COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Union’s participation in the Active and Assisted Living (AAL) Research and Development Programme jointly undertaken by several Member States
Date: 2013-07-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU market, EU programme, industrial investment, information technology, innovation, population ageing, quality of life, research and development, small and medium-sized enterprises













EUR-Lex - 52013SC0252 - EN











|



52013SC0252

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Union’s participation in the Active and Assisted Living (AAL) Research and Development Programme jointly undertaken by several Member States /* SWD/2013/0252 final */









COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Accompanying the document
Proposal for a Decision of the
European Parliament and of the Council
on the Union’s participation in
the Active and Assisted Living (AAL) Research and Development Programme jointly
undertaken by several Member States
1.           Problem Definition
Demographic ageing is set to bring
about an imminent and significant change in society and the economy for which
the EU is not yet well prepared. Spiralling ageing-related costs for
governments are being compounded by missed or underexploited opportunities on
the growing markets for ICT-enabled products and services for active and
healthy ageing.
There are three main problems with these
markets. The first is low availability of innovative
ICT products and services, caused by EU market fragmentation. Secondly,
there is fragmentation of R&D and innovation at European level, with high
participation barriers for SMEs. The third problem stems
from limited adoption of innovation, related to a lack of evidence building
and sharing.
To tackle these problems, the current
Ambient Assisted Living Joint Programme (AAL JP) was established in 2008. It
comprises of 20 Member States and three countries associated to the Framework
Programme Seven (FP7) through which it is financed. It aimed to create a
critical mass of applied R&D and innovation (with a 2-3 year time to
market) for ICT-based products, services and systems for active and healthy
ageing at EU level. .
AAL solutions can help the elderly people
to adapt their personal lifestyle, health management, and workplace as they
grow older, so that they can participate in the economy and society for more
years, and live longer at home. 
Each AAL project involves at least three
countries, one SME, one research body and one organisation representing older
people. The application is organised at national level, which substantially
lowers the participation barrier for local organisations and SMEs. The current
AAL JP is financed by participating countries, the EU, and the participating
organisations (approximately 25 %, 25 % and 50 % respectively).
The current programme (2008 – 2013) has a minimum total public budget of € 300
million, of which up to € 150 million comes from the FP7, through Art. 185
of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
The interim evaluation (2010) concluded
that the AAL JP was successfully meeting its objectives. In February 2012 the
AAL JP General Assembly concluded that continuing the programme is of strategic
importance, also as a major contribution to the European Innovation Partnership
on Active and Healthy Ageing (EIP AHA). 
2.           Analysis of subsidiarity
A follow-up to the AAL JP would require the
preparation of a new co-decision by the European Parliament and the Council
under Art. 185 TFEU, to provide for continuity between the FP7/CIP and Horizon
2020 funding.
The follow-up programme
(AAL JP2) would respect the proportionality principle,
as the Member States themselves will be responsible for the strategic work
programme and all operational aspects. The Commission merely provides
incentives for improved coordination and ensures synergy with its other funding
activities in this field.
The budgetary impact and EU contribution to
this initiative are part of the Horizon 2020 proposal and budget. They will be
subject to the outcome of the H2020 decision and the financial commitments by
participating countries. The EU added value is evident given the problems:
fragmentation of the market and of research efforts, a lack of focus on
trans-EU deployment and a lack of a shared European vision on the markets for
ICT to assist active and healthy ageing. 
3.           Objectives
The general objectives of the follow-up programme
to the AAL JP are to improve conditions for EU competitiveness in ICT-based
products and services for active and healthy ageing; to contribute to sound
public finances and smart, sustainable and inclusive growth; to contribute to
increasing R&D spending to 3 % of GDP by 2020; and to focus future Union
funding programmes more on EU 2020 priorities by addressing societal
challenges, in particular health and demographic ageing.
The specific objectives are to improve the
quality of life of the elderly and their carers; to increase the sustainability
of care systems, by icrease the availability of ICT-based products and services
for active and healthy ageing; to create a critical mass of trans-European
research and innovation for ICT-based products and services, in particular
involving SMEs and users; and to maintain private investments and improve
industrial growth potential by providing a framework for European approaches
and solutions suited to varying national and regional social preferences and
complying with regulatory aspects.
4.           Policy Options
The following options have been considered
and have been assessed in detail:
·                        
Option 1 — AAL JP2 identical to AAL JP1
·                        
Option 2 — No AAL JP2
·                        
Option 3 — AAL JP2 as reinforced and improved
AAL JP1.
This
would give more attention to user involvement and to bringing the results of
applied research closer to the market. The scope of the Joint Programme would
be adapted to that of the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy
Ageing, changing the AAL JP into an Active and Assisted Living JP.
The following options have been considered
but discarded:
·                        
No EU financial commitment to the ICT and ageing
field
·                        
No EU financial commitment: just light
coordination
·                        
AAL JP2 combined with JPI ‘More Years, Better
Lives’
·                        
AAL JP2 combined with the follow-up Art. 185
EUROSTARs Initiative.
The first two options would severely limit
the development of the emerging EU AAL market. The last two options offer no
alternative for an applied research programme due to their nature and scope.
5.           Assessment of Impacts
The impacts were assessed from several
angles. The cost benefit comparison evaluated different scenarios. Option 2
would mean no coordination at European level for ICT innovation related to
active and healthy ageing and no contribution from the Member States. Under
this option, annual EC investments of € 23 million would leverage in total
some € 33 million. On the hand, under the Options 1 and 3 leverage of the
same EC investment would be much higher i.e. € 91 million.
The mix of project participants would be
most suitable under the Option 3 as it suggests more
than tripling the involvement of users or their organisations, which is needed according to the Interim Evaluation and
consultations. It would be two to three years under Option 1, whereas it would
be most likely higher under the Option 2. The Option 3 represents the shortest
time to market the project results, also because of the alignment with the EIP-AHA.
The main economic, social and environmental
impacts of the AAL JP2 would materialise the strongest under the Option 3. The governments
would benefit from cost effective ICT solutions which contribute to long term
sustainability of public finances. The programme is building a dedicated
community of researchers and supplier of the solutions. The end users would be
more involved leading to greater choice of the products. The synergies in the public health and safety would be best possible
through EIP AHA. Therefore, the number of Member States could grow and the
leveraged funding would be available for wider scope compared to Option 1. There
would be less travel of patients and carers under the Options 1 and 3 due to telemonitoring
solutions. 
6.           Comparison of Options
According to the comparisons of costs and
benefits, mix of the project participants, distance to the market of the
project results, impact on the EIP AHA, impacts on the objectives of the Option
3 is recommended as the preferred option. It would continue the good results of
the current AAL JP and would improve on them by following the recommendations
from the interim evaluation of 2010 and consultations, as well as by aligning
its scope with that of the EIP AHA.
7.           Monitoring and Evaluation
In 2017 a mid-term evaluation will be
carried out to evaluate the quality and efficiency of the implementation
process. The AAL JP2 would be monitored continuously by the AAL Association
(AALA) and annually by the European Commission. The monitoring results would be
reported to the Commission and the General Assembly of the AAL JP. Some of the
indicators to be used are the following:
·                        
Contribution of AAL JP2 projects to
implementation of the Strategic Implementation Plan of EIP-AHA;
·                        
Percentage of projects delivering new products,
systems and services on the market;
·                        
Number of participating Member States, number of
participants in the AAL JP2 and annual AAL JP Forum;
·                        
Number of Member States able to fund all types
of participants, including organisations representing end-users and service
providers;
·                        
Amount of evidence on cost-saving measures due
to the use of ICT for active and healthy ageing.