Commission staff working document - Accompanying document to the Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the participation by the Community in a european metrology research programme undertaken by several member states - Summary of the impact assessment {COM(2008) 814 final} {SEC(2008) 2949}
Date: 2008-12-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, EU programme, EU research policy, metrology, research programme

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 3.12.2008xxx 
SEC(2008) 2948 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Accompanying document to the 

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL ON THE 
PARTICIPATION BY THE COMMUNITY IN A EUROPEAN METROLOGY 
RESEARCH PROGRAMME UNDERTAKEN BY SEVERAL MEMBER STATES  

SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT  

{COM(2008) 814 final} 
{SEC(2008) 2949} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
EXCECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Introduction and Procedural Issues 

The earliest example of the importance of quality of measurement in the construction of society can be 
traced back as early as 3000 BC. The “cubit” introduced as the first known unit of length and used 
to construct the pyramids, was defined as the length of the Pharaoh’s forearm plus the width of his 
palm. During the time of King Cheops, the great pyramid of Giza was built with this system and the 
uniformity  of  length  measurement  was  achieved  to  a  relative  accuracy  of  0.05 %  over  a  distance  of 
230  m.  Modern  European  metrology  has  its  roots  in  the  French  Revolution,  with  the  political 
motivation  to  harmonize  units  all  over  France  and  the  concept  of  establishing  units  of  measurement 
available "for all people, for all time".  

In  today's  global  economy,  metrology  is  vastly  contributing  to  technological  and  economical 
development of many nations in the world. Metrology research is needed to solve societal problems, 
and examples affect areas such as satellite navigation, healthcare, semiconductor industry and climate 
change. The European Union was confronted in the nineties with the "mad cow disease" or BSE crisis. 
We  all  remember  the  urgent  need  for  metrology  research  and  new  reference  materials  in  support  to 
regulation and in order to re-establish consumer confidence helping to save the European beef market. 
Metrology  research  being  a  key  supporting  activity  for  regulation  and  standardisation  has  therefore 
traditionally  been  a  high  national  priority  in  many  economies.  However  looking  back  to  the  French 
Revolution,  European  countries  are  since  that  time  operating  their  national  metrology  research 
activities in full isolation. Still today EU Member states have been unable to get their acts together and 
to create on their own a single, modern and truly integrated European Metrology Research Programme 
(EMRP).  

For  many  years,  the  Community  has  made  use  of  the  various  provisions  of  the  Treaty  in  order  to 
encourage  greater  coordination  and  cooperation  between  national  research  programmes.  In  2000  the 
Lisbon European Council concluded that research activities at national and Union level must be better 
integrated and coordinated to make them as efficient and innovative as possible. In 2006, the European 
Parliament put emphasis on better coordination of national and European research programmes. In the 
FP7 Cooperation Specific programme an Article 169 was announced to implement a joint European 
metrology research programme via the existing National Metrology Laboratory networks.  

Beside the well documented support from European Parliament and Council for such an initiative an 
extensive  stakeholder  consultation  confirmed  the  need  for  Community  action  in  the  envisaged 
direction  of  integration  and  modernisation  of  the  European  Metrology  system.  The  concerned 
Commission  services  using  metrology  research  results  in  their  respective  fields  to  prepare  modern 
regulation/legislation  (e.g.  SANCO,  ENV,  ENTR)  also  confirmed  in  inter-service  meetings  the 
usefulness of an integrated programme embedding largely the existing national research programmes. 

Problem Definition 

Metrology  is  hidden  from  public  view  yet  it  is  essential  for  the  facilitation  of  modern  trade  and 
communications. Access to markets can be hampered by incompatible standards or the lack of uniform 
and  accurate  weights  and  measures.  Metrology  research  has  a  strong  public  good  character  and  is  a 
main supporting activity for government regulation and standardisation. All major economic powers in 
the world have recognized that technology R&D in metrology is critical to an advanced nation’s long 
term  economic  growth.  Against  this  background  Europe  is  facing  what  is  called  the  European 
metrology dilemma; the “European metrology dilemma” is to permanently align metrology research 
efforts  with  societal  needs  which  both  are  more  demanding,  more  complex  and  therefore  more 
resource intensive whilst still servicing existing "traditional" demands without any new or additional 
resources.  At  the  same  time,  global  needs  for  accurate  and  speedy  measurement  in  traditional 
industries  are  increasing,  new,  emerging  technologies  put  additional  pressure  on  the  measurement 
system  and  necessitate  “entirely  new  types  of  measurement”  and  in  many  societal  areas  such  as 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
health care, environment protection, food safety or transport the recognition as to the importance of 
standards  and  measurement  is  growing  rapidly  and  relate  directly  to  legislation,  while  available 
European resources are not increasing nor used in an optimal manner. 

The  European  metrology  research  community  is  a  specialised  community  only  loosely  linked  to 
research  organisations  or  academia.  It  is  largely  fragmented  comprising  a  few  centres  of  global 
excellence  which  would  benefit  from  wide  competition  on  an  international  scale.  Duplication  of 
research  clearly  exist  as  for  example  in  the  so  called  "Calibration  and  Measurement  Capability 
Statements"  (CMCs),  where  the  "big  4"  European  metrology  R&D  performing  countries  (Germany, 
UK France and Italy) hold 4050 CMCs compared with the a total of 2250 CMCs for the whole U.S. 
Smaller Member States have excellent scientific knowledge in different metrology relevant fields (e.g. 
Nanotechnologies) but are unable to build their own metrology research capacities due to the lack of 
critical  mass  and  the  huge  start-up  investments.  System  failure  has  been  recognised  also  at  national 
level, and an Europeanization and modernisation of programming can change this situation and solve 
the key problem: 

The European metrology research system supported by solitary national intervention logic concerning 
research  programming  has  to  overcome  the  "Metrology  dilemma".  The  European  potential  in 
metrology  research  is  not  fully  exploited  to  assure the  optimal answers  to  societal  challenges.  Joint 
action  between  Member  States  and  Community  is  missing  in  order  to  provide  for  a  modern  and 
challenge  oriented  research  effort  in  metrology.  Any  new  approach  needs  to  increase  the  available 
resources  and  can  only  be  successful  if  it  takes  fully  the  existing  national  systems  into  account, 
integrates  them  into  a  true  European  programme  which  should  lead  to  a  real  step-change  and 
modernisation for the existing national systems.  

The right for the Community to act in this field is set out in several articles of the Treaty providing for 
research  coordination  and  cooperation  between  Member  States  and  the  Community.  Article  165 
stipulates  that  "the  Community  and  the  Member  States  shall  coordinate  their  research  and 
technological development activities so as to ensure that national policies and Community policy are 
mutually  consistent".  Obviously  Article  169  invites  the  Community  to  make  provision  for 
participation  in  research  and  development  programmes  undertaken  by  several  Member  States. 
Community action seems highly justified, as Member States are unlikely to be able to address these 
problems acting alone. Secondly the rationale for EU action stems partly from the trans-national nature 
of some of the key challenges (for example, health care, environment protection or food safety) where 
Member States need to act together to properly tackle the problems at trans-national level.  

Objectives  

The general policy objectives of the initiative is 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 the objectives of the revised Lisbon Strategy  
•  In particular to invest more and better in knowledge for growth and jobs. 
•  To contribute to the realisation of the European Research Area (ERA)  
•  To  help  Europe  respond  more  effectively  to  key  societal  challenges  such  as  environmental 

protection, health care, food safety, or public security  

In order to contribute to achieving these general policy objectives, it will be necessary to improve the 
efficiency and effectiveness of public metrology research. Specific objectives are: 
•  Structuring the ERA through coordinating and partly integrating national public metrology research 

programmes. 

•  Improve the efficiency of Europe’s fragmented public metrology research approach. 
•  To increase the impact of these programmes. 
•  To remove barriers between national metrology research programmes. 

In order to promote the above improvements in impact and efficiency, the operational objectives are:  
•  Cross-border public research programme coordination and integration. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
•  Address the grand challenges (e.g. climate change) and areas with pressing metrology needs (e.g. 

new and emerging technologies like for example nano- biotech- healthcare- metrology). 

•  Enable some “new” MS or candidate countries to build metrology research capacity. 
•  Open access to unique research infrastructures and facilities  
•  Increase generic collaboration between national metrology research programmes with the relevant 

science community at European level. 

•  Modernisation in the programming of national and European research priorities. 
•  Foster  mobility  of  "early-stage"  researchers  from  National  Metrology  Institutes  (NMI)  and 

Designated Institutes (DI). 

•  Europe should speak with one voice to strengthen its influence at global level. 
•  Metrology research has to become a supporting activity for government regulation. 
•  Support to industry and economic growth through up-front public metrology research. 

Presentation of the Policy Option 

The  options  for  Community  action  are  guided  by  the  logic  and  intervention  mechanisms  of  the 
Framework  Programme  7.  Beside  no  action  these  options  therefore  refer  to  either  indirect  or  direct 
Community  actions  (research  funding)  under  FP7,  which  would  match  the  existing  national 
intervention logic concerning research programming in different Member States.  

The options are labelled as follows on the basis of their main characteristics. 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

Policy  Option  1:  "No  further  Community  action";  status  quo,  no  further  action  on 
EMRP - may lead to intergovernmental approach 
Policy  Option  2:  "Bottom-up  community  indirect  action  –  light  coordination"  under  FP7 
programmes and themes (Cooperation – Capacities Programmes). The aim would be to use the 
ERA-NET scheme and/or the ERA-NET Plus scheme but addressing isolated issues theme by 
theme and in the FP programme part by programme part ("business-as-usual" option). 
Policy Option 3: "Top – Down" community indirect action – Reinstall metrology theme in the 
FP  –  Part  under  FP7  or  preparation  of  FP8  and  reinstall  a  Community  Programme  on 
Metrology  
Policy  Option  4:  "Article  169  –  programme  integration  through  community  indirect  action"; 
Community action to achieve MS programme integration via Article 169, as indicated in the 
F7 Cooperation specific programme 
Policy Option 5: JRC – direct action; a single European metrology research programme to be 
implemented via JRC to cover metrology needs at European level 

The difference between these five options lays in the way in which the Community intervention is set 
up – either as an indirect action or a direct action. The main characteristics of each policy option are 
discussed in detail in the following sub-sections. 

Analysis and comparison of the Options  

Should Policy Option 1 be chosen, the situation as we find it today may not remain in place due to the 
absence of any political and/or or financial Community intervention (ERA-NET or other coordination 
tools). It will most likely deteriorate as it could be foreseen that Member States will invest less if the 
domain of metrology research as the area does not to appear as a European priority area. The status 
quo  and  separation  between  the  Member  States'  programmes  will  remain;  the  likelihood of  research 
groups  of  newcomer  countries  to  hook  up  with  experienced  and  high  level  research  teams  in  more 
advanced countries will be low. Policy Option 2 would continue the route that has been taken with the 
ERA-NET in FP6 and ERA-NET-Plus at the start of FP7. EU policy domains and research fields (e.g., 
energy, environment) can be easily involved directly into the coordination with MS programmes and 
well  conceived  interaction  mechanisms  with  various  metrology  oriented  ERA-NETs  will  be  key.  A 
coherent  joint  long  term  programmatic  approach  will  not  take  place  as  in  the  case  of  a  genuine 
European research programme. Policy Option 3 needs no major institutional set up. It would create a 
dedicated research programme for metrology where the metrology community and the whole science 
community  as  well  as  industry  in  general  can  compete  for  funding  under  FP  rules.  It  provides  the 
opportunity  to  focus  in  particular  on  new  technological  challenges  in  emerging  fields,  thus 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
contributing to the modernisation of the sector. This route is similar to Option 2. It will have no effect 
on the existing national metrology research systems and integration between the national programmes 
and  infrastructures.  Policy  Option  4  creates  a  platform  for  joint  EU  and  Member  State  research 
programming, thus creating a coherent and long term research agenda with critical mass. The active 
participation  of  the  European  Commission  can  safeguard  an  emphasis  on  mobility,  openness  and  a 
focus on emerging areas. The combination of EU and national funds creates  a critical  mass that has 
certain  likelihood  to  stimulate  structural  changes  in  the  national  metrology  research  systems.  The 
linkages with industry are not explicit at EU level and stay rather at national level. This option will 
require substantial institutional changes that will likely take time and complex negotiation with MS to 
implement.  Policy  Option  5  implies  that  metrology  research  will  take  place  in  isolation  from  the 
Member States their respective research programmes and related infrastructures and thus having little 
influence  on  restructuring  the  national  metrology  research  systems  and  no  feeling  for  the  needs  of 
Member  States.  Additional  bottlenecks  are  the  recruitment  requirements  for  JRC  and  the  lack  of 
competition  in  the  metrology  field,  which  by  its  nature  needs  competing  research  tracks  to  find  the 
most reliable solutions.  

Against this general comparison of all five policy options we are of the opinion that Options 1 and 5 
are not viable alternatives to address the problem stated above and we will therefore limit the further 
detailed discussion to options 2, 3 and 4 to compare the remaining options directly. A wide range of 
impacts  is  described  in  relation  to  the  operational  objectives.  The  following  table  summarises  the 
analysis made and shows how the three viable options compare in terms on impact on the objective of 
a Community action in metrology research. 

Table: Overview of potential impacts of three options  

Impact on: 

Option 2: 
Light Coord.  

Option 3: 
FP 

Option 4: Art 
169 

Efficiency of co-ordination, integration of NMI and 
national programmes  

Medium 

 Very Low 

very High 

Effectiveness  of  co-ordination,  integration  of  NMI 
and national programmes 

Medium 

Low 

High 

Grand Challenges  

Medium 

High 

High 

New MS: capacity building 

Low/Medium 

Low 

Medium/High 

Open access to infrastructures 

Low/Medium 

Low 

Medium/High 

Interaction with science community 

Low/medium 

very High  Medium/High 

Modernisation metrology system 

Medium 

Low 

High 

Mobility and Human Resource development 

Low 

Very Low 

Medium 

Global cooperation and position of Europe 

Low/medium 

Support to EU regulation 

Growth: Service to industry  

Low 

Low 

Low 

Low 

Low 

High 

High 

Medium 

Growth: Support to emerging sectors 

Medium 

High 

High 

This comparison illustrated that the impacts of an Article 169 European on the objectives regarding a 
metrology action, are the strongest.  

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
We come to the overall conclusion that time is ripe for an Art. 169 initiative in metrology. The 
initiative is important both for the advancement and modernisation of the European metrology 
research  system  and  as  support  for  those  industries  and  scientific  fields  that  need  more  and 
more sophisticated metrology activities. 

The major findings of the Impact Assessment process are summarised here. The “metrology dilemma” 
is  a  reality.  The  examples  have  confirmed  that  the  demands  on  the  metrology  research  and  service 
provisions are growing. Metrology has a direct importance to contribute to problem solving and policy 
goals in Europe. The more Europe is defining grand challenges, the more policy is oriented towards 
those  challenges,  and  the  more  Europe  is  also  the  reference  for  crisis  management  that  involves 
accurate  measurement  and  testing.  Art.  169  would  mobilise  additional  funds,  both  at  the  European 
level  and  at  National  level.  The  Community  contribution  would  ensure  that  truly  European  interest 
would be reflected in the working programme of the new Art. 169 EMRP, without limiting national 
activities and binding them solely to the European dimension of the programme. From all alternatives 
compared, the Art. 169 would best contribute to a modernisation of the national structures. The goals 
fit the European context to contribute directly to the Lisbon process and if implemented appropriately, 
metrology research could be at the forefront of creating the ERA based on joint initiatives of member 
states and the Commission.  

Monitoring and Evaluation 

The  monitoring  and  evaluation  will  be  accompanied  by  an  annual  reporting  done  by  the  Dedicated 
Implementation Structure (DIS) referring to recordable integration indicators and qualitative progress 
indicators on the basis of the expected actions within the EMRP programme. The DIS will be asked to 
submit on a call by call basis the information required for the indicators and for the self-assessment, 
starting with data for the year before EMRP begins. An expert group in charge of a mid-term and an 
ex-post  evaluation  will  be  asked  to  evaluate  the  progress  in  the  different  actions  of  the  planned 
programme and base its assessment on 13 well defined indicators. The expert group will further assess 
impact of EMRP on the integration of national metrology programmes, restructuring of the metrology 
networks and programmes, impact on ERA in general.  

EN 

6 

   EN