Commission staff working document - Summary of the impact assessment - Accompanying document to the Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the participation by the Community in a Joint Baltic Sea Research and Development Programme (BONUS-169) undertaken by several Member States {COM(2009) 610} {SEC(2009) 1475}
Date: 2009-10-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Baltic Sea, EU financing, EU research policy, degradation of the environment, ecosystem, environmental research, impact study, research and development, research programme, sustainable development

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 29.10.2009 
SEC(2009) 1476 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying document to the 

Proposal for a 

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

on the participation by the Community in a Joint Baltic Sea Research and Development 
Programme (BONUS-169) undertaken by several Member States 

{COM(2009) 610} 
{SEC(2009) 1475} 

EN 

1 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. 

Introduction and problem definition 

The  Baltic  Sea  ecosystem  is  seriously  impacted  by  many  natural  and  human-induced 
pressures. The sea and coasts are particularly affected by combined  and  increasing negative 
impacts  from  pollution,  eutrophication,  climate  change,  acidification,  invasive  alien  species, 
overexploitation  of  living  resources  and  biodiversity  loss.  These  threats  are  reducing  the 
capacity of the Baltic Sea to sustainably provide the goods and services upon which humans 
depend.  This  has  critical  implications  for  the  entire  Baltic  Region,  and  the  wider  European 
Community. In the coming decades, global change (including climate change) and long-term, 
as well as long-range influences are predicted to increase, putting additional pressures on the 
Baltic Sea System.  

Sustainable solutions to environmental problems and the use of the goods and services of the 
Baltic  Sea  System  necessitate  new  scientific  knowledge  to  understand  the  behaviour  of  the 
extremely complex Baltic Sea System, its interactions and feedbacks with the multiple natural 
and  anthropogenic  drivers,  thus  requiring  the  enhanced  coordination  and  cooperation  of 
research among the Baltic Sea States. 

However, while many research activities are taking place in the Baltic Sea region these efforts 
remain  for  a  large  part  uncoordinated  and  lack  a  jointly  agreed  regional  action  plan.  As  a 
result,  the  efforts  so  urgently  required  to  meet  the  complex  challenges  faced  are  highly 
fragmented.  In  addition  the  regional  dimension  of  the  problems,  and  for  some  of  them  the 
global  dimension  e.g.  climate  change,  require  a  sustained  integrated  approach  regarding 
research at the regional level.  

This  situation  calls  for  the  development  and  implementation  of  a  fully-integrated  approach 
whereby the relevant research programmes of all the bordering States can be streamlined and 
focussed  in  order  to  address  the  complex  and  pressing  issues  at  hand,  in  a  coordinated, 
efficient and effective manner. 

To this effect, over the last 15 years, there has been a long-standing political support for an 
improved  coordination  of  research  activities  in  Europe  and  for  coordination  of  national  and 
regional  research  policies  and  programmes  under  the  support  of  the  Seventh  Framework 
Programme (FP7) to avoid fragmentation and overlapping competencies. In reply to this and 
for the context of the Baltic Sea, the Commission presented a roadmap for the implementation 
of  an  Article  169  initiative  in  the  field  of  Baltic  Sea  Research  under  the  FP7  Specific 
Programme1.  

2. 

Subsidiarity 

Despite  numerous  research  activities  and  all  the  efforts  undertaken  to  address  the 
fragmentation  of  research  in  the  region,  a  reinforced  integration  among  nationally  funded 
research  efforts  is  still  necessary  to  address  environmental  challenges  facing  the  Baltic  Sea 
Region,  in  their  great  majority  of  trans-national  nature  and  the  shortcomings  leading  to  the 
fragmentation  in  research.  However,  the  strategic  objectives  of  this  action,  namely  the 
integration of the national Baltic Sea environmental research programmes of the surrounding 
States,  can  not  be  addressed  by  individual  Member  States  acting  in  isolation.  The 

1

EN 

Council Decision of 19 December 2006 concerning the specific programme ‘Cooperation’ implementing the Seventh Framework 
Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007 to 2013)  

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
collaboration  of  the  eight  Baltic  Sea  States,  and  eventually  the  Russian  Federation,  would 
bring  together  an  unprecedented  critical  mass  which  is  so  necessary  to  achieve  the 
Programme's objectives. 

The European added value in the implementation of an Article 169 initiative is fully justified 
by  the  limited  possibilities  available  at  national,  regional  or  local  level  to  individually  meet 
the complex environmental challenges of the Baltic Sea region as a whole. This has been also 
acknowledged  by  the  very  strong  political  support  and  endorsement  by  the  national 
governments  of  the  Baltic  States,  the  various  European  Councils  and  the  European 
Parliament. Furthermore, such an initiative would, through the joint implementation of calls 
for  proposals,  the  joint  development  of  shared  training  and  exchange  programmes  and  the 
sharing  of  large-scale  research  infrastructures,  assist  in  capacity  building  in  the  Member 
States with lower research capacities and bridge the gap in Baltic Sea research.  

Last  but  not  least,  further  to  the  Baltic-specific  expected  added-value,  the  initiative  will 
inspire other European seas for development of similar research governance models.  

3. 

Objectives  

The  general  policy  objective  of  the  current  initiative  is  to  enhance  the  Baltic  Sea  Region's 
research  capacity  to  underpin  the  development  and  implementation  of  'fit-for-purpose' 
regulations,  policies  and  management  practices,  to  respond  effectively  to  the  major 
environmental and key societal challenges the region faces and will face in the coming years 
and  to  improve  the  efficiency  and  effectiveness  of  the  Baltic  Sea  Region's  fragmented 
environmental  research  programming  and  approach  by  integrating  the  research  activities  in 
the  Baltic  Sea  System  into  a  durable,  cooperative,  interdisciplinary  well  integrated  and 
focussed multi-national programme. 

The specific objectives of the initiative are to:  

• 

• 

• 

• 

Establish a policy-driven Strategic Research Agendas 

Increase  sustainable  cross-border  and  cross-sectoral  public  research  programme 

coordination and integration  

Raise the research capacity level of the new EU Baltic States  

Mobilise  additional  financial  resources  from  enhanced  cross-sectoral  Baltic  Sea 

system research collaboration 

The operational objectives of the initiative are to:  

• 

• 

• 

Establish  appropriate  Stakeholder  Consultation  Platforms  including  representation 

from all relevant sectors 

Establish 

effective 
implementation of the programme through a joint management legal entity and governance 
structure  

Implementation  Modalities 

appropriate 

enabling 

an 

Launch  at  least  three  cross-thematic,  strategically  focussed  and  multi-partner  joint 

calls for proposals  

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
4. 

Policy Options  

Three  policy  options  are  considered  for  meeting  the  general  and  specific  objectives  of  the 
initiative. These are: 

Policy  option  1:  The  continuation  of  policies  so  far  developed  under  FP  7  (“business  as 
usual”) 

Policy  option  2:  The  recourse  to  regionally-oriented  trans-thematic  call(s)  under  the 
Framework Programme 

Policy  option  3:  Recourse  to  Article  169  with  three  alternative  approaches  (A,  B  and  C) 
varying in the extent and depth of the strategic orientation and the stakeholder involvement in 
the streamlining and implementation of the calls for proposals  

-  Policy  option  3  through  approach  A  –  Recourse  to  an  Article  169  with  a  focus  limited  to 
marine research and with the immediate launching of science-driven calls for proposals 

- Policy option 3 through approach B – Recourse to an Article 169 with a focus broadened to 
include the Baltic Sea drainage basin and with a Strategic vision and roadmap to be developed 
prior to the start of the initiative and Commission proposal 

- Policy option 3 through approach C – Recourse to an Article 169 with a focus broadened to 
include  the  Baltic  Sea  drainage  basin  and  with  a  strategic  vision  and  roadmap  developed 
during the first phase of the initiative.  

The difference between the three options considered lies in the way in which the Community 
intervention is set up, as an indirect action or a direct one, in the way underlying strategies are 
developed  and  implemented,  and  in  the  scope  of  the  research  field,  exclusively  marine  or 
encompassing a basin approach. 

5. 

Assessment of impacts  

The  table  below  summarises  the  analysis  made  and  shows  how  policy  option  2  and  policy 
option 3 through approaches A, B and C compare in terms of positive impact of a Community 
action in relation to the defined general and specific objectives. An analysis of the potential 
impacts of Policy option 1 (Continuation of policies so far developed under FP 7, business as 
usual) is not included in the table given that this option forms the baseline. These scores are 
made  relating  to  the  baseline  scenario  (Policy  option  1-Continuation  of  policies  so  far 
developed  under  FP  7,  business  as  usual)  which  is  considered  as  zero.  The  comparison 
illustrates  that  the  impact  of  policy  option  3  through  approach  C  is  the  most  significant.

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
Overview of potential impacts of the Policy Options 

Potential Impact of the defined objectives : 

Option 2  Option 3 A  Option 3 B  Option 3 C 

Medium 

Medium 

High 

Very High 

GENERAL OBJECTIVE 

•  Enhance  the  Baltic  Sea  Region's  research 
capacity  to  underpin  the  development  and 
implementation 
'fit-for-purpose' 
of 
and  management 
regulations,  policies 
practices,  to  respond  effectively  to  the 
major  environmental  and  key  societal 
challenges the region faces and will face in 
the  coming  years  and  to  improve  the 
efficiency  and  effectiveness  of  the  Baltic 
Sea  Region's  fragmented  environmental 
research  programming  and  approach  by 
integrating  the  research  activities  in  the 
a  durable, 
Baltic  Sea  System 
interdisciplinary 
cooperative, 
well 
integrated  and 
focussed  multi-national 
programme. 

into 

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES 

•  Establish a policy-driven Strategic Research 

Very Low  Very Low 

High 

Very High  

Agenda  

• 

Increase sustainable cross-border and cross-
sectoral 
programme 
research 
public 
coordination and integration 

Medium 

High 

High 

Very High 

•  Raise the research capacity level of the new 

High 

High 

High 

High 

EU Baltic States 

•  Mobilise additional financial resources from 
enhanced  cross-sectoral  Baltic  Sea  system 
research collaboration 

Low 

Low 

High 

Very High 

OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVES 

•  Establish 

appropriate 

Consultation 
representation from all relevant sectors 

Platforms 

Stakeholder 
including 

•  Establish 

appropriate 
enabling 

Implementation 
Modalities 
effective 
an 
implementation of the programme through a 
joint  management 
and 
governance structure  

entity 

legal 

•  Launch  at 

least 

three  cross-thematic, 
strategically  focussed  and  multi-partner 
joint calls for proposals  

Low 

Medium 

High 

Very High 

Low 

Low 

High 

Very High 

Medium 

Medium 

High 

Very High 

6. 

Comparison of the Options: Preferred Option 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
Based  on  the  review  of  the  potential  Policy  Options,  Policy  option  3  through  approach  C 
could,  if  fully  developed,  lead  to  substantive  improvement  of  the  research  capacity  in  the 
Baltic region to better underpin sustainable development in the area.  

Policy  option  3  through  approach  C  provides  additional  time  and  resources  for  establishing 
the necessary mechanisms that would bring the Article 169 initiative more closely in line with 
the letter and the spirit of Article 169, would create a platform for joint EU and Member State 
research  programming,  thus  creating  a  coherent  and  long  term  research  agenda  with  critical 
mass.  Through  the  involvement  in  the  management  bodies  of  the  initiative,  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 in terms of capacity, expertise and resources that would stimulate structural changes in 
the  national  Baltic  Sea  and  related  river  basin  research  systems  and  would  promote  the 
development  and  implementation  of  a  durable,  cooperative,  interdisciplinary  well  integrated 
and  focussed  multi-national  programme  in  support  of  the  region's  sustainable  development. 
The linkages with industry and other stakeholders and users would be strengthened at national 
level.  This  option  would  not  require  substantial  institutional  change  as  the  EEIG  is  well 
established; however, it would open up opportunities for other funding institutions to provide 
support  in  financing  the  Road  Map  for  strategic  research  that  would  benefit  a  wider 
community  of  economic  and  social  interests  that  depend  upon  resources  derived  from  the 
Baltic  System.  It  is  the  most  promising  policy  option  in  terms  of  achieving  long-lasted  and 
durable integration at the institutional (funding agencies) as well as research community level.  

Policy  Option  3  through  approach  C  could  be  effective  in  the  application  of  the  intent  and 
spirit  of  Article  169  and  has  strong  potential  for  gaining  added  value  from  other 
complementary  research  activities  funded  under  FP6  and  FP7.  Its  success,  however,  relies 
heavily  upon  the  achievement  of  the  objectives  of  the  strategic  phase.  To  affirm  this 
achievement, a review of the strategic phase will be undertaken by the Commission's services 
together with an Independent Expert Review Committee in order to verify whether the goals 
and objectives set out in the initial Strategic phase have been achieved.  

Policy Option 3 through  approach  C  would  mobilise additional funds,  both  at  the European 
and at national level. The Community contribution would ensure that truly European interest 
would  be  reflected  in  the  working  programme  of  the  initiative,  without  limiting  national 
activities and binding them solely to the European dimension of the programme.  

We  come  to  the  overall  conclusion  that  time  is  ripe  for  an  Article  169  initiative  bringing 
together  the  critical  mass  required  to  address  the  complex  environmental  challenges  of  the 
Baltic Sea region as a whole to achieve the Programmes objectives. 

7. 

Monitoring and evaluation 

The preferred option (policy option 3 through approach C) foresees a BONUS-169 initiative 
implemented  in  two  distinct  phases  -  a  first,  2-year  strategic  phase  and  a  second  5-year 
implementation  phase  during  which  a  minimum  of  three  calls  for  proposals  would  be 
published.  

In addition to the ex-ante evaluation of the DIS that will be carried out prior to the beginning 
of  the  Implementation  Phase  according  to  the  Financial  Regulation,  the  evaluation  and 
monitoring of the BONUS initiative would be conducted by the Commission together with the 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
assistance of independent experts. Three reviews would be conducted; a first review at the end 
of  the  strategic  phase,  a  mid-term  review  during  the  implementation  phase  and  an  ex-post 
review at the end of the implementation phase. The Commission would evaluate the progress 
made  towards  the  general  and  specific  objectives  using  a  list  of  measurable  indicators.  It 
should  be  noted  that  the  main  impacts  of  the  initiative  are  expected  to  take  place  mainly 
towards the end of the BONUS programme. Furthermore, the Article 169 initiative will fulfil 
to a very large extent the Van Velzen recommendations2. 

the  Participating  States  (PS) 

Regarding  the  financial  implications  of  the  initiative,  under  the  preferred  policy  option 
presented  above,  a  financial  commitment  of  the  order  of  EUR  26M  fresh  money  has  been 
pledged  by 
together  with  additional  "in-kind"  and 
"infrastructure" contributions of EUR 10M. Under policy option 3 B and C and unlike policy 
option 3A, an additional funding of the order of EUR 14M would be sought from the PS by 
engaging  further  national  Funding  Agencies  during  the  strategic  phase  of  the  initiative. 
Projects  to  be  implemented  under  the  Article  169  initiative  would  be  funded  by  a  shared 
financial  contribution  by  both  the  Community  and  the  Participating  States.  The  EC  would 
match the contributions made to the BONUS-169 by the Participating States and this sharing 
would  be  done  according  to  a  ceiling  to  be  fixed  in  the  Commission  proposal  for  a  co-
decision.  

Under  policy  option  3  through  approach  C  and  unlike  policy  options  2,  3A  and  3B,  a 
maximum of EUR 1.25 M (to be matched by an equal amount by the Participating States) out 
of the total EU contribution would be provided to cover the eligible costs incurred during the 
strategic phase. This amount would be subtracted from the total EU contribution. This amount 
would however enhance the cost-effectiveness of this option since the strategic "mechanisms" 
to  be  put  in  place  would  greatly  enhance  the  added  value  of  the  initiative  and  would 
strengthen  considerably  the  policy  relevance,  effectiveness  and  impact  of  the  research 
activities  envisaged  under  the  implementation  phase.  In  addition,  Policy  option  3C  also 
represents the option with the highest impact and cost-effectiveness in administrative costs for 
the Commission.  

Unavoidably, the assessment of the expected cost-effectiveness of the various policy options 
and the quantification of the role of region-wide coordination of marine and maritime research 
is associated with a certain degree of uncertainty. In addition there is no similar blueprint in 
the  EU  to  use  as  a  benchmark  for  inter-comparison.  As  the  ultimate  product  of  such  an 
initiative  is  new  knowledge  utilised  to  achieve  sustainable  use  of  the  goods  and  services 
generated by the marine ecosystem and protecting the quality of the environment in the longer 
perspective, it is anticipated but without any hard evidence to prove it, that the co-ordination 
and integration of national schemes that are envisaged to be addressed (to a varying degree of 
success)  by  policy  option  3  through  approaches  A,  B  and  C  will  be  the  more  cost-effective 
way  to  achieve  better  quality  knowledge  in  terms  of  reliability,  comprehensiveness  and 
relevance to the needs formulated by the users. 

2 

EN 

Independent  External  Review  Report,  EDCTP  Programme  review  conducted  by  the  IER  /  EDCTP 
Panel: Wim Van Velzen (Chair), Adetokunbo O. Lucas, Allyson Pollock, Jean Stéphenne and Fernand 
Sauer, 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/health/poverty-
2007 
diseases/doc/final_ier_report_12july2007_en.pdf 

July 

12 

7 

   EN