Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, 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 {SEC(2008) 2281} {SEC(2008) 2282}
Date: 2008-07-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU research policy, cooperation policy, cross-border cooperation, research and development

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 15.7.2008 
COM(2008) 468 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, 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 

{SEC(2008) 2281} 
{SEC(2008) 2282} 

 (presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, 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 

Introduction 

Investing  in  research  today  ensures  a  better  tomorrow,  both  for  ourselves  and  for  future 
generations. Europe not only needs to invest more in research, but also needs to invest it to 
better  effect,  if  it  is  to  achieve  its  declared vision:  a  balanced  and  sustainable  development, 
marrying  economic  growth  and  competition  with  high  levels  of  quality  of  life  and  the 
environment we live in, and ensuring an effective EU for the benefit of citizens in all Member 
States. 

The Lisbon Strategy recognised this by setting as its most urgent objective the transition to a 
knowledge-based  society  -  with  science,  technology  and  innovation  at  its  heart  -  and  by 
calling  for  more  and  better  investment  in  research.  Europe  must  renew  its  efforts  if  it  is  to 
succeed. Above all, it must be prepared to think courageously and innovatively about how it 
organises its research. 

This Communication sets out an ambitious  new approach for making better use of Europe's 
limited  public  R&D  funds  through  enhanced  cooperation.  The  new  initiative  it  proposes  – 
namely  Joint  Programming  –  marks  a  change  in  European  research  cooperation.  Joint 
Programming  offers  a  voluntary  process  for  a  revitalised  partnership  between  the  Member 
States  based  on  clear  principles  and  transparent  high-level  governance.  By  enhancing 
cooperation among those that develop and manage research programmes, it aims to increase 
the  efficiency  and  impact  of  national  public  research  funding  in  strategic  areas.  Joint 
Programming  targets  public  research  programmes  first  and  foremost,  which  means  public-
public cooperation. Hence it differs in nature from the public-private cooperation embodied in 
initiatives  such  as  Joint  Technology  Initiatives1.  Nonetheless,  industry  –  and  other 
stakeholders  -  should  play  a  role  in  the  consultative  process  and  in  the  implementation  of 
specific  Joint  Programming  Initiatives.  They  are  also  important  beneficiaries  of  Joint 
Programming. 

Joint Programming has the potential to become a mechanism that is at least as important as 
the Framework Programmes in the European research landscape, and to actually change the 
way  in  which  Europeans  think  about  research.  In  proposing  this  new  approach,  this 
Communication  is  an  explicit  response  to  the  repeated  calls  for  more  and  better  Joint 
Programming  which  have  emanated  from  the  European  Council,  the  Council  and  the 
European  Parliament  over  the  past  years2.  It  also  responds  to  stakeholders'  demands  for  a 

1 

2 

To be noted : Joint Technology Initiatives implemented in the ICT area (ENIAC and ARTEMIS, in the 
areas of nanoelectronics and embedded computer systems, respectively) leverage industry, Community 
and national public funds.  
See the Impact Assessment accompanying this Communication. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
voluntary,  bottom-up  approach  combined  with  strategic  European-level  guidance  and  their 
rejection of a "one-size-fits-all" method. 

In this context, the European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan)3 provides a pilot 
experience in addressing a major European societal challenge  together. An  integral  pillar of 
Europe's  Energy  and  Climate  Change  policies,  the  SET-Plan  aims  to  accelerate  the 
development  and  deployment  of  low  carbon  technologies  through  a  coherent  set  of  actions, 
including Joint Programming.  

This Communication is one of the five policy initiatives planned by the Commission in 2008 
as a follow-up to the Green Paper on "The European Research Area: New Perspectives"4. It 
relates in particular to the dimension "Optimising Research Programmes and Priorities" and is 
a further step in the creation of a 'fifth freedom' by removing barriers to the free movement of 
knowledge.  

1. 

THE NEED FOR A NEW APPROACH TO COOPERATION BETWEEN MEMBER STATES IN 
THE FIELD OF RESEARCH  

Science  and  technology  must  be  made  to  count  in  tackling  Europe's  major 
societal challenges5 

How  Europe  responds  to  a  number  of  major  societal  challenges  will  shape  its  future  in  the 
decades  to  come.  These  challenges  include  sustaining  Europe's  prosperity  in  the  face  of 
increased  global  competition;  dealing  with  the  needs  of  its  ageing  population  and  the 
challenges of immigration; and stimulating sustainable development, especially in the context 
of climate change, securing the supply of energy, preserving human and environmental health, 
ensuring food quality and availability as well as safeguarding citizen security. 

At  the  same  time,  European  citizens  increasingly  expect  solutions  to  these  challenges  to  be 
found through science and technology.  

Our non-European partners – both traditional (US, Japan) and emerging (China, India, etc.) - 
have  got  the  message.  They  are  launching  large-scale  targeted  research  programmes  and 
collaborate  with  each  other.  Europe  and  its  Member  States  need  to  develop  a  stronger  and 
more  coordinated  and  coherent  response  to  these  challenges,  where  appropriate  in 
collaboration with international partners. 

Compared to its main partners, Europe is still under-investing in research, and R&D spending 
- by both the public and the private sector - has generally stagnated over the past decade. If it 

3 
4 

5 

COM(2007)723 of 22.11.2007 
Besides this Communication, the Commission adopted this year:  
- A Recommendation "on the management of intellectual property in knowledge transfer activities and 
Code of Practice for universities and other public research organisations", COM(2008)1329 of 
10.4.2008; 
- A Communication "Better careers and more mobility: a European partnership for researchers", 
COM(2008)317 of 23.5.2008; 
- In addition, it is preparing a Council Regulation on a "Community legal framework for a European 
Research Infrastructure (ERI)" and a Communication on "A strategic European framework for 
international science and technology cooperation". 
This concept covers economic, social and environmental challenges. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
is unable to increase its spending quickly and substantially, Europe has to find new and more 
innovative ways to use its scarce R&D resources more efficiently and effectively. To increase 
the  societal  returns  and  benefits  from  public  R&D  funds,  Europe  should  also  reinforce  its 
capacity to transform research results into societal and economic benefits, notably through the 
innovative  capacity  of  European  industry  as  well  as  through  fostering  demand  for  the 
resulting innovations6 . 

The benefits missed because of compartmentalised research  

In recent years, Member States and the Community have taken many initiatives to boost the 
impact and efficiency of public research. Yet one of the most obvious causes of sub-optimal 
returns  to  R&D  has  not  been  addressed  sufficiently:  namely  the  lack  of  collaboration  and 
coordination between national public R&D programmes. Stakeholders have long recognized 
this as a weakness of the EU R&D system. However, despite efforts in recent years to address 
this problem, Europe's research landscape remains deeply compartmentalised. 

Today,  85%  of  public  R&D  is  programmed,  financed,  monitored  and  evaluated  at  national 
level, with too little collaboration or coordination between countries. Less than 6 percent of 
total  R&D  investment  and  only  15  percent  of  European  publicly  financed  civil  R&D  (of 
which  10  percent  is  accounted  for  by  intergovernmental  organisations  and  schemes,  and  5 
percent by the Framework Programme) is financed in a cross-border collaborative manner. 

The issue is not that all research programming should be carried out in a collaborative manner 
and that purely national programming should be discontinued. National programming has its 
place  in  the  European  research  landscape,  especially  where  it  addresses  national  needs  and 
priorities,  and  where  the  cooperation  at  European  level  would  not  create  advantages  of 
significant scale and scope. 

Rather  the  issue  is  that,  in  areas  of  strategic  importance  for  the  whole  or  a  large  part  of 
Europe, the fragmentation of public research programming leads to sub-optimal returns and is 
costing Europe dearly, as well as preventing it from realising its societal objectives: 

•  National  research  programmes  may  unnecessarily  duplicate  each  other  from  a  pan-

European perspective and lack the required programme scope and depth. 

•  The  multitude  of  national  procedures  complicates  cross-border  programmes  and 
discourages internationally-oriented research actors from accessing research funding across 
borders. 

•  The  lack  of  cross-border  programme  collaboration  makes  it  difficult  to  address  common 
challenges jointly, complicates the pooling of data and expertise scattered across Europe, 
hinders  cross-border  researcher  mobility  and  training,  and  slows  down  the  international 
dissemination of research results. 

•  Crucially,  it  also  hampers  pan-European  strategic  research  agenda-setting  and  horizontal 

policy coordination.  

6 

Creating an Innovative Europe, report of group chaired by Esko Aho to the Commission, January 2006 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Box 1: A scattered public research in the European Research Area. 

S&T fields differ hugely in terms of, for example, the amount of R&D invested, the degree of 
existing coordination/fragmentation and performance – and there is no straightforward linear 
relationship  between  these  factors.  The  graph  below  shows  the  size  of  public  funding,  an 
assessment  of  the  degree  of  coordination/fragmentation  at  European  level,  and  the  relative 
size of European public funding compared to the US for some S&T fields. 

The graph is not exhaustive, but serves to illustrate that each S&T field is unique and requires 
its  own  tailored  approach  to  Joint  Programming,  the  development  of  which  should  be 
evidence-based  and  grounded  in  the  strategic  analysis  of  detailed  information  on  respective 
S&T fields. 

This will require the full involvement of Member States.  

S
U

e
h
t
n
a
h
t
e
r
o
m
g
n
i
t
s
e
v
n

I

e
h
t
s
a
h
c
u
m
s
a
g
n
i
t
s
e
v
n

I

S
U

S
U

e
h
t
n
a
h
t

s
s
e
l

g
n
i
t
s
e
v
n

I

CONTROL AND CARE OF THE 
ENVIRONMENT

Concentrated solar thermal

Nuclear fusion 

Biomass - Bioenergy

Nanosafety

CO2 capture and storage

AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION AND 
TECHNOLOGY

Hydrogen and
 fuel cells

Wind energy

NANOTECHNOLOGIES

Polar programs

Photovoltaic

Geothermal

Cancer 

SPACE

INFORMATION AND 
COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY

CIVIL SECURITY

Brain diseases

BIOTECHNOLOGIES 

Low coordination/ High fragmentation

Dementia - Alzheimer 

Medium

Low fragmentation / High coordination

X-axis:  This  estimates  the  degree  of  coordination  among  Member  State  (MS)  research 
programmes and of funding and institutional fragmentation, based on qualitative assessments 
from scientific publications, strategic reports, etc;  

Y-axis:  This  presents  the  logarithmic  ratio  of  public  R&D  investment  in  Europe 
(MS+European Commission (EC)) compared to US, 

Size  of  bubbles:  This  is  directly  proportional  to  the  amount  of  European  public  funding 
(MS+EC),  based  on  New  Cronos  (e.g.  GBAORD)  and  US  government  data  as  well  as 
scientific publications.  
Ideally,  some  research  fields  should  have  been  further  disaggregated.  The  biotechnology 
bubble,  for  example,  should  have  been  divided  into  health,  industrial  &  environment  and 
plant, animal and food. This was not always possible due to a lack of comparable data. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Why a new approach is required 

To move forward, Europe needs to build upon its successes in cross-border public research, 
but it must also recognize and address the limits of existing approaches. 

Some  of  Europe's  greatest  scientific  success  stories  have  involved  cross-border  pooling  of 
public R&D funds. Various inter-governmental research organisations have emerged over the 
last 50 years, such as the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN), the European 
Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL) and the European Space Agency (ESA). In the 1970s 
and  1980s,  inter-governmental  schemes  like  COST  and  EUREKA  were  launched,  and  the 
Framework  Programme  for  Research  was  initiated.  Bilateral  agreements  between  Member 
States have multiplied. And, since 2005, the Community has launched some promising new 
instruments of coordination and collaboration such as the ERA-NET Scheme and Article 169 
initiatives7. 

However,  the  impact  of  these  Community  initiatives  could  have  been  larger  if  there  would 
have been more overall strategic focus, more high-level political commitment on the part of 
Member  States,  more  transparency  on  the  national  research  systems,  and  less  instrument 
rigidity. Increasing these initiatives, and the overall size of FP7, makes little sense if the lack 
of  strategic  programming  between  Member  States  is  not  addressed.  Bilateral  agreements 
between  Member  States  as  well  as  intergovernmental  research  organisations  and  schemes 
have  a  limited  impact.  While  the  Open  Method  of  Coordination  has  allowed  a  fruitful 
exchange  of  ideas,  it  has  not  resulted  in  concrete  national  research  policy  coordination 
initiatives  between  Member  States  or  in  common  agenda  setting  in  areas  of  strategic 
importance. 

However,  there  are  lessons  that  can  be  learned  from  these  recent  Community  initiatives  to 
stimulate programme coordination and collaboration, and these can provide a vital basis for 
making progress in the field of Joint Programming. 

There  is  now  a  unique  opportunity  to  make  a  leap  forward  in  pan-European  research 
cooperation  which  could  be  as  important  as  the  creation  of  the  Framework  Programmes. 
Through  this  Communication,  the  Commission  is  seeking  to  facilitate  the  development  of  a 
solution by launching a strategic and structured process. 

7 

In this context, a more strategic approach, going beyond the current coordination of the several ERA-
NET  actions  covering  marine  research  is  proposed  in  the  foreseen  Commission  Communication  "A 
Marine and Maritime Research Strategy for Europe"", which will create concrete opportunities for joint 
programming. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Box 2: Joint Programming for addressing the ageing society 

The increasing incidence of Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia is perhaps one 
of  the  most  worrying  signs  of  our  ageing  society.  Alzheimer's  disease  is  a  degenerative 
disease  which  slowly  and  progressively  destroys  brain  cells  and  affects  memory,  thinking, 
judgement  and  personality.  In  the  long  term,  it  often  leads  to  additional  problems  such  as 
mental  confusion,  speech  impairment,  sudden  changes  of  mood  and  disorientation  in  time 
and space. About one person in 20 over the age of 65 suffers from dementia. The number of 
people  in  Europe  with  dementia  –  between  50  and  70  percent  of  whom  suffer  from 
Alzheimer's disease – is around 5.5 million, a number which for those over 60 is expected to 
increase to 10.7 million by 2040. Dementia-related healthcare costs already exceed 80 billion 
Euro in the EU. So far, there is no preventative or curative treatment for Alzheimer's disease. 
Yet European public support explicitly allocated to Alzheimer's research is dwarfed by the 
support in the US. Moreover, there is no major institutional driving force behind Alzheimer's 
research  in  Europe.  Resources  are  split  between  numerous  and  diverse  funding  agencies 
spread  over  the  27  EU  Member  States.  This  creates  the  risk  of  wasteful  duplication  of 
research funding at EU level. Such a commonly faced problem calls for a common European 
effort  to  develop  a  common  solution.  In  the  US,  the  National  Institute  of  Health  and  the 
National  Institute  on  Aging  are  powerful  institutional  drivers  of  research  into  Alzheimer's 
disease. The question is what will Europe do to tackle this major societal challenge? 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
2. 

JOINT PROGRAMMING – WORKING TOGETHER TO TACKLE COMMON CHALLENGES 
MORE EFFECTIVELY 

Joint Programming: The concept 

Joint Programming involves Member States engaging voluntarily and on a variable-geometry 
basis  in  the  definition,  development  and  implementation  of  common  strategic  research 
agendas  based  on  a  common  vision  of  how  to  address  major  societal  challenges.  It  may 
involve strategic collaboration between existing national programmes or jointly planning and 
setting up entirely new ones. In both cases, it entails putting resources together, selecting or 
developing the most appropriate instrument(s), implementing, and collectively monitoring and 
reviewing  progress.  It  aims  to  increase  and  improve  the  cross-border  collaboration, 
coordination  and  integration  of  Member  States'  publicly  funded  research  programmes  in  a 
limited number of  strategic  areas, and thus to help Europe boost the  efficiency of its public 
research funding so as to better address major societal challenges. 

Joint Programming: An ambitious structuring objective 

•  Joint  Programming  is  concerned  with  changing  the  structure  of  the  European  research 
landscape.  It  is  a  comprehensive,  long-term  and  strategic  process,  whose  aim  is  to  boost 
Europe's ability to address major economic and societal challenges the resolution of which 
depends critically on research. Joint Programming is about defining common visions and 
strategic  research  agendas,  implementing  them  in  the  most  appropriate  manner,  and 
achieving tangible societal impact. It sets clear and realistic targets and deliverables with a 
view to achieving major breakthroughs in the areas where it is deployed. 

•  Joint  Programming  is  not  a  mere  labelling  exercise,  where  existing  national  research 
programmes  addressing  the  same  topic  are  simply  re-grouped  under  a  common  title,  or 
loosely  coordinated  and  aligned.  Nor  is  it  about  achieving  a  rigid  division  of  labour 
between  countries  for  the  research  activities  in  a  particular  field  or  about  transferring 
national  research  budgets  to  Brussels.  Joint  Programming  is  about  achieving  structuring 
effects in order to increase the efficiency and impact of public research funding. 

•  However, stakeholders should be aware of what this involves. At its most ambitious, Joint 
Programming  requires  that  Member  States  be  prepared  to  move  in  the  direction  of  the 
definition and implementation of common research agendas with multi-annual, commonly 
decided activities (planning, launching, evaluating) and funding mechanisms. 

… with a pragmatic and flexible approach  

•  Joint  Programming  requires  a  new  mindset  in  the  Member  States.  Above  all,  it  requires 
concrete commitments and actions by Member States and a rethinking and reorganisation 
of the way national research programmes are defined and implemented by refocusing them 
towards common objectives. 

•  That  is  why  Joint  Programming  has  to  be  a  voluntary  process  based  on  the  principle  of 
variable geometry and open access. There is no need for all Member States to be involved 
in a specific Initiative, but the partners must be able between them to provide the required 
critical mass of resources. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
•  That  is  also  why  it  is  essential  that  Joint  Programming  employs  a  realistic  and  flexible 
approach  and  a  step-by-step  process  (see  chapter  3)  in  order  to  maximise  its  possible 
structuring effect and societal impact. 

•  Joint Programming does not involve Community funding a priori. It is first and foremost 
about Member States defining common strategies and putting together national resources. 
At  the  same  time,  it  does  not  rule  out  the  possibility  of  complementary  Community 
funding  depending  on  the  added  value,  European  dimension  and  possible  structuring 
impact of the initiatives concerned. 

The benefits of Joint Programming 

Joint  Programming  will  benefit  Member  States,  European  Research  Programme  managers, 
Europe’s scientists and enterprise:  

•  Joint  Programming  makes  it  easier  to  address  common  challenges  together,  to  develop 

common solutions and to speak with one voice in the international arena. 

•  It  helps  overcome  barriers  to  entry,  such  as  high  start-up  and  operating  costs  in  certain 

S&T fields. 

•  It helps to optimise the scope of research programmes across Europe, to eliminate wasteful 

cross-European programme duplication and to increase programme depth. 

•  It promotes scientific excellence through joint calls with common funding and peer review, 

which increase the competition for funds and raise the quality of research proposals. 

•  By supporting cross-border project collaboration, Joint Programming facilitates the pooling 
of data and expertise scattered across several countries or throughout Europe as a whole, 
enables  the  rapid  dissemination  of  research  results,  promotes  cross-border  mobility  and 
training  of  human  resources,  and  increases  the  scientific,  technological  and  innovative 
impacts of every Euro invested in public research. 

•  It  helps  to  strengthen  coordination  with  other  related  policies  by  virtue  of  greater 
programme visibility, reduces programme management costs, enables cross-border policy 
learning and improves the accountability and transparency of public research programmes. 

The aforementioned benefits  will also  be  of particular value for  those regions and countries 
that  are  catching  up  in  terms  of  research  investment  and  performance.  As  a  result  of  the 
important  S&T  benefits  derived  from  Joint  Programming  and  its  significant  structuring 
effects, Europe's citizens will benefit from stronger economic growth, greater competitiveness 
and higher employment, and from quicker and better solutions for social and environmental 
problems. 

To  further  clarify  these  benefits,  an  example  is  given  of  what  Joint  Programming  might 
contribute to the challenges posed by an ageing society (see Box 2). This example is purely 
illustrative  and  hypothetical,  its  sole  objective  being  to  make  more  concrete  and  visible  the 
potential  power  and  impact  of  Joint  Programming  as  a  mechanism  for  cross-border 
programme collaboration in strategic fields. A more detailed analysis of the potential of Joint 
Programming for other societal challenges and technology areas is given in the Commission 
staff working document accompanying this Communication.  

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
3. 

MAKING JOINT PROGRAMMING OPERATIONAL 

In  this  Communication,  the  Commission  proposes  a  pragmatic  methodology  for  achieving 
Joint Programming in a limited number of agreed areas. The process to identify these specific 
areas  is  described  in  the  next  chapter.  This  chapter  3  presents  the  methodology  required  to 
make  it  operational.  It  is  based  on  experience  with  European  Technology  Platforms,  but 
adapted to public research programmes. It involves different steps, in line with the life-cycle 
of  research  programmes,  namely  from  programme  definition  via  implementation  to 
monitoring and evaluation.  

Three stages can be identified:  

1.  Development  of  a  common  vision  for  the  agreed  area:  This  vision  should  set  the  longer-
term objective(s), to be defined by authoritative experts in the field and politically endorsed. It 
would  be  developed  on  the  basis  of  credible  evidence  (possibly  including  (joint)  foresight 
activities)  and  broad  stakeholder  (public)  consultations,  in  particular  with  the  scientific  and 
industrial  communities.  It  could  equally  be  based  on  a  preliminary  (joint)  evaluation  of 
existing programmes and capacities. 

2.  Once  the  vision  has  been  established,  it  should  be  translated  into  a  Strategic  Research 
Agenda (SRA), entailing specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-based (SMART) 
objectives.  The  strategic  research  agenda  should  make  the  vision  operational  and  link  the 
implementation of the vision's objectives with existing competences in Europe or new ones to 
be  developed.  A  good  knowledge  of  existing  programmes  and  competences  across  Europe 
(and beyond) will be essential. 

3.  Implementation  of  the  SRA:  All  participating  public  authorities  orient  their  programmes 
and funding to  contribute in a coherent manner to  the  implementation  of  the  SRA.  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.  The  implementation  may  or  may  not  include  EU  funding  and 
instruments  through  the  Framework  Programme.  Regular  monitoring  and  evaluation  of 
progress  against  the  SMART  objectives  should  be  ensured,  and  its  results  reported  to  the 
political level. 

Joint Programming could be made easier if a number of framework conditions are in place: 

•  Agreement  on  a  number  of  shared  principles  and  procedures  for  peer  review  ("the 

scientific rules of the game"). 

•  Development of common methodologies for foresight activities and for joint evaluation of 

national or regional programmes or investments in specific areas of research. 

•  Definition  of  common  principles  for  cross-border  funding  of  research  by  national  or 

regional authorities ("the financial rules of the game"). 

•  Effective  measures  to  ensure  the  protection  of  Intellectual  Property  Rights  as  well  as  to 

facilitate the dissemination and optimal use of research outputs. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
4. 

A PROCESS FOR IDENTIFYING SPECIFIC AREAS FOR JOINT PROGRAMMING 

As  set  out  in  this  Communication,  Joint  Programming  is  about  Member  States  developing 
common visions and Strategic Research Agendas, to address specific societal challenges.  

As  already  stated,  it  is  a  voluntary  process  based  on  the  principle  of  variable  geometry  and 
open access. However, in the framework of the wider Ljubljana Process, it makes sense for 
the EU institutions to play a role in its governance, while the ownership and responsibility of 
Member States must be emphasized. The Commission can act as a facilitator and will stand 
ready  to  offer  assistance  requested  by  Member  States  involved  in  Joint  Programming 
Initiatives. It will also keep the Council informed of developments so that the latter can ensure 
effective  monitoring  and  implementation.  This  will  also  ensure  open  access  by  keeping  all 
Member States informed about Initiatives that are planned or underway so that they can join 
at any stage.  

The Commission therefore: 

•  Invites  the  Council  to  endorse,  by  the  end  of  2008,  the  concept  and  objectives  of  Joint 

Programming. 

•  Invites the Council to ask Ministers to nominate high-level representatives to identify and 
motivate,  by  summer  2009,  specific  areas  for  Joint  Programming,  on  the  basis  of  clear 
criteria (see box 3) and stakeholder consultations. The Commission proposes to act as the 
secretariat of this group. 

•  Will submit for Council adoption by end 2009, Recommendations aimed at launching Joint 
Programming  Initiatives  in  the  specific  areas  identified  by  the  high-level  representatives. 
These  Recommendations  will  include  more  detailed  suggestions  with  respect  to  the 
governance and the implementation of Joint Programming Initiatives, taking into account 
feedback  from  the  Council  and  from  the  Member  States  committed  to  participate  in  the 
individual Initiatives.  

•  Will  initiate  cooperation  between  interested  organisations  and  authorities  with  a  view  to 

improving the framework conditions for Joint Programming. 

•  Invites  the  Council  to  oversee  and  regularly  monitor  progress  of  the  Joint  Programming 
Initiatives and, if necessary, consider further steps to ensure their effective implementation. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
Box 3: Criteria for the identification of specific areas for Joint Programming 

–  The area addresses a pan-European/global socio-economic or environmental challenge; 

–  Publicly funded research is central to addressing the challenge; 

–  There  is  a  clear  added  value  in  Joint  Programming  in  the  area,  e.g.  there  is  a  need  for  publicly 

funded research of a scale and scope beyond the capabilities of individual Member States; 

–  The area is sufficiently focused so that clear and realistic objectives can be set. 

In addition, a Joint Programming Initiative in a chosen area should: 

–  Contribute to overcoming fragmentation and wasteful duplication of publicly funded research, and 

contribute to more efficient and effective use of public resources; 

–  Involve the key public initiatives within the area, and have the full backing and commitment of the 

participating Member States 

EN 

12 

   EN