Commission staff working document - 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) 1476}
Date: 2009-10-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Baltic Sea, EU financing, EU research policy, degradation of the environment, ecosystem, environmental research, research and development, research programme, sustainable development

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 29.10.2009 
SEC(2009) 1475 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

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) 1476} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

1.3. 

1.4. 

2. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES... 4 

Context and legal basis – Why an Article 169 Initiative for the Baltic Sea Region? .. 4 

Organisation and Timing ............................................................................................. 5 

Consultation and expertise ........................................................................................... 7 

Opinion of the Impact Assessment Board.................................................................... 9 

PROBLEM DEFINITION ......................................................................................... 10 

2.1.  What is the issue or problem that the initiative must address? .................................. 10 

2.2. 

Drivers of the poor State of the Baltic Sea environment ........................................... 13 

2.3.  Who is affected, in what ways? ................................................................................. 16 

2.4. 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

4. 

Does the EU have the right to act – Subsidiarity, proportionality (‘necessity test’), 
Treaty base ................................................................................................................. 16 

OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................ 17 

General policy objective ............................................................................................ 17 

Specific objectives ..................................................................................................... 18 

Operational objectives................................................................................................ 18 

POLICY OPTIONS ................................................................................................... 18 

4.1. 

Lessons from the Van Velzen report.......................................................................... 22 

5. 

5.1. 

5.2. 

6. 

6.1. 

6.2. 

6.3. 

7. 

8. 

LIKELY ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS............... 23 

Effect of changes in parameters on impacts............................................................... 28 

Potential obstacles and risks....................................................................................... 29 

COMPARING THE OPTIONS ................................................................................. 30 

Comparing the impacts of the different Options........................................................ 30 

Summary of the advantages and disadvantages for each Policy Option.................... 31 

The Preferred Option ................................................................................................. 30 

EX-ANTE EVALUATION AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS ............. 34 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION ..................................................................... 36 

Annex I. 
Annex II 
Annex III 
Annex IV 
(version July 2009) 
Annex V 
Annex VI 

Bonus EEIG Action Plan 2008 – 2016 Part I Scientific goals and activities  
Bonus EEIG Action Plan Part II Governance, Administration and Management  
Draft BONUS 169 Strategic Research Agenda version 2008-11-10 
Outline  Research  Agenda  of  BONUS-169  Baltic  Sea  Research  Programme 

Baltic Sea - Stock taking  
EU Policies of key relevance to the Baltic Sea Region 

EN 

2 

   EN 

Annex VII  Glossary 
Annex VIII  List of Abbreviations and Acronyms  

EN 

3 

   EN 

1. 

1.1. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

Context  and  legal  basis  –  Why  an  Article  169  Initiative  for  the  Baltic  Sea 
Region? 

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.  

Knowledge-based  solutions  and  measures  are  urgently  needed  to  address  the  environmental 
problems  and  ensure  a  sustainable  use  of  the  goods  and  services  of  the  Baltic  Sea  System 
which  necessitate  new  scientific  knowledge  to  understand  and  predict  the  behaviour  of  the 
extremely complex Baltic Sea System, its interactions and feedbacks with the multiple natural 
and  anthropogenic  drivers.  Furthermore,  the  regional  and  sometimes  global  nature  of  these 
drivers (e.g. climate change) calls for the development and implementation of a sustained and 
fully-integrated approach, tapping upon the research capacities and resources of all the Baltic 
Sea States. 

However, the current research system in the Baltic region, still being too fragmented, can not 
respond  to  these  great  challenges.  Urgent  actions  are  needed  to  enhance  the  coordination, 
cooperation  and  synergies  among  all  relevant  national  research  programmes  and  activities 
funded by the bordering Baltic States in order to improve the overall coherence and efficiency 
of  the  Baltic  research  system  and  capacitate  it  to  address  the  complex  and  pressing 
environmental problems at hand.. To this effect, there has been long-standing political support 
for an improved coordination of research activities in Europe and for the BONUS Article 169. 

In 2001, the Competitiveness Council considered that the use of Article 169 of the EC Treaty 
could lead to greater coherence and integration of national and Community programmes and 
research policies, and invited the Member States to identify possible specific topics for pilot 
programmes  where  the  use  of  Article  169  would  be  appropriate.  The  Commission  was 
requested  to  come  forward  by  early  2002  with  proposals  to  the  Council  and  European 
Parliament for participation by the Community in any such pilot programmes1 

In  2002,  the  Competitiveness  Council  recognised  the  importance  of  the  mutual  opening  of 
national research programmes and the need for more coordination between national research 
programmes,  as  well  as  between  national  and  Community  programmes,  and  indicated  its 
support for the use of Article 1692 

In  2005,  the  Presidency  invited  Member  States  to  set  priorities  and  define  which  national 
programmes should be co-ordinated.  

In  2006,  the  European  Parliament  reporting  on  the  Commission  Proposal  for  the  Seventh 
Framework  Programme  (FP7),  recognised  that  "…it  is  vital  that  the  Seventh  Framework 
Programme  should  support  the  coordination  of  national  and  regional  research  policies  and 

1 
2 

2380th Competitiveness Council Meeting, Luxembourg, 30 October 2001. 
Informal  ministerial  meeting  of  Industry  and  Research  Ministers  in  Girona  (Spain)  in  February  2002 
and conclusions from the 2467th Council meeting (Competitiveness), Brussels, 26 November 2002 

EN 

4 

   EN 

                                                 
programmes" and that in order "to avoid fragmentation and overlapping competencies, there 
should  be  more  cooperation  between  national  and  European  research  programmes,  and 
between  economic  actors  in  the  long-term  research  agenda.".  Four  potential  Article  169 
initiatives  were  included  under  the  FP7  Cooperation  Specific  Programme  and  Capacities 
Specific  Programme3  with  an  indicative  roadmap  for  their  implementation.  Whilst  BONUS 
ERA-Net  (2004-2006)  had  made  a  good  progress  in  initiating  communication  between 
research  funding  institutions  in  the  region,  analysing  the  landscape  and  developing  the 
preconditions  for  further  integration  by  elaborating  a  series  of  Analytic  Papers,  a  Science 
Plan,  Legal  basis  for  a  Decentralised  Implementation  Structure  (DIS),  the  BONUS-169 
initiative was not considered mature enough to be included in the ‘first train’ of Article 169 
initiatives.  Instead,  an  ERA-Net  Plus  (2007-2011)  was  offered  as  a  bridging  measure  to 
further  develop  and  test  the  identified  mechanisms  in  practice  through  a  joint  call  before 
adopting a fully-fledged BONUS-169 initiative. 

During the BONUS ERA-Net Plus, the BONUS participating States have clearly recognised 
that irreversible and true integration can only be achieved through durable cooperation and to 
this end they have clearly demonstrated their willingness and their intention to act together in 
implementing a Joint Research Programme under an Article 169 initiative. Furthermore, the 
BONUS EEIG4 (the BONUS consortium), a European Economic Interest Grouping based in 
Helsinki,  consisting  of  9  institutions  from  8  Participating  States,  was  set-up  to  serve  as  the 
Dedicated  Implementation  Structure  (DIS)  for  the  administration  of  the  joint  call  under 
BONUS  ERA-Net  Plus  and  as  the  joint  governance  structure  for  the  implementation  of  the 
BONUS-169 initiative.  

The FP7 Cooperation Specific programme  refers specifically to an "Article 169 initiative in 
the field of Baltic Sea Research": 

The aim will be to launch and implement a joint R&D programme integrating a number of national 
programmes in the field of marine science and sustainable development of the Baltic Sea. In line with 
a  number  of  international,  European  and  regional  conventions  dealing  with  the  Baltic  Sea,  this 
initiative will enable the creation of a platform for synthesising and disseminating findings in the field 
and will create the necessary R&D to support sustainable development of the Baltic Sea. 

In March 2008, the European Council pointed out that the decisions on Article 169 initiatives 
and additional research initiatives should be taken as soon as possible and as reported in the 
minutes  of  the  Competitiveness  Council  of  5  and  6  March  2009,  "The  Council  invites  the 
Commission to submit in early 2009 to the Council and the European Parliament a proposal to 
transform  the  ERA-NET+  "BONUS  for  the  Baltic  Sea  Science  –  Network  of  Funding 
Agencies" into a joint research programme based on Article 169 of the Treaty." 

1.2. 

Organisation and Timing 

On the basis of a thorough scoping exercise, a detailed analysis of the gaps in cooperation of 
past  Baltic  Sea  System  research  and  extensive  consultations  with  the  marine  research 

3

4 

2006/971/EC, 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); 2006/974/EC:Council Decision 
of  19  December  2006  concerning  the  specific  programme  ‘Capacities’  implementing  the  Seventh 
Framework  Programme  of  the  European  Community  for  research,  technological  development  and 
demonstration activities (2007 to 2013) 
Established in 2007, Hämeentie 33, FI-00500 Helsinki, Finland  

EN 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
 
community  and  key  stakeholders  carried  out  by  BONUS  ERA-Net,  a  Science  Plan5,  a 
Tentative Action Plan (2008–2016)6 and Draft Strategic Research Agenda7 were elaborated. 
They  served  as  basis  for  the  first  joint  call  in  2008  organised  within  the  framework  of  the 
BONUS  ERA-Net  plus.  In  addition  to  these  documents,  BONUS  produced  a  series  of 
publications on issues such as the baseline situation in the Baltic Sea environmental research, 
funding, consultation process that were followed, etc. These documents were submitted to the 
Commission  as  background  documents  for  the  preparation  of  a  BONUS  169  initiative.  The 
scientific  content  and  the  overall  implementation  context  described  in  these  documents  is 
being  analysed  in  this  report  under  Section  4  as  Policy  option  3,  through  approach  A.  It 
formed the basis for the analysis and assessment by a panel of five independent experts – the 
Impact  Assessment  Expert  Group  (IAEG)  –  that  was  set  up  by  DG  RTD  to  assist  the 
Commission's  services  with  the  preparation  of  the  BONUS  169  Impact  Assessment  Report 
(IAR).  

Following  this  analysis,  the  IAEG  identified  a  number  of  elements  that  would  need  to  be 
taken  into  account  for  further  optimising  BONUS-169  in  line  with  the  boundary  conditions 
laid  down  in  the  Van  Velzen  report8,  and  enhancing  its  impact  in  supporting  sustainable 
development  of  the  Baltic  Sea.  This  "optimal"  Article  169,  incorporating  the  IAEG's 
recommendations, is being analysed in this report under Section 4 as Policy option 3, through 
approach B. A report  entitled “Operational Conclusions” with the IAEG's  recommendations 
was  communicated  by  the  Commission  to  the  BONUS  EEIG  in  December  2008  with  a 
request to revise their documentation accordingly. 

In tandem, and following a letter by DG Research Commissioner Potočnik, the Ministers of 
Research  from  the  BONUS  participating  countries  reaffirmed  their  political  and  financial 
commitment to the initiative and endorsed the need for revision of the original BONUS 169 
version in line with the IAEG's recommendations. The services of two additional independent 
experts (the External Expert Group) were contracted by the Commission and made available 
to the BONUS EEIG to assist them in the revision. 

A revised BONUS 169 Outline Research Agenda was submitted to DG RTD in July 20099 by 
the  BONUS  consortium  taking  full  account  of  the  input  by  the  IAEG.  It  was  assessed  and 
analyzed by the Commission services with the assistance of the IAEG. This revised BONUS 
169 Outline Research Agenda is being analysed in this report under Section 4 as Policy option 
3,  through  approach  C.  It  foresees  a  two-stage  Article  169  Initiative  comprising  an  initial 
Strategic Phase (2010-2011) to lay the foundations for the subsequent Implementation Phase. 

In  the  context  of  the  preparation  of  the  Impact  Assessment  and  legislative  proposal  for  this 
Article  169,  a  formal  Inter-Service  Steering  Group  (ISSG)  was  set  up  by  DG  RTD 
(Directorate  I),  in  May  2008.  Representatives  from  14  Directorates  General  were  formally 
invited  to  form  part  of  the  group10.  The  group  has  been  kept  regularly  informed  on  the 

5 

6 

7 
8 

9

10

BONUS  Publications  Nr.  5  BONUS–169  Baltic  Sea  Science  Plan  and  Implementation  Strategy 
http://www.bonusportal.org/files/40/Publication_Nr._5.pdf 
Annex I Bonus EEIG Action Plan 2008 – 2016 Part I Scientific goals and activities and Annex II Bonus 
EEIG Action Plan Part II Governance, Administration and Management  
Annex III Draft BONUS 169 Strategic Research Agenda  
12 
Report, 
Independent 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/health/povertydiseases/doc/final_ier_report_12july2007_en.pdf 
Annex IV BONUS 169 Outline Research Agenda  
DG  Energy  and  Transport,  DG  Enlargement,  DG  Enterprise  and  Industry,  DG  Environment,  DG 
External  Relations,  DG  Health  and  Consumers,  DG  Information  Society  and  Media,  DG  Maritime 
Affairs  and  Fisheries,  DG  Regional  policy,  DG  Trade,  DG  Budget,  DG  Agriculture  and  Rural 
Development, the Legal Service and the Secretariat-General  

Programme, 

External 

EDCTP 

Review 

2007, 

July 

EN 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
 
 
progress, and its views and recommendations were systematically taken on board. By the time 
of  the  present  Report,  the  ISSG  met  six  times11  during  the  course  of  the  preparation  of  the 
initiative. The Joint Research Centre was not involved in the ISSG since it would be eligible 
to participate in future BONUS-169 calls for proposals.  

1.3. 

Consultation and expertise 

External scientific expertise 

The IAEG has held eight meetings12. The role of the External Expert Group in advising the 
BONUS  consortium  during  the  revision  process  has  also  been  greatly  appreciated  and 
acknowledged by the consortium. 

Consultation of relevant stakeholders carried out by the Commission 

Consultation within the context of the elaboration, adoption and implementation of the 7th EU 
RTD Framework Programme 

BONUS 169 has formed integral part of the specific programme ‘Cooperation’, and has been 
subject to and benefited from the very broad consultation process organised within the context 
of  FP7.  Furthermore,  falling  under  the  remit  of  the  thematic  area  Environment  (including 
climate  change),  it  is  subject  to  regular  consultations  with  the  corresponding  Programme 
Committee and Programme Advisory Group. 

Consultation on a European Strategy for Marine and Maritime Research 

BONUS 169 has formed an integral part of the European Strategy for Marine and Maritime 
Research and has thus benefited from the consultation process undergone in the framework of 
the Strategy.  

Consultation with Ministers of the EU Baltic Member States regarding political engagement 
in a future BONUS 169 (see section 1.2) 

Stakeholder consultation within the framework of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region 13  

The  EU  Strategy  for  the  Baltic  Sea  Region  (EUSBR)  in  its  very  broad  scope  and  coverage 
makes  explicit  reference  to  the  BONUS  169  initiative  both  under  the  policy  oriented  action 
and  the  detailed  action  plan.  In  this  context,  it  has  largely  benefitted  from  the  public  and 
stakeholders consultation carried out within this framework in 2008/200914. 

Consultation of Stakeholders carried out by the BONUS Consortium 

As  mentioned  above,  the  original  BONUS  169  scientific  framework  (BONUS-169  Science 
Plan  and  Implementation  Strategy)  was  based  on  a  thorough  analysis  of  the  gaps  in 
cooperation of past Baltic Sea System research, and extensive consultations with the marine 
research  community  and  relevant  stakeholders  and  served  as  a  basis  for  the  first  joint  call 
under BONUS ERA-NET Plus that was published in 2008. 

11

12

13

14

EN 

29 May 2008, 12 December 2008, 11 February 2009, 18 June 2009, 23 July 2009, 18 September 2009 
17 July, 8 - 10 September, 6 - 7 and 20-21 November 2008, 26-27 February 2009, 15 April, 3-4 June 
and 11-12 June 2009 
COM 2009, 248/3 
the 
Consultation 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/consultation/baltic/consultation_en.htm. 

Strategy 

Baltic 

Sea 

EU 

on 

7 

   EN 

                                                 
 
 
 
 
In  developing  them,  the  BONUS  consortium  engaged  with  many  groups  of  stakeholders 
between  the  period  of  June  2005  and  November  2006.  The  process,  as  presented  in  the 
BONUS  Publication  No.  1015,  included  a  variety  of  consultation  mechanisms  and  feedback 
procedures in all nine Baltic Sea countries (i.e. 8 EU countries and Russia) with a broad range 
of  academic  and  governmental  scientists  in  all  relevant  disciplines  and  spheres  of  marine 
science,  the  BONUS  consortium  funding  agencies,  relevant  ministries  and  their  associated 
specialised  institutes,  intergovernmental  and  international  organisations  with  major  interests 
and  influence  in  science  and  the  provision  of  scientific  advice  for  management,  as  well  as 
management and regulatory decision makers.  

Furthermore,  extensive  consultations  took  place  with  the  Advisory  Board  (set  up  by  the 
BONUS  PLUS  Steering  Committee  for  the  implementation  of  the  BONUS  PLUS  Call  for 
proposals) for the preparation of the BONUS-169 Science Plan and Implementation Strategy. 
The  Advisory  Board  comprises  a  broad  spectrum  of  stakeholders  (HELCOM,  ICES,  DG 
MARE, WWF, and Finnish Farmers Association). 

The  more  recent  communication  activities  of  the  BONUS-169  initiative  include  the 
organisation of a seminar on ‘Marine Science Contribution to Regional Seas Strategies, held 
in  Brussels  in  December  2008.  This  was  a  culmination  of  a  series  of  workshops  between 
BONUS  and  other  relevant  research  communities  knowledgeable  of  European  regional  seas 
(Black Sea, Mediterranean and North Atlantic).  

In  the  spring  of  2009,  four  presentations  were  given  to  a  wide  range  of  European 
stakeholders:  

•  HELCOM’s 4th Stakeholder Conference,  

•  European Maritime Day: Stakeholder Conference in Rome 

•  Baltic Marine Innovation Forum in Klaipeda 

•  Baltic Operational Oceanographic System Annual meeting in Sopot  

Furthermore,  the  revised  BONUS  169  Outline  Research  Agenda  (see  Section  1.2)  has  its 
beginning in the former work, building on the 2006 plan which, as mentioned above, has been 
the subject of a broad consultation.  

Its draft version was presented in Warsaw in June 2009 at the Conference on the EU Strategy 
for the Baltic Sea Region entitled “Building Partnership for Entrepreneurship, Innovation and 
Competitiveness”  and  at  the  7-th  Baltic  Sea  Science  Congress  (BSSC)  that  took  place  in 
Tallinn in August 2009. On the occasion of this latter Congress, several organisations invited 
BONUS-169  to  join  them  for  the  organisation  of  the  next  BSSC  which  will  take  place  in 
Russia  in  2011.  It  will  be  presented  again,  this  time  in  a  more  international  context,  in 
October 2009 at the Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy.  

This Outline is intended to serve as a first basis for the elaboration of the full-scale BONUS-
169 Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) during the two years Strategic Phase of the initiative 
(under policy option 3 through approach C). Under this policy option and in line with the new 
strategic and policy-driven orientation of the BONUS programme, the SRA will constitute the 
subject  of  an  extensive  consultation  with  a  much  broadened  stakeholders  community 

15

BONUS  publication  No  10,  Consultation  Process  for  the  BONUS-169  Baltic  Sea  Science  Plan  and 
Implementation Strategy, http://www.bonusportal.org/files/68/Bonus_10_VerkkoPDF.pdf 

EN 

8 

   EN 

                                                 
 
engaging all sectors with potential interactions with the Baltic Sea System and its wide range 
of goods and services.  

To summarise, it is considered that the general principles and standards for consultation have 
so  far  been  respected  and  that  the  proposed  BONUS-169  initiative  enjoys  a  very  large 
consensus among the scientific, institutional and governmental instances as to its importance 
for furthering Baltic Sea region research.  

However, it is quite clear that the Science Plan for an initiative like BONUS-169 must be kept 
a  ‘living’  document,  evolving  along  with  the  development  of  knowledge  and  scientific 
thinking and responsive to emerging stakeholder’s needs and associated knowledge gaps. In 
this  sense,  the  stakeholder  consultation  has  been  conceived  and  is  planned  as  a  dynamic 
process to be actively pursued throughout the life of the initiative. The Commission will make 
sure  that  the  right  mechanisms  and  provisions  will  be  put  in  place  following  the 
implementation of the Strategic phase that would guarantee that the consultation process will 
be continued throughout the life of the initiative.  

1.4. 

Opinion of the Impact Assessment Board 

On  9  September  2009  the  draft  impact  assessment  report  was  presented  to  the  Impact 
Assessment  Board,  a  body  made  of  high-level  Commission's  officials  with  a  mandate  to 
ensure high quality impact assessments of the Commission's most significant initiatives. In its 
first  opinion  of  11  September  2009,  in  addition  to  some  "technical"  comments,  the  Board 
made  several  substantial  suggestions  for  improvement.  In  the  revised  version  that  was 
submitted to the Board on 21 September 2009, these comments were taken into account in the 
following way: 

•  Clearer evidence has been provided for the fragmentation of research on the Baltic Sea and 
to  substantiate  the  claim  that  this  fragmentation  is  an  important  obstacle  to  filling  the 
identified knowledge gaps. 

•  The value added of EU action has been detailed more clearly 

•  The  differences  between  this  initiative  compared  to  previous  attempts  to  overcome 

research fragmentation has been further clarified. 

•  The  ways  by  which  this  initiative  will  change  the  financing  of  Baltic  Sea  research  and 
mobilise additional funds as a result of addressing existing duplication have been explained 
more clearly. 

•  The  objectives  and  monitoring  indicators  have been  revised  with  a  view  to  making  them 

more operational and to ensure their relevance with regard to monitoring needs. 

•  The  potential  impact  of  the  preferred  option  on  capacity  building  in  the  Member  States 
with lower research capacities, and in particular how it would bridge the capability gap in 
Baltic Sea research, has been further detailed. 

In its final opinion of 29 September 2009, the Board acknowledged the efforts made during 
the  revision  and  gave  a  positive  opinion.  It  did  however  make  some  recommendations  for 
further improvement. In the current version of the Impact Assessment Report and in line with 
the recommendations of the Board the following modifications have been made: 

EN 

9 

   EN 

–  additional specific objectives (page 17) and indicators (page 37) have been added referring 
to  the  research  integration  and  the  reduction  of  the  gap  in  research  capacity  between 
Member States 

–  further evidence for the research fragmentation was provided on page 11 and 12 

In the absence of a similar initiative in the past by the Baltic Sea Member States to address 
fragmentation  and  enhance  co-ordination  in  research,  there  has  been  not  attempt  to  "scope" 
and  "map"  the  baseline  of  the  Baltic  Sea  System  research.  The  first  attempt  to  establish  a 
baseline  was  undertaken  by  the  BONUS  ERA-NET  through  a  comprehensive  survey  on 
funding  of  the  Baltic  Sea  research  for  the  year  200416.  This  study  being  the  only  reference 
available,  it  has  been  used  as  such  in  the  current  IAR  and  this  inevitably  has  led  to 
comparisons  of  "amounts  referring  to  different  timescales"  (see  point  1  of  the  Board's 
opinion). 

The authors of this Impact Assessment have systematically tried to provide "evidence" only 
when based on factual information publicly available. They have abstained from references to 
hypothetical figures that can not be easily defendable.  

In  this  context,  the  authors  find  themselves  unable  to  properly  address  the  Board's 
recommendations referring to: 

–  "what  percentage  would  allow  for  the  conclusion  that  this  research  is  sufficiently 
integrated, and further strengthen the evidence for the research fragmentation by providing 
concrete  examples  of  poor  coordination,  duplication  or  insufficient  capacity  and  of  their 
link to the identified knowledge gaps". 

–  "assess the order of magnitude of additional funds, including from the EU, which would be 
mobilised  as  a  result  of  removing  existing  duplication.  In  the  absence  of  aggregated 
data/indicators, this could be illustrated by examples" 

For  the  same  reasons,  the  authors  of  the  report  are  not  in  a  position  to  "assess  the  order  of 
magnitude of additional funds, including from the EU, which would be mobilised as a result 
of  removing  existing  duplication",  nor  to  predict  the  attitude  by  the  Participating  States 
regarding  funding  in  the  presence  of  an  article  169  and  hence  provide  any  credible 
explanation as "to what extent providing additional (centrally coordinated) funding for Baltic 
Sea research could result in a reduction in the level of financing outside the joint programme". 

2. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

2.1.  What is the issue or problem that the initiative must address? 

The  Baltic  Sea  is  bordered  by  8  EU  Member  States  (Sweden,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Finland, 
Germany,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  and  Poland)  and  the  Russian  Federation.  Moreover,  Belarus, 
Ukraine, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Norway are partly within the drainage basin of the 
Baltic Sea.  

16

BONUS Publications Nr. 3, Baltic Sea Research And R&D Funding In 2004, where NCM is the Nordic 
Council of Ministers. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

                                                 
 
The Baltic Sea Region (BSR) represents 23% of the EU population (106 million inhabitants), 
whereas its aggregated GDP is 16%.17 

As  mentioned  under  section  1.1,  the  Baltic  Sea  ecosystem  is  seriously  impacted  by  a 
combination  of  multiple  natural  and  human-induced  pressures  which  have  significantly 
reduced  the  capacity  of  the  Baltic  Sea  to  sustainably  provide  the  goods  and  services  upon 
which  humans  depend,  and  with  negative  consequences  for  the  region  and  for  the  wider 
European Community18. Furthermore, the poor state of the Baltic Sea environment has serious 
effects on the health of citizen's and ecosystems. This already critical situation risks to further 
deteriorate in the years to come endangering the sustainable development of the entire Baltic 
region and therefore sound management measures must be put in place to mitigate the impacts 
– both direct and indirect – of many human activities at sea and in the catchment area.  

Furthermore, legislative regulations directly or indirectly related to the European waters (e.g. 
fish,  drinking  and  groundwater,  bathing  waters,  dangerous  substances,  shellfish,  birds, 
habitats, sewage, nitrate, urban waste) have, since the 1990s, seen a shift towards integrated 
management  approaches,  such  as  the  Water  Framework  Directive  and  the  Marine  Strategy 
Framework Directive.  

The  2005  European  Thematic  Strategy  on  the  Protection  and  Conservation  of  the  Marine 
Environment19 and the Marine Strategy Directive20 – which forms the environmental pillar of 
the emerging integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union21– stress the importance of 
an ecosystem-based approach as a means to achieve the full economic potential of oceans and 
seas, through their sustainable use whilst conserving marine ecosystems and aims at achieving 
a good environmental status of the Community’s marine waters by 2021. It requires Members 
States  to  cooperate  wherever  possible  at  the  level  of  existing  Regional  Seas  Conventions. 
Furthermore,  the  EU  Maritime  Policy  must  be  based  on  excellence  in  marine  research, 
technology  and  innovation.22  In  the  2007  Action  Plan  for  the  Baltic  Sea,  HELCOM  Parties 
agreed to jointly develop, in cooperation with other relevant international bodies, large-scale, 
cross-sectoral, marine spatial planning principles based on the Ecosystem Approach.23  

Additionally,  the  renewed  EU  Sustainable  Development  Strategy24  aims  at  improving 
synergies and reduce trade-offs, and proposes a more integrated approach to policy making, 
based on better regulation and on the guiding principles for sustainable development.  

The development and implementation of an ecosystem approach in the Baltic Sea necessitates 
a  research  strategy  striving  for  a  holistic,  integrated,  inter-disciplinary  scientific  approach 
addressing both the natural and socio-economic systems. Furthermore, such an approach must 

17 
18 

19 

20 
21 

22 

23 

24 

IP/08/1430, Brussels, 30 September 2008 
A more extensive analysis of the State of the Baltic Sea environment as well as a list of EU Policies of 
key relevance to Baltic Sea can be found in Annex V and VI respectively. 
Thematic  Strategy  on  the  Protection  and  Conservation  of  the  Marine  Environment,  COM(2005)  504 
final. 
Marine Strategy Framework Directive, OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p. 19–40.  
Communication  from  the  Commission  –  An  Integrated  Maritime  Policy  for  the  European  Union 
COM(2007) 575 final 
Communication  from  the  Commission  –  An  Integrated  Maritime  Policy  for  the  European  Union, 
COM(2007) 575 final. 
HELCOM.  Baltic  Sea  Action  Plan.  HELCOM  Ministerial  Meeting,  Krakow,  Poland,  15  November, 
2007. 
COM/2009/0400, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the 
European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  -  Mainstreaming 
sustainable development into EU policies, 2009 Review of the European Union Strategy for Sustainable 
Development. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

                                                 
strive  to  effectively  foster  the  close  collaboration  of  research  communities  across  different 
geographical  and  disciplinary  borders,  including  highly  trained  researchers  (of  current  and 
future generations) and well-functioning interfaces between science and policy that allow for 
genuine dialogues between scientists, policy-makers and other stakeholders in order to ensure 
policy-relevance  of  the  research  and  the  rapid  translation  of  research  into  policy  advice  at 
different levels (from local to regional). 

Whilst there is a long tradition in Baltic Sea research cooperation with countries both within 
and  outside  the  Baltic  Sea  area,  collaborative  efforts  so  far  have  lacked  adequate  financial 
resources for the optimal exploitation of the research potential due to the unequal economical 
and  development  situation  in  the  countries  as  well  as  highly  diverse  national  research 
agendas,  research  themes  and  priorities.  Furthermore,  international  research  projects  and 
programmes implemented so far in the region have not been able to actually restructure the 
research fabric in the region in a more durable manner and extending beyond their life cycle, 
nor there has been a structured attempt to provide an effective science policy interface.  

The  spectrum  of  different  forms  of  funding  Baltic  Sea  research  by  the  various  countries 
surrounding the sea is quite broad. How the R&D funding is organised in each country is a 
result of each country’s own historical development. Some of the Baltic Sea scientists work in 
governmental institutes, some in universities. Some scientists have a permanent position and a 
fixed  monthly  salary,  others  work  for  shorter  periods  with  project  based  funding.  In  some 
countries,  a  major  part  of  the  research  funding  goes  directly  from  the  respective  ministry 
budget  to  the  research  institute,  and  the  amount  of  funding  based  on  competition  and  peer 
review  is  small,  while  in  other  countries  the  situation  is  the  opposite.  The  funding  periods 
vary from one year to longer periods.  

This mosaic of research funding and implementation modalities has as a result that research 
and  development  programmes,  or  activities  undertaken  by  Member  States  individually  at 
national  level  to  support  R&D  in  the  Baltic  Sea  region,  are  not  sufficiently  coordinated  at 
European  level  and  do  not  allow  for  the  critical  mass  required  in  strategic  research  and 
development  areas  to  be  achieved.  Furthermore,  the  existing  sector-specific  research 
structures, which have evolved through a long history of national policies, are deeply rooted 
in  the  national  governance  systems  and  prevent  the  development  and  funding  of  the  multi, 
inter and trans-disciplinary environmental research. This situation has hindered the potential 
to achieve research outputs of significant impact to policy making.  

A  comprehensive  survey  on  funding  of  the  Baltic  Sea  research  for  the  year  200425  showed 
that, as shown in the figures below, out of the total funding of about EUR 52 million, around 
18  million  (35%)  was  national  funding  going  directly  and  without  competition  to  various 
sectorally  oriented  institutions  and  research  groups;  18  million  (35%)  was  national  funding 
distributed  nationally  through  competition  and  peer-review,  and  EUR  16  million  (30%) 
originated  from  EU  and  Nordic  Council  of  Ministers  was  distributed  through  international 
calls.  The  amount  of  national  competition-based  funding  in  relation  to  other  funding 
forms/sources varied between 13 – 44 % in MS and was 75% in the Russian Federation. In 
conclusion, the survey demonstrates that only 30% of the total funding on Baltic Sea research 
can have an impact to trans-national integration through international calls. 

25

BONUS Publications Nr. 3, Baltic Sea Research And R&D Funding In 2004, where NCM is the Nordic 
Council of Ministers. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

                                                 
 
Figure: The share of Baltic Sea research funding sources in 2004, NCM= Nordic Council of Ministers 

Mainly  in  the  area  of  marine  research,  which  only  represents  a  sub-set  of  the  Sustainable 
Development  research,  882  research  projects  were  carried  out  in  2004  in  the  countries 
surrounding  the  Baltic  Sea.  A  majority,  of  these  were  funded  by  national  sources.  The  two 
countries  having  most  of  the  national  projects  were  Poland  and  Finland.  Regarding  the  EU 
funding  in  Baltic  Sea  research  the  most  went  to  Swedish  projects  (4.9  M€  and  32%).  In 
Denmark,  EU  funding  was  EUR  4.6  million  and  highest  in  percentage  (about  57%)  of  the 
total funding. Of the new Member States, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia had only a few EU-
funded projects whereas the number of EU-funded projects in Poland was close to that of the 
old Member States.  

The  different  economies  of  the  countries  are  reflected  in  their  funding  allocation  for  Baltic 
Sea research. For the new EU Member States, a relatively high percentage of the funds is used 
for carrying out the monitoring and observation obligations rather than research.  

Also  the  existing  lack  of  co-ordination  is  demonstrated  by  the  considerable  variety  in  the 
priority fields. Sweden, Poland and Latvia had the largest financial input to the ‘Fish biology 
and  fisheries’  research  projects,  whereas  in  Finland  most  of  the  funding  was  for 
‘Eutrophication’.  In  Germany,  ‘Climate  change’  was  the  most  funded  field.  In  Estonia, 
Lithuania and Russia most of the funding went to ‘Basic Research'. 

In  line  with  the  FP7  approach  and  as  acknowledged  in  the  stakeholder  consultations 
undertaken  during  the  BONUS  ERA-NET,  there  is  a  need  for  policy-driven  integrated 
research programmes in the Baltic region.  

2.2. 

Drivers of the poor State of the Baltic Sea environment 

The  drivers  of  the  environmental  degradation  in  the  Baltic  Sea  are  the  same  as  for  global 
environmental change. Drivers can be of a social, technological, environmental, economic or 
technological nature.  

These human drivers result in pressures due to26, 27 

•  Changes in land-use and cover 

26 

27

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, 
Washington, DC. 
Europe's Environment. The Fourth Assessment. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen. 2007 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
•  Industrial  and  infrastructure  developments  (including  urbanisation  ,tourism  and  transport 

infrastructures) 

•  Unsustainable  harvest  and  resource  consumption,  including  agriculture,  fishing  and  fish 

farming 

•  Emissions of pollutants from industrial production, households and transport 

•  Climate change and acidification; Introduction and removal of species 

One of the key pillars of sustainability governance is good quality scientific knowledge of the 
environment.  Research  fragmentation  can  be  considered  as  an  additional  driver  (see  section 
2.4),  in  that  it  weakens  approaches  to  address  the  environmental  challenges,  and  in 
consequence  to  inform  policy  making  with  high  relevance  to  the  drivers  identified  above. 
Remedying this may constitute a necessary factor for improving sustainability governance in 
the Baltic Sea area.  

The barriers to combat fragmentation and enhance integration between the relevant national 
research institutions that BONUS ERA-Net identified (publication no 228) were the following: 

•  lack of a durable mechanism for integration of national research funding (ca. 70% of funds 

are distributed through purely national sources); 

•  motivation level of cooperation between the funding agencies is too low to boost removing 

of the existing legal barriers and eliminating their internal procedural obstacles; 

•  no mechanism of regional integration of marine research infrastructures; 

•  lack of a joint Strategic Research Agenda supported by the stakeholders; 

•  imbalance  of  research  capacity  and  available  resources  between  the  developed  EU,  MS, 

new MS and Russian Federation; 

•  fragmentation of Baltic Sea research funding sources at national level; 

Numerous efforts have been made to address this fragmentation: 

•  Since the 1990s, several projects funded by the Nordic Council of Ministers have provided 
new platforms for the networking of scientists within and outside the Baltic Sea region.29 

•  An important existing regional networking forum is the Baltic Sea Science Congress which 
has  taken  place  regularly  since  1997  and  brings  together  the  disciplines  of  biology, 
oceanography and geology. At the Congress, "marine scientists from different disciplines 
can exchange the ideas and knowledge, enhance the cooperation and integrate the marine 
science community". 30 

28 

29 

30

EN 

BONUS  Publications  Nr.  2,  The  joint  Baltic  sea  research  programme-  best  practice,  possibilities  and 
barriers http://www.bonusportal.org/files/26/Publication_Nr._2.pdf 
For more information, see BONUS Publications Nr.3: Baltic Sea Research and R&D Funding in 2004, 
at: 
http://www.bonusportal.org/modules/system/stdreq.aspx?P=663&VID=default&SID=251931988345479&S=1&A=closeall&C=2
7397. 
7th 
Science 
http://www.msi.ttu.ee/files/0/7th_Baltic_Sea_Science_Congress_First_Announcement.pdf 

announcement, 

Congress 

Baltic 

2009, 

first 

Sea 

at: 

14 

   EN 

                                                 
 
•  The "Baltic Sea System Study (BASYS)", a large targeted research project funded under 
the  Marine  Science  &  Technology  (MAST  III)  programme  of  the  3rd  EU  Framework 
Programme,  as  well  as  other  RTD  marine  science  projects  funded  under  successive  EU 
Framework Programmes, though not explicitly focusing on the Baltic Sea 

•  The  BONUS  ERA-Net  funded  under  FP6  was  launched  in  December  2003  to  strengthen 
the cooperation between environmental research funding agencies in the Baltic region. 

•  The  BONUS  ERA-Net+  funded  under  FP7  from  May  2007  to  January  2012  to  organise 

and implement a joint call for research proposals.  

BONUS  ERA-Net  was  particularly  successful  in  initiating  a  first  communication  between 
research  funding  institutions,  analysing  and  scoping  the  research  landscape,  and  developing 
preconditions for further integration (Series of Analytic Papers, Science Plan, Legal basis of 
the  DIS).  BONUS  ERA-Net  Plus,  in  turn,  has  served  as  a  bridging  measure  to  test  these 
mechanisms  in  practice  through  the  implementation  of  a  EUR  22  million  call,  and  launch 
some  horizontal  capacity-building  and  dissemination  activities  as  well  as  preparation  of 
BONUS-169  proposal.  Following  a  detailed  analysis  by  BONUS  ERA-NET,  the  following 
observations  were  made  regarding  the  baseline  situation  of  the  current  Baltic  Sea  research 
(publication 5, 2007)31: 

(1) 

"Although the Baltic Sea is one of the most scientifically investigated sea areas in the 
world, research traditions and capability vary substantially among coastal States, and 
also  with  respect  to  the  breadth  and  depth,  as  well  as  degree  of  development,  of  the 
various relevant science disciplines." 

1. 

2. 

3. 

"The  amount  of  data  and  literature  concerning  the  chemistry,  hydrography, 
fauna and flora of the Baltic Sea is abundant but often nationally scattered in 
numerous  languages.  Thus,  studies  synthesizing  and  combining  the  data  and 
information  sources  across  and  between  sub-regions  of  the  Baltic  Sea  are 
generally  scarce.  A  thorough  exploitation  of  the  existing  knowledge  is  the 
foundation of new research."  

"Each  State  has  tended  to  develop  its  own  particular  funding  priorities  and 
activities in basic and applied research independently of the other States. Thus, 
at an overarching level, there is a limited awareness of each other’s research 
portfolio and how and why it is deployed. In turn, there is a lack of Baltic-wide 
trans-boundary  research  consultation,  planning,  coordination  and  concerted 
action necessary to provide the scientific knowledge and predictive capacity to 
effectively 
the  Baltic  Sea 
ecosystem."  

the  environmental  challenges 

facing 

tackle 

"An obvious gap in the Baltic Sea science networking is the lack of a platform 
for wider interdisciplinary communication which would give scientists from the 
natural,  social,  economic  and  other  fields  an  opportunity  to  learn  from  each 
other and consider Baltic Sea environmental issues in multi-, inter- and trans-
disciplinary ways." 

31 

BONUS  Publication  No.  5,  BONUS-169  Baltic  Sea  Science  Plan  and  Implementation  Strategy. 
BONUS  Publications  Nr.  9,  http://www.bonusportal.org/files/69/Bonus_9_VerkkoPDF.pdf  BONUS 
in  existing  programmes, 
Publications  Nr.  6,  Identification  of  cooperation  areas  and  Gaps 
http://www.bonusportal.org/files/29/Publication_Nr._6.pdf  
International Publication Of Baltic Sea Science 2002-2006 

EN 

15 

   EN 

                                                 
Unlike efforts undertaken in the past, a new initiative must be launched aiming to address, in 
addition  to  science,  also  the  structural  deficit  in  the  regional  research  system,  but  equally 
science policy and science management which hitherto has not been addressed. 

2.3.  Who is affected, in what ways? 

In view of the fact that this initiative aims to reverse the poor environmental state of the Baltic 
Sea  region,  and  to  enhance  its  "governance",  integration  and  co-ordination  in  Baltic  Sea 
research,  it  is  mainly  the  science  policy  community,  the  research  funding  agencies  and  the 
scientific  community  that  will  be  mostly  affected  by  this  initiative.  The  area  concerned  is 
primarily the Baltic basin, but also the rest of the European Union and neighbouring countries 
through  sharing  of  existing  expertise  and  possible  exemplary  value.  The  socio-economic 
impact will mostly be felt at the level of research orientation and research volume.  

However,  in  view  of  the  positive  contribution  that  this  initiative  is  expected  to  make  to 
promote better environmental management and sustainable development in the Baltic Sea, it 
will have important consequences for the quality of life, health of citizens in Baltic States and 
economic consequences in neighbouring countries. Several categories of actors are effectively 
and potentially affected by the poor environmental state of the Sea, including in particular: 

•  Rural and urban populations living in the area 

•  Businesses  and  industries  directly  depending  on  the  resources  provided  by  the  Sea  (e.g. 

small and big-scale fishing industry, aquaculture industry, tourism industry) 

•  The businesses that indirectly depend on these resources through their connection with the 

former 

•  Citizens from other areas of the EU who place value on the sustainability of the European 

Union as a whole  

•  Ecosystems and species 

2.4. 

Does  the  EU  have  the  right  to  act  –  Subsidiarity,  proportionality  (‘necessity 
test’), Treaty base  

As  explained  in  section  2.1,  all  efforts  undertaken  so  far  were  not  designed  to  address  the 
causes  of  fragmentation  of  research,  nor  the  barriers  to  integration  between  the  relevant 
national research institutions and programmes identified under section 2.2 , although the need 
for  the  integration  of  the  national  Baltic  Sea  environmental  research  programmes  of  the 
surrounding States to address urgent environmental problems in the Baltic Sea and underpin 
sustainable development in the region is as present as ever. Furthermore, collaborative efforts 
so  far  have  lacked  adequate  financial  resources  for  the  optimal  exploitation  of  the  research 
potential for better informed, knowledge-based policy making due to the unequal economical 
and  development  situation  in  the  countries  as  well  as  highly  diverse  national  research 
agendas.  

The  causes  leading  to  the  fragmentation  and  the  barriers  to  the  trans-national  integration 
cannot  be  addressed  by  Member  States  acting  in  isolation  and  in  the  framework  of  their 
national constitutional system. Only a co-ordinated approach pooling together each country’s 
research  efforts  and  resources  under  a  unified  management  structure  would  encourage  the 
integration of National Research systems and would create the critical mass needed to address 
the  challenges.  It  will  also,  through  the  publication  of  joint  calls  for  proposals,  the 

EN 

16 

   EN 

development  of  shared  training  and  educational  programmes  and  the  sharing  of  research 
infrastructure, assist in capacity building in the Member States with lower research capacities, 
and  bridge  the  gap  in  Baltic  Sea  research.  Finally,  it  would  offer  a  constructive  platform  to 
combining 
funding 
cross-thematic 
support 
natural/social/humanitarian/science. 

including, 

example, 

projects 

for 

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.  

The  rationale  for  EU  action  is  to  provide  incentives,  in  the  face  of  the  trans-national 
environmental challenges to be addressed, for the Member States to act together to properly 
tackle the environmental challenges faced effectively, economically and efficiently.  

Whilst  alternative  solutions  may  exist,  through  the  setting  up  of  inter-governmental 
agreements for example, as already mentioned, the administrative and legal processes which 
typically  have  to  be  followed  under  such  intergovernmental  schemes,  would  be  lengthy, 
difficult and cumbersome and as such are not appropriate in view of the urgent environmental 
problems  of  the  Baltic  sea  loosing  the  right  momentum  for  action.  Furthermore,  inter-
governmental actions aimed at the coordination of public environmental funding in the Baltic 
Sea have not expanded in recent years and have not, as yet, been able to address successfully 
the Environmental challenges faced. 

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.  

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".  It  also  allows  the  Commission,  in  close 
cooperation  with  the  Member  States,  to  "take  any  useful  initiative"  to  promote  such 
coordination. 

In  addition,  Article  169  of  the  Treaty  stipulates  that  "in  implementing  the  multiannual 
Framework programme, the Community may make provision, in agreement with the Member 
States  concerned,  for  participation  in  research  and  development  programmes  undertaken  by 
several Member States, including participation in the structures created for  the execution of 
those programmes." 

3. 

OBJECTIVES 

3.1. 

General policy objective 

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. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

3.2. 

Specific objectives 

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 

3.3. 

Operational objectives 

The operational objectives of the initiative are to:  

•  Establish appropriate Stakeholder Consultation Platforms including representation 

from all relevant sectors 

•  Establish  appropriate 

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

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

calls for proposals  

4. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

Three  Policy  Options  are  considered  for  meeting  the  general,  specific  and  operational 
objectives outlined in Section 3. They 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 (FP) 

•  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 

EN 

18 

   EN 

–  - 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. The main characteristics of each policy option are discussed 
in detail in the following sub-sections. 

Policy Option 1 - The continuation of policies so far developed under FP 7 "Business as 
usual" 

This policy option has been considered as the baseline. It assumes that EU support for Baltic-
basin oriented research will, once the currently ongoing BONUS ERA-NET PLUS project is 
terminated,  be  stopped.  Continuing  funding  a  new  phase  of  the  presently  ongoing  BONUS 
ERA-Net  PLUS32  would  have  meant  a  thematic  re-orientation  towards  themes  that  are 
currently  not  addressed  through  the  joint  call.  Such  an  approach  would  have  been  utterly 
counter-productive in as far as promotion of a holistic, integrated, inter-disciplinary scientific 
approach  to  underpin  ecosystem-based  management.  Any  EU  research  related  support  will 
from  there  on  be  channelled  through  FP  7  ecosystem-based  management  relevant  thematic 
calls. These calls will address research topics of interest to all European regional seas with no 
explicit  focus  to  Baltic  Sea.  It  would  be  left  to  the  Baltic  Member  States  to  decide  upon 
further  actions,  if  any,  to  further  pursue  and  follow  up  achievements  from  the  two  BONUS 
ERA-NETs, engage appropriate financial resources to fund them and put in place appropriate 
governance scheme to implement them, with or without further involvement of the EEIG.  

Policy Option 2 - The recourse to regionally-oriented trans-thematic call(s) under FP7 

For reasons of inter-comparison, this policy option is assumed to mobilise an EU contribution 
of  the  order  of  50  Mio  €,  an  amount  equal  to  the  one  expected  to  be  mobilised  by  policy 
options 3 through approaches B and C. 

This  policy  option  explores  the  full  use  of  targeted  Baltic  Sea  multi-thematic  call(s)  or 
succession  of  calls  under  FP7.  The  challenge  presented  by  the  complexity  of  the 
environmental  degradation  of  the  Baltic,  with  marine  as  well  as  catchment-basin  related 
components,  intersects  several  thematic  priorities  in  FP7,  in  particular  “Environment 
(including  climate  change)”  and  “Food,  Agriculture  and  Fisheries,  Biotechnology”,  but  also 
“Socio-economic sciences and Humanities”, “Energy” and “Transport”. This makes the Baltic 
Sea region appropriate for a regionally-oriented Trans-thematic call33. The call(s) could make 
use  of  large  as  well  as  small  and  medium  Collaborative  Research  Projects  in  addition  to 
Coordination and Support Actions.  

Policy Option 3 - Recourse to Article 169 

Policy  option  3  (through  approaches  A,  B  and  C),  supposes  application  of  Article  169  to 
enable  the  Community  to  support  the  integration  of  national  research  programmes  and  it 
implies  that  the  participating  Member  States integrate  their  research  efforts  by  defining  and 
committing themselves to a joint research programme, and that the Community goes beyond 
coordination  of  research  programmes  by  participating  actively  in  a  voluntary  integration 
process (scientific, management and financial).  

EN 

19 

   EN 

The  differences  between  the  approaches  3A,  B  and  C  mentioned  below  mainly  concern  the 
extent  to  which  the  initiative  addresses  right  from  its  onset  a  strategic  vision,  is  policy-
orientated,  responsive  to  policy  needs,  embodies  a  basin  approach  and  foresees  clear 
mechanisms  for  a  continuous  and  active  involvement  of  all  key  stakeholders  in  the 
formulation and prioritisation of the research themes, the identification of critical gaps and the 
streamlining, synthesis, dissemination and uptake of the research outputs.  

Policy  option  3  through  approach  A34  -  The  use  of  Article  169  with  a  focus  on  marine 
science, with a strategic vision and a roadmap developed in parallel with the launching 
of substantive open-field calls 

the  previous  ERA-Nets  and 

This  approach  is  based  upon  the  original  BONUS  169  Science  Plan,  Tentative  Action  Plan 
and Draft Strategic Research Agenda, as described in section 1.2. This Article 169 initiative 
would  build  upon  progress  already  achieved  by 
its 
implementation relies entirely on calls for proposals. As it was, it met many of the objectives 
and  boundary  conditions,  in  particular  common  definition  and  implementation  of  scientific 
and technological activities under a joint programme, a dedicated management structure and 
some financial integration by centrally administering, through a virtual common pot, the cash 
and in kind infrastructure contributions from the Participating States (PS) mounting to a total 
of 36 million € to be matched by an equivalent EU contribution. However, it does not include 
a  strategic  vision  and  clear  roadmap  about  how  to  achieve  the  stated  goal,  aims  and 
objectives, neither it foresees pre-established mechanisms to fill any gaps in the responses. It 
derives from a science plan which is predominantly driven by sectoral interests of the marine 
scientific  community  rather  than  responsive  to  the  needs  of  policy  formulation  and 
implementation in a sustainable development context. Although the initiative aimed at being a 
comprehensive  environmental  research  programme,  its  focus  was  exclusively  on  the  marine 
ecosystem and did not sufficiently encompass the river basins and catchments surrounding the 
Baltic  and  their  influence  on  water  quality,  materials  and  energy  inputs  into  the  Baltic  Sea 
System or preoccupations with the terrestrial coastal and near-coastal areas.  

Policy option 3 through approach B - The use of Article 169 with a focus broadened to 
the Baltic drainage basin, with a strategic vision and a roadmap developed prior to the 
launching of the initiative 

For reasons of inter-comparison, this policy option is assumed to mobilise an EU contribution 
of the order of 50 Mio € as it is  assumed to be  the case  for policy  options 2 and 3 through 
approaches C. 

This approach would adhere to the overall scheme of Policy option 3 through approach A, but 
in addition it would embed, right from its onset, the following "strategic" elements:  

•  Include  a  more  explicit  strategic  vision  with  clear  mechanisms  to  develop  an 
effective,  targeted,  joint  research  programme,  achieve  planned  outcomes  and 
address critical gaps  

•  Strengthen the involvement of stakeholders such as industry, agriculture, fisheries 
and  certain  user  groups  to  ensure  that  the  research  is  relevant  to  policy  and 
management that will influence the quality, functional integrity and sustainability 
of the Baltic Sea ecosystem and that prioritisation of research themes is driven by 
implementation  needs  and  fill  gaps  in  current  information  and  to  develop 
integrated approaches to the research programme.  

EN 

20 

   EN 

•  A  ‘baseline’  has  been  established  along  with  measures  for  the  effective 
assessment of progress of the initiative in meeting its goal and specific objectives. 

•  Broaden the research focus beyond the strict marine ecosystem, to embody a basin 
approach that addresses the key issues affecting the quality and productivity of the 
Baltic Sea Region ecosystems and to include research fields of crucial importance 
for  the  improvement  of  the  state  of  these  ecosystems  and  the  support  of 
sustainable  development  in  the  area35,  whilst  mobilising  additional  financial 
resources  of  approximately  14  million  €  (to  be  matched  by  an  equivalent  EU 
contribution), as compared to policy option 3 through approach A, from enhanced 
financial 
cross-sectoral  Baltic  Sea  system 
arrangements  allow  the  development  of  a  strong  EEIG  that  provides  dynamic 
leadership in developing a truly integrated, interdisciplinary research programme 
for  the  Baltic  Sea,  including  the  river  basins  and  catchments  where  natural  and 
man-induced change will affect the Baltic Sea ecosystem and the sustainable use 
of its resources.  

research  collaboration.  The 

•  Demonstrate  long-term  commitment  to  full  and  durable  integration  of  national 

schemes.  

•  Strengthen inter-basin collaboration 

This  Policy  Option  would  have  enabled  the  implementation  of  policy-driven  calls  for 
proposals  right  from  the  onset  of  the  initiative.  However,  in  the  present  Baltic  Sea 
environmental  research  landscape  the  critical  issues  mentioned  above  are  not  in  place. 
Establishing  them  and  having  them  in  place  before  the  launching  of  the  initiative  would 
necessitate  additional  preparation  time  and  resources.  This  would  mean  delaying  the 
launching  of  the  initiative  until  these  conditions  are  in  place  which  could  lead  to  a  loss  of 
momentum  due  to  discontinuity  in  the  efforts  made  under  BONUS  ERA-NETS  and  the 
uncertainties regarding the future of the EEIG during this preparation period.  

Policy option 3 through approach C - The use of Article 169 with a focus broadened to 
the Baltic drainage basin, with a strategic vision and roadmap developed in a first phase 
of the programme, prior to the launching of the calls  

For reasons of inter-comparison, this policy option is assumed to mobilise an EU contribution 
of the order of 50 Mio € as it is  assumed to be  the case  for policy  options 2 and 3 through 
approaches B. 

This approach adopts the main thrust of Option 3B in terms of vision, ambition and financial 
resources and is based on the revised BONUS 169 Outline Research Agenda (see section 1.2). 
It is developed to reconcile the objectives of 3B with the constraints currently present in the 
Baltic Sea research landscape. It takes account of the fact that under present circumstances, 
additional preparation and resources are needed to establish the "strategic" elements identified 
under  3B  (and  completely  missing  under  3A).  To  this  end,  this  approach  envisages  two 
phases, namely a first strategic phase36 during which all these "critical" elements mentioned 
under  3B  would  be  established  and  put  in  place  (as  opposed  to  policy  option  3  through 

35 

36 

Article  169  initiative  in  the  field  of  Baltic  Sea  Research.  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) (2006/971/EC) 
To be closely monitored and reviewed by the Commission's services 

EN 

21 

   EN 

                                                 
approach  B  where  they  are  supposed  to  be  all  present  right  from  the  onset),  and  a  second 
phase  referring  to  the  implementation  of  the  calls.  Broadening  and  deepening  of  the 
stakeholder  consultation  will  be  further  pursued  during  the  strategic  phase  of  the  initiative 
when  the  detailed  Science  Plan  and  the  content  of  the  calls  will  be  defined  (as  opposed  to 
policy  option  3  through  approach  B  where  the  detailed  Science  Plan  and  the  content  of  the 
calls  has  been  defined  from  the  onset).  This  will  further  enhance  the  strategic  focus  of  the 
initiative. It supposes however, that progress from the initial, strategic, phase to the second, 
implementation, phase, in which the calls are formulated, relies upon and is conditional to the 
successful completion of the first phase. The Commission's services with the assistance of an 
Independent Expert Review Panel will verify whether the goals and objectives set out in the 
initial Strategic phase have been achieved according to the criteria spelled out in section 6.  

4.1. 

Lessons from the Van Velzen report 

In setting up the possible action under an Article 169 and providing for proper monitoring and 
evaluation, the lessons from the Van Velzen report have to be taken into account. One major 
condition  for  success  is  the  existence  of  a  true  cross-European  ownership,  with  joint 
programmes between the interested Member States and autonomous and well functioning pre-
existing  structures.  More  generally,  Van  Velzen's  prerequisites  set  standards  for  any 
forthcoming initiative. The report sums up “Suggestions to the European Commission for new 
Article  169  initiatives”. The  most  relevant  van Velzen  recommendations  are  listed  below  in 
bold and the BONUS status in italic: 

Assess the performance and suitability of pre-existing common structures 

The  structures  are  established  and  have  been  successfully  tested  in  the  BONUS-Plus  ERA-
NET Plus.  

Require a clear joint ownership statement, a pact with long-term obligations and sanctions 

The BONUS EEIG was jointly established under BONUS ERA-NET plus and the Article 169 
has  been  fully  endorsed  by  the  ministries  from  8  Member  States.  Whilst  all  countries  are 
somewhat limited in making long-term budget commitments due to national law, the initiative 
effectively switches part of the budgets already existing nationally. 

Define general rules for the common funding pot or other possible national contributions 

Whilst  policy  options  3  through  approach  B  and  C  would  follow  a  model  concerning  its 
financial  integration  with  a  centrally-administered,  real  common  pot  with  pre-defined 
financial commitments from each of the participating States, policy option 3 through approach 
A would follow a virtual common pot where contributions from PS are to be matched up by 
EU contribution to reimburse national participations in the projects selected for funding. 

There must be pre-existing national programmes 

Pre-existing  Environmental  R&D  programmes  have  existed  for  many  years  in  each 
participating  State  and  have  been  further  developed  and  coordinated  during  the  course  of 
BONUS-Plus in preparation for an Article 169. 

There must be available budgets, or a strong commitment to make them available 

A budget of the order of EUR 26 millions fresh money has been pledged by the participating 
States for all policy options 3 through approach A, B and C. An additional 14 millions Euros 

EN 

22 

   EN 

will  be  sought  by  engaging  additional  national  Funding  Agencies  under  policy  option  3 
through approach B and C. 

There must be a common work-plan, objectives, milestones, sound governance; 

The basic common work plan - the BONUS-169 Action Plan and Science Plan - is in place 
already, and will be implemented as such under policy option 3 through approach A. A more 
strategically driven and policy-orientated work plan is assumed to be in place right from the 
onset  under  policy  option  3  through  approach  B.  It  is  assumed  to  be  sought  through  active 
Stakeholder consultation during the initial 2-year strategic phase of the initiative under policy 
option 3 through approach C. To this end, the consortium has submitted informally an outline 
time plan for the Article 169 which foresees a two-stage approach, namely an initial strategic 
phase (2010-2011) and an implementation phase (2012-2016). Sound governance is already in 
place  under  all  Article  169  (policy  option  3  approaches  A,  B  and  C)  and  demonstrably 
working  stakeholders  consultation  has  been  described  in  detail  in  section  1.3.  The 
Commission  will  be  formally  consulted  on  a  call-by-call  basis  during  the  implementation 
phase  of  the  initiative  under  all  article  169  policy  options  and  will  follow  very  closely  and 
review the progress made during the strategic phase of the initiative under policy option 3C.  

The Article 169 entity has full control on how to spend the money 

The BONUS EEIG was already established in 2007 in order to look after the administrative 
activities  and  the  implementation  of  the  joint  call  of  BONUS-Plus.  Under  the  BONUS-169 
initiative the BONUS EEIG will expand its role to concluding all funding contracts following 
the joint calls for proposals. 

There is adequate representation at a level where individuals can take decisions 

The decision-making structures have been extremely well planned (see Annex IV) and have 
demonstrated already that they place appropriate representation at the right levels. 

There is a clear evaluation procedure; the overall criterion is one of excellence 

This was indeed the case for the ERA-NET Plus. Independent Observer(s) that have followed 
the BONUS ERA-NET Plus evaluation have shown an overall satisfaction with the process. 
During  the  negotiations,  the  Commission’s  services  will  make  sure  that  all  comments  and 
recommendations  made  by  the  observers  will  be  fully  incorporated  into  the  evaluation 
procedures and practices for the Article 169. The Commission’s negotiation position will be 
that  the  evaluation  procedures  should  adhere  as  closely  as  possible  to  the  approach  and 
criteria of FP7. 

5. 

LIKELY ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

The  impact  of  Policy  option  1  can  not  be  predicted  since  the  attitude  by  the  PS  to  further 
pursue objectives and achievements by ERA-Nets in the absence of any EU FP funding can 
not  be  anticipated.  However,  it  is  highly  unlikely  that  without  a  EU´s  catalysing  action,  a 
considerable  action  towards  improving  the  status  of  the  Baltic  Sea  research  system  will  be 
undertaken through a proper initiative by the Participating States. 

Policy options 2 and 3A, B and C, by simply adding a considerable and centrally co-ordinated 
amount of "fresh" money into research in the Baltic Region are expected to have a positive 
contribution to: 

EN 

23 

   EN 

•  The creation of new jobs for researchers, post-docs and PhD scholars through the 
implementation of new projects. creation of a strong and well consolidated Baltic 
Sea System scientific community with an enhanced international "visibility" and 
recognition and internationally competitive should world-wide; 

•  Enhancing expertise and capacity through training activities for all PS  

•  Assisting  other  economic  sectors  such  as  maritime  infrastructure,  mining,  and 
windmill  parks,  transport,  fishing,  oil,  gas  and  telecommunication  companies  to 
adopt more environmentally friendly, ecosystem based, operations  

•  Assisting  Member  States  to  implement  knowledge-based  and  science-informed 

environmental policies  

•  Assisting  SMEs  and  private  companies  to  become  more  competitive  and  raise 
their "in-house" knowledge and expertise by being part of the research efforts 

Policy option 3 through approaches A, B and C are expected to have major positive impact in 
improving  the  efficacy  of  the  Baltic  Sea  Region's  and  reducing  fragmentation  in  the  Baltic 
Sea Region's environmental research system through enhanced co-operation at the scientific 
as well institutional (national funding agencies) level.  

Policy options 2 and 3 through approaches A, B and C will provide a significant (and durable) 
means  to  increase  involvement  of  the  “transition”  countries  (Poland,  Estonia,  Latvia, 
Lithuania) in international projects thus assist these countries in raising their overall quality of 
research,  since  according  to  a  bibliometric  analysis  of  publications  on  Baltic  Sea  Science37, 
there  is  a  strong  correlation  between  the  level  of  international  collaboration  and  quality  of 
research,  the  “transition”  countries  currently  having  weaker  involvement  in  international 
research projects as compared to the ‘developed” countries of the Region (Germany, Finland, 
Sweden, Denmark)38. It is to be noted that the current BONUS+ projects involve in average 
five  different  countries  and  out  of  the  16  currently  funded  projects,  13  of  them  involve 
participations from ‘transition’ countries.  

Policy  option  3  through  approaches  B  and  C  would  allow  for  a  re-distribution  of  EU-funds 
being  pooled  together  with  national  funds  in  a  ‘common  pot’  to  be  administered  by  a  joint 
management structure (EEIG), entirely on the basis of scientific excellence and without any 
national  concerns  and  biases.  This  will  also  enhance  the  alignment  of  national  and 
Community funding for development of research programmes in a more coordinated manner. 

On  the  basis  of  the  experience  with  the  joint  call  organised  under  BONUS  ERA-Net+, 
‘transition  countries’  (and  particularly  Estonia  and  Poland)  received  significant  additional 
funding on top of what was committed by their national sources. One can therefore assume 
that through policy option 2 and 3 A, B and C, there will be greater benefits for the transition 
countries  in  the  Baltic  region  as  compared  to  their  national  contributions  to  the  initiative. 
Under  policy  option  2  such  possibilities  will  be  smaller  due  to  the  smaller  national 

37 

38 

BONUS  Publications  Nr.  9, 
http://www.bonusportal.org/files/69/Bonus_9_VerkkoPDF.pdf 
BONUS  Publications  Nr.  6,  Identification  of  cooperation  areas  and  Gaps  in  existing  programmes, 
http://www.bonusportal.org/files/29/Publication_Nr._6.pdf 

International  Publication  Of  Baltic  Sea  Science  2002-2006 

EN 

24 

   EN 

                                                 
contributions  this  policy  is  likely  to  mobilise  in  line  with  the  Framework  Programme 
participation rules regarding "own resources" from the project beneficiaries39.  

Policy  option  3  through  approaches  A,  B  and  C  will  enhance  significantly  the  visibility  of 
Baltic  Sea  System  research  in  the  Participating  States  and  particularly  in  the  ‘transition’ 
countries because of the "ownership" of the initiative by the latter States and the consequent 
closer  interactions  with  the  local  and  regional  actors,  unlike  policy  option  2  which  is  being 
run and managed by the European Commission and as such will be more distant from local 
and regional actors. 

Policy option 3 through approaches A, B and C is expected to have strong leverage effects by 
"injecting"  and  additional  36  (for  option  3A)  to  50  million  (for  policy  options  B  and  C) 
"fresh"  money  through  contributions  by  all  participating  States,  money  that  would  not  have 
otherwise been mobilised. Such leverage effects can not be expected from policy option 2 due 
to smaller "own resources" from beneficiaries expected under FP 7 rules. 

Policy  options  2  and  3  through  approaches  A,  B  and  C  will  allow  for  a  better  access  to 
scientists  to  sophisticated  and  sometimes  extremely  expensive  infrastructures  and  this 
represents  a  significant  capacity-building  benefit  to  scientists,  particularly  from  ‘transition’ 
countries.  Policy  option  3  through  approaches  A,  B  and  C  have  a  much  higher  probability 
than  policy  option  2  that  research  results  will  be  better  streamlined  and  thus  taken  up  by 
stakeholders  because  of  the  possibility  to  have  large  and  "institutionalised"  through  the 
programme  stakeholders  platforms  managed  by  the  DIS.  Such  possibility  can  not  be 
implemented by scientific consortia under FP projects (policy option 2). 

Unlike  policy  option  2,  policy  option  3  through  approaches  A,  B  and  C  can  make  a  far 
reaching  restructuring  in  the  governance  of  the  Baltic  Sea  Region's  environmental  research 
system  due  to  the  pivotal  role  that  the  dedicated  implementation  structure  (DIS)  will  be 
entrusted  to  play  in  administering  centrally  the  Community  as  well  as  the  national 
contributions.  Such  a  new  governance  model  once  tested  and  validated  following 
implementation of this policy option, can serve as a new paradigm for implementing similar 
initiatives in the other regional seas of the European Union. 

A detailed description of the likely impact per policy option is presented below.  

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

With  the  collapse  of  the  former  Soviet  Union,  there  has  been  increased  cooperation  and 
collaboration between the new Member States, such as Latvia and Lithuania and other Baltic 
Sea states such as Sweden and Finland in conducting fundamental and applied research on the 
Baltic ecosystem. Actions undertaken by the EEIG under ERA-NET and the ERA-NET Plus 
have contributed to strengthening such collaboration and the development of new cooperative 
research  initiatives.  One  of  the  obstacles  to  greater  collaboration  is  however  the  limited 
funding  available  for  Baltic  Sea  research  in  some  of  the  new  Member  States,  although  this 
situation has improved through the opening of opportunities for new and innovative research 
under the FP6 and FP 7 programmes to the former Soviet states.  

The impact of this policy option, however, is difficult to predict, since the willingness of the 
PS  to  engage  substantial  financial  resources  to  further  pursue  the  integration  of  national 

39

In the Framework Programme, own resources from beneficiaries varies from 25 to 50% depending on 
their status (Universities, SMEs, private companies) 

EN 

25 

   EN 

                                                 
 
research  programmes  in  the  absence  of  EU  funding  following  the  achievements  by  the  two 
ERA-Nets is questionable. 

There  would  be  a  danger  that  advances  in  promoting  more  coordinated  research  among  the 
Baltic Sea states achieved under the EEIG will not evolve, and the EEIG may lose momentum 
and develop into a loose network of individual research groups with research priorities. This 
would  hamper  the  development  of  inter-disciplinary  competences  and  the  corresponding 
ability to integrate natural science and social science outputs into information of direct utility 
for users, including policy makers and natural resources development agencies. 

Policy Option 2 - The recourse to regionally-oriented trans-thematic call(s) under FP 

Through Cross Thematic Call(s) and Coordinated Actions targeted to the Baltic Sea, it would 
be  possible  to  develop  and  implement  a  policy  driven  research  agenda  and  roadmap  that 
would  meet  the  needs  of  a  broad  range  of  stakeholders  and  end  users  in  the  Baltic  region. 
Although this option could build on the ERA-NET, there is no guarantee that the use of the 
FP  research  call(s)  would  secure  the  active  involvement  of  the  EEIG  and  the  further 
pursuance  of  the  “structural”  integration  among  the  funding  agencies  achieved  under  the 
previously  funded  ERA-NETs.  This  policy  option  could  indeed  promote  circumstantial 
integration of the research partners with no guarantee that this integration will be sustained in 
the  absence  of  FP.  Also,  there  will  be  no  "ownership"  by  the  Member  States  and  it  is  not 
evident that it would tap upon and establish synergies with nationally funded environmental 
research  programmes.  This  would  limit  the  amount  of  co-ordinated  research  that  could  be 
conducted. Due to its failure to mobilise financial resources of equivalent size from the PS as 
the policy option 3 through approach A and even more significantly through approach B and 
C  are  expected  to  do.  It  would  most  likely  result  in  a  significantly  smaller  research  effort. 
Hence  it  would  be  less  likely  to  address  the  very  significant  environmental  challenges 
identified and the stated objectives of the initiative under consideration. This approach would 
also result in loss of momentum and lack of continuity in the progress achieved through the 
BONUS ERA-NETs. 

Policy  option  3  through  approach  A  -  The  use  of  Article  169  with  a  focus  on  marine 
science, with a strategic vision and a roadmap developed in parallel with the launching 
of substantive open-field calls  

This  option  offers  the  potential  for  a  number  of  positive  benefits  that  could  improve  the 
environment in the Baltic. Under this option, no new institutions would be required as there is 
a dedicated research programme and network of major national funding agencies with a clear 
Baltic Sea marine research focus. The role of the EEIG in the network provides opportunities 
for  stronger  international  cooperation  and  potential  for  concerted  research  efforts  and  inter-
basin exchanges of information and experience. The EEIG and the preparatory work carried 
out within the frame of the ERA-NET and ERA-NET Plus provide an opportunity to improve 
the efficiency of allocation and application of available resources to better address emerging 
environmental  issues.  However,  due  to  the  missing  "strategic"  elements  that  are  mentioned 
under section 4, the potential positive impact of this option would be rather limited. Relying 
primarily on ad-hoc calls for proposals, lacking an overarching research development strategy 
with no mechanisms to ensure active stakeholder participation, there is no guarantee that the 
calls for research proposals or at least the ones to be published whilst these mechanisms are 
still  not  in  place  would  be  responsive  to  the  needs  for  information  to  better  support  policy 
formulation  and  implementation  in  the  Baltic  Sea  and  that  the  research  and  policy  outputs 
would  help  to  address  cross-boundary,  trans  national  issues.  Because  of  these  limitations,  it 
would  not  be  possible  to  develop  a  more  comprehensive  understanding  of  how  the  Baltic 
ecosystem  responds  to  natural  and  anthropogenic  pressures  and  there  would  be  limited 

EN 

26 

   EN 

opportunities  to  attune  national  research  strategies  to  priority  issues  affecting  the  Baltic 
environment  so  as  to  meet  the  objectives  of  the  Water  Framework  Directive,  Marine  and 
Maritime  Research  Strategy  and  Maritime  Policy  and  sustainable  development  objectives  at 
both a Baltic region scale and at a wider inter-basin and/or regional seas scale. The potential 
contribution of this option on a Europe-wide level could be limited due to a lack of potential 
links with other river basins and regional seas within Europe. There is also a serious risk that 
presenting  this  option  as  a  comprehensive  environmental  research  programme  could  lead 
member States to reduce their national funding under the misconception that the Article 169 
initiative  would  cover  all  research  needs  entirely.  Expected  integration  will  also  have  a 
significant contribution in raising the capacity level of some of the new EU Baltic States in 
marine science. 

Policy option 3 through approach B - The use of Article 169 with a focus broadened to 
the Baltic drainage basin, with a strategic vision and a roadmap developed prior to the 
launching of the initiative 

This Policy Option would build upon progress already achieved through previous ERA-NETs 
and  would  provide  a  major  stimulus  in  developing  a  truly  integrated  research  programme 
endowed with substantial additional financial resources and harness the competences within 
an  effective  network  of  scientists,  policy  makers,  development  planners,  and  resources 
managers  for  the  Baltic  Sea  Region.  It  would  provide  a  strong  base  for  developing  tighter 
integration of the research efforts and more efficient use of resources in the Member States in 
addressing policy issues and strategic environmental, social and economic objectives. It gives 
a good chance of a policy driven programme with a clear vision and roadmap. The quality and 
volume  of  research  and  its  direct  applicability  to  policy  implementation  are  expected  to  be 
enhanced  due  to  strengthening  of  integration.  This  policy  option  will  be  predominantly 
policy-driven  rather  than  science-driven.  Therefore,  it  foresees  channels  through  which  the 
results  of  research  will  be  translated  into  policy  formulation  and  implementation  (as  policy 
option  3A).  The  impact  on  the  Baltic  Sea  status  biological  diversity,  conservation  of  the 
natural  and  cultural  heritage,  ecosystem  services,  environmental  quality,  human  health  and 
quality  of  life,  sustainability  of  economic  activities  associated  with  fisheries,  coastal 
exploitation, agriculture, marine and coastal biotechnologies, tourism, recreation and transport 
will  be  considerable.  However,  it  is  fair  to  say  that  due  to  absence  of  similar  blueprint  of 
integration at the European, and indeed at the international level, there is no factual evidence 
to support that the integration of national research schemes will, per se, result in an enhanced 
environmental  impact.  The  socio-economic  impacts  will  be  mostly  felt  at  the  level  of 
strengthening the integration of research efforts, which is likely to improve cost effectiveness 
(see also section  7). The groups most  concerned will be the people who live on or near the 
shores of the Baltic, both in rural and in urban areas, fishermen, farmers, foresters, naturalists, 
and  tourists  due  to  better  informed  policy  making.  The  region  primarily  concerned  is  of 
course  the  Baltic.  This  option  carries  a  potentially  very  high  European  added  value  for  the 
entire  Union  since  it  can  serve  as  a  new  blueprint  for  organising  environmental  research  to 
address the environmental problems of the other European regional seas. Expected integration 
will also have a significant contribution in raising the capacity level of some of the new EU 
Baltic States. However this option assumes that certain critical issues clearly identified under 
section 4 have been addressed prior to the launching of the initiative and this is not the case in 
the present Baltic Sea environmental research landscape. Establishing them and having them 
in place before the launching of the initiative would necessitate additional time and resources. 
This  would  mean  delaying  the  launching  of  the  initiative  until  these  conditions  are  in  place 
which could lead to a loss of momentum in efforts already made under BONUS ERA-NETS. 
These uncertainties are thus limiting the potential impact of this option.  

EN 

27 

   EN 

Policy option 3 through approach C - The use of Article 169 with a focus broadened to 
the Baltic drainage basin, with a strategic vision and roadmap developed in a first phase 
of the programme, prior to the launching of the calls 

This option supposes that all conditions underlined under policy option 3 through approach B 
that  are  critical  for  the  success  of  the  initiative  are  addressed  via  a  two-stage  approach.  As 
such, in addition to a potential impact identical as for policy option 3 through approach B, it 
would  allow  for  continuity  and  maintenance  of  the  momentum  developed  by  the  BONUS 
consortium through the ERA-NETs and as such it has the potential to make full and effective 
use  of  the  funding  that  could  be  provided  should  an  Article  169  be  approved.  Indeed,  the 
adoption  of  a  two  staged  approach  set  out  in  the  revised  initiative-  “Strategic”  and 
“Implementation”  -  provides  opportunities  for  developing  and  implementing  appropriate 
intergovernmental  accords,  allows  for  completion  of  the  steps  required  to  ensure  full 
stakeholder  participation  in  identification  of  research  priorities  and  the  formulation  of 
integrated  research  programmes  to  be  implemented  through  policy-oriented  calls  for 
proposals.  With  appropriate  funding,  the  EEIG  can  be  strengthened  and  has  the  potential  to 
provide  dynamic  leadership  in  developing  a  comprehensive  and  world  class  integrated 
research programme. This can provide a robust basis for examining the environmental, social 
and  economic  factors  that  influence  the  sustainable  use  of  the  natural  coastal  and  marine 
systems of the Baltic. Through its involvement in the management bodies of the initiative, the 
Commission will retain a strong orientation and priority setting power through the design of 
calls.  The  “Two-Stage”  approach  also  allows  the  European  Commission  the  opportunity  to 
review and verify whether the goals and objectives set out for the initial Strategic phase and 
assess readiness of the initiative to pass to the subsequent implementation have been achieved 
before engaging investments for the implementation phase. A set of Indicators and Measures 
for  assessing  progress  towards  meeting  the  objectives  of  the  “Strategic”  phase  under  this 
Policy Option are set in Section 6. 

5.1. 

Effect of changes in parameters on impacts 

Policy  option  1  foresees  no  further  Community  intervention  to  address  the  identified 
objectives. As said already, the risk is that the EEIG may lose momentum or cease to exist. In 
this case the efforts and investments made so far through ERA-NETs will no longer continue 
and the Baltic research governance will return to what it was before. 

Policy option 2 would be implemented by the European Commission who would define and 
implement the research agenda under FP7. Therefore, no changes in the relevant parameters 
are expected. 

Under  policy  option  3  through  approaches  A,  B  and  C,  there  might  be  changes  in  the 
composition of the EEIG with some of the current funding agencies. This will mean that the 
corresponding research programmes and efforts funded by the withdrawing funding agencies 
will be taken away and this will inevitably undermine somehow the impact of this initiative in 
proportion  to  the  withdrawn  components.  However,  policy  option  3  through  approach  C 
foresees,  among  others,  efforts  during  the  strategic  phase  to  involve  additional  funding 
agencies  for  an  equivalent  amount  of  approximately  14  million  Euros.  This  amount,  after 
being matched by the EU contribution, will increase quite significantly the total budget to the 
initiative and benefits of the integration will touch a much broader institutional structure and 
scientific community. 

Clearly, environmental and socio-economic parameters are likely to evolve over time because 
of  changes  in  climate,  land  use,  human  behaviour,  human  perceptions  and  technologies,  as 
well as the development of new environmental hazards. Policy options 3 through approach B 

EN 

28 

   EN 

and  C  will  provide  the  best  guarantees  and  possibilities  for  adoption,  modification  or 
redirection in response to these changes since they will include mechanisms to anticipate and 
monitor  these  changes  and  to  adapt  to  them.  Policy  options  1,  2  and  3A  approach  are  less 
adaptive in this respect since they do not foresee such mechanisms. 

5.2. 

Potential obstacles and risks 

No  potential  obstacles  and  risks  are  envisaged  under  policy  option  1,  the  latter  having  no 
related Baltic specific financial implications for the EU. 

It  is  assumed  that  all  policy  options  3  (through  approach  A,  B  and  C)  would  effectively 
address  all  recommendations  made  in  the  Van  Velzen  report.  This  will  secure  an  optimal 
implementation  of  an  article  169.  The  only  exception  is  for  option  3  through  approach  A 
adopting a virtual common pot instead of a real one.  

A potential risk, valid for all policy options, is that the outcomes of the research would not be 
sufficiently  taken  into  account  by  policy  makers  and  therefore  the  investments  made  in  the 
context  of  this  initiative  will  not  be  fully  valorised.  This  however  is  unavoidable,  since 
environmental  management  is  and  will  always  be  part  of  a  democratic  decision  making 
process that seeks to address in a satisfactory manner the socio-economic interests and stakes 
with due regard to the environmental issues.  

A potential obstacle, common to all wide-ranging regionally-focused research initiatives, and 
thus to policy options 3A, B and C, is the absence of the required expertise or interest. This 
could undermine the impact of the initiative in adequately addressing some of the identified 
problems. However, both policy options 2 and 3 address this issue by providing full openness 
to participation by research partners from the entire Union, the emphasis being given to the 
scientific excellence irrespectively of national or regional bias.  

In principle the following potential risks could be envisaged as associated to policy  options 
3A, B and C: 

•  Failure  by  the  Member  States  to  fulfil  the  financial  and  political  commitments 
regarding their participation in the Article 169. This risk however appears not so 
likely to occur in view of the preparatory work during the BONUS ERA-NET and 
BONUS  ERA-NET-PLUS  and  the  written  commitments  by  the  responsible 
Ministers (see section 1.2).  

•  Risk linked to the DIS and its capacity to implement an Article 169. This risk is 
mitigated  to  a  large  extent  by  the  fact  that  the  BONUS  EEIG  has  already 
implemented the BONUS ERA-Net Plus project successfully. In addition, the ex-
ante  audit  of  the  DIS  prior  to  the  launching  of  the  initiative  will  ensure  that  all 
necessary conditions are in place for a successful implementation of the BONUS-
169. 

•  A  possible  obstacle  to  an  appropriate  and  justified  use  of  Article  169  is  for  the 
integrated  part  of  research  to  remain  a  small  fraction  of  the  research  being 
conducted in the area and to lack visibility outside the scientific community. The 
possibility for such a risk to materialise is however very small if one is to compare 
the 72-100 M that BONUS-169 initiative is expected to mobilise (EU and national 
contributions pooled together), with the 36 million of total national funding (see 
section 2.1) allocated to Baltic research in 2004.  

More specifically, risks associated to policy option 3 B and C could be related to:  

EN 

29 

   EN 

•  If efforts to engage additional sectoral funding agencies (currently anticipated of 
the  order  of  EUR  14  M)  would  fail.  Whilst  engaging  sectoral  funding  agencies 
will  be  a  big  achievement  of  the  initiative  since  it  will  break  long-standing 
traditions and tap upon national resources (equivalent to 35% of the total national 
funding  in  the  region-see  section  2.1)  that  are  canalised  directly  and  without 
competition to various sectorally oriented institutions and research group, failing 
to do so will simply mean that this component of the research system in the Baltic 
will not be impacted through this initiative and the current status quo in the region 
for this component will remain whilst the rest of the system will be significantly 
impacted.  

More specifically, risks associated to the strategic phase of policy option 3C could be related 
to:  

•  Possible failure by the consortium to put in place the appropriate mechanisms and 
achieve the set milestones and deliverables during the first "strategic" phase of the 
implementation.  If  such  a  risk  is  materialised,  either  the  consortium  could  be 
provided  additional  time  for  addressing  satisfactorily  the  expected  milestones 
through use of "own" resources or the Community will abstain from funding the 
implementation  phase  of  the  initiative.  In  the  latter  case  the  total  loss  for  the 
Community  will  only  be  EUR  1.25  million,  i.e.  the  EU  contribution  for  the 
funding of the strategic phase of the initiative.  

•  Political  pressure  during  the  review  of  the  strategic  phase  by  government(s) 
involved  in  the  Article  169  to  influence  its  outcome.  However,  the  Commission 
should  guarantee  a  fully  transparent  review  process  by  inviting  internationally 
renowned  independent  reviewers  to  make  their  assessment  on  the  basis  of  a 
number of appropriately selected indicators. 

6. 

COMPARING THE OPTIONS 

6.1. 

Comparing the impacts of the different Options 

The  table  below  summarises  the  analysis  above  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,  specific  and  operational  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. 

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 

GENERAL OBJECTIVE 

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 

Medium 

Medium 

High 

Very High 

EN 

30 

   EN 

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 
focussed  multi-national 
programme. 

and 

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES 

Establish  a  policy-driven  Strategic  Research 
Agenda  

Very Low  Very Low 

High 

Very High  

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

research 

public 

Raise the research capacity level of the new EU 
Baltic States 

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

OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVES 

Establish  appropriate  Stakeholder  Consultation 
Platforms  including  representation  from  all 
relevant sectors 

appropriate 
enabling 

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

at 

least 

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

three 

Medium 

High 

High 

Very High 

High 

High 

High 

High 

Low 

Low 

High 

Very High 

Low 

Medium 

High 

Very High 

Low 

Low 

High 

Very High 

Medium 

Medium 

High 

Very High 

6.2. 

Summary of the advantages and disadvantages for each Policy Option 

A brief analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each Policy Option is presented in the 
table below. Policy Option 1 (Continuation of policies so far developed under FP 7, business 
as usual) has not been analysed as it forms the baseline scenario. 

Advantages and disadvantages of the Policy Options 

Option 

Advantages 

Disadvantages 

Option 2 

Multiple options for funding.  

to 

recourse 

The 
regionally-oriented 
trans-thematic  call(s) 
under FP 

EU policies and the FP7 research programme would form 
the basis for developing a vision for stronger coordination 
of  research  on  priority  issues  affecting  the  sustainable 
development  of  the  Baltic  Sea  Basin;  Reduced  need  for 
new  research  delivery  institutions;  Effective  and  targeted 
use of EU funding; Integration with other research themes 

MS role in leading research and hence enhances ownership of 
the  research  programme  would  be  reduced;  Obstacles  that 
hinder  a  reduction  in  research  fragmentation  would  not  be 
addressed  in  a  sustainable  way;  Openness  of  system  may  not 
increase;  In  the  absence  of  a  coherent,  integrated,  long-term 
strategic  research  approach  there  is  a  risk  that  individual 
projects  may  not  yield  information  that  can  be  integrated  to 
support  policies  and  management  actions  to  address  critical 
environmental  issues;  Reduced  opportunities  to  create  a 

EN 

31 

   EN 

a 

focus 

The use of Article 169 
with 
on 
marine science, with a 
strategic  vision  and  a 
roadmap  developed  in 
the 
parallel  with 
launching 
of 
substantive  open-field 
calls 

3 
Policy 
through approach B 

option 

to 

The use of Article 169 
focus 
with 
a 
broadened 
the 
Baltic  drainage  basin, 
with  a  strategic  vision 
and 
roadmap 
developed  prior  to  the 
launching 
the 
initiative; 

of 

a 

Option 

Advantages 

Disadvantages 

of  FP7  will  be  easier;  Intrinsic  integration  with  EU 
policies 
requirements;.  Potential 
European  level  added  value  for  other  regional  seas  and 
associated drainage basins. 

stakeholder 

and 

sustainable  critical  mass;  Risk  of  duplication  due  to  multiple 
actions;  Lower  levels  of  integration  across  disciplines.  No 
guarantee that there will be substantive integration of national 
agencies and therefore sustainability of integration of research 
among  MS  in  the  absence  of  EU  funding  is  questionable. 
Momentum  and  progress  achieved 
the  Bonus 
initiative may be lost. No guarantee that the gulf between the 
“new”  Baltic  States  and  the  more  established  ones  would  be 
reduced. 

through 

Policy 
option 
3through  approach 
A 

No  new  institutionalisation;  Dedicated  programme  with 
clear  Baltic  Sea  thematic  focus;  Will  be  more  accessible 
for  associated  marine 
research  groups;  Provides 
opportunities to focus on emerging environmental issues. 

Maintains momentum and builds upon advances achieved 
under  ERA-NET.  Rationalisation  of  research  in  some 
countries; improved use of FP resources. 

Development  of  strategic  vision  in  parallel  would  not  ensure 
effective  prioritisation  of  research  effort  and  resource 
allocation  in  respect  to  Article  169  objectives;  with  no  clear 
policy-orientation;  reduced  potential  for  understanding  the 
Baltic  ecosystem  and  establishing  a  cause-effect  relationship 
between  drivers  and  impacts  to  mainstream  research  findings 
to other policy domains due to lack of conceptual framework 
incorporating  inputs  from  catchments  surrounding  the  Baltic. 
No  joining  up  or  coordination  of  all  best  potential  in  Baltic 
Region  to  tackle  sustainable  development  issues;  Science 
driven,  not  policy  driven;  Reliance  on  response  to  call  for 
proposals that do not appear to be linked to vision or priorities; 
Lower  levels  of  integration;  strengthening  of  institutional 
and  more 
capacities 
heterogeneous; Gulf between larger and smaller partners could 
grow;  Lack  of  emphasis  given  to  inter-basin  transfer  of 
knowledge 

and  human 

resources 

slower 

Broadened  conceptual  framework 
that  would  allow 
integration of critical environmental, social and economic 
factors  that  influence  the  health,  productivity  of  marine 
and  coastal  systems,  and  potential  sustainable  use  of 
resources.  Potential  strengthening  of  research  efforts  to 
address priority issues; rationalisation of research in some 
countries; improved use of FP resources. 

Will take time and there will be need for additional resources 
to  implement  appropriate  intergovernmental  accords  and 
structures  and  linkages  with  industry  and  other  stakeholders 
and users that would facilitate integrated research programmes 
The time to “maturity” will break the continuity and hinder the 
maintenance  of  momentum  and  the  capitalisation  upon  the 
advances achieved under BONUS ERA-NETs 

supports 

improved  policy  and 

EU  policies  would  be  better  taken  into  account  in 
developing  a  strategic  vision  and  establishing  research 
priority  issues  affecting  the  sustainable  development  of 
the Baltic Sea Basin; EU political buy in – support to EU 
policy making;; Opportunities for new funding institutions 
to  join  in  and  support  EU  and  MS  research  objectives 
supporting  broader  integration  of  research  addressing 
cross-sectoral end user needs, enhancing ownership of the 
research programme, and helping ensure effective use and 
uptake  of  results  Improvements  in  trans-disciplinary 
research 
resource 
management  arrangements  for  sustainable  use  of  the 
Baltic  Sea  system  across  a  wide  array  of  economic 
sectors; Long term programming to address policy issues 
through  concerted  Baltic  Sea  and  Drainage  Basin 
research;  Attuning  national 
to 
European  strengths  and  competences;  Obstacles  that 
hinder  a  reduction  in  research  fragmentation  would  be 
addressed;  Financial  leverage  by  mobilising  additional 
resources from enhanced cross-sectoral Baltic Sea system 
research 
linkages  with 
stakeholders  and  end  user  could  strengthen  uptake  of 
research  outputs;  Critical  mass 
in  research  effort; 
Mainstreaming  integrated,  interdisciplinary  research  to 
other policy domains; Alignment to industries; Ability to 
deal  with  trans-boundary  issues;  Implementation  of  EU 
regulations; Reduce duplication of research efforts; Better 
conditions 
cross-fertilisation  between  people, 
institutions,  countries.  A  stronger  common  Baltic  Sea 
System  research  community  voice.  High  potential  for 
reducing  the  gaps  between  larger  and  smaller  partners; 
New  emphasis  given  to  catchment  and  sea  interactions 
and potential for inter-basin transfer of knowledge. 

collaboration;  Enhanced 

strategies 

research 

for 

Policy 
3 
through approach C: 

option 

Idem  as  policy  option  3  through  approach  B  with 
two  staged 
additional  advantages  entailed  by 
approach-  “Strategic”  and  “Implementation”  that  would 
allow  continuity  and  maintenance  of  the  momentum 

the 

There  are  no  major  perceived  disadvantages.  However,  the 
success  of  this  option  will  depend  to  a  large  degree  on  the 
successful  implementation  of  the  strategic  phase.  This  will 
need to be examined carefully by the EC. 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
 
Option 

Advantages 

Disadvantages 

the  Bonus  consortium  and 

developed  by 
further 
capitalisation on advances achieved under BONUS ERA-
NET. Through the involvement in the management bodies 
of  the  initiative,  the  Commission  will  retain  a  strong 
orientation  and  priority  setting  power  through  the  design 
of calls.  

to 

The use of Article 169 
focus 
with 
a 
broadened 
the 
Baltic  drainage  basin, 
with  a  strategic  vision 
roadmap 
and 
developed  in  a  first 
phase 
the 
programme,  prior  to 
the  launching  of  the 
calls. 

of 

6.3. 

The Preferred Option 

Based on the above review of 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.  

The extra amount of resources that this option would mobilise for the Baltic sea research of 
the  order  of  100  million  (EU  and  national  contributions  pooled  together)  to  be  channelled 
through the DIS instead of being distributed randomly through various national calls over the 
5-year period (7 year period for policy option 3C) is expected to make a considerable impact 
in  terms  of  achieving  unprecedented  "critical  mass"  in  the  system.  Its  shear  size  compares 
very  favourably  to  the  36  million  total  national  contributions  in  2004  to  fund  "competitive" 
and  "no-competitive"  research  (see  section  2.1).  This  rather  large  significant  increase  in 
resources,  complemented  by  the  "qualitative"  structural  changes  that  this  policy  option  is 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
 
 
expected to bring to the overall Baltic sea research system, provides some guarantees as to the 
unquestionable potential of this policy option to achieve the general, specific and operational 
objectives set out for this initiative. 

7. 

EX-ANTE EVALUATION AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS 

Policy options 2 and 3 B and C assume an EU contribution of the order of EUR 50 million. 
Policy option 3A assumes an EU contribution of EUR 36 million. 

Although there is not an explicit EU contribution under policy option 1, implicitly and in the 
absence of any Community-driven, Baltic-specific initiative under FP7, the "liberated" 36-50 
million will be spent to fund other RTD projects and other regular FP activities. 

Under Policy options 1 and 2, own resources to be mobilised from the participating research 
institutes vary between 25 – 50 % of the EU contribution depending on their status40. 

Under  policy  option  3A,  B  and  C  a  financial  commitment  of  the  order  of  EUR  26M  fresh 
money  has  been  pledged  by  the  Participating  States  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  will  be  sought  from  the 
Participating States by engaging further national Funding Agencies during the strategic phase 
of the initiative. Projects to be implemented under the Article 169 initiative will 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 will 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 1.25 million Euros (to be matched by an equal amount by the PS) out of the total 
EU  contribution  will  be  provided  to  cover  the  eligible  costs  incurred  during  the  strategic 
phase.  This  amount  will  be  subtracted  from  the  total  EU  contribution.  This  amount  will 
however enhance the cost-effectiveness of this option since the strategic "mechanisms" to be 
put  in  place  will  greatly  enhance  the  added  value  of  the  initiative  and  will  strengthen 
considerably  the  policy  relevance,  effectiveness  and  impact  of  the  research  activities 
envisaged under the implementation phase.  

The demand for Commission's staff to ensure the scientific monitoring of the project(s) will 
be identical for all policy options, namely at least one AD 8-12 full-time Programme Officer, 
although with the expected EU contribution of 36-50 million Euro, five to ten RTD projects 
will, most likely,  be funded under policy option 1 and 2 as opposed to a single  Article 169 
under  policy  option  3  A,  B,  C.  However,  experience  with  other  Articles  169  shows  that, 
whilst  there  will  be  less  workload  for  the  Commission's  staff  for  everyday  scientific 
monitoring of the Article 169, there will be much more demand for the processing of the legal 
procedures and for tasks related to communication (replies to questions from EP and Council, 
briefings to Commissionaire, Director General etc) because of the high visibility and political 
sensitivity inherent in these initiatives.  

40 

EN 

Guidance 
ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/docs/financialguide_en.pdf 

Financial 

relating 

Issues 

to 

to 

FP7 

Indirect 

actions 

34 

   EN 

                                                 
Under option 3 A, B and C however, there would be lower demand for Financial Officer to 
follow up the initiative in view of the fact that the management will mostly be done by the 
DIS of the Article 169. Therefore, the equivalent of half-time AD 8-12 for a Financial Officer 
will  be  required  under  option  3  A,  B  and  C,  instead  of  one  AD  8-12  full-time  Financial 
Officer under policy option 1 and 2. 

Instead, an estimated amount of 5 M€ in total is foreseen by the DIS for covering all costs for 
the  programme  management.  This  amount  will  be  shared  by  EU  and  Participating  States 
according to a percentage to be fixed in the Commission decision, which will be considered as 
a ceiling to be respected by the DIS. This figure, approximately 5 % of the total programme 
cost, represents a very good value for the implementation of such an ambitious international 
joint research programme41. 

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 remarkable uncertainty. In addition there is no similar blueprint in the EU 
or indeed worldwide to use as a benchmark for inter-comparison. As the ultimate product of 
such  an  initiative  is  new  knowledge  utilized  to  achieve  sustainable  use  of  the  goods  and 
services generated by the marine ecosystem and protecting the quality of the environment in 
longer  perspective,  it  is  anticipated  but  without  any  hard  evidence  to  prove  it,  that  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. 

Furthermore,  building  on  existing  programmes,  infrastructures  and  experiences  and  taking 
stock  of  the  achievements  made  through  the  previously  funded  BONUS  ERA-NET  and 
BONUS  ERA-NET  PLUS  projects  and  implementing  integrated  research  activities  would 
promote  synergies,  optimise  the  use  of  new  investments,  avoid  duplication  of  efforts  and 
facilitate optimal trans-national use by the Baltic Sea scientific community of a large number 
of, sometimes extremely expensive, environmental research infrastructures, including marine 
research vessels. This will lead to more integrated, synthesized and robust research "outputs" 
that would be more readily available to be up-taken by the policy domain. In contrast, whilst 
policy  option  2  might  well  achieve  new  knowledge  and  research  quality  of  an  equally  high 
standard  as  policy  option  3  through  approaches  A,  B  and  C,  this  policy  option  would  not 
benefit from the solid basis regarding “institutional” integration that would allow a high level 
of  integration  (scientific,  management  and  financial)  and  synergies  that  the  former  ones  are 
likely to yield. 

From the above analysis, policy option 3 through approach C also represents the option with 
the highest impact and cost-effectiveness and efficiency.  

Also the role of science in the protection of the Baltic Sea environment and sustainable use of 
its  resources  may  be  generalized  as  providing  knowledge  and  decision  support  instruments 
enabling policy-makers and economic practitioners to find and apply the most cost-efficient 
solutions and mitigation measures.  

Financial integration and role of BONUS EEIG 

41

To  be  born  in  mind  that  under  the  6th  Framework  programme,  the  Commission  would  consider 
management costs up to 7 % of total project costs as refundable at 100 %  

EN 

35 

   EN 

                                                 
 
Projects  to  be  implemented  under  the  Article  169  initiative  will  be  funded  by  a  shared 
financial contribution by both the Community and the Participating States. The administration 
of the Joint Research Programme will be managed centrally by the DIS according to common 
implementation  and  contractual  rules.  This  approach  demonstrates  the  absence  of  any  "re-
nationalisation"  of  Community  funds.  The  Community  Contribution  will  be  managed 
centrally by the DIS and will be directly provided to final research beneficiaries participating 
in research projects. This modus operandi assures full transparency concerning the use of the 
Community  contribution  and  contributes  to  the  protection  of  the  Community  financial 
interest.  

Under Policy Option 2, no formal role would be given to DIS and no scientific, managerial or 
financial integration would be achieved. Clearly the impact on existing national programmes 
will be minor and no long term perspective concerning research coordination can be expected.  

Other issues illustrating efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the chosen approach are raised in 
section 4. Many lessons learned from the EDCTP implementation have and will be taken into 
account during the preparation and the negotiations of the initiative. 

8. 

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 3 calls for proposals will 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 will be conducted by the Commission together with the 
assistance of independent experts. Three reviews will 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  will  evaluate  the  progress 
made  towards  each  of  the  general,  specific  and  operational  objectives  using  a  list  of 
measurable  indicators  indicated  below.  The  three  planned  independent  reviews  shall  be 
complete  and  thorough  and,  with  regard  to  the  first  review  carried  out  at  the  end  of  the 
strategic phase, enable an informed decision regarding the progress of the initiative into the 
implementation phase to be taken. The result of these three reviews could be published by the 
Commission.  It  should  be  noted  that  the  main  impacts  of  the  initiative  are  expected  to  take 
place mainly towards the end of the BONUS programme. 

Each review will consider the relevant indicators detailed below and will comprise a thorough 
assessment of those objectives that cannot be represented by one or more simple indicators. 
Such a process will allow the intrinsic complexity of objectives and risks, which span across 
scientific, societal, economic and environmental dimensions and which are also influenced by 
factors that are beyond the control of the initiative, to be fully taken into account. This review 
process will include both recordable integration indicators and qualitative progress indicators. 
The following indicators could be used for monitoring the initiative and would be assessed in 
line with the proposed objectives. 

Indicators at the level of the general objective: 

•  The development and implementation of 'fit-for-purpose' regulations and policies 
and  management  practices  aimed  at  safeguarding  the  sustainable  use  of  the 
ecosystem’s goods and services. 

EN 

36 

   EN 

•  The degree to which the initiative contributes to the establishment and structuring 
of the ERA in the Baltic Sea Region (e.g. increase in the percentage of the total 
funding going through the DIS) 

•  The sustainability potential of the structures, mechanisms and procedures in place 
for guiding and managing research to underpin a sustainable development in the 
Baltic Sea region (e.g. decisions made by the PS to prolong the existence of the 
DIS) 

•  Active  collaboration  between  the  regional  environmental  research  programmes 
and  the  relevant  science  communities  in the  other  European  sea  basins  is  taking 
place  

Indicators at the level of the specific and operational objectives: 

•  Strategic Research Agenda (scientific content of the programme focusing on the 

calls for proposals); 

•  Setting-up of appropriate Stakeholder Consultation Platforms and mechanisms to 

promote active involvement of stakeholders 

•  Establishment  of 

Implementation  Modalities: 

legal  and 

financial 

rules, 

appropriateness of human resources of the DIS and communication modalities. 

•  Number  of  joint  researcher-stakeholder  workshops  for  jointly  identifying 
problems  and  knowledge  gaps  and  for  formulating  pertinent  research  questions. 
Additional national funding brought in by including new funding agencies 

•  A  list  of  all  infrastructures  and  their  availability  potential  for  use  by  the  funded 

projects 

•  Number  of  international,  national  and  regional  stakeholder  events  organised  and 

number of participants and sectors represented  

•  Number  of  BONUS-driven  joint  events/cooperation  activities/partnerships  with 

non-Baltic research actors and other European basins 

•  Number  of  working  days  spent  by  scientists  from  other  national  institutes  on 
research  vessels  or  shared  use  of  other  major  infrastructures  and  the  number  of 
research infrastructures jointly used in BONUS-funded projects 

•  Number  of  peer-reviewed  publications  arising  from  the  Bonus  Initiative  and 
jointly-funded BONUS research projects with authors from, at least, two different 
participating States  

•  Number  of  peer-reviewed  publications  arising  from  the  Bonus  Initiative  with 

authors from the new Baltic Member States 

•  Number  of  common  databases,  merging  existing  and  new  data  from  the  entire 
Baltic  Sea  System,  that  are  openly  accessible  and  would  allow  comparative 
analysis and synthesis 

EN 

37 

   EN 

•  Number of international, national and regional communication, dissemination and 

public outreach initiatives to disseminate BONUS-specific research results  

•  Number of post-graduate courses and students participating in them organised by 

BONUS-169 projects 

•  Number of SMEs and private companies per MS participating in BONUS projects  

•  Number of BONUS-related mobility grants implemented 

•  Total  number  of  PhDs  and  post-docs  funded  by  BONUS  projects  and/or 

supervised by institutes from other, than native, participating Member States 

•  Total  number  of  researchers  and  research  organisations  involved  in  BONUS 

projects by age class, seniority and gender 

EN 

38 

   EN