmes  undertaken  by  several 
Member  States.  However,  these  efforts  are  still  extremely  modest  in  terms  of  the  volume  of 
funding involved, and have had limited success in achieving full programme integration owing 
to a lack of strategic direction and support from the Member States. 

2.2. 

The need for a new approach 

There  is  a  growing  recognition  that  a  new,  more  strategic  approach  is  needed  for  the 
coordination of public R&D programmes in Europe, focused on those areas that can contribute 
solutions  to  Europe's  pressing  societal  challenges,  and  where  coordination  can  deliver  gains  in 
the  efficiency  and  impact  of  research.  Past  efforts  to  promote  Joint  Programming  have  clearly 
been hampered by a lack of high-level political commitment on the part of Member States, by a 
lack of sufficient and credible data on and insights into the particular structure and organisation 
of respective S&T fields, and by the rigidity of the instruments used. 

Now, however, is a good time to launch a new policy initiative on Joint Programming. The wider 
policy context has changed, as commonly faced major societal challenges have moved decisively 
to the top of the policy agenda in every Member State and at Community level, and the costs of 
non-coordination is becoming apparent. Combined efforts need to be channelled towards areas of 
pan-European challenges, and for this to succeed the full commitment of the Member States will 
be  essential.  The  new  initiative  should  be  shaped  by  the  views  of  stakeholders  and  by  past 
experience. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
It is important that a process for moving towards Joint Programming should be neither too "top-
down",  with  the  Commission  in  the  driving  seat,  nor  too  "bottom-up",  resulting  in  a  lack  of 
coherent strategy and focus. 

An  effective  process  would  involve  Member  States  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  Joint  Programming  could  most  usefully  be  launched.  To  make  these  criteria  operational 
there  must  be  a  solid  information  base.  Information  on  existing  national  and  regional 
programmes in various areas has to be gathered, including what they cover and where there are 
gaps, duplication or a lack of scale and scope.  

There  is  also  a  need  for  a  variable-geometry  approach  which  allows  flexibility  in  terms  of  the 
participating  countries.  Not  all  Member  States  share  the  same  challenges  in  every  area, 
especially in the expanded European Union of 27 countries.  

Finally, an effective process must allow for a graduated response by selecting the most efficient 
instruments to use in a given field. 

2.3. 

Subsidiarity and European added value 

The  right  for  the  Community  to  act  in  this  field  is  enshrined  in  several  articles  of  the  Treaty 
which  provide  for  research  coordination  and  cooperation  between  Member  States  and  the 
Community  (Articles  165,  169,  171).  The  proposed  process  for  Joint  Programming  can 
justifiably  be  considered  as  necessary  because  it  is  unlikely  to  be  achieved  sufficiently  by 
Member  States  via  purely  inter-governmental  actions.  Expansion  of  such  actions  has  stalled  in 
recent  years,  and  most  initiatives  aimed  at  multilateral  programme  coordination  have  been 
developed within the context of Community activities. Member States acting alone are therefore 
unlikely to be able to address these problems. 

The European added value of the proposal stems in part from the trans-national nature of some 
of the key challenges (climate change, for example) where Member States need to act together in 
order to properly tackle the problems. It can also be justified in terms of offering the potential for 
greater  scale,  scope  and  effectiveness  of  public  R&D  programmes  in  Europe  by  addressing 
common  challenges  jointly  and  developing  common  solutions,  overcoming  barriers  to  entry, 
such  as  high  start-up  and  operating  costs  in  certain  S&T  fields,  pooling  data  and  expertise, 
achieving  higher  scientific,  technological  and  innovation  impacts,  eliminating  cross-European 
programme  duplication,  increasing  programme  depth,  and  reducing  programme  management 
costs. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
3. 

OBJECTIVES 

3.1. 

General policy objectives 

The general policy objectives of the JP initiative 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:  

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

to contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the revised Lisbon Strategy;  

to help Europe respond more effectively through research to key societal challenges; 

to contribute to the achievement of the European Research Area (ERA) objectives. 

3.2. 

Specific objectives:  

In  order  to  contribute  to  achieving  these  general  policy  objectives,  it  will  be  necessary  to 
improve  the  efficiency  and  effectiveness  of  public  research  programming  in  Europe  in  areas 
where it is facing major societal challenges. Specific objectives are: 

(1) 

(2) 

to strengthen the coordination of EU national public research programmes in areas which 
can provide solutions to important societal challenges and where there is evidence of an 
added value from adopting a joint cross-border approach;  

thereby  to  increase  the  impact  of  these  programmes,  in  terms  of  both  S&T  impacts 
(scientific  excellence,  pooling  of  resources,  data  and  expertise,  achievement  of  critical 
mass, facilitating of 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:  

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

to  provide  an  effective  process  which  will  promote  a  more  strategic  approach  to 
coordinating  national  research  programmes  aimed  at  helping  to  tackle  Europe's  societal 
challenges; 

to ensure that this process and the ensuing joint public research programming initiatives 
enjoy a high level of stakeholder support and ownership; 

through  this  process,  and  the  use  of  appropriate  instruments,  to  promote  cross-border 
public  research  programme  integration  and  structuring  effects,  notably  the  achievement 
of a critical mass of R&D effort; 

to  put  in  place  a  process  that  allows  for  a  graduated  response  in  terms  of  Joint 
Programming instruments, as well as variable geometry in terms of country participation;  

to  ensure  that  joint  initiatives  are  based  on  up-to-date  and  accurate  information  on 
national and regional programming activities; 

(6) 

to promote stronger consistency across policies. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
4. 

PRESENTATION OF THE POLICY OPTIONS 

In  order  to  meet  these  objectives,  four  policy  options  were  considered.  The  main  differences 
between  them  centred  on  two  key  issues:  the  way  in  which  Joint  Programming  areas  are 
identified and the range of instruments considered for implementation1. 

Under the "business-as-usual" option (Option 1), Joint Programming topics are identified in an 
ad  hoc,  bottom-up  manner  by  a  variety  of  Member  State  stakeholders.  Implementation  takes 
place  through  a  limited  number  of  instruments  (essentially  the  ERA-NET  Scheme  and  Article 
169) and is loosely coordinated. Moreover, a flexible approach is adopted towards critical mass 
(in terms of number and relevance of partners) and towards the level of programme integration 
being sought. 

The  "Article  169  maximization"  option  (Option  2)  shares  some  of  the  characteristics  of  the 
"business-as-usual" option, as Joint Programming topics are identified in a bottom-up manner by 
the  Member  States  and  implementation  takes  place  through  the  same  two  instruments 
(essentially  the  ERA-NET  Scheme  and  Article  169).  Where  this  option  differs  from  the 
"business-as-usual" option, however, is in proposing a proactive approach in which . ERA-NET 
and  ERA-NET  Plus  Actions  part  of  the  ERA-NET  Scheme  would  be  rigidly  positioned  as  a 
preparatory  stage  for  Article  169.  Joint  Programming  topics  would  have  to  coincide  with  the 
Framework  Programme,  ensuring  systematic  overall  horizontal  policy  consistency,  and  more 
attention would be paid to the critical mass and the level of programme integration. 

The  main  difference  between  the  "Community-driven  strategic  option"  (Option  3)  and  the  two 
previous  options  is  that  it  is  strategic  rather  than  bottom-up.  The  starting  point  is  the 
identification of major societal challenges and the assessment of the need for a critical mass of 
publicly supported research in the respective S&T fields. Under this option, it is the Community 
which  takes  the  lead  in  carrying  out  these  strategic  assessments  and  proposing  suitable  Joint 
Programming areas. It is also the Community that selects the most appropriate instrument from 
among a broader range of familiar Community instruments. 

The "strategic European process" option (Option 4) resembles the "Community-driven strategic" 
option in that it, too, is strategic and based on tackling major societal challenges, but there is a 
crucial  difference  as  regards  the  roles  played  by  the  Community  and  by  the  Member  States. 
Under  the  "strategic  European  process"  option,  it  is  the  Member  States  (not  the  Community) 
which  identify  topics  for  JP.  It  is  also  the  Member  States  which  select  or  develop  the  most 
appropriate  instruments  to  the  specific  circumstances  of  the  respective  S&T  field  (including 
Community  instruments  like  the  ERA-NET  Scheme  and  Articles  168,  169,  170  or  171;  "SET-
Plan"  or  "security  research"-type  approaches;  the  creation  of  new  European  institutions  and/or 
new kinds of Networks of Excellence2; ERC-type or Euratom-type initiatives; Structural Funds; 
etc.). The Commission plays the role of facilitator. It is responsible for reporting back to Council 
at  each  stage  in  the  process,  and  for  evaluating  the  process  as  a  whole  as  well  as  the  progress 
made in specific areas.  

1 
2 

See Table 2 in the Impact Assessment Report for an overview of the four options. 
Involving the funding not just of integration activities but also of joint research. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
5. 

ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS 

For  each  option,  a  wide  variety  of  impacts  were  assessed,  including  the  level  of  stakeholder 
support and 'ownership', strategic focus, structuring effect, policy consistency, S&T impacts, and 
wider societal impacts3. The conclusion of this assessment was that the preferred policy option is 
the "strategic European process" option.  

The  "business-as-usual"  option  was  rejected  because  of  its  lack  of  strategic  focus,  its  weak 
structuring  effect,  its  negative  impact  on  horizontal  policy  consistency,  and  its  weak  societal 
impact.  The  "Article  169  maximization"  option  was  rejected  because  of  its  lack  of  strategic 
focus, its "one-size-fits-all" approach, and its limited structuring effect. The "Community-driven 
strategic" option, which has great potential impact, was rejected because of the risk it entails: i.e. 
it is very likely that it will not be supported by stakeholders. This in turn will negatively affect its 
strategic  focus,  structuring  effect,  and  societal  impact.  In  addition,  it  is  unlikely  that  the 
Community by itself would have a sufficiently detailed knowledge of Member States' research 
programmes to propose suitable Joint Programming topics and instruments. 

The "strategic European process" option enjoys the highest levels of support from stakeholders, 
who agree: that there is a need to define strategic research agendas and to implement them in a 
coordinated  manner,  especially  for  the  purpose  of  tackling  common  societal  challenges;  that  a 
partnership, which combines a voluntary, bottom-up approach with strategic top-down guidance 
is  indispensable  for  ensuring  flexibility  and  customisation  to  programme  specificities;  that  the 
principles of subsidiarity, variable geometry and real European added value need to be respected; 
and that a "one-size-fits-all" approach is not workable. 

The  process  proposed  for  choosing  Joint  Programming  topics  and  instruments,  combined  with 
the  high  levels  of  stakeholder  support,  means  that  option  4  provides  the  best  guarantees  of 
obtaining  the  greatest  aggregate  systemic  structuring  effects  This  in  turn  will  create  the  ideal 
conditions for fully realising the S&T benefits of Joint Programming, which include: 

•  Overcoming barriers to entry 

•  Pan-European programme optimisation 

•  Scientific excellence 

•  Jointly  tackling  common  challenges,  developing  common,  standardised  solutions,  and 

speaking with one voice 

•  Cross-border  project  collaboration  (with  its  own  set  of  benefits,  such  as  the  pooling  of  data 
and expertise, rapid dissemination,  cross-border human resources mobility and training, and 
increased scientific, technological and innovation impacts) 

•  Reduced national costs for managing integrated programmes 

•  The improvement of non-integrated programmes, and 

3 

Table 3 in the full Impact Assessment Report provides an overview of these impacts. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  Improved accountability and transparency. 

The benefits for industry include 'open innovation'; the rapid dissemination of research results; 
the  development  of  common,  standardised  solutions;  better  access  to  public  research  support; 
easier development of joint public-private strategic research agendas; and faster horizontal policy 
coordination. 

Ultimately,  these  S&T  impacts  translate  into  a  higher  societal  return  on  public  research 
investment,  which  means  higher  economic  growth,  competitiveness  and  employment,  and 
quicker and better solutions for social and environmental challenges. 

For these reasons, option 4 – the "strategic European process" – is the preferred option. 

6. 

RISK AND RISK MITIGATION 

There are various risks associated with the preferred option. The main risk is that the required 
political commitment does not materialise. 

While  this  risk  would  appear  to  be  smaller  now  than  it  perhaps  was  in  the  past  (due  to  the 
growing  recognition  in  the  Member  States  of  the  societal  challenges  Europe  is  facing,  of  the 
S&T and societal costs of non-coordination as well as of the S&T and societal benefits of Joint 
Programming), the proposed policy process has also been designed specifically to mitigate this 
risk. A high-level political process is proposed,, which rests squarely on the Member States with 
the Commission services in a facilitating role. The process assigns an important and continuing 
role to the Council in terms of : 

•  Inviting the Research Ministers of the Member States to mandate personal representatives for 

an ad-hoc high–level group to identify suitable JP areas;  

•  Monitoring  the  process  on  an  annual  basis  (through  obligatory  annual  reporting  by  the 

Commission); and 

•  Reviewing the process after three years. 

The  proposed  process  is  evidence-based  and  grounded  in  an  in-depth  strategic  analysis  of 
respective  S&T  fields,  which  will  ensure  that  only  feasible  Joint  Programming  initiatives  are 
taken.  Moreover,  the  proposed  approach  is  characterised  by  instrument  flexibility4,  variable 
geometry, and flexibility in terms of the extent of programme integration pursued (partial cycle, 
full cycle). 

Other  risks  include  institutional  inertia  and  the  lack  of  the  requisite  evidence  base.  However, 
appropriate risk mitigation strategies have been put in place. 

In  summary,  the  main  risk  mitigation  strategy  underlying  the  proposed  process  is  that  of 
respecting  better  regulation  practices:  i.e.  working  closely  with  the  Member  States  in  a 
transparent  manner;  respecting  the  principles  of  subsidiarity,  European  added  value  and 

4 

The  full  tool  box  of  public  research  instruments  (National  and  regional  research  programmes, 
Intergovernmental  research  organisations  and  collaborative  schemes,  Research  infrastructures,  Mobility 
schemes…) should be explored and used to implement the individual Joint Programming Initiatives. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
proportionality;  preparing  and  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 evaluation systems. 

7. 

EVALUATION AND MONITORING 

Appropriate arrangements have also been made for monitoring and evaluation. These are based 
on the Commission reporting to the Council after each of the phases of the JP process, and an in-
depth  review  of  the  process  by  the  Commission,  together  with  the  Member  States,  after  three 
years.  Regular  monitoring  of  and  evaluation  of  progress  towards  the  (SMART)  objectives  in 
each JP area will also be ensured. 

In  addition,  an  increased  transparency  will  be  provided  on  collaboration  and  coordination  of 
national  and  regional  research  programmes  by  developing  a  specific  module  for  the 
ERAWATCH web service. 

EN 

9 

   EN