COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF REGIONS A Reinforced European Research Area Partnership for Excellence and Growth (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2012-07-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: competitiveness, cross-border cooperation, economic growth, gender equality, harmonisation of standards, innovation, job creation, research and development, research budget, research programme

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 17.7.2012  
SWD(2012) 212 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the document 

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

A Reinforced European Research Area Partnership for Excellence and Growth 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

{COM(2012) 392 final} 
{SWD(2012) 211 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT....................... 1 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

1.3. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties .............................................. 1 

Policy context............................................................................................................... 1 

Organisation and timing............................................................................................... 2 

Consultation of interested parties and expertise........................................................... 3 

Problem definition........................................................................................................ 4 

The urgent need to improve research effectiveness in the EU..................................... 4 

Main problems hampering research performance in ERA........................................... 7 

2.2.1. 

Insufficient competition in national research systems ................................................. 8 

2.2.2.  Barriers to pan-European cooperation and competition remain .................................. 9 

2.2.3.  Persisting distortions among national labour markets for researchers....................... 11 

2.2.4.  Limited progress on gender equality and gender content in research........................ 13 

2.2.5.  Restricted circulation of and uneven access to scientific knowledge ........................ 14 

2.3. 

2.4. 

The EU’s right to act, subsidiarity and EU added-value............................................ 16 

Baseline scenario........................................................................................................ 17 

2.4.1.  Different levels of competition and low co-operation between research funding 

systems remain ........................................................................................................... 17 

2.4.2.  Limited action on researcher labour market towards mobility and careers ............... 18 

2.4.3.  Unequal opportunities for female researchers and insufficient attention to gender 

content in research ..................................................................................................... 18 

2.4.4.  Uneven access and circulation of scientific knowledge remain................................. 19 

3. 

4. 

5. 

5.1. 

5.2. 

5.3. 

6. 

Policy Objectives ....................................................................................................... 20 

Policy Options............................................................................................................ 21 

Analysing the impacts and comparing the policy options ......................................... 29 

Assessing the options ................................................................................................. 31 

Choosing the preferred policy option......................................................................... 34 

Risks and mitigating strategies................................................................................... 36 

Monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................................... 36 

Annex 1: Consultation of interested parties and expertise used............................................... 39 

EN 

1 

   EN 

 
Annex 2: Further evidence for the problem analysis ............................................................... 46 

Annex 3: Evaluation of previous and existing EU, regional and national initiatives .............. 56 

Annex 4: Analysis of impacts: methodology and tools used ................................................... 73 

Annex 5: Screening and selection of the specific measures for the policy options ................. 90 

Annex 6: Detailed description of policy option 2 and 3, comparison of delivering mechanisms 
and problem tree..................................................................................................................... 101 

Annex 7: Possible indicators to be used for monitoring ERA progress................................. 119 

Annex 8: Glossary and acronyms........................................................................................... 125 

Annex 9: Bibliography ........................................................................................................... 135 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the document 

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

A Reinforced European Research Area Partnership for Excellence and Growth 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

1. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

1.1. 

Policy context 

The European Research Area (ERA) is a unified research area open to the world based on the 
Internal  Market,  in  which  researchers,  scientific  knowledge  and  technology  circulate  freely 
and  through  which  the  Union  and  its  Member  States  shall  strengthen  their  scientific  and 
technological bases as well as their competitiveness and their capacity to collectively address 
grand challenges. 

ERA was launched with the European Commission's Communication 'Towards a European 
Research  Area’  in  January  20001  and  was  subsequently  endorsed  by  the  EU  at  the  March 
2000 Lisbon European Council. The Lisbon Treaty gives a new impetus and status to ERA, 
as it is now one of the key objectives of the Union2. Achieving ERA is thus a legal obligation 
for the EU and the Treaty provides a new basis for ERA policy. 

The  contribution  of  research  to  innovation  and  growth  is  precisely  the  aim  of  the  2010 
Innovation  Union  (IU)  flagship  initiative  launched  as  part  of  the  Europe  2020  Strategy3. 
The  IU  Flagship  announced  for  2012  an  ERA  framework  and  supporting  measures  to 
remove obstacles to mobility and cross-border co-operation, to be in force by the end of 2014. 
This  was  endorsed  by  the  European  Council  of  4  February  2011  (Council  of  the  European 
Union, 2011 and reiterated by the European Council of 2012: "Innovation and research are at 
the  heart  of  the  Europe  2020  strategy.  Europe  has  a  strong  science  base  but  the  ability  to 
transform research into new innovations targeted to market demands needs to be improved. 
(…) efforts must be stepped up with a view to: – completing the European Research Area by 
2014;  in  this  connection  the  European  Council  welcomed  the  Commission's  intention  to 
propose an ERA framework in June 2012; – improving the mobility and career prospects of 

1 
2 
3 

COM(2000) 6 final 
Article 179 (1) TFEU.  
http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/index_en.htm  

EN 

1 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
researchers; – rapidly establishing and implementing the inventory of EU-funded R&D and 
the single innovation indicator; (…)". 

In a context of economic crisis, the completion of the European Research Area focusing on 
research  and  research-based  solutions  is  even  more  urgent  to  support  economic  growth, 
scientific  excellence  and  cohesion  amongst  regions  and  countries.  Action  is  needed  to 
overcome the negative effects of national fragmentation in the design and implementation of 
research  policies  and  activities  on  Europe's  research  effectiveness.  Measures  should  aim  at 
increasing  competition  and  exploiting  cross-border  synergies  between  national  research 
systems,  facilitate  researcher  careers  as  well  as  mobility,  and  the  free  circulation  of 
knowledge, addressing thus the research component of the broader Innovation agenda of the 
Commission4.  

This Impact Assessment report accompanies the Communication from the Commission to the 
European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  Economic  and  Social  Committee  on  ‘A  Reinforced 
European  Research  Area  Partnership  for  Excellence  and  Growth’,  which  presents  actions 
responding to the need to complete ERA by 2014. This Communication was announced in the 
Commission's 2012 Legislative and Work programme (European Commission, 2010a).  

1.2. 

Organisation and timing 

The  Commission's  Directorate-General  for  Research  and  Innovation  is  the  lead  DG  for  this 
initiative. 

Consultation with other Directorate-Generals (DGs) was carried out through the ERA inter-
service  group  (ISG)  and  additional  bilateral  meetings.  The  ERA  ISG,  chaired  by  the  RTD 
Deputy Director-General in charge of Innovation and ERA, included representatives from the 
following  DGs:  SG,  SJ,  AGRI,  BEPA,  COMP,  DEVCO,  EAC,  ENV,  ELARG,  EMPL, 
ENER,  ENTR,  ESTAT,  HOME,  INFSO,  JRC, MARE, MARKT,  MOVE, REGIO, SANCO 
and TRADE. Most DG RTD Directorates were also represented5. The ERA ISG acted as the 
Steering Group for the ex-ante Impact Assessment and was convened for the identification of 
the  problems  (June  2011),  the  identification  of  policy  options  (October  2011)  and  the 
completion of the ex-ante Impact Assessment and Communication (February and March 2012 
and  consulted  on  the  revised  version  of  the  Impact  Assessment  report  in  April  2012).  The 
Legal Service was also consulted on several occasions. 

In  addition,  bilateral  meetings  were  organised  with  representative  stakeholders:  European 
Research Council (ERC), European Free Trade Association (EFTA), European Association of 
Research and Technology Organisations (EARTO), European University Association (EUA), 
Science  Europe  and  League  of  European  Research  Universities  (LERU).  These  meetings 
focused  on  the  identification  of  problems  in  specific  research  sectors,  policies  and  possible 
ways  forward.  The  European  Parliament,  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  and  the  European 
Economic  and  Social  Committee  were  also  informed  of  the  public  consultation  and  Impact 
Assessment work.  

4 
5 

COM(2010) 546 final 
The Directorates present included Dir A, Dir B, Dir C, Dir D, Dir E, Dir F, Dir G, Dir H, Dir I, Dir K, 
Dir M. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
1.3. 

Consultation of interested parties and expertise 

Several  activities  were  carried  out  to  consult  stakeholders  to  gather  the  necessary  evidence. 
Relevant  activities  included  stakeholder  consultations  via  a  broad  web-based  public 
consultation  (public  consultation  on  the  ERA  Framework),  conferences,  numerous  meetings 
with  Member  State  representatives,  experts  and  academics,  high-level  panels  with  leading 
experts/academics as well as studies and research projects. A summary of these activities is 
presented in Annex 1.  

The various  stakeholder consultations were crucial for identifying key issues hampering the 
development  of ERA. The public consultation  on  the  ERA  Framework  (from  13  September 
2011  to  30  November  2011)  provided  an  opportunity  for  a  wide  range  of  stakeholders  to 
express their views on priorities for ERA. It gathered a total of 691 responses (590 responses 
to  the  online  questionnaire  and  101  ad-hoc  contributions/position  papers)  from  researchers 
(51% of respondents), research performing/funding organisations6 (17%), citizens (12%) and 
the private sector (7%)7. The summary of the outcomes is provided in Annex 1.  

The  various  stakeholder  consultations  revealed  common  concerns  and  issues  within  each 
group of actors. The key messages emerging were as follows: 

For researchers, the key concerns are the low attractiveness of careers, the limited freedom 
of career movement and the lack of opportunities for cross-fertilisation of ideas. Key EU-level 
stakeholders8  emphasised  that  researchers  face  insufficiently  transparent  procedures  for 
appointment,  hampered  access  to  research  results  and  insufficient  interoperability  of  data 
repositories whilst grants are not easily portable or accessible to non-residents.  

internationally.  Several  stakeholder  organisations9 
increased  pan-European  competition  and 

For  research  performing/funding  organisations,  more  should  be  done  to  achieve 
excellence  in  research  and  better  coordinate  efforts  for  tackling  grand  challenges  in  Europe 
that  cross-border 
and 
cooperation, 
to  suitable 
infrastructures  and  mechanisms  for  open  access  publishing  and  data  repositories  were 
desirable features for ERA. This group of stakeholders indicated the urgency to better involve 
them better in ERA policy. 

indicated 
further  support 

For  the  private  sector,  there  is  general  concern  about  the  lack  of  highly-skilled  and  well-
trained  researchers  in  Europe.  Industry  also  called  for  enhanced  cooperation  between 
education providers and the business sector. According to the ERA Framework consultation, 
businesses believe that the private sector academia and the business sector do not cooperate 
sufficiently.  Small  and  medium-sized  enterprises  (SMEs)  call  in  particular  for  enhanced 
cooperation/dialogue mechanisms and platforms between research stakeholders. 

6 

7 

8 

9 

This category includes universities and higher education institutions, public research organisations and 
research funding organisations. 
International  organisations,  national  governments  and  other  stakeholders  also  replied  to  the  online 
questionnaire (4% of respondents, 2% of respondents and 7% respectively).  
These include: European Council of Doctoral Candidates and Junior Researchers, European University 
Association, League of European Research Universities and Science Europe.  
These  include:  Association  of  European  Research  Libraries,  European  Research  Council,  European 
Intergovernmental  Research  Organisations,  European  University  Association,  German  Research 
Foundation,  International  Federation  of  Library  Associations  and  Institutions,  Institut  National  de  la 
Recherche Agronomique, League of European Research Universities, Science Europe, SPARC Europe.  

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
For Member States and Associate countries, action is needed at EU level to complete ERA 
to improve attractiveness of research careers and remove obstacles to mobility, enhance cross-
border operations and support open access. Several Member States have underlined the need 
to promote excellence in research and to focus on global challenges. They have also called for 
strengthened cooperation between academia, research institutes and industry, whilst favouring 
a  soft/voluntary  approach  based  on  best  practices  rather  than  hard  legislative  measures. 
Member  States  also  pointed  out  the  need  to  offer  better  career  prospects  through  enhanced 
social security rights and easier grant portability.  

In  addition,  the  "Opinion  on  the  development  of  an  ERA  Framework"10  issued  by  the 
European Research Area Committee contributed to the identification of possible actions. 

An informal meeting with Directors General of the 27 EU Member States Ministries took 
place  in  April,  2012.  The  DGs  supported  the  overall  approach  and  the  ERA  priorities 
envisaged, notably the choice to consider first the use of voluntary actions to complete ERA. 
Regarding measures to reinforce the partnership, they requested to take account the important 
relationship  between  national  governments  and  national  research  actors,  notably  funding 
organisations. 

1.4  Opinion of the Impact Assessment Board 

Following  the  opinion  of  the  Impact  Assessment  Board  on  the  resubmitted  report,  this 
document includes a revised version of the problem definition, notably the gender aspects, it 
presents,  when  evidence  is  available,  the  efforts  taken  since  2000  on  the  specific  barriers 
considered  in  this  Communication.  The  presentation  of  the  impacts  and  comparison  of  the 
policy options has been strengthened and includes the feedback of stakeholders. The proposed 
monitoring system is now presented in detail. 

2. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

2.1. 

The urgent need to improve research effectiveness in the EU 

European research is still among the best in the world. In many areas, research has enabled 
European companies to be leaders or first movers in technology development and be ahead of 
the game in many areas, setting the standards and performance levels for others to follow. For 
example, Europe has introduced "fly-by-wire" in the commercial aircraft industry and GSM in 
mobile telecommunications, promoted the growth of capabilities in satellite development and 
launch,  invented  the  compact  disc,  and  more  recently  fostered  the  emergence  of  the  wind 
energy  industry.  Moreover,  Europe  is  still  the  best  producer  of  scientific  publications 
worldwide  and  facing  competition  from  emerging  actors,  it  had  lost  less  of  its  world  share 
than  the  United  States.  Europe  also  generates  more  than  30%  of  world  patent  applications. 
(see Figure 1 below). Also, EU inward Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in R&D is holding 
up, bucking the trend of a decline in overall inward FDI11. 

10 
11 

ERAC 1215/11 
"Internationalisation  of  business  investments  in  R&D  and  analysis  of  their  economic  impact",  study 
commissioned by DG Research and Innovation, forthcoming 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Figure  1:  World  share  of  scientific  publications  (2000  and  2009)  (left)  and  EPO  patent  applications  by 
inventor's country of residence (2007) (right) 

However,  Europe  suffers  from  an  innovation  gap  with  the  US,  Japan  and  other  competitor 
economies.  The  'Innovation  Union  Scoreboard  2011'  (European  Commission,  2012a)  shows 
that the US, Japan and South Korea have a performance lead over the EU2712. New economic 
powers  such  as  Brazil,  China  and  India  have  emerged  and  their  R&D  weight  is  already 
growing.  This  implies  that,  on  the  one  hand,  Europe  is  losing  ground,  in  relative  terms,  in 
producing  knowledge.  Europe's  share  of  publication  is  declining,  not  because  Europe  is 
publishing less, but because others are publishing more. Besides, the world share of the EU in 
excellent  research  is  lower  than  that  of  the  US:  in  2007,  Europe  and  the  US  produced 
respectively 32.4 % and 34.2% of the top-10% most cited scientific publications worldwide 
(European Commission, 2011c). On the other hand, global innovation leaders such as the US 
and Japan are particularly ahead of the EU27 on indicators of business activity. This reflects a 
lower presence of EU industry in sectors based on new technological paradigms (such as ICT 
and  biotechnologies),  as  Europe  has  been  less  able,  compared  to  the  US,  to  develop 
competitive new technology-based business13.  

Europe  also  faces  a  series  of  crucial  internal  challenges:  economic  and  financial  crisis,  low 
growth, ageing population, and a diverse set of environmental and grand challenges. To tackle 
these,  Europe  2020  and  the  Innovation  Union  flagship  initiative  has  put  innovation  at  the 
centre  of  the  EU's  economic  strategy.  To  respond  to  the  many  factors  of  Europe's  weak 
innovation  performance14,  the  IU  flagship  sets  up  a  comprehensive  agenda  to  improve 
conditions  and  access  to  finance  for  research  and  innovation  in  Europe,  to  ensure  that 
innovative  ideas  can  be  turned  into  products  and  services  that  create  growth  and  jobs.  One 
major component in the Innovation Union Flagship which requires action is research.  

12 

13 

14 

For  instance,  the  US  is  performing  better  than  the  EU27  in  10  indicators,  in  particular  in  tertiary 
education,  international  co-publications,  most  cited  publications,  R&D  expenditure  in  the  business 
sector and public-private co-publications. 
Three symptoms of this are the deficits of the EU vs. the US in terms of volume of private sector R&D 
investments  (EU:  1.27%  of  GDP,  US:  2.12%  of  GDP  in  2009),  of  patenting  (25%  of  triadic  patent 
families originated from the EU in 2007 vs. 35% originating from the US) and of medium and high-tech 
product  exports  (representing  47%  of  total  EU  products  export  in  2008  vs  59%  of  total  US  products 
exports) in 2008 (European Commission, 2011c, and Pro Inno Europe, 2009) . 
An  overview  of  the  most  important  explanations  for  the  European  innovation  underperformance  has 
been  developed  in  section  2.3  of  the  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  "A  rationale  for  action" 
accompanying the Commission's Communication Innovation Union  

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
     
 
                                                 
First, Europe invests too little in research compared to major competitors. In relative terms, 
the investment is lower than in the US (1.92% of GDP in Europe - or 201 billion Euros PPP in 
2008-  vs.  2.79%  of  GDP  in  the  US  (or  283  billion  Euros  PPP  in  the  same  year)  (Eurostat). 
Recognizing that Europe's future growth relies to a large extent on research and innovation, 
the European Council reaffirmed in March 2010 that the overall R&D investment level should 
be  increased  to  3%  of  EU  GDP  as  part  of  improving  the  conditions  for  research  and 
development.  

Second, knowledge production is concentrated in a relatively small number of Member States 
as indicated by the distribution of 10% of the most cited scientific publications and the share 
of  patents  applications  by  inventor's  country  application  (Annex  2).  This  partly  reflects  the 
volume of public R&D expenditure in these Member States when compared with the rest of 
Europe  (the  GBAORD  of  DE,  FR,  IT,  UK  represented  64%  of  the  total  EU  GBAORD  in 
2010) as well as the number of researchers in Member State. 

Last  but  not  least,  Europe  is  short  in  the  cutting-edge  research  that  can  deliver  the 
breakthroughs  required  to  fuel  science  and  technology  (S&T)-based  business  development. 
The EU deficit with respect to the US in scientific excellence is particularly important in some 
fast-moving  fields  which  are  precisely  those  where  the  US  has  generated  most  S&T-based 
growth (e.g. Information and Communication Technologies, Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, 
Molecular  biology,  Genetics).  The  EU  deficit  with  regard  to  the  US  in  the  field  of 
nanotechnologies is presented in Box 1 below.  

Box  1:  Research  investment  and  research  outputs:  comparison  between  the  EU  and  key  third 
countries in the area of nanotechnologies  

The case of nanotechnology is a good illustration of the underperformance of the European research system. In 
this  key  enabling  technology,  which  is  critical  for  future  international  competitiveness,  the  EU  spends  more 
public  money  annually  than  other  countries.  According  to  several  recent  estimates  (NMP  Scoreboard,  2011, 
Roco et al., 2010, OECD 2009), the European Union spends around 1.5 billion Euros annually (including the 27 
Member States' national funding and EC funding), which is considerably more than the USA (1 billion Euros), 
Japan (0.47 billion Euros) and China (0.1 billion Euros). 

However, if one looks at highly cited scientific publications in this field, 10% of EU publications are in the top 
10%  most  cited  publications,  compared  to  16.1%  for  the  USA,  5.4%  for  Japan  and  8.1%  for  China.  Another 
indication  of  Europe  lagging  behind  is  the  market  introduction  of  nanotechnology-based  products  and 
applications.  According  to  a  recent  nanotechnology  product  inventory  compiled  by  the  Project  on  Emerging 
Nanotechnologies  at  the  Woodrow  Wilson  International  Centre,  a  total  of  53%  of  identified  nanotechnology-
based products come from the US, followed by companies in East Asia (24%), Europe (15%), and other world 
regions (8%). Fragmented public funding in Europe leads to lower scientific and technological outputs per euro 
invested: the efficiency of EU countries can be seen lagging behind the US and the OECD average. 

Overall European underperformance and differences in scientific output and quality amongst 
Member States entail missed opportunities notably in terms of growth and jobs. This is due to 
a  variety  of  national,  local-specific  and  international  factors.  Although  it  is  difficult  to 
disentangle research-specific factors from those outside the research field (i.e. factors linked 
to the overall economic structure and performance of a country, its labour market, the quality 
of  its  infrastructure  and  education  and  training  systems,  etc.)  'structural'  factors  such  as 
different national approaches to competition for funding and cross-border cooperation, as well 
as  to  the  fragmented  labour  markets  for  researchers;  "delocalised"  working  methods;  and 
policies promoting access to scientific knowledge and high speed interconnection of research 
centres  with  the  availability  of  shared  high  performance  computing  services  and  unique 
collections of research information and data are specific to research policy. These underlying 
problems  act  as  'structural'  breaks,  as  they  do  not  permit  the  development  of  adequate 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
framework conditions for research and innovation at national and European level – i.e. they 
constitute  barriers  or  obstacles  to  the  completion  of  ERA.  In  addition,  the  current  highly 
variable  and  fragmented  way  of  structuring  research  in  Europe  is  not  fostering  open 
innovation, essential to enhance competitiveness and attractiveness of the European economy. 
A more co-ordinated approach to reduce this fragmentation between Member State research 
systems and removing barriers to competition and cooperation could act as drivers to improve 
the effectiveness of research in Member States and on the European level (and notably in less-
advanced Member States). Reducing fragmentation and increasing effectiveness is even more 
important in times of budgetary austerity and when there is a need to optimise the innovation, 
economic, social and environmental returns on research investments.  

2.2.  Main problems hampering research performance in ERA 

Since  2000,  the  European  Union  and  Member  States  together  have  progressed  towards  a 
European  Research  Area.  Commission  initiatives  supported  by  the  Framework  Programme 
include the European Research Council for basic research, ERA-NETs for the coordination of 
European, national and regional research programmes (e.g. E-Rare which co-ordinates almost 
half  of  rare  disease  research  in  Europe)  and  'Article  185s'  which  integrate  EU,  national  and 
regional  efforts  into  a  single  European  programme  (e.g.  the  EMRP  metrology  or  science  of 
measurement  initiative  pools  44%  of  EU-wide  resources  into  a  single  programme). 
Significant progress has also been made under Member States led ERA Partnership initiatives 
- Joint Programming15 continues to gain momentum and political commitment, with the 2010 
guidelines  on  framework  conditions  for  joint  programming  in  research16  produced  by  the 
Member  States  providing  an  excellent  basis  on  which  to  move  to  joint  implementation;  the 
'European Partnership for Researchers17 has led to improved management of research careers 
in  a  growing  number  of  institutions  by,  inter  alia,  promoting  take-up  of  the  Commission-
proposed  Charter  &  Code18  -  furthermore,  national  efforts  and  the  Framework  Programmes 
have facilitated mobility for 30% of EU researchers19; The Knowledge Sharing20 initiative has 
helped to ensure that all Member States have policies paying attention to the dissemination of 
knowledge. In the area of research infrastructures, a major step towards a coordinated policy 
approach was the establishment of the European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures, 
the  e-Infrastructure  Reflection  Group  and  the  first  ever  European  Roadmap  for  Research 
Infrastructures  in  2006  -  subsequently  up-dated  in  2008  and  2010.  Furthermore,  since  the 
entry  into  force  of  the  Community  legal  framework  for  a  European  Research  Infrastructure 
Consortium  (ERIC21)  in  2009,  12  European  research  infrastructures  have  been  launched22. 
European  Commission  has  also  played  a  major  role  in  supporting  and  coordinating  the 
European  level  e-infrastructure  development,  especially  in  the  areas  of  connectivity,  high-
performance  computing  and  grid  computing  resources  development.  As  a  result,  8800 
research  and  education  institutions  in  40  countries  are  benefiting  from  high-speed 
connectivity  through  GEANT  with  global  connections,  24  countries  have  joined  the 

15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 

22 

COM(2008) 468 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/docs/en/voluntary_guidelines.pdf 
COM(2008) 317 and Conclusions of the Competitiveness Council on 25 and 26 September 2008 
COM(2005) 576 
In the last three years, 30% of researchers have worked abroad for a period of at least three months. 
COM(2008)1329 
Designed  to  facilitate  the  joint  establishment  and  operation  of  research  infrastructures  of  European 
interest http://ec.europa.eu/research/infrastructures/index_en.cfm?pg=eric 
10 out of the 48 projects of the 2010 ESFRI Roadmap are now in the implementation phase and another 
16 are proceeding so well that the start of their implementation could be envisaged before the end of 
2012 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Partnership  for  advance  Computing  in  Europe  (PRACE),  the  European  Grid  Infrastructure 
(EGI) supports 221 different scientific communities to share resources by means of a reliable 
and sustainable system.  

However,  Member  States  should  take  more  ownership  of  the  ERA  and  translate  it  into 
national  policies  which  could  contribute  to  constructing  ERA,  building  policy  coherence 
across borders and across policy levels. Several barriers at national level23 continue to act as 
major  breaks  to  the  development  of  adequate  R&D  framework  conditions.  These  barriers 
negatively impact on the effectiveness of Europe's research and hamper the free movement of 
researchers, scientific knowledge and technology. Some are specific to the research field and 
should be addressed through policy intervention. These barriers are analysed in the sections 
below. The problem tree is presented in annex 6.  

2.2.1. 

Insufficient competition in national research systems 

The level of competition amongst researchers, research teams and institutions is determined in 
a large part by the way public funding mechanisms are organised at national level (i.e. how 
public  resources  are  allocated  to  researchers,  research  teams  and  institutions).  Competitive 
funding implies that several research teams compete for project funding. In the EU, the share 
of  public  funding  (i.e.  government  budget  appropriations  or  outlays  on  research  and 
development – GBAORD) allocated competitively varies a lot, between 20% and 80% with 
an  average  of  40%  allocated  through  open  calls  for  research  proposals  (See  Annex  2).  The 
remaining share is allocated via 'institutional funding' (i.e. funding allocated as block funding 
to institutions), but the share of it linked to their performance varies greatly. The majority of 
universities  in  the  EU  still  heavily  rely  on  public  'institutional'  funding  not  related  to 
performance (OECD, 2011). 

As a consequence, researchers, universities and research institutions throughout the EU do not 
face  the  same  level  of  competition  for  accessing  public  funding.  This  is  particularly 
problematic as there is clear evidence in the academic literature that excellence in science is 
linked to competition between researchers (Franzoni, Sclelatto and Stephan, 2011). Scientists 
evaluated  through  comparable  international  benchmarks  (e.g.  analysing  their  international 
publication  patterns)  achieve  higher  research  quality24.  The  literature  also  demonstrates  a 
clear  link  between  a  more  competitive  funding  environment  for  universities  and  the 
productivity  of  the  whole  research  system  in  terms  of  the  number  of  publications  per  euro 
invested (Auranen and Nieminen, 2010). Competition for funding  acts as a strong incentive 
for research institutions a) to improve their financial capacities, b) to increase the visibility of 
individual research institutions, c) to attract and retain the best brains and d) to attract more 
students, access additional funding etc. (Harris, 2005, p.36). Conversely, limited competition 
leads to insufficient specialisation: many European universities spread their research activity 
too thinly across many subject areas (Mitsos et al., 2012). Without international competition, 
it is difficult for each university or research organisations to identify those areas in which their 
teams  are  (or  could  be)  competitive.  Last  but  not  least,  competition  ultimately  pays  off. 

23 

24 

They were identified using the following criteria: 1. Compelling political logic; 2. Potential for radical 
improvement;  3.  Short-term  feasibility;  4.  Fundamental  for  sustained  long-term  reform;  and  5.  No 
additional public resources required. 
The launch of the Excellence Initiative in Germany, the adoption of a similar program in France for the 
selective  funding  of  laboratories  and  universities,  the  creation  of  professional  agencies  for  ex  ante 
selection  of  research  in  France  and  Poland,  and  for  ex  post  evaluation  of  research  in  Italy,  all  bear 
witness to a keen recognition for the need to inject more transparency, openness and competition into 
research funding across Europe. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Innovation  leader  countries  in  Europe25  with  open  and  competitive  systems  tend  to  exhibit 
stronger records of scientific quality, as measured by average citations (Mitsos, et al, 2012).  

Furthermore,  researchers,  research  teams  and  research  programmes  and  proposals  are  not 
evaluated with comparable standards. Member States' evaluation systems are national-specific 
and  do  not  use  -  in  most  case  -  comparable  standards.  This  results  in  the  fact  that  Member 
States  with  similar  shares  of  competitive  funding  do  not  necessarily  generate  comparable 
levels  of  research  quality.  In  some  countries  peer-review  processes  are  very  conservative, 
inward-looking or complacent (Harris, 2005, p.36). Progress is observed in a limited number 
of  national  funding  agencies  which  have  introduced  evaluation  by  international  peer-
reviewers, by using the European Research Council evaluation for national funding decisions 
and  by  jointly  organising  trans-national  competition  between  trans-national  teams  in  some 
specific  fields  (e.g.  ‘Open  Research  Area',  Nordforsk  initiatives  and  the  Lead  Agency 
Cooperation  scheme).  Increasing  compatibility  (even  calibration)  between  the  European 
Research Council and national research councils is also observed, as the latter progressively 
'accept'  the  ERC  evaluation  results  as  a  basis  for  awarding  national  grants  to  highly-rated 
researchers who fail to obtain ERC funding (European Commission, 2010f). However, these 
initiatives represent a limited share of total research public funding, therefore their impact on 
removing  sheltered  funding  and  increasing  competition  amongst  researchers  and  research 
teams is bound to remain limited.  

2.2.2.  Barriers to pan-European cooperation and competition remain 

Pan-European research cooperation has been concentrated around some major initiatives: the 
Framework  Programmes,  and  the  European  Space  Agency  (ESA),  the  European  Molecular 
Biology  Laboratory  (EMBL),  European  Organisation  for  Nuclear  Research.  According  to 
estimates  by  the  European  Commission,  trans-nationally  coordinated  public  funding  in 
Europe  represented  around  12%  of  national  GBAORDs  in  2010,  of  which  7.6%  for  FP7 
activities,  2.5%  for  the  activities  carried  out  by  ESA,  and  1%  for  other  transnational 
performers. This implies that only 0.8% of national GBAORDs is used for joint programmes 
identified  by  Member  States,  including  those  supported  or  co-funded  by  the  European 
Commission,  such  as  ERA-Nets,  Article  185  activities,  etc.  Only  a  minor  portion  of  the 
budget is allocated to trans-nationally coordinated bi- or multi-lateral programmes26 such as 
DEUFRAKO  (French-German  cooperation  in  transport  research)  and  the  number  of 
initiatives,  even  if  rising  steadily,  remains  too  low.  Evidence  from  cross-border  cooperation 
through  the  Framework  Programmes  shows  though  that  it  is  possible  to  improve  R&D 
performance  by  increasing  spill-overs  between  sectors  and  nations,  and  leverage  additional 
public  and  private  research  investment  by  coordinating  activities  amongst  Member  States. 
The  evidence  shows  also  that  "imposed"  contractual  requirements  of  the  Framework 
Programmes  have  brought  down  the  average  number  of  steps  for  connecting  two  random 
entities,  from  6  to  2.1-2.5  steps  (Di  Pietrantonio,  2009).  This  means  a  strong  degree  of 
networking  and  of  dissemination  and  knowledge  across  Europe.  The  evaluation  of  schemes 
such  as  ERA-NET  and  Articles  185  and  187  initiatives,  facilitated  since  FP6,  shows  their 
strong structuring and economic impacts27. The launch of the Joint Programming process has 

25 
26 
27 

E.g. Scandinavian countries, NL and CH. 
This does not include EU and EU-funded initiatives such as the ERA-Nets, Art. 185, etc.  
The leverage effect of FP funding is close to 5 Euros for the ERA-NETs and 2.5 Euros for the ERA-
NET  Plus.  Participating  researchers  indicate  the  strong  structuring  impact  and  confirm  that  these 
schemes  enable  transnational  R&D  activities  (85.5%  of  respondents),  reduce  duplication  between 
national  programmes  (37.5%),  increase  the  thematic  focus  in  existing  (38%)  or  new  programmes 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
enabled  Member  States  to  start  coordinating  their  research  agendas  in  areas  linked  to  grand 
challenges28.  This  mechanism  entails  the  definition,  development  and  implementation  of  a 
common  strategic  research  agenda.  Despite  the  existence  of  these  initiatives,  there  are  still 
significant barriers preventing Member States from cooperating in a more systematic manner. 

The  most  important  barriers  are  linked  to  the  low  compatibility  and  interoperability  of 
national  research  programmes.  Current  features,  organising  and  functioning  principles  of 
national research programmes do not provide sufficient flexibility for national programmes to 
cooperate29.  As  a  result,  it  is  difficult  for  researchers  to  establish  cross-border  research 
projects  using  national  project  funding,  only  some  national  programme  cycles  are 
synchronised,  proposal  and  project  evaluation  systems  and  notably  the  use  of  fair  and 
transparent international peer review selection differ. This problem is particularly important in 
the field of grand challenges where research efforts need to reach a critical mass, and where 
national research programmes designed and implemented within national borders do not reach 
the required scale and scope for generating the necessary breakthroughs. Moreover, national 
programmes  are  not  inclined  to  align  their  mainstream  research  agendas,  meaning  that 
Member States tend to fund the same type of research. This leads to unnecessary duplication 
and  insufficient  scale  and  scope  at  EU  level.  This  also  implies  insufficient  funding  left  to 
supporting  innovative  scientific  approaches  (i.e.  which  are  outside  the  mainstream  agenda). 
Evidence of these problems has been documented for instance in the field of Cancer Clinical 
Practice Guidelines and organic food security (Delanghe, Muldur, Soete, 2009). 

The low level of cross-border co-operation in research programmes implies that Europe is not 
using opportunities for enhancing the quality and impact of its research. Quantitative evidence 
of  bibliometric  and  patent-based  patterns  show  that  the  average  impact  (as  measured  by 
citations)  of  internationally  co-authored  work  in  most  countries  is  significantly  higher  than 
purely  domestic  papers  (see  Annex  2)30.  Similarly,  inventions  resulting  from  international 
cooperation have on average a higher impact than purely national ones (Guellec and Dernis, 
2008).  It  is  therefore  not  surprising  that  the  EU  has  one  of  its  highest  scientific  impacts  in 
'space'  where  research  activities  are  highly  coordinated  and  integrated  across  European 
countries31. Two other fields where cross-border collaboration rates are higher in the EU are 
'physics'  and  'earth  and  environmental  sciences'  in  which  respectively  85%  and  50%  of  EU 

(34%),  stimulate  good  practices  and  innovations  in  programme  designs  (over  50%)  and  positively 
influence national programme budgets (46%). The interim evaluation of two Art.185 initiatives (AAL 
and  EUROSTARS)  shows  that  they  have  created  substantial  leverage  effect,  integrated  national 
programmes  and  pooled.  A  recent  study  on  FP6  behavioural  additionality  (IDEA  Consult,  2009) 
indicates that national projects would have led to a smaller range of potential applications and a smaller 
number of marketable products without FP6 funding. 
For instance, 23 Member States and Associated Countries have committed on a voluntary and variable 
geometry basis to the Joint Programming Initiative ‘Neurodegenerative diseases/Alzheimer's’. The first 
two  calls  were  launched  in  2011  with  a  budget  of  14  million  Euros.  For  more  details,  see 
http://www.neurodegenerationresearch.eu/ 
A  survey  of  127  national  programmes  (Optimat,  VDI/VDE-Innovation  and  Technik,  2005)  identified 
among the internal barriers the 'traditional' approach to national programme design, the lack of explicit 
criteria encouraging transnational activities (the transnational proposals will be de facto disadvantaged 
in  the  selection  process)  and  existing  legal  frameworks  explicitly  forbidding  the  transfer  of  funds  to 
non-residents  researchers.  In  2007  the  Commission  (COM(2007)  161)  indicated  that  national  and 
regional programme 'owners' are reluctant to restructure their programmes in a way which would enable 
the development of genuine joint programmes. 
Exceptions are the US, China and India which have a large pool of domestic researchers. 
Over the period 2000-2009, the Average of Relative Citations of EU publications in Space (1.25) was 
higher than that of US publications (1.11).  

28 

29 

30 
31 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
publications  involve  authors  based  in  several  Member  States.  In  Germany,  France  and  the 
UK, these two fields are among those with the highest scientific impact32.  

Barriers  remain  also  in  terms  of  access  to  large  national  research  facilities  of  European 
interest  for  non-nationals  as  well  as  to  pan-European  research  infrastructures  for  scientists 
working  in  non-participating  Member  States,  as  this  is  determined  on  a  variable  geometry 
basis. In both cases, access is determined on a national basis, linked with national preference. 
Difficulties  in  accessing  research  infrastructures  are  frequently  cited  as  an  obstacle  to  the 
development of ERA by stakeholders33.  

Member States activities on research infrastructures are not yet well incorporated into national 
research  strategies.  Large  research  infrastructures  can  increase  the  efficiency  of  research 
efforts,  as  they  offer  scale  and  scope  and  thus  allow  results  to  be  delivered  faster  and  at  a 
lower  cost  compared  to  fragmented  efforts.  Evidence  shows  that  the  ratio  between 
publications of pan-European RIs and budget/staff is much higher than the ratio achieved by 
national research facilities (see Annex 2 for further evidence). The European Strategy Forum 
on  Research  Infrastructures  (ESFRI)  has  been  the  key  driver  for  the  establishment  a 
coordinated  mechanism  for  assessing  the  needs  and  priorities  for  new  European  RIs.  The 
ESFRI  process  and  Roadmap  have  triggered  similar  policy  development  at  Member  States 
level, with a majority of Member States having adopted or preparing such national roadmaps. 
EU  initiatives  have  also  addressed  the  issue  of  legal  forms  for  European  research 
infrastructure  consortia  (ERIC)  adapted  to  the  needs  of  new  European  infrastructures, 
responding to requests from EU countries and the scientific community. So far, two initiatives 
have been awarded the ERIC status by the Commission34 and 10 more are in the process of 
being  established  as  ERIC.  Despite  the  remarkable  progress  made  by  ESFRI,  the  efficient 
development and maintenance of research infrastructures of pan-European interest is currently 
hampered by the fact that evaluation, monitoring and impact assessment mechanisms are not 
sufficiently  harmonised  across  the  EU.  Political  willingness  and  means  to  implement  the 
reforms required are insufficient. 

2.2.3.  Persisting distortions among national labour markets for researchers 

Barriers  remain  to  the  implementation  of  open,  transparent  and  merit  based  recruitment. 
Research shows that countries without sufficiently open, transparent, merit-based recruitment 
procedures  coupled  with  relatively  closed  and  unattractive  research  systems,  high  levels  of 
endogamy and low levels of staffing autonomy are more likely to underperform in terms of 
research outcomes. Recruitment practices are not always transparent, for example, criteria for 
selection are not always advertised with the position or the rules for the identification of the 
members  of  the  evaluation  panel  are  not  always  known  nor  are  they  comparable  across 
Member  States.  In  seven  Member  States  researchers'  positions  openings  are  not  (or  rarely) 
advertised through the common portal Euraxess Jobs Portal while in other countries the use of 
Euraxess  varies  significantly,  creating  information  asymmetries  for  potential  candidates.  In 
several Member States, the institutions lack autonomy to select and hire staff. For example, in 
nine Member States, universities and research performing organisations face tight restrictions 
over  hiring  staff  (European  University  Association,  2011).  In  four  Member  States  the 

32 

33 
34 

ASSIST project – Regular collection of bibliometric indicator, CWTS-Leiden university using Web of 
Science data. 
Stakeholders' contribution to Horizon 2020 (European Commission, 2010) 
These  are  Survey  for  Health  Ageing  and  Retirement  in  Europe  (SHARE-ERIC)  and  the  Common 
Language Resources and Technology Infrastructure (CLARIN-ERIC). 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
to  prevail 

appointment  of  some  or  all  senior  positions  needs  to  be  confirmed  by  an  external  authority 
in 
(European  University  Association,  2011).  Inbreeding  practices  seem 
Mediterranean countries and in the Eastern Member States (Technopolis, 2010). Hiring their 
own  graduates  as  faculty  induces  lower  performance  (in  terms  of  publications  and  prizes) 
(Aghion et al.,  2008).  It  can  be  hypothesised that a  certain  number  of  researchers'  positions 
are not filled in based on merit, although their exact number remains unknown (i.e. there are 
around  40,000  researchers  vacancies  per  year,  amongst  which  9,600  are  professorship 
positions) (Technopolis, 2010). Up to 70% of previously mobile researchers cited "finding a 
suitable position", as a 'major' obstacle to possible future mobility, explained partly by a lack 
of  open  and  transparent  recruitment  procedures.  A  similar  finding  came  out  of  the  public 
consultation  on  the  ERA  framework  (78%  of  respondents  considering  the  lack  of  open 
recruitment  as  one  of  the  main  factors  hindering  internationally  mobile  researchers).As  a 
consequence Europe is not fully taking advantage of the human capital available, preventing 
"brain circulation" and cross-fertilisation of ideas. 

Working  conditions  of  researchers  in  Member  States  differ  and  in  some  cases  they  are  not 
sufficiently  attractive  to  draw  young  people  in  the  research  profession,  retain  leading  talent 
and  attract  foreign  researchers.  Career  promotion  practices  and  perspectives  vary  between 
countries: the UK career structure is primarily based on performance while a mix of seniority 
and performance predominates in most other countries. This implies that a researcher in the 
UK can obtain a full time, autonomous position in their mid-to-late twenties, whereas in many 
other Member States researchers do not obtain the same conditions until their late thirties or 
forties35. In many European countries, early career researchers have to spend many years on 
short-term  contracts  while  most  people  from  the  same  age  group  enjoy  stable  employment 
conditions  in  other  sectors.  While  employment  conditions  and  career  patterns  for  young 
academics  vary  substantially  by  country,  short-term  employment  up  to  the  age  of  about  40 
and high selectivity is common in a large number of countries (Teichler, 2011). Also, career 
structures  do  not  always  recognise  mobility  as  a  factor  of  productivity.  The  UK  evidence 
shows  that  researchers  who  worked  abroad  are  significantly  more  productive  in  terms  of 
articles published than those who never left the UK. Support to inter-sectoral mobility is often 
lacking, with only one in six researchers in academia having experience in the business sector, 
and  there  are  significant  disparities  between  Member  States  (MORE  Study,  2010).  This  is 
particularly  important  during  doctoral  training  which  is  a  problem  for  knowledge  transfer 
according to European firms36, as the supply of people who are qualified and trained in fields 
relevant  to  industry  needs  is  insufficient.  In  the  ERA  public  consultation  only  22%  of 
respondents find that researchers are well trained for the business labour market. This results 
in  what  is  the  ‘European  exception’:  the  EU  has  only  46%  of  its  research  labour  force  in 
business  compared  to  69%  in  China,  73%  in  Japan  and  80%  in  the  US  (Eurostat  R&D 
statistics). Applying the Principles for Innovative Doctoral Training will ensure that the new 
generation of researchers has a set of skills which allows them to tackle societal challenges 
and contribute to innovation. Other EU funding schemes such as the Marie Curie actions have 
contributed to increased internationalisation of European research and 'brain circulation' (The 
Evaluation Partnership, 2010), but the number of researchers concerned remains limited when 
compared with the needs37.  

35 
36 
37 

ERC, 2011 
http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-research/monitoring/analyses01_en.htm  
Around  50,000  researchers  have  benefited  from  the  Marie  Curie  Actions  between  1996  and  2010. 
Source: European Commission 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Conditions  for  portability  of  and  access  to  grants  also  hamper  researcher's  mobility  and 
careers  vary  between  Member  States.  Researchers  usually  cannot  take  with  them  their 
national  grants  (this  is  the  case  in  13  Member  States)  and  research  teams  cannot  always 
involve partners from other countries in their research projects using national funding since in 
many  countries  (11  Member  States)  beneficiaries  must  be  domestic  institutions.  Grants  are 
limited to nationals in four Member States.  

EU  initiatives  such  as  the  Commission  Recommendation  on  the  'European  Charter  for 
Researchers', the 'Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers' (hereunder referred to 
as  the  Charter  and  Code)  and  the  ‘European  Partnership  for  Researchers’(EPR)  (European 
Commission,  2008a)  have  triggered  several  initiatives  at  national  and  institutional  level.  To 
support  the  concrete  uptake  of  the  Charter  and  Code  principles,  in  2008  the  Commission 
launched  the  "Human  Resources  Strategy  for  Researchers  incorporating  the  Charter  and 
Code" and in 2009 established an "Institutional Human Resources Strategy Group" to provide 
a  platform  for  the  exchange  of  best  practice  among  stakeholders  from  across  Europe. 
However the implementation of the Charter and Code principles at institutional level remains 
slow.  As  to  the  EPR,  while  the  Commission  and  Member  States  have  delivered  results  in  a 
number  of  priority  areas  and  laid  the  ground  for  future  action  in  other  areas,  progress  at 
national  level  remains  relatively  slow  and  piecemeal.  The  lack  of  a  baseline  and  clearly 
quantifiable targets in relation to some areas has resulted in Member States having different 
approaches38.  Moreover,  the  level  of  involvement  in  the  above  initiatives  varies  between 
Member States and between priority areas. 

2.2.4.  Limited progress on gender equality and gender content in research 

Not all Member States  have  national  policies  to encourage  the use of the  potential talent of 
female scientists and the integration of a gender dimension in research content. This implies 
that  skilled  female  scientist's  potential  is  under-utilised;  that  women  are  under-represented 
and gender balance is lacking in research and innovation decision-making; and that the lack of 
gender dimension in research content possibly undermines quality and relevance of research 
activities. This under-utilisation of the available skilled female researchers is a waste of talent 
as well as a waste of return on investment, which is particularly unacceptable when Europe’s 
future  prosperity  depends  on  its  human  capital.  45%  of  PhD  graduates  are  women,  but  we 
have  only  30%  female  researchers  in  Europe  and  just  19%  in  the  top  grade  in  academic 
careers. The number is even smaller at leadership level: only 13% of heads of institutions in 
the  higher  education  sector.  There  is  evidence  that  mixed  research  teams  contribute  to 
increased  research  performance  as  they  benefit  from  a  wider  expertise,  knowledge  sharing, 
diverse  points  of  view  and  a  higher  level  of  social  intelligence.  Given  that  a  more  equal 
participation  of  women  in  science  would  increase  the  diversity  of  the  talent  pool,  a  more 
diverse  workforce  and  decision  making  process  would  have  positive  effects  on  scientific 
productivity  and  excellence.  Furthermore,  the  lack  of  gender  dimension  in  research  content 
undermines the quality and relevance of knowledge. Not only would research quality benefit 
from  this,  but  moreover,  there  are  high  enormous  costs  and  even  dangers  associated  to  not 
taking into account the gender perspective in the research process would be avoided. 

Positive  developments  can  be  observed  in  a  few  European  countries,  where  research 
organisations are encouraged explicitly through legal provisions to adopt gender action plans. 

38 

While several Member States now publish a large share of their research positions on the EURAXESS 
Jobs Portal, a number of other countries make little or no use of this facility.  

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In  several  other  countries  there  is  a  legal  basis  for  the  creation  of  gender  action  plans  and 
positive  action  -  although  gender  action  plans  are  not  explicitly  an  obligatory  instrument  to 
establish gender equality in science (this is the case in five Member States). Female scientists 
also  tend  to  be  less  represented  in  the  highest  grade  of  research  careers  (European 
Commission, 2009b) and this varies significantly among Member States. For example in two 
Member States 25% of the heads of higher education institutions are female, whilst in four of 
them  their  share  is  below  10%  (European  Commission,  2009b).  The  female  gender 
perspective  in  research  agendas  is  seldom  encouraged  by  Member  States  even  if  a  small 
number  of  Member  States  fund  programmes  for  gender  equality  and/  or  gender  in  research 
content.  Explicit  gender  requirements  or  evaluation  criteria  for  funding  in  research 
programmes, projects or studies exist in, again, very few Member States. Without enhancing 
women's participation and the integration of the gender dimension in research content, ERA's 
aims  to  deliver  high  levels  of  employment,  productivity  and  social  cohesion  are  not  fully 
achievable.  A  majority  of  respondents  to  the  public  consultation  stated  that  a  higher 
involvement  of  women  in  science  would  contribute  to  European  socio-economic  growth  as 
well as impact research performance and research excellence. 

2.2.5.  Restricted circulation of and uneven access to scientific knowledge 

Scientists,  especially  in  less  endowed  institutions,  have  increasing  problems  to  access 
scientific knowledge. Journals constitute over 90% of scholars' information sources (Tenopir 
et  al.,  2009,  King  et  al.,  2009).  Journal  subscription  prices  as  well  as  the  number  of  peer-
reviewed  journals  are  increasing  rapidly.  Between  1986  and  2008,  journal  subscription 
expenditures  increased  by  374%  (Giglia,  2010b).  A  single  institution  cannot  afford  to 
subscribe to all the relevant ones, negatively affecting access39, use and impact of knowledge 
(Gargouri  et  al.,  2010).  For  more  than  a  half  of  the  respondents,  one  of  the  reasons  for  the 
absence  of  access  was  that  their  organisation's  library  had  not  purchased  a  licence  for  the 
content  because  of  budgetary  constraints.  According  to  a  2009  UK  survey  (Publishing 
Research  Consortium,  2009)  a  significant  share  of  SMEs  (55%)  said  that  they  had  recently 
experienced  difficulty  accessing  a  research  article  (against  34%  in  the  case  of  large 
companies),  with  cost  reported  as  the  key  barrier.  This  prevents  incorporating  recent 
developments  in  research  or  innovation  agenda,  affecting  their  scientific  quality  and  the 
economic outcome. 

In April 2008, the Commission issued a Recommendation40 on the management of intellectual 
property in knowledge transfer activities together with a Code of Practice for universities and 
other  public  research  organisations.  This  Recommendation  provides  Member  States  and 
stakeholders  with  a  set  of  best  practices  and  policies  to  stimulate  knowledge  transfer. 
However,  knowledge  transfer  between  public  research  institutions  and  the  private  sector  to 
foster innovation remains insufficient. Europe is lagging behind when compared with the US 
in terms of performance. Even if the share of public research funding coming from the private 
sector was higher in the EU (0.05% of GDP) than in the US (0.02%) or Japan (0.015%), on 
average the EU lagged behind in terms of scientific cooperation measured by co-publications 
(36.2 publications per million researchers, while in the USA they were 70.2). The number of 
staff (e.g. in university knowledge transfer offices) with experience in industry is significantly 
lower in Europe. In addition, only 5-6% of the researchers in the EU have moved back-and-
forth between the public and private sector. 

39 

40 

For example, over 40% of UK-based researchers said that they were unable to access licensed content at 
least weekly and two-thirds at least monthly (Research Information Network, 2009). 
C(2008)1329 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Several EU initiatives have addressed the issue of open access to scientific knowledge and of 
knowledge  transfer.  The  Council  Conclusions  (14865/07)  invited  the  Commission  to 
experiment with open access in the Framework Programme and Member States to reinforce 
national  strategies  on  access  to  scientific  information,  thus  building  on  the  Commission 
Communication  on  scientific  information  in  the  digital  age41.  Since  then,  funding  and  soft 
measures  have  been  adopted  at  EU  level  to  support  the  development  of  open  access.  As  a 
result  of  FP7,  scientific  publications  resulting  from  a  set  of  EU-funded  projects  are  now 
increasingly  available  in  open  access.  Despite  their  relevance,  FP-funded  measures  concern 
only  a  very  limited  share  of  EU’s  overall  R&D  expenditure  and  their  impact  remains  thus 
limited. Member States42 are not equally advanced in how they support and address the issue 
of open access (European Commission, 2011d). 

In addition to open access, effective implementation of ERA for research excellence requires 
a  strategic  approach  to  promoting  the  development  and  take  up  of  digital  research  services 
and  the  transformation  of  traditional  ways  of  doing  research  into  new  data-intensive  and 
collaborative  research  paradigms.  Member  States  have  different  usage  policies  for  publicly 
funded  research  e-infrastructures.  In  some  cases  high-speed  connection  networks  or 
supercomputers  are  offered  only  for  universities,  in  others  to  schools  and  hospitals,  and  in 
others  allow  linkages  with  commercial  services  providers  and  industrial  research.  Different 
national  policies  create  obstacles  for  multi-national  research  collaborations,  if  research 
consortia have partners of different types. This is against the principles of Innovation Union. 
Also,  the  new  millennium  has  seen  an  accelerating  deployment  of  information  and 
communication  technologies,  and  a  rising  tide  of  information  sweeping  across  all  scientific 
areas. Although in a digital age the majority of knowledge transfer and creation takes place 
through digital means, there are several barriers preventing researchers from having seamless 
access to research on-line services. This creates major obstacles for collaboration and resource 
sharing  between  organisations  across  borders.  For  instance,  researchers  wishing  to  access 
research related services online, e.g. publications, research data, or computing services, have 
to  apply  and  manage  different  user  accounts  depending  on  the  service  provider  or  the 
administrative 
lacks  a  common  Authentication 
(identification)  and  Authorisation  (rights  to  access  services)  Infrastructure  (AAI)  which 
provides  researchers  with  seamless  access  to  research  services  in  digital  ERA.  In  the  last 
years,  there  has  been  progress  in  this  area,  through  eduGAIN  European  inter-federation 
service. Currently, eduGAIN has 11 members, 4 candidates and 2 pilot countries43. However, 
several  countries  have  not  yet  joined  service,  and  there  is  no  clear  data  on  the  number  of 
research institutions in different MS providing the necessary identification services needed to 
implement  the  cross-border  access  to  digital  research  services.  Development  of  new  modes 
for research through different digital research services has been supported through framework 
programme  funding.  In  the  last  years,  some  Member  States  have  set  up  national  level 
strategies  or  joint  collaboration  to  deal  with  the  issues  relating  to  digital  research  services 
provision  and  take-up  (UK,  NL,  Nordic  countries)44.  However,  this  is  not  enough  to  ensure 
efficient  research  and  innovation  through  the  potential  of  digital  services  for  all  European 

the  researcher.  Europe 

location  of 

41 
42 
43 
44 

COM(2007)56 
See Annex 3 for more details. 
http://edugain.org/federation_status.php 

http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/ourportfolio/themes/researchinfrastructure/subthemes/einfrastructure/escience/P
http://www.nordforsk.org/en/programs/programmer/escience/evitenskap-og-
ages/default.aspx, 
einfrastruktur-en and http://esciencecenter.com/about-the-center/background/ 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
researchers in all Member States. Effective implementation of Digital ERA requires strategic 
action in all Member States, with active involvement of all research related stakeholders. 

2.3. 

The EU’s right to act, subsidiarity and EU added-value 

Article 17945 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) lays down the 
right  for  the  Union  to  create  the  necessary  conditions  for  realising  the  European  Research 
Area. Article 182.5 of the TFEU allows the use of the legislative procedure to establish the 
measures necessary for the implementation of the European Research Area. 

The  completion  of  ERA  does  not  put  into  question  the  sovereignty  of  Member  States.  The 
Treaty  clearly  states  that  research  is  a  policy  area  of  shared  competence  between  Member 
States and the Union. All the measures proposed in the ERA framework are compliant with 
the  Treaty  provision  (TFEU,  Art.  4.3)  stating  that  the  exercise  of  EU  competence  shall  not 
result in Member States being prevented from exercising theirs. The options selected illustrate 
how  European  integration  and  internal  reform  of  research  systems  must  go  hand  in  hand, 
respecting  the  subsidiarity  principle.  The  objectives  of  the  proposed  actions  cannot  be 
achieved  sufficiently  by  Member  States  in  the  framework  of  their  national  constitutional 
system  (necessity  test).  Three  options  are  proposed  to  tackle  the  identified  problems:  (1) 
Reinforced partnership for ERA; (2) Sectoral legal measures for ERA; and (3) Development 
of  an  overall  legal  framework  at  Community  level.  Given  the  persistent  barriers  and  the 
limited  progress  observed  12  years  after  the  launching  of  ERA,  the  Union  is  best  placed  to 
provide directions for Member States and the Union, on the basis of Article 179 for the first 
one, and through Article 182.5 for the two others.  

European  added-value  is  demonstrated  by  several  reasons.  First,  optimised  allocation  of 
activities  –  where  necessary  -  will  be  attained  through  a  coordinated  approach,  improving 
effectiveness  of  research  systems  and  reducing  unnecessary  duplication  of  efforts.  Second, 
level playing field and critical mass are expected to be achieved from the implementation of 
ERA,  thus  allowing  creating  the  conditions  for  the  most  productive  research  teams  to  work 
together  and  to  be  competitive  internationally.  Third,  European  impetus  maximises  the 
possibility  of  completing  ERA  in  the  short  term,  given  the  persistence  of  national  barriers 
mentioned  above.  Fourth,  the  European  Union  level  is  the  best  one  to  assess  objectively 
whether progress has been attained, whether it is proportionate; and whether there is a need 
for further action to improve the situation. 

In particular, European action will warrant the implementation of common approaches so that 
researchers,  knowledge  and  technologies  circulate  freely  across  Europe,  thus  promoting  the 
opportunities for effective research systems. It will ensure transnational ‘connectivity’ of the 
European  research  system  for  every  region  and  country  in  Europe,  thus  helping  solving  the 
innovation divide. For example, the development of open access to scientific publications and 
research  data 
less  endowed 
universities/research organisations. EU intervention will help ensuring similar conditions for 
competition  in  an  EU-wide  space,  both  in  relation  to  research  projects  selection  and 
researchers  recruitment.  Moreover,  EU  intervention  can  facilitate  the  removal  of  barriers  to 
launch  large-scale  and  complex  research  efforts  between  Member  States  to  tackle  grand 
challenges.  Setting  up  common  research  priorities  and  agendas  requires  a  strong  interface 
with  i)  policy-makers  in  charge  of  the  policies  addressing  those  challenges  and  framing  the 

important  for  researchers  who  are  based 

is  very 

in 

45 

According to Art.179,‘its scientific and technological bases by achieving a European research area in 
which researchers, scientific knowledge and technology circulate freely (…)’.  

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
markets where the innovations need to take place; and ii) the industry active on these markets. 
In  the  context  of  the  Single  Market,  such  interfaces  can  be  best  organised  at  EU  level. 
Common  solutions  developed  through  cross-border  collaboration  may  lead  to  common 
standards,  thus  contributing  to  shaping  new  markets  and  providing  more  certainty  to  R&D 
investment. 

Alternative solutions exist through the setting up of inter-governmental agreements; however 
the  administrative  and  legal  processes  which  typically  have  to  be  followed  under  such 
intergovernmental  schemes  are  sometimes  considered  as  too  lengthy,  difficult  and 
cumbersome and may not lead to completion of ERA by 2014. 

2.4. 

Baseline scenario 

The  baseline  scenario  reflects  how  the  current  situation  would  evolve  without  intervention. 
Solving the problems presented above require both strong political willingness and the means 
to implement  the reforms required. However, efficiency in the use of public funds can be a 
major  driver  in  times  of  budgetary  constraints.  But  if  some  reforms  are  undertaken  in  each 
Member State, they would probably be insufficient and carried out in an uncoordinated way, 
reinforcing  fragmentation  within  Europe.  FP7  will  continue  to  foster  cross-border  and 
excellent  research,  but  no  additional  funding  would  accompany  reforms  at  Member  State 
level. 

2.4.1.  Different  levels  of  competition  and  low  co-operation  between  research  funding 

systems remain  

In  the  short  term,  the  current  activities  will  probably  not  induce  progress  in  terms  of 
promoting  competition  and  co-operation  in  national  research  funding  systems  nor  at  cross-
border  level,  as  most  of  the  observed  barriers  and  fragmentation  between  national  systems 
will remain. Barriers to competition in national research systems would remain as there is no 
indication that structural changes may take place in national funding systems. However, some 
progress can be expected in terms of compatible evaluation systems through an extended use 
of  ERC  evaluation  mechanisms  by  some  national  funding  agencies.  Limited  and  uneven 
progress is expected in continuing the implementation of joint programming between Member 
States. The recently adopted framework conditions for joint programming will foster Member 
States  common,  voluntary  policy  actions  on  public  research,  but  probably  at  a  slow  pace. 
Besides,  the  degree  of  concrete  commitment  to  joint  actions  will  be  a  function  of  the 
budgetary  situation  in  participating  Member  States.  Under  the  current  circumstances,  it  is 
probable that major research actors will continue driving the process, with little cooperation 
with lagging Member States. This may reinforce the innovation divide. Existing cooperation 
initiatives between some of Member States research programmes are expected to continue.  

Reinforced attention to grand challenges, increased technological leadership and funding the 
innovation  capability  of  firms  can  be  expected  through  the  adoption  of  the  Commission 
proposal for Horizon 2020 programme. This programme will run from 2014 to 2020. It has 
been  developed  to  increase  the  contribution  of  research  and  innovation  to  tackle  grand 
challenges  and  promote  innovation.  However,  even  if  the  proposal  includes  an  increased 
budget (approximately 80 billion Euros) when compared to previous FPs, this budget will still 
represent  only  a  small  share  of  the  total  funding  for  research  in  Europe  and  insufficient  to 
raise substantially overall performance and only after 2014. 

In  the  field  of  research  infrastructures,  the  sustainability  of  Member  State  financial 
commitments  for  developing  and  maintaining  research  infrastructures  may  be  challenged  in 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
the short or medium term. With a majority of Member States facing budgetary squeezes and 
postponing long-term and major investments, the financing of the European Strategy Forum 
on  Research  Infrastructures  (ESFRI)  Roadmap  may  be  jeopardised.  As  part  of  the  ESFRI 
Roadmap, 48 priority pan-European research infrastructures have been identified in a number 
of scientific fields and 10 projects have already started, whilst additional 17 projects are due 
to be launched before the end of 201346. Considering that the commitment at the Innovation 
Union is to implement 60% of the ESFRI Roadmap projects by 2015, it is expected that the 
current pace and efforts will be sufficient to meet the goal if no deviations take place.  

The  baseline  situation  will  hardly  respond  to  stakeholder's  expectations.  82%  of  the  on-line 
respondents  to  the  consultation  on  ERA  see  developing  more  synergies  between  European 
and national actions as important, while 79% believe that EU support for transnational access 
to research infrastructures of pan-European relevance should be increased. Strengthening the 
inter-operability of instruments and of scientific data at EU level and increasing awareness at 
EU  level  of  access  opportunities  to  national  research  infrastructures  are  also  considered  as 
'important' and 'very important' by more than 70% of respondents.  

2.4.2.  Limited action on researcher labour market towards mobility and careers 

Distortions in the labour market for researchers will continue to exist or worsen, notably in a 
context  of  budgetary  cuts  and  economic  austerity.  In-breeding  practices  are  likely  to  persist 
and may even be exacerbated in Mediterranean countries and East European Member States 
as  shrinking  public  R&D  expenditure  may  lead  to  fewer  senior  and  permanent  research 
positions.  There  is  little  evidence  suggesting  that  Member  States  lagging  behind  will 
undertake the necessary reforms to ensure that open, transparent and merit-based recruitment 
procedures are in place in all universities and public research institutes. Most likely the share 
of  positions  advertised  on  Euraxess  (currently  about  30%  of  all  researchers'  positions  in 
Europe)  will  increase  slowly  in  the  short  to  medium-term.  Researcher  mobility  will  not  be 
substantially  enhanced  as  restrictions  to  grant  portability  and  accessibility  are  likely  to 
continue in a majority of Member States. Uneven and patchy implementation of the Charter 
and Code and the EPR by Member States and research organisations in the area of recruitment 
and portability of grants is expected to continue in the short and medium-term. The number of 
research  employers  and  funders  in  Europe  participating  in  the  "Human  Resources  Strategy" 
process is expected to rise at a relatively slow pace47.  

The  status  quo  is  not  acceptable  for  stakeholders.  81%  of  the  respondents  to  the  public 
consultation on the ERA Framework consider that working conditions and career prospects of 
public  sector  researchers  are  less  attractive  than  those  of  other  professionals  with  similar 
qualifications.  Up  to  75%  of  respondents  believe  that  the  lack  of  attractiveness  stems  from 
universities  and  research  institutions  being  underfunded,  limited  availability  of  research 
positions, low wages and insufficient cooperation between academia and the private sector. 

2.4.3.  Unequal  opportunities  for  female  researchers  and  insufficient  attention  to  gender 

content in research 

No  significant  improvements  are  expected  with  regard  to  gender  equality  and  the  gender 
dimension  in  research  even  if  a  broad  majority  of  respondents  to  the  ERA  consultation 

46 
47 

Annex 3 provides the list of ESFRI projects.  
Currently  approximately  150  institutions  of  which  82  have  been  awarded  the  "HR  Excellence  in 
Research" logo. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
                                                 
consider  that  a  higher  involvement  of  women  in  science  will  contribute  to  European  socio-
economic  growth.  Although  some  slow  progress  may  be  achieved  in  some  Member  States 
(and  mostly  on  an  ad-hoc  manner),  the  percentage  of  female  researchers  in  senior  and 
management research positions in the EU27 is likely to stagnate or increase in a marginal and 
irregular  manner.  There  is  no  ground  for  expecting  radical  changes  in  terms  of  gender 
dimension  in  research  in  the  majority  of  Member  States  where  no  such  measures  exist. 
Gender equality will continue to be promoted through EU programmes (i.e. mainstreaming of 
gender within the Science in Society FP7 Programme, Horizon 2020 and the research part of 
the Structural Funds) and various activities (i.e. the development of indicators, analyses and 
guidelines), however the overall impact on improving gender equality will remain limited to 
the  beneficiaries  of  the  EU  programmes  and  to  the  small  number  of  beneficiary  institutions 
and will therefore be insufficient to correct the under-representation of women in science. The 
two-year public information campaign to be launched in 2012 will aim tackle stereotypes on 
gender  and  attracting  and  retain  more  women  in  scientific  careers48.  However,  existing  and 
planned  initiatives  will  not  be  sufficient  to  support  long-term  structural  change  at  Member 
States and institutional level in gender management and research design and implementation. 
A  multiplier  effect  is  required  in  order  to  reach  a  critical  mass  of  research  institutions  by 
strengthening the collaboration among Member States on the basis of a common approach or 
guidelines. 

2.4.4.  Uneven access and circulation of scientific knowledge remain 

Access  to  publications  and  data  will  remain  limited  and  uneven  and  researchers  in  less-
advanced Member States or less-endowed institutions will continue to experience barriers in 
accessing knowledge. Policies on open access will continue being implemented unevenly by 
research  funding  organisations  in  17  Member  States  and  by  universities  or  research  centres 
with open access mandates in 22 Member States.  

Identity  federation  services  will  continue  being  provided  through  EduGAIN  by  11  member 
countries,  and  current  candidate  (4)  and  pilot  (2)  countries  will  develop  into  becoming 
members. . European level expansion of the identity federation services and their deployment 
for  online  access  to  publications  and  research  data  as  well  as  computing  and  virtual 
collaboration  services  is  uneven,  as  it  depends  on  strategies  of  national  authorities  and 
individual  research  institutions.  Without  joint  coordination  it  is  unlikely  by  2014  these 
services will be made widely available to all researchers across Europe. 

National support to the implementation of e-services will remain limited and uneven. Absence 
of  co-operation  among  the  Member  States  in  the  roll-out  of  new  services  (building  on  the 
available  e-infrastructures,  pooling  of  resources)  will  hinder  their  effective  use.  This  may 
result  in  a  limited  use  of  the  current  facilities  during  off-peak  periods  and  ultimately  an 
inefficient use of resources. Industrial research partners will keep facing problems if trying to 
participate in multinational research collaboration because of lacking shared acceptable usage 
policies for common collaborative research infrastructures. 

Actions  to  promote  knowledge  transfer  will  continue  to  be  implemented  on  a  case  by  case 
basis,  with  some  Member  States  taking  the  lead  and  some  other  lagging  behind.  The 
Commission  is  supporting  the  development  of  knowledge  transfer  capacity  in  higher 

48 

The key targets are young people, as well as women researchers at an early stage in their career. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
                                                 
education  institutions  and  public  research  organisations,  in  particular  through  its  2008 
Intellectual Property Recommendation49.  

3. 

POLICY OBJECTIVES 

The  European  Research  Area  policy  overarching  goal  is  to  increase  the  performance, 
excellence  and  impact  of  Europe’s  Research  and  Development  system.  It  will  help  the  EU 
back  to  the  path  of  economic  growth  by  fostering  scientific  excellence  and  research 
underpinning innovation and increasing the attractiveness of the EU as a research location. 

The objective of the Communication is to identify and promote actions which ensure that by 
2014  the  adequate  conditions  are  in  place  for  improving  the  effectiveness  of  European 
research systems. 

Specific objective 

Operational objective for 2014 

More effective national 
research systems 

Barriers to competition and the use of international peer review 
evaluation in national research systems are removed 

Barriers to compatibility and interoperability between national 
research programmes and to access to pan-European research 
infrastructures are removed 

Optimal transnational co-
operation and competition 

One pilot cross-border synchronised research call, notably on 
grand challenges, launched using international peer review 
evaluation and a single pan-European score 

An open labour market for 
researchers  

Harmonised monitoring, evaluation and impact assessment 
principles and procedures for pan-European research 
infrastructures are adopted and implemented 

Barriers to open, transparent and merit based recruitment in 
public research systems, cross-border portability of and 
accessibility to national grants are removed 

Frameworks supporting the career development of researchers 
and innovative doctoral training are adopted and implemented 

Gender equality and gender 
mainstreaming in research 

Barriers to gender equality and the gender dimension in research 
are removed 

Policies and means for facilitating online access to publicly-
funded scientific publications and data are defined and 
coordinated 
Policies to foster knowledge transfer, cross-border sharing of e-
infrastructure and take up of digital services for research are 
defined 
Electronic identity services for researchers enabling transnational 
access to digital services (collaboration, computing, scientific 
information) are implemented or planned 

Optimal circulation, access to 
and transfer of scientific 
knowledge  

49 

C(2008)1329 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

To complete ERA by 2014 many barriers at national level have to be removed quickly. This 
report analyses four policy options. The first one is Policy Option 1 (Business as usual). The 
three other policy options would follow alternative paths to achieve the overall objective and 
they all require action from Member States, Research funding and performing organisations 
and  the  Commission.  Their  implementation  would  neither  entail  increased  public  R&D 
spending at Member State level nor increased cross border funding (only reallocation based 
on commonly agreed agendas). Policy Option 2 (Reinforced Partnership for ERA) is based on 
voluntary  action  at  Member  State  level  whose  progress  would  be  partly  linked  with  the 
European Semester. This option also entails reinforced partnership between research funding 
and  performing  organisations  (hereunder  referred  to  as  research  stakeholders)  and  the 
Commission.  Policy  Option  3  (Sectoral  legal  measures  for  ERA)  combines  legally-binding 
measures for  ERA with voluntary actions by Member States, linked as appropriate with the 
European  Semester.  It  also  entails  reinforced  partnership  between  research  funding  and 
performing  organisations  (hereunder  referred 
the 
Commission.  Policy  Option  4  (ERA  Framework  Directive)  explores  the  adoption  of  a 
coherent legal framework of principles and mechanisms.  

to  as  research  stakeholders)  and 

The potential measures included in the options were identified and screened on the basis of 
their advantages and disadvantages. The intervention logic and the full spectrum of measures 
envisaged to address each specific objective is presented in Annex 5. 

Policy option 1: Business as usual (BAU) 

This option would entail the continuation of current policies, presented in the Baseline. The 
major development would be based on the adoption and implementation in 2014 of Horizon 
2020, with its increased budget supporting research and innovation cross-border activities. 

Policy option 2: Reinforced partnership for ERA 

To  deliver  ERA  by  2014,  reforms  of  the  national  research  and  innovation  systems  and 
reinforced  partnership  -  deeper,  wider  and  more  efficient  than  to  date  -  between  Member 
States,  the  Commission  and  research  stakeholder  organisations  would  be  at  the  core  of  this 
policy option. It fully develops the ERA partnership via the implementation of the ‘Ljubljana 
Process’50.  

This policy option would entail that Member States undertake reforms for ERA as called for 
by  the  Innovation  Union.  A  Commission  Communication  would  invite  Member  States  to 
remove specific barriers for competition and co-operation as well as for fostering a research 
friendly  environment.  Member  State  would  be  invited  to  include  in  the  National  Reform 
Programmes51  an  annex  in  which  they  specify  the  reforms  planned  by  field  of  action.  The 
Commission would assess the reforms and publish ERA-Progress reports in September every 
year, possibly with ERA recommendations for Member States. In case of persisting barriers, 

50 

51 

The  Ljubljana  Process  is  an  enhanced  partnership  between  the  Member  States,  associated  countries, 
stakeholders  and  the  Commission  to  make  European  research  more  effective.  The  Ljubljana  Process 
was launched in May 2008 with two clear goals: ‘Europe now needs to develop a common vision and 
effective governance of the European Research Area’. 
The  national  reform  programmes  are  monitored  within  the  framework  of  the  'European  semester'  of 
enhanced economic policy coordination. 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
                                                 
different  options  will  be  considered,  including  the  legislative  options,  based  on  the  new 
provisions in the TFEU. This mechanism is expected to motivate Member States to undertake 
the necessary reforms. 

At  the  same  time,  this  option  foresees  the  research  stakeholder  organisations52  would  take 
responsibility  for  the  ERA  actions  addressed  to  them  within  the  limits  of  their  respective 
autonomies  and  jurisdictions  as  set  by  national  authorities.  Relevant  research  stakeholder 
organisations  would  be  invited  to  sign  with  the  Commissioner  a  Joint  Statement  in  general 
terms  of  their  willingness  to  work  towards  completing  ERA.  They  would  also  set  out  the 
specific  ERA  actions  they  would  take  in  terms  of  timing,  deliverables,  public  reporting  on 
progress,  etc.  in  a  Memorandum  of  Understanding  co-signed  with  the  Commission  or  a 
unilateral declaration, informing their respective national authorities and the other Partners. 

The Commission would also propose measures in different forms (such as Recommendations) 
to  complete  ERA.  The  Commission  would  support  Member  States  and  stakeholder 
organisations.  It  would  ensure  that  Horizon  2020  helps  to  consolidate  the  completion  and 
functioning  of  ERA  from  2014,  supporting  ERA-compliant  actions  relating  to  researcher 
careers  and  mobility,  gender  action,  cross-border  cooperation,  open  access,  knowledge 
transfer and infrastructures. It would ensure inclusive ERA policy development by supporting 
structured dialogue with research stakeholder organisations and relevant civil society bodies - 
e.g. in the form of a dedicated stakeholder platform. 

The  set  of  measures  which  will  be  included  in  the  Communication  are  presented  below,  by 
specific objective: 

More effective national research systems:  

• 

• 

Member States are invited to introduce or enhance competitive funding through calls 
for  proposals  and  institutional  assessments  as  the  main  modes  of  allocating  public 
funds to research and innovation, introducing legislative reforms if necessary; and to 
ensure that all public bodies responsible for allocating research funds apply the core 
principles of international peer review 

The  Commission  will  support  through  the  Smart  Specialisation  Platform  Member 
States and regions in using Structural Funds to develop research capacity and smart 
specialisation strategies, including support to joint research programmes, in line with 
Cohesion  Policy  objectives;  support  mutual  learning  and  the  exchange  of  good 
practice between Member States on the removal of national legal and other barriers 
to  ERA  for  the  priorities  set  out  in  this  Communication;  and  support  ERA  Chairs 
aimed  at  fostering  structural  change  in  institutions  to  raise  their  research  quality  to 
international levels of excellence 

Optimal transnational co-operation and competition 

• 

52 

Member  States  are  invited  to  step  up  efforts  to  implement  joint  research  agendas 
addressing  grand  challenges,  sharing  information  about  activities  in  agreed  priority 
areas, ensuring that adequate national funding is committed and strategically aligned 
at  European  level  in  these  areas  and  that  common  ex  post  evaluation  is  conducted; 

Federative  and  representative  bodies  of  public  and  private  research  actors  including  researchers, 
universities, funding and performing organisations. 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
                                                 
• 

• 

ensure  mutual  recognition  of  evaluations  that  conform  to  international  peer-review 
standards as a basis for national funding decisions; remove legal and other barriers to 
the cross-border interoperability of national programmes to permit joint financing of 
actions  including  cooperation  with  non-EU  countries  where  relevant;  confirm 
financial commitments for the construction and operation of ESFRI, global, national 
and  regional  RIs  of  pan-European  interest,  particularly  when  developing  national 
roadmaps  and  the  next  Structural  Fund  programmes;  and  remove  legal  and  other 
barriers to cross-border access to RIs 

Research  stakeholder  organisations  are  invited  to  agree  on  common  funding 
principles  -  eligible  costs,  reporting  requirements,  etc.  to  make  national  research 
programmes  compatible,  interoperable  (cross-border)  and  simpler  for  researchers; 
pilot  the  use  of  synchronised  calls  with,  where  possible,  single  joint  international 
peer  review  evaluation  of  proposals  as  a  basis  for  funding  decisions;  and  further 
develop  and  deploy  the  Lead-Agency,  Money-Follows-Cooperation  Line,  Money-
Follows-Researcher and other models for cross-border cooperation 

The Commission will pursue, stimulate and participate in Public-Public Partnerships 
to  address  grand  challenges  as  set  out  in  the  Communication  on  Partnering  in 
Research  and  Innovation  to  co-ordinate  and  leverage  Member  States'  contributions 
and  ensure  close  coordination  with  relevant  activities  under  Horizon  2020;  on  the 
basis of the information supplied by Member States, map activities in agreed priority 
areas,  with  a  view  to  identifying  strengths,  weaknesses,  gaps  and  duplications; 
support  Member  States  and  research  funding  organisations  in  implementing  joint 
international  peer  review  evaluations  and  setting  common  funding  standards  -  e.g. 
through  an  ERA  Mark  label  recognising  best  practice  in  cross-border  research 
operations;  support  through  Horizon  2020  access  to  RIs  as  well  as  the  on-going 
overall  integration  of  EU  RIs  particularly  those  awarded  ERIC  status;  encourage 
Member States to link RI roadmaps to the ESFRI roadmap and smart specialisation 
strategies  in  Structural  Funds  co-financed  research  and  innovation  programmes, 
reinforcing the capacity of less favoured regions to host and participate in RIs of pan-
European  and 
the 
interest;  support 
management  of  such  RIs;  develop  in  cooperation  with  ESFRI,  e-IRG  and  other 
stakeholders  a  Charter  of  Access  setting  out  common  standards  and  harmonized 
access rules and conditions for the use of RIs; work with ESFRI to set priorities for 
implementing the Roadmap and to provide advice and guidance to Member States on 
overcoming  legal,  financial  or  technical  obstacles  to  implementation;  define  with 
ESFRI,  e-IRG  and  other  stakeholders  common  evaluation  principles,  impact-
assessment  criteria  and  monitoring  tools  which  can  be  applied  in  regional,  national 
and European programmes to help combine funds from different sources; and work 
with  e-IRG  to  promote  the  alignment  of  EU  and  national  approaches  to  eRI 
development and use 

training  programmes  for 

international 

An open labour market for researchers  

• 

Member  States  are  invited  to  remove  legal  and  other  barriers  to  the  application  of 
open,  transparent  and  merit  based  recruitment  of  researchers  and  which  hamper 
cross-border access to and portability of national grants; support a national body to 
implement  the  Declaration  of  Commitment  to  provide  coordinated  personalised 
information  and  services  to  researchers  through  the  pan-European  EURAXESS 
network  and  the  setting  up  and  running  of  structured  innovative  doctoral  training 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
• 

• 

programmes applying the Principles for Innovative Doctoral Training; and create an 
enabling framework for implementing the HR Strategy for Researchers incorporating 
the Charter & Code. 

Research  stakeholder  organisations  are  invited  to  advertise  all  vacancies  on  the 
EURAXESS  Jobs  portal  using  the  common  profiles  established  in  the  European 
Framework  for  Research  Careers;  fill  research  positions  according  to  open, 
transparent and merit based recruitment procedures proportionate to the level of the 
position in line with the basic principles of the Charter & Code and including non-
EU nationals; develop strategies to support the career development of researchers in 
line  with  the  HR  Strategy  for  Researchers;  define  and  implement  principles  for 
accessibility to and portability of national grants, provide structured doctoral training 
based on the Principles for Innovative Doctoral Training; and develop and implement 
structured programmes to increase mobility between industry and academia 

The Commission will bridge information gaps to foster mobility and research career 
development  by  assessing  and  strengthening  collaboration  and  coordination  in  the 
EURAXESS network for researchers to have direct access to personalised assistance, 
making it the means of accessing tailor-made assistance; support the setting up of a 
European  Accreditation  Mechanism  for  Charter  &  Code-based  human  resources 
management in universities and publicly-funded research institutions and the work of 
a  'pathfinder  group'  of  countries  for  the  achievement  of  automatic  recognition  of 
comparable degrees; as well as take initiatives to address social security barriers for 
researchers  in  the  EU  and  further  facilitate  the  entry  and  stay  of  third  country 
national researchers by clarifying in a Communication EU rules on coordination of 
social security schemes for groups of workers with a high level of intra-EU mobility, 
including  researchers,  resuming  work  on  a  pension  portability  Directive  setting 
minimum  standards  for  the  acquisition  and  preservation  of  supplementary  pension 
rights,  supporting  stakeholders  in  setting  up  pan-European  supplementary  pension 
fund(s) for researchers and reviewing Directive 2005/71/EC on a specific procedure 
for admitting third country nationals for the purposes of scientific research 

Gender equality and gender mainstreaming in research 

• 

• 

Member  States  are  invited  to  create  a  legal  and  policy  environment  and  provide 
incentives to remove legal and other barriers to the recruitment, retention and career 
progression  of  female  researchers  while  fully  complying  with  EU  law  on  gender 
equality, address gender imbalances in decision making processes and strengthen the 
gender  dimension  in  research  programmes;  engage  in  partnerships  with  funding 
agencies,  research  organisations  and  universities  to  foster  cultural  and  institutional 
change on gender - charters, performance agreements, awards and ensure that at least 
in 
40%  of 
in  committees 
recruitment/career  progression  and 
in  establishing  and  evaluating  research 
programmes 

the  under-represented  sex  participate 

involved 

Research  stakeholder  organisations  are  invited  to  implement  institutional  change 
relating  to  HR  management,  funding,  decision-making  and  research  programmes 
through Gender Equality Plans which aim to conduct impact assessment / audits of 
procedures and practices to identify gender bias, implement innovative strategies to 
correct any bias and set targets and monitor progress via indicators 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
• 

The  Commission  will  foster  gender  equality  and  the  integration  of  a  gender 
dimension  in  Horizon  2020  programmes  and  projects  from  inception,  through 
implementation to evaluation, including through the use of incentives; and propose in 
2013 a Recommendation to Member States with common guidelines on institutional 
change  to  promote  gender  equality  in  universities  and  research  institutions  and 
dedicate specific funds to reinforce collaboration between Member States 

Optimal circulation, access to and transfer of scientific knowledge  

• 

• 

• 

Member  States  are  invited  to  define  and  coordinate  their  policies  on  access  to  and 
preservation  of  scientific  information;  ensure  that  public  research  contributes  to 
Open  Innovation  and  foster  knowledge  transfer  between  public  and  private  sectors 
through national knowledge transfer strategies; harmonise access and usage policies 
for research and education-related public e-infrastructures and for associated digital 
research services enabling consortia of different types of public and private partners; 
and  adopt  and  implement  national  strategies  for  electronic  identity  for  researchers 
giving them transnational access to digital research services 

Research stakeholder organisations are invited to adopt and implement open access 
measures  for  publications  and  data  resulting  from  publicly  funded  research; 
implement  and  promote  the  uptake  of  electronic  identity  and  digital  research 
services;  ensure  optimal  interaction  and  linkages  and  strategic  partnering  between 
academia and industry and define joint collaborative research agendas to maximize 
the  use  of  research  results;  and  improve  recognition  and  professionalization  of 
knowledge transfer activities and strengthen the role of knowledge transfer offices 

The  Commission  will  establish  open  access  to  scientific  publications  as  a  general 
principle  for  all  EU  funded  projects  in  Horizon  2020.  For  research  data,  develop  a 
flexible  approach  that  takes  into  account  different  scientific  areas  and  business-
related interests; continue to fund infrastructure projects related to open access; adopt 
a  Communication  and  Recommendation  to  Member  States  on  access  to  and 
preservation  of  scientific  information  in  the  digital  age;  propose  a  roadmap  for  e-
infrastructure  development  to  support  e-Science  through  open  access  to  research 
tools and resources; support activities to raise stakeholder awareness of open access 
and e-Science; promote knowledge transfer activities in Europe through networking 
of  innovative  university-business  platforms,  including  bottom  up,  practitioner-led 
initiatives,  and  sectoral  knowledge  transfer  offices;  work  with  stakeholders  to 
develop  a  set  of  model  consortium  agreements  to  enhance  knowledge  transfer;  and 
facilitate  a  Member  State  forum  for  regular  exchange  and  reporting  on  national 
developments on the provision, take-up and use of digital research services.  

Annex 6 presents the details of the measure and the main actors responsible for their delivery. 

Policy option 3: Sectoral legal measures for ERA 

This  policy  option  responds  to  the  request  of  the  Impact  Assessment  Board  and  includes  a 
number of binding legal measures proposed by the Commission in several sectors (i.e. topic-
specific  fields)  as  required.  The  rationale  for  proposing  such  binding  measures  is  that 
legislation  more  surely  guarantees  that  common  principles  and  governance  mechanisms 
would  be  put  in  place  and  that  barriers  indeed  would  be  removed,  and  that  adequate 
framework conditions would be in place in all Member States. Legal measures would ensure 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
uniform  implementation  of  key  ERA  elements,  which  may  entail  reforms  at  Member  State 
level.  Legal  measures  would  be  possible  given  the  new  legal  competencies  of  the  Union  to 
achieve ERA introduced by the Lisbon Treaty (Article 179.1 TFEU in conjunction with Art. 
182.5 TFEU), bearing in mind the shared competence. 

This set of legislative measures would be completed by voluntary actions by Member States 
and  stakeholders.  They  would  cover  areas  where  Member  States  and  stakeholders  are  best 
placed to identify and address key barriers. In these areas, the Commission Communication 
would  identify  as  in  the  previous  option  both  the  barriers  to  be  removed  as  well  as  the 
operational strategies to be adopted. 

The measures will address the following objectives and will include the following actions: 

More effective national research systems: 

• 

• 

Member  States  to  undertake  national  reforms  to  remove  legal,  administrative  and 
other types of barriers to competitive funding allocation  

The  Commission  to  propose  legislative  measure  on  international  peer  review 
evaluation for national funding decisions 

Optimal transnational co-operation and competition:  

• 

• 

Member States to remove legal, administrative and other types of barriers to cross-
border access to national research infrastructures of European interest; set up jointly 
with  stakeholder  organisations  joint  calls  using  common  international  peer  review 
evaluation (notably within the Joint Programming process) and a 'Charter for Access' 
for research infrastructures 

The  Commission  to  launch  the  'ERA  Mark'  label  for  cross-border  research 
programmes  and  to  propose  legislative  measures  on  common  principles  for  cross-
border operations, on common principles for the monitoring, evaluation and impact 
assessment  of  research  infrastructures  and  funding  decisions  and  on  common 
principles  and  procedures  for  the  setting  up  and  management  of  pan-European 
research infrastructures 

An open labour market for researchers: 

• 

• 

Member States and stakeholder organisations to set up frameworks and strategies for 
the  career  development  of  researchers,  innovative  doctoral  training,  to  advertise 
vacancies and provide tailored information to mobile researchers on national single 
access points/Euraxess 

The Commission to set up an accreditation mechanisms for the Charter and Code, to 
propose legislative measures on common principles on open, transparent and merit-
based recruitment of researchers and on common principles for portability of grants 
and  for  access  to  national  grants  and  to  adopt  relevant  support  measures  (e.g. 
Communication on social security) and amendments to key EU legislation (Directive 
2005/71/EC) 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
Gender equality and gender mainstreaming in research: 

• 

• 

Member States and stakeholder organisations to integrate the gender dimension into 
publicly  funded  research  programmes  and  implement  gender  strategies  and  action 
plans 

The  Commission  to  propose  a  Commission  Recommendation  on  guidelines  for 
institutional  change  in  universities  and  other  research  organisations  (foreseen  on 
2013) 

Optimal circulation, access to and transfer of scientific knowledge:  

• 

The Commission to propose a Commission Communication and Recommendation on 
access to and preservation of scientific information in the digital age and to provide 
support  measures  on  digital  ERA;  legislative  measures  on  open  access  to  all 
publicly-funded scientific publications as well as for research data, when relevant; on 
specific identity provision and federation approach for researchers and scholars to be 
implemented  by  all  MS  and  all  research  organisations  and  using  publicly  funded 
research  infrastructures  for  research  consortia  with  private  and  industrial  research 
organisation partners. 

As  in  the  previous  option,  research  stakeholder  organisations  would  be  responsible  to 
implement  flanking  actions  within  the  context  of  their  specific  commitments.  Their  actions 
would be reinforced by the adoption of the principles and mechanisms included in the legal 
measures. 

Annex  6  provides  an  overview  of  the  legislative  and  voluntary  measures  included  in  policy 
option 3. 

Policy Option 4: ERA Framework Directive 

This policy option would consist of a comprehensive legal package in the form of a Directive 
which would contain legally binding measures in conjunction with the freedom for Member 
States  to  choose  the  appropriate  means  to  achieve  the  results  required  by  the  Directive.  To 
express that the Directive intends to be of an overarching nature, covering the whole research 
system, it will be referred to as a Framework Directive. Whilst policy option 3 contains a set 
of separate legal and non-legal measures, this policy option would bundle the different legal 
measures into a single framework. Legal measures are based on the legal competencies of the 
Union to achieve ERA introduced by the Lisbon Treaty (Article 179.1 TFEU in conjunction 
with Art. 182.5 TFEU).  

The objective of the Framework Directive would be to introduce binding principles as well as 
specific  provisions  facilitating  competition  and  cross-border  research,  the  opening  up  of  the 
labour  market  for  researchers  and  the  free  circulation  of  knowledge.  This  approach  would 
lead to a situation where common standards and principles are applied across the EU. Given 
the  diversity  of  the  rules  underpinning  national  R&D  systems,  the  framework  directive 
approach allows Member States to choose the most adequate means to obtain the results made 
obligatory by the Framework Directive.  

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
The  Directive  would  contain  principles,  (governance)  procedures,  and  provisions  that  are 
binding on Member States as to the barriers to remove. Technical or operational details would 
be included in annexes and could be subject to review by an implementing committee. 

The provisions would contain the definition, objective and scope of ERA, identify the main 
actors, as well as their rights and obligations. The policy coordination role of the Commission 
under  Article  181  TFEU  would  be  set  in  an  appropriate  governance  framework  aiming  as 
consistency between Member States' and EU's policy and action in this area.  

By  introducing  ERA  as  an  instrument  for  sectoral  integration  in  the  field  of  R&D,  distinct 
from the Internal Market, the Treaty legislator has expressed that measures to complete ERA 
go  over  and  above  those  of  the  Internal  Market.  In  other  words,  measures  to  achieve  free 
circulation of researchers, knowledge and technology are not confined to those that establish 
free movement of persons, goods, services and capital. They can for instance also encompass 
research policy coordination, promotion and assistance measures. 

The framework directive would include the following provisions: 

• 

• 

• 

General  principles  for  ERA  (legally  binding  provisions  applying  to  all  Member 
States) 

The  establishment  of  ERA  as  a  'unified  research  area  based  on  the  internal  market 
which  is  open  to  the  world,  in  which  researchers,  scientific  knowledge  and 
technology circulate freely and though which the Union and its Member States shall 
strengthen their scientific and technological bases as well as their competitiveness'; 

Policy  coordination  and  reporting:  a  governance  mechanism  to  ensure  consistency 
between  national  R&D  policies,  and  between  those  policies  and  European  R&D 
policy.  The  monitoring  and  subsequent  evaluation  would  be  performed  by  the 
Commission.  

Specific provisions regulating ERA: 

• 

• 

• 

More  effective  national  research  systems:  the  framework  directive  would  require 
Member States to ensure that funding, as defined in the Directive, takes place on a 
competitive  basis  and  also  to  use  an  international  peer  review  evaluation  processes 
(binding provision) for the allocation of funds to projects;  

Optimal transnational co-operation and competition: the framework directive would 
require  Member  States  to  enhance  research  co-operation  through  a)  adoption  of 
minimum  standards  for  the  interoperability  of  research  systems,  b)  carrying  out 
synchronised calls for research proposals in conjunction with a common international 
peer  review  system;  and  c)  adoption  of  principles  to  reinforce  access  to  pan-
European research infrastructures; 

An  open  labour  market  for  researchers:  the  framework  directive  would  require 
Member  States  to  adopt  strategies  and  action  plans  on  a)  career  development  of 
researchers,  b)  principles  for  open  recruitment  in  public  research  systems,  c) 
principles for cross-border portability and accessibility of national grants and d) the 
setting up of doctoral training linking private and public sector; 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
• 

• 

Gender  equality  and  gender  mainstreaming  in  research:  the  framework  directive 
would require Member States to adopt strategies and action plans on gender. 

Optimal  circulation,  access  to  and  transfer  of  scientific  knowledge:  the  framework 
directive  would  require  Member  States  to  adopt  relevant  policies  and  measures  for 
ensuring open access to scientific publications and scientific data and online research 
and identification services and shared usage policies for digital ERA.  

The Commission would propose the Framework Directive at the earliest in 2013. 

5. 

ANALYSING THE IMPACTS AND COMPARING THE POLICY OPTIONS 

The  policy  options  consist  of  different  mechanisms  to  remove  barriers  and  promote 
effectiveness of research systems. Once and if all ERA related measures are put in place, they 
are  expected  to  attain  similar  indirect  impacts  (as,  for  example,  on  excellence  and 
performance).  Therefore,  the  main  differences  in  terms  of  impacts  reside  in  the  timing  for 
delivering  the  expectations,  in  the  implementation  costs  associated  and  in  acceptance  by 
Member States and Stakeholders of each option. But before presenting the specific assessment 
of  each  option,  the  overall  added  value  of  ERA  in  terms  of  indirect  economic,  social  and 
environmental impacts as well as the main caveats which may arise will be discussed. 

Expected economic impact of ERA 

Public and private sectors in all Member States would benefit from the efficiency gains of the 
increased  cooperation  as  well  as  competition  for  funding  in  national  systems.  It  is  expected 
that more  funding would  be allocated to the best performing  researchers,  that  through  more 
cooperation between Member States better solutions to grand challenges would be found and 
that public and private sectors everywhere and notably in less endowed regions have access to 
and the advantage of scientific knowledge and of conditions promoting open innovation. 

A decreasing share of non-performance based institutional funding would imply greater focus 
on financial sustainability of scientifically strong fields in these institutions. This would entail 
trying to recover the full economic costs of research activities. Full economic costing would 
require  that  capital  and  infrastructure  costs  associated  with  each  piece  of  research 
commissioned from public research establishments are included in the final price. This would 
be  a  major  change  and  represents  a  step  towards  establishing  internal  and  external  market 
pricing53. It could be expected though that in Member States where institutional funding is not 
linked  to  performance,  or  where  evaluation  systems  do  not  follow  international  standards, 
universities  and  other  research  performing  organisations  may  resist  the  removal  of  barriers. 
However,  the  need  for  more  efficient  use  of  scarce  public  funding  may  convince  Member 
States to pursue the necessary reforms. Besides, the improved context for the research systems 
and a reinforced cross border focus on grand challenges could leverage private investment in 
research. 

A reallocation of national funds to transnationally coordinated funding could benefit the EU's 
economy and job market. For example, in the case that the removal of barriers which would 
improve  the  conditions  for  cross  border  cooperation  and  interaction  would  lead  Member 

53 

Full economic costing is an approach being picked up in several countries, including Canada, Finland 
and Sweden (OECD 2010c, p. 96). 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
                                                 
States to gradually reallocate funding to increase the attention given to transnational activities 
(i.e. to reach 4% research funding by 2020, from the current 0.8% share), this would induce a 
possible extra gain of GDP of 16 billion Euros in 2030 (0.25% additional GDP growth on top 
of  the  0.92%  additional  growth  expected  from  Horizon  2020).  Higher  transnational 
coordinated  funding  would  create  323,000  additional  jobs.  The  impact  would  be  much 
stronger  if  the  Barcelona  target  (3%  of  GDP  dedicated  to  research)  were  reached  by  2020. 
The  combined  effect  of  the  Barcelona  target,  Horizon  2020  and  an  increased  share  of 
transnational funding would imply 445 billion Euros extra GDP and 7.2 million more jobs in 
2030 (See Annex 4 for a detailed presentation of the simulations). 

Measures  linked  to  the  development  of  the  digital  ERA  would  also  lead  to  coordinated 
demand for the provisions of interoperable and effective digital research services, which will 
boost the ICT sector and ICT innovations in the EU. Study on the economic benefit to high 
tech  industry  involved  in  CERN's  procurement  contracts  showed  that  procurement  lead  to 
increase of competence and direct economic benefits in terms of new products and markets. 
Furthermore,  75%  of  the  increased  sales  were  in  sectors  outside  particle  physics,  thereby 
showing the value for innovation and knowledge transfer for other fields54.  

Open access would also generate significant benefits for most actors and potential savings for 
many  institutions  (i.e.  libraries).  It  is  estimated  that  policies  and  measures  supporting  open 
access  could  generate  between  2  and  31  billion  Euros  of  net  economic  benefits  for  the  UK 
from increased returns to R&D over a period of 20 years55. In Denmark, the savings would 
amount to between 4 and 634 Million Euros56, whilst for a country such as the Netherlands 
the savings would amount to between 13 million and 1 billion Euros be up to over a period of 
20 years. Benefits can also be especially important for research institutions and firms in less-
endowed countries, as they would be able to benefit from a more open access to knowledge. 

However, there would be costs incurred by Member States' administrations and businesses. It 
is not possible to provide a reliable estimation of costs as it would depend on the specificities 
of  the  barriers  to  be  removed  by  each  Member  State.  But  some  examples  could  be  useful. 
Estimates  show  that  for  the  UK,  the  total  costs  at  national  level  for  implementing  the 
Concordat  (i.e.  the  UK  version  of  the  Charter  and  Code)  amount  to  882,000  Euros  per 
annum57 but they do not include one-off and running/maintenance costs incurred by research 
institutions  and  universities  for  reforming  existing  HR  policies  and  rules,  setting  up  and 
maintaining  adequate  human  resources  structures.  As  shown  in  Annex  4  and  given  that  the 
cost  for  filling  in  a  vacancy  (research-related  or  professor  position)  varies  from  €5.000-
20,000, it can be assumed that the cost for filling in a vacancy is equal to one or two month 
researcher  salary.  The  adoption  of  gender  strategies,  national  framework  for  the  career 
development  of  researchers  and  innovative  doctoral  training  may  prove  expensive  for  less-
endowed  institutions  or  institutions  located  in  less-advanced  Member  States,  but  they  could 
benefit from reciprocity. Member States which have experienced brain drain may oppose the 
removal  of  obstacles  to  grant  portability.  There  will  be  costs  associated  with  open  access. 
Houghton,  (2009  and  2009a)  calculated  that  the  costs  for  implementing  open  access  would 
amount to between 21 and 406 million Euros for Denmark and between 124 and 636 million 

54 
55 
56 

57 

http://www.hep.ucl.ac.uk/~markl/pp2020/CERN_ProcurementBenefits.pdf  
This applies to the Green open access scenario. See Annex 4 for more details. 
These  figures  were  calculated  based  on  Houghton  (2009)  using  the  exchange  rate  of  1DKK/0.1344 
Euros.  
Implementation  costs  at  national  level  amount  to  135,000  GBP  per  year  and  approx.  3  million  GBP 
over a period of five years. Source: Vitae, UK.  

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Euros for the Netherlands over a period of 20 years (for more details see Annex 4). Regarding 
the impact of open access on the publishing market, research by RIN et al (2011) show that in 
the  case  of  green  open  access  (i.e.  authors  publish  in  any  journal  and  then  self-archive  a 
version  of  the  article  for  free  public  use  in  a  repository  or  on  an  open  access  website)  and 
assuming a 10% cut in subscription volumes of journals, the cost incurred by the publishing 
industry would amount to over 447 million Euros in global lost annual revenues (or approx. 
134 million Euros per year in lost global operating profit58). 

Expected social impacts of ERA 

Institutions will benefit from better research staff functioning better. Recent research (Mitsos 
et  al.,  2012)  has  shown  that  R&D  cooperation  creates  social  benefits  to  non-participating 
organisations and the rest of society. These social benefits result from knowledge spill-overs 
to non-participants, increased industrial competitiveness and increased levels of competition, 
favourable  changes  in  investment  behaviour,  more  efficient  establishment  of  technology 
standards,  broad  socioeconomic  benefits  as  a  result  of  structural  adjustment  and  increased 
economic  cohesion  between  European  regions.  Measures  on  the  digital  ERA  would  also 
support researchers in smaller and less-advanced Member States and regions, by facilitating 
access to research services through online sharing. This would  improve  cohesion across the 
ERA, as researchers would have the opportunity to work from any region or Member State in 
the EU and be involved in world-class research teams. Measures foreseen under the ERA will 
also  have  a  positive  impact  on  fundamental  rights,  in  particular  as  regards  the  respect  for 
gender  equality,  freedom  of  expression,  freedom  of  arts  and  sciences  etc.  For  example, 
effective  online  service  provision  should  support  gender  equality  by  facilitating  the 
development  of  flexible  work  arrangements  (e.g.  working  remotely).  Ensuring  that  open, 
transparent  and  merit-based  recruitment  procedures  are  in  place  in  universities  and  public 
research  institutes  would  also  facilitate  the  mobility  of  researchers  into  and  across  Europe. 
However,  resistance  can  be  expected  from  "protected"  researchers,  used  to  in-breeding  and 
less favourable to mobility. 

Expected environmental impacts of the options 

Several  grand  challenges  have  a  strong  environmental  component  which  can  essentially  be 
tackled by cross-border cooperation. Removing barriers to compatibility and interoperability 
of national research systems as well as the promotion of common transnational synchronised 
research  agendas  and  calls  would  facilitate  that  Member  States  reinforce  the  attention  on 
environmental  issues  in  a  cooperative  way  avoiding  unnecessary  duplication  and  thus 
increasing efficiencies.  

5.1. 

Assessing the options 

Policy Option 1 (Business as usual) 

Overall  assessment:  Existing  barriers  would  remain,  preventing  higher  effectiveness  in 
national  systems.  The  most  important  benefits  would  be  mainly  induced  after  2014  when 
Horizon 2020 would start.  

Timing for completing ERA: not possible to determine but certainly not by 2014.  

58 

These figures were calculated based using the exchange rate of 1£/1.2 Euros. 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Costs: This option would not entail additional costs.  

Pros: Limited. 

Cons: does neither respond to the Council requests nor to stakeholder expectations. 

Stakeholder  opinion:  strongly  advocate  for  further  progress  towards  ERA,  therefore  this 
option would disappoint them. Moreover, it would not respond to the European Council call. 

Policy Option 2 (Reinforced partnership for ERA) 

Overall assessment: this option would allow quick progress in ERA (Table 1). It is expected 
that all Member States would concentrate on removing remaining barriers and taking action 
according to the self-assessment of the national situation and structure in the areas mentioned 
in the Communication. The monitoring mechanism would allow assessing progress regularly 
and  possibly  identify  additional  measures  to  ensure  progress.  Research  funding  and 
performing organisations would be able to contribute to completing ERA immediately. This 
option  would  not  entail  though  even  progress  in  all  Member  States,  as  each  of  them  would 
undertake  reform  at  their  own  pace,  according  to  their  own  priorities  and  approaches. 
However,  the  qualitative  assessment  of  the  degree  of  achievement  of  the  policy  objectives 
confirms the positive impacts in the short and long term. 

Timing  for  completing  ERA:  2014  would  see  concrete  actions  implemented  in  terms  of 
barriers removed and progress towards the specific objectives.  

Costs:  low  additional  burden  for  the  implementation  of  the  option.  As  Member  States  and 
stakeholder  organisations  would  remove  barriers  at  their  own  rhythm  and  according  to  the 
identified  needs  and  priorities,  the  administrative  costs  should  remain  low.  In  some  cases, 
national  laws  will  have  to  be  repealed  or  amended.  For  the  Commission,  this  option  would 
entail costs to identify the baseline situation and quickly assess progress by the end of 2013 or 
early 2014 as well as to create the ERA Policy Monitoring System and support financially the 
measures indicated. 

Pros: quick removal of barriers without EU legislation. This policy option would also allow 
gathering further evidence on the state of ERA advancement both in 2012 and at the end of 
2013 or early 2014.  

Cons:  the  successful  implementation  of  this  policy  option  relies  on  Member  States  and 
stakeholders  support  and  commitments  to  undertake  the  required  reforms  at  national  and 
institutional level. Progress may be uneven across Member States and/or amongst institutions, 
which  may  require  specific  recommendations  in  the  ERA  progress  report  or  legal  action  if 
lack of progress is generalised.  

Stakeholder  opinion:  the  various  consultation  exercises  have  shown  that  stakeholders  and 
Member States strongly support change in ERA and expect measures to be taken at EU level. 
As  there  is  a  consensus  to  employ  voluntary  measures  to  complete  ERA,  notably  amongst 
Member  States,  this  option  would  satisfy  their  expectations.  It  would  also  respond  to  the 
European Council call. 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
Policy Option 3: (Sectoral legal measures for ERA) 

Overall  assessment:  this  option  would  entail  progress  by  2014  only  in  those  areas  of  ERA 
tackled  by  Member  States  on  a  voluntary  basis,  but  possibly  important  impacts  in  the  long 
term if the legislation to be proposed would be adopted and transposed (Table 1). Time would 
be needed to collect further evidence for legislative action, implying that action may be driven 
by  existing  data  and  not  by  urgency  or  importance  of  the  problem  in  each  Member  State. 
Second, in those cases where data is available, adoption, transposition and negotiation of each 
legal action would imply that progress would be attained after 2014.  

Timing for completing ERA: Legislative actions towards ERA could start to be proposed at the 
earliest by 2012 for cases where evidence is available. Implementation would be delayed at 
least until 201659. Voluntary action would deliver results by 2014. 

Costs:  This  policy  option  would  entail  significant  additional  administrative  and  compliance 
burden  for  national  public  administrations,  universities,  research  funding  organisations  and 
public research institutions. The transposition and implementation of legal actions at Member 
State  level  would  generate  an  administrative  burden  for  public  authorities,  as  a)  the 
transposition of the Directives would require Member States to identify the standards for the 
proposed principle and b) in some cases, the national regulatory framework would have to be 
amended  or  repealed.  Public  research  institutions,  universities  and  research  funding 
organisations would also incur compliance costs. These are expected to be significantly higher 
than  in  option  2,  as  stakeholders  will  have  less  flexibility  in  how  they  implement  the 
regulatory  requirements.  No  administrative  or  compliance  costs  would  be  incurred  by 
businesses.  For  the  Commission,  this  option  would  entail  heavy  burden  and  costs  linked  to 
data gathering as well as the design and adoption of the numerous legal actions to be proposed 
from  2013  on.  Resources  would  be  needed  to  identify  the  baseline  situation  and  for 
monitoring compliance at a later stage. This option will also imply that Associated Countries 
would not contribute to progress in areas addressed by legislative measures. The possible use 
of the National Reform Programmes would provide an incentive to Member States to act in 
sectors not regulated.  

Pros:  this  option  would  lead  to  a  level  playing field  amongst  Member  States  in  those  areas 
which are subject to EU Directives and Regulations.  

Cons: under this policy option, the achievement of the policy objectives by 2014 is expected 
to be uneven, as progress would be mainly achieved by voluntary actions in a limited number 
of barriers. As this policy option includes a set of binding and non-binding measures, there is 
a  risk  that  no  action  is  taken  for  barriers  tackled  by  binding  measures  before  adoption. 
Furthermore,  all  legal  measures  may  not  be  proposed  within  the  same  timeframe,  thus 
reducing the coherence and overall impact of the package. 

Stakeholder's opinion: some researchers, stakeholder organisations and Member States are in 
favour  of  EU  policy  intervention  if  it  can  yield  results  in  the  short  term.  Given  the  time 
required  for  adopting  and  implementing  the  proposed  regulations,  this  policy  option  would 
not satisfy stakeholders and Member States. Moreover, a vast majority of Member States is 

59 

It is estimated that for adopting a Directive, 2 years are necessary, and another 2 year for transposition 
by Member States. 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
                                                 
  
strongly  opposed  to  the  use  of  legislation,  which  makes  this  option  very  difficult  to  take 
through the Council.  

Policy Option 4 (ERA Framework Directive) 

Overall  assessment:  this  option  would  entail  very  important  progress  towards  ERA  in  the 
long-term, only if the Framework Directive is adopted (Table 1). This option requires further 
gathering and assessing data for all ERA dimensions at the same time to thoroughly develop 
principles and mechanisms. The negotiation process linked with a full set of measures to be 
proposed at the same time would be burdensome and long, and may lead to the adoption of 
the  lowest  levels  of  ambition  in  some  or  all  of  the  ERA  dimensions  in  order  to  ensure 
acceptance by all Member States.  

Timing  for  completing  ERA:  Considering  the  timeframe  required  for  further  gathering  the 
sufficient information to ensure the right definition of principles and mechanisms and for the 
adoption,  the  Framework  Directive  can  be  proposed  in  2012/13  at  the  very  earliest.  The 
binding  provisions  included  in  the  Directive  would  not  be  implemented  either  before  the 
completion of the entire legislative process. Implementation of concrete measures by Member 
States would be delayed until at least after 2016/17 and would be transposed unevenly. 

Costs: this policy option leads to additional administrative and compliance costs which would 
be incurred by Member States' administrations and public institutions. The transposition and 
implementation  of  the  Framework  Directive  would  require  Member  States  to  identify  the 
standards for the principles and possible measures. In many cases, national legislation would 
have to be amended or repealed. However, compared with policy option 3, the administrative 
burden of this option should be lower for Member States' administrations as they would have 
to transpose and implement one Directive only. Administrative and compliance costs would 
be  incurred  also  by  research  performing  and  funding  organisations.  Compliance  costs  for 
institutions may be lower than in option 3, as Member States may tailor national measures to 
the local needs and priorities. For the Commission, this option would entail extremely heavy 
administrative burden and costs for identifying the baseline situation and for the design of a 
complete  set  of  measures  that  would  be  included  in  the  Framework  Directive.  Also,  the 
monitoring  system  would  be  very  heavy  and  costly.  No  administrative  or  compliance  costs 
would be incurred by businesses. 

Pros: this option  would lead  to a level  playing field in all areas covered  by the Framework 
Directive and transposed by Member States. 

Cons:  Most  Member  States  actions  would  be  delayed  until  after  the  adoption  of  the 
Framework Directive, making it little attractive given the urgency to complete ERA by 2014. 
This option would also imply that Associated Countries would not be formally requested to 
contribute to progress to complete ERA. 

Stakeholder opinion: as in Option 3, this policy option would not be supported by stakeholder 
and Member States. 

5.2. 

Choosing the preferred policy option 

A qualitative assessment of the degree of completion of ERA by operational objective, based 
on the feasibility of implementing the changes as explained above, allows the comparison of 
expected short term (ST) impacts in 2014 (Table 1). The table also presents the assessment of 
impacts in the long term (LT), important for options 3 and 4. The assessment is linked with 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
the type of measures: voluntary (positive in the short term +, very positive in the long term 
++) versus legislative (none in the short term, extremely positive in the long term +++). 

Table 1: Degree of completion of the operational objectives by policy option. 

Specific objective  Operational objective for 2014 

PO2 

PO3 

PO4 

More effective 
national research 
systems 

Barriers to competition removed 

ST + 
LT ++ 

ST + 
LT ++ 

Barriers to use international peer review 
evaluation in national research systems are 
removed 

ST + 
LT ++ 

ST 
None 
LT +++ 

Optimal 
transnational co-
operation and 
competition 

Barriers to compatibility and interoperability 
between national research programmes are 
removed 

ST + 
LT ++ 

ST + 
LT ++ 

Barriers to access to pan-European research 
infrastructures are removed 

ST + 
LT ++ 

ST 
Partial 
LT ++ 

ST 
None 
LT +++ 
ST 
None 
LT +++ 

ST 
None 
LT +++ 

ST 
None 
LT +++ 

ST 
None 
LT +++ 

One pilot cross-border synchronised research 
call, notably on grand challenges, launched 
using international peer review evaluation 
and a single pan-European score 

Harmonised monitoring, evaluation and 
impact assessment principles and procedures 
for pan-European research infrastructures 
adopted and implemented 

Barriers to open, transparent and merit based 
recruitment in public research systems, cross-
border portability and accessibility of 
national grants are removed 

ST + 
LT ++ 

ST + 
LT ++ 

ST + 
LT ++ 

ST 
None 
LT +++ 

ST 
None 
LT +++ 

ST + 
LT ++ 

ST 
Partial 
LT ++ 

ST 
None 
LT +++ 

Frameworks supporting the career 
development of researchers and innovative 
doctoral training are adopted and 
implemented 

ST + 
LT ++ 

ST 
Partial 
LT ++ 

ST 
None 
LT +++ 

Barriers to gender equality and the gender 
dimension in research are removed 

ST + 
LT ++ 

ST + 
LT ++ 

ST 
None 
LT +++ 

Policies and means for facilitating online 
access to publicly-funded scientific 
publications and data are defined and 
coordinated 

ST + 
LT ++ 

ST 
Partial 
LT ++ 

ST 
None 
LT +++ 

An open labour 
market for 
researchers  

Gender equality 
and gender 
mainstreaming in 
research 

Optimal 
circulation, access 
to and transfer of 
scientific 
knowledge  

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
Policies to foster knowledge transfer, cross-
border sharing of e-infrastructure and take up 
of digital services for research are defined 

ST + 
LT ++ 

ST 
Partial 
LT ++ 

ST 
None 
LT +++ 

Electronic identity services for researchers 
enabling transnational access to digital 
services (collaboration, computing, scientific 
information) are implemented or planned 

ST + 
LT ++ 

ST 
Partial 
LT ++ 

ST 
None 
LT +++ 

Notes: ST: Short term; LT: Long Term. 

Policy option 2 (Reinforced partnership for ERA) alone ensures a substantial level of progress 
towards compliance with the 2014 deadline imposed by the Council (i.e. "to complete ERA 
by  2014").  This  option  would  also  allow  the  development  of  an  assessment  system  for 
possible  future  action.  Moreover,  this  option  entails  (with  the  exception  of  the  Business  as 
usual)  the  lowest  level  of  administrative  and  compliance  costs  for  Member  States, 
Commission and stakeholders.  

Therefore, policy option 2 (Reinforced partnership for ERA) is the preferred option. 

5.3. 

Risks and mitigating strategies 

The  main  risk  associated  with  policy  option  2  resides  in  possible  reluctance  from  Member 
States to implement reforms. However, the Communication sets two mechanisms to minimize 
the  risk  of  inaction.  First,  the  Communication  would  invite  relevant  research  stakeholder 
organisations  to  sign  with  the  Commissioner  a  Joint  Statement  in  general  terms  of  their 
willingness  to  work  towards  completing  ERA.  They  should  also  set  out  the  specific  ERA 
actions they will take in terms of timing, deliverables, public reporting on progress, etc. in a 
Memorandum  of  Understanding  co-signed  with  the  Commission  or  a  unilateral  declaration, 
informing  their  respective  national  authorities  and  the  other  Partners.  They  would  thus 
directly be involved in delivering ERA. As such, each organisation would become the main 
agent of change at national level, as in many cases the implementation of the actions would 
depend  on  the  removal  of  barriers.  Second,  the  monitoring  mechanism  -  presented  below  - 
would  implement  annual  assessments  of  progress  on  ERA.  It  would  recommend,  if  needed, 
concrete  actions  in  specific  area(s)  for  each  Member  State.  In  case  of  insufficient  and/or 
persisting progress, the Commission would propose legal or other action. 

6. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION  

So  far,  insufficient  efforts  have  been  put  on  gathering  evidence  on  the  importance  of  the 
problems or on progress in achieving ERA. It is essential to put in place an appropriate and 
well-timed  mechanism  to  monitor  and  assess  progress  towards  the  policy  objectives  in  this 
Communication  as  well  as  to  improve  transparency  towards  the  scientific  community. 
However,  there  is  a  need  to  avoid  unnecessary  burden  for  Member  States.  Therefore,  the 
mechanism needs to be aligned with the assessment of progress in the Innovation Union and 
fully  synchronised  with  the  European  Semester.  Additional  efforts  will  be  limited  to 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
collecting  specific  data  needed  to  strengthen  monitoring  of  ERA  progress60  and  to  guide 
reforms to ensure maximum added-value. 

Indeed,  annual  monitoring  is  foreseen  for  the  Innovation  Union  Flagship  Initiative,  via  the 
State  of  the  Innovation  Union.  The  achievement  of  the  ERA  is  one  of  the  commitments,  in 
relation  to  some  other  relevant  commitments.  The  current  list  of  twelve  ERA-related 
indicators  under  the  Innovation  Union  Scoreboard  (IUS)  will  continue  to  provide 
information  on  R&D  system  performance  and  impacts  although  this  information  is 
insufficient to monitor the ERA measures. A good synchronisation between ERA monitoring 
and political steering, with the overarching Innovation Union processes is necessary. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  European  Semester  the  Commission  adopts  its  Annual  Growth 
Survey,  which  analyses  progress  achieved  over  the  past  year  in  implementing  the  Europe 
2020 growth strategy and presents priorities at EU level for the following 12-18 months. It is 
the basis for the overall guidance provided by the Spring European Council to Member States 
for  adapting  the  annual  National  Reform  Programmes  (NRF)  (presented  by  MS  in  April). 
Based  on  their  assessment,  the  Commission  proposes  Country-specific  recommendations  in 
good time for their adoption by the European Council in June.  

The  ERA  monitoring  mechanism  will  be  developed  to  be  seamlessly  integrated  in  these 
mechanisms. It will be organised as follows:  

• 

In 2012, the Commission will identify - on the basis of official statistics used to their 
maximum  potential,  existing  data,  ad  hoc  studies  and  surveys  and  voluntary  inputs 
from Member States and stakeholders - the baseline in each Member State as well as 
the state-of-play at stakeholder/institutional level for each action. The baseline will be 
discussed  during  the  first  meeting  of  the  ERA-Stakeholder  Forum  that  will  be 
launched by the Commission 

•  Member States (e.g. authorities in charge of R&I) will be asked to present a report on 
ERA-reform  measures  in  April  2013,  as  an  annex  to  their  national  reform 
programmes.  This  report  should  indicate  in  sufficient  detail  on-going  activities  and 
actions planned to fulfil their policy commitments in direct relation to the objectives in 
this Communication 

• 

• 

In  April-May  2013,  the  Commission  will  analyse  both  the  NRPs,  the  more  detailed 
description  of  national  ERA-reforms  measures  and  compare  them  to  the  baseline 
established  in  2012.  It  will  discuss  ERA  related  issues  with  Member  States  and  will 
encourage discussions and mutual learning in the context of European Research Area 
Committee (ERAC) and its specific configurations (GPC, SFIC), possibly resulting in 
an ERAC opinion to the Council and Commission 

in September 2013, the Commission will issue the first ERA-progress report which 
will assess the proposed measures by MS in comparison with the Baseline situation. 
The  report  may  include,  when  necessary,  ERA  recommendations  for  the  Member 
States. This will also provide inputs to the overall monitoring of the Innovation Union 
Flagship  Initiative.  This  ERA  Progress  report  could  be  discussed  in  the  December 
Competitiveness Council, possibly resulting in Council Conclusions on ERA progress 

60  

See for instance the ERAC opinion presented in December 2011 addressing the issue of data gathering, 
evaluation and monitoring. 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
                                                 
as  input  for  the  next  Annual  Growth  Survey  which  guides  national  reforms  by 
Member States in the context of the European Semester. The progress report may also 
be  the  basis  for  debate  in,  and  guidance  by  an  ERA  minister  conference,  involving 
Associated  Countries.  It  will  also  be  discussed  in  the  second  meeting  of  the  ERA-
Stakeholder  Forum  which  will  take  place  in  October-November  2013.  The 
Commission will launch studies/surveys at the end of 2013 to assess progress 

•  Member  States  will  be  asked  to  continue  including  the  ERA-reform  measures  in  an 

annex to their NRPs delivered by April 2014 

• 

• 

In  April-May  2014,  the  Commission  will  analyse  the  NRPs,  the  more  detailed 
description  of  national  ERA-reforms  and  the  assessment  of  impacts  of  the  reforms 
issued  from  the  studies  and  surveys.  ERA  related  issues  will  be  discussed  with 
Member States during country visits and, as described, the Commission will continue 
encouraging  discussions  and  mutual  learning  in  the  context  of  European  Research 
Area Committee (ERAC) and its specific configurations (GPC, SFIC) 

in  September  2014,  the  Commission  will  issue  the  second  ERA-progress  report 
which  may  include,  when  necessary  ERA  recommendations  for  the  Member  States. 
The report will be discussed within the Stakeholder Forum. It may also contribute to 
the following Annual Growth Survey 

•  Afterward,  Member  States  will  be  asked  to  continue  including  the  ERA-reform 

measures in an annex to their NRPs delivered by April every year 

• 

• 

In April-May every year, the Commission will analyse the NRPs, the more detailed 
description  of  national  ERA-reforms  and  the  assessment  of  impacts  of  the  reforms. 
ERA related issues will be discussed with Member States during country visits, and as 
described,  the  Commission  will  encourage  discussions  and  mutual  learning  in  the 
context of European Research Area Committee (ERAC) and its specific configurations 
(GPC,  SFIC),  possibly  resulting  in  an  advice  by  ERAC  to  the  Council  and 
Commission.  

in  September  every  year,  as  indicated  previously,  the  Commission  will  issue  an 
ERA-progress report which may include, when necessary ERA recommendations for 
the Member States. The report will be discussed within the Stakeholder Forum. It may 
also contribute to the following Annual Growth Survey. 

The analysis and conclusions of the ERA-Progress Report will be presented through the ERA 
monitoring mechanism, based on a set of indicators of progress (See Annex 7 for a tentative 
list of indicators). It will be developed by the Commission as part of the overall Research and 
Innovation Observatory and will be consistent with the monitoring of the future Horizon 2020 
programme and articulated with the Knowledge Triangle and the Innovation Union flagship 
initiative.  

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
Annex 1: Consultation of interested parties and expertise used 

Public  Consultation  on  the  ERA  Framework:  a  public  online  consultation  was  organised 
with a view to gathering Member States and stakeholder views on ERA and areas of untapped 
potential for the development of ERA (see below for more details).  

Consultation on ERA as part of the public consultation on the Green Paper on a Common 
Strategic Framework for EU Research and Innovation Funding (European Commission, 
2011a): this questionnaire included a set of questions on ERA and stakeholders were invited 
to express their views on how European science can be stimulated towards a higher level of 
excellence. 

Stakeholder  meeting  (21  June  2011):  the  meeting  was  organised  with  main  research 
stakeholders  (15  European  level  organisations)  to  discuss  the  preparation  of  the  public 
consultation on the ERA framework. The meeting allowed optimising the public consultation 
so  as  to  ensure  that  its  objectives  and  content  are  fully  understood  and  endorsed  by  ERA 
stakeholders. 

ERAC stakeholder seminar (13 September 2011): this seminar marked the formal launch 
of  the  public  consultation  on  the  ERA  Framework.  The  meeting  convened  33  stakeholder 
organisations,  26  countries  representatives  as  well  as  ERA  Partnership  Group  chairs.  The 
seminar  aimed  to  achieve  a  better  shared  understanding  and  validation  of  the  main  barriers 
and areas of untapped potential to the development/completion of ERA, the costs of non-ERA 
as well as the benefits of ERA. A final report is available. 

2012 ERA Conference (30 January 2012): the objective of the conference was to present a 
synthesis of the responses to the consultation questionnaire received. The conference provided 
an opportunity for the 400 participants, European-level stakeholders, ERAC members, chairs 
of ERA groups and the Commission to engage in a series of both plenary and theme-specific 
parallel  discussions  in  view  of  achieving  a  consensual  view  and  understanding  on  the  main 
barriers and areas of untapped potential to the development and completion of ERA. 

Opinion  by  the  European  Research  Area  Committee  (ERAC)61:  ERAC  has  examined  in 
depth the key obstacles for the completion of ERA and adopted a written opinion on the ERA 
framework on 9 December 2011.  

Expert Group - High-Level Economists Group: a subgroup of the High-Level Economists 
Group  ‘Innovation  for  Growth’  has  been  set  up  with  the  mandate  to  identify  the  socio-
economic  benefits  expected  from  a  fully  functioning  ERA.  The  report  will  be  delivered  in 
March 2012. 

Study on Member States’ R&D regulatory systems: the Commission organised one ad-hoc 
expert  group  meeting  on  gathering  different  national  perspectives  on  the  regulation  of 
research across EU member states. This served as a basis for the Commission to order a six 
month study on gathering an overview of the way research and research systems are regulated 
in the 27 Member States. The final report was delivered in December 2011 

61 

ERAC  is  an  advisory  body  to  the  Council  and  the  Commission,  composed  of  experts  from  national 
authorities. 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Research  projects  and  other  studies:  the  report  benefited  from  contributions  of  the  FP7 
SSH-funded DEMETER project and of the FP7 SSH-funded VERA project.  

Summary of results from the ERA consultation 

Research and innovation are at the heart of the Europe 2020 agenda which aims to get Europe 
out of its current economic difficulties and transform it into a smart, sustainable and inclusive 
society. For the first time, the Lisbon Treaty empowered the European Union to achieve the 
European  research  area  (ERA).  Completing  ERA  will  require  the  support  and  effort  of  all 
Member States and associated countries and their stakeholders. 

The  public  consultation  on  the  ERA  framework,  ‘Areas  of  untapped  potential  for  the 
development of the European research area’, aimed at gathering, from stakeholders, views and 
evidence on the key obstacles which have to be tackled to achieve a well-functioning ERA. It 
was open from 13 September 2011 to 30 November 2011. It generated a substantial response 
from  those  with  a  stake  in  European  research,  the  highest  numbers  coming  from  individual 
researchers  and  the  higher  education  sector,  followed  by  public  administrations  and  the 
business sector. 

This report synthesises the responses to the consultation based on the 590 responses received 
to  the  online  questionnaire  as  well  as  the  102  ad  hoc  contributions  received  by  the  end  of 
December  2011  submitted  mostly  as  position  papers  by  national  and  European  research 
organisations  and  in  the  form  of  official  positions  of  Members  States/associated  countries 
from ministries or national governments, including a joint input by Member States/associated 
countries  via  the  ERA  Committee.  All  Member  States  are  represented  through  at  least  one 
stakeholder contribution. 

Most important gaps for the achievement of ERA 

Overall,  there  is  overwhelming  support  for  pursuing  the  development  of  the  European 
Research Area and for action on all its dimensions to complete ERA by 2014. Problems and 
deficiencies in relation to research careers and mobility emerge as a clear priority even when 
factoring out the dominant proportion of responses from individual researchers to the online 
questionnaire.  Furthermore,  the  responses  from  national  and  European  organisations  which 
represent the interests and views of significant numbers of research stakeholders as well as the 
official responses from Member States also point to cross-border operations, open access and 
international cooperation as important priorities. 

Research careers and mobility 

Researchers  are  at  the  core  of  the  European  S  &  T  system.  Having  a  well-trained  and 
competitive labour force is a prerequisite for the development of a well-balanced knowledge-
based  economy.  There  is  a  clear  signal  that  further  efforts  are  required  to  ensure  that  the 
European and national systems attract and retain a sufficient number of leading researchers. 
While 40 % of respondents agree that Europe produces enough leading researchers, less than 
20 % believe that Europe attracts and retains sufficient numbers, and 14 % underline the low 
retention rate of the profession. Moreover, only 22 % believe that researchers are adequately 
trained  for  the  business  labour  market.  Therefore,  there  is  a  need  to  attract  and  retain  more 
leading researchers and to provide all researchers with better skills, especially for the business 
sector as this remains an obstacle to economic growth. 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
Furthermore,  80  %  of  respondents  believe  that  research  careers  in  the  public  sector  are 
comparatively unattractive because of the current uncompetitive working conditions and the 
lack of career prospects. The reasons for unattractiveness are the underfunding of universities 
and  research  institutions,  the  limited  availability  of  research  positions  in  academia,  the 
relatively low wages in academia and the insufficient cooperation between academia and the 
private sector. Respondents also report a lack of recognition of the research profession. 

The mobility of researchers is one of the ERA objectives. It contributes to improving research 
quality  and  provides  more  attractive  careers.  However,  a  range  of  factors  hampers 
internationally mobile researchers who, in addition, face difficulties to move between sectors. 
The lack of portability of publicly funded grants is the most important impediment, while the 
lack of open and transparent recruitment procedures is regarded as one of the main barriers to 
international  mobility.  Protectionism/nepotism  is considered to be the main reason followed 
by  the  lack  of  a  human  resources  strategy  in  institutions  and  the  lack  of  awareness  of  job 
portals such as EURAXESS Jobs. 

Other obstacles relate to the lack of information on social security and pension rights as well 
as  to  the  lack  of  recognition  of  diplomas  in  other  countries.  As  regards  moving  between 
sectors, the move from the private to the public sector is considered to be harder than from the 
public to the private sector. Removing the remaining obstacles to the mobility of researchers 
seems to be a shared concern amongst all respondents, who demand EU action in this area. 

Cross-border operation of research actors 

Europe faces a series of major societal and global challenges where research can play a key 
role in providing solutions but which cannot be solved within national borders only. The level 
of funding explicitly coordinated between different countries and/or available for cross-border 
cooperation  remains  relatively  modest  in  Europe,  both  in  absolute  terms  and  compared  to 
funding allocated on a purely national basis. 

It  is  necessary  to  coordinate  research  at  transnational  level  to  raise  research  quality,  reduce 
costs  and  tackle  major  challenges.  An  overwhelming  number  of  respondents  feel  that  joint 
programming  is  one  of  the  most  interesting  initiatives  launched  in  recent  years  to  enhance 
cross-border  operations.  Joint  research  programmes  are  highly  valued  when  the  countries 
involved  engage  in  long-term  commitments.  Joint  programming  initiatives  and  alliances 
between  research  institutes  are  considered  appropriate  mechanisms  for  making  progress  in 
cross-border research, while a certain level of duplication is recognised as appropriate since 
competition contributes to raising research quality. However, the lack of political commitment 
is considered by 68 % of respondents to be the major difficulty for transnationally coordinated 
research.  Another  important  issue  is  the  consistency  between  priorities  in  national  and  joint 
research  programmes.  Much  more  political  will  is  required  for  national  funding  agencies  to 
support  joint  research  programmes.  A  dedicated  budget  allocation  for  cross-border 
cooperation would also be necessary. 

Furthermore,  the  complexity  of  too  many  cross-border  schemes  is  counterproductive. 
Minimum  rules  for  ensuring  interoperability  of  funding  schemes  are  required  to  facilitate 
cross-border  research,  such  as  common  principles  and  standards,  rules  for  grant/funding 
applications, evaluation and reporting, as well as synchronisation of calls for proposals. The 
openness  and  transparency  of  procedures  are  considered  as  essential  conditions  for 
implementing joint research programmes. 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
Moreover,  many  respondents  see  the  individual  researcher  as  being  in  the  centre  of  cross-
border  operations  and  support  the  promotion  of  long-term  mobility  grants.  In  addition,  the 
majority  of  respondents  support  better  access  to  information  on  initiatives  open  for  cross-
border operation in order to facilitate the implementation of joint research programmes and to 
better  show  the  benefits  for  research  actors  and  stakeholders,  which  in  turn  would  facilitate 
broader and stronger commitment. 

Research infrastructures 

Several  EU  measures  have  been  adopted  to  ensure  that  Europe  effectively  develops  and 
maintains  pan-European  research  infrastructures  of  strategic  interest.  The  setting-up  of  the 
European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures (ESFRI) in 2002, the ESFRI roadmaps 
and the financial support provided through the EU framework programmes have been crucial 
in this respect. Despite these achievements, some issues still need to be addressed for Europe 
to keep world-class research infrastructures and face future challenges. 

While most respondents believe that public funding should be increased for the realisation of 
the  next  generation  of  research  infrastructures  of  pan-European  interest,  developing  more 
synergies between European and national actions is considered to be necessary for an optimal 
exploitation  of  existing  research  infrastructures.  Increasing  the  role  of  the  EU  in  helping 
Member States to reach agreements on the costs of construction and operation is considered to 
be  one  of  the  priorities  to  realise  the  next  generation  of  infrastructures.  The  setting-up  of 
regional  partner  facilities  along  with  the  development  of  more  harmonised  rules  between 
public research funding and Structural Funds is also perceived as important. 

Many  stakeholders  highlighted  that  the  quality  of  research  can  be  increased  by  the 
implementation of an open and excellence-based access to facilities for all actors of research. 
79  %  of  respondents  consider  that  EU  support  for  transnational  access  to  research 
infrastructures  of  pan-European  relevance  should  be  increased,  while  64  %  of  respondents 
support  remote  access  to  research  facilities  through  for  instance  the  development  of  e-
infrastructures. Strengthening the inter-operability of instruments and of scientific data at EU 
level  is  also  regarded  as  important.  Uniform  evaluation  criteria  and  practices  for  research 
infrastructures will contribute to raising the research quality within ERA. 

Knowledge transfer 

Improving  knowledge  transfer  between  universities,  public  research  organisations  and 
industry is essential for ensuring that publicly funded research results contribute to economic 
output  and  can  effectively  support  innovation  and  the  development  of  new  services  and 
products. Likewise, knowledge transfer has an increasing importance for research, especially 
in  all  fields  of  transdisciplinary  and  cross-border  research.  Strategic  and  comprehensive 
approaches and strategies for knowledge transfer in Europe are not yet common and in many 
instances there is insufficient awareness about this topic. 

A majority of respondents considers that universities and public research organisations should 
be  given  incentives  to  develop  and  implement  strong  knowledge  transfer  strategies  and 
structures. These should complement the development of strategic partnering with the private 
sector, including: researchers’ mobility, better alignment of incentives and interests, and the 
development  of  effective  collaboration  channels  in  order  to  tighten  the  links  between  the 
public sector and the private sector. Furthermore, respondents consider that researchers should 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
be better informed about knowledge transfer and that knowledge transfer activities should be 
professionalised, thereby allowing knowledge transfer offices to play a stronger role. 

Open access 

All research builds on former work and depends on scientists’ possibilities to access and share 
scientific  information.  The  advent  of  the  Internet  and  electronic  publishing  has  resulted  in 
unprecedented  possibilities  for  the  dissemination  and  exchange  of  information.  However, 
most scientific information generated by public funding, in whole or in part, is not available 
for free. This limits the access, dissemination and use of research results.  

‘Open  access’,  defined  as  free  access  over  the  Internet,  aims  to  improve  and  promote  the 
dissemination  of  knowledge,  thereby  improving  the  efficiency  of  scientific  discovery  and 
maximising  the  return  on  public  investment  in  R  &  D.  In  the  consultation,  respondents 
favoured  the  idea  that  publications  resulting  from  publicly  funded  research  should  be  given 
open access and that it should become a principle for EU-funded activities. Some respondents 
also  emphasised  also  the  importance  of  guaranteeing  not  only  access  to,  but  also  reuse  of, 
scientific information. 

In order to improve open access to scientific publications and data, as supported by 81 % of 
the  respondents,  actions  suggested  at  EU  level  include  increasing  stakeholder  awareness, 
facilitating the exchange of best practices and setting standards for the repositories and data-
sharing practices. 

Respondents  also  supported  the  view  that  national  open  access  policies  could  be  better 
coordinated and suggested a key role for the European Commission in coordinating national 
initiatives, and in monitoring and promoting open access policies to publications and data. 

International dimension 

S  &  T  cooperation  boosts  the  quality  of  European  research  and  strengthens  the  economic, 
industrial and technological competitiveness of Europe. The EU and its Member States have 
not yet been able to combine their weight to address global challenges which lie beyond the 
scope and resources of individual Member States or Member States and the EU as such. It has 
been  difficult  for  them  to  act  together  to  contribute  to  the  establishment  of  a  level  playing 
field  vis-à-vis  third  countries.  Europe  should  be  in  a  position  to  engage  in  effective 
international  cooperation,  and  in  shaping  or  leading  major  international  cooperation 
initiatives, in particular to tackle global societal challenges. 

To  achieve  this,  the  global  attractiveness  of  Europe  as  an  S  &  T  location  (for  researchers, 
companies and investment) could be increased by reducing the fragmentation of the European 
market  and  by  improving  employment  and  career prospects for researchers,  including  third-
country researchers, in the EU. Furthermore, improved information-sharing and coordination 
between international R & D policies and programmes of the EU and of the Member States, 
as well as the development of a common EU–Member States strategy for international science 
and technology cooperation and of coordinated initiatives by the EU and the Member States 
vis-à-vis  third  countries,  have  been  identified  as  the  most  important  steps  which  should  be 
taken  by  the  EU  and  its  Member  States  to  maximise  the  benefits  from  international  S  &  T 
cooperation.  Policy  planning,  coordination  and  implementation  should  involve  the  main 
stakeholders. 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
Many  comments  from  respondents  underline  the  importance  of  openness  towards  third 
countries  with  regard  to  other  ERA-related  topics,  such  as  the  mobility  of  researchers, 
scientific  excellence,  global  challenges,  knowledge  transfer  and  research  infrastructures. 
International  cooperation  should  be  part  of  all  relevant  ERA  measures  and  instruments. 
Reciprocity should be ensured: there should be similar access for European researchers to the 
R  &  D  programmes  of  third  countries  as  there  is  for  third-country  researchers  to  European 
programmes. 

Gender 

Although 45% of PhD graduates in the EU are women, only 31 % of researchers and 18 % of 
full  professors  are  women.  Progress  has  been  slow  towards  achieving  gender  equality  (i.e. 
gender-sensitive  human  resources  management,  gender  balance  in  decision-making  and  the 
integration of the gender dimension in research content) in ERA. 

A broad majority of respondents consider that a higher involvement of women in science will 
contribute  to  European  socioeconomic  growth.  They  mainly  attribute  slow  progress  in 
achieving gender equality to the persistence of gender stereotypes on the labour market, the 
lack  of  top-level  support  in  research  institutions  and  slow  progress  in  the  modernisation  of 
research  institutions.  Therefore,  respondents  stress  that  research  institutions  need  to 
implement  adequate  gender  equality  strategies  at  the  level  of  their  human  resources 
management and in research programming. 

Reflecting  on  how  EU  policies  on  gender  in  research  could  be  made  more  effective, 
stakeholders  are  in  favour  of  increased  incentives,  improved  working  environments  and  the 
inclusion of gender issues in research programmes, content and outcomes. 

Ethics 

Respondents  agree  on  the  need  to  create  the  necessary  conditions  for  the  main  actors  to 
discuss common principles and common practices that can facilitate the work of researchers 
and allow a closer cooperation between the ethics experts at the European level. Ethics review 
procedures should be simplified without compromising current standards. 

Managing and monitoring the ERA partnerships 

Following  the  launch  of  ERA  in  2000,  some  notable  results  were  achieved  by  the  open 
method  of  coordination,  steered  by  the  EU  Scientific  and  Technical  Research  Committee 
(CREST),  and  by  instruments  under  successive  framework  programmes.  The  Ljubljana 
process, based on a partnership approach (launched by research ministers in 2008), has given 
new impetus to efforts to build ERA. The ERA vision 2020 (2008), the revamping of existing 
thematic ERA groups, the creation  of the High  Level  Group  for  Joint  Programming  (GPC), 
the  Strategic  Forum  for  International  S  &  T  Cooperation  (SFIC)  and  the  transformation  of 
CREST  into  ERAC  (European  Research  Area  Committee)  in  2010  have  changed  the 
governance structure of ERA. However, as stated by the Council in its progress report of 2010 
on the realisation of ERA: ‘Much progress has been made, but the fact that the same issues as 
at the start of ERA in 2000 remain at the forefront of the policy debate shows that there is still 
a long time to go.’ A new ERA framework is needed to bring ERA to a more ambitious level. 

There  is  overall  support  from  respondents  for closer cooperation and  coordination  in  policy 
development  and  implementation  in  order  to  reduce  the  research  and  innovation  deficit  and 
inefficiencies in the EU. The full use of intellectual capability in Europe will be feasible if all 

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
regions  and  countries  are  able  to  engage  fully  in  ERA.  More  synergies  and  increased 
coordination  are  necessary  between  European  and  national/regional  research  agendas  and 
programmes.  However,  several  respondents  emphasised  that  there  was  no  need  to  establish 
new structures, but to build further on existing structures to support the good functioning of 
ERA  including  for  progress  monitoring  of  ERA-related  initiatives.  Monitoring  should 
nevertheless involve more stakeholders than Members States only and should not induce an 
increased administrative burden. 

An  important  message  resulting  from  the  consultation  is  that  almost  80  %  of  respondents 
support a greater involvement of stakeholders in all ERA processes. This would result in more 
balanced,  efficient  and  better-accepted  policy  options  agreed  at  EU  level  and  allow  a  more 
bottom-up  approach  in  the  decision-making  process.  The  establishment  of  a  stakeholder 
platform  is  supported  by  a  majority  of  respondents.  A  high  number  of  respondents  request 
more transparency and information about ERA’s available instruments and initiatives.  

Another important observation is that 73% of respondents believe that the completion of ERA 
requires a strengthened political commitment both at national and EU levels. 72 % agree on 
the inclusion of dedicated EU research policy content in national research policy programmes, 
whereas 64 % support the inclusion of ERA-related policy in national reform programmes.  

The  principles  of  simplicity,  low  administrative  burden,  scientific  autonomy,  freedom  of 
research,  scientific  integrity  and  ethical  principles  are  considered  as  the  most  important 
principles to be retained in an ERA framework. 

The  outcome  of  the  consultation  will  help  the  Commission  to  decide  on  those  issues  which 
should be addressed as priorities when preparing in 2012 the ERA framework, which will set 
out the focused, proportionate and effective measures to be taken to realise ERA. The ERA 
framework will focus on non-funding measures. 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
Annex 2: Further evidence for the problem analysis 

Differences  in  overall  performance  between  the  European  and  American  research 
systems 

This  section  presents  the  overall  performance  of  the  European  research  system,  mostly  in 
comparison  with  the  performance  of  the  US  research  system.  Science  and  scientific 
excellence  are  crucial  to  develop  the  necessary  knowledge  and  skills  for  technology-based 
innovation.  

One key driver of the differences is the fact that the EU has not played a role comparable to 
the US in the IT revolution. In the US much more than in the EU, the IT revolution has given 
rise  to  the  creation  of  many  R&D  intensive  firms  which  have  developed  and  grown  into 
global leaders. But this "IT story" seems not to be an isolated case as we see again that the US 
biotech  sector  attains  a  size  which  is  about  the  double  that  of  the  EU62.  Also  in 
nanotechnologies, in spite of a higher level of public research expenditures in the EU than in 
the  US,  EU/US  comparisons  on  the  volume  of  business  activity  generated  (based  on 
indicators  such  as  private  R&D  investments,  number  of  patents  and  market  introduction  of 
new products) are clearly not favourable for the EU63.  

While  scientific  excellence  and  quality  cannot  be  measured  as  such,  the  best  proxies  are 
bibliometric indicators which measure the scientific impact of published research results. The 
number  of  citations  that  a  scientific  publication  receives  informs  about  the  value  which  the 
scientific community ascribe to this publication for subsequent scientific developments: it is 
therefore an indication of the impact of this publication on science. 

Citation data indicates that top-level science of the EU is less cited than in the US64: 

• 

• 

• 

62 
63 

64 
65 

66 

67 

On  average  over  the  period  2000-2009,  US  scientific  publications  received  27% 
more  citations  than  EU  ones  in  most  fields,  with  the  exception  of  Energy  and 
Space65. 

In the EU, 11.6% of its researchers' publications are among the top 10% most cited 
worldwide66, which is above the world average. In the US, 15.3% of its publications 
are among the top 10% most cited worldwide, showing a better performance than the 
EU67.  Moreover,  the  share  of  10%  most  cited  scientific  publications  is  unevenly 
distributed as are the patents (Figure 2below). 

In the Shanghai ranking of world's universities, 27 of Europe's universities features 
in the top 100 in 2011 whereas the corresponding figures for US universities is 55. 

Biotechnology in Europe, 2006 comparative study, Critical 1, prepared for EuropaBio..  
European  Commission  (2009),  "STC  Key  Figures  report  2008/2009",  pages  69  ,  and  "Europe  in  the 
global research landscape", pages 44 to 48 
Dosi, Llerena, Labini (2006)  
P. Albarran, J. Crespo, I. Ortuno, J. Ruiz-Castillo, (2009), "A comparison of the scientific performance 
of the US and the EU at the turn of the century",  
A country which exhibits an average scientific performance is expected to have 10% of its publications 
among the top 10% most cited ones worldwide. 
EC 20011, Innovation Union Competitiveness Report. The figures concern 2007 scientific publications, 
cited in 2007-2009. 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The dominance of US universities is even more pronounced when looking at the top 
50 (11 EU universities) and top 10 world's universities (2 EU universities).  

The EU scores well in 'traditional' scientific fields, such as Agricultural science, Chemistry, 
Physics and Engineering, while it lag the farthest behind the US in fast-developing fields such 
ICT,  Nanotechnology,  Biotechnology,  Molecular  biology  and  Genetics68.  In  his  paper 
"Explaining  poor  performance  of  European  science:  institutions  versus  policies",  A. 
Bonaccorsi (2007) developed the following diagnosis: "European science is weak in the upper 
tail of quality, in fast moving new fields, and in fields characterised by divergent growth and 
new  forms  of  complementarities,  many  of  which  are  also  responsible  for  breakthrough 
technological developments"69.  

Figure  2:  Distribution  of  the  10%  most  cited  scientific  publications  as  percentage  of  total  national 
publications (left) and EPO patent applications by inventor's country of residence (2007)  

Competitive funding in Europe 

As  shown  in  Figure  3  below,  the  share  of  competitive  funding  as  a  total  of  public  R&D 
funding (GBAORD) varies from 20 to 80% between Member States.  

Figure 3: Share of GBAORD allocated through calls for proposals 

Source:  OECD,  based  on  preliminary  data  from  the  microdata  project  on  public  R&D  funding  of  the  Working  Party  of 
National Experts in Science and Technology (NESTI), 2009-2010 and Commission estimations for missing observations. 

68 

69 

P. Albarran, J. Crespo, I. Ortuno, J. Ruiz-Castillo, (2009), "A comparison of the scientific performance 
of the US and the EU at the turn of the century" 
Science and Public policy, June 2007.  

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Well-coordinated research programmes and priorities 

Estimations  indicate  that  around  87%  of  public  R&D  in  the  EU  is  programmed,  financed, 
monitored  and  evaluated  at  national  level,  with  too  little  collaboration  or  coordination 
between  countries.  In  2011  an  EC  Communication  on  Partnering  in  Research  and 
Innovation70  was  launched  aiming  to  simplify  the  existing  partnering  landscape  in  research 
and  innovation.  The  FP7  SSH  VERA  project  indicates  that  "research  programming  of 
universities in Europe is currently not co-ordinated across borders in a systematic way. With 
regard to co-ordination between research institutes, two initiatives exist to date: the European 
Energy  Research  Alliance  (EERA)  and  the  European  Climate  Research  Alliance  (ECRA). 
According to NETWATCH data, there were 7 active networks in 2011 receiving no funding 
from  FP7.  They  were  all  self-sustaining  networks,  which  were  actually  former  ERA-NETs, 
and which continued without EU support" (VERA, 2012). 

Co-operation between research institutions leads to international co-authorship. As shown in 
Figure 4 below, international co-authorship is more cited than domestic co-authorship. 

Figure 4: Highly cited scientific articles by type of collaboration, 2006-08 

Highly cited (top 1%) scientific articles by type of collaboration, 2006-08
        as a percentage of highly cited scientific articles worldwide

Single author

International co-authorship

Domestic co-authorship

Magnified

5
4
3
2
1
0

%

25

48.8

20

15

10

5

0

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
e
N

t

n
a
p
a
J

a

i
l

a
r
t
s
u
A

d
n
a
l
r
e
z
t
i

w
S

i

n
a
p
S

n
e
d
e
w
S

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

e
c
n
a
r
F

a
d
a
n
a
C

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

l

y
a
t
I

i

a
n
h
C

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

n
a
p
a
J

a

i
l

a
r
t
s
u
A

d
n
a
l
r
e
z
t
i

w
S

i

n
a
p
S

n
e
d
e
w
S

s
e
t
a
t
S
d
e
t
i
n
U

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

a
e
r
o
K

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

i

a
d
n

I

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

a
e
r
o
K

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

i

a
d
n
I

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

d
n
a
n
F

i

l

d
n
a
n
F

i

l

l
i

z
a
r
B

y
a
w
r
o
N

i

n
a
s
s
u
R

n
o

i
t

a
r
e
d
e
F

d
n
a
o
P

l

y
e
k
r
u
T

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

e
c
e
e
r
G

w
e
N

l

d
n
a
a
e
Z

l

a
g
u

t
r
o
P

h
c
e
z
C

c

i
l

b
u
p
e
R

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

i

o
c
x
e
M

d
n
a
e
c
I

l

k
a
v
o
S

l

c

i
l

b
u
p
e
R

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

l
i

z
a
r

B

y
a
w
r
o
N

n
o
i
t
a
r
e
d
e
F
n
a
s
s
u
R

i

d
n
a
o
P

l

y
e
k
r
u
T

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

e
c
e
e
r
G

i

o
c
x
e
M

d
n
a
e
c
I

l

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

l

d
n
a
a
e
Z
w
e
N

c

i
l

b
u
p
e
R
h
c
e
z
C

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

c

i
l

b
u
p
e
R
k
a
v
o
S

l

Source: DG Research and Innovation
Data: OECD, Measuring Innovation: A New Perspective (2010)

Research infrastructures  

Pan-European  research  infrastructures  allow  research  and  scientific  results  to  be  delivered 
faster and at lower costs as shown below. 

70 

COM(2011) 572 Final 

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 2: Ration of publications of pan-European RIs vs. national research entities: the case of ESRF 

Source: Nature Publishing Index, Global Top 50 (BETA) 

As  stated  by  the  FP  SSH  VERA  project,  "through  FP7,  the  EU  provides  mainly  catalytic 
support to an initial Preparatory Phase (~220 M€) to address legal, governance, financial and 
technical  issues  in  order  to  launch  the  projects.  The  EU  contracts  provide  a  framework 
allowing  all  necessary  stakeholders  to  cooperate.  FP7  funds  to  support  to  the  actual 
Construction Phase is much more limited (90 M€). Additional financial resources (200 M€) 
are devoted to the RSFF to make available loans from the European Investment Bank (EIB). 
In view of the overall financial needs (~ 20B€), the contribution of FP7 of ~ 500 M€ is rather 
limited. 

The EU Structural Funds can provide a substantial support to some research infrastructures. 
Under the current Financial Perspectives from 2007 to 2013, 10 B€ are earmarked for "R&TD 
infrastructure  and  centres  of  competence".  This  support  is  particularly  important  for  the  12 
new MS. The projects need to meet requirements of scientific excellence and impact on the 
regional economy. For some ESFRI projects, industrial partners have already been identified 
and  letters  of  interest  from  companies  received,  demonstrating  the  potential  impact  on  the 
economy (partnership with innovative industries, large companies, SMEs and start-ups; links 
with innovative incubators for the creation of spin-offs). After 2013, as part of Horizon 2020, 
Research  Infrastructures  (including  e-infrastructures)  are  expected  to  be  funded  under  the 
priority 'Excellent Science'" (VERA, 2012). 

Realising a single market for researchers 

The  ERA  Green  Paper  (2008)  identified  several  barriers  to  the  European  single  market  for 
researchers. These include the limited extent and lack of harmonised rules and conditions for 
open recruitment in public research institutions, the lack of recognition in the labour market 
law  of  the  research  profession  and  its  specificities,  its  poor  working  conditions  and  the 
existence  of  barriers  to  easily  transferable  pension  funds.  The  FP7  SSH  VERA  project  has 
identified  that  "mobility  across  sectors  or  borders  is  often  penalised  in  terms  of  career 
advancement and consolidation and, in general, the private sector is not sufficiently active in 
research.  In  this  context,  procedures  for  facilitating  access  to  the  EU  for  third  country 
researchers  are  still  cumbersome  and  lengthy.  Doctoral  education  in  EU  is  fragmented  and 
lacks  critical  size  at  the  expense  of  excellence  and  attractiveness  These  barriers  are  further 
reinforced  by  some  demographic  and  social  trends:  on  the  one  hand,  women  are  under-
represented in top scientific positions (see section below); young PhDs emigrate from Europe 
to the US; many of the old researchers close to retirement will not be replaced resulting in loss 

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
 
 
of competences. These barriers have not been substantially overcome in the recent years and 
the  Innovation  Union  flagship  initiative  has  identified  further  obstacles.  For  instance,  it  has 
pointed  out  that  the  research  profession  suffers  from  a  lack  of  a  common  understanding  of 
researchers'  competences,  which  hinders  the  match  of  demand  and  supply  and  thus  the 
effective allocation of resources" (VERA, 2012). 

Recruitment practices in the EU 

In  the  large-scale  MORE  survey  of  university-based  researchers71,  previously  mobile 
researchers  were  asked  about  'major'  obstacles  to  possible  future  mobility.  Up  to  70%  cited 
"finding  a  suitable  position",  which  is  explained  partly  by  a  lack  of  open  and  transparent 
recruitment procedures. This finding was supported by the recent public consultation on the 
ERA  framework.  The  lack  of  open  and  transparent recruitment procedures was  regarded  by 
more than 59% of respondents (and up to 78% if those who rate it as of 'medium importance' 
are included) as one of the main factors hindering internationally mobile researchers. 

Recruitment procedures at Member State level are complex and vary significantly across the 
EU. Recruitment policies and practices in public institutions are determined by a number of 
factors,  such  as  universities’  and  research  institutions’  autonomy  over  hiring,  career 
progression mechanisms and career paths for research-related positions.  

Regarding staffing autonomy (the capacity to decide on recruitment procedures, on salaries, 
on  dismissals  and  on  promotions  of  senior  academic/senior  administrative  staff),  the  recent 
EUA  report72  (European  University  Association  2011)  shows  that  universities  in  nine  EU 
Member States (DE, CZ, ES, FR, EL, HU, IE, PT, SK) face tight restrictions over hiring and 
cannot freely hire staff. In several Member States (CZ, HU, SK, EL) the appointment of some 
or all senior positions need to be confirmed by an external authority. Italy lies in 24th, Spain 
26th and Greece 28th.  

Recruitment practices in Italy are not sufficiently open and transparent. For example, selection 
criteria  are  published  but  often  remain  very  generic.  Moreover,  recent  research73  into  Italian 
universities points to a remarkable level of nepotism. This has led to a recent reform law (no. 240 
of 2010) whereby Italian universities i) must advertise any position publicly, at national and 
European level; and ii) cannot employ a new researcher or professor even on a part time or 
temporary  basis  in  the  same  University  Institute/Department  where  his/her  relatives  (to  the 
4th degree of relationship) teach and work.  

In  Germany  the  openness  of  appointment  procedures  is  guaranteed  by  the  constitutional 
principle of the selection of the best and laws explicitly calling for international publication of 
many positions although a study by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research 
(BMBF, 2010) indicates that the majority of staff in universities and research institutions feel 
that recruitment in Germany is neither fair nor transparent.  

In Greece, institutions are constrained by (at times multiple) restrictions imposed on all areas 
of higher education staffing. The number of posts is limited; appointments are confirmed by 

71 
72 

73 

http://ec.europa.eu/euraxess/pdf/research_policies/MORE_HEI_report_final_version.pdf 
European University Association (2011), University Autonomy in Europe II, The Scorecard, by Thomas 
Estermann,  Terhi  Nokkala  &  Monika 
http://www.eua.be/eua-work-and-policy-
area/governance-autonomy-and-funding/projects/university-autonomy-in-europe/  
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=418337&c=1  

Steinel, 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
                                                 
an external authority for academic and carried out through a centralised national system for 
administrative personnel. Salaries and dismissals are strictly regulated due to the civil servant 
status held by all staff, and the law states detailed requirements for the promotion process. 

Under-representation of female researchers 

Evidence  shows  that  the  potential  represented  by  female  scientists  may  not  be  used  in  an 
optimal manner. Research74 shows that female researchers tend to be under-represented across 
the  EU  (average  share  of  31%  of  females  amongst  the  research  profession).  Whilst  the 
number  of  female  researchers  is  almost  on  a  par  with  the  number  of  male  researchers  in 
Member States such as Lithuania, Latvia and Bulgaria (49%, 47% and 45% respectively), the 
proportion of female researchers drops to 21% in Germany and to 18% in Luxembourg and 
the Netherlands.  

Table 3 below provides an overview of the proportion of female researchers in EU Member 
States and selected third countries.  

Table 3: Proportion of female researchers, 2006 

Source: S&T statistics (Eurostat), Norwegian Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education 
Exceptions to the reference year: CZ, EE, SK, NO: 2007; BE, DK, DE, IE, EL, LU, NL, PT, SE, IS, JP: 2005; CH: 2004 
Data unavailable: UK, IL, Provisional data: NL 
Data estimated: EU-27, EU-15 (by Eurostat), EU-25 (by DG Research), EE 
Females also tend to be less represented in the highest grade of research careers75 (EU average 
proportion  of  19%)  and amongst  management positions (EU average proportion of 13%) as 
shown in Table 4 and Table 5 below).  

74 

75 

European  Commission  (2009),  She  Figures  2009,  Statistics  and  Indicators  on  Gender  Equality  in 
Science 
European  Commission  (2009),  She  Figures  2009,  Statistics  and  Indicators  on  Gender  Equality  in 
Science 

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Table 4: Proportion of women in grade A academic positions, 2002/2007 

Source: WiS database (DG Research); Higher Education Authority for Ireland 
Exceptions to the reference year (s): 2007 HR: 2008; UK: 2007/2006; DK, FR, CY, LU, AT, 
IL: 2006; EE, MT: 2004; PT: 2003; IE: 2002-2003; EL: 2000; 2002 NO, UK, NL: 2003; IL: 2001; 
EL: 1999 
Data unavailable: HR, LU, IE: 2002 
Break in series: CZ (2005) 
Provisional data: ES 
Data estimated: EU-27, EU-25, EU-15 (by DG Research), SI 
Head count 
NO: before 2007 biannual data 
Data for Ireland on Grade A professors does not include the Institutes of Technology 

Table 5: Proportion of female heads of institutions in the Higher Education Sector (HES), 2007 

Source: WiS database (DG Research) 
Exceptions to the reference year: IT: 2009; BE (Dutch-speaking community), DE, EE, 
HU, AT, PL, SK, FI, SE, HR, CH, IL: 2008; DK, CY: 2008/2007; RO: 2007/2006 
Data unavailable: BE (French-speaking community), IE, EL, ES, FR, MT, PT, SI, UK 
Data estimated: EU-27 (by DG Research) 
BE data refer to Dutch-speaking community 

Openness of high level education systems to young researchers 

According to recent data, the average share of doctoral candidates who are not EU-nationals 
amounts  to  19%  across  the  EU  (PRO  INNO  Europe,  2011)  and  there  exist  significant 
differences between Member States with regard to the share  of doctoral  candidates  who  are 

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
 
 
not nationals of that Member State. In the UK and France, the share amounts to 48% and 41% 
respectively, compared with 1% in Latvia and Lithuania, 3% in Romania and 8% in Italy.  

Table  6  below  shows  the  share  of  second  stage  of  tertiary  education  students  (doctoral 
candidates  and  other  training  course  leading  to  advanced  research  qualification)  in  the  EU 
who come from third countries and other European countries. 

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
Table  6:  Second  stage  of  tertiary  education  students  (ISCED6)  in  EU  Member  States  and 
share of non-national doctoral students, 2009 

Total doctoral 
students 
(ISCED6)

Foreign doctoral students (ISCED6)
of which:

Total no.

Citizens of another EU 
MS

Other

Belgium
(in %)
Bulgaria
(in %)
Czech Republic
(in %)
Denmark
(in %)
Germany
Estonia
(in %)
Ireland
(in %)
Greece
Spain
(in %)
France
(in %)
Italy
(in %)
Cyprus
(in %)
Latvia
(in %)
Lithuania
(in %)
Luxembourg
Hungary
(in %)
Malta
(in %)
Netherlands
(in %)
Austria
(in %)
Poland
(in %)
Portugal
(in %)
Romania
(in %)
Slovenia
(in %)
Slovakia
(in %)
Finland
(in %)
Sweden
(in %)
UK
(in %)

12,505
100%
3,949
100%
24,906
100%
7,063
100%
na
2,465
100%
7,321
100%
na
77,211
100%
71,718
100%
39,399
100%
443
100%
2,025
100%
2,939
100%
-
6,911
100%
74
100%
7,749
100%
18,471
100%
32,494
100%
15,279
100%
27,892
100%
1,994
100%
10,417
100%
20,792
100%
19,911
100%
81,693
100%

Source: DG Research and Innovation 
Data: Eurostat 
Notes:  
n/a: data not available 

3,958
32%
226
6%
2,539
10%
1,388
20%
na
130
5%
na
-
na
16,995
22%
29,355
41%
3,250
8%
42
9%
15
0.7%
32
1.1%
-
487
7%
7
9%
na
-
5,087
28%
777
2.4%
1,874
12%
859
3%
170
9%
754
7%
1,941
9%
5,153
26%
38,839
48%

1,540
12%
71
2%
1,607
6%
648
9%
na
56
2%
na
-
na
3,792
5%
4,721
7%
790
2%
34
8%
5
0.2%
14
0.5%
-
296
4%
4
5%
na
-
3,027
16%
133
0.4%
344
2%
285
1%
38
2%
604
6%
877
4%
1,516
8%
13,053
16%

2,418
19%
155
4%
932
4%
740
10%
na
74
3%
na
-
na
13,203
17%
24,634
34%
2,460
6%
8
2%
10
0.5%
18
0.6%
-
191
3%
3
4%
na
-
2,060
11%
644
2.0%
1,530
10%
574
2%
132
7%
150
1%
1,064
5%
3,637
18%
25,786
32%

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
 
Countries  which  are  more  open  (i.e.  higher  share  of  doctoral  candidates  coming  from  other 
European  countries  or  third  countries)  also  tend,  on  average,  to  perform  better  in  terms  of 
R&D.  The  2011  Innovation  Union  Scoreboard  shows  that  countries  such  as  Sweden, 
Denmark, Germany and Finland are innovation leaders. Some of these innovation leaders are 
also amongst the most open research systems. 

Table 7: EU Member States’ innovation performance, 2011 

Source: European Commission, Innovation Union Scoreboard 2010 
Notes:  
1)  Average  performance  is  measured  using  a  composite  indicator  building  on  data  for  24  indicators  going  from  a  lowest  possible 
performance of 0 to a maximum possible performance of 1. Average performance in 2010 reflects performance in 2008/2009 due to a lag in 
data availability 
2) The performance of Innovation leaders is 20% or more above that of the EU27; of Innovation followers it is less than 20% above but more 
than 10% below that of the EU27; of Moderate innovators it is less than 10% below but more than 50% below that of the EU27; and for 
Modest innovators it is below 50% that of the EU27. 

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
 
Annex 3: Evaluation of previous and existing EU, regional and national initiatives 

The European Research Area – Policy making and progress so far 

The  European  research  project  “VERA”-  Forward  visions  on  the  European  research  Area 
(FP7,  Social  Sciences  and  Humanities)”  coordinated  by  Fraunhofer  Institute,  has  recently 
produced  the  ERA  Fabric  Map,  which  gives  a  snapshot  of  the  ERA  today.  The  following 
section is inspired on this report. 

The ERA making 

The  ERA  concept  was  launched  at  the  Lisbon  European  Council  in  March  2000  and  was 
given new impetus in 2007 with the European Commission's Green Paper on ERA and with 
the  launch  by  the  Council  of  the  Ljubljana  Process  to  improve  the  political  governance  of 
ERA in 2008. A series of initiatives were proposed by the Commission in 2008 to further the 
ERA  in  five  key  areas,  namely:  (a)  working  conditions  and  mobility  of  researchers;  (b)  the 
joint design and operation of research programmes; (c) the creation of world-class European 
research  infrastructures;  (d)  the  transfer  of  knowledge  and  cooperation  between  public 
research and industry and (e)  international cooperation in science and technology. Since the 
adoption of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, ERA is an explicit objective of the European Union. 
Announced  in  the  Europe  2020  strategy,  the  seven  flagship  initiatives  launched  since  2010 
contribute  to  ERA.  The  European  Council  stated  in  February  2011,  and  reiterated  in  March 
2012, that the ERA must be completed by 2014. 

Several official advisory bodies and fora for discussion contribute to delineate ERA76: 

• 
The  European  Research  Area  Committee  (ERAC),  so-called  CREST  before  the 
renewal of its mandate, is the advisory body assisting the Council of the European Union and 
the European Commission in the field of research and technological development. A number 
of candidate and associated countries participate as observers in ERAC77. ERAC has several 
dedicated configurations: the High Level Group for Joint Programming; the Strategic Forum 
for International Cooperation (SFIC); and the Knowledge Transfer Group. 

• 
The Steering Group on Human Resources and Mobility (SGHRM) recognised by 
the  Council  in  2008  to  be  the  appropriate  forum  for  promoting  and  monitoring  the 
implementation of the European Partnership for Researchers. 

The European Research Advisory Board (ERAB).established by the Commission in 

• 
2007 is a consultative body responsible for advising the EU on the realisation of the ERA. 

• 
The  European  Strategy  Forum  on  Research  Infrastructures  (ESFRI)  aims  to 
support a coherent and strategy-led approach to policy-making on research infrastructures in 
Europe. 

The  Science  and  Technology  Options  Assessment  (STOA)  unit  advises  the 

• 
European Parliament on research related issues. 

76 
77 

Source: ERAWATCH 
Albania,  Bosnia  &  Herzegovina,  Croatia,  Faroe  Islands,  Former  Yugoslav  Republic  of  Macedonia, 
Iceland, Israel, Liechtenstein, Moldavia, Montenegro, Norway, Serbia, Switzerland and Turkey. 

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Moreover,  there  are  numerous  advisory  councils  and  groups  on  specific  thematic  themes 
relating  to  research  policy.  These  include  advisory  councils,  advisory  groups  for  the  7th 
Framework  Programme  (FP7)  and  standing  committees  on  thematic  issues.  There  are  also 
permanent expert groups on women in science and ethics. 

Progress so far 

Member States play a crucial role in realising the ERA. In terms of progress so far, Chioncel 
and Cuntz (2012) have found that  

• 

• 

• 

The ERA dimensions People and Infrastructures are more important than others from 
national  perspective.  This  is  possible  due  to  financial  incentives  at  EU  levels,  in 
particular the one on infrastructures, i.e. this likely leading into path-dependency and 
overweighting of specific ERA dimensions.  

ERA progress and integration takes place at different speed, particularly relevant in 
the areas of promoting excellent research institutions and well-coordinated research 
programmes and priorities. 

Knowledge circulation dimension is an area of potential policy failure for countries 
with lower innovation performance.  

By tapping further into these policy fields as rent-seeking EU funds, Member States may face 
increased  systemic  failure  due  to  limited  absorptive  capacities  of  their  businesses  and 
continue developing science base on national levels. 

Initiatives aiming at coordinating national funding  

The  main  initiatives  taken  at  EU  level  and  their  results  and  impacts  are  analysed  in  the 
sections below.  

ERA-NET scheme78 

The  ERA-NET  scheme  was  launched,  as  a  novelty,  in  2002  under  FP6  to  support  the 
coordination  and  collaboration  of  national  research  programmes.  It  aimed  at  facilitating  the 
exchange of views and good practices, the strategic planning and the design of joint research 
programmes as well as the implementation of joint activities, in particular joint calls. Under 
FP7, the ERA-NET scheme was reinforced by introducing a new module, ‘ERA-NET Plus’, 
which allows the ‘topping-up’ of joint trans-national funding with European Union funding. 

Between 2002 and 2010, the EU invested 341 million Euros in more than 100 ERA-NET 
actions: ERA-NET proved to be an immediate success, resulting in 101 different ERA-NET 
initiatives by the end of 2010. Nine ERA-NET Plus actions have been funded since 2007. The 
total  funding  ERA-NETs  have  received  under  FP6  is  185  million  Euros.  The  ERA-NET 

78 

Relevant material and data for the ERA-NET section are as follows: Evaluation and impact assessment 
of  the  ERA-NET  scheme  and  the  related  ERA-NET  actions  under  the  6th  Framework  Programme, 
ERA-NET Plus Review 2010, Draft report Statistics on ERA-NET and ERA-NET plus actions and their 
joint  calls  and  programmes  (2004-2010),  NETWATCH,  including  ‘Mapping  ERA-NETs  across 
Europe: overview of the ERA-NET scheme and its results’, published by the IPTS, Input received from 
Interservice Group on Coordination of National Programmes, Reports of the Annual ERA-NET events 
2008-2010, ERA-NET continuation workshop November 2010 

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
                                                 
scheme under FP7 has been funded with 156 million Euros for the period 2007-2010 (ERA-
NET Plus: 68 million Euros). 

Until  2010,  a  total  of  51  countries  participate  in  ERA-NETs,  including  all  EU  Member 
States,  Associated  Countries  to  the  EU  Framework  Programme  for  Research  and 
Technological  Development  and  Third  Countries.  France  and  Germany  are  the  leading 
participants, but there is also significant involvement of a group of other countries: Austria, 
Finland,  The  Netherlands  and  Belgium.  The  most  active  associate  countries  are  Turkey, 
Norway, Switzerland and Israel.  

ERA-NETs  have  launched  more  than  190  calls,  resulting  in  more  than  2,000 
transnational projects funded since 2004: a total of 194 joint calls have been implemented 
from 2004-2010 and more than 30 calls were done in 2011. The average funding per project is 
725.000 Euros, with more than 2,000 projects funded in the period 2004-2010. The consortia 
size of projects funded by ERA-NETs is substantially smaller than in the FP (≈ 3-6) with a 
very high SME participation in many areas (some > 50%).  

Annual volume of coordinated research close to 300 million Euros: the public funding of 
transnational  research  by  ERA-NET  and  ERA-NET  Plus  actions  has  been  growing  steadily 
since  the  first  calls  in  2004  and  currently  adds  up  to  290  million  Euros  per  year.  The  total 
public  funding  of  research  implemented  by  ERA-NETs  and  ERA-NET  Plus  since  its 
beginning until 2010 amounts to more than 1.400 Million Euros. The biggest contributors are 
Industrial  Technologies  and  SMEs  (more  than  500  million  Euros)  and  Environment, 
Knowledge Based Bio-Economy and Health (around 200 million each Euros).  

Substantial leverage effects on research coordination funding: The leverage effect of the 
Framework Programme funding is close to 5 Euros for ERA-NETs and 2.5 Euros for ERA-
NET Plus. More than 15 Euros of the initial FP6 ERA-NETs have achieved a leverage effect 
of  10  Euros  and  more  (1  Euro  Framework-programme  funding  resulting  in  10  Euros 
coordinated research funding).  

Virtual  common  pot  and  mixed  mode  supporting  transnational  programme  collaboration: 
virtual  common  pot  and  mixed  mode  have  proven  to  be  the  preferred  funding  mode  for 
transnational  programme  collaboration  in  the  context  of  the  ERA-NET  scheme.  The  virtual 
common pot is applied in almost 80% of all call budgets. ERA-NET Plus actions rely mainly 
on  the  mixed  mode  (84%  of  all  ERA-NET  Plus  call  budgets).  The  real  common  pot  is 
scarcely used (4%) and is limited to social sciences and humanities, fundamental research or 
public procurement actions. 

ERA-NET Plus supporting critical mass, evaluation standards and financial integration: 
the  ERA-NET  Plus  instrument  results  in  substantially  larger  average  call  budgets  of  25 
million  Euros  compared  to  7  million  Euros  for  the  ERA-NET  calls  and  supports  achieving 
critical mass. In addition, they establish international peer review as an evaluation standard, as 
well as successfully increasing financial integration to ensure proposal selection exclusively 
based on excellence. 

Positive impact on structuring the ERA and national programmes and their collaboration, 
but limited success in creating multiannual joint programmes with critical mass: in addition to 
the  calls  and  the  transnational  research  opportunities  they  create,  the  ERA-NETs  deliver  a 
wealth  of  intangible  results.  Participants  confirm  the  ERA-NET  scheme  results  in  new 
opportunities to enable transnational R&D activities  (reported by 85.5%  of all participants), 

EN 

58 

   EN 

 
reduces  duplication  between  national  programmes  (37.5%),  increases  the  thematic  focus  in 
existing  (38%)  or  new  programmes  (34%),  stimulates  good  practices  and  innovations  in 
programme  designs  (>50%)  and  positively  influences  national  programme  budgets  in  the 
selected  theme  of  the  ERA-NET  (46%).  It  has  proved  to  be  a  valuable  mutual  learning 
process that contributes to an overall improvement of the research system in Europe.  

Article 185 initiatives79 

Article  185  of  the  TFEU  enables  the  EU  to  participate  in  joint  research  programmes 
undertaken  by  several  Member  States,  as  well  as  to  participate  in  the  dedicated 
implementation structures. The aim is to strongly support the integration of national research 
activities  beyond  coordination,  and  to  achieve  critical  mass.  The  EU  provides  financial 
support out of the Framework Programme. The basic selection criteria are: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Involvement  of  a  sufficient  number  of  Member  States  to  obtain  a  significant 
structuring effect and critical mass;  

Topic  of  great  interest  to  the  EU  and  fitting  in  with  the  thematic  priorities  of  the 
Framework Programme;  

The  principle  of  co-funding  by  the  Member  States  and  the  EU,  and  principle  of 
additionality are respected; significant European added value;  

Article 185 is the only way the project could be implemented.  

With  Article  185  initiatives,  the  European  Union  goes  beyond  simply  coordinating  existing 
research  programmes.  It  requires  scientific  integration  through  common  definition  and 
implementation  of  S&T  activities;  management  integration  in  a  single  implementation 
structure;  and  financial  integration  through  a  clear  multi-annual  commitment  of  the 
participating Member States.  

A  first  Article  185  initiative,  the  European  and  Developing  Countries  Clinical  Trials 
Partnership  (EDCTP),  was  launched  in  June  2003.  Under  FP7,  four  initiatives,  Ambient 
Assisted Living (ALL), EUROSTARS (for SME research), the European Metrology Research 
and  Development  Programme  EMRP  have  followed  and  a  Joint  Baltic  Sea  Research 
Programme (BONUS) are currently being implemented.  

The  FP6  EDCTP  initiative  has  a  total  volume  of  400  million  Euros  with  50%  EU 
contribution. The focus is on clinical trials, capacity building, training and mobility and less 
on  research.  From  2004  to  2010  a  total  of  326  projects  have  been  funded  with  312  million 
Euros (EU contribution 132 million Euros, 42%). 

The  three  FP7  initiatives  have  implemented  from  2008  until  2010  calls  with  a  total  public 
funding  of  530  million  Euros,  of  which  the  EU  contribution  amounts  to  191  million  Euros 
(36%).  For  the  total  duration  of  these  three  initiatives  a  total  public  funding  of  1.1  billion 
Euros  is  planned,  of  which  the  EU  contribution  would  amount  to  450  million  Euros  (not 
including Bonus, which will start its implementation in 2012 with an EU contribution of 50 
million Euros). In total 441 projects have been funded with an average public funding for the 
Eurostars  projects  comparable  to  the  average  ERA-NET  project  (680.000  Euros)  and 

79 

Relevant  material  and  data  for  the  Art.185  section  are:  VAN  VELZEN  REPORT  (EDCTP 
ACTIVITIES 2007-2008), Mid-term assessment AAL and Mid-term assessment EUROSTARS 

EN 

59 

   EN 

 
                                                 
substantially  higher  average  amounts  for  ALL  (2,3  million  Euros)  and  EMRP  (6,8  million 
Euros).  

AAL  and  EUROSTARS  have  concluded  their  interim  evaluation  in  2011.  Both  evaluations 
have  shown  that  the  use  of  Art.  185  TFEU  has  created  substantial  leverage  effect  and  real 
European added value for the respective area of research by integrating national programmes 
and pooling resources. Both initiatives as well as EMRP clearly demonstrate the functioning 
of a partly virtual common pot. All individual initiatives have specific arrangements to assure 
that  Member  States  honour  their  financial  commitments.  Lessons  learned  show  that 
operational  arrangements  are  improving  constantly  and  from  the  Commission  point  of  view 
the instrument seems very cost efficient. 

Joint Programming  

The Joint Programming process launched in 2008, allows committed Member States to jointly 
address major societal challenges through national public funding, with the eventual support 
of EU instruments. Within the concept of Joint Programming, Member States shall coordinate 
national  research  activities,  pool  resources,  benefit  from  complementarities  and  develop 
common  research  agendas,  in  order  to  face  the  grand  societal  challenges  –  all  in  variable 
geometry and therefore on a voluntary basis. Joint Programming intends to tackle challenges 
that cannot be solved solely on the national level and allows Member States to participate in 
joint initiatives that seem useful for them. 

The  Council  of  the  European  Union  welcomed  the  concept  and  the  objectives  of  Joint 
Programming in its respective Conclusions adopted on 2 December 2008, and called ‘for the 
implementation of that process led by the Member States to step up their cooperation in the 
R&D  area  in  order  to  better  confront  major  societal  challenges  of  European  or  worldwide 
scale,  where  public  research  plays  a  key  role’.  The  council  called  furthermore  for  a  Joint 
Programming  pilot  initiative  in  the  area  of  neurodegenerative  diseases  with  its  respective 
conclusions  ‘Concerning  a  common  commitment  by  the  Member  States  to  combat 
neurodegenerative  diseases,  particularly  Alzheimer's  disease’.  A  pilot  JPI  on 
Neurodegenerative Diseases (including Alzheimer's) was launched by Council Conclusions in 
December 2009. A first wave of 3 JPIs was launched in October 2010 on Agriculture, Food 
Security  and  Climate  Change;  Cultural  Heritage  and  Global  Change,  a  new  challenge  for 
Europe; and A Healthy Diet for a Healthy Life. A second wave of six JPIs was identified by 
the GPC in 2010 and launched by the Council in December 2011: More Years, Better Lives - 
Potential  &  Challenges  of  Demographic  Change;  The  Microbial  Challenge  -  An  emerging 
threat  to  human  health;  Healthy  and  Productive  Seas  and  Oceans;  Water  Challenges  for  a 
Changing  World;  Urban  Europe  -  Global  Urban  Challenges,  Joint  European  Solutions;  and 
Connecting Climate Knowledge for Europe (CliK'EU). 

The  administrative,  normative  and  regulatory  factors  considered  essential  for  effective 
implementation  of  Joint  Programming  in  Research  are  jointly  referred  to  as  ‘Framework 
Conditions’. They include the development of common accepted approaches for: peer review 
procedures; forward looking (foresight) activities; evaluation of joint programmes; funding of 
cross-border  research;  dissemination  of  research  findings;  management  of  intellectual 
property. A first version of Guidelines on Framework Conditions for Joint Programming was 
endorsed (November 2010 Council Conclusions).  

A number of issues remain critical in the current move from definition to implementation of 
JPIs: 

EN 

60 

   EN 

 
• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

To  date,  Member  States'  commitments  of  human  and  financial  resources  remain 
weak due to difficulties in pooling resources; Joint Programming will fail if Member 
States do not make concrete, long-term commitments;  

Application of the Voluntary Guidelines on Framework Conditions is still at an early 
stage; 

Progress in completing the definition of Strategic Research Agendas has been slow; 

The process of building trust between the partners is still at an early stage; 

In  many  cases,  the  areas  being  addressed  by  JPIs  are  outside  the  direct  remit  of 
Research Ministries. Inadequate prioritisation of societal challenges by the Ministries 
directly  responsible  for  addressing  them  at  Member  State  level  risks  hindering  the 
successful implementation of JPIs. 

Impacts of some actions coordinating national funding in relation to policy-driven themes 

Pooling resources on a European scale and catalysing new national initiatives: example of 
the Ambient Assisted Living (AAL) programme  

The Ambient Assisted Living (AAL) programme  

The  Ambient  Assisted  Living  (AAL)  programme  engages  20  Member  States  and  three  Associated  Countries. 
The  programme  has  been  successful  in  addressing  the  pan-European  challenge  of  ageing  and  in  coordinating 
national  policies  in  the  area.  It  has  minimised  the  duplication  of  efforts  and  has  led  to  the  creation  of  new 
national initiatives in countries like Germany, France, Spain, Denmark and Hungary through the dissemination 
of results and experience at the European level. In the first three calls of the joint programme, Member States 
contributed  around  100  million  Euros  funding  while  the  EU  contributed  70  million  Euros.  The  mid-term 
evaluation has found that the AAL Programme ‘is an important instrument for integration of national efforts and 
the creation of synergies, especially as regards scientific and management integration’. The Panel concluded that 
AAL  ‘provides  real  added  value  at  European  level  and  can  serve  as  a  model  for  balancing  international 
governance with national needs, by increasing critical mass and reducing duplication.’ The Panel also found that 
the  AAL  JP  ‘is  already  delivering  a  clear  European  added  value  in  the  achieved  balance  between  European 
efforts and national needs and inputs, and in the development of good practices.’ It noted that ‘national financial 
contributions  have  increased  substantially  above  the  minimally  required  commitment,  a  major  success  of  the 
programme.’ 

Reducing  fragmentation  and  duplication  of  national  research  efforts  while  increasing 
scientific excellence through higher competition between researchers: example of the Article 
185 initiative on Metrology (EMRP) 

EN 

61 

   EN 

 
Article 185 initiative on Metrology (EMRP) 

The science of measurement - metrology - is important for scientific research, industry and our everyday lives, as 
the demand for measurements with high accuracies and low uncertainties continues to increase. The European 
Metrology  Research  Programme  (EMRP)  enables  European  metrology  institutes,  industrial  organisations  and 
academia  to  collaborate  on  joint  research  projects  within  specified  fields.  These  collaborative  efforts  will 
accelerate  innovation  in  areas  where  shared  resources  and  decision-making  processes  are  desirable  due  to 
economic  factors  and  the  distribution  of  expertise  across  different  countries  and  sectors.  The  Article  185 
initiative  EMRP  is  implemented  by  EURAMET,  organised  by  22  National  Metrology  Institutes  (NMIs), 
supported  by  the  European  Union  and  has  a  value  of  over  400  million  Euros.  It  dramatically  reduces  the 
duplication of research and allows efficient use of resources by pooling 44% of overall metrology resources in 
one  initiative.  The  joint  research  projects  are  selected  in  a  competitive  process  with  excellence  as  the  sole 
selection criterion 

Generating  high  leverage  effects  on  coordinated  research  efforts  and  private  investments: 
example of MANUNET  

MANUNET 

Manufacturing  generates  approximately  22%  of  the  EU  gross  national  product  (GNP),  while  manufacturing-
related activities represent an estimated 75% of the EU gross domestic product (GDP) and 70% of employment. 
Typically, manufacturing takes place in geographical centres with strong localised specialisations. MANUNET 
was  therefore  created  as  an  ERA-NET  to  extract  greater  value  from  the  money  spent  in  national  and  regional 
programmes across Europe. The leverage effect of the EU support is substantial (>25): supported under FP6 with 
2.7 million Euros EU funding it has generated more than 125 research projects with SME participation of around 
70% that are funded out of national and regional programmes with 73 million, mobilising an overall budget for 
research of more than 135 million Euros. By the end of 2009 the funded projects already report the creation of 47 
new jobs, 16 patent applications, 45 new products and more than 70 new processes as immediate results of the 
collaboration.  

Achieving critical mass by pooling expertise and funding for common priorities: example of 
E-Rare 

E-Rare 

There are at least 6,000 rare diseases, which, although individually rare (by definition they affect less than one 
person in every 2,000), taken together affect some 20 million European citizens. Their rarity itself constitutes a 
real  obstacle  to  research.  The  thin  distribution  of  patients  makes  it  hard  to  gather  enough  subjects  for  proper 
studies.  Further  research  on  rare  diseases  is  therefore  badly  needed  but  is  hampered  by  lack  of  resources  at 
several  levels.  Therefore  rare  diseases  are  a  prime  example  of  a  research  area  that  could  strongly  profit  from 
coordination  on  a  transnational  scale.  The  ERA-NET  E-Rare  action  has  developed  a  common  European 
programme on rare disease research. Together with the rare diseases related calls in FP7, the three joint calls of 
10 million Euros of E-Rare effectively coordinate 30 to 40% of all rare disease research in the ERA with a high 
EU added value demonstrating synergy between Member State and the EU. 

Providing  effective  responses  to  major  challenges  for  Europe:  example  of  Joint 
Programming Initiative (JPI) ‘Neurodegenerative diseases/Alzheimer's’ 

JPI ‘Neurodegenerative diseases/Alzheimer's’ 

One  of  Europe's  major  societal  challenges  is  the  ageing  of  the  European  population  and  related  increasing 
number  of  cases  in  neurodegenerative  diseases,  especially  Alzheimer's.  Against  this  background,  the  Council 
called in 2008 for a Joint Programming pilot in the area of neurodegenerative diseases. 23 Member States and 
Associated Countries engaged voluntarily and on a variable geometry basis to tackle neurodegenerative diseases 
and Alzheimer’s in particular in the definition, development and implementation of common strategic research 
agenda. It entails putting national resources together, selecting or developing the most appropriate instrument(s) 
and collectively monitoring and reviewing progress. Two first pilot calls with a total volume of 14 million Euros 
have been launched in 2011. 

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
Moreover, several other initiatives are fostering co-operation throughout Europe.  

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

The  Strategic  Energy  Technology  plan  started  in  2007  and  aims  to  accelerate 
development  of  low  carbon  energy  technologies  and  streamline  national  research 
programmes in strategic technology areas at EU level.  

Europe INNOVA/PRO INNO Europe (25 pilot projects since 2008, targeted at Eco-
innovation/innovation  in  services  and  clusters)  focuses  on  joint  policy  learning  and 
development of better innovation support. 

Existing  EU-level  Public-Private  Partnership  (PPP) 
instruments  (European 
Commission, 2011b): Joint Technology Initiatives (5 since 2007) aim to strengthen 
European industrial leadership in well-defined areas. European Industrial Initiatives 
(EIIs)  under  the  SET  Plan  (7  EIIs  since  2010)  address  the  demonstration/market 
rollout  bottleneck  in  the  innovation  chain  of  low  carbon  energy  technologies. 
Recovery Plan PPPs (3 since 2008) focus on maintaining and strengthening industry 
sectors  hit  by  the economic crisis. Future Internet PPP (since 2011) aims to ensure 
future  Internet  development  at  the  service  of  society.  COLIPA  (since  2009)  helps 
industry comply with EU legislation. SESAR aims to modernise European air traffic 
management. 

European  Innovation  Partnerships  (EIPs  -  2  up  until  now)  aim  to  "act  across  the 
entire  Research  and  Innovation  cycle  to  ensure  that  ideas  can  be  turned  into 
successful  products  or  services  to  tackle  societal  challenges  whilst  also  generating 
growth and jobs". Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs - 3 up until now) 
are  structured  partnerships  integrating  education,  research  and  business  actors  to 
address  major  societal  challenges  (European  Commission,  2011b).  Additional  EIPs 
and KICs are in the pipeline. 

In addition there are currently 11 INCO-NETs, aiming to support bilateral dialogue 
with Third Countries in the context of FP7 (European Commission, 2011f)80. 

Initiatives on research infrastructures 

ESFRI Forum 

Set  up  in  2002,  ESFRI  aims  at  steering  and  enhancing  EU  Member  States'  capacity  on  RIs 
policy-making,  whilst  improving  the  use  and  development  of  facilities  of  pan-European 
interest.  ESFRI  acts  as  an  informal  and  advisory  body81.  ESFRI  develops  joint  visions  and 
common  strategies  including  regularly  updated  Roadmaps,  reports  and  criteria  for  planning 
and implementing new pan-European RIs. The two key objectives of ESFRI are: 

• 

80 

81 

To steer up and enhance EU Member States' capacity on RIs policy-making (general 
objective)  by  supporting  a  coherent  and  strategy-led  approach  to  policy  making  on 
RIs in Europe (specific objective); and  

a 

list 

For 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/iscp/index.cfm?lg=en&pg=inconet. 
ESFRI  delegates  are  nominated  by  the  Research  Ministers  of  the  Member  States  and  Associated 
Countries, whilst a representative of the Commission is a member of the Forum.  

INCO-NETs, 

currently 

active 

see 

of 

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
                                                 
• 

To enhance the use and development of facilities of pan-European interest (general 
objective)  by  facilitating  multilateral  initiatives  leading  to  a  better  use  and 
development of RIs (specific objective).  

The  setting  up  of  ESFRI  has  filled  a  policy  vacuum  in  the  RI  sector  and  the  initiative  is 
considered  to  be  a  valuable  tool  for  addressing  the  weaknesses  of  the  European  RI  sector. 
Investment  in  RIs  of  pan-European  or  international  interest  cannot  be  borne  by  a  single 
country. The enhancement and development of such RIs requires a coordinated effort and as 
such  appropriate  platforms  for  Member  States  where  priorities,  needs  and  actions  to  be 
implemented are jointly agreed and defined. Although the ESFRI process does not cancel the 
relevance  of  national  RI  policies  (i.e.  notably  the  development  of  RIs  which  are  less  of 
European  interest),  it  provides  a  policy  framework  at  European  level  where  Member  States 
can streamline decision-making and implementation processes.  

Regarding  the  development  of  policy  tools  for  the  RI  sector,  the  joint  development  and 
continuous update of a European Roadmap for RIs - the ESFRI Roadmap - has provided an 
overview of the needs for RIs in Europe (i.e. first expected output). First published in 2006 
and  updated  in  2008  and  2010,  the  ESFRI  Roadmap  has  been  able  to  support  coordinated 
mechanisms  for  assessing  the  needs  and  priorities  for  new  European  RIs  across  Member 
States  and  scientific  disciplines.  The  ESFRI  Roadmap  has  also  triggered  similar  policy 
development at Member States level, with a majority of Member States having adopted (18 
Member States82) or preparing such national roadmaps (seven Member States). Available data 
also  suggest  that  whilst  the  existence  of  ESFRI  as  a  forum  has  facilitated  enhanced 
cooperation between Member States, the development of a comprehensive set of criteria for 
evaluating and monitoring RIs (e.g. the harmonisation of evaluation procedures in particular 
for  ageing  facilities)  and  facilitated  decision-making  by  Member  States  and  by  the 
Commission  (expected  results)  are  still  a  long  way  to  go.  As  recognised  by  ESFRI,  the 
governance framework for RIs at European level is currently missing83.  

Regarding  the  use  and  development  of  RIs  of  pan-European  interest  and  as  a  result  of  the 
ESFRI Roadmap, 50 priority projects have been identified in a number of scientific fields84 
and 10 projects have already started (33% of planned projects, i.e. 44), whilst an additional 17 
projects  are  due  to  be  launched  before  the  end  of  2013.  Funding  measures  within  the 
framework of FP7 and its predecessor programmes have played a key role in supporting such 
a  process.  Considering  that  the  expected  result  was  to  implement  60%  of  the  Roadmap 
projects by 2015, it is questionable whether the current pace and efforts are sufficient to meet 
the  expected  results.  Otherwise  said,  the  implementation  of  the  ESFRI  projects  remains  a 
concern.  The  uncertainties  linked  with  long-term  commitments  required  to  establish  and 
operate  key  infrastructures  still  generate  long  delays.  It  is  acknowledged  by  stakeholders85 
that the funding of RIs is a primary concern particularly in a context of economic austerity.  

Table 8 below provides the list of projects included in the ESFRI Roadmap. 

82 

83 
84 

85 

Seven  Member  States  are  preparing  national  roadmaps  (Slovenia,  Hungary,  Austria,  Germany, 
Belgium, Luxembourg and Lithuania). Currently, only Portugal, Slovak Republic, Latvia and Cyprus do 
not have national roadmaps. Source: ESFRI (2010), Annual Report 
ESFRI (2009), 'European Roadmap for Research Infrastructures, Implementation Report' 
The fields are as follows: social science and humanities, environmental sciences, biological and medical 
sciences,  physical  science  and  engineering  and  energy.  Most  of  the  projects  share  the  effort  of 
developing effective e-tools for the management and dissemination of the produced data. 
Stakeholders'' consultation for FP7 successor programme. Source: European Commission, 2010 

EN 

64 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
Legal Status 
(4)

Funding Com m itm ents 
Im plem entation Phase 
(5)

Official 
Com m itm ent at 
Institutional 
level (6)

Industrial 
expression 
of support/  
interest 

ERIC 2012

NO SI FI SE

ERIC 2012

RO NL FI IT DK

ERIC 2012

SI DK IE

ERIC 2012

NL UK ES SI IE

SI

SI

SI  FR IE

UK SI SK

ERIC 2011

AT ES SI IT

AT PT NL SI DK IT

Tilde Ltd (LV)

Airlines

ALLEA

SE FI

ERIC 2012

IT

DK

ERIC 2012

FR IT IE

ERIC 2012

FI FR SE

IT

IT

FR IE

ERIC 2012

ES IT SE

IT SI ES

NO

NO

UK (for PP)

CA

FR FI EU(JRC) ES

FR

ERIC 2012

AT NL FI ES SE

NL ES IT

ERIC 2012

FI DK ES 

ERIC 2012

ES UK FR

FI NL ES SI IT

FR ES UK

EMBL FI UK DK ES SE

IT UK SI

EMBL UK (for PP) SE

IT EMBL

FI

IT

IT

IT UK

IT UK

IT FI UK

EMBL FI ES IT UK DK

Table 8: List of ESFRI projects 

Project

Leading 
country or 
EIRO in PP 
(1)

Participation to the Preparatory 
Phase (2)

Host country (3)

CESSDA

CLARIN-ERIC

SSH

DARIAH

ESSurvey

SHARE-ERIC

COPAL

EISCAT_3D

EMSO

EPOS

ENV

EURO ARGO

IAGOS

ICOS

LIFEWATCH

SIOS

ECCSEL

ENERGY

HIPER

NO

NL

NL

UK

DE

SE

IT

FR

NL

NO

NO

UK

AT DE GR HU LT PT SI ES CH US RO FR FI 
NO SE
AT BG CZ DK EE DE GR HU IT LV LT MT PL 
PT ES BE IS FR FI RO NO TR SE
CY DK DE GR IE SI FR
FR BE BG EE DE HU LV PL PT SI ES IS IL 
CH NO SE

FR AT BE DK GR IE IT PL SI ES IL CH US PT 

FR FI DE GR PL PT RO ES 

NO FI SE

DE GR IE IT PT ES TR UK NL NO BG PL SE
RO NO CH NL DE FR UK DK IL IS IT ES PT 
SE
BG DE GR IE IT PL PT ES NO FR NL

DE FR

BE DE HU ES CH US FR NO NL FI SE
BE FI DE GR HU IT PL SK SI ES PT RO FR 
NO SE
DE FR NL UK PL FI KR JP CN NO SE ES

DE HU CH PL NL FR ES NO

DE PL PT ES RU US ZA FR

IFMIF/EVEDA

JHR

ES

FR

FR ES

BBMRI

EATRIS

ECRIN

ELIXIR

BMS

EMBRC

EU-OPENSCREEN

EuroBioIm aging

European BSL4 Labs

INFRAFRONTIER

INSTRUCT

EMFL

AT

NL

FR

UK

IT

DE

DE

FR

DE

UK

EE FI DE GR HU IE LT MT ES IS BE BG FR IT 
NO LV CH SE
DK FI DE GR ES DE FR IT NO SI

AT BE FI HU CH PL ES FR NL 
DK FR DE HU IT LT PL ES NL IS IL NO CH 
PT SI SE
IT SE PT UK FR DE NO GR EMBL

NO DE FR ES SE CZ FI AT PL NL
AT BE CZ DE HU IL NO PL PT SE FR ES FI 
IT TR, CH, Regional: Bavaria, Piemonte
FR IT

AT CZ DE GR ES FR IT FI PT SE
AT CZ DK DE IT LT PT IL SE FR ES LV NL 
FI CH

FR

ESRF UPGRADE

ESRF

FR IT NO DK

NO 

NL

UK 

NL 

FR 

 FI 

ES

NO

NO

FR

AT

NL 

FR 

FR 

UK 

FR DE NL

FR

MATERIALS EUROFEL (ex IRUVX-FEL)

and

ESSneutrons

ANALYTICAL XFEL

ILL 20/20

CTA

E-ELT

PHYSICS

ELI

ENGINEERING

FAIR

PL ES FR CH

ESO

FR IT DK

BG DE IT LT PL PT ES FR

DE

FR ES GR SI SE

KM3NeT

SKA

SPIRAL2

GR, IT

CY DE IE ES FR IT GR

UK

FR

DE ES US FR NL SE

BE BG CZ DE HU IT PL ES IL US FR

CERN
 Projects

ILC-HiGrade

SLHC

CERN

CERN

US FR ES

PL US FR ES

IT

SE

DE

ILL

DE PL IT

DE IT LV PL CH EE FR ES NO DK SE

SE DK ES

FR IT ES DK CH SE

FR IT

DE

FR

Gmbh

ES NO DK FR IT UK SE

IT UK FR SK CH

IT

IT SI

ES SE DK NO IT
CN DK FR DE GR IT RU ES 
CH SE
ES FR IT UK SE

FR ES IT CH
DE IT FR ES SI SK 
CH
UK FR IT SI SK CH

CH: IKC

ES US MX 
NB AR CL ZA
 CL 

CZ HU RO UK

DE 

GR IT 

AUS+NZ ZA

FR

Gmbh

I.O.

ESO NL DK SE

IT

RO IT
CN DE ES FI FR UK IN RO 
RU SI SE
GR IT NL

SI FR

IT

UK AUS ZA NZ IT NL CN CAN

FR

FR 

ICT

PRACE (ex HPC)

AT DE GR IT NL CH BE PT BG FR ES NO 
DK FI SE

Distributed

FR ES IT NL DK FI SE IE

IT FR SI IE ES

Source: European Commission, DG Research and Innovation 

Notes: (1) from ESFRI Delegates only; (2) From participation to Preparatory Phase Projects; (3) Single (decided or proposed), Distributed, 
from the project contact persons and confirmed by ESFRI Delegates; (4) Indicates the existing or expected legal status (e.g. ERIC, MoU) and 
confirmed  by  the  ESFRI  Delegates  CA:  Consortium  Agreement;  (5)  From  ESFRI  Delegates  only  -  indicates  that  resources  have  been 
officially reserved for the project; (6) From the concerned Institution and confirmed by the ESFRI Delegates. Blue colour denotes projects 
under  implementation,  green  colour  denotes  projects  expected  to  be  implemented  by  the  end  of  2012,  purple  colour  denotes  project  in 
progress and orange colour denotes international partnership & global projects 

EN 

65 

   EN 

 
 
Coordinated development and pan-European sharing of e-Infrastructure  

The  box  below  presents  examples  of  e-infrastructures  development  where  the  Commission 
has  been  supporting  and  coordinating  the  national  investments  in  order  to  develop  digital 
research services than can be provided and accessed cross-border by different research actors 
and organisations. 

Example of GEANT  

The  GÉANT  network  is  the  fast  and  reliable  pan-European  communications  infrastructure  serving  Europe’s 
research and education community. Co-funded by European National Research & Education Networks (NRENs) 
and the EC, the GÉANT network and project is entering its third generation, along with associated development 
activities.  GÉANT's  core  objective  is  to  deliver  real  value  and  benefit  to  society  by  enabling  research 
communities across Europe, and the world, to transform the way they collaborate on ground-breaking research. 
Coordinating  Member  States  investment  and  integrating  MS  research  networks,  GÉANT  connects  40  million 
users in over 8,000 institutions across 40 countries. 

Example of EGI 

The European Grid Infrastructure (EGI) delivers integrated computing services to European researchers, driving 
innovation  and  enabling  new  solutions  to  answer  the  big  questions  of  tomorrow.  EGI’s  mission  is  to  allow 
researchers  of  all  fields  to  make  the  most  out  of  the  latest  computing  technologies  for  the  benefit  of  their 
research. EGI is a federation of over 350 resource centres and coordinated by EGI.eu, a not-for-profit foundation 
created to manage the infrastructure on behalf of its participants: National Grid Initiatives (NGIs) and European 
Intergovernmental Research Organisations (EIROs). EGI.eu is governed by a Council of 35 participant countries 
and institutions. 

Initiatives addressing the labour market for researchers, gender equality and the gender 
dimension in research  

Initiatives at EU level 

At EU-level, funding, support measures and policy coordination measures have been adopted 
with  a  view  to  increasing  the  diversity  of  European  research  teams.  Relevant  initiatives 
include: 

• 

• 

• 

Funding  measures  under  the  FPs:  Marie  Curie  Actions  and  mainstreaming  of 
gender; 

Policy coordination measures/soft law: 2005 Commission Recommendation on the 
European Charter for Researchers and on a Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of 
Researchers86,  the  ‘European  Partnership  for  Researchers’87  (EPR)  and  the  1999 
Commission Communication on ‘Women and Science: Mobilising Women to enrich 
European Research’; 

Support measures: Euraxess website and public information campaign attract more 
women to scientific careers;  

The evaluation of these initiatives is presented below.  

86 
87 

http://ec.europa.eu/eracareers/pdf/am509774CEE_EN_E4.pdf  
European Commission (2008), 'Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European 
Parliament  Better  Careers  and  More  Mobility:  A  European  Partnership  for  Researchers',  Brussels, 
23.5.2008, COM(2008)317 final 

EN 

66 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Funding measures 

The  Marie  Curie  Actions  is  expected  to  support  some  50,000  researchers88  under  FP789. 
Based  on  a  bottom-up  approach  with  no  pre-defined  themes,  the  Marie  Curie  Actions  have 
supported  excellence  of  research  and  the  internationalisation  of  research  in  Europe90.  In 
particular,  it  is  estimated  that  the  Marie  Curie  actions  have  achieved  several  positive 
impacts91,  such  as  increased  impact  on  science  (i.e.  the  quality  and  quantity  of  research 
outputs  are  rated  highly)  and  increased  internationalisation  of  research,  international  'brain 
circulation' and growing number of researchers engaging with world-class teams. 

Support  to  gender  equality  in  science  has  been  provided  through  initiatives  such  as  the 
mainstreaming of gender within the EU Framework Programmes and the research part of the 
Structural  Funds  (e.g.  gender  research,  promotion  of  ambassadors’  schemes,  training, 
mentoring and networking activities), the development of indicators, analyses and guidelines 
(e.g.  ‘She  Figures’  publications92,  ‘Meta-analysis  of  gender  and  science  research’93  and 
PRAGES  project94).  However,  the  long-term  sustainability  of  some  of  the  gender  projects 
funded under FP5 and FP6 remains unclear95, whilst the interim evaluation of FP796 further 
stressed the importance of continuing activities aiming at increasing female representation in 
research, notably in leading positions.  

Policy coordination and soft law measures  

Adopted  in  2005,  the  Commission  Recommendation  on  the  'European  Charter  for 
Researchers'  and  a  'Code  of  Conduct  for  the  Recruitment  of  Researchers'  (hereunder 
referred  to  as  the  Charter  and  Code)  lays  down  the  rights  and  duties  of  researchers,  their 
employers and funding providers and outlines principles for the recruitment and selection of 
researchers.  Despite  some  good  progress  (i.e.  implementation  of  the  "Human  Resources 
Strategy  for  Researchers"  process  to  support  the  take-up  of  the  Charter  and  Code  by 

88 

89 

90 

91 

92 

93 
94 

95 
96 

It should be noted that some 50,000 mobile researchers have been awarded a fellowship between 1996 
(inception of the programme) and 2010. Source: European Commission 
The Marie Curie actions under the programme 'People' include five actions: the individual fellowships 
(IxF),  Initial  Training  Networks  (ITN),  Industry-Academia  Pathways  and  Partnership  (IAPP), 
COFUND and International Staff Exchange Scheme (IRSES).  
European  Commission  (2010),  'Interim  Evaluation  of  the  Seventh  Framework  Programme,  Report  of 
the Expert Group', Final Report 12 November 2010 
The  Evaluation  Partnership  (2010),  Ex-post  Impact  Assessment  study  concerning  the  ‘Marie  Curie 
Actions’  under  the  Sixth  Framework  Programme,  Final  report,  Deliverable  D  6-2  for  the  European 
Commission, Research Directorate General, 8th September 2010 
The  ‘She  Figures’  series  have  been  published  in  2003,  2006  and  2006.  This  series  supports  the 
collection of statistics with a key set of indicators, thus greatly contributing to creating a record of sex-
disaggregated  data  at  EU  level.  The  ‘She  Figures’  publications  provide  comparative  statistics  on  the 
number  of  females,  seniority,  career  development  and  decision-making  aspects  between  women  and 
men in research.  
http://www.genderandscience.org/web/reports.php  
Practising Gender Equality in Science (PRAGES) project which has resulted in the development of the 
‘Guidelines  for  Gender  Equality  Programmes  in  Science  2009’.  The  Guidelines  provide  a  unique 
reference and tool for universities, research centres and other research entities which want to implement 
support  gender  diversity. 
a  modern 
http://cordis.europa.eu/search/index.cfm?fuseaction=result.document&RS_LANG=EN&RS_RCN=114
85582&q=  
http://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/index_en.cfm?pg=archive  
European  Commission  (2010),  'Interim  Evaluation  of  the  Seventh  Framework  Programme,  Report  of 
the Expert Group', Final Report 12 November 2010 

institutional  management 

to  better 

culture 

and 

EN 

67 

   EN 

 
                                                 
institutions), it remains difficult to assess the extent to which research institutions across the 
EU  have  implemented  the  Charter  and  Code.  Moreover,  the  lack  of  a  true  accreditation 
mechanism97  linked  to  the  Charter  and  Code  (i.e.  which  would  be  based  on  ex-ante  and 
regular  evaluation/monitoring  and  sanction  mechanisms)  has  substantially  limited  the 
effectiveness of this initiative.  

Within the framework of the European Partnership for Researchers (EPR) launched in the 
wake of the 2008 Commission Communication 'Better careers and more mobility; a European 
Partnership for Researchers'98, Member States formally committed to adopting the necessary 
reforms  at  national  level  (open  method  of  coordination)  in  key  priority  areas  such  as  open, 
transparent and merit-based recruitment and portability of grants. The EPR has triggered an 
important  number  of  activities  and  initiatives  at  national  level  and  it  is  encouraging  that  a 
majority of Member States have been willing to engage in the partnership. However the EPR 
is still at an incipient stage and it is too early to provide robust conclusions in relation to the 
results  and  long-term  impacts  of  the  initiative.  Due  to  the  structural  nature  of  planned/on-
going  reforms  supported  within  the  EPR  (e.g.  measures  for  increasing  autonomy  of 
universities  and  research  institutions  over  hiring),  the  results  and  long  term  impacts  of  the 
EPR will only be visible in the long term. At the same time, it becomes increasingly clear that 
barriers  may  limit  the  effectiveness  of  the  EPR.  The  lack  of  clearly  defined  objectives  and 
criteria99  in  relation  to  the  priority  areas  has  resulted  in  Member  States  having  different 
approaches100  (and  hence  standards)  to  'open,  transparent,  competition-based  recruitment'. 
Moreover, indicators for monitoring progress have not been developed from the outset of the 
initiative101,  which  may  negatively  impact  on  the  implementation  of  the  EPR  by  Member 
States.  Also,  it  should  be  noted  that  the  level  of  involvement  varies  amongst  priority  areas 
(i.e. Member States have been less active in adopting measures facilitating the advertisement 
of publicly-funded research positions) and amongst Member States. 

Regarding gender equality in research, the 1999 Commission Communication on ‘Women 
and  Science:  Mobilising  Women  to  enrich  European  Research’102  highlighted  the 
importance of increasing the number of women involved in the EU Framework Programmes, 
whilst fostering experience sharing on gender in science amongst Member States with a view 
to 
the  Commission 
Communication contributed to mainstreaming gender into the EU FPs, it is also reckoned103 

implemented.  Although 

relevant  measures 

identifying 

to  be 

97 

98 

99 

100 

101 
102 

103 

Although the ‘HR Excellence in Research’ logo is awarded as part of the HR Strategy, it is not part of 
an  accreditation  mechanism,  as  the  HR  Strategy  does  not  aim  at  evaluating  the  level  of  compliance 
amongst institutions with the Charter and Code.  
European Commission (2008), 'Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European 
Parliament  Better  Careers  and  More  Mobility:  A  European  Partnership  for  Researchers',  Brussels, 
23.5.2008, COM(2008)317 final 
For instance, the definition of 'open, transparent, competition-based recruitment of researchers' has not 
been clearly laid out and agreed amongst participating countries.  
For instance, the transparency and competitiveness of the recruitment in the German higher education 
sector is guaranteed by the Lander Higher Education Laws, which require the involvement of external 
experts in the selection process. In Greece, open, transparent and competitive recruitment seems to be 
based  on  the  fact  that  positions  are  advertised  online  and  no  other  criteria  have  been  reported  by  the 
Greek authorities. 
Relevant indicators are currently under development.  
Communication from the Commission of 17 February 1999, ‘Women and Science’: mobilising women 
to enrich European research, COM(99) 76 final 
European  Commission  (2010),  ‘Stocktaking 10  years of  ‘Women  in  Science’ policy  by  the  European 
Commission 1999-2009’, European Commission 

EN 

68 

   EN 

 
                                                 
that  the  need  to  support  long-term  structural  change  (i.e.  changes  at  institutional  level)  in 
gender management has not been sufficiently addressed.  

Other support measures 

Several support measures aiming at increasing ‘brain circulation’ and female participation in 
science  have  been  adopted.  Launched  in  2003,  the  EURAXESS  website  has  provided 
researchers  with  information  on  research  job  and  funding  opportunities,  working  conditions 
and networking opportunities. Over 30,000 research-related positions were published on the 
EURAXESS website in 2011 (up from 4,000 in 2008), whilst the EURAXESS networks link 
up  approximately  over  6,000  European  researchers  working  outside  the  EU104.  Whilst 
EURAXESS has become an important tool for providing support services to researchers (e.g. 
growing  number  of  users’  inquiries105),  evidence106  shows  that  researchers  need  more 
customised information.  

Gender-related  support  measures  also  include  the  launch  of  a  two-year  public  information 
campaign in 2012. With a budget of approximately 2 million Euros, the aim of the campaign 
is to tackle stereotypes on gender and attract and retain more women in scientific careers. The 
key targets are young people, as well as women researchers at an early stage of their career.  

Initiatives at Member State and regional level 

Although  Member  States  have  been  active  in  adopting  measures  addressing  the  issue  of 
recruitment  and  portability  of  grants,  there  exist  substantial  differences  in  the  way  public 
researchers are recruited and the extent to which grants are portable cross the EU.  

Regard to the recruitment of researchers, it is reported that in nine EU Member States (DE, 
CZ,  ES,  FR,  EL,  HU,  IE,  PT,  SK)  universities  and  research  performing  organisations  face 
tight  restrictions  over  hiring  and  cannot  freely  hire  staff107.  In  several  Member  States  (CZ, 
HU,  SK,  EL)  the  appointment  of  some  or  all  senior  positions  needs  to  be  confirmed  by  an 
external authority108. A number of Member States have recognised that (some of) their open 
recruitment procedures were inadequate. Spain, Estonia, Denmark, Austria and Poland have 
all  introduced  recent  legislation  to  ensure  that  universities  advertise  their  job  vacancies 
internationally109. Planned and on-going reforms aiming at increasing the flexibility of career 
paths and related appointment have also been reported in France, Spain and Italy.  

104 

105 

106 

107 

108 

109 

The  total  number  of  members  for  the  five  EURAXESS  networks  is  approx.  6,250  members.  Source: 
European Commission, DG Research and Innovation 
The EURAXESS Service Network dealt with approx. 118,000 queries in 2008, approx. 135,000 in 2009 
and  2010  and  approx.  65,000  in  the  first  semester  of  2011.  Source:  European  Commission,  DG 
Research and Innovation 
Deloitte  &  The  Evaluation  Partnership  Limited  (2007),  ‘Euraxess-Links  Abroad  (ELA)  Geographic, 
Expansion-Feasibility  study’,  Framework  Contract:  RTD-C5-2005-I&C,  Lot  4:  Assessment  of  the 
impact of information and communication policy products, Final Report, for the European Commission, 
Research  Directorate  General.  The  study  confirmed  the  importance  beneficiaries  attach  to  them,  but 
revealed also the low awareness of the research community. 
European University Association (2011), University Autonomy in Europe II, The Scorecard, by Thomas 
Estermann,  Terhi  Nokkala  &  Monika 
http://www.eua.be/eua-work-and-policy-
area/governance-autonomy-and-funding/projects/university-autonomy-in-europe/  
European University Association (2011), University Autonomy in Europe II, The Scorecard, by Thomas 
Estermann, Terhi Nokkala & Monika Steinel 
Source: Report by the ERA Steering Group on Human Resources and Mobility (SGHRM), 2009-2010 

Steinel, 

EN 

69 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Box  below  provides  selected  examples  of  initiatives  at  Member  State  level  addressing  the 
issue of recruitment.  

Selected  examples  of  measures  at  Member  State  level  addressing  the  issue  of  recruitment  and 
employment of researchers in public institutions  

Austria:  according  to  an  amendment  to  the  University  Act,  universities  have  to  post  (research)  job  vacancies 
internationally  or  at  least  EU-wide.  Considering  that  universities  are  autonomous,  it  is  not  possible  to  further 
specify  by  law  the  form  or  tool  of  advertisement,  but  EURAXESS  Jobs  is  explicitly  mentioned  in  the  legal 
commentary to the amendment as a possible cost-free tool to post jobs internationally. 

Denmark:  following  a  new  law  in  2008,  professorships  and  associate  professorships  must  be  advertised 
internationally, except under special circumstances of an academic nature. One of the stated aims is to increase 
competition and provide Danish universities with the best possible talent. The Ministerial Order was adjusted to 
give  greater  autonomy  to  universities  who  can  deviate  from  certain  rules,  for  example  regarding  short-term 
appointments. 

France:  the  ‘Higher  Education  and  Research  Careers  Plan  for  2009-2011’110  is  a  comprehensive  strategy  for 
strengthening the management of human resources in higher education and research careers. It is expected that 
the  plan  will  modernise  key  aspects  of  the  research  career  advancement  system  (i.e.  advancement  based  on 
performance and independent and transparent evaluation processes). 

Estonia: universities are obliged to publish jobs internationally, on EURAXESS Jobs and in English. Estonian 
public  universities  have  signed  a  new  Agreement  on  ‘Good  Practice  on  the  Internationalisation  of  Estonia’s 
Higher Education Institutions’. This agreement includes guidelines on the employment of foreign research staff.  

Poland: a new national law imposes an obligation on higher education institutions to publish job adverts on the 
EURAXESS Jobs Platform. As a result, the number of vacancies for research positions posted on EURAXESS 
Jobs rose from 100 in 2010 to approx. 1,000 in 2011. 

Spain: published in 2011, a new law on science, technology and innovation as well as several relevant reforms 
require  institutions  to  advertise  positions  openly.  In  a  bid  to  attract  foreign  research  talent,  it  also  introduces 
derogations to the requirement of Spanish/EU nationality when applying for public roles, and allows the use of 
English in the selection process. 

UK: the ‘Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers: An Agreement between the Funders and 
Employers of Researchers in the UK’ (2008)111 is a voluntary code of practice aiming at supporting the career 
development of researchers. The promotion of diversity and equality in all aspects of the recruitment and career 
management of researchers is a key principle of the Concordat. Although the initiative is still relatively new, the 
Concordat has triggered significant changes at institutional level in relation to research careers management.  

Source:  ERA  Steering  Group  on  Human  Resources  and  Mobility  (2009-2010),  ERAWATCH  (2011), 
Technopolis (2011) 

Regarding  portability  of  grants  and  access  to  national  grants,  significant  differences  exist 
amongst  Member  States.  According  to  the  2011  EPR  Monitoring  Questionnaire112,  only  a 
small number of Member States (AT, DK, EE, UK) have reported that their national funding 
mechanisms  provide  for  portability  of  grants,  whilst  grants  are  not  portable  outside  the 
country in ten Member States (BE, CY, CZ, EL, HU, IE, MT, PL, SI, ES) or are portable to a 
certain  extent  (FI,  NL,  DE).  In  several  Member  States  access  to  national  grants  and 
fellowships  may  be  hampered  for  non-residents.  According  to  the  2011  EPR  Monitoring 

110 
111 
112 

http://media.enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr/file/2008/88/5/fiches_36885.pdf  
www.researchconcordat.ac.uk/documents/concordat.pdf  
Responses  by  Member  States  to  the  EPR  Monitoring  Questionnaire  disseminated  via  the  SGHRM  in 
October 2011.  

EN 

70 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Questionnaire113,  (prior)  residence  in  the  country  is  necessary  for  accessing  national  grants 
(AT,  PT).  Researchers  can  access  national  grants  provided  that  funding  is  linked  to  the 
Member  State’s  research  system  or  serves  the  interest  of  the  national  research  system  (BE, 
CZ, DE, EE, ES, EL, FI, NL, PL, UK), whilst non-nationals cannot access national grants in 
two Member States (HU, MT).  

Although  several  regional  initiatives  such  as  the  'Money  follows  Researcher'  and  the 
'Money  follows  Cooperation  Line'  schemes  have  been  adopted,  their  impact  remains 
relatively limited across the EU. Originally implemented in three countries (Germany, Austria 
and Switzerland), the 'Money follows Researcher' scheme allows researchers relocating from 
one  country  to  another  to  take  their  research  funding  with  them  (27  research  funding  and 
performing  organisations  have  now  signed  up  to  the  scheme)114.  The  'Money  follows 
Cooperation  Line'  scheme,  also  initially  implemented  by  the  national  funding  organisations 
from Germany, Austria and Switzerland entails the opening of national funding programmes 
for applicants from other countries by permitting them to apply jointly with the partners from 
the  country  of  the  research  funding  organisation  (other  research  funding  organisations  have 
now adopted the mechanism and use it without restriction to specific countries).  

Initiatives  to  support  the  development  of  open  access  to  scientific  publications  and 
research data 

At EU level, both funding and soft measures have been adopted to support the development 
of open access. As a result of the Open Access Pilot in FP7 and ERC scientific guidelines for 
open access  (ERC, 2007),  scientific publications resulting  from a set  of EU-funded projects 
are  now  increasingly  available  in  open  access115.  Support  to  coordinated  initiatives  on  the 
interoperability of repositories has been provided through the Open Access Infrastructure for 
Research  in  Europe  (OpenAIRE)  project  funded  under  FP7116.  Despite  their  relevance,  FP-
funded  measures  concern  only  a  very  limited  share  of  EU’s  overall  R&D  expenditure  and 
their  impact  remains  thus  limited.  The  use  of  open  access  for  projects  supported  by  the 
Framework  Programme  has  been  based  on  the  2007  Council  Conclusions  on  scientific 
information  in  the  digital  age  (Council  of  the  European  Union,  2007)  and  the  2007 
Communication from the Commission on scientific information in the digital age (European 
Commission,  2007b).  The  Council  Conclusions  invited  Member  States  to  reinforce  national 
strategies on access to and preservation of scientific information, and to enhance policy co-
ordination.  The  Commission  Communication  provided  a  set  of  actions  to  be  undertaken  by 
Member States. However, the successful implementation of the Commission Communication 
and  Council  Conclusions  remains  mixed117.  The  Commission  is  also  planning  to  table  a 

113 

114 
115 

116 

117 

Responses  by  Member  States  to  the  EPR  Monitoring  Questionnaire  disseminated  via  the  SGHRM  in 
October 2011.  
http://www.eurohorcs.org/E/initiatives/mfr/Pages/mfr.aspx  
the 
‘Commission  Staff  Working  Document,  Impact  Assessment,  Document  Accompanying 
Recommendation  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  on  Access  to  and  Preservation  of  Scientific 
Information in the Digital Age’, forthcoming 
OpenAIRE  supports  the  setting  up  of  e-infrastructure  for  interoperable  repositories  accessible  via  a 
single portal. It also has set up a network of helpdesks in the MS, as well as a system to monitor and 
systematically  gather  information  on  the  deposit  of  OA  peer  reviewed  papers.  Source:  ‘Commission 
Staff  Working  Document,  Impact  Assessment,  Document  Accompanying  the  Recommendation  from 
the Commission to the Council on Access to and Preservation of Scientific Information in the Digital 
Age’, forthcoming 
In terms of implementation, the activities adopted by Member States are mainly bottom-up and are not 
yet well structured through national strategies. 

EN 

71 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Communication  and  Recommendation  to  Member  States  in  2012.  The  Communication  will 
the 
promote  and 
Recommendation will suggest a concrete set of actions to be implemented by Member States 
(the Impact Assessment of the Recommendation is under preparation).  

implement  open  access  within  EU  research  programmes,  whilst 

Member States are not equally advanced in how they support and address the issue of open 
access,  as  indicated  by  the  2011  questionnaire  to  ERAC  (European  Commission,  2011d). 
Approximately  half  of  Member  States  have  implemented  relevant  policies  (mainly  non-
legislative  measures).  In  many  Member  States,  open  access  activities  are  coordinated  by 
funding  bodies,  universities  and/or  libraries.  As  of  2011,  open  access  policies  were 
implemented  by  research  funding  organisations  in  17  Member  States,  whilst  universities  or 
research  centres  have  open  access  mandates  in  22  Member  States.  At  the  same  time,  only 
eight  Member  States  had  laws  or  legal  provisions  requiring  open  access  to  publicly  funded 
research  data.  Policies  on  open  access  to  research  data  are  less  developed  than  policies  on 
scientific  publications.  Several  Member  States  have  developed  high  level  strategies  for  the 
long-term preservation of data, however these strategies have not always been efficiently put 
into practice. Several coordination initiatives have been developed at sectoral or regional level 
(e.g.  ‘Knowledge  Exchange’,  Berlin  Declaration,  European  Organisation  for  Nuclear 
Research  (CERN)  Sponsoring  Consortium  for  Open  Access  Publishing  in  Particle  Physics, 
International  Coalition  of  Library  Consortia118).  However,  their  overall  impact  remains 
limited. 

Moreover,  the  FP7  SSH  VERA  project  indicates  that  "an  important  obstacle  to  an  effective 
circulation  of  knowledge  is  the  fragmented  patent  system.  Patenting  remains  excessively 
complicated  and  costly  in  Europe,  and  fragmented  litigation  fails  to  provide  sufficient  legal 
certainty" (VERA, 2012). 

118 

‘Commission  Staff  Working  Document,  Impact  Assessment,  Document  Accompanying 
the 
Recommendation  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  on  Access  to  and  Preservation  of  Scientific 
Information in the Digital Age’, forthcoming 

EN 

72 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Annex 4: Analysis of impacts: methodology and tools used 

This  annex  presents  the  methodology  used  for  the  estimation  of  the  expected  impacts  on 
growth  and  employment  and  results  from  studies  on  the  performance  of  gender  diversity  in 
research. 

The model Nemesis and the scenarios simulated 

The aggregate macro-economic impacts of funding allocation to research can be assessed by 
making  use  of  a  mathematical  model  based  on  known,  inferred,  and  assumed  parameters. 
Over the past few years, the use of mathematical models for the ex-ante evaluation of policy 
effects increased significantly within the Commission, and also at national level. For the ERA 
Framework ex-ante impact assessment, use was made of the model Nemesis. 

Nemesis  is  a  macro-econometric  model  built  by  a  Commission-funded  consortium  of 
European  research  institutes  under  the  5th,  6th  and  7th  Framework  Programmes.  It  is  a 
modular system for each European country. European countries are represented individually 
by  one  main  economic  module  linked  to  three  specific  modules:  energy  and  environment, 
agriculture, land use, which are interactively linked with the main economic module for these 
sub-modules.  An  additional  sub-model,  the  regional  one  disaggregates  the  national  level 
towards a regional one. 

The  model  is  mainly  econometric,  but  some  mechanisms  are  calibrated  using  the  results  of 
well  proven  econometric  literature:  it  is  the  case  for  endogenous  technical  change.  The 
econometric  character  of  the  model  allows  its  adaptation  to  past  conditions  observed  in  the 
economy but it also allows the inclusion of alternative mechanisms of innovation, which for 
instance are not constrained by strict optimization conditions. 

in  Nemesis 

Technical  progress 
through  a  variable 
"knowledge"  (KNOW)  who,  on  the  one  side,  is  determined  by  the  stock  of  R  &  D  and 
knowledge  spill-overs  and,  on  the  other  hand,  determines  innovation  which  in  turn,  affects 
economic performance. 

implemented  (endogeneised) 

is 

"Knowledge" depends primarily on the stock of R & D sector, stock up as a capital stock (the 
accumulation of R & D) to which a rate of obsolescence is applied (due to the gradual fading 
of  knowledge.).  It  is  further  enriched  by  all  the  externalities  of  knowledge  of  all  other 
domestic and foreign sectors. Knowledge spill-overs issued by other sectors depend on their 
stocks  of  R  &  D,  through  the  technological  flow  matrices.  These  matrices  identify  the 
proportion of knowledge which has an area where innovation has occurred in any other sector. 
"Knowledge" also follows the stock of R & D in foreign sector and the stock of R & D public. 
Figure 4 summarises the approach to the construction of the variable "knowledge". 

EN 

73 

   EN 

 
Figure 5: Stock of knowledge (KNOW) 

Stock de R&D du Secteur

KNOW

Matrices de flux 
technologiques

Stock de R&D des Autres 
Secteurs

Stock de R&D des 
Secteurs Etrangers

Stock de R&D Publique

The  evolution  of  the  stock  of  knowledge  is  reflected  in  process  innovations  and  product 
innovations: 

A  process  innovation  increases  total  factor  productivity  and,  through  them,  increases  the 
supply  of  products  and  decreases  the  unit  cost  of  production,  and  thus  the  price.  This  price 
reduction induces an increase in demand, in an amount that depends on the price elasticity of 
demand. Only a price elasticity greater than or equal to unity allows a higher demand higher 
than  the  increase  in  supply.  However,  estimates  of  these  elasticities  at  industrial  level  show 
that  they  are  generally  less  than  one.  Therefore,  the  impact  of  innovation  on  the  supply  is 
more  important  than  its  impact  on  demand.  Process  innovation  tends  to  reduce  the  use  of 
production factors. 

Product  innovation  improves  product  quality.  To  understand  the  effects  on  demand,  we  can 
distinguish the effects of innovation on the demand volume (at constant quality) of those on 
demand  volume  efficiency  (which  takes  into  account  the  increase  in  quality).  Improving 
product quality leads to a reduction in the price of efficiency unit (i.e. each product sees its 
relative  quality  decline  when  compared  to  a  higher  quality  product  and  so  its  price  would 
decrease). This results in an increased demand for efficiency units. Volume production then 
increases  if  the  increase  in  demand  for  the  new  efficiency  is  greater  than  the  increase  in 
efficiency due to innovation. 

While  innovation  in  a  product  leads  to  increased  employment  of  factors  of  production,  a 
process innovation tends to reduce the use of production factors. In general, the positive effect 
of  product  innovations  compensates  the  negative  effect  of  process  innovations,  so  that  the 
increase in R & D leads to an increase in GDP and employment factors simultaneously.  

To  reflect  the  effects  of  ex  ante  innovation  on  GDP,  we  detail  the  formal  process  which, 
starting from an accumulation of knowledge leads to an increase in GDP: 

As  a  result  of  process  innovations,  the  accumulation  of  knowledge  (KNOW)  generates  an 
increase in total factor productivity (TFP): 

ΔTFP
TFP

= a

ΔKNOW
KNOW

This results in an increased demand: 

ΔD
D

=ε

ΔTFP
TFP

=ε.a.

ΔKNOW
KNOW

EN 

74 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
 
As  a  result  of  product  innovations,  the  accumulation  of  knowledge  (KNOW)  leads  to 
improved quality (QUAL): 

ΔQUAL
QUAL

= a'

ΔKNOW
KNOW

This results in an increased demand: 

ΔD
D

=ε'

ΔQUAL
QUAL

=ε'.a'.

ΔKNOW
KNOW

The increase in output (Y) corresponds ex-ante to the increases in demand induced by process 
innovations and products. GDP growth therefore depends on the growth of knowledge in the 
form: 

ΔY
Y

= β

ΔKNOW
KNOW

 with    β=εa +α' a'. 

Most  econometric  studies  available  do  not  measure  the  elasticity  of  GDP  to  the  stock  of 
knowledge β, but the elasticity of GDP to the stock of R & D (Mohnen (1990), Mairesse and 
Sassenou  (1991),  Grilliches  (1992),  Nadiri  (1993),  Cameron  (1998),  Guellec  and  van 
Pottelsberghe (2001), Bagnoli (2002). They only consider partially the multiple externalities 
from  R  &  D.  They  estimate  that  the  elasticity  is  between  0.05  and  0.2.  The  estimated 
productivity of R & D is stronger when the econometric study is conducted from a series of 
instantaneous cross-sectional (inter-enterprise) that when conducted with time series. This is 
due,  among  others,  to  the  fact  that  innovative  company  grab  market  shares  from  its 
competitors  in  the  same  sector.  Moreover,  many  studies  agree  that  productivity  depends  on 
the technological advancement of the industry. It is assumed that β is the weighted sum of a 
constant  β 0  and  a  function  of  the  intensity  of  R  &  D  in  each  sector  (RD  /  Y)  using  the 
following equation: 

). f
β=α.β0 + 1−α(

⎛ 
⎜ 
⎝ 

RD
Y

⎞ 
⎟  
⎠ 

The chosen parameters lead to a change of 0.075 β  in 2002 to 0.124 in 2030. 

The  endogeneity  of  technical  progress  in  Nemesis  allows  the  study  of  innovation  policies, 
such as subsidies to R & D, and their effects on the research effort and European economic 
performance.  

The model, adapted to “structural” policies, includes 30 sectors for the core economic model, 
which  could  be  detailed  through  the  inclusion  of  linked  modules.  These  details  are  very 
important: (i) at first, because the implementation of structural policies (energy, environment, 
agriculture,  R&D,  innovation)  is  made  at  a  detailed  level;  (ii)  secondly,  because  the 
macroeconomic  tracks  of  the  model  is  the  combination  of  purely  macroeconomic  (“top-
down”) forces - for instance the wealth effects - and “bottom up” forces resulting from strong 
interactions  between  very  heterogeneous  sectors  in  terms  of  dynamics,  but  also  in  terms  of 
composition  (capital,  labour,  energy,  etc).  These  interactions  are  not  only  presented  in  the 
NEMESIS model by goods and services exchanges, but they are also extended to knowledge 
spillovers. 

EN 

75 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
    
Leverage effect 

The  leverage  effect  or  “crowding-in”  effect  describes  the  multiplier  effect  of  1  Euro  of 
research and innovation expenditures. Econometric works provide some results but mainly at 
a European level or a macro national one, more rarely at a sector level. This leverage effect is 
depending  on  several  conditions  which  determine  the  expectations  on  the  level  and 
uncertainty of R&D returns. A main concern is about the comparison of the leverage effects 
of different sources of subsidies for instance regional, national or European. 

At a European level, investments in research and innovation appear to induce higher leverage 
effects that the national or the regional ones because of the network effects and of the transfer 
of best practices, justifying the higher returns which explain the difference. Many of the new 
initiatives on joint technology initiatives and research policies, as the European Research Area 
creation, aim at increasing this leverage effect. 

The  Risk-Sharing  Finance  Facility  (RSFF)  uses  debt-based  finance,  to  complement  the  FP7 
funding. Research related risk is shared between the EU and the European Investment Bank 
(EIB).  The  first  evaluations  of  RSFF  (see  Soete,  2010)  show  since  its  creation  in  2007  and 
until 2009 a very important leverage effect: 0.5 billion Euros of FP7 have induced, with the 
EIB  support  of  0.5  billion  Euros,  more  than  16  billion  Euros  of  expenditures  in  R&D. 
Exercises  on  FP  assessment  must  take  into  account  this  RSFF  outcome  even  if  it  concerns 
only  a  small  part  of  FP7,  and  more  generally  make  a  sensibility  analysis  of  results  to  the 
leverage adopted. 

In  the  analysis  of  the  impacts  of  the  framework  programme,  a  conservative  leverage  effect 
used  are  of  0.5  for  public  R&D  investments  (40%  of  the  7  billion  funds)  and  0.9  for  the 
private sector.  On average, these  assumptions imply a leverage effect of 0.74, which means 
that one Euro of EU investment from the 2012 FP7 budget leads to 1.74 Euro of research and 
innovation  expenditures,  of  which  0.58  financed  by  the  private  sector.  This  0.74  leverage 
effect is compatible with the results of the econometric literature which indicates a leverage 
effect for the private sector between 0.7 and 1.7 

A second important matter is the “knowledge spillovers”. Impacts of innovation in the model 
depend  not  only  on  R&D  expenditures  of  the  sector,  but  also  on  the  knowledge  spillovers 
coming  from  others  sectors,  other  countries  and  public  research  centres.  This  implies  that 
innovation in a sector can also happen without R&D expenditures in the sector. In NEMESIS, 
it is then the knowledge variable of the sector that produces innovation. 

The  works  and  the  literature  on  the  knowledge spillovers  are  now  fairly  important.  Starting 
with  an  adaptation  of  the  Johnson  matrix  (Johnson,  2002)  on  technological  flows  based  on 
patent data for the inter-sector spillovers and on trade flows for the external spillovers (which 
is  a  “proxy”  variable).  In  the  future,  the  model  will  update  the  hypothesis  on  the  basis  of 
contributions of  the UNU-MERIT in  the framework of  the DEMETER project. The case of 
General  Purpose  Technologies  (GPT),  used  by  almost  all  the  sectors,  for  instance  the 
information  and  communication  technologies,  which  are  a  main  carrier  for  knowledge 
externalities,  will  be  explicitly  treated.  The  last  mechanism  is  the  economic  performance 
(productivity)  of  knowledge  that  was  calibrated  in  the  NEMESIS  model  using  the 
econometric works based on R&D performance. 

Nemesis has been used by the Commission for the ex-ante impact assessment of FP7 and of 
Horizon  2020  and  for  assessing  the  macro-economic  impacts  of  achieving  the  3  percent 

EN 

76 

   EN 

 
objective,  by the OECD, by  a number of French government institutions, etc. In  the  impact 
assessment  of  Horizon2020,  the  national  crowding-in  coefficient  used  was  0.7  (1  Euro  of 
public  funding  attracts  0.7  Euros  from  the  private  sector),  and  1.1  for  EU  funding  of 
1.1funding. For the purpose of this impact assessment the crowding-in factor (0.9) reflects the 
impacts of both joint calls, and the impact of international peer review evaluation for funding 
decisions.  Moreover,  pan-European  research  induces  higher  multiplicative  impacts  on  the 
economy. In the impact assessment of Horizon2020 the multiplicative impacts of EU funding 
were estimated to be 15% better in those from national funding. For the purpose of this report, 
it  was  estimated  that  pan-European  funding  would  induce  a  multiplier  effect  of  6%  higher 
than the national one, also reflecting a possible higher openness to all Member States. 

For the ERA Framework impact assessment exercise, DG Research & Innovation developed 
in  collaboration  with  the  DEMETER  consortium  running  Nemesis  a  number  of  scenarios 
including the proposal: Business as usual, non-ERA and ERA in partnership. The DEMETER 
consortium  produced  for  each  of  these  scenarios  results  on  GDP,  exports,  imports,  and 
employment through 2030 compared to the business-as-usual scenario.  

The table below presents the description of the options simulated for this report. In terms of 
EU and total national R%D funding, allocation and performance, the simulations use the same 
hypothesis  as  in  the  impact  assessment  of  Horizon2020  (European  Commission,  2011f).  In 
the current simulations, the main difference consists in the share of national funding allocated 
to  pan-European  activities  (basic  and  applied  research),  without  increasing  total  national 
budget.  In  terms  of  performance,  the  coefficient  attributed  to  pan-European  funding  is 
intermediate  between  the  national  and  European  ones  used  and  justified  in  the  Impact 
Assessment  of  Horizon  2020,  as  it  is  not  possible  to  calculate  better  coefficients  due  to  the 
lack of data on pan-European funding. 

Table 9: Description of the options simulated with NEMESIS 

FP funding real growth rate 2013-2020 

BAU 

2013:8.31 
2014: 10.7 
2020: 15.3 

Funding reallocated to 
transnational cooperation 

2013:8.31 
2014: 10.7 
2020: 15.5 

FP funding real growth rate 2021-2030 

Increase further every year 
by 450 million and adjust for 
inflation (2%) 

Increase further every year 
by 450 million and adjust for 
inflation (2%) 

Share of latest available national R&D 
intensity competitive funding allocated to 
transnational bottom-up research within the 
ERA framework (%) 

Increases gradually to 2% by 
2020 

0 

EN 

77 

   EN 

 
 
BAU 

Funding reallocated to 
transnational cooperation 

Share of latest available national R&D 
intensity competitive funding allocated to 
transnational top-down research within the 
ERA framework (%) 
ERA Framework funding crowding-in factor 
private 
ERA Framework funding crowding-in factor 
public 

3.3% in 2013 gradually 
reaches 3.4% in 2020 

3.3% in 2013 gradually 
reaches 5.3% in 2020 

0.9 

0.3 

0.9 

0.3 

Multiplier for R&D resulting from ERA 
framework funding 

6% better than national 
funding 

6% better than national 
funding 

Allocation of FP funding to EU Member 
States 

Based on innovation 
performance 

Based on innovation 
performance 

Allocation of FP funding to basic and applied 
research 

40% basic, 60% applied 

40% basic, 60% applied 

Allocation of FP applied research funding to 
sectors within Member States 

Grandfathering 

Grandfathering 

FP funding crowding-in factor for the private 
sector (net additional funding generated) 

FP funding crowding-in factor for the public 
sector 

National funding crowding-in factor for the 
private sector (net additional funding 
generated) Non-ERA activities 

National funding crowding-in factor for the 
public sector Non-ERA activities 

1.1 

0.5 

0.7 

0 

1.1 

0.5 

0.7 

0 

Multiplier for R&D resulting from EC 
funding 

15 percent better than 
national 

15 percent better than 
national 

Multiplier for R&D resulting from national 
funding 

National 

National 

EN 

78 

   EN 

 
 
Intersectorial spillovers 
International spillovers 

BAU 

+ 
+ 

Funding reallocated to 
transnational cooperation 
+ 
+ 

Figure 6 and Figure 7 below present the results of the simulations on GDP and employment 
by option, when compared with maintaining the current plurality of programmes for R&D and 
Innovation. 

Figure  6:  Additional  GDP  to  be  generated  by  reallocating  funding  to  transnational  activities 
when compared with maintaining the current plurality of programmes for R&D and Innovation 
(left)  and  additional  GDP  growth  generated  by  ERA  in  combination  with  Horizon  2020, 
compared with the impacts on GDP of Horizon 2020 and of the non-Europe option presented in 
the Horizon 2020 Impact Assessment (SEC(2011) 1427 final) (right) 

Figure  7:  Additional  jobs  created  when  compared  with  maintaining  the  current  plurality  of 
programmes  for  R&D  and  Innovation  (left)  and  additional  jobs  generated  by  ERA  in 
combination with Horizon 2020, compared with the impacts on GDP of Horizon 2020 and of the 
non-Europe  option  presented  in  the  Horizon  2020  Impact  Assessment  (SEC(2011)  1427  final) 
(right) 

Analysis of costs linked to open, transparent and merit-based recruitment 

Key assumptions 

Number of vacancies affected across the EU 

Precise,  reliable,  comparable  data  on  the  extent  of  open  recruitment  in  the  EU  are  virtually 
non-existent, e.g., no data for example on the number of open research positions per year, nor 
the  number  of  internally  advertised  vacancies  per  country.  However,  a  2010  Study  by 
Technopolis (Technopolis, 2010) estimated that out of the total number of researchers in the 
European  Higher  Education  sector  (1.3  million  HC  in  2007  (OECD)),  one  may  calculate  a 

EN 

79 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
share  of  15%  for  professors,  and  85%  of  academic  related  jobs119.  If  we  assume  an  annual 
turnover  rate  of  7%,  about  96.000  positions  need  to  be  filled  each  year.  Out  of  these,  10% 
may  be  positions  for  professors,  while  the  majority  of  90%  will  be  for  academic  related 
positions. Affected by a possible lack of open recruitment are thus around 96.000 positions. 
One can estimate that the 10% of professorship positions, 9.600 jobs annually, are subject to 
open recruitment. One can then add another share for internally recruited researchers. If we 
calculate  with  30%  to  be  internally  recruited,  this  would  add  another  30.000  positions 
annually within Europe. The professor positions are however the ones, for which in many EU 
countries regulations exist requiring public advertisement. Thus about 30.000 to maximum 
40.000 positions are at stake possibly lacking open recruitment. 

Cost for filling in a vacancy 

As in any recruitment process, transaction costs occur on both sides: the hiring organisation 
and  the  individual.  As  a  result,  economic  reasoning  may  define  to  some  extent,  which 
positions are required to be publicly advertised and which could also be internally advertised 
prior to a potential public advertisement. 

While publishing posts assures greatest access to the available pool of qualified candidates, it 
often  requires  allocation  of  resources  for  outreach  and  advertising  and  may  lengthen  the 
recruitment  process.  There  are  first  the  search  costs  of  the  hiring  organisation.  Time 
consuming  internal  discussions  about  the  job  profile,  ads  in  daily  newspapers  or  journals, 
administrative  follow-up,  setting-up  and  functioning  of  a  search  committee/selection  panel, 
these  all  are  cost  factors  linked  to  the  search.  They  can  be  substantially  augmented  when 
potential candidates are invited for an interview and their travelling reimbursed. 

The  costs  for  recruiting  a  single  employee  vary  from  country  to  country,  region  to  region, 
even city to city. They vary between function groups as well as professions. Thus according to 
estimates  that  are  provided  by  recruiting  agencies,  the  costs  can  vary  between  €2,000  and 
€50,000 . Agencies are more often used when either higher positions are offered or specialists 
are  required.  In  all  other  cases,  companies’  internal  human  resource  departments  are  the 
central unit dealing with recruitment issues (Technopolis, 2010) 

Direct recruitment costs include the following items: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

119 

Advertising 

Agency and search firm fees 

Costs  associated  with  setting  up  a  panel  (use  of  valuable  human  resources, 
appointing a foreigner on the panel) 

Human  resources  to  deal  with  potential  large  number  of  applicants,  provide 
feedback, deal with appeals 

Travel costs incurred by both recruiters and applicants 

Relocation costs 

These  shares  are  based  on  calculations  using  available  data  from  a  small  number  of  universities  on 
personnel and recruitment figures. 

EN 

80 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Technopolis  (2010)  calculated  for  the  annually  9,600  university  professors  to  be  recruited 
average  recruitment  costs  of  €20.000   (most  of  this  is  time  spent  on  search,  reading  and 
assessing of documents, attending dedicated faculty meetings and selection boards, etc.) and 
€5.000  for the formerly internally recruited personnel. Much of this amount is already spent 
on  the  subject  given  that  many  universities  do  publish  most  or  all  of  their  jobs  and  follow 
recruitment  and  selection  processes.  Thus  the  real  net  extra  is  an  unknown  fraction  of  this 
amount. 

By  and  large  and  given  that  the  cost  for  filling  in  a  vacancy  (research-related  or  professor 
position) varies from €5.000-20,000, it can be assumed that the cost for filling in a vacancy 
is equal to one or two month researcher salary.  

The heterogeneity of the situation in each Member States presents a challenge. For countries 
such  as  the  UK  with  a  relatively  open  and  transparent  recruitment  system,  there  may  be 
(virtually)  no  additional  costs  required  but  for  other  countries  at  the  other  extreme,  such  as 
Italy,  Greece,  Romania,  Bulgaria  the  costs  of  applying  principles  of  open,  transparent 
recruitment may require additional costs close to the average figures mentioned above, e.g., in 
institutions  lacking  a  proper  human  resources  strategy  or  with  an  underfunded/understaffed 
human resources department. 

There  are  equally  transaction  costs  on  the  side  of  the  candidate,  for  example,  of  his  or  her 
search costs, but also mobility and social costs – the candidate may have to move, quit family 
and friends and encounter thus social costs.  

Analysis of gender impacts 

Several  studies  indicate  that  increased  female  participation  leads  to  increased  research  and 
innovation performance through:  

– 

– 

benefitting from a wider talent pool of human resources 

diversified teams of researchers enhance the robustness of the decisions due to wider 
expertise, knowledge sharing and diverse points of view  

The  following  exercises  quantified  the  contribution  of  female  participation  on  performance 
and economic impacts: 

– 

– 

– 

McKinsey  &  Company  (2007)  found  that  those  with  the  highest  level  of  gender 
diversity in top management positions outperformed their sector competitors in terms 
of return on equity by 10%, in earnings before interest and taxes by 48%, and in 1.7 
times higher stock price growth during the period 2005-2007).  

McKinsey  &  Company  (2007)  shows  that  the  increase  in  female  employment  has 
been  an  important  driver  of  European  economic  growth  over  the  last  10  years. 
Closing  the  gap between female  and male employment rates would boost US GDP 
by as much as 9% and the Eurozone GDP by as much as 13% 

Sáinz Ibáñez, Milagros, Beatriz López, and Ana González Ramos (2010) shows that 
ICT research groups in public institutions in Spain with more than 20% women have 
better academic performance results in terms of a higher number of (a) international 
competitive research projects, (b) articles published in international journals, and (c) 
publications with a higher impact factor 

EN 

81 

   EN 

 
– 

– 

– 

Turner, (Air Liquide, EDF, Shell and Schlumberger) (2006; 2009) shows that a 10% 
increase of gender diversity at R&D teams in private companies level would lead to 
an increase of 0.7% in individual performance. Similarly, on  the group  level,  more 
gender diverse teams scored better on the performance scale: an increase from 27% 
to 50% of gender diversity in teams would raise the probability of on-time delivery 
of  priority  deliverables  by  8.5%  and  raise  the  probability  that  real  costs  will  be 
smaller than anticipated costs by 15. More gender diverse teams improve individual 
and collective R&D performance. 

Østergaard, Timmermans, and Kristinsson (2011) found that gender diversity among 
1648  Danish  firms had the second strongest relationship with a firm's likelihood to 
innovate after educational diversity 

As  Cavalcanti  and  Tavares  (2007)  contend,  a  greater  gender  pay  gap  discourages 
women from participating fully in the labour market, with negative consequences for 
growth per capita. According to their model, if the US were to have the same level of 
gender  pay  inequality  as  Egypt,  its  output  per  capita  would  be  42.68%  below  its 
actual level. 

Analysis of costs and benefits of open access: a comparison between Denmark, 
Netherlands and the UK 

Description of the Model  

1.1. 

Main  characteristics:  A  spread  sheet  model  to  estimate  the  impacts  of  increases  in 
‘accessibility’ and ‘efficiency’ on returns to R&D over 20 years in a 20 by 20 matrix, 
with  three  data  inputs:  (i)  R&D  expenditure,  (ii)  annual  costs  associated  with  the 
publishing  model,  and  (iii)  annual  savings  resulting  from  the  publishing  model  (in 
the net cost scenarios only). 

1.2. 

Assumptions and parameters 

1.3. 

Key  parameters  include:  (i)  the  rate  of  social  return  to  R&D,  (ii)  the  rate  of 
depreciation of the underlying stock of knowledge, (iii) the discount rate applied to 
costs  and  benefits  to  estimate  net  present  value,  (iv)  the  rate  of  growth  of  R&D 
expenditure, (v) the rate of growth of costs associated with the alternative publishing 
scenario  being  explored,  (vi)  the  average  lag  between  publication  or  self-archiving 
and returns to R&D in years, and (vii) the average lag between R&D expenditure and 
publication in years. 

Transition  versus  ‘steady-state’  alternative:  Because  of  the  lag  between  research 
expenditure  and  the  realisation  of  economic  and  social  returns  to  that  research,  the 
impact on returns to R&D is lagged (by 10 years in the transitional scenario) and the 
value  of  those  returns  discounted  accordingly.  This  reflects  that  fact  that  a  shift  to 
open access publishing or self-archiving would be prospective and not retrospective, 
and  the  economic  value  of  impacts  of  enhanced  accessibility  and  efficiency  would 
not  be  reflected  in  returns  to  R&D  until  those  returns  are  realised.  An  alternative 
approach  would  be  to  model  a  hypothetical  alternative  ‘steady-state’  system  for 
alternative  publishing  models  in  which  the  benefits  of  historical  increases  in 
accessibility  and  efficiency  enter  the  model  in  year  one.  This  would  reflect  the 
situation in an alternative system, after the transition had worked through and was no 
longer affecting returns to R&D. The model used herein focuses on the transition and 

EN 

82 

   EN 

 
explores alternative models through a series of scenarios over a 20 year transitional 
period.  However,  the  possible  impacts  in  a  hypothetical  ‘steady-state’  alternative 
system  are  explored  indicatively  by  introducing  the  estimated  annual  increase  in 
returns into year one. This effectively removes the lag, but is no more than indicative 
because it does not include the recurring gains from historical expenditures occurring 
before year one.  

1.4. 

National  versus  worldwide  scenario:  the  study  also  distinguishes  between  a 
realisation  of  open  access  policies  primarily  on  the  national  level  or  on  the  global 
level,  where  additional  benefits  can  be  reaped.  However,  this  exercise  has  been 
undertaken for DK and NL only, not for the UK. 

Cost-benefit analysis in Denmark, the Netherlands and the UK 

2.1. 

Cost-benefit analysis Denmark 

-- 

Costs  

Savings  

Return 

Benefit/Cost ratio 

Scenario 1: national Open Access (OA) only (unilateral) 

Transitional  Model 
Gold OA120  

3024 

Transitional  Model 
Green OA121  

160 

Steady  State  Model 
Gold OA 

3024 

Steady  State  Model 
Green OA 

160 

Scenario 2: Worldwide OA 

Transitional  Model 
Gold OA 

3024 

Transitional  Model 
Green OA 

160 

Steady  State  Model 
Gold OA 

3024 

Steady  State  Model 
Green OA 

160 

4724 

31 

4724 

31 

9337 

2741 

9337 

2741 

1504 

1504 

16824 

2.1 

9.6 

7.1 

16824 

105.2 

1504 

1504 

16824 

3.6 

26.5 

8.7 

16824 

122.1 

Comments  and  source:  Houghton  (2009a)122  Adapted  from  Net  costs  scenario  Denmark,  taking  figures  for  all 
gold and green OA activities (not just implementation in Higher Education). Figures in DKK millions 

120 
121 
122 

i.e. open access publishing  
i.e. self-archiving  
Houghton,  John  (2009a)  Costs  and  Benefits  of  Alternative  Publishing  Models:  Denmark.  Centre  for 
Strategic Economic Studies Victoria University, Melbourne 

EN 

83 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Interpretation: As in the previous case study, these cost-benefit comparisons suggest that the 
additional returns to R&D resulting from enhanced accessibility and efficiency alone would 
be  sufficient  to  cover  the  costs  of  parallel  open  access  self-archiving  without  subscription 
cancellations  (i.e.  ‘Green  open  access').  When  estimated  savings  are  added  to  generate  net 
costs  there  is  a  substantial  increase  in  the  benefit/cost  ratios,  and  for  both  open  access 
publishing and self-archiving  alternatives  (i.e. ‘Gold open access’ and ‘Green open access’) 
the  benefits  exceed  the  costs,  even  in  transition.  Indicative  modelling  of  post-transition 
‘steady-state’  alternative  systems  suggests  that,  once  established,  alternative  open  access 
publishing and/or self-archiving systems would produce substantially greater net benefits. For 
example, during a transitional period it is estimated that, in an open access world: 

• 

• 

• 

The  combined  cost  savings  and  benefits  from  increased  returns  to  R&D  resulting 
from open access publishing all journal articles produced in Denmark’s universities 
using an ‘author-pays’ system would be around 3 times the costs; 

The combined cost savings and benefits from open access self-archiving in parallel 
with subscription publishing (i.e. ‘Green open access’) would be around 27 times the 
costs;  

The  combined  cost  savings  and  benefits  from  an  alternative  open  access  self-
archiving  system  with  overlay  production  and  review  services  (i.e.  ‘overlay 
journals’) would be around 4 times the costs  

Indicative  modelling  of  post-transition  ‘steady-state’  alternative  systems  returns  benefits  of 
around  7  to  10  times  costs  for  open  access  publishing  and  self-archiving  with  overlay 
services, more than 100 times the costs for the ‘Green open access’ self-archiving. 

Cost-benefit analysis Netherlands 

-- 

Costs  

Savings  

Return 

Benefit/Cost ratio 

Scenario 1: national Open Access only (unilateral) 

Transitional  Model 
Gold OA123  

636 

Transitional  Model 
Green OA124  

124 

Steady  State  Model 
Gold OA 

636 

Steady  State  Model 
Green OA 

124 

Scenario 2: Worldwide OA 

1010 

13 

1010 

13 

358 

358 

3737 

3737 

2.1 

3.0 

7.5 

30.3 

Transitional  Model  636 

1987 

358 

3.7 

123 
124 

i.e. open access publishing  
i.e. self-archiving  

EN 

84 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Gold OA 

Transitional  Model 
Green OA 

124 

Steady  State  Model 
Gold OA 

636 

Steady  State  Model 
Green OA 

124 

631 

1987 

631 

358 

3737 

3737 

8.0 

9.0 

35.3 

Comments/Source: Houghton (2009b)125 Adapted from Net costs scenario the Netherlands, taking figures for all 
gold and green OA activities (not just implementation in Higher Education). Figures in EUR millions 

Interpretation: Similar to the results for DK and NL the comparisons for the UK suggest that 
the  additional  returns  to  R&D  resulting  from  enhanced  accessibility  and  efficiency  alone 
would  be  sufficient  to  cover  the  costs  of  parallel  open  access  self-archiving  without 
subscription  cancellations  (i.e.  ‘Green  open  access’).  When  estimated  savings  are  added  to 
generate net costs there is a substantial increase in the benefit/cost ratios, and for both open 
access  publishing  and  self-archiving  alternatives  (i.e.  ‘Gold  open  access’  and  ‘Green  open 
access’)  the  benefits  exceed  the  costs,  even  in  transition.  Indicative  modelling  of  post-
transition  ‘steady-state’  alternative  systems  suggests  that,  once  established,  alternative  open 
access  publishing  and/or  self-archiving  systems  would  produce  substantially  greater  net 
benefits.  For  example,  during  a  transitional  period  it  is  estimated  that,  in  an  open  access 
world: 

• 

• 

• 

The  combined  cost  savings  and  benefits  from  increased  returns  to  R&D  resulting 
from open access publishing all journal articles produced in Netherlands universities 
would be around 3 times the costs 

The combined cost savings and benefits from open access self-archiving in parallel 
with subscription publishing (i.e. ‘Green open access') would be around 7 times the 
costs;  

The combined cost savings and benefits from open access self-archiving with overlay 
production and review services (i.e. ‘overlay journals’) around 4 times the costs. 

Indicative  modelling  of  post-transition  ‘steady-state’  alternative  systems  returns  benefits  of 
around 7 to 8 times costs for open access publishing and overlay services models and around 
30 times the costs for the open access self-archiving. 

Cost benefit analysis United Kingdom 

-- 

Costs  

Savings  

Return 

Benefit/Cost ratio 

Scenario 1: national Open Access only (unilateral) 

Transitional  Model 
Gold OA126  

2079 

2575 

2353 

2.4 

125 

Houghton, John et. al (2009b) 

EN 

85 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Transitional  Model 
Green OA127  

237 

Steady  State  Model 
Gold OA 

2079 

Steady  State  Model 
Green OA 

237 

Scenario 2: Worldwide OA: not provided  

2697 

2575 

2697 

2353 

26318 

21.3 

13.9 

26318 

122.2 

Comments/Source:  Houghton  et.  al  (2009c)128  Adapted  from  Net  costs  scenario  the  UK,  taking  figures  for  all 
gold and green OA activities (not just implementation in Higher Education). Figures in GBP millions.  

Interpretation: These comparisons suggest that the additional returns to R&D resulting from 
enhanced  accessibility  and  efficiency  alone  may  be  sufficient  to  cover  the  costs  of  parallel 
open  access  self-archiving  (i.e.  Green  open  access).  When  estimated  savings  are  added  to 
generate  net  costs  there  is  a  substantial  increase  in  the  benefit/cost ratios  and  for  both  open 
access  publishing  and  self-archiving  the  benefits  exceed  the  costs  (even  in  transition). 
Indicative  modelling  of  post-transition  ‘steady-state’  alternative  systems  suggests  that  once 
established  alternative  open  access  publishing  and/or  self-archiving  systems  would  produce 
substantially greater benefits, such that: 

• 

• 

For  the  UK  nationally,  in  an  alternative  open  access  journal  publishing  system  the 
benefits might be 14 times the costs 

And  in  an  alternative  open  access  self-archiving  system  with  commercial  overlay 
production and review services the benefits might be more than 120 times the costs. 

Conclusion129  

The cost-benefits of the open access or ‘author-pays’ publishing model are very similar across 
the three countries. In terms of estimated cost-benefits over a transitional period of 20 years, 
open  access  publishing  all  articles  produced  in  universities  in  2007  would  have  produced 
benefits of around 2 to 3 times the costs in all cases, but showed benefits of 5 to 6 times costs 
in  the  simulated  alternative  ‘steady  state’  model  for  unilateral  national  open  access,  and 
benefits of around 7 times the costs in an open access world. 

The  most  obvious  difference  between  the  national  results  relates  to  the  self-archiving  and 
repositories  models,  which  while  promising  substantial  net  benefits  in  all  countries,  do  not 
look quite as good in the Netherlands as they do in the UK, and nothing like as good as they 
do  in  Denmark.  This  is  due  to  the  implied  number  of  repositories,  each  with  operational 
overheads. 

Notwithstanding this difference, the modelling suggests that more open access alternatives are 
likely  to  be  more  cost-effective  mechanisms  for  scholarly  publishing  in  a  wide  range  of 
countries  (large  and  small),  with  ‘Gold  open  access’  or  author-pays  publishing,  the 

126 
127 
128 
129 

i.e. open access publishing  
i.e. self-archiving  
Houghton, John et. al (2009c) 
This conclusion is based on From Houghton, John (2009a) 

EN 

86 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
deconstructed or overlay journals model of self-archiving with overlay production and review 
services,  and  ‘Green  open  access’  self-archiving  in  parallel  with  subscription  publishing 
progressively more cost-effective. 

Impacts of open access on the publishing market 

The impact of open access on the publishing market has been documented in several studies 
and articles, however to date no definitive conclusion or consensus has emerged. It is worth 
noting that open access via the gold route or the green route may entail different impacts on 
the publishing market as follows: 

• 

• 

Gold open access entails a shift from "subscriber pays" to "author pays" model which 
does not imply fundamental changes to the current business models  

Self-archiving  or  green  open  access  entails  a  potential  for  disruption  of  business 
model but embargo periods have been foreseen to make sure publishers can recoup 
their investment.  

The publishing market: key features130  

Publishers’ behaviour in the market will be determined by their objectives. The objectives of 
any  one  publisher  will  not  be  one-dimensional  and  in  some  cases  there  are  likely  to  be  a 
number of complex, even mutually exclusive, reasons for engaging in the publishing market. 
Furthermore  there  are  many  different  kinds  of  publisher,  some  of  which  publish  large 
numbers of journals, each of which may contribute in different ways to the fulfilment of the 
publisher’s objectives. Publishers of academic journals fall into three broad groups 

• 

• 

• 

Commercial publishers' 

University presses; 

Learned societies.  

It  is  not  straightforward,  therefore,  to  characterise  the  objectives  of,  say,  a  particular 
commercial  publisher,  which  may,  for  example  be  publishing  journals  which  it  owns 
alongside  those  owned  by  a  learned  society,  where  the  price  and  distribution  policy  of  the 
latter are determined largely by the society. The commercial publisher wishes to fulfil its own 
objectives, but, in this example, must, at the same time, enable its society customers to fulfil 
their  needs  too.  At  the  opposite  end  of  the  spectrum,  a  learned  society  may  be  involved  in 
publishing solely to disseminate the work of its specialist area to a relatively small group of 
subscribers, or may have a very large subscription base, publishing a broadly based journal of 
high  quality,  from  which  it  earns  substantial  revenue  enabling  it  to  give  bursaries,  put  on 
conferences and workshops, establish small research grants and promote its discipline to the 
public at large. 

Sources of revenue for journal publishers131 

Journal publishers often rely on revenue from a number and variety of sources, including: 

130 
131 

Wellcome Trust (2004) Costs and business models in scientific research publishing 
From Houghton, John et. al (2009c)  

EN 

87 

   EN 

 
                                                 
• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Subscription  revenues  from  individual  or  institutional  subscribers,  by  title  and  by 
‘Big Deal’ package; 

Individual article, reprint and pay-per-view revenues from individual or institutional 
users; 

Content licensing from third-parties for access to content; 

Advertising  revenues  from  organisations  seeking  to  sell  to  the  journal’s  readers, 
which can be quite substantial in areas where there are large professional readerships 
(e.g. medicine); 

Author-fees  in  the  form  of  page  charges  or  fees  for  submission  and/or  publication 
charged to authors directly or to their institutions and/or funders; 

Membership  fees  from  society  membership  (e.g.  membership  fees  that  include  a 
‘free’ journal); and 

Sponsorship  and  support  in  the  form  of  financial  support  for  the  operation  of  the 
journal. 

Impacts of open access on the publishing market and on jobs 

Some studies have noted the potential for availability of articles on open access archives and 
repositories to have a negative impact on subscriptions. RIN et al. (2011)132 take a 10% loss 
of subscriptions as an underlying assumption for its green open access scenario. However, to 
date no definitive evidence of the impact of open access on the publishing market has been 
produced in the academic literature. It is worth noting that arXiv has had no obvious impact 
on  subscriptions  to  physics  journals  despite  extensive  coverage  and  years  of  operation 
(Pinfield  2007),32  and  the  relationship  between  arXiv  and  journals  in  the  areas  concerned 
may  be  positive,  rather  than  negative  (Swan  2005).  The  same  has  been  said  of  Nature 
Precedings (Hannay and Spencer 2008).133 Publishers appear to have adjusted to the twelve-
month  embargo  period  required  by  the  US  National  Institutes  of  Health  (NIH)  without  a 
significant loss of subscriptions. In spite of the uptake of Open Access publishing, including 
more  than  200  Open  Access  mandates  worldwide,  the  profit  and  margins  of  scientific 
publishers have remained healthy over recent years.134 

Given  the  fact  that  publisher's  use  a  variety  of  income  streams  as  well  as  the  different 
categories of publishers (see above) no reliable predictions on positive or negative impact on 
jobs  can  be  made.  Additionally,  potential  job  gains  through  non-for  profit  open  access 
publishers and increased competition – hence the potential entry of new players in the market 
– would also need to be factored in. Due to this complex situation an estimation of the impact 
on jobs cannot be provided. 

132 

133 
134 

RIN  et.  al  (2011)  Heading  for  the  open  road:  costs  and  benefits  of  transitions  in  scholarly 
communications. 
Houghton, John et. al (2009c)  
Houghton, John et. al (2009c)  

EN 

88 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Other impacts on publishers135  

Open access publishing (especially author-pays) may well make revenue more predictable and 
stable,  as  it  scales  more  easily  to  research  output  than  have  library  budgets,  growing  with 
research expenditure and providing a revenue stream that is growing. This would reduce the 
level  of  risk  and  should,  over  time,  be  reflected  in  a  reduced  user  cost  of  capital  for  open 
access publishers. 

Open access publishers are less likely to need branded proprietary access systems, reducing 
the  need  for  each  publisher  to  develop  expensive  proprietary  access  systems,  and  reducing 
expenditure on IT skills and equipment while increasing the use of hosting services. 

Open  access  journals  are  more  visible  and  more  useful,  and  are  more  likely  to  attract 
submissions  and  advertising  revenue, 
increasing  potential  revenue  growth 
thereby 
opportunities.  Hybrid  journals  may  also  become  more  visible  through  offering  open/author 
choice and grow subscriptions and subscription revenue as a result 

Learned  societies  and  associations  may  raise  their  profile,  and  that  of  their  discipline,  by 
publishing  open  access  journals  and/or  hosting  open  access  content  (e.g.  disciplinary  open 
access  repositories).  This  might  contribute  to  membership  growth  and  revenue  growth. 
Learned  societies  and  associations  may  also  develop  new  revenue  streams  through  the 
provision of overlay services to the open access content (e.g. peer review, specialist portals, 
etc.). 

135 

Houghton, John et. al (2009c)  

EN 

89 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Annex 5: Screening and selection of the specific measures for the policy options 

1. Competitive and open national research systems 

Pre-screening and selection of potential measures to address the problem 

Several  potential  measures  were  considered  and  screened  in  order  to  identify  the  pros  and 
cons of each of them: 

• 

Member  States'  reforms  for  reducing  barriers  to  allocating  funding  on  a 
competitive basis with international peer review systems 

Assessment  of  pros  and  cons:  the  advantage  of  this  measure  is  that  it  leaves  up  to  Member 
States  to  determine  the  most  relevant  reforms  to  be  put  in  place  given  the  national  context. 
This is all the more important as existing evidence shows that there is no 'optimal' share of 
project-based funding vs. institutional funding. On the other hand, the voluntary nature of this 
measure means that research stakeholders or Member States not supporting the measure may 
not adopt the necessary reforms. This measure was retained in policy option 2 and 3. 

• 

Legislative  measure  at  EU  level  on  the  use  of  peer  review  evaluation  based  on 
international standards for all national project-based funding. 

Assessment of pros and cons: the advantage of this measure is that all projects across the EU 
will be subject to common international peer review systems. However, since several Member 
States have already such peer review evaluation systems in place, a regulatory measure at EU 
level would entail unnecessary burden on these national systems (i.e. they will have to change 
existing evaluation systems) without additional benefits. This measure was included in policy 
option 3 and 4.  

• 

Peer  review  evaluation  system  at  EU  level  for  national  projects:  all  national 
bottom-up projects would be assessed through an EU peer review evaluation system 
based on international standards. A unique score would be allocated to each project. 
This  system  could  de  facto  constitute  an  extension  of  the  remit  of  the  ERC  to  all 
national projects.  

Assessment of pros and cons: the advantage of this measure is that all projects across the EU 
will be assessed using a unique evaluation mechanism. This would allow the comparability of 
projects between countries, as each project would be allocated a unique EU-wide score. This 
measure  may  act  as  a  powerful  incentive  for  national  research  teams  and  researchers  to 
improve  the  quality  of  their  proposals.  However,  this  measure  may  encounter  strong 
opposition  amongst  research  stakeholders  wishing  to  maintain  the  status  quo  (sheltered 
funding). It would entail heavy financial burden for the Commission. This measure was not 
retained for the policy options.  

2.  Enhanced  co-operation  in  research  between  Member  States  through  systems 
interoperability, synchronised calls and common international peer review system 

Pre-screening and selection of potential measures to address the problem 

Several  potential  measures  were  considered  and  screened  in  order  to  identify  the  pros  and 
cons of each of them: 

EN 

90 

   EN 

 
• 

Support to Member States' reforms to remove legal, administrative or other types 
of  obstacles  remain  to  the  adoption  of  minimum  rules  for  the  interoperability  of 
research  programmes  involved  in  cross-border  operations,  including  joint  actions, 
and for common international peer review 

Assessment  of  pros  and  cons:  the  advantage  of  this  measure  is  that  it  leaves  up  to  Member 
States  to  determine  the  most  relevant  reforms  to  be  put  in  place  given  the  national  context. 
This  is  all  the  more  important  as  the  type  of  barriers  varies  amongst  Member  States  and 
within Member States (i.e. different national programmes may have different barriers). On the 
other hand, the voluntary nature of this measure means that research stakeholders or Member 
States  not  supporting  the  measure  may  not  adopt  the  necessary  reforms.  This  measure  was 
included in policy option 2 and 3. 

• 

Support  to  Member  States  and  stakeholder  organisations  for  launching  pilot 
call(s)  within  the  framework  of  Joint  Programming  or  other  existing  transnational 
cooperation  mechanism,  with  the  support  of  the  Commission  for  synchronising  the 
calls and for the international peer review evaluation of proposals 

Assessment of pros and cons: the measure provides an adequate level of flexibility as Member 
States  identify  the  most  relevant  type  of  pilot  calls  and  structures  for  implementing  them. 
Another  advantage  of  this  measure  is  that  new  calls  are  implemented  through  existing 
mechanisms  (e.g.  Joint  Programming)  which  are  well-known  by  Member  States  and  the 
research  community.  This  should  increase  the  likelihood  of  successful  implementation.  On 
the other hand, there is a risk of slow take-up by Member States and research actors given the 
voluntary nature of the measure. This measure was included in policy option 2 and 3. 

• 

Stakeholder organisations identify and agree on modalities and modus operandi 
for the organisation of joint calls based on common international peer review 

Assessment  of  pros  and  cons:  the  clear  advantage  of  this  option  is  that  stakeholders  can 
identify  and  set  up  modalities  which  are  tailored  to  the  characteristics  of  domestic  research 
systems.  No  potential  limit  was  identified  for  this  measure.  This  measure  was  included  in 
policy option 2.  

• 

Support  measure  for  the  implementation  of  the  voluntary  guidelines  on  Joint 
Programming.  This  measure  would  entail  regular  peer  reviews  amongst  Member 
States and a monitoring system by the Commission 

Assessment  of  pros  and  cons:  a  clear  advantage  of  this  measure  is  that  it  would  support 
Member  States  in  implementing  the  guidelines  on  Joint  Programming,  thus  leading  to 
increased  interoperability  of  national  research  programmes  in  the  long  term.  However,  a 
significant  limit  of  this  measure  is  that  increased  interoperability  between  research 
programmes will most likely not be achieved by 2014, as this would require at least a couple 
of years. This measure was therefore not retained for the policy options.  

• 

Member States co-ordinate policies on research infrastructures and adopt measures 
allowing  the  opening  of  existing  and  new  European  research  infrastructures  to  the 
entire user community 

Assessment  of  pros  and  cons:  this  measure  should  lead  to  increased  access  to  research 
infrastructures of pan-European interest. This option also allows Member to adopt a flexible 

EN 

91 

   EN 

 
approach,  which  is  in  line  with  the  current  mechanisms  within  the  ESFRI  Forum.  This 
measure was included in policy options 2 and 3.  

• 

Identification and setting up of harmonised monitoring, evaluation and impact 
assessment  principles 
research 
infrastructures 

for  pan-European 

and  procedures 

Assessment  of  pros  and  cons:  a  clear  advantage  of  this  measure  is  that  it  builds  on  and 
expands  on-going  activities  carried  out  by  ESFRI  members.  Harmonised  principles  and 
procedures  should  support  improved  foresight  and  monitoring  of  both  national  and  pan-
European  research  infrastructures,  whilst  facilitating  decision-making  within  ESFRI.  A 
potential limit of this measure is that some Member States may not fully support the use of 
the  proposed  principles  and  procedures,  as  this  remains  a  voluntary  measure.  This  measure 
was included in policy option 2.  

• 

EU  legislative  measure  requiring  Member  States  to  increase  cross-border 
cooperation  through  the  adoption  of  minimum  standards  for  research  programme 
interoperability, the setting up of synchronised calls and a common international peer 
review  system  and  the  adoption  of  principles  to  reinforce  access  to  pan-European 
research infrastructures and their evaluation and monitoring. 

Assessment  of  pros  and  cons:  such  a  measure  would  significantly  facilitate  cross-border 
cooperation, as standards and conditions (related to national research programmes, evaluation 
mechanisms)  would  be  harmonised  across  Member  States.  However,  the  implementation  of 
this  measure  can  prove  expensive.  Moreover,  the  adoption  mechanism  can  take  too  long  to 
deliver by 2014 and probably including only principles of a limited degree of ambition. This 
measure was included in policy option 3 and 4.  

3. An open labour market for researchers  

3.1. Application of principles for open recruitment in public research systems 

Pre-screening and selection of potential measures to address the problem 

Several  potential  measures  were  considered  and  screened  in  order  to  identify  the  pros  and 
cons of each of them: 

• 

Legislative  measure  at  EU  level:  binding  measures  requiring  Member  States  to 
adopt  open,  transparent  and  merit-based  recruitment  for  research  positions  in  the 
public sector.  

Assessment  of  pros  and  cons:  the  advantage  of  a  regulatory  measure  is  that  less-advanced 
Member  States  would  have  to  implement  open  recruitment.  However,  such  a  measure  may 
prove  difficult  to  implement  given  the  diversity  of  national  research  systems  and  given  the 
lack  of  precise  data  on  the  types  of  barriers  which  exist  at  Member  State  level.  Moreover, 
recruitment and hiring policies are often linked to the level of autonomy of universities and 
research  organisations  in  Member  States.  Moreover,  the  appointment  of  some  senior  or 
permanent  positions  is  centrally  determined  in  several  Member  States.  The  effective 
implementation  of  a  legislative  measure  would  entail  reforms  at  Member  State  level.  This 
measure was included in policy option 3 and 4.  

EN 

92 

   EN 

 
• 

Removal  of  legal,  administrative  and  other  types  of  barriers:  Member  States 
adopt  relevant  regulatory  measures  for  ensuring  that  research  organisations  can 
implement  open,  transparent  and  merit-based  recruitment  for  public  research 
positions. 

Assessment  of  pros  and  cons:  given  the  diversity  of  national  research  systems,  this  option 
allows  Member  States  to  identify  the  key  barriers  preventing  the  open  recruitment  of 
researchers.  This  type  of  measure  is  particularly  relevant  given  that  existing  barriers  are 
local/context  specific  and  hence  need  to  be  addressed  within  the  national  context.  The 
potential  limit  of  this  measure  is  that  removing  existing  barriers  may  require  regulatory 
changes  (e.g.  autonomy  of  universities,  changes  to  appointment  rules  and  processes,  civil 
service  law),  which  may  delay  the  successful  implementation  of  the  measure  This  measure 
was included in policy option 2. 

• 

Stakeholder organisations to adopt principles for open, transparent and merit-
based recruitment in the public research sector. 

Assessment of pros and cons: the advantage of this measure is that universities and research 
organisations  would  be  able  to  draw  on  a  larger  pool  of  candidates,  thus  selecting  the  best 
profiles.  This  measure  would  also  ensure  equal  opportunities  -  particularly  for  women  and 
young  researchers  -  at  all  stages  of  the  selection  process.  Staffing  autonomy  and  the 
possibility  to  recruit  the  best  candidates  should  ultimately  lead  to  increased  scientific 
performance within institutions. The limit of this measure is that some institutions may not be 
able to implement open recruitment given the existence of barriers (legal, administrative) at 
national  level.  Moreover,  the  implementation  of  all  principles  and  rules  linked  to  open 
recruitment may prove expensive for less-endowed institutions. This measure was included in 
policy option 2. 

• 

Reinforced  implementation  of  open  recruitment  within  the  framework  of  the 
European Partnership for Researchers (EPR): as part of the EPR and based on the 
open  method  of  coordination,  a  common  definition  (including  criteria)  of  open 
recruitment would be agreed amongst Member States. Specific targets and actions to 
be  implemented  would  be  then  defined  for  each  Member  State  linked  to  a  regular 
monitoring mechanism. 

Assessment of pros and cons: the setting up of this measure should be relatively smooth and 
straightforward as Member States are already cooperating within the EPR. However, it may 
prove difficult to ensure that all Member States fully commit and engage in an equal manner 
(Member  States'  involvement  has  been  uneven  within  the  EPR).  This  measure  also  entails 
lengthy  procedures  and  consultation  mechanisms  amongst  Member  States  which  would  not 
allow  for  quick  and  visible  progress  by  2014.  Hence,  this  measure  was  not  included  in  the 
policy options.  

3.2. Integrated strategies to support the career development of researchers 

Pre-screening and selection of potential measures to address the problem 

Several  potential  measures  were  considered  and  screened  in  order  to  identify  the  pros  and 
cons of each of them: 

EN 

93 

   EN 

 
• 

Member States develop national frameworks to support the career development of 
researchers 

Assessment  of  pros  and  cons:  the  advantage  of  this  option  is  that  Member  States  determine 
the  most  adequate  measures  to  be  put  in  place  given  the  local/national  context.  However,  a 
potential limit of this measure is that setting up national framework may be a lengthy process 
as this often entails consultation processes and consensus-building with key research actors. 
This measure was retained in policy option 2 and 3. 

• 

Stakeholders  organisations  develop  institutional  strategies  to  support  the  career 
development  of  researchers  in  line  with  the  "Human  Resources  Strategy  for 
Researchers"  

Assessment  of  pros  and  cons:  the  advantage  of  this  option  is  that  stakeholder  organisations 
can  identify  local  needs  and  set  up  tailored  strategies  to  address  the  career  development  of 
researchers. The potential limit of this measure is that the implementation of such strategies 
may  prove  costly  for  less-endowed  institutions  or  stakeholders  located  in  less-advanced 
Member States or regions. This measure was retained in policy option 2 and 3. 

• 

Exchange of best practice and peer review 

Assessment  of  pros  and  cons:  this  measure  would  benefit  less-advanced  Member  States  by 
providing them with the required expertise and capacity building. The limit of this measure is 
that  there  is  a  risk  of  limited  action  and  follow-up  at  national  or  institutional  level,  i.e. 
practices are exchanged but not implemented. As the exchange of best practice is already on-
going  and  similar  types  of  activities  have  already  taken  within  the  FPs,  this  measure  was 
considered in the Baseline.  

3.3. Innovative doctoral training linking private and public sectors 

Pre-screening and selection of potential measures to address the problem 

Several  potential  measures  were  considered  and  screened  in  order  to  identify  the  pros  and 
cons of each of them: 

• 

Member  States  support 
programmes 

the  setting  up  of  "innovative"  doctoral  training 

Assessment  of  pros  and  cons:  Member  States  already  fund  a  variety  of  national  doctoral 
programmes. The advantage of this measure is that funding of national doctoral programmes 
will be linked to the Principles for Innovative Doctoral Training. No cons were identified for 
this measure. This measure was retained in policy option 2 and 3. 

• 

Stakeholder  organisations  implement  the  "Principles  For  Innovative  Doctoral 
Training"  

Assessment of pros and cons: the advantage of this measure is that stakeholder organisations 
are the key actors responsible for implementing the principles for innovative doctoral training. 
This  means  that  research  organisations  and  universities  can  reform  and  tailor  the  principles 
given  existing  needs.  A  potential  limit  of  this  measure  is  that  the  implementation  of  the 
principles  may  prove  expensive  for  less-endowed  institutions.  This  measure  was  retained  in 
policy option 2 and 3. 

EN 

94 

   EN 

 
• 

Exchange  of  best  practice  and  international  peer  review  mechanisms  amongst 
Member States 

Assessment of pros and cons: the setting up of this measure should be relatively smooth and 
straightforward  as  Member  States  are  already  cooperating  within  the  EPR  on  this  topic. 
However, it may prove difficult to ensure that all Member States fully commit and engage in 
an  equal  manner  (Member  States'  involvement  has  been  uneven  within  the  EPR).  This 
measure  also  entails  lengthy  procedures  and  consultation  mechanisms  amongst  Member 
States which would not allow for quick and visible progress by 2014. This measure was not 
retained for the policy options. 

3.4.  Application  of  principles  for  cross-border  portability  and  accessibility  of  national 
grants 

Pre-screening and selection of potential measures to address the problem 

Several  potential  measures  were  considered  and  screened  in  order  to  identify  the  pros  and 
cons of each of them: 

• 

Legislative  measure  at  EU  level:  binding  measures  requiring  Member  States  to 
adopt cross-border portability and accessibility of identified national grants 

Assessment of pros and cons: the advantage of a regulatory measure is that it would create a 
level playing field between funders of research and would enable tighter cooperation between 
them. However, an EU-wide regulatory approach would be difficult to implement as funding 
systems and their underlying principles differ between Member States and may lead to brain-
drain in less endowed Member States if it is undertaken without some precautions. As little is 
known regarding existing barriers at Member State level, there is currently not a strong case 
for regulatory intervention. This measure was included in policy option 3 and 4. 

• 

Removal  of  legal,  administrative  and  other  types  of  barriers:  Member  States 
adopt  relevant  regulatory  measures  on  cross-border  portability  and  accessibility  of 
identified national grants  

Assessment  of  pros  and  cons:  given  the  diversity  of  national  research  systems,  this  option 
allows Member States to identify the key barriers preventing portability of and accessibility to 
grants. This type of measure allows each Member State to calibrate its policy action according 
to  the  national/local  situation.  A  challenge  linked  to  this  measure  lies  with  the  (potentially 
lengthy)  identification  of  those  grants  which  will  be  subject  to  portability  at  Member  State 
level. This measure was included in policy option 2.  

• 

Stakeholders  to  adopt  principles  for  the  cross-border  portability  and 
accessibility of identified national grants.  

Assessment of pros and cons: the advantage of this measure is that it will allow stakeholders 
to identify which grants they want to make accessible and portable and which ones they do 
not. The potential limit of this measure is that some institutions may not be able to implement 
cross-border  portability  and  accessibility  of  identified  national  grants  given  the  existence  of 
barriers (legal, administrative) at national level. This measure was included in policy option 2. 

• 

Reinforced  implementation  of  grant  portability  within  the  EPR:  as  part  of  the 
EPR  and  based  on  the  open  method  of  coordination,  each  Member  State  would 

EN 

95 

   EN 

 
identify those national grants which should be subject to portability and accessibility. 
Specific  actions  to  be  implemented  would  be  then  defined  for  each  Member  State 
linked to a regular monitoring mechanism. 

Assessment of pros and cons: the setting up of this measure should be relatively smooth and 
straightforward as Member States are already cooperating within the EPR136. However, it may 
prove difficult to ensure that all Member States fully commit and engage in an equal manner 
(Member  States'  involvement  has  been  uneven  within  the  EPR).  This  measure  also  entails 
lengthy  procedures  and  consultation  mechanisms  amongst  Member  States.  Hence,  this 
measure was not included in the policy options.  

• 

EU-wide  promotion  and  take-up  mechanism  for  the  'Money  follows  Researcher' 
(MfR) scheme: stakeholders, in cooperation with the Commission, adopt promotion 
and support measures for the further take-up of the MfR scheme. 

Assessment of pros and cons: a clear advantage of this measure is that it could further build on 
and reinforce the existing MfR scheme agreed by an important number of institutions across 
Europe. However, the initiative does not address the issue of opening up national schemes to 
non-nationals or non-residents. The elaboration of principles and guidelines is foreseen to take 
a considerable amount of. For this reason, this measure was not included in the policy options. 

4. Gender strategies and action plans  

Pre-screening and selection of potential measures to address the problem 

Several  potential  measures  were  considered  and  screened  in  order  to  identify  the  pros  and 
cons of each of them: 

• 

Legislative  measure  at  EU  level:  binding  measures  to  ensure  that  Member  States 
adopt and implement gender strategies and action plans in the field of research. 

Assessment  of  pros  and  cons:  the  advantage  of  a  regulatory  measure  is  that  less-advanced 
Member States would have to adopt work-life balance measures. However, such a legislative 
measure  could  constitute  an  administrative  and/or  compliance  burden  for  those  Member 
States  which  are  already  well  advanced.  Moreover,  the  current  state-of-play  varies 
significantly amongst Member States and work-life balance policies are often an integral part 
of social and employment policies. The identification of the relevant provisions and measures 
to be put in place should be left with the Member States. In addition, the implementation of 
legislative  measures  may  take  a  long  time,  notably  if  this  requires  transposition  at  Member 
State level. This measure was included in policy option 4.  

• 

Gender strategies and action plans: set of voluntary measures which are part of a 
broader  strategy.  Action  plans  and  strategies  can  be  adopted  and  implemented  at 
national and institutional level. 

Assessment of pros and cons: given the diversity of Member States' situation, gender action 
plans  and  strategies  allow  national  authorities  and  institutions  to  identify  the  most  relevant 
measures to be implemented, this ensuring that measures are tailored to the local context and 
needs. The relative advantage of this measure is that institutions fully engage in the process 

136 

A Working Group on Portability has already been set up with a report expected in spring 2012. 

EN 

96 

   EN 

 
                                                 
by  setting  up  their  own  plans  and  strategies.  One  of  the  limits  of  this  measure  is  that  the 
implementation of action plans and strategies at institutional level can only succeed if existing 
measures  and  incentives  are  effectively  implemented  in  the  field  of  research  (i.e.  adequate 
work-life balance policies). This measure was included in policy option 2 and 3. 

• 

Exchange  of  best  practice  and  peer  reviews:  setting  up  of  EU-level  coordinated 
activities  allowing  for  the  exchange  of  best  practice  and  peer  reviewed  amongst 
Member States.  

Assessment  of  pros  and  cons:  this  type  of  activities  would  benefit  less-advanced  Member 
States by providing them with the required expertise and capacity building. The limit of this 
measure is that there is a risk of limited action and follow-up at national or institutional level, 
i.e. practices are exchanged but not implemented. As similar types of activities have already 
been taken within the FPs, this measure was not included in the policy options. 

• 

Research  funding  provisions  and  conditions  related  to  research  implementation: 
calls for proposals and project funding could include provisions allowing for flexible 
working  arrangements  to  accommodate  career  breaks.  Project  funding  could  also 
include provisions requiring the gender dimension to be included and assessed. 

Assessment of pros and cons: this measure would allow Member States and research funders 
to include gender-related conditions in their funding decisions. The advantage of this measure 
is  that  Member  States  and  research  funders  are  free  to  determine  the  type  of  funding  that 
would  be  subject  to  these  conditions  taking  into  account  the  local  context  and  needs.  Such 
provisions  can  be  integrated  into  wider  gender  action  plans  and  strategies  (see  above)  or 
legislative measures. No cons were identified for this measure. This measure was included in 
policy option 2 and 3 as part of the measures and instruments included in the gender action 
plans and strategies.  

• 

Awareness raising and information measures 

Assessment of pros and cons: awareness and information campaigns are an effective tool for 
changing  perceptions  and  attracting  more  women  into  science.  The  impact  of  awareness 
raising measures is often visible in the long term and is effective provided that related support 
measures  and  conditions  are  also  in  place  (i.e.  work-life  balance  policies).  This  activity  is 
already part of the baseline scenario, therefor it was not included in the policy options.  

• 

Trainings for researchers on gender aware research 

Assessment  of  pros  and  cons:  the  advantage  of  this  measure  is  that  bespoke  training  is 
provided to those performing research, which means that those researchers will be more likely 
to  include  the  gender  dimension  in  research.  Trainings  provide  researchers  with  hands-on 
experience and are likely to have a greater impact than awareness and information campaigns. 
No  significant  cons  were  identified  for  this  measure.  This  measure  was  included  in  policy 
option 2 and 3 as part of the measures and instruments included in the gender action plans and 
strategies.  

EN 

97 

   EN 

 
5. Free circulation of scientific knowledge and technologies 

Pre-screening and selection of potential measures to address the problem 

Several  potential  measures  were  considered  and  screened  in  order  to  identify  the  pros  and 
cons of each of them: 

• 

Adoption  and  coordination  of  open  access  policies  at  Member  State  and 
institutional  level  (stakeholder  organisations)  laying  down  common  standards  for 
repositories,  access  conditions,  incentives  for  researchers  and  research  performing 
organisations and open access requirements linked to funding 

Assessment  of  pros  and  cons:  the  advantage  of  this  measure  is  that  it  leaves  up  to  Member 
States  to  determine  the  most  relevant  reforms  to  be  put  in  place  given  the  national  context. 
This is all the more important as the development of open access policies and their level of 
implementation varies significantly amongst Member States. A potential limit of this measure 
is that Member States' commitment may vary given the voluntary nature of this measure. This 
measure was included in policy option 2.  

• 

Legislative  measure  at  EU  level  for  the  implementation  of  open  access  to  all 
publicly-funded publications and relevant research data.  

Assessment  of  pros  and  cons:  the  advantage  of  this  measure  is  that  full  open  access  to 
publications would be achieved, provided that Member States fully transpose and implement 
the  Directive.  Such  a  measure  would  ensure  a  level  playing  field  with  regard  to  access  to 
publications and data, which is particularly important for researchers located in less-advanced 
regions or less-endowed institutions. However, the adoption and transposition of a Directive 
will take at least 3 years in an optimistic scenario which will leave stakeholders in a wait-and-
see  mode  for  a  considerable  amount  of  time.  Furthermore,  the  implementation  of  this 
Directive  may  entail  unnecessary  administrative  burden  on  those  Member  States  which  are 
already  well-advanced  (i.e.  regulatory  changes  would  be  required  to  in  order  to  align  the 
national  framework  with  the  requirements  included  in  the  Directive).  This  measure  was 
included in policy option 3 and 4. 

• 

Setting up of an EU-wide open access network for policy-makers and practitioners 
for exchanging best practices and peer reviews 

Assessment of pros and cons: this measure provides Member States with a maximum level of 
flexibility  for  identifying  existing  gaps  and  potential  measures  to  be  put  in  place  given  the 
local context. The exchange of best practices can also help capacity-building in less-advanced 
Member  States.  However,  a  major  limit  of  this  initiative  is  that  the  adoption  and 
implementation of open access policies by participating Member States may only occur over a 
period of several years, with no visible results in 2014. This measure was hence not included 
in the policy options.  

EN 

98 

   EN 

 
5.2. Policies and measures to support the development, take up and cross-border access 
to digital services for data, connectivity, computing and research collaboration 

Pre-screening and selection of potential measures to address the problem 

Several  potential  measures  were  considered  and  screened  in  order  to  identify  the  pros  and 
cons of each of them: 

• 

Legislative measure at EU level to enforce take up of specific digital  services for 
identification, repositories and research processes.  

Assessment of pros and cons: The benefit of this approach would be that it would guarantee 
availability of digital research services for all researchers. However, it would require setting 
specific  requirements  for  technologies  and  standards  to  be  used,  with  additional  costs  in 
implementation and delays in take-up. In the rapidly changing technological sphere this might 
lead into taking up of systems which are old-fashioned when implemented. This measure was 
included in policy option 3 and 4. 

• 

Member States' network for the development and take-up of identification services, 
e-infrastructures provision and development for research. 

Assessment of pros and cons: With this measure, national research and education networking 
providers  (NRENs)  would  proceed  with  supporting  digital  research  services  provision  but 
have  problems  in  getting  the  research  organisations  into  integrating  their  researcher 
authentication systems into the federated framework or agreeing to provide external services 
to their researchers. This slows down the progress of cross-border access and collaboration, 
giving uneven access to researchers as their possibilities of participation depend on the home 
university/research  organisation  or  home  country.  The  development  of  digital  services  for 
research  depends  on  the  national  priorities,  which  would  result  into  uneven  progress  on 
European  level,  and  slow  progress  in  enabling  cross-border  collaboration  with  consortia 
including public and private research organisations. This measure was discarded.  

• 

Adoption of digital services policies for research and education-related public at 
Member State and institutional level 

Assessment  of  pros  and  cons:  this  measure  would  ensure  joint  progress  and  work  towards 
setting  up  identity,  connectivity,  data  repository,  computing  and  research  collaboration 
services  for  cross-border  access  in  all  countries  and  their  institutions,  but  would  allow 
flexibility  in  the  implementation  through  different  technological  implementations  and 
provision  models.  Common  roadmap  for  e-infrastructures  development  and  coordinated 
European progress on  Digital ERA would support also the smaller MS and organisations to 
access research services through online sharing and access of resources across borders. This 
would  improve  the  cohesion  of  ERA  and  scientific  excellence  in  all  Member  States. 
Systematic coordination of dialogue between MS would require some specific costs, but some 
aspects of it are already being implemented with some Member States and the costs overall 
would be not be major. Stakeholder support to this solution is expected based on the results of 
expert  groups  and  engagement  in  existing  groups,  such  as  High  Level  Group  of  scientific 
data,  GEANT  expert  group,  e-Infrastructures  reflection  Groups  (e-IRG),  e-Infrastructures 
Policy Forum (e-IPF). This measure was included in policy option 2.  

EN 

99 

   EN 

 
5.3  Policies  and  measures  supporting  knowledge  transfer  between  academia  and 
industry 

Pre-screening and selection of potential measures to address the problem 

Several  potential  measures  were  considered  and  screened  in  order  to  identify  the  pros  and 
cons of each of them: 

• 

Measures  by  Member  States  and  stakeholder  organisations  supporting  the 
mobility  of  researchers  across  sectors,  and  strengthening  the  role  of  knowledge 
transfer offices. 

Assessment of pros and cons: A concerted policy action at EU level will be able to promote 
what  is  not  possible  to  attain  by  national  action  only  while  a  voluntary  agreement  may  be 
considered  as  an  acceptable  and  manageable  course  of  action  that  allows  for  flexibility  in 
relation  to  the  diversity  of  policies  within  the  Member  States.  It  would  build  on  the  well-
established Recommendation on Intellectual Property Management (2008), and achievements 
already attained in this area and at the same time will provide the basis for renewed political 
impetus.  The  down  side  would  be  the  potential  for  generating  significant  opposition  if  it  is 
perceived as just an additional bureaucratic burden, hampering the academics' main research 
mission. This option has been included in policy option 2 and 3.  

• 

Legislative measure at EU level on knowledge transfer objectives for researchers, 
e.g.  minimum  requirements  in  researchers'  employment  contracts  and  knowledge 
transfer and intellectual property transfer rules. 

Assessment of pros and cons: this measure would increase the transfer of results to the private 
sector  of  publicly  funded  research  by  mandating  the  need  for  researchers  to  engage  in 
knowledge transfer activities and also to be mobile across sectors. However, this measure has 
received  very  little  support  in  the  Open  Consultation  on  ERA  (2011)  due  to  its  perceived 
forcefulness  and  potential  lack  of  effectiveness.  Moreover,  the  inclusion  of  KT  elements  in 
employment  contracts  demands  adaptation  of  employment  law  conditions  which  signifies  a 
departure  from  the  R&D  context  of  the  legal  basis  for  ERA.  This  option  was  included  in 
policy option 4. 

EN 

100 

   EN 

 
Annex 6: Detailed description of policy option 2 and 3, comparison of delivering 
mechanisms and problem tree 

This  annex  describes  in  detail  the  specific  measures  included  in  policy  option  2  and  3.  A 
summary  table  (Table  12)  provides  an  overview  of  the  different  delivery  mechanisms  for 
option 2, 3 and 4. At the end of the session, the intervention logic is presented. 

Description of policy option 2 

The specific measures included in policy option 2 are described below and listed by specific 
objective.  Table  10  below  provides  an  overview  of  all  measures  and  the  main  actors 
responsible for delivery.  

More effective national research systems: 

Member States are invited to: 

• 

• 

Introduce  or  enhance  competitive  funding  through  calls  for  proposals  and 
institutional  assessments  as  the  main  modes  of  allocating  public  funds  to  research 
and innovation, introducing legislative reforms if necessary 

Ensure that all public bodies responsible for allocating research funds apply the core 
principles of international peer review  

The Commission will: 

• 

• 

• 

Support  through  the  Smart  Specialisation  Platform  Member  States  and  regions  in 
using  Structural  Funds  to  develop  research  capacity  and  smart  specialisation 
strategies,  including  support  to  joint  research  programmes,  in  line  with  Cohesion 
Policy objectives 

Support mutual learning and the exchange of good practice between Member States 
on the removal of national legal and other barriers to ERA for the priorities set out in 
this Communication  

Support ERA Chairs aimed at fostering structural change in institutions to raise their 
research quality to international levels of excellence 

Optimal transnational co-operation and competition 

Member States are invited to: 

• 

• 

Step  up  efforts  to  implement  joint  research  agendas  addressing  grand  challenges, 
sharing  information about activities in agreed priority areas, ensuring that  adequate 
national  funding  is  committed  and  strategically  aligned  at  European  level  in  these 
areas and that common ex post evaluation is conducted 

Ensure  mutual  recognition  of  evaluations  that  conform  to  international  peer-review 
standards as a basis for national funding decisions 

EN 

101 

   EN 

 
• 

• 

• 

Remove  legal  and  other  barriers  to  the  cross-border  interoperability  of  national 
programmes to permit joint financing of actions including cooperation with non-EU 
countries where relevant 

Confirm financial commitments for the construction and operation of ESFRI, global, 
national  and  regional  RIs  of  pan-European  interest,  particularly  when  developing 
national roadmaps and the next Structural Fund programmes  

Remove legal and other barriers to cross-border access to RIs 

Research stakeholder organisations are invited to: 

• 

• 

• 

Agree on common funding principles - eligible costs, reporting requirements, etc. to 
make  national  research  programmes  compatible,  interoperable  (cross-border)  and 
simpler for researchers 

Pilot  the  use  of  synchronised  calls  with,  where  possible,  single  joint  international 
peer review evaluation of proposals as a basis for funding decisions 

Further  develop  and  deploy  the  Lead-Agency,  Money-Follows-Cooperation  Line, 
Money-Follows-Researcher and other models for cross-border cooperation 

The Commission will: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Pursue,  stimulate  and  participate  in  Public-Public  Partnerships  to  address  grand 
challenges  as  set  out  in  the  Communication  on  Partnering  in  Research  and 
Innovation137  to  co-ordinate  and  leverage  Member  States'  contributions  and  ensure 
close coordination with relevant activities under Horizon 2020 

On the basis of the information supplied by Member States, map activities in agreed 
priority  areas,  with  a  view  to  identifying  strengths,  weaknesses,  gaps  and 
duplications 

Support  Member  States  and  research  funding  organisations  in  implementing  joint 
international  peer  review  evaluations  and  setting  common  funding  standards  -  e.g. 
through  an  ERA  Mark  label  recognising  best  practice  in  cross-border  research 
operations  

Support  through  Horizon  2020  access  to  RIs  as  well  as  the  on-going  overall 
integration of EU RIs particularly those awarded ERIC status  

Encourage  Member  States  to  link  RI  roadmaps  to  the  ESFRI  roadmap  and  smart 
specialisation  strategies  in  Structural  Funds  co-financed  research  and  innovation 
programmes, reinforcing the capacity of less favoured regions to host and participate 
in RIs of pan-European and international interest  

• 

Support training programmes for the management of such RIs  

137  

COM(2011)572 

EN 

102 

   EN 

 
                                                 
• 

• 

• 

• 

Develop  in  cooperation  with  ESFRI,  e-IRG    and  other  stakeholders  a  Charter  of 
Access setting out common standards and harmonized access rules and conditions for 
the use of RIs 

Work  with  ESFRI  to  set  priorities  for  implementing  the  Roadmap  and  to  provide 
advice  and  guidance  to  Member  States  on  overcoming  legal,  financial  or  technical 
obstacles to implementation  

Define  with  ESFRI,  e-IRG  and  other  stakeholders  common  evaluation  principles, 
impact-assessment  criteria  and  monitoring  tools  which  can  be  applied  in  regional, 
national and European programmes to help combine funds from different sources 

Work  with  e-IRG  to  promote  the  alignment  of  EU  and  national  approaches  to  eRI 
development and use 

An open labour market for researchers  

Member States are invited to: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Remove  legal  and  other  barriers  to  the  application  of  open,  transparent  and  merit 
based recruitment of researchers  

Remove legal and other barriers which hamper cross-border access to and portability 
of national grants 

Support a  national body  to  implement the Declaration of Commitment    to provide 
coordinated  personalised  information  and  services  to  researchers  through  the  pan-
European EURAXES  network 

Support  the  setting  up  and  running  of  structured  innovative  doctoral  training 
programmes applying the Principles for Innovative Doctoral Training  

Create  an  enabling  framework  for  the  implementation  of  the  HR  Strategy  for 
Researchers incorporating the Charter & Code   

Research stakeholder organisations are invited to:  

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Advertise  all  vacancies  on  the  EURAXESS  Jobs  portal  using  the  common  profiles 
established in the European Framework for Research Careers 

Fill  research  positions  according  to  open,  transparent  and  merit  based  recruitment 
procedures proportionate to the level of the position in line with the basic principles 
of the Charter & Code and including non-EU nationals 

Develop strategies to support the career development of researchers in line with the 
HR Strategy for Researchers 

Define and implement principles for accessibility to and portability of national grants 

Provide structured doctoral training based on the Principles for Innovative Doctoral 
Training  

EN 

103 

   EN 

 
• 

Develop  and  implement  structured  programmes  to  increase  mobility  between 
industry and academia   

The Commission will: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Bridge  information  gaps  to  foster  mobility  and  research  career  development  by 
assessing  and  strengthening  collaboration  and  coordination  in  the  EURAXESS 
network for researchers to have direct access to personalised assistance, making it the 
means of accessing tailor-made assistance  

Support the setting up of a European Accreditation Mechanism for Charter & Code-
based  human  resources  management  in  universities  and  publicly-funded  research 
institutions 

Support  the  work  of  a  'pathfinder  group'  of  countries  for  the  achievement  of 
automatic recognition of comparable degrees 

Take  initiatives  to  address  social  security  barriers  for  researchers  in  the  EU  and 
further facilitate the entry and stay of third country national researchers by: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Clarifying  in  a  Communication  EU  rules  on  coordination  of  social  security 
schemes  for  groups  of  workers  with  a  high  level  of  intra-EU  mobility, 
including researchers 

Resuming work on a pension portability Directive setting minimum standards 
for the acquisition and preservation of supplementary pension rights  

Supporting  stakeholders  in  setting  up  pan-European  supplementary  pension 
fund(s) for researchers  

Reviewing  Directive  2005/71/EC  on  a  specific  procedure  for  admitting  third 
country nationals for the purposes of scientific research. 

Gender equality and gender mainstreaming in research 

Member States are invited to: 

• 

Create a legal and policy environment and provide incentives to:  

• 

• 

• 

remove  legal  and  other  barriers  to  the  recruitment,  retention  and  career 
progression  of  female  researchers  while  fully  complying  with  EU  law  on 
gender equality  

address gender imbalances in decision making processes 

strengthen the gender dimension in research programmes  

• 

Engage in partnerships with funding agencies, research organisations and universities 
to  foster  cultural  and  institutional  change  on  gender  -  charters,  performance 
agreements, awards  

EN 

104 

   EN 

 
• 

Ensure  that  at  least  40%  of  the  under-represented  sex  participate  in  committees 
involved  in  recruitment/career  progression  and  in  establishing  and  evaluating 
research programmes 

Research stakeholder organisations are invited to: 

• 

Implement  institutional  change  relating  to  HR  management,  funding,  decision-
making and research programmes through Gender Equality Plans which aim to:  

• 

• 

• 

Conduct  impact  assessment  /  audits  of  procedures  and  practices  to  identify 
gender bias 

Implement innovative strategies to correct any bias  

Set targets and monitor progress via indicators  

The Commission will: 

• 

• 

Foster  gender  equality  and  the  integration  of  a  gender  dimension  in  Horizon  2020 
programmes  and  projects  from  inception,  through  implementation  to  evaluation, 
including through the use of incentives 

Propose in 2013 a Recommendation to Member States with common guidelines on 
institutional  change  to  promote  gender  equality  in  universities  and  research 
institutions  and  dedicate  specific  funds  to  reinforce  collaboration  between  Member 
States 

Optimal circulation, access to and transfer of scientific knowledge  

Member States are invited to: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Define  and  coordinate  their  policies  on  access  to  and  preservation  of  scientific 
information  

Ensure  that  public  research  contributes  to  Open  Innovation  and  foster  knowledge 
transfer  between  public  and  private  sectors  through  national  knowledge  transfer 
strategies  

Harmonise  access  and  usage  policies  for  research  and  education-related  public  e-
infrastructures  and  for  associated  digital  research  services  enabling  consortia  of 
different types of public and private partners 

Adopt and implement national strategies for electronic identity for researchers giving 
them transnational access to digital research services 

Research stakeholder organisations are invited to: 

• 

• 

EN 

Adopt and implement open access measures for publications and data resulting from 
publicly funded research 

Implement and promote the uptake of electronic identity and digital research services  

105 

   EN 

 
• 

• 

Ensure  optimal  interaction  and  linkages  and  strategic  partnering  between  academia 
and industry and define joint collaborative research agendas to maximize the use of 
research results 

Improve  recognition  and  professionalization  of  knowledge  transfer  activities  and 
strengthen the role of knowledge transfer offices 

The Commission will: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Establish  open  access  to  scientific  publications  as  a  general  principle  for  all  EU 
funded projects in Horizon 2020. For research data, develop a flexible approach that 
takes into account different scientific areas and business-related interests  

Continue to fund infrastructure projects related to open access  

Adopt  a  Communication  and  Recommendation  to  Member  States  on  access  to  and 
preservation of scientific information in the digital age  

Propose  a  roadmap  for  e-infrastructure  development  to  support  e-Science  through 
open access to research tools and resources   

Support activities to raise stakeholder awareness of open access and e-Science 

Promote  knowledge  transfer  activities  in  Europe  through  networking  of  innovative 
university-business  platforms,  including  bottom  up,  practitioner-led  initiatives,  and 
sectoral knowledge transfer offices  

Work with stakeholders to develop a set of model consortium agreements to enhance 
knowledge transfer  

Facilitate  a  Member  State  forum  for  regular  exchange  and  reporting  on  national 
developments on the provision, take-up and use of digital research services 

Table  10  below  provides  an  overview  of  the  measures  and  the  main  actors  responsible  for 
delivery. 

EN 

106 

   EN 

 
Table 10: Overview of measures included in policy option 2 and main actors responsible for delivery (MS: Member States, SHO: stakeholder 
organisations; EC: European Commission) 

Measures 

More effective national research systems 

Main actors responsible for delivery 

MS 

SHO 

EC 

Introduce or enhance competitive funding through calls for proposals and institutional assessments as the main modes 
of allocating public funds to research and innovation, introducing legislative reforms if necessary 

Ensure  that  all  public  bodies  responsible  for  allocating  research  funds  apply  the  core  principles  of  international  peer 
review 

Support  through  the  Smart  Specialisation  Platform  Member  States  and  regions  in  using  Structural  Funds  to  develop 
research  capacity  and  smart  specialisation  strategies,  including  support  to  joint  research  programmes,  in  line  with 
Cohesion Policy objectives 

Support mutual learning and the exchange of good practice between Member States on the removal of national legal and 
other barriers to ERA for the priorities set out in this Communication  

x 

x 

x 

x 

Support ERA Chairs aimed at fostering structural change in institutions to raise their research quality to international 
levels of excellence 

Optimal transnational co-operation and competition 

Step up efforts to implement joint research agendas addressing grand challenges, sharing information about activities in 
agreed priority areas, ensuring that adequate national funding is committed and strategically aligned at European level 
in these areas and that common ex post evaluation is conducted 

Ensure  mutual  recognition  of  evaluations  that  conform  to  international  peer-review  standards  as  a  basis  for  national 
funding decisions 

Remove legal and other barriers to the cross-border interoperability of national programmes to permit joint financing of 
actions including cooperation with non-EU countries where relevant 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

EN 

107 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Measures 

Confirm financial commitments for the construction and operation of ESFRI, global, national and regional RIs of pan-
European interest, particularly when developing national roadmaps and the next Structural Fund programmes  

Remove legal and other barriers to cross-border access to RIs 

Agree  on  common  funding  principles  -  eligible  costs,  reporting  requirements,  etc.  to  make  national  research 
programmes compatible, interoperable (cross-border) and simpler for researchers 

Pilot the use of synchronised calls with, where possible, single joint international peer review evaluation of proposals as 
a basis for funding decisions 

Further develop and deploy the Lead-Agency, Money-Follows-Cooperation Line, Money-Follows-Researcher and other 
models for cross-border cooperation 

Pursue,  stimulate  and  participate  in  Public-Public  Partnerships  to  address  grand  challenges  as  set  out  in  the 
Communication  on  Partnering  in  Research  and  Innovation    to  co-ordinate  and  leverage  Member  States'  contributions 
and ensure close coordination with relevant activities under Horizon 2020 

On  the  basis  of  the  information  supplied  by  Member  States,  map  activities  in  agreed  priority  areas,  with  a  view  to 
identifying strengths, weaknesses, gaps and duplications 

Support Member States and research funding organisations in implementing joint international peer review evaluations 
and  setting  common  funding  standards  -  e.g.  through  an  ERA  Mark  label  recognising  best  practice  in  cross-border 
research operations  

Support  through  Horizon  2020  access  to  RIs  as  well  as  the  on-going overall  integration  of  EU  RIs particularly  those 
awarded ERIC status  

Encourage Member States to link RI roadmaps to the ESFRI roadmap and smart specialisation strategies in Structural 
Funds co-financed research and innovation programmes, reinforcing the capacity of less favoured regions to host and 
participate in RIs of pan-European and international interest  

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

Main actors responsible for delivery 

MS 

SHO 

EC 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

EN 

108 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Measures 

Support training programmes for the management of such RIs  

Develop in cooperation with ESFRI, e-IRG  and other stakeholders a Charter of Access setting out common standards 
and harmonized access rules and conditions for the use of RIs 

Work with ESFRI to set priorities for implementing the Roadmap and to provide advice and guidance to Member States 
on overcoming legal, financial or technical obstacles to implementation  

Define  with  ESFRI,  e-IRG  and  other  stakeholders  common  evaluation  principles,  impact-assessment  criteria  and 
monitoring  tools  which  can  be  applied  in  regional,  national  and  European  programmes  to  help  combine  funds  from 
different sources 

Work with e-IRG to promote the alignment of EU and national approaches to eRI development and use 

An open labour market for researchers  

x 

x 

x 

x 

Remove legal and other barriers to the application of open, transparent and merit based recruitment of researchers  

Remove legal and other barriers which hamper cross-border access to and portability of national grants 

Support a national body to implement the Declaration of Commitment   to provide coordinated personalised information 
and services to researchers through the pan-European EURAXESS  network 

Support  the  setting  up  and  running of  structured  innovative  doctoral  training programmes  applying  the  Principles for 
Innovative Doctoral Training  

Create an enabling framework  for the implementation of the HR Strategy for Researchers incorporating the Charter & 
Code 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

Main actors responsible for delivery 

MS 

SHO 

EC 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

Advertise  all  vacancies  on  the  EURAXESS  Jobs  portal  using  the  common  profiles  established  in  the  European 
Framework for Research Careers 

x 

x 

EN 

109 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Measures 

Fill research positions according to open, transparent and merit based recruitment procedures proportionate to the level 
of the position in line with the basic principles of the Charter & Code and including non-EU nationals 

Develop strategies to support the career development of researchers in line with the HR Strategy for Researchers 

Define and implement principles for accessibility to and portability of national grants 

Provide structured doctoral training based on the Principles for Innovative Doctoral Training  

Develop and implement structured programmes to increase mobility between industry and academia   

Bridge  information  gaps  to  foster  mobility  and  research  career  development  by  assessing  and  strengthening 
collaboration  and  coordination  in  the  EURAXESS  network  for  researchers  to  have  direct  access  to  personalised 
assistance, making it the means of accessing tailor-made assistance  

Support  the  setting  up  of  a  European  Accreditation  Mechanism  for  Charter  &  Code-based  human  resources 
management in universities and publicly-funded research institutions 

Support  the  work  of  a  'pathfinder  group'  of  countries  for  the  achievement  of  automatic  recognition  of  comparable 
degrees 

x 

x 

x 

Take initiatives to address social security barriers for researchers in the EU and further facilitate the entry and stay of 
third country national researchers by: 

– 
a high level of intra-EU mobility, including researchers 

Clarifying in a Communication EU rules on coordination of social security schemes for groups of workers with 

– 
preservation of supplementary pension rights  

Resuming  work  on  a  pension  portability  Directive  setting  minimum  standards  for  the  acquisition  and 

– 

Supporting stakeholders in setting up pan-European supplementary pension fund(s) for researcher 

Main actors responsible for delivery 

MS 

SHO 

EC 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

EN 

110 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Measures 

– 
of scientific research 

Reviewing Directive 2005/71/EC on a specific procedure for admitting third country nationals for the purposes 

Gender equality and gender mainstreaming in research 

Create the appropriate legal and policy environment and provide incentives in order to:  

– 
fully complying with EU law on gender equality 

remove legal and other barriers to the recruitment, retention and career progression of female researchers while 

– 

– 

address gender imbalances in decision making processes 

strengthen the gender dimension in research programmes 

Engage in partnerships with funding agencies, research organisations and universities to foster cultural and institutional 
change on gender - charters, performance agreements, awards  

Ensure  that  at  least  40%  of  the  under-represented  sex  participate  in  committees  involved  in  recruitment/career 
progression and in establishing and evaluating research programmes 

Main actors responsible for delivery 

MS 

SHO 

EC 

x 

x 

x 

Implement  institutional  change  relating  to  HR  management,  funding,  decision-making  and  research  programmes 
through Gender Equality Plans which aim to:  

x 

– 

– 

– 

Conduct impact assessment / audits of procedures and practices to identify gender bias 

Implement innovative strategies to correct any bias  

Set targets and monitor progress via indicators  

Foster  gender  equality  and  the  integration  of  a  gender  dimension  in  Horizon  2020  programmes  and  projects  from 
inception, through implementation to evaluation, including through the use of incentives 

x 

EN 

111 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Measures 

Propose  in  2013  a  Recommendation  to  Member  States  with  common  guidelines  on  institutional  change  to  promote 
gender equality in universities and research institutions and dedicate specific funds to reinforce collaboration between 
Member States 

Optimal circulation, access to and transfer of scientific knowledge  

Define and coordinate their policies on access to and preservation of scientific information  

Ensure that public research contributes to Open Innovation and foster knowledge transfer between public and private 
sectors through national knowledge transfer strategies  

Harmonise  access  and  usage  policies  for  research  and  education-related  public  e-infrastructures  and  for  associated 
digital research services enabling consortia of different types of public and private partners 

Adopt  and  implement  national  strategies  for  electronic  identity  for  researchers  giving  them  transnational  access  to 
digital research services 

Adopt and implement open access measures for publications and data resulting from publicly funded research 

Implement and promote the uptake of electronic identity and digital research services  

Ensure  optimal  interaction  and  linkages  and  strategic  partnering  between  academia  and  industry  and  define  joint 
collaborative research agendas to maximize the use of research results 

Improve  recognition  and  professionalization  of  knowledge  transfer  activities  and  strengthen  the  role  of  knowledge 
transfer offices 

Establish open access to scientific publications as a general principle for all EU funded projects in Horizon 2020. For 
research data, develop a flexible approach that takes into account different scientific areas and business-related interests  

Continue to fund infrastructure projects related to open access  

EN 

112 

Main actors responsible for delivery 

MS 

SHO 

EC 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

X 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Main actors responsible for delivery 

Measures 

Adopt a Communication and Recommendation to Member States on access to and preservation of scientific information 
in the digital age  

Propose  a  roadmap  for  e-infrastructure  development  to  support  e-Science  through  open  access  to  research  tools  and 
resources   

Support activities to raise stakeholder awareness of open access and e-Science 

Promote  knowledge  transfer  activities  in  Europe  through  networking  of  innovative  university-business  platforms, 
including bottom up, practitioner-led initiatives, and sectoral knowledge transfer offices  

Work with stakeholders to develop a set of model consortium agreements to enhance knowledge transfer  

MS 

X 

x 

Facilitate a Member State forum for regular exchange and reporting on national developments on the provision, take-up 
and use of digital research services 

x 

SHO 

EC 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

EN 

113 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Description of policy option 3 

Table  11  below  provides  the  list  of  measures  included  in  policy  option  3  and  the  nature  of 
obligation imposed on Member States and stakeholder organisations (i.e. legal vs. voluntary).  

EN 

114 

   EN 

 
Table 11: Summary of measures included in policy option 3 (MS: Member States, SHO: stakeholder organisations; EC: European Commission) 

Measures 

Legally binding 
on MS 

Voluntary measures on 
MS and/or SHO 

EC 

More effective national research systems 

Removal of barriers to competitive funding allocation 

International peer review evaluation for national funding decisions 

Optimal transnational co-operation and competition 

Common principles for cross-border operations 

Organisation  of  and  support  to  joint  calls  using  common  international  peer  review  evaluation  (incl. 
within Joint Programming) 

Removal of barriers to cross-border access to national research infrastructures of European interest 

Launch of the "ERA Mark" label for best practice in cross-border research operations 

Extend the mandate of ESFRI for implementation and prioritisation of ESFRI Roadmap projects 

Develop an ESFRI "Charter for Access" on principles for access to research infrastructures 

Common  principles  and  procedures  for  the  setting  up  and  management  of  pan-European  research 
infrastructures 

Common principles for the monitoring, evaluation and impact assessment of research infrastructures and 
funding decisions 

An open labour market for researchers  

Common principles on open, transparent and merit-based recruitment of researchers 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

EN 

115 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Measures 

Legally binding 
on MS 

Voluntary measures on 
MS and/or SHO 

EC 

Common principles for portability of grants and for access to national grants 

Institutional strategies for the career development of researchers 

Implementation of frameworks and strategies on innovative doctoral training 

Advertisement of vacancies and provision of information on national single points/Euraxess 

Accreditation mechanisms for the Charter and Code 

Adoption of relevant support measures (e.g. Communication on social security) and amendments to key 
EU legislation (e.g. Directive 2005/71/EC)  

Gender equality and gender mainstreaming in research 

Integrate gender dimension into publicly funded research programmes (both upstream and downstream) 

Support to and implementation of gender action plans 

Recommendation  on  guidelines  on  institutional  changes  in  universities  and  other  research  institutions 
(foreseen in 2013) 

Optimal circulation, access to and transfer of scientific knowledge  

Open access to all publicly-funded scientific publications as well as for research data, when relevant 

Specific identity provision and federation approach for researchers and scholars 

Measures for the use of publicly funded research infrastructures for research consortia with private and 
industrial research organisation partners 

Communication  and  Recommendation  to  the  Council  on  access  to  and  preservation  of  scientific 
information in the digital age 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

EN 

116 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 12: Summary table of delivery mechanisms for policy option 2, 3 and 4 

Specific 
objective 
More effective 
national 
research 
systems 

Optimal 
transnational 
co-operation 
and 
competition 

Operational objective for 2014 

Barriers to competition removed 

Barriers to use of using international peer 
review evaluation in national research systems 
are removed 
Barriers to compatibility and interoperability 
between national research programmes are 
removed 
Barriers to access to pan-European research 
infrastructures by the user community are 
removed 
One pilot cross-border synchronised research 
call, notably on grand challenges, launched 
using international peer review evaluation and 
a single pan-European score 

Harmonised monitoring, evaluation and 
impact assessment principles and procedures 
for pan-European research infrastructures 
adopted and implemented 

Policy Option 2 

Policy 
Option 3 
Communication and Specific 
Commitments 

Policy 
Option 4 

Communication 
and Specific 
Commitments 
Communication 
and Specific 
Commitments 

Legislation 

Legislation 

Communication and Specific 
Commitments 

Communication and Specific 
Commitments 

Communication 
and Specific 
Commitments 

Legislation 

An open 
labour market 
for researchers  

Barriers open, transparent and merit based 
recruitment in public research systems, cross-
border portability and accessibility of national 
grants are removed 

Communication 
and Specific 
Commitments 

Legislation 

Framework 
Directive 

Gender 
equality and 
gender 
mainstreaming 
in research 
Optimal 
circulation, 
access to and 
transfer of 
scientific 
knowledge  

Frameworks supporting the career 
development of researchers and innovative 
doctoral training 

Communication and Specific 
Commitments 

Barriers to gender equality and the gender 
dimension in research removed 

Communication and Specific 
Commitments 

Policies and means for facilitating online 
access to publicly-funded scientific 
publications and data are defined and 
coordinated 
Policies to foster knowledge transfer, cross-
border sharing of e-infrastructure and take up 
of digital services for research are defined 
Electronic identity services for researchers 
enabling transnational access to digital 
services (collaboration, computing, scientific 
information) are implemented or planned 

Communication 
and Specific 
Commitments 

Legislation 

EN 

117 

   EN 

 
The figure below presents the drivers and problems to complete ERA by 2014. 

Figure 8: Problem tree for completing ERA 

Measures to 
promote 
joint actions

Measures to 
support careers 
& training

Measures for 
inter-sectoral
mobility

Potential 
measures

Measures to 
remove barriers 
for 
interoperability

Measures to 
remove 
barriers for 
competition

Measures to 
remove barriers 
to recruitment & 
grants

Policies to 
promote gender 
dimension and 
participation

Set up/coordinate 
policies on open 
access, knowledge 
transfer and 
digital ERA

Objectives

Adequate level of 
cooperation 
between MS research 
systems

Adequate level of 
competition 
in national research 
systems

Well-functioning 
labour markets

Enhanced gender 
equality and 
dimension

Free circulation of 
knowledge 
and technology

+

Negative impacts

Insufficient competition and co-operation

Fragmentation & lack of level playing field across 
European research systems

Problems / barriers

Barriers to pan-European 
cooperation and 
competition
- Interoperability
- Little cross-border activity

Uneven level of 
competition
- Evaluation
- Funding for calls

Distortions in 
labour markets
- Recruitment practices
- Uneven careers
- Grants access/portability

Gender inequality and 
low gender content
- Low participation 
of women in research
- Low gender dimension 
in research

Uneven access to 
scientific knowledge
- Little open access
- Insufficient  access to and use of 
digital research services
- Insufficient  knowledge transfer

EN 

118 

   EN 

 
Annex 7: Possible indicators to be used for monitoring ERA progress 

The table below presents for each of the actions proposed to be undertaken by Member States 
and stakeholders one or more indicators that could be used to measure progress in completing 
ERA.  The  final  decision  on  the  indicators  to  be  retained  will  be  drawn  after  comparing  the 
value-as-indicator for reporting progress with the costs and feasibility of data collection. The 
level  of  collection  (Member  States  or  stakeholders)  is  indicated  between  brackets  for  each 
indicator.  

Specific objective 
in ERA 
Increased 
effectiveness of 
national systems 

Optimal levels of 
transnational co-
operation and 
competition 

Action 

Progress indicator 

Introduce or enhance competitive 
funding through calls for proposals 
and institutional assessments as the 
main modes of allocating public 
funds to research and innovation, 
introducing legislative reforms if 
necessary 
Ensure that all public bodies 
responsible for allocating research 
funds apply the core principles of 
international peer review  
Step up efforts to implement joint 
research agendas addressing grand 
challenges, sharing information 
about activities in agreed priority 
areas, ensuring that adequate 
national funding is committed and 
strategically aligned at European 
level in these areas and that 
common ex post evaluation is 
conducted 
Ensure mutual recognition of 
evaluations that conform to 
international peer-review standards 
as a basis for national funding 
decisions 

Remove legal and other barriers to 
the cross-border interoperability of 
national programmes to permit joint 

Share of national GBAORD 
allocated as project-based 
funding (Member States) 
Share of institutional funding 
allocated on a competitive basis 
(Member States) 

Share of institutions applying the 
core principles for international 
peer review (stakeholder 
organisations) 
Assessment of the 
implementation of joint research 
agendas addressing grand 
challenges (Member States) 
Share of national GBAORD 
allocated to transnationally 
coordinated research based on 
common priorities (Member 
States) 

Assessment of the 
implementation of mutual 
recognition of evaluations that 
conform to international peer-
review standards as a basis for 
national funding decisions 
(Member States) 
Share of institutions applying 
international peer review 
standards (stakeholder 
organisations) 
Share of institutions mutually 
recognizing international peer 
review standards (stakeholder 
organisations) 
Assessment of the degree of 
implementation of specific 
policies to facilitate cross-border 

EN 

119 

   EN 

 
 
financing of actions including 
cooperation with non-EU countries 
where relevant 
Agree on common funding 
principles - eligible costs, reporting 
requirements, etc. to make national 
research programmes compatible, 
interoperable (cross-border) and 
simpler for researchers 
Pilot the use of synchronised calls 
with, where possible, single joint 
international peer review evaluation 
of proposals as a basis for funding 
decisions 
Further develop and deploy the 
Lead-Agency, Money-Follows-
Cooperation Line, Money-Follows-
Researcher and other models for 
cross-border cooperation 

Confirm financial commitments for 
the construction and operation of 
ESFRI, global, national and 
regional RIs of pan-European 
interest, particularly when 
developing national roadmaps and 
the next Structural Fund 
programmes 
Remove legal and other barriers to 
cross-border access to Research 
Infrastructures 

A more open 
labour market for 
researchers 

Remove legal and other barriers to 
the application of open, transparent 
and merit based recruitment of 
researchers  

Remove legal and other barriers 
which hamper cross-border access 
to and portability of national grants 

Support a national body to 

interoperability of national 
programmes (Member States) 

Share of institutions 
implementing policies to 
facilitate cross-border 
interoperability of national 
programmes (stakeholder 
organisations) 
Number of synchronised calls 
evaluated through a single joint 
international peer review 
(stakeholder organisations) 

Share of budget allocated to 
transnational funding, specified 
by model: Lead-Agency, Money-
Follows-Cooperation and 
Money-Follows-Researcher and 
other models (stakeholder 
organisations) 
Rate of financial commitments to 
the implementation (construction 
and operation) of the ESFRI 
Roadmap and to other global 
research infrastructures of pan-
European interest (Member 
States) 

Share of non-national researchers 
(from Member States, Associated 
Countries and Third Countries) 
accessing RI of European 
Interest (Member States) 
Assessment of the degree of 
implementation of policies and 
measures on open, transparent 
and merit-based recruitment 
(Member States) 
Share of researchers who feel 
that recruitment procedures are 
transparent, merit-based and 
open (Member States) 
Assessment of degree of 
implementation of policies and 
measures to ensure grant 
portability/accessibility of 
national programmes (Member 
States) 
Number of Member States with 

EN 

120 

   EN 

 
implement the Declaration of 
Commitment   to provide 
coordinated personalised 
information and services to 
researchers through the pan-
European EURAXES  network 
Support the setting up and running 
of structured innovative doctoral 
training programmes applying the 
Principles for Innovative Doctoral 
Training  

Create an enabling framework for 
the implementation of the Human 
Resources Strategy for Researchers 
incorporating the Charter & Code 

Advertise all vacancies on the 
EURAXESS Jobs portal using the 
common profiles established in the 
European Framework for Research 
Careers 
Fill research positions according to 
open, transparent and merit based 
recruitment procedures 
proportionate to the level of the 
position in line with the basic 
principles of the Charter & Code 
and including non-EU nationals 

Develop strategies to support the 
career development of researchers 
in line with the HR Strategy for 
Researchers 

Define and implement principles for 
accessibility to and portability of 
national grants 

single access points providing 
coordinated information and 
services for mobile researchers 
(information on vacancies, social 
rights, tailored information, etc.) 

Assessment of the degree of 
implementation (including 
financial commitment) of 
policies and measures supporting 
structured innovative doctoral 
training programmes applying 
the "Principles for Innovative 
Doctoral Training" (Member 
States) 
Assessment of the degree of 
implementation (including 
financial commitment) of 
policies and measures supporting 
an enabling framework for the 
implementation of the "HR 
Strategy for Researchers" 
(Member States) 
Share of total vacancies 
published on Euraxess Jobs 
Portal (stakeholder 
organisations) 

Share of researcher´s positions in 
European universities and public 
research performing 
organisations filled through 
open, transparent and merit-
based recruitment in line with the 
Charter and Code principles 
(stakeholder organisations) 
Share of non-national researchers 
(stakeholder organisations) 
Share of institutions developing 
or implementing human 
resources strategies or 
researchers in line with the 
Charter and Code principles 
(stakeholder organisations) 
Share of identified grants which 
are portable across borders 
(stakeholder organisations) 
Share of national grants which 
are accessible to non-residents 
(stakeholder organisations) 

EN 

121 

   EN 

 
Gender equality 
and gender 
mainstreaming in 
research 

Provide structured doctoral training 
based on the Principles for 
Innovative Doctoral Training  

Develop and implement structured 
programmes to increase mobility 
between industry and academia 

Create a legal and policy 
environment and provide incentives 
in order to: 
– remove legal and other barriers to 
the recruitment, retention and career 
progression of female researchers 
while fully complying with EU law 
on gender equality  
– address gender imbalances in 
decision making processes 
– strengthen the gender dimension 
in research programmes  
Engage in partnerships with funding 
agencies, research organisations and 
universities to foster cultural and 
institutional change on gender - 
charters, performance agreements, 
awards  
Ensure that at least 40% of the 
under-represented sex participate in 
committees involved in 
recruitment/career progression and 
in establishing and evaluating 
research programmes 
Implement institutional change 
relating to HR management, 
funding, decision-making and 
research programmes through 
Gender Equality Plans which aim 
to: 
– Conduct impact assessment / 
audits of procedures and practices to 

Share of stakeholder 
organisations implementing 
doctoral training programmes 
linking public and private sectors 
(stakeholder organisations) 
Share of PhD candidates 
participating in innovative 
doctoral training  (stakeholder 
organisations) 
Share of institutions 
implementing mobility 
programmes between industry 
and academia (stakeholder 
organisations) 
Share of staff participating in 
mobility programmes between 
industry and academia 
(stakeholder organisations) 
Share of female PHD graduates, 
researchers, senior level in 
academic position and in top 
positions (Member States) 
Assessment of adoption and 
degree of implementation of any 
legal and /or policy initiative as 
well as of incentives, in any of 
the three areas (Member States) 

Share of institutions engaged in 
the partnerships and rate of 
financial commitment (Member 
States) 

Share of under-represented sex 
participating in committees 
(Member States) 

Share of female PhD graduates, 
researchers, senior level in 
academic position and in top 
positions (stakeholder 
organisations) 
Share of institutions which have 
adopted and implement Gender 
Equality Plans (stakeholder 

EN 

122 

   EN 

 
Optimal 
circulation, access 
to and transfer of 
scientific 
knowledge 

identify gender bias 
– Implement innovative strategies to 
correct any bias  
– Set targets and monitor progress 
via indicators 
Define and coordinate their policies 
on access to and preservation of 
scientific information  

Ensure that public research 
contributes to Open Innovation and 
foster knowledge transfer between 
public and private sectors through 
national knowledge transfer 
strategies  
Harmonise access and usage 
policies for research and education-
related public e-infrastructures and 
for associated digital research 
services enabling consortia of 
different types of public and private 
partners 
Adopt and implement national 
strategies for electronic identity for 
researchers giving them 
transnational access to digital 
research services 

Adopt and implement open access 
measures for publications and data 
resulting from publicly funded 
research 
Implement and promote the uptake 
of electronic identity and digital 
research services  

Ensure optimal interaction and 
linkages and strategic partnering 
between academia and industry and 
define joint collaborative research 

organisations) 

Share of Member States 
implementing OA policies and 
assessment of the degree of 
implementation of OA policies 
(Member States) 
Assessment of the degree of 
implementation of policies to 
support the contribution of public 
research to open innovation and 
public-private mobility (Member 
States) 
Share of MS implementing 
jointly developed access and 
usage policies for public e-
infrastructures  (Member States) 

Assessment of the degree of 
development of MS strategies for 
realising digital ERA in 
identification services, provision 
of digital research services and 
human resources factors for 
supporting digital science 
(eScience) approaches (Member 
States) 
Share of scientific publications 
and research data in OA amongst 
stakeholder organisations 
(stakeholder organisations) 
Share of research organisations 
providing electronic 
identification and authorisation 
service (stakeholder 
organisations) 
Share of research organisations 
providing research services that 
can be accessed online with 
federated researcher e-identity  
(stakeholder organisations) 
Percentage of researchers in 
public research organisations 
with experience in the private 
sector (stakeholder 

EN 

123 

   EN 

 
agendas to maximize the use of 
research results 

Improve recognition and 
professionalization of knowledge 
transfer activities and strengthen the 
role of knowledge transfer offices 

organisations) 
Share of doctorate holders 
employed in business enterprise 
sector (Member States) 
Rate of growth of the number of 
Academia-Industry research 
training contracts signed 
(stakeholder organisations) 
Rate of growth of academia held 
patents licensed or sold to 
industry (stakeholder 
organisations) 
Share of professors whose 
primary occupation is not in 
Higher education institutions and 
or research performing 
organisations (stakeholder 
organisations) 
Number of research 
organisations having a dedicated 
knowledge transfer office 
(stakeholder organisations) 
Share of permanent staff (by 
category) employed in 
knowledge transfer offices 
(stakeholder organisations) 

EN 

124 

   EN 

 
 
Annex 8: Glossary and acronyms 

Applied  research:  Original  investigation  undertaken  in  order  to  acquire  new  knowledge. 
Contrary  to  basic  research,  it  is  directed  primarily  towards  a  specific  practical  aim.  The 
results of applied research are intended to be valid for a single or limited number of products 
etc.  The  knowledge  or  information  derived  from  it  is  often  patented  but  may  also  be  kept 
secret. 

Basic  research:  Experimental  or  theoretical  work  undertaken  primarily  to  acquire  new 
knowledge  of  the  underlying  foundations  of  phenomena  and  observable  facts,  without  any 
particular  application  or  use  in  view  (contrary  to  applied  research).  The  results  of  basic 
research are not generally sold but are usually published in scientific journals. Basic research 
can  be  split  into  two  categories:  1)  Pure  basic  research  which  is  carried  out  for  the 
advancement  of  knowledge,  with  no  positive  efforts  being  made  to  apply  the  results  to 
practical problems. 2) Oriented basic research which is carried out with the expectation that it 
will  produce  a  broad  base  of  knowledge  likely  to  form  the  background  to  the  solution  of 
recognised or expected current or future problems or possibilities. 

BRIC-countries: Brazil, Russia, India and China. 

Business  Europe:  Its  main  task  is  to  ensure  that  companies'  interests  are  represented  and 
defended  vis-à-vis  the  European  institutions  with  the  principal  aim  of  preserving  and 
strengthening  corporate  competitiveness.  Through  its  41  member  federations,  Business 
Europe represents 20 million companies from 35 countries.  

The European Charter for Researchers and the Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of 
Researchers  (Charter  and  Code):  The  European  Charter  for  Researchers  and  Code  of 
Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers were adopted by the European Commission as a 
Recommendation to the Member States. The 'Charter & Code' address researchers as well as 
employers  and  funders  in  both  the  public  and  private  sectors.  The  Charter  provides  a 
framework  for  the  career  management  of  researchers,  while  the  Code  promotes  open  and 
transparent  recruitment  and  appraisal  procedures.  Together  they  are  aimed  at  developing  an 
attractive, open and sustainable European labour market for researchers. 

Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers: It aims to improve recruitment, to 
make  selection  procedures  fairer  and  more  transparent  and  proposes  different  means  of 
judging  merit:  Merit  should  not  just  be  measured  on  the  number  of  publications  but  on  a 
wider  range  of  evaluation  criteria,  such  as  teaching,  supervision,  teamwork,  knowledge 
transfer, management and public awareness activities.  

Cohesion Policy: Also known as Regional Policy of the European Union, is a policy with the 
stated  aim  of  improving  the  economic  well-being  of  regions  in  the  EU  and  also  to  avoid 
regional disparities. More than one third of the EU's budget is devoted to this policy, which 
aims to remove economic, social and territorial disparities across the EU, restructure declining 
industrial areas and diversify rural areas which have declining agriculture. 

Collaborative Projects: Support to Framework Programme funded research projects carried 
out  by  consortia  with  participants  from  different  countries.  The  size,  scope  and  internal 
organisation of projects can vary from field to field and from topic to topic. Projects can range 
from  small  or  medium-scale  focused  research  actions  to  larger  integrating  projects  which 
mobilise a significant volume or resources for achieving a defined objective. 

EN 

125 

   EN 

 
CREST:  The  Scientific  and  Technical  Research  Committee  (CREST),  composed  of 
representatives of Member States, is a high level advisory board to the Commission and the 
Council in the field of RTD. (see ERAC) 

DEUFRAKO:  DEUFRAKO  is  a  bilateral  Franco-German  scientific  and  technical  research 
programme, set up in 1978 as a consequence of the EU deregulation initiative. The intention 
was  primarily  to  advance  the  planning  and  implementation  of  modern  guided  surface 
transport  systems  and  more  particularly  high-speed  rail.  Both  Germany  and  France  are 
obligatory  points  of  passage  for  north-south  and  east-west  traffic,  are  served  by  very  active 
and  extensive  networks.  Their  railway  industries  are  among  the  most  dynamic  in  the  world 
and they are pioneers in the development of innovative rail technology. If the two systems are 
to be compatible, certain research activities need to be pursued together. Such co-operation is 
all the more necessary nowadays to develop a high-speed network throughout Europe. 

DEMETER:  This  EU-funded  project  entitled  aims  to  develop  a  well-validated  European 
coupled multi-model ensemble forecast system for reliable seasonal to inter-annual prediction. 
A fundamental aspect is to establish the practical utility of such a system, particularly to the 
agriculture and health sectors. 

ERAC (European Research Area Committee, formerly CREST): is a strategic policy advisory 
body whose function is to assist the European Commission and the Council of the European 
Union in performing the tasks incumbent on these Institutions in the sphere of research and 
technological development. 

ERA-NET:  The  principal  means  for  the  FP  to  support  the  co-ordination  of  national  and 
regional research programmes. 

ERA  Pacts:  voluntary  agreements  between  research  funding  and  performing  organisations 
and the Commission. The partnership principle would be at the core of the ERA pacts. The 
pacts consist of priority ‘big tickets’ actions involving both the collective engagement of key 
stakeholders to implement ERA, and increased Member States action. The pacts would assert 
the  firm  commitment  of  the  partners  to  undertake  a  set  of  actions  to  promote  ERA  such  as 
joint  transnational  coordinated  bottom-up  and  top-down  calls  and  research  agendas, 
transnational  peer  reviewed  evaluation  systems,  co-operation  with  third  countries,  open 
recruitment, mobility, gender action plans, access to information, etc. Each ERA pact would 
include a roadmap with milestones.  

EU-12: The 12 countries that joined the EU since 2004 (Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, 
Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia). 

EU-15:  Before  1  May  2004,  the  European  Union  consisted  of  15  Member  States  (Austria, 
Belgium,  Denmark,  Finland,  France,  Germany,  Greece,  Ireland,  Italy,  Luxembourg,  the 
Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and United Kingdom). 

EURAXESS: assists researchers in advancing their careers in Europe and supports research 
organisations in their search for outstanding research talent. EURAXESS is a pan-European 
initiative, supported by thirty-seven participating countries. It provides a single access point to 
information  from  all  countries  including  a  network  of  walk-in  centres  offering  personalised 
assistance to researchers moving to another country. 

EN 

126 

   EN 

 
Europe  2020:  Europe  2020  is  the  EU's  growth  strategy  for  the  coming  decade.  Concretely, 
the  Union  has  set  five  ambitious  objectives  -  on  employment,  innovation,  education,  social 
inclusion and climate/energy - to be reached by 2020. 

European Added Value: EU support to research and innovation is provided only when it can 
be more effective than national funding. It does this through measures to coordinate national 
funding, and through implementing collaborative research and mobility actions. 

European  Association  of  Research  Technology  Organisations  (EARTO):  is  a  non-profit 
international  association  aiming  to  achieve  a  European  research  and  innovation  system 
without  border  in  which  Research  and  Technology  Organisations  (RTOs)  occupy  nodal 
positions and posse the necessary resources and independence to contribute to a competitive 
European  economy  and  high  quality  of  the  life  through  beneficial  cooperation  with  all 
stakeholders.  

European  Partnership  for  Researchers  (EPR):  aims  at  creating  a  framework  for  joint 
priority  actions  for  different  Member  States  concerning  the  systematic  opening  up  of 
recruitment,  pensions  and  social  security  for  mobile  researchers,  attractive  employment  and 
working conditions and improving training and skills. 

European  Research  Area  (ERA):  A  general  concept  proposed  by  the  Commission  and 
endorsed by the European Parliament and Council in 2001 to overcome the fragmentation of 
European research and innovation efforts. The concept comprises organising co-operation at 
different levels, co-ordinating national or European policies, networking teams and increasing 
the mobility of individuals and ideas. 

European Research Area Network (ERA-NET): The objective of the ERA-NET scheme is 
to  step  up  the  cooperation  and  coordination  of  research  activities  carried  out  at  national  or 
regional level in the Member States and Associated States through the networking of research 
activities  conducted  at  national  or  regional  level,  and  the  mutual  opening  of  national  and 
regional  research  programmes.  The  scheme  will  contribute  to  making  a  reality  of  the 
European Research Area by improving the coherence and coordination across Europe of such 
research  programmes.  The  scheme  will  also  enable  national  systems  to  take  on  tasks 
collectively that they would not have been able to tackle independently 

European  Research  Council  (ERC):  Introduced  in  FP7,  it  will  be  the  first  pan-European 
funding  agency  for  frontier  research.  Early  stage  as  well  as  fully  established  investigators 
from across Europe will be able to compete for grants with scientific excellence as the sole 
criterion  for  funding.  The  independent  Scientific  Council  will  direct  the  ERC’s  scientific 
operations and ensure that its support is in accordance with the highest standards of science 
and scholarship. 

European  Space  Agency  (ESA):  Established  in  1975,  ESA  is  an  inter-governmental 
organisation dedicated to the exploration of space, with 17 Member States. Its mission is to 
shape  the  development  of  Europe’s  space  capability.  By  coordinating  the  financial  and 
intellectual resources of its members, it can undertake programmes and activities far beyond 
the scope of any single European country. 

Framework Programme (FP): Since 1984, research and innovation activities of the EU are 
grouped  in  one  big  multiannual  programme,  the  Framework  Programme  for  Research  and 
Technical  Development.  While  FP1  to  FP6  were  conceived  for  a  period  of  4  years,  FP7  is 
synchronised with the duration of the EU's financial perspective and covers the period 2007-

EN 

127 

   EN 

 
2013. The FPs are elaborated and proposed by the Commission and have to be adopted by the 
European Parliament and the Council in co-decision. 

Gender Action Plan (GAP): The GAP intend to provide detailed information on actions to 
be undertaken - and monitored - to encourage women to apply for recruitment and to ensure 
that equal opportunities will be promoted in recruitment at all levels, in order to allow women 
to  participate  in  all  project's  activities,  and  encourage  women  to  participate  in  the 
management and scientific committees. 

Government Budget Appropriations or Outlays on R&D (GBAORD): All appropriations 
allocated  to  R&D  in  central  government  budgets.  Data  on  government  R&D  appropriations 
therefore  refer  to  budget  provisions,  not  to  actual  expenditure,  i.e.  GBAORD  measures 
government support for R&D using data collected from budgets. 

Grandfathering:  Describes  a  situation  in  which  an  old  rule  continues  to  apply  to  some 
existing situations, while a new rule will apply to all future situations. 

Gross  domestic  expenditure  on  R&D  (GERD):  Total  intramural  expenditure  on  R&D 
performed  on  the  national  territory  during  a  given  period.  GERD  includes  R&D  performed 
within a country and funded from abroad but excludes payments made abroad for R&D. 

Gross  Domestic  Product  (GDP):  This  aggregate  represents  the  result  of  the  production 
activity  of  resident  producer  units.  It  corresponds  to  the  economy's  output  of  goods  and 
services, less intermediate consumption, plus taxes linked to imports. The sum of the regional 
values of the GDP at market prices might differ from the national values for some countries. 

Horizon  2020  (H2020):  Horizon  2020  is  the  financial  instrument  implementing  the 
Innovation  Union,  a  Europe  2020  flagship  initiative  aimed  at  securing  Europe's  global 
competitiveness.  Running  from  2014  to  2020  with  an  €80  billion  budget,  the  EU’s  new 
programme for research and innovation is part of the drive to create new growth and jobs in 
Europe. 

Inco-Net projects: The purpose of an INCO-NET project is to bring together policy makers 
and stakeholders of a given region or group of countries with the EU partners to establish a 
dialogue to identify S&T priorities of mutual benefit and interest, to define cooperation policy 
orientations  together  and  to  implement  specific  activities  to  promote  and  contribute  to  the 
participation of the targeted regions or countries in the Framework Programme. 

Information  and  Communication  Technologies  (ICT):  Information  and  Communication 
Technologies are critical to improve the competitiveness of European industry and to meet the 
demands of its society and economy. 

Institute  for  Prospective  Technological  Studies  (IPTS):  The  Institute  for  Prospective 
Technological Studies is one of the seven scientific institutes of the European Commission's 
Joint  Research  Centre  (JRC).  It  promotes  and  enables  a  better  understanding  of  the  links 
between technology, economy and society. Its mission is to provide customer-driven support 
to the EU policy-making process by developing science based responses to policy challenges 
that have both a socio-economic as well as a scientific/ technological dimension. 

Intellectual Property Rights (IPR): They cover all aspects of owning, protecting and giving 
access to knowledge and pre-existing know how. 

EN 

128 

   EN 

 
Joint Research Centre (JRC): As a service of the European Commission, the mission of the 
JRC  is  to  provide  customer-driven  scientific  and  technical  support  for  the  conception, 
development,  implementation  and  monitoring  of  EU  policies.  It  functions  as  a  reference 
centre of science and technology for the Union. The JRC has a network of research institutes 
in different member countries (Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain). Its activities are 
financed by the Framework Programme via the direct actions. 

Joint  Programming  Initiatives  (JPI):  The  overall  aim  of  Joint  Programming  is  to  pool 
national  research  efforts  in  order  to  make  better  use  of  Europe's  precious  public  R&D 
resources and to tackle common European challenges more effectively in a few key areas. It 
follows  a  structured  strategic  process  whereby  Member  States  agree  common  visions  and 
strategic research agendas to address major societal challenges. 

Lisbon Treaty: The Treaty of Lisbon entered into force on 1 December 2009. It provides the 
EU  with  modern  institutions  and  optimised  working  methods  to  tackle  both  efficiently  and 
effectively today's challenges in today's world 

Marie-Curie Actions: The  main  objective  of  the  FP's  Marie  Curie  Actions  is  to  strengthen 
training, the career prospects and mobility of European researchers in order to provide support 
for the development of world-class human resources. 

National  Reform  Programme  (NRP):  One  of  the  main  features  of  the  revised  Lisbon 
strategy is that Member States are encouraged to tailor reforms to their specific needs within 
the  overall  framework  of  the  European  Partnership  for  Growth  and  Jobs.  In  this  context,  a 
new  set  of  Integrated  Guidelines  was  proposed  by  the  Commission  and  adopted  by  the 
European Council in June 2005. Guidelines 7 and 8 in particular highlight the need to increase 
and improve investment in R&D, in particular by private business and to facilitate all forms of 
innovation.  Member  States  agreed  to  prepare  National  Reform  Programmes  to  set  out  their 
plans with reference to the Integrated Guidelines. These programmes were released from mid-
October 2005 onwards. 

New  Econometric  Model  for  Environmental  and  Sustainable  Development  and 
Implementation Strategies (NEMESIS): The NEMESIS-model is a large-scale econometric 
model  at  the  macro-  and  sectoral  levels,  which  has  been  built  by  a  Community  funded 
consortium of European research institutes. It comprises roughly 70 000 equations. The model 
can  be  used  for  several  purposes,  which  include  the  assessment  of  structural  (mainly  R&D 
and environmental) policies, the study of the short- and medium term consequences of a wide 
range of economic policies, short- and medium-term forecasting (up to 8 years) at the macro- 
and sectoral levels, and building long-term baseline scenarios (up to 30 years). 

Open Access: 'open access' refers to the practice of granting free Internet access to research 
articles. As all research and innovation builds on earlier achievements, an efficient system for 
broad  dissemination  of  and  access  to  research  publications  and  raw  data  can  accelerate 
scientific  progress.  In  August  2008,  the  European  Commission  launched  the  'Open  Access 
Pilot in the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7)', intended to provide researchers and other 
interested members of the public with improved online access to EU-funded research results. 
The  pilot  aims  to  permit  easy  and  free  access  to  scientific  information,  in  particular  peer-
reviewed  scientific  articles  published  in  journals.  Articles  covered  by  the  pilot  will  become 
accessible after an embargo period of 6 or 12 months, depending on the FP7 area.  

EN 

129 

   EN 

 
Open  method  of  coordination  (OMC):  A  relatively  new  and  intergovernmental  means  of 
governance in the EU, based on the voluntary cooperation of Member States. It rests on soft 
law mechanisms such as guidelines and indicators, benchmarking and sharing of best practice, 
not on official sanctions for laggards. Rather, the method's effectiveness relies on a form of 
peer pressure and naming and shaming, as no Member States wants to be seen as the worst in 
a given policy area. 

Organisation  for  Economic  Development  and  Cooperation  (OECD):  The  OECD  is  an 
international  economic  organisation  of  34  countries  founded  in  1961  to  stimulate  economic 
progress and world trade. It is a forum of countries committed to democracy and the market 
economy,  providing  a  platform  to  compare  policy  experiences,  seek  answers  to  common 
problems,  identify  good  practices,  and  co-ordinate  domestic  and  international  policies  of  its 
members. 

Peer  review:  The  evaluation  of  proposals  with  the  help  of  independent  external  experts 
(peers).  

Research and experimental development (R&D): R&D comprise creative work undertaken 
on  a  systematic  basis  in  order  to  increase  the  stock  of  knowledge,  including  knowledge  of 
man, culture and society and the use of this stock of knowledge to devise new applications. 
This  term  covers  three  activities:  basic  research,  applied  research  and  experimental 
development. 

R&D intensity: Gross Domestic Expenditure on R&D (GERD) expressed as a percentage of 
Gross Domestic Product (GDP). 

Science  Europe:  Science  Europe  is  an  association  of  European  Research  Funding 
Organisations (RFO) and Research Performing Organisations (RPO), based in Brussels. 

Small  and  Medium-Sized  Enterprises  (SMEs):  Enterprises  having  fewer  than  250 
employees and with either an annual turnover of no more than ECU 40 million or a balance 
sheet total of no more than ECU 27 million. 

Spillover effect: are externalities of economic activity or processes that affect those who are 
not directly involved. In this particular case there are two type of spillovers: between sectors 
(i.e. progress in information and communication technologies have a positive impact in other 
sectors) and international spillovers (i.e. scientific progress in one country benefits the other 
countries). 

Stakeholder: Any person or organisation with an interest in or affected by EU legislation and 
policymaking is a 'stakeholder' in that process. The European Commission makes a point of 
consulting  as  wide  a  range  of  stakeholders  as  possible  before  proposing  new  legislation  or 
new policy initiatives. 

Strategic  Forum  for  International  S&T  Cooperation  (SFIC):  aims  to  strengthen  the 
international  dimension  of  the  European  Research  Area  (ERA);  to  improve  the  framework 
conditions  for  international  S&T  cooperation;  and  to  promote  European  technologies  in  the 
world.  It  outlines  different  approaches  to  cooperation  depending  on  the  geographic  and 
thematic targets, and calls for long term commitment of the Member States and the European 
Community. 

EN 

130 

   EN 

 
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU): The Treaty of Lisbon amends 
the  EU's  two  core  treaties,  the  Treaty  on  European  Union  and  the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European Community. The latter is renamed the Treaty on the Functioning of the European 
Union.  

UNU-MERIT: UNU-MERIT is a research and training centre of United Nations University 
(UNU)  and  Maastricht  University  (UM),  based  in  southeast  Netherlands.  UNU-MERIT 
explores the social, political and economic factors that drive technological innovation, with a 
particular focus on creation, diffusion and access to knowledge.  

World  Intellectual  Property  Organisation  (WIPO):  The  World  Intellectual  Property 
Organization  (WIPO)  is  a  specialized  agency  of  the  United  Nations.  It  is  dedicated  to 
developing  a  balanced  and  accessible  international  Intellectual  Property  IP)  system,  which 
rewards  creativity,  stimulates  innovation  and  contributes  to  economic  development  while 
safeguarding  the  public  interest.  WIPO  was  established  in  1967  with  a  mandate  from  its 
Member  States  to  promote  the  protection  of  IP  throughout  the  world  through  cooperation 
among states and in collaboration with other international organizations. Its headquarters are 
in Geneva, Switzerland. 

EN 

131 

   EN 

 
LIST OF ACRONYMS 
AGRI  (DG)  European  Commission  Directorate  General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural 
Development 
BAU Business As Usual 
BEPA Bureau of European Policy Adviser 
BRIC Brazil, Russia, India and China 
CERN European Organisation for Nuclear Research 
COMP (DG) Competition 
CSF Common Strategic Framework for Research and Innovation 
DEVCO (DG) Development and Cooperation 
DG Directorate-General 
DIR Directorate 
EAC (DG) European Commission Directorate General for Education and Culture 
EARTO European Association of Research and Technology Organisations 
EAV European Added Value 
ECFIN (DG) European Commission Directorate General for Economic and Financial Affairs 
EFTA European Free Trade Association 
EMPL (DG) Employment 
ELARG (DG) Enlargement 
ENER (DG) European Commission Directorate General for Energy 
ENTR (DG) European Commission Directorate General for Entreprise and Industry 
ENV (DG) European Commission Directorate General for the Environment 
EPR European Partnership for Researchers 
ERA European Research Area 
ERAC European Research Area Committee 
ERA-NET European Research Area Network 
ERA-NET EMRP Coordination of the European Metrology Research Programme 
ESA European Space Agency 
ESF European Science Foundation 
ERC European Research Council 
ESTAT Statistical Office of the European Union 
EU European Union 
EUA European University Association 
FP Framework Programme for Research and Technological Demonstration 
GBAORD Government Budget Appropriations or Outlays for Research and Development 
GDP Gross Domestic Product 
GO General Objective 
GOV Government 
GPT General Purpose Technologies 
HES Higher Education Sector 
HOME (DG) Home Affairs 
IAB Impact Assessment Board 
IASG Impact Assessment Steering Group 
ICT Information and Communication Technologies 
INCO International Cooperation 
INFSO (DG) Information Society and Media 
ISG Inter-Service Group 
IPTS Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (DG JRC) 
IU Innovation Union 
JPI Joint Programming Initiative 
JRC (DG) European Commission Joint Research Centre 

EN 

132 

   EN 

 
MARE (DG) Maritime Affairs and Fisheries 
MARKT (DG) Internal Market and Services 
MOVE (DG) European Commission Directorate General for Mobility and Transport 
MS Member States 
NRP National Reform Programme (or Plan) 
OA Open Access 
OECD Organisation for Economic Development and Cooperation 
OMC Open Method of Coordination  
OpenAire Open Access Infrastructure for Research in Europe 
PO Policy Option 
PhD Doctor of Philosophy 
R&D Research and Development 
RFO Research Funding Organisations 
RPO Research Performing Organisations 
REGIO (DG) European Commission Directorate General for Regional Policy 
SANCO (DG) European Commission Directorate General for Health and Consumers 
SFIC Strategic Forum for International S&T Cooperation  
SG (DG) Secretariat General 
SGHRM Steering Group on Human Resources and Mobility 
SHO Stakeholder organisations, i.e. research funding and performing organisations 
SJ (DG) Service Juridique 
SO Specific Objective 
S&T Science and Technology 
SMART (objectives) Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time 
SMEs Small and Medium-sized Enterprises 
STI Science Technology and Innovation 
TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union  
TRADE (DG) Trade 
WIPO World Intellectual Property Organisation  
EU COUNTRY KEYS 
Austria (AT) 
Belgium (BE) 
Bulgaria (BG) 
Cyprus (CY) 
Czech Republic (CZ) 
Denmark (DK) 
Estonia (EE) 
Finland (FI) 
France (FR) 
Germany (DE) 
Greece (EL) 
Hungary (HU) 
Ireland (IE) 
Italy (IT) 
Latvia (LV) 
Lithuania (LT) 
Luxembourg (LU) 
Malta (MT) 
Netherlands (NL) 
Poland (PL) 
Portugal (PT) 

EN 

133 

   EN 

 
Romania (RO) 
Slovakia (SK) 
Slovenia (SI) 
Spain (ES) 
Sweden (SE) 
United Kingdom (UK) 
Norway (NO) 

EN 

134 

   EN 

 
Annex 9: Bibliography 

Aghion, P., et al (2008), Higher aspirations: An agenda for reforming European universities, 
Breugel Blueprint Series, Bruegel, 2008, URL (accessed 16 April 2012), 

http://www.dariobraga.it/web/uploads/doc/BPJULY2008University.pdf 

Albarran,  P.,  Crespo,  J.,  Ortuno,  I.,  Ruiz-Castillo,  J.  (2009),  A  comparison  of  the  scientific 
performance of the US and the EU at the turn of the century, Working Paper 09-55, Economic 
Series (34), Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Departamento de Economía, July 2009, URL 
(accessed 24 February 2012), 

http://e-archivo.uc3m.es/bitstream/10016/5212/1/09-55-34.pdf 

Amanatidou  E.  et  al  (2011),  Annual  Joint  Programming  Event  2011,  Final  report,  9-10 
November 2011, Brussels, URL (accessed 28 February 2012), 

http://netwatch.jrc.ec.europa.eu/static/download/jpi_2011/FinalReport_JPevent%202011.pdf 

Auranem  O.,  Nieminen  M.,  University  research  funding  and  publication  performance  –  An 
international  comparison,  Research  Policy  39  Volume  6,  Elsevier,  pp.  822-834,  July  2010, 
URL (accessed 16 April 2012), 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733310000764 

Bagnoli  P.,  (2002),  Developments  in  growth  literature  and  its  relevance  for  simulation 
models:  annex  1,  Working  Party  on  Global  and  Structural  policies,  OECD, 
ENV/EPOC/GSP(2002)7/ANN1, Paris, 18 April 2003, URL (accessed 18 April 2012),  

http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=ENV/EPOC/GSP(2
002)7/ANN1/FINAL&docLanguage=En 

Batelle  (2011),  2012  Global  R&D  Funding  Forecast,  December  2011,  URL  (accessed  24 
February 2012),  

http://www.battelle.org/ABOUTUS/rd/2012.pdf 

Cameron,  G.  (1998),  Innovation  and  Growth:  a  survey  of  the  empirical  evidence,  mimeo, 
Newfield College, Oxford, July 1998, URL (accessed 18 April 2012) 

http://www.nuff.ox.ac.uk/users/cameron/papers/empiric.pdf 

Cavalcanti, T. V. de V., and Tavares, J., (2007), The Output Cost of Gender Discrimination: 
A  Model-Based  Macroeconomic  Estimate,  London,  September  2007,  URL  (accessed  22 
February 2012)  

http://www.hec.unil.ch/deep/evenements/Seminaire-papers/2007-08/Tavares-sept07-2.pdf 

Chioncel  M.  and  Cuntz  A.,  (forthcoming),  European  Research  Area  Impact  on  Member 
States' policy development – Seville, ERAWATCH2 Deliverable D1.4.6, JRC-IPTS. 

EN 

135 

   EN 

 
Council  of  the  European  Union  (2011),  Conclusions  4  February  2011,  Brussels,  8  March 
2011, URL (accessed 07 February 2012),  

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/119175.pdf  

Council  of the  European Union (2010), Conclusions 17 June  2010, Brussels, 17  June 2010, 
EUCO 13/10, URL (accessed 24 February 2012), 

http://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/pdf/115346.pdf 

Council of the European Union (2008), Conclusions on the definition of a 2020 Vision for the 
European  Research  Area,  2891st  Competitiveness  Council,  Brussels  1-2  December  2008, 
URL (accessed 07 February 2012,  

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/intm/104434.pdf  

Council  of  the  European  Union  (2007),  Conclusions  on  scientific  information  in  the  digital 
age:  access,  dissemination  and  preservation,  2832nd  Competitiveness  Council  meeting, 
Brussels, 22 and 23 November 2007, URL (accessed 24 February 2012), 

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/intm/97236.pdf 

Danish  Agency  for  Science  Technology  and  Innovation  (2011),  Access  to  Research  and 
Technical  Information  in  Denmark,  Denmark’s  Electronic  Research  Library  (DEFF),  April 
2011, URL (accessed 07 February 2012),  

http://www.fi.dk/publikationer/2011/adgang-til-forskningsresultater-og-teknisk-information-i-
danmark/adgang-til-forskningsresultater-og-teknisk-information-i-danmark-access-to-
research-and-technical-information-in-denmark.pdf  

Delanghe,  H.,  Muldur,  U.,  Soete,  L.  (2009),  European  science  and  technology  policy: 
towards integration or fragmentation? Edward Elgar Publishing, January 2009, p.177, URL 
(accessed 07 February 2012),  

http://www.e-elgar.co.uk  

Deloitte  (2009),  Euraxess  -  Links  Abroad  (ELA)  Geographic,  Expansion-Feasibility  study, 
Final Report Version 1.0, Deloitte, The Evaluation Partnership, for the European Commission 
Research Directorate General, 12 June 2009, URL (accessed 22 February 2012), 

http://ec.europa.eu/euraxess/links/docs/ELA%20Geographic%20Expansion_Final%20Report
_V_1_0.pdf 

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (2011), Innovation and Research Strategy for 
Growth, UK, December 2011, URL (accessed 07 February 2012),  

http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/innovation/docs/i/11-1387-innovation-and-research-
strategy-for-growth.pdf  

Di  Pietrantonio,  L  (2009),  Towards  a  New  (European  Research)  Deal,  The  Case  for 
Enhanced  Fiscal  Policy  Coordination  on  Research  and  Innovation,  Bruges  European 
Economic Policy briefings (BEEP) briefing n° 20, July 2009, URL (accessed 16 April 2012),  

EN 

136 

   EN 

 
http://www.coleurope.eu/file/content/studyprogrammes/eco/publications/BEEPs/BEEP20.pdf 

Dosi  G.,  Llerena  P.,  Sylos  Labini  M.  (2006),  Science-Technology-Industry  Links  and  the 
"European Paradox": Some Notes on the Dynamics of Scientific and Technological Research 
in  Europe,  Research  Policy  -  35:10:  1450:1464,  URL  (accessed  28  February),  
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1513815 

Durante,  R.,  Labartino,  G.  &  Perotti,  R.  (2011),  Academic  Dynasties:  Decentralization  and 
Familism  in  the  Italian  Academia,  Working  Paper  No.  17572,  C.E.P.R.  Discussion  Papers, 
November 2011, URL (accessed 24 February 2012), 

http://www.nber.org/papers/w17572 

Eells, W.C., Cleveland, A.C. (1999), Faculty Inbreeding, The Journal of Higher Education, 
70  5  Special  Anniversary  Issue:  A  Look  Back,  pp  579-588,  URL  (accessed  24  February 
2012), 

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=jhighereducation 

Eisenberg,  T.,  Wells,  M.T.  (2000),  Inbreeding  in  Law  School  Hiring:  Assessing  the 
performance  of  Faculty,  Hired  from  within.  The  Journal  of  Legal  Studies  29  No.  1 
Interpreting Legal Citations, pp. 369-388, URL (accessed 24 February 2012), 

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=231578 

Elsevier  (2011),  International  Comparative  Performance  of  the  UK  Research  Base  –  2011, 
for  the  Department  for  Business,  Innovation  and  Skills,  2011,  URL  (accessed  07  February 
2012), 

http://www2.cst.gov.uk/assets/biscore/science/docs/i/11-p123-international-comparative-
performance-uk-research-base-2011.pdf 

ERA Steering Group on Human Resources and Mobility (2011), Report by the ERA Steering 
Group on Human Resources and Mobility, 2011. 

ERAC  (2011),  ERAC  opinion  on  ERA-related  instruments,  ERAC  1209/11,  pp.  79-82,  26 
May 2011, URL (accessed 28 February 2012), 

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/st01209%20en11.pdf 

European Commission (2012a), Innovation Union Scoreboard 2011, The Innovation Union's 
performance  scoreboard  for  Research  and  Innovation,  report  prepared  by  Maastricht 
Economic  and  Social  Research  Institute  on  Innovation  and  Technology  (UNU-MERIT)  for 
the European Commission, 7 February 2012, URL (accessed 22 February 2012),  

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/files/ius-2011_en.pdf 

European  Commission  (2012b),  Public  Consultation  on  the  European  Research  Area 
Framework and the Survey on Scientific Information in the Digital Age, Directorate-General 
for Research and Innovation, 30 January 2012, URL (accessed 21 February 2012),  

http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/survey-on-scientific-
information-digital-age_en.pdf  

EN 

137 

   EN 

 
European  Commission  (2012c),  Preliminary  report  of  the  public  Consultation  on  the  ERA 
Framework, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, January 2012, URL (accessed 
07 February 2012),  

http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/pdf/era-summary-report-2012_en.pdf  

European  Commission  (2011a),  Common  Strategic  Framework  for  EU  Research  and 
Innovation  Funding:  Outcome  of  the  public  consultation,  Green  Paper,  Directorate-General 
for  Research 
2012), 
07  February 
2011,  URL 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/csfri/pdf/consultation-conference/summary_analysis.pdf  

Innovation, 

(accessed 

and 

European  Commission  (2011b),  Recommendation  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  on 
Access  to  and  Preservation  of  Scientific  Information  in  the  Digital  Age,  draft,  November 
2011. 

European  Commission  (2011c),  Innovation  Union  Competitiveness  report,  2011  edition, 
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, 2011, URL (accessed 07 February 2012),  

http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/competitiveness-report/2011/iuc2011-full-
report.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none  

European  Commission  (2011d),  National  open  access  and  preservation  policies  in  Europe, 
Analysis of a questionnaire to the European Research Area Committee, Brussels, 2011, URL 
(accessed 24 February 2012), 

http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/open-access-report-
2011_en.pdf 

European  Commission  (2011e),  Commission  Staff  Working  Paper  Impact  Assessment, 
Accompanying  the  Communication  from  the  Commission  'Horizon  2020  -  The  Framework 
Programme  for  Research  and  Innovation',  SEC(2011)  1427  final,  Brussels,  30  November 
2011, URL (accessed 24 February 2012), 

http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/pdf/proposals/horizon_2020_impact_assessment_r
eport.pdf 

European Commission (2011f), Commission Staff Working Paper, Executive Summary of the 
Impact  Assessment,  SEC(2011)  1428  final,  Volume  I,  Brussels,  30  November  2011,  URL 
(accessed 24 February 2012), 

http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/pdf/proposals/horizon_2020_impact_assessment_r
eport_executive_summary.pdf 

European Commission (2011g), Partnering in research and innovation, COM(2011) 572 final, 
Brussels, 21 September 2011, URL (accessed 1 June 2012), 

http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/pdf/partnering_communication.pdf  

European  Commission  (2010a),  Framework  Directive  on  the  European  Research  Area. 
Roadmap  Version  2,  Directorate-General  for  Research,  October  2010,  URL  (accessed  07 
February 2012),  

EN 

138 

   EN 

 
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/planned_ia/docs/2012_rtd_001_eur_research_area_fd_
2011_en.pdf  

European  Commission  (2010b),  Europe  2020  Flagship  Initiative  Innovation  Union, 
Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic 
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, SEC(2010)1161, COM(2010) 546 
final,  Brussels, 
2012), 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/innovation-union-
communication_en.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none  

07  February 

2010,  URL 

6  October 

(accessed 

European Commission (2010c), Riding the wave: How Europe can gain from the rising tide 
of  scientific  data,  Final  report  of  the  EC  High  Level  Expert  Group  on  Scientific  Data, 
Directorate-General  for  Information  Society  and  Media,  October  2010,  URL  (accessed  07 
February 2012),  

http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/e-infrastructure/docs/hlg-sdi-report.pdf  

European  Commission  (2010d),  Stocktaking  10  years  of  "Women  in  Science"  Policy  by  the 
European  Commission  1999-2009,  Directorate  General  for  Research,  2010,  URL  (accessed 
22 
2012), 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/sciencesociety/document_library/pdf_06/stocktaking-10-years-of-
women-in-science-book_en.pdf  

February 

European Commission (2010e), Innovation Union Scoreboard 2010, The Innovation Union's 
performance scoreboard for Research and Innovation, prepared by the Maastricht Economic 
and social Research and training centre on Innovation and Technology (UNU-MERIT) with 
the  contribution  of  DG  JRC  G3  of  the  European  Commission,  01  February  2011,  URL 
(accessed 24 February 2012) 

http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/iu-scoreboard-2010_en.pdf 

European  Commission  (2010f),  Interim  Evaluation  of  the  Seventh  Framework  Programme, 
Report  of  the  Expert  Group,  Final  report,  12  November  2010,  URL  (accessed  24  February 
2012), 

http://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/archive/other_reports_studies_and_documents/fp
7_interim_evaluation_expert_group_report.pdf 

European Commission (2010g), Europe 2020, A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive 
growth,  Communication  from  the  Commission,  COM(2010)  2020  final,  Brussels,  3  March 
2010, URL (accessed 24 February 2012), 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:2020:FIN:EN:PDF 

European Commission (2009-2010), Report by the ERA Steering Group on Human Resources 
and Mobility (SGHRM) 2009, Report on the Implementation of the European Partnership for 
researchers (EPR) 2010, URL (accessed 22 February 2012),  

http://www.researcherscareer2010.be/Report_EPR_2009.pdf 

EN 

139 

   EN 

 
European  Commission  (2009a),  The  World  in  2025:  Rising  Asia  and  socio-ecological 
transition,  Directorate-General  for  Research,  2009,  URL  (accessed  07  February  2012), 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/social-sciences/pdf/the-world-in-2025-report_en.pdf  

European Commission (2009b), She figures, Statistics and Indicators on Gender Equality in 
Sciencem  Directorate-General  for  Research,  2009,  URL  (accessed  07  February  2012), 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-
society/document_library/pdf_06/she_figures_2009_en.pdf  

European  Commission  (2009c),  European  Competitiveness  Report,  Directorate  General  for 
Enterprise and Industry, 2009, URL (accessed 22 February 2012), 

http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/european-competitiveness-report-2009-pbNBAK09001/ 

European Commission (2008a), Better Careers and More Mobility: A European Partnership 
for  Researchers,  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the  European 
Parliament  COM  (2008)317  final,  Brussels,  23.5.2008,  URL  (accessed  07  February  2012), 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/press/2008/pdf/com_2008_31_1_en.pdf  

European  Commission  (2008b),  a  Strategic  European  Framework  for  International  Science 
and  Technology Cooperation, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the 
European  Parliament,  COM(2008)  588  final,  Brussels,  24.09.2008,  URL  (accessed  07 
February 2012),  

http://ec.europa.eu/research/press/2008/pdf/com_2008_588_en.pdf  

European  Commission  (2007a),  European  Research  Area:  New  Perspectives,  Green  Paper 
COM/2007/161, Directorate-General for Research, Brussels, 4 April 2007, URL (accessed 07 
February 2012),  

http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/pdf/era_gp_final_en.pdf  

European  Commission  (2007b),  Scientific 
the  digital  age:  access, 
dissemination  and  preservation,  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council,  the 
European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 
on, COM(2007) 56 final, {SEC (2007)181}, Brussels, 14 February 2007, URL (accessed 24 
February 2012),  

information 

in 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0056:FIN:EN:PDF 

European  Commission  (2006),  Study  on  the  economic  and  technical  evaluation  of  the 
publishing markets in Europe, Final Report, Directorate-General for Research, January 2006, 
URL (accessed 07 February 2012), 

http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/pdf/scientific-publication-study_en.pdf  

European Commission (2005), The European Charter for Researchers The Code of Conduct 
for the Recruitment of Researchers, Directorate-General for Research, 2005, URL (accessed 
07 February 2012), 

http://ec.europa.eu/eracareers/pdf/am509774CEE_EN_E4.pdf  

EN 

140 

   EN 

 
European  Commission  (2000),  Towards  a  European  Research  Area  (ERA),  Communication 
from  the  Commission  to  the  Council,  the  European  Parliament,  the  Economic  and  Social 
Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions,  COM(2000)  6  final,  18  January  2000,  URL 
(accessed 07 February 2012),  

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/other/i23010_en.htm  

European  Commission  (1999),  Women  and  Science:  mobilising  women  to  enrich  European 
research, Communication from the European Commission, 17 February 1999, URL (accessed 
2012), 
22 
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/employment_and_social_policy/equality_between_me
n_and_women/c10930_en.htm 

February 

European  Parliament  (2009),  Evaluation  of  European  Research  Area  (ERA):  Governance 
aspects,  Directorate  General  for  Internal  Policies,  November  2009,  URL  (accessed  07 
February 2012),  

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/201106/20110628ATT22850/201106
28ATT22850EN.pdf  

European  Research  Area  Committee  (ERAC)  (2011a),  Voluntary  Guidelines  on  Framework 
Conditions  for  Joint  Programming  in  Research  2010,  OPOCE,  2011,  URL  (accessed  24 
February 2012), 

http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/docs/en/voluntary_guidelines.pdf 

European  Research  Area  Committee  (ERAC)  (2011b),  Questionnaire  on  R&D  investments 
and  policy  measures  by  EU  Member  States  and  Associated  States,  URL  (accessed  24 
February 2012), 

http://www.era.gv.at/attach/6.2-notetoERACMembers05102011final.doc 

European  Research  Council  (ERC)  (2007),  ERC  Scientific  Council  Guidelines  for  Open 
Access, 17 December 2007, URL (accessed 24 February 2012, 

http://erc.europa.eu/documents/erc-scientific-council-guidelines-open-access 

European University Association (2011), University Autonomy in Europe II, The Scorecard, 
by Thomas Estermann, Terhi Nokkala & Monika Steinel, 2011, URL (accessed 27 February 
2012), 

http://www.eua.be/eua-work-and-policy-area/governance-autonomy-and-
funding/projects/university-autonomy-in-europe/ 

Felix (2011), Cash-strapped libraries  threaten  to  end journal subscription deals over  rising 
costs,  Imperial  College  London,  18  February  2011,  URL  (accessed  07  February  2012), 
http://felixonline.co.uk/?article=808  

Fernandez Zubieta, A., Van Bavel, R. (2011), Barriers and Bottlenecks to Making Research 
Careers  More  Attractive  and  Promoting  Mobility,  ERAWATCH  report,  JRC-IPTS  2011, 
2011. 

EN 

141 

   EN 

 
Franzoni, C., Sclellato, G., and Stephan, P. (2011), Changing incentives to publish, Science, 
vol. 333, 4 August 2011, URL (accessed 07 February 2012), 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6043/702.short  

German  Federal  Ministry  of  Education  and  Research  (BMBF)  (2010),  Scientific  Careers  - 
working  conditions,  professional  orientation  and  competencies  of  early  career  researchers, 
Study  by  BMBF  and  HIS  (Higher  Education  Information  System),  HIS  Forum  Hochschule 
14/2010, November 2010, URL (accessed 22 February 2012), 

http://www.his.de/pdf/pub_fh/fh-201014.pdf 

Griliches,  Z.  (1992),  The  Search  for  R&D  Spillovers,  Scandinavian  Journal  of  Economics, 
Proceedings of a Symposium on Productivity Concepts and Measurement Problems: Welfare, 
Quality and Productivity in the Service Industries, Supplement 94n S29-47, Sweden, 1992. 

Guellec,  D.,  van  Pottelsberghe  de  la  Potterie,  B,  (2001),  Recherche-developpement  et 
croissance de la productivité: analyse des données d’un panel de 16 pays de l’OCDE, Revue 
Economique de l’OCDE, n°33, pp. 111-136, 2001, URL (accessed 18 April 2012), 

http://www.cairn.info/revue-economique-de-l-ocde-2001-2-page-111.htm 

Guy, K., Soete, L., Præst Knudsen, M. et al. (2010), The role of community research policy in 
the  knowledge-based  economy,  Expert  Group  Report,  24  October  2009,  URL  (accessed  27 
February 2012), 

ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/era/docs/community_research_policy_role.pdf  

Horta,  H.,  Veloso,  F.,  and  Grediaga,  R.,  (2010),  Navel  gazing:  Academic  inbreeding  and 
scientific  productivity,  Management  Science,  Vol.  56,  No.  3,  414-429,  URL  (accessed  24 
February 2012), 

http://mansci.journal.informs.org/content/56/3/414.abstract 

Houghton, J. (2009), Costs and Benefits of Alternative Publishing Models: Denmark, Center 
for Strategic Economic Studies, Victoria University, Melbourne, May 2009, URL, (accessed 
10 April 2012), 

http://www.knowledge-
exchange.info/Admin/Public/DWSDownload.aspx?File=%2FFiles%2FFiler%2Fdownloads%
2FDK_Costs_and_benefits_of_alternative_publishing_models.pdf 

Houghton,  J.  (2009a)  Open  Access  –  What  are  the  economic  benefits?  A  comparison  of  the 
United Kingdom, Netherlands and Denmark. Centre for Strategic Economic Studies Victoria 
University, Melbourne, URL (accessed 1 June 2012), 

http://www.knowledge-exchange.info/default.aspx?id=316  

Houghton,  J.,  De  Jonge,  J.,  and  Van  Oploo,  M.  (2009b),  Costs  and  Benefits  of  Research 
Communication:  The  Dutch  Situation,  Surf  Foundation,  29  May  2009,  URL  (accessed  10 
April 2012), 

EN 

142 

   EN 

 
http://www.surf.nl/en/publicaties/Pages/CostsandBenefitsofOpenAccessPublicationlTheDutch
Situation.aspx 

Houghton,  J.,  Rasmussen,  L.,  Sheehan,  P.,  Oppenheim,  C.,  Morris,  A.,  Creaser,  C., 
Greenwood, H., Summers, M. and Gourlay, A. (2009c) Economic Implications of Alternative 
Scholarly Publishing Models. Exploring the costs and benefits. Centre for Strategic Economic 
Studies Victoria University, Melbourne, URL (accessed 1 June 2012), 

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/reports/2009/economicpublishingmodelsfinalreport.aspx  

Johnson, D.K.N. (2002), The OECD Technology Concordance (OTC): Patents by Industry of 
Manufacture and Sector of Use, Organisation for Economics Cooperation and Development, 
Directorate of Science, Technology and Industry Working Paper 2002/5, URL (accessed 27 
February 2012), 

http://www.oecd.org/LongAbstract/0,3425,en_2649_33703_2069713_1_1_1_1,00.html 

King, Donald W. et al. (2009), Scholarly Journal Information-seeking and Reading Patterns 
of Faculty at five US Universities, Learned Publishing, vol. 22(2), pp. 126–144, USA, 2009, 
URL (accessed 18 April 2012),  

http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/connect/alpsp/09531513/v22n2/s8.pdf?expires=1
334757977&id=68359893&titleid=885&accname=European+Commission+Central+Library
&checksum=F0D527757B148F2DC3B035716D8D6BCB 

Mairesse  J.,  Sassenou  M.,  (1991),  Recherche-developpement  et  productivité,  un  panorama 
des etudes économétriques sur données d’entreprises, STI Revue, n°8, pp. 9-45, OCDE, Paris, 
1991 

McKinsey  &  Company  (2007),  Women  Matter,  Gender  Diversity:  a  corporate  performance 
driver, McKinsey & Company, October 2007, URL (accessed 22 February 2012) 

http://www.mckinsey.com/locations/swiss/news_publications/pdf/Women_matter_english.pdf 

Merton, R.K. (1968), The Matthew Effect in Science, Science, Vol. 159 no. 3810 pp. 56-63, 5 
January 1968, URL (accessed 24 February 2012), 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/159/3810/56.abstract 

Mitsos,  A.,  Bonaccorsi,  A.  et  al  (2012),  The  socio-economic  benefits  of  ERA,  unpublished 
draft,  Expert  Group  Report  to  Directorate-General  for  Research  and  Innovation,  European 
Commission. 

Mohnen,  P.  (1990),  R&D  and  productivity  growth:  A  survey  of  the  literature,  Centre  de 
Recherche sur les Politiques Economiques (CERPE), Cahier de Recherche No. 57, Université 
du Quebec, Montréal, 1990. 

Nadiri, M.I. (1993), Innovation and Technological Spillovers, NBER Working Paper, n°4423, 
August 1993, Cambridge, USA, URL (accessed 18 April 2012),  

http://www.nber.org/papers/w4423.pdf 

EN 

143 

   EN 

 
Navarro,  A.  &  Rivero,  A.  (2001),  High  rate  of  inbreeding  in  Spanish  universities,  Nature. 
410, URL (accessed 24 February 2012), 

http://gemi.mpl.ird.fr/PDF/Navarro_2001.pdf 

NMP  Scoreboard  (2011),  Comparative  scoreboard  and  performance  indicators  in  NMP 
research  activities  between  EU  and  third  countries,  Draft  version,  European  Commission, 
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, 2011. 

OECD  (2008),  The  Global  Competition  for  Talent:  Mobility  of  the  Highly  Skilled,  OECD 
Publishing 2008, URL (accessed 07 February 2012),  

http://www.oecd.org/document/21/0,3746,en_2649_34269_41361685_1_1_1_1,00.html  

OECD  (2009),  Inventory  of  National  Science,  Technology  and  Innovation  Policies  for 
Nanotechnology  2008,  OECD,  Paris,  17  July  2009,  URL  (accessed  28  February  2012), 
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/38/32/43348394.pdf 

Optimat Ltd, Examining the Design of National Research Programmes, Final report, for the 
European Commission Research Directorate, December 2005, URL (accessed 16 April 2012), 
http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-research/pdf/download_en/final_report_dec05.pdf 

Østergaard, C.R., Timmermans, B., and Kristinsson, K. (2011), Does a different view create 
something new? The effect of employee diversity on innovation, Research Policy Voume 40, 
(accessed  22  February  2012) 
Issue  3,  Elsevier,  April  2011,  pp500-509,  URL 
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0048733310002398 

PARSE.Insight (2010), Insight into digital preservation of research output in Europe, Project: 
FP7-2007-223758 PARSE.Insight for the European Commission, June 2010, URL (accessed 
07 February 2012),  

http://www.parse-insight.eu/downloads/PARSE-Insight_D3-6_InsightReport.pdf  

Pro  Inno  Europe  (2011),  Innovation  Union  Scoreboard  2011,  The  Innovation  Union's 
performance  scoreboard  for  Research  and  Innovation,  7  February  2012,  URL  (accessed  24 
February 2012), 

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/files/ius-2011_en.pdf 

Pro  Inno  Europe  (2009),  Comparative  Analysis  of  Innovation  Performance,  European 
Innovation  Scoreboard  (EIS)  2009,  paper  n°  15,  URL  (accessed  07  February  2012), 
http://www.proinno-europe.eu/page/european-innovation-scoreboard-2009  

Publishing Research Consortium (2009), Research Report, Access by UK small and medium-
sized  enterprises  to  professional  and  academic  information,  Mark  Ware  Consulting  Ltd, 
August 2009, URL (accessed 07 February 2012), 

http://www.publishingresearch.net/documents/SMEAccessResearchReport.pdf  

Research  Information  Network  (2011),  Heading  for  the  open  road:  costs  and  benefits  of 
transitions in scholarly communications, April 2011, URL (accessed 10 April 2012), 

EN 

144 

   EN 

 
http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/communicating-and-disseminating-research/heading-open-
road-costs-and-benefits-transitions-s 

Research Information Network (2009), Overcoming barriers: access to research information 
content, December 2009, URL (accessed 07 February 2012),  

http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/using-and-accessing-information-resources/overcoming-
barriers-access-research-information  

Roco, M.C., Mirkin, C.A. and Hersam, M.C. (2011), Nanotechnology Research Directions for 
Societal  Needs  in  2020  -  Retrospective  and  Outlook,  National  Science  Foundation,  World 
Technology  Evaluation  Centre  (WTEC)  Report,  1st.  Edition,  Springer,  Berlin  and  Boston, 
2011, URL (accessed 28 February 2012), 

http://www.springer.com/materials/nanotechnology/book/978-94-007-1167-9 

Sáinz Ibáñez, M., López, B., and González Ramos, A., (2010), In Género y TIC. Presencia, 
posición  y  políticas,  ed.  Cecilia  Castaño.  Barcelona:  Editorial  UOC,  November  2010,  URL 
(accessed 22 February 2012), 

http://www.editorialuoc.cat/gneroytic-p-670.html?cPath=1 

Swan,  A.  (2011),  Open  Access:  Impact  for  Researchers,  Universities  and  Society,  Impact 
Briefing  Paper,  Research  Library  UK,  January  2012,  URL  (accessed  07  February  2012), 
http://www.sconul.ac.uk/news/OAbriefing/OA_impact_briefing.pdf  

Swan, A. (2010), The Open Access citation advantage: studies and results to date. Technical 
Report,  School  of  Electronics  &  Computer  Science,  University  of  Southampton,  February 
2010, URL (accessed 07 February 2012),  

http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18516/  

Technopolis  (2010),  Study  in  support  of  an  ex-ante  impact  assessment  of  post  2010  ERA 
policies, for the European Commission Research Directorate-general, Brussels, 2010. 

Technopolis  (2011),  A  study  in  support  of  the  ERA  Framework  Impact  Assessment  on 
gathering an overview and analysis on the way research and research systems are regulated 
in  the  EU  Member  States,  with  members  of  the  ERAWATCH  NETWORK  ASBL,  22 
December 2011. 

Teichler,  U.,  (2011),  Future  Challenges  Facing  Europe's  Higher  Education  Systems  in  the 
21st  Century,  Keynote  Speech,  Seminar:  Youth  on  the  move:  Briefing  for  Journalists, 
European  Journalism  Centre,  European  University  Institute,  Badia  Fiesolana,  Italy,  08-  09 
May 2011. 

Tenopir, C. et al. (2009), Electronic Journals and changes in Scholarly Article Seeking and 
Reading Patterns, Aslib Proceedings New Information, Vol. 61 Iss: 1 pp. 5 – 32, USA, 2009, 
URL (accessed 16 April 2012),  

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=carol_tenopir 

EN 

145 

   EN 

 
The Economist (2011), Of goats and headaches, Online article on Academic Publishing, May 
26th 2011, URL (accessed 07 February 2012),  

http://www.economist.com/node/18744177  

The Evaluation Partnership (2010), Ex-post Impact Assessment study concerning the „Marie 
Curie Actions‟ under the Sixth Framework Programme, Final Report, Deliverable D6-2, for 
the European Commission Research Directorate General, 8 September 2010, URL (accessed 
07 February 2012), 

http://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/archive/other_reports_studies_and_documents/ex
-post_impact_assessment_of__marie_curie_actions_under_the_fp6.pdf  

Turner, L. (2006), Gender Diversity and Performance, In Women in Science and Technology - 
The Business Perspective, ed. European Commission, pp 69-80, URL (accessed 22 February 
2012), 

http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/pdf/wist_report_final_en.pdf 

UNESCO (2010), Science Report, The Current Status of Science around the World, Unesco 
Publishing, France, 2010, URL (accessed 07 February 2012),  

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001898/189883e.pdf  

Van de Sande et al., (2005), Impact assessment of the Marie Curie fellowships under the 4th 
and  5th  Framework  Programmes  of  Research  and  Technological  Development  of  the  EU 
(1994-2002), 
2012), 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp6/mariecurie-actions/pdf/impact_fellow_en.pdf  

(accessed 

February 

2005, 

URL 

June 

27 

Van Velzen, W. et al (2007), Independent External Review Report, European and Developing 
Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP Programme), Review conducted by the IER / 
EDCTP  Panel:  Wim  Van  Velzen  (Chair),  Adetokunbo  O.  Lucas,  Allyson  Pollock,  Jean 
Stéphenne  and  Fernand  Sauer  (Rapporteur),  URL  (accessed  27  February  2012), 
ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/docs/20070712-review-report-by-w-van-velzen.pdf 

Veugelers,  R.  (2011),  A  G2  for  Science?  Bruegel  Policy  Brief,  Issue  2011/03,  April  2011, 
URL (accessed 07 February 2012),  

http://www.bruegel.org/publications/publication-detail/publication/519-a-g2-for-science/  

VERA,  (2012),  ERA  Fabric  Map.  First  Edition.  FP7  SSH  project  "Forward  Visions  on  the 
European Research Area" URL (accessed 25 May 2012), 

http://ec.europa.eu/research/social-sciences/pdf/vera-era-project-report_en.pdf  

Yamanoi,  A.  (2005),  The  Academic  Marketplace  in  Japan:  Inbreeding,  Grades  and 
Organization  at  Research  Universities.  Higher  Education  Forum  3,  pp.  93-114,  URL 
(accessed 24 February 2012), 

http://en.rihe.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/news_topic.php?id=103 

EN 

146 

   EN