COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the participation of the Union in the Partnership for Research and Innovation in the Mediterranean Area (PRIMA) jointly undertaken by several Member States
Date: 2016-10-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, Framework Programme for Research and Development, Mediterranean region (EU), Mediterranean third countries, Union for the Mediterranean, food policy, innovation, research and development, scientific cooperation, water resources

0. 

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 18.10.2016  SWD(2016) 332 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  IMPACT ASSESSMENT  Accompanying the document Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the participation of the Union in the Partnership for Research and Innovation in the Mediterranean Area (PRIMA) jointly undertaken by several Member States {COM(2016) 662 final} {SWD(2016) 331 final}  
 
 
Table of Contents 

0. 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

1.3. 

1.4. 

1.5. 

1.6. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3. 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

4.3. 

4.4. 

5. 

5.1. 

5.2. 

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 4 

Section 1. Problem definition and drivers ....................................................................... 11 

The problem ........................................................................................................................ 11 

The drivers ........................................................................................................................... 12 

Who is affected by the problem........................................................................................... 17 

EU dimension of the problem ............................................................................................. 17 

How would the problem evolve, all things being equal? .................................................... 18 

Fitness check /retrospective evaluation ............................................................................... 19 

Section 2. Why should the EU act? .................................................................................. 20 

EU right to act ..................................................................................................................... 20 

Why could Member States not achieve the objectives of the proposed action sufficiently by 
themselves? ......................................................................................................................... 21 

What would be the added-value of action at EU-level? ...................................................... 22 

Section 3. What should be achieved? ............................................................................... 24 

Policy Objectives ................................................................................................................. 24 

Specific Objectives .............................................................................................................. 24 

Consistency with other EU policies .................................................................................... 25 

Section 4. What are the different options to achieve the objectives? ............................ 27 

Analysis of the possible options .......................................................................................... 27 

Options discarded at an early stage ..................................................................................... 27 

Retained policy options ....................................................................................................... 28 

Stakeholders targeted by the different policy options ......................................................... 36 

 Section 5. What are the impacts of the different policy options and who will be 
affected? ............................................................................................................................. 37 

Likely economic, social and environmental impacts of each of the short-listed options .... 37 

Direct impacts...................................................................................................................... 37 

5.2.1. 

5.2.2. 

Rapid integration of national R&I programmes and activities in the Mediterranean area .. 37 

 Efficient and effective delivery of fully piloted and demonstrated, common innovative, 
integrated solutions for the sustainable management of water provision and food systems 39 

5.2.3. 

Greater opportunities for food industry and other SMEs and other companies .................. 39 

 
 
 
 
 
5.3. 

5.3.1. 

5.3.2. 

5.3.3. 

5.3.4. 

5.3.5. 

5.4. 

5.5. 

5.5.1. 

5.6. 

6. 

6.1. 

6.2. 

6.3. 

6.4. 

6.5. 

7. 

7.1. 

7.1.1. 

7.1.2. 

7.2. 

7.3. 

Indirect impact ..................................................................................................................... 40 

Large-scale aggregate economic impacts ............................................................................ 40 

Improved livelihoods for farmers ........................................................................................ 42 

Improved nutrition and health for the people of the Mediterranean area ............................ 43 

Greater political stability and reduced internal and external migration .............................. 43 

Large-scale environmental impacts ..................................................................................... 44 

Budgetary impacts ............................................................................................................... 45 

Affected actors, measures to comply with requirements, and potential obstacles .............. 48 

Assessment of capability and expected contribution of third countries not associated to 
Horizon 2020 in relation to the conditions to be met by Participating States in PRIMA 
under Option 2 (Article 185 TFEU) .................................................................................... 49 

Impacts likely to change over time ...................................................................................... 54 

Section 6. How do the options compare? ......................................................................... 55 

Compare the options ............................................................................................................ 55 

Highlight the trade-offs and synergies associated with each option.................................... 57 

The likely uncertainty in the key findings and conclusions and how these might affect the 
choice of preferred option ................................................................................................... 57 

Preferred policy option ........................................................................................................ 57 

Conformity to principles of subsidiarity and proportionality .............................................. 58 

Section 7. Monitoring and evaluation of impacts ........................................................... 59 

Plan for future monitoring and evaluation ........................................................................... 59 

Core monitoring indicators for the main policy objectives ................................................. 59 

Verification of monitoring arrangements ............................................................................ 63 

Monitoring and feedback process of Article 185 ................................................................ 63 

Monitoring and audit mechanisms ...................................................................................... 63 

Annexes ................................................................................................................................................ 65 

Annex 1: Procedural information ...................................................................................................... 65 

1.1. 

Identification ....................................................................................................................... 65 

1.2.  Organisation and timing ..................................................................................................... 65 

1.3.  Evidence .............................................................................................................................. 67 

1.4.  External expertise ................................................................................................................ 67 

 
 
 
 
Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation – Synopsis Report ...................................................................... 69 

2.1.  Stakeholder consultation strategy ....................................................................................... 69 

2.2.  The questionnaire ................................................................................................................ 70 

2.3.  Feedback and analysis ........................................................................................................ 70 

2.4.  Stakeholder profile .............................................................................................................. 71 

2.5.  Problem definition ............................................................................................................... 72 

2.6.  Core objectives .................................................................................................................... 72 

2.7.  R&I priorities ...................................................................................................................... 72 

2.8.  Actions ................................................................................................................................. 73 

2.9. 

Impacts ................................................................................................................................ 73 

2.10. 

Policy options ................................................................................................................ 74 

Annex 3: Socio-economic outlook of the Mediterranean region ....................................................... 76 

3.1. 

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 76 

3.2.  EU vs. non-EU countries ..................................................................................................... 76 

3.3.  Population: density and migration ...................................................................................... 77 

3.4.  GDP ..................................................................................................................................... 79 

3.5.  Unemployment ..................................................................................................................... 81 

3.6.  Governance ......................................................................................................................... 82 

3.7.  Competitiveness ................................................................................................................... 82 

3.8.  Trade ................................................................................................................................... 83 

3.9. 

Inequality ............................................................................................................................. 84 

Annex 4: Mapping of on-going programmes in areas to be addressed by the PRIMA Joint 

Programme (other than Horizon 2020) ............................................................................... 85 

Annex 5 : Analysis of FP7 Projects in the Themes of the PRIMA Operational Objectives ............... 89 

5.1. 

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 89 

5.2. 

Investment in FP7 PRIMA related projects ......................................................................... 90 

5.3.  Participation of non-EU Mediterranean Countries in PRIMA-related FP7 projects ......... 90 

5.4.  List of projects per Operational Objective .......................................................................... 91 

Annex 6: Screening of the options ..................................................................................................... 96 

Annex 7: Who is affected by the initative and how ............................................................................ 98 

Annex 8: Synergies .......................................................................................................................... 102 

Annex 9: EU Relationships in R&I with Non-EU PRIMA Participating States .............................. 106 

Annex 10: Analytical models used in preparing the impact assessment ......................................... 108 

 
 
 
0. 

Introduction 

Water provision and food systems in the Mediterranean area are unsustainably managed 

The sustainable management of water provision and food systems  constitutes a key challenge 
for  the  Mediterranean  area,  which  is  generally characterised  by  high  levels  of  hydric  stress  as  no 
less than 180 million people in the region are considered 'water poor'. 

This challenge is being exacerbated by climate change 

Climate change is increasingly causing severe water shortages in the region, with major impacts on 
agriculture, since most of the water available in the region is used for irrigation, thus resulting in 
decreasing and irregular crop yields. This puts additional pressure on the natural resources of this 
area, such as land, water and biodiversity, and on the capacity of countries to provide clean water 
and affordable food to their inhabitants. 

This challenge has important societal impacts including instability and external migration 

As  a  result,  important  downstream  effects  occur  in  society,  affecting  negatively  nutrition,  health, 
livelihoods  and  standards  of  living,  and  levels  of  wellbeing.  This  social  and  economic  stress,  in 
turn,  constitutes  a  key  cause  of  instability  and  becomes  a  cause  of  migration,  both  internally, 
leading numerous farm families to move to cities and, externally, driving part of the population to 
migrate in particular towards Europe. 

  Mediterranean countries account for 7% of the world population and 10% of world GDP12. 
  Water crises constitute the number one risk that could undermine economic growth, impacting 

upon several countries or industries within the next 10 years3. 

  A recent World Bank report highlights that the Middle-East and Northern Africa regions could 
see their growth rates  decline by as much as  6%  of GDP by 2050 as a result of water-related 
losses in agriculture, health, income, and property4. 

  The EU absorbs 50% of the agricultural and agro-food exports from the Southern and Eastern 

Mediterranean Countries while it accounts for 38% of their agro-food imports5. 

Migration is high on the agenda of the EU 

There can be no doubt that Europe is confronted with its largest refugee crisis in recent history. In 
2015, the number of irregular migrant sea arrivals in Europe was almost five times the number of 
2014, increasing from 215,000 to around 990,000. It is estimated that around 3,500 people died in 
2014 and 3,700 in 2015 attempting to cross into Europe6. 

On  7  June  2016,  the  Commission  adopted  a  Communication  on  establishing  a  new  Partnership 
Framework with third countries under the European Agenda on Migration (COM(2016)385 final), 
which  describes  the  challenge  as  follows:  "Despite  increased  efforts  by  the  EU,  deaths  in  the 
Mediterranean  Sea  occur  on  a  daily  basis.  Europe  is  currently  experiencing  unprecedented 
migratory  flows,  driven  by  geopolitical  and  economic  factors  that  will  continue,  and  maybe 

1 Litus Advisory / Alma Economics (2016) Mediterranean Growth Initiative 
2 See Annex 3 
3 World Economic Forum (2015) Global Risks 
4 World Bank(2016) High and Dry: Climate Change, Water, and the Economy 
5 PRIMA Joint Programme Proposal (2014) 
6 Litus Advisory / Alma Economics (2016) Mediterranean Growth Initiative 

4 

 
 
 
                                                            
intensify,  over  the  coming  years  and  indeed  it  is  a  global  challenge  with  more  than  60  million 
displaced persons worldwide. They are fuelled by unscrupulous smugglers who seek to benefit from 
the desperation of the vulnerable. Europe is duty bound to respond; to address the fate of migrants 
and  refugees;  to  show  its  citizens  that  migration,  including  on  the  scale  we  see  today,  can  be 
managed in  a sustainable way. […  ] Since  the adoption of the European Agenda on Migration a 
year ago, much has been done, not least beyond the EU's borders. […] However, much more needs 
to be done. The EU is still faced with a humanitarian crisis. Third countries and EU partners are 
housing  millions  of  refugees,  many  of  them  unaccompanied  minors,  forced  to  leave  their  homes, 
and  economic  migrants  who  aspire  to  come  to  Europe.  Reports  suggest  that  there  are  tens  of 
thousands of migrants in Libya today, looking for ways to enter the EU, with the number of arrivals 
increasing every day". 

The  Communication  proposes  a  comprehensive  response  to  the  refugee  crisis:  "To  respond  in  a 
meaningful way, the EU must use all means available and set itself clear priorities and measurable 
objectives". On the one hand, "development and neighbourhood policy tools should reinforce local 
capacity-building,  including  for  border  control,  asylum,  counter-smuggling  and  reintegration 
efforts".  On  the  other  hand,  "in  parallel,  work  is  needed  to  tackle  the  root  causes  of  irregular 
migration and forced displacement by applying sustained, medium and long term policies and to 
better use existing processes and programmes". 

With  respect  to  tackling  the  root  causes  of  irregular  migration  and  forced  displacement,  the 
Communication  presents  many  very  concrete  ways  forward.  The  Communication  states,  for 
instance, 
including  education,  research,  climate  change,  energy, 
environment, agriculture, should in principle be part of a package, bringing maximum leverage to 
the discussion".  

that  "all  EU  policies 

The PRIMA Joint Programme is of key importance for addressing the migration challenge 

By delivering common innovative solutions for the sustainable management of water provision and 
food  systems  that  are  adapted  to  the  realities  of  the  region  and  are  easily  transferable  across  it, 
notably by focusing on the development of close-to-market pilots and demonstrators, the PRIMA 
Joint Programme is ideally situated to address some of the root causes of migration, one of the 
work  streams  put  on  the  agenda  by  the  Communication.  The  PRIMA  joint  programme  is  also 
clearly  situated  at  the  interchange  between  research,  climate  change,  environment  and  agriculture 
policies,  again  fully  in  line  with  the  logic  proposed  by  the  Communication.  Finally,  the  PRIMA 
Joint  Programme  constitutes  a  prime  example  of  the  new  development  cooperation  model 
championed by the Commission insofar as it involves private investors, leverages limited budget 
resources, and focuses on SMEs and sustainable infrastructure. 

Coherence between PRIMA's thematic focus and related institutional drivers 

The PRIMA Joint Programme fits into an institutional context which, at the highest political level, 
highlighted  the  need  to  strengthen  EU  cooperation  with  Southern  Mediterranean  Countries  in  the 
key sectors of water resources and food systems and related areas. 

PRIMA  anchors  key  regional  challenges  in  research  and  innovation  (R&I)  with  broader  socio-
economic  and  geopolitical  objectives.  Recent  relevant  institutional  actions  in  policies  of  the  EU 
other than R&I are described below. 

Water diplomacy (Foreign Affairs Council Conclusions dated 22 July 2013) 

The effects of climate change and demographic and economic development coupled with stress on 
water  quality,  availability  and  management  represent  existing  major  security  challenges  that  are 
likely to give rise to tension and conflict over access to water over the next decade. 

5 

 
In  this  context,  the  EU's  role  in  promoting  water  diplomacy  across  the  world  and  more 
specifically  in  trans-boundary  waters  in  Europe  is  recognised  as  highly  important,  including  by 
promoting water initiatives with countries in the EU Neighbourhood and other countries identified 
in the EU water security mapping.   

Review  of  the  European  Neighbourhood  Policy  (Foreign  Affairs  Council  Conclusions  dated  14 
December 2015) 

The  Council  welcomed  the  Review  of  the  European  Neighbourhood  Policy  as  a  key  political 
priority  for  the  EU  in  coming  years.  This  include  the  crucial  role  of  R&I  for  socio-economic 
development in the neighbourhood, while assisting in modernising and diversifying economies in 
Neighbourhood Countries by facilitating increased participation in EU Initiatives. The Council also 
embraces the approach towards differentiation and greater mutual ownership which recognises that 
not all neighbourhood partners aspire to the degree of closeness with the EU. This is reflected in the 
willingness of Neighbourhood Countries in aligning policies with and committing to the EU in joint 
actions such as PRIMA.   

Sustainable Development Goals (Foreign Affairs Council Conclusions dated 26 May 2015) 

Reference is made to the commitment in Horizon 2020 to support  sustainable development both 
within the EU and in cooperation with international partners as well as the need to foster science, 
technology  and  innovation  as  part  of  the  overall  approach  towards  poverty  eradication  and 
sustainable development post-2015. 

Migration (Foreign Affairs Council Conclusions dated 12 October 2015 and 17-18 March 2016) 

The conclusions acknowledge that the migration crisis within and beyond the EU neighbourhood is 
exacerbated by poverty, poor socio-economic development in addition to violations of human rights 
and call for a strong EU external migration and asylum policy. In addition the Council renewed its 
commitment  to  mobilise  all  instruments  and  policies  to  support  efforts  to  address  the  root 
causes  of  migratory  flows,  poor  socio-economic  conditions  and  climate  change.  While  the 
conclusions  do  not  directly  imply  actions  in  R&I,  it  refers  to  key  pressures  on  Neighbourhood 
countries  particularly,  Jordan,  Lebanon,  Turkey  and  Iraq  and  countries  hosting  the  majority  of 
Syrian and Iraqi refugees.   

European climate diplomacy after COP21 (Foreign Affairs Council Conclusions dated 15 February 
2016) 

In  the  overall  context  of  climate  diplomacy  the  Council  refers  to  the  development  of  a  climate 
diplomacy action plan, including efforts to address the nexus of climate change, natural resources, 
including water, prosperity, stability and migration. 

Institutional background 

The  initial  institutional  thrust  that  led  to  the  PRIMA  Joint  Programme  is  attributed  to  the  Euro-
Mediterranean Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation held in Barcelona in 2012 
with the aim of strengthen Euro-Mediterranean cooperation in R&I as part of the broader objectives 
of  the  Union's  external  policy  towards  the  Southern  Neighbourhood,  which  was  in  the  midst  of 
events in the region, then referred to as the Arab Spring. The conference,  which was attended by 
some  350  high-level  scientists  and  policy  makers  from  more  than  30  countries,  concluded  that 
European and Mediterranean countries needed to establish a true partnership at a regional scale to 
address  key  common  challenges,  including  water  availability  and  management,  innovation  and 
institutional  coordination  across  the  Mediterranean  on  the  basis  of  co-ownership,  mutual  interest 
and  shared  benefit.  Euro-Mediterranean  cooperation  would  be  stepped  up  with  a  view  to 
establishing  long-lasting,  sustainable  and  structuring  coordination  mechanisms  between  the 

6 

 
EU,  its  Member  States  and  Mediterranean  countries,  such  as  through  an  initiative  pursuant  to 
Article 185 TFEU. 

As a result this process was pursued during successive Council Presidencies, including during the 
Nicosia informal Competitiveness Council in July 2012, which launched the preparation of PRIMA 
and led to the selection by participating Member States and Southern Mediterranean Countries of a 
focus  on  water  availability  and  management,  and  its  implications  on  food  systems.  The 
informal  Competitiveness  Council  held  in  Athens  on  13  May  2014  and  the  Competitiveness 
Council held in Brussels on 26 May 2014 both confirmed a broad political support for strengthening 
Euro-Mediterranean cooperation with the proviso that appropriate instruments would be established 
for this purpose. The Italian Presidency of the Council made PRIMA a priority and secured long-
term financial commitments by the countries participating to PRIMA.  
Finally,  the  Competitiveness  Council  of  5  December  20147  invited  the  Commission  to  assess 
whether the participation of the Union in the PRIMA Joint Programme on the basis of Article 185 
TFEU  would  be  justified  by  the  scope  of  the  objectives  pursued  and  the  scale  of  the  resources 
required.  In  its  Conclusions,  the  Council  welcomed  in  particular  the  focus  of  the  PRIMA  Joint 
Programme  on  developing  and  implementing  innovative  and  integrated  solutions  for  the 
sustainable management of water provision and food systems in the Mediterranean area. The 
Council regarded this as a priority challenge to be tackled in order to improve the health, well-being 
and socio-cultural conditions of the populations of the Mediterranean Area and to boost economic 
growth. 
Therefore, on 23 December 2014, Member States8 and third countries of the Mediterranean Area 
invited  the  Commission  to  participate  in  a  Joint  Programme9  initiative  called  "Partnership  for 
Research and Innovation in the Mediterranean Area" (PRIMA), based on Article 185 of the Treaty 
on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union  (TFEU)10,  and  focused  on  the  development  and 
adoption of innovative integrated solutions for improving the efficiency, safety, security and 
sustainability of water provision and food systems in the Mediterranean area. 

Subsequent  to  these  Competitiveness  Council  conclusions  and  the  formal  submission  of  the 
proposal  for  the  PRIMA  Joint  Programme,  Commissioner  for  Research,  Science  and  Innovation 
Carlos  Moedas  asked  the  Commission  services  to  commence  the  preparation  of  an  impact 
assessment  on  available  policy  options  to  tackle  the  aforementioned  challenge  including  an 
initiative based on Article 185 TFEU. 

On  29  February  2016, an  Addendum11  to  the  PRIMA  proposal  providing  further  information  and 
clarifications on the initiative was received by the Commission from the PRIMA Joint Programme. 
On  15  June  2016,  details  were  received  by  the  Commission  from  the  PRIMA  Joint  Programme 
concerning  the  foreseen  Dedicated  Implementation  Structure  (DIS)  as  well  as  their  choice  of  a 
central grant management system. 

Geographical scope 

According to the information included in the PRIMA Proposal (2014) and its Addendum (2016), 
19 countries are involved in the PRIMA Joint Programme:  

7 http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-16421-2014-INIT/en/pdf 
8 Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, France, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain 
9 http://www.unisi.it/sites/default/files/allegatiparagrafo/PRIMA_0.pdf 
10 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:12012E/TXT&from=EN  
11 https://ec.europa.eu/research/environment/pdf/prima/prima_proposal_addendum.pdf 

7 

 
                                                            
  11 Member States: Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, France, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, 

Portugal, Slovenia and Spain; 

  3 third countries associated to Horizon 2020: Israel, Tunisia and Turkey; and 
  5 third countries not associated to Horizon 2020: Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Morocco.  

Among these countries, 14 countries (Cyprus, Czech Republic, Egypt, France, Greece, Israel, Italy, 
Lebanon,  Luxembourg,  Malta,  Morocco,  Portugal,  Spain  and  Tunisia)  have  agreed  to  jointly 
undertake the PRIMA initiative by committing ex-ante 200 million EUR in cash12 over a 10 year 
period13 starting in 2018 (see Table 1). 

The other 5 countries (Algeria, Croatia, Jordan, Slovenia, and Turkey) are expected to contribute to 
the PRIMA initiative as observers (see Figure 1). 

Participating State 

Cash (M EUR) 

In-kind (M EUR) 

Duration (Year) 

Italy 

Czech Republic 

France 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Morocco 

Portugal 

Spain 

Cyprus 

Egypt 

Greece 

Israel 

Lebanon 

Tunisia 

TOTAL 

50 

10 

40 

1.5 

5 

20 

2.5 

30 

2 

15 

5 

5 

4 

10 

200 

50 

10 

40 

1.5 

20 

3 

5 

2 

131.5 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

5 

10 

10 

10 

10 

5 

10 

10 

Table 1: Institutional level: financial commitment by Participating States (Ministries). 

It  is  important  to  distinguish  considerations  relating  to  the  geographical  scope  of  PRIMA  Joint 
Programme,  as  an  initiative  promoting  a  partnership  for  R&I  in  the  Mediterranean  Area  in  the 
domain of water provision and food systems, and the voluntary adhesion of Participating States (of 
which  9  are  MS,  2  are  countries  associated  to  Horizon  2020  and  3  are  third  countries  in  the 
Southern  Mediterranean  -  see  Table  1)  to  pool  national  resources  into  a  joint  programming 
proposal as submitted to the Commission in order to assess the Union's participation therein.  

Indeed, the PRIMA Joint Programme was subscribed to by a number of Participating States, which 
includes  countries  outside  the  EU,  and  with  whom  the  EU  cooperates  closely  in  many  domains 
including  R&I. In  this context, the Commission's role is to assess the Union's participation in the 
joint programme prepared by all of the Participating States. 

12 According to Article 26 of the Regulation establishing Regulation Horizon 2020  - the Framework Programme for Research and 
Innovation  (2014-2020),  only  the  indicative  financial  commitments  have  to  be  identified  for  programmes  undertaken  by  several 
Member States in accordance with Article 185 TFEU. 
13 With the exception of Portugal and Israel that committed for five years and to revise their initial figures for the following five years 
according to the progress of the PRIMA initiative. 

8 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
                                                            
This  approach  follows  closely  the  EU  strategy  for  research  and  innovation  cooperation14  which 
promotes  bi-regional  cooperation  with  Neighbourhood  Countries  to  establish  regional-specific 
strategic approaches that maximise R&I impact by enhancing regional cooperation in key sectors of 
mutual  interest.  This  is  why  it  is  important  to  target  these  countries.  Also,  as  mentioned  in  the 
Communication, region-specific actions serve the broader objectives of the Union's external policies. 

The participation of EU Member States in the PRIMA Joint Programme is driven by the common 
challenge of climate change (with a migration as a consequence) that is affecting the Mediterranean 
area. Water stress affects one third of the EU territory all year round15. During summer months 
water scarcity is more pronounced in Southern European basins but is also becoming increasingly 
important  in  Northern  basins,  including  UK  and  Germany.  Water  is  already  becoming  a  tangible 
problem in Southern Spain, Italy, Southern France, Greece or EU islands like Malta or Cyprus.  

EU Member States have been carrying out R&I activities in the field of water provision and food 
systems,  improving  their  overall  innovation  capacity.  Sharing  knowledge  with  Southern 
Mediterranean  third  countries  would  allow  adapting  the  developed  innovation  to  the  anticipated 
impacts of climate change that third countries are experiencing with greater severity. In this sense, 
EU could act as a living lab for testing innovative solutions. 

EU MSs participating in PRIMA are also involved in bilateral cooperation activities in the field of 
research and science with many of the Southern Mediterranean third countries.  

On the other hand, the participation of Southern Mediterranean third countries to the PRIMA 
Joint  Programme  is  key  towards  addressing  the  region-wide  challenges  associated  with  the 
unsustainable management of water provision and the agri-food value chain. The inclusion of third 
countries in the PRIMA Joint Programme is particularly crucial for the following reasons: 

  R&I  activities  cannot  be  implemented  without  fully  mobilising  and  involving  local 

 

 

knowledge and expertise; 
the  results  achieved  through  these  R&I  activities  cannot  be  quickly  disseminated  and 
valorised into new products, processes and services if local stakeholders are not involved; 
third country governments should be involved so that they can adapt their domestic research 
and innovation programmes and take account of results in the design of new policies. 

It is important to point out that the research expertise of third countries is of high level and relevant 
for achieving the critical mass. On this basis, the largest possible scale comprising all countries in 
the Mediterranean area is considered to benefit the PRIMA Joint Programme and its scope both in 
water and food policy coordination and in market-related technology transfer opportunities. This is 
also relevant to broader objectives of the PRIMA Joint Programme relating to addressing long-term 
impacts of migration into the EU.  

It  has  to  be  noted  that  adhesion  to  the  PRIMA  Joint  Programme  by  Participating  States  is  on  a 
voluntary basis and is not driven by the EU as such. Thus, while Algeria, Turkey and Jordan were 
closely associated with the preparation of the PRIMA Joint Programme, at the time of submitting 
the proposal, these countries chose to keep observer status without participation in the programme. 
Of the remaining countries in the region, only Libya and Syria have not engaged in PRIMA Joint 
Programme as a result of political and security crises. 

The  PRIMA  model  of  partnership  based  on  equal  footing  among  participant  states  has  the 
potential  to increase  third counties buy-in  of public and private stakeholders, foster scientific and 

14  Communication  from  the  Commission  –  Enhancing  and  focusing  EU  international  cooperation  in  research  and  innovation:  A 
strategic approach (COM(2012)497final) 
15  Report  on 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/quantity/pdf/COM-2012-672final-EN.pdf  

the  European  Water  Scarcity  and  Droughts  Policy,  COM(2012)  672 

the  Review  of 

final 

- 

9 

 
                                                            
diplomatic  links  among  participants  (science  diplomacy),  scale  up  the  deployment  of  potential  of 
innovative solutions, thus expanding and integrating national R&I investments. 

Region-specific challenges leading to geographical scope of PRIMA 
A  succession  of  joint  EU-MED  initiatives  and  EU  funded  projects16  have  shaped  regional 
cooperation  and  led  to  identification  of  region-specific  challenges  in  the  areas  addressed  by 
PRIMA. These are summarised below: 

  Poor governance of water for planning and adaptation to global changes, including lack of 

engagement of stakeholders; 

  Non equitable water allocation and unsustainable water management; 
  Poor holistic vision of water resources; 
  Need  to  increase  competitiveness  of  research  in  water  quantity  management,  water  use 

efficiency as well as management of non-conventional waters; 

  Unsustainable food production – ecosystem and nutrition; 
  Need to develop smart rural arid and semi-arid areas17 (and to develop innovative adaptation 

solutions). 

Figure 1: PRIMA Size and Scale 

External expertise and consultation  

In the context of the preparation of the impact assessment, a Group of External Experts (Expert 
Group)  was  set  up  in  October  2016  composed  of  9  experts  coming  from  Mediterranean  and  non-
Mediterranean Member States and third countries (see Annex 1). The findings of the Expert Group 
report  were  cross-verified  with  findings  from  other  sources  (e.g.  literature  review  carried  out  by 
Commission  services,  results  of  the  online  public  consultation)  and  duly  taken  account  of  in  the 
elaboration of the impact assessment. 

For  the  consultation  strategy,  an  online  Public  Consultation  was  launched  on  1  February  2016, 
closing  on  24  April  2016,  and  was  complemented  by  dedicated  events,  in  particular  a  'Public 
Consultation Stakeholder Event' in Malta on 17 March (see Annex 2). 

16 [instert' MIRA 2009-2011, CRIA 2012, CIHEAM, 2012] 
17 MED-SPRING, 2014 – ongoing, quoting European Commission, 2012, CRIA, 2012, MIRA, 2009-2011. 

10 

 
 
 
                                                            
1.  Section 1. Problem definition and drivers  

1.1.  The problem  

As  already  mentioned  in  the  introduction  above,  water  provision  and  food  systems  in  the 
Mediterranean  area  are  unsustainably  managed.  This  challenge  is  exacerbated  by  climate  change 
and has important downstream societal impacts including instability and external migration. 

The  unsustainable  management  of  water  provision  and  food  systems  in  the  Mediterranean 
area  is  due  to  a  number  of  factors  including  political  instability,  climate  change,  and  the  rapidly 
growing population. 

A key reason, however, is the lack of a set of common innovative solutions that are adapted to 
the  realities  of  the  region  and  easily  transferable  across  it,  and  have  been  fully  piloted  and 
demonstrated on the ground. 

These  solutions  are  not  forthcoming  because  the  overall  level  of  R&I  investment  in  the 
Mediterranean is not commensurate with the size of the regional challenge; investment levels also 
differ  greatly  between  countries.  Funding  is  not  well  focused  on  addressing  the  water  and  food 
challenge, and the relevant stakeholders involved – for instance, private sector ones – do not always 
have  sufficiently  strong  R&I  capabilities.  Finally,  the  R&I  and  collaboration  efforts  between  EU 
Member  States  and  Southern  and  Eastern  Mediterranean  countries  are  too  fragmented  (mostly 
governed by bilateral agreements) to have any significant impact. 

The challenge of unsustainably managed water provision and food systems is complex because of 
the interrelation between water and food and because of its cross-sectoral and transnational nature. 
Addressing the challenge requires trans-disciplinary research and integrated solutions that take into 
account not only innovation per se but also other factors such as the technology adoption behaviour 
of rural communities, economic constraints, or the legally and institutionally stable frameworks that 
may favour the adoption of the most appropriate measures18,19. 

- The World Bank estimates that by 2025 climate change will be responsible for shortfalls in  crop yields 
and water availability that will affect 1.4 billion people worldwide. Unless some significant technological 
break-through  occurs,  water  shortages  will  have  a  major  impact  on  agriculture,  especially  in  those 
countries, like in the Mediterranean region, where most of the available water is used for irrigation, placing 
additional pressures on the natural resources of this region, such as land, water, and biodiversity, and on the 
capacity of countries to provide affordable food and good quality water to their inhabitants. 
- The 2011/2012 EU Development Report (ERD) "Confronting scarcity: Managing water, energy and land 
for  inclusive  and  sustainable  growth"20  calls  for  public  support  for  research  on  innovative  technological 
solutions  to  address  the  sustainable  management  of  water,  energy  and  land  in  developing  countries21, 
including Southern-eastern Mediterranean Countries. 
-  In  the  Mediterranean  area,  the  competition  for  water  use  between  agriculture,  drinking  water  and  other 
uses,  such  as  tourism-related  activities,  becomes  increasingly  severe.  Water  used  for  irrigation  represents 

18 Chartzoulakis, K. and Bertaki, M. (2015) op.cit. 
19  See  for  instance  the  recommendations  from  a  historical  analysis  made  by  Bru,  C.  and  Cabrera  (2010)  "Agua,  historia  y 
sostenibilidad, un trinomio complejo de armonizar en los países mediterraneos", in Cabrera, E. and Arregui, F. (Ed.) La ingeniería y 
la gestión del agua a través de los tiempos. Aprendiendo de la historia. ITA-Aqualia, pp.210-241. McKinsey also calls for engaging 
on  regulation  with  participation  of  stakeholders,  in  order  "shape  the  sector’s  economics,  separating  winners  from  losers".  See: 
Boccaletti, G.; Grobbel, M. and Stuchtey, M. R. (2009) "The business opportunity in water conservation", in McKinsey Quarterly, 
December  2009  (http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability-and-resource-productivity/our-insights/the-business-
opportunity-in-water-conservation).  
20 Overseas Development Institute et al. (2012) Confronting scarcity: Managing water, energy and land for inclusive and sustainable 
growth. Luxembourg, OPOCE, at: https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/consca-report-erd-2011_en.pdf  
21According  to  the  Better  regulation  Toolbox,  Tool  #30,  the  reference  list  of  developing  countries  can  be  found  in  IMF 
(https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2011/02/pdf/tables.pdf)  and  World  Bank 
(http://data.worldbank.org/region/MNA) 
websites. 

11 

 
                                                            
60%  of  the  total  water  quantities  used  for  human  related  activities  in  the  Mediterranean  area,  and  this 
percentage extends to more than 80% of total water use in Morocco, Greece, Egypt, Cyprus, Tunisia and 
Turkey22.  
- Mediterranean countries have a strong and growing interest in agro-food, a basic sector identified as one 
of the major contributors to the region's ecological footprint. The Mediterranean region uses two and a half 
times  more  natural  resources  than  what  its  ecosystems  can  provide.  Therefore,  promoting  innovation  and 
knowledge creation across all of the agro-food related sectors, and along the whole food supply chain, can 
be  considered  as  a  crucial  factor  for  Mediterranean  economies  in  need  of  new  and  more  sustainable 
production processes and business opportunities23. 

Existing  R&I  systems  and  investments  in  the  Mediterranean  area  are  fragmented,  and  not 
commensurate and adequately integrated to cope efficiently and effectively with the complexity 
and  the  size  of  the  regional  the  challenge,  and  to  deliver  the  urgently  needed  innovative  and 
integrated  solutions  for  the  sustainable  management  of  water  provision  and  food  systems. 
Concretely, there is a lack of common innovative solutions fully piloted and demonstrated on the 
ground, adapted to the realities of the region, and easily transferable across it. 

Stakeholders responding to the online public consultation organised by the Commission agreed that 
the  difficulty  involved  in  implementing  innovative  solutions  related  to  insufficient  cooperation 
between  countries  and  actors  is  the  most  urgent  issue  for  R&I  in  the  Mediterranean  area.  More 
funding  for  R&I  is  also  called  for,  though  slightly  less  critical.  Respondents  called  for  more 
synergies  among  actors  and  countries  and  put  particular  emphasis  on  the  importance  of  raising 
awareness about issues related to climate change. 

1.2.  The drivers 

The drivers behind the inadequacy of R&I systems in the Mediterranean area to deliver the needed 
innovative  and  integrated  solutions  for  the  sustainable  management  of  water  provision  and  food 
systems are as follows: 

Uneven R&I resources in the Mediterranean countries 
For instance, average R&D intensities in the region are extremely low: 1.29% for the EU Member 
States  participating  in  the  PRIMA  Joint  Programme  (compared  to  2%  for  the  Member  States 
overall)  and  0.54%  for  the  Southern  and  Eastern  Mediterranean  countries  (excluding  Israel,  for 
which the R&D intensity is 4.21%)24. 

Limited coordination of R&I policy programming between Mediterranean countries 
For  instance,  in  the  field  of  water  and  food,  more  than  17  different  bilateral  and  11 transnational 
R&I  collaboration  programmes  have  been  identified  as  being  in  operation  in  the  region  in  a  not 
well-coordinated manner. 

Lack of long-term strategic R&I agenda and multi-stakeholder governance 
For  instance,  though  of  key  importance  for  the  rapid  dissemination  and  valorisation  of  research 
results, less than 10% of research activities in the Mediterranean region are carried out by private 
actors25. 

22 FAO, Aquastat database. 
23  Global  Footprint  Network  Rapport  (http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/):  "How  can  Mediterranean  societies 
thrive in an era of decreasing resources?" 
24 PRIMA Expert Group 
25 Promoting Innovation in the Mediterranean – Profiles and expectations of business incubators, technology parks and technology 
transfer offices, study No. 63, November 2012. This study covers Cyprus, France, Greece, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Spain, Algeria, 
Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Tunisia, and Turkey with a focus on Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Palestine, 
and Tunisia.  (http://www.animaweb.org/sites/default/files/ain_cmi_it1_promoting_innovation_en_2012.pdf). 

12 

 
 
                                                            
Stakeholders responding to the online public consultation organised by the Commission recognised 
the  importance  of  addressing  as  main  drivers  of  the  problem:  (i)  the  lack  of  coordination  and 
cooperation  between  Mediterranean  countries  and  research  organisations  and  the  duplication  of 
research efforts (64.1% of replies); (ii) the lack of cooperation between academic and non-academic 
actors (62.8%); and (iii) the insufficient investment in R&I (61.2%). 

Problem driver 1: Uneven R&I resources in the Mediterranean countries 

Table 1.1 shows the R&D intensity as well as the number of researchers per million inhabitants in 
the  EU  and  South  and  Eastern  Mediterranean  third  countries  involved  in  the  PRIMA  Joint 
Programme. It shows that the performance in terms of R&D inputs (investment and researchers) is 
uneven: 

  R&D Intensity: A wide variation exists across the 17 Mediterranean countries involved. Only 
three  countries  had  R&D  intensities  above  2.00%  in  2013  (the  EU  average  was  2.02%)  and 
eleven countries had R&D intensities below 1.00%.26 Amongst the Third Countries, only Israel 
had  a  very  high  R&D  intensity  (4.21%).  The  other  seven  countries  had  intensities  below 
1.00%. The average for all Middle East and North African Countries was 0.36% in 2013. 

  Researchers  per  million  people:  This  indicator  as  well  shows  a  wide  variation  across 
countries,  ranging  from  high  figures  for  countries  like  France  to  low  figures  for  all  third 
countries with the exception of Israel in the period 2011-13. 

R&D Intensity 
(R&D as % of 
GDP), 2013a 
0.81 
0.48 
2.23 
0.8 
1.26 
0.89 
1.37 
2.59 
1.24 

Member States 

Researcher 
Intensity, 
2013b 

Third 
Countries 

Researcher 
Intensity, 
2013b 

Croatia 
Cyprus 
France  
Greece 
Italy 
Malta 
Portugal 
Slovenia 
Spain 

1,529  Algeria 
775  Egypt 
4,153 
Israel 
2,628  Jordan 
1,974  Lebanon 
2,107  Morocco 
4,152  Tunisia 
4,217  Turkey 
2,653 
aR&D Intensity (R&D as % of GDP) was obtained from the World Bank, the UNESCO Science Report: towards 2030, Institute for 
Statistics (2015), Knoema and investinlebanon.gov.lb. All figures are for 2013 apart from these for Tunisia (2012), Morocco (2010), 
and Lebanon (2006).  
bResearcher Intensity (Researchers per million people) was obtained from the World Bank. All figures are for 2013 apart from those 
for Israel (2012), Tunisia (2012) and Morocco (2011).  
Table 1.1: Country indicators of R&I capacity 

- 
544 
8,282 
- 
- 
852 
1,393 
1,169 

R&D Intensity 
(R&D as % of 
GDP), 2013a 
0.10 
0.68 
4.21 
0.43 
0.22 
0.73 
0.68 
0.94 

26 Investments in R&D are low compared to international averages: between 0.2% and 0.7% of GDP in the MED countries (Tunisia 
is an exception with approximately 1%), compared to almost 2% of GDP in Europe. According to FAO (2012), given the positive 
role of R&D in promoting agricultural growth and poverty reduction, there is an urgent need to increase R&D funding for agriculture 
in the low- and middle-income countries. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Problem driver 2: Limited coordination of R&I policy programming between Mediterranean 
countries 

The EU has supported R&I on water provision and food systems in the Mediterranean area through 
past Framework Programmes for Research, and Technological Development. In FP6 and  FP7, for 
instance,  this  has  been  done  through  several  funding  instruments  involving  different  levels  of 
coordination and cooperation. 
There  are,  for  instance,  past  and  also  still  on-going  Joint  Programming  Initiatives27  (JPIs  –  Table 
1.2), whose aim is to pool national research efforts to address major societal challenges that cover 
scientific  areas  related  to  water  and  agro-food  (e.g.  JPI  FACCE28,  JPI  Water29  and,  to  a  lesser 
extent,  JPI  Healthy  Diet  for  a  Healthy  Life30  and  JPI  Oceans31).  A  number  of  Coordination  and 
Support  Actions  (CSAs)  have  also  been  established  with  the  aim  of  better  coordinating  research 
efforts  in  the  Mediterranean  area.  The  most  relevant  initiatives  are  the  six  Mediterranean  ERA-
NETs32 funded under FP7 (Table 1.3): three of them (MIRA, MED Spring, ERA METMED) were 
funded in the International Cooperation (INCO) programme while the other three (FORESTERRA, 
ARIMNet,  and  ARIMNet2)  were  funded  under  the  'Food,  Agriculture  and  Fisheries,  and 
Biotechnologies'  (KBBE)  programme.  In  addition  to  JPIs  and  CSAs,  151  FP7  research  projects 
involved the participation of Mediterranean countries (including Mediterranean third countries). 

JPIs comprise mainly EU Member States. The participation of Mediterranean third countries is very 
limited. JPI FACCE, JPI Water and JPI Healthy Diet for a Healthy Life all have Turkey and Israel 
as members, while JPI Oceans has only Turkey as a member. The situation is somewhat different 
for ERA-NETs, which have a wider geographical coverage. 

All of these initiatives tend to remain fragmented, however, and have not produced an integrated 
strategic research agenda, which is illustrated by the wide range of topics covers in an unintegrated 
manner. Table 1.3 shows that several EU initiatives are addressing to some extent the water and/or 
food  sectors,  and/or  the  cooperation  between  the  Mediterranean  countries.  However,  the  level  of 
integration of R&I policy resulting from these EU activities remains limited to the support and 
organisation  of  national  programmes  and  activities.  Most  of  the  initiatives  do  not  address  the 
interdependency  between  food  and  water  issues  that  is  specific  for  the  Mediterranean  area. 
Furthermore,  the  limited  representation  of  stakeholders  of  Mediterranean  countries  in  the 
abovementioned JPIs limits the potential level of effectiveness in terms of tackling regional issues. 
These  factors  can  result  in  an  overlap  or  even  duplication  of  efforts  and  put  significant  strain  on 
critical  bottlenecks  (expertise,  facilities,  funding).  Uneven  public  programmes  with  incompatible 
national  funding  rules  and  procedures  result  in  limited  diversity  and  quality  of  cooperation 
partnerships. 

27  TOWARDS  JOINT  PROGRAMMING  IN  RESEARCH:  Working  together  to  tackle  common  challenges  more  effectively, 
COM(2008) 468 final (http://ec.europa.eu/research/press/2008/pdf/com_2008_468_en.pdf).  
28 Joint Programming Initiative on Agriculture, Food Security and Climate Change (https://www.faccejpi.com/).  
29 Joint Programming Initiative Water challenges for a changing world (http://www.waterjpi.eu).  
30 http://www.healthydietforhealthylife.eu/  
31 The Joint Programming Initiative Healthy and Productive Seas and Oceans (http://www.jpi-oceans.eu).  
32 Under the ERA-NET scheme, national and regional authorities identify research programmes they wish to coordinate or open up 
mutually; their participants are programme 'owners' or programme 'managers'. 

14 

 
 
 
                                                            
Mediterranean 
Countries 

INCO-NETs 

KBBE ERA-NETs 

MIRA  MEDSpring  ERANETMED  FORESTERRA  ARIMNet  ARIMNet2 

Member 
States 

Third 
Country 

Croatia 
Cyprus 
France 
Greece 
Italy 
Malta 
Portugal 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Algeria 
Egypt 
Israel 
Jordan 
Lebanon  
Morocco 
Tunisia 
Turkey 

X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 

X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 

X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 

X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 

X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 

X 
X 
X 

X 
X 
X 
X 
X 

X 

X 
X 
X 

X 
X 
X 
X 

X 
X 
X 

X 
X 
X 
X 

X 

X 
X 
X 
X 

X 
X 
X 

X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 

X 
X 
X 

Table 1.2: Participation of Mediterranean countries in previous FP7 ERA-NETs (countries participating in all 
ERA-NETs are underlined) 

Has no 
explicit 
focus on 
Food or 
Water 

Water issues 
only 

Food and 
food prod. 
only 

Mainly 
water issues, 
with some 
attention to 
food 
production 

Mainly food 
and food 
production, 
with some 
attention to 
water 

Food and 
Water as 
part of a 
broader set 
of topics 

Inter-
dependency 
of water and 
food issues 
explicitly as 
key focus of 
initiative 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Initiative 

JPI Water 

JPI Facce 

JPI Healthy Diet  

JPI Oceans 

MIRA 

MEDspring 

ERANETMED 
Foresterra 
ARIMNet 

ARIMNet2 

Table 1.3: Thematic overlap of existing initiatives with R&I on water provision and agro-food systems in the 
Mediterranean 

In addition to EU level actions, an extensive number of bilateral and transnational programmes are 
being implemented by the countries involved in the PRIMA Joint Programme. In Annex 4, a non-
exhaustive  list  of  the  main  programmes  of  scientific  and  technological  collaboration  between  EU 
Member  states  and  third  countries  in  areas  to  be  addressed  by  the  PRIMA  Joint  Programme  is 
provided. The table in this annex shows that: 

  There is no integrated R&I strategy for the Mediterranean in the area of the sustainable 
management of water provision and food systems, which leads to possible overlaps between 
research activities and hampers the valorisation and scaling up of research results at European 
and international level. 

  The  identified  programmes  are  scattered  across  numerous  small  bilateral  agreements,  with 
some privileged partnerships, which does not allow for reaching the scale and scope of R&I 
efforts required to achieve strategic objectives. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  The  initiatives  are  of  limited  duration  and/or  subject  to  the  yearly  (re)definition  of  topics. 
Most of them are expiring at the end of 2016, which does not match the need for stable long-
term commitments. 

  Policy  dialogue,  exchange  of  best  practices,  and  mobility  of  researchers  appear  to  be  the 

main focus of the identified programmes.  

  R&I projects are also addressed but they do not appear to have size, ambition or scale. 

  There  is  only  a  limited  presence  of  large-scale  demonstration  projects  in  the  identified 
programmes. Therefore, they do not allow for testing, demonstrating and implementing tailored 
water-saving and management solutions, smart and sustainable farming systems and innovative 
food products, novel approaches to reducing the impact of pests and pathogens in farming, and 
innovative quality-oriented business models in the agro-food sector. 

Problem driver 3: Lack of long-term strategic R&I agenda and multi-stakeholder governance  

The  involvement  of  all  types  of  stakeholders  is  needed  to  address  the  complex,  cross-sectoral 
challenge of the sustainable management of water provision and food systems in the Mediterranean 
area. Stronger cooperation between stakeholders in different economic sectors in the Mediterranean 
countries  leading  to  the  effective  coordination  and  integration  of  R&I  systems  is  required  to 
develop innovative and integrated solutions for the sustainable management of water provision and 
food systems. This is needed to tackle and mitigate the expected medium and long term impacts of 
climate and demographic changes in the Mediterranean area. 

However, so far, the coordination achieved between different areas of government policy (e.g. 
economy  and  environment,  agriculture  and  energy)  is  limited.  In  the  same  vein,  stakeholders 
from the public and private sector in these countries have limited possibilities to create synergies for 
R&I activities, e.g. bringing the result of public research to the market. According to a 2012 study33 
by  ANIMA  Investment  Network34,  most  R&D  activities  in  the  Mediterranean  area  (over  90%)  is 
carried  out  by  public  universities  and  research  centres  (compared  to  54%  on  average  in  the 
European Union). This is notwithstanding the fact that cooperation among market-based actors of 
the  Mediterranean  food  value  chains  (mainly  customers,  food  retailers  and  suppliers)35  is  a  key 
aspect for the development of the required innovation. 

Furthermore, in most of the Mediterranean countries, the existence of sector-specific R&I structures 
is deeply rooted in the national governance systems and prevents the development and funding of 
multi-, inter- and trans-disciplinary environmental research and the subsequent uptake of results in 
innovative solutions and policy changes. 

33 Promoting Innovation in the Mediterranean – Profiles and expectations of business incubators, technology parks and technology 
transfer offices, study No. 63, November 2012. This study covers Cyprus, France, Greece, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Spain, Algeria, 
Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Tunisia, and Turkey with a focus on Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Palestine, 
and Tunisia.  (http://www.animaweb.org/sites/default/files/ain_cmi_it1_promoting_innovation_en_2012.pdf). 
34 The Promoting Innovation in the Mediterranean study was carried out within the framework an initiative of the Marseille Centre 
for Mediterranean Integration and coordinated by the European Investment Bank. The study was conducted by ANIMA Investment 
Network in coordination with the Madri+ foundation and the FP7 Project MIRA. 
35 Lefebvre, V. M., Raggi, M., Viaggi, D., Ljungström, C. S., Minarelli, F., Kühne, B., and Gellynck, X. (2014), SMEs’ preference 
for  innovation  networks:  A  choice  experimental  approach.  Creativity  and  Innovation  Management,  Vol.  23  No.  4  pp.  415-435; 
Bigliardi,  B.,  Colacino,  P.  and  Dormio,  A.I.  (2011),  Innovative  characteristics  of  small  and  medium  enterprises.  Journal  of 
Technology Management & Innovation, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 83-93; Zeng, S.X., Xie, X.M. and Tam, C.M. (2010), Relationship between 
cooperation networks and innovation performance of SMEs. Technovation, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 181-194. 

16 

 
 
 
                                                            
1.3.  Who is affected by the problem 

The problem affects a very wide range of stakeholders both within and outside the Mediterranean 
area. 

The  population  at  large  in  the  Mediterranean  countries,  both  EU  and  third  countries,  is 
affected  since  inadequate  water  provision  and  food  systems  have  important  downstream 
effects  in  society,  affecting  negatively  nutrition,  health,  livelihoods  and  standards  of  living,  and 
levels of wellbeing.  

This social and economic stress, in turn, constitutes a key cause of instability and becomes a cause 
of migration in third countries, both internally, leading numerous farm families to move to cities 
and, externally, driving part of the population to migrate in particular towards Europe. 

Farmers are affected since they are deprived from innovative solutions and have to keep  suffering 
from inadequate water provision systems, which seriously affect crop yields. 

Businesses, and in particular SMEs, are affected by the inability of current policies and programmes 
to  adequately  address  market  failures  by  providing  long-term  stable  support  and  predictability, 
thereby  being  deprived  from  the  opportunity  to  participate  fully  in  the  co-development  of 
innovative  integrated  solutions  and  to  valorise  commercially  the  new  products,  processes  and 
services developed. 

The  R&I  community  (policy-makers,  programme  managers,  funders,  R&I  organisations 
(universities,  research  institutes),  individual  researchers  and  innovators)  is  affected  because,  as  a 
result of the current cross-border, cross-sectoral and cross-discipline fragmentation of policies and 
programmes,  it  is  unable  to  pool  resources  to  develop,  disseminate  and  implement  the  innovative 
integrated  solutions  urgently  needed  for  the  sustainable  management  of  water  provision  and  food 
systems. 

1.4.  EU dimension of the problem 

Europe is affected by the large-scale instability close to its borders and by the refugee crisis driven 
partially by the shortage of water in the region. The PRIMA Joint Programme is of great relevance 
for a broad range of key EU policies. 

EU migration policy 
As  outlined  in  a  recent  World  Bank  study36,  water  scarcity  and  the  consequent  increase  in  food 
prices can induce people to leave their countries and can contribute to igniting civil conflicts. As the 
same report stresses, "in today's globalized and connected world, such problems are impossible to 
quarantine.  And  where  large  inequities  prevail,  people  move  from  zones  of  poverty  to  regions  of 
prosperity which can lead to increased social tensions" (p. vi). The EU is of course well aware of 
this, affected as it currently by the largest refugee crisis in recent history. 

Within this context, and as explained in great detail in the introduction to this impact assessment, 
the  PRIMA  Joint  Programme  fits  clearly  into  the  European  Agenda  on  Migration  and  the 
'Communication on establishing a new Partnership Framework with third countries under the 
European Agenda on Migration' adopted by the Commission on 7 June 2016 (COM(2016)385). In 
the text of the Communication, research is mentioned explicitly as one of the EU policies that may 
have  a  role  to  play  in  the  wider  context  of  the  discussions  on  migration  and  in  the  dedicated 
agreements that the EU is expected to conclude with the most affected third countries. 

36 World Bank (2016) "High and Dry: Climate Change, Water, and the Economy" 

17 

 
 
                                                            
EU external development policy 

The  PRIMA  Joint  Programme  also  fits  clearly  into  the  EU's  efforts  to  achieve  the  post-2015 
Development  Agenda  and  the  Sustainable  Development  Goals  (SDGs),  and,  more  specifically, 
SDG  #2  "End  hunger,  achieve  food  security  and  improved  nutrition  and  promote  sustainable 
agriculture" and SDG #6 "Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation 
for all". 

EU sustainability policy 

The  implementation  of  the  SDGs  directly  connects  the  PRIMA  Joint  Programme  to  EU 
sustainability  policy.  There  are  strong  links  between  the  content  of  the  PRIMA  Joint  Programme 
and that of the Resource-efficient Europe Flagship Initiative, for its environmental dimension, and 
that  of  the  European  Neighbourhood  Programme  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development,  for  its 
international cooperation dimension. 

EU R&I policy  

Water and food systems cannot be managed effectively and sustainably if innovative solutions are 
not  developed,  implemented  and  shared  among  countries.  This  is  where  the  EU  R&I  policy 
dimension, and Horizon 2020 in particular, comes into play. Horizon 2020 and the "Open to the 
world" political priority of Commissioner Moedas have been identified by PRIMA proposers as 
the  most  appropriate  instruments  for  tackling  the  challenges  raised  by  the  initiative  and  allowing 
PRIMA to achieve impact that goes beyond the single R&I policy dimension. 

1.5.  How would the problem evolve, all things being equal? 

Without additional initiatives aimed at increasing R&I investment and collaboration with respect to 
water provision and food systems in the Mediterranean area, the current R&I initiatives using EU 
instruments and the current bilateral cooperation will not be sufficient to address the current 
water  and  food  stress  in  Mediterranean  area.  In  fact,  global  competition  for  access  to  natural 
resources  will  continue  to  intensify,  as  will  the  associated  risks:  market  volatility,  geo-political 
tensions and instability. The large-scale exploitation and extraction of natural resources will still be 
highly  concentrated  in  a  small  number  of  producer  countries.  According  to  EuroMed  203037, 
managing scarcity will be the principal challenge for the food and water supply by 2030.  

In  addition,  climate  change  and  demographic  trends  place  additional  pressures  on  the  natural 
resources of the Mediterranean region and on the capacity of countries to provide affordable food 
and quality drinking water to an increasing population. 

It can be expected that without additional action, on-going activities to coordinate the programming 
of R&I policies (e.g. ERA-NETs) related to water provision and food systems in the Mediterranean 
countries  will  be  finalised  before  2018.  Funding  for  R&I  projects  will  likely  continue  without  a 
specific focus on food water provision and food systems in the Mediterranean area.  

Overall,  even  though  it  is  difficult  to  make  projections  with  respect  to  future  calls,  it  could  be 
assumed that the level of investment from Horizon 2020 will be comparable to that of FP7. 

Concerning FP7 (2007-2013), an analysis has been provided in Annex 5 showing the participation 
of  entities  from  Mediterranean  third  countries  in  projects  relevant  to  water  provision  and  food 
systems. It can be concluded that: 

37  European  Commission  (2011)  EuroMed  2030.  Long  term  challenges  for  the  Mediterranean  area.  Report  of  an  Expert  Group. 
Luxembourg: OPOCE (http://espas.eu/orbis/sites/default/files/generated/document/en/euromed2030.pdf).  

18 

 
 
                                                            
  Over the course of the seven years of FP7, a total of 151 projects, with a total  budget of 408 

million EUR, were funded; 

  A budget of 31 million EUR was invested in horizontal projects fostering Euro-Mediterranean 

Co-operation (ERA-NETs and Coordination Actions); 

  1 million EUR was invested in mobility actions38. 
Under Horizon 2020, the current EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation39, 13 out 
of the 19 countries involved in the PRIMA Joint Programme participate in actions related to water 
scarcity, irrigation, water saving, sustainable water, sustainable agriculture, agro food, and the food 
industry.  These  activities  include  different  kind  of  instruments  foreseen  under  Horizon  2020, 
including R&I actions and SME instrument actions. 

To date, none of the Horizon 2020 actions involving Mediterranean countries cover integrated 
R&I  activities  on  water  provision  and  food  systems,  however.  Opportunities  for  R&I  topics 
tackling  water  provision  and  agro-food  production  might  continue  to  be  provided  under  Horizon 
2020,  mainly  under  Societal  Challenges  2  and  5,  but  it  is  unlikely  that  they  would  address 
comprehensively and  specifically R&I on water provision and food systems in  the Mediterranean 
countries.  

Based on the current situation under Horizon 2020 in the first two calls for proposals launched only 
under SC5 and SC2, the number of Mediterranean Countries covered by R&I food and water EC 
funding are 8 Member states and 4 third countries40.  

It may be concluded that: 

 

 

In  Horizon  2020,  the  situation  of  the  participation  of  Third  Countries  should  be  improved 
compared to FP7, and 
It could be assumed that this trend is likely to persist under the baseline scenario.  

As  for  existing  transnational  initiatives,  some  activities  might  be  carried  out  related  to  water 
provision and food systems. Few of these initiatives, however, have a strong focus on R&I activities 
and this is unlikely to change in the future. Some examples are the World Bank's Water Partnership 
Programs,  particularly  through  IFAD  (International  Fund  of  Agriculture  and  Development);  the 
Water  Demand  Initiative  for  the  Middle  East  and  North  Africa  (WaDImena),  coordinated  by  the 
International  Development  Research  Centre  and  supported  by  the  International  Fund  for 
Agricultural Development; FAO's regional Initiative on Water Scarcity in the Near East and North 
Africa;  the  Consultative  Group  on  International  Agricultural  Research  (CGIAR41)  and  the 
International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA42); and Plan Bleu43. 

1.6. 

Fitness check /retrospective evaluation  

There is no fitness check/retrospective evaluation carried out under the existing policy framework, 
targeting specifically R&I activities on water provision and food systems in the Mediterranean area. 

38 The PRIMA Expert Group report includes figures on participation of beneficiaries from PRIMA non-EU States in FP7 projects, 
and on their EC contribution, addressing PRIMA objectives (see pages 148 and 149). 
39 Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing Horizon 2020 - 
The  Framework  Programme  for  Research  and  Innovation  (2014-2020)  (OJ  L  347,  20.12.2013,  p.104)  (http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:347:0104:0173:EN:PDF). 
40  8  Member  States:  Italy,  Spain,  France,  Slovenia,  Greece,  Cyprus,  Portugal  and  Malta  (266  participations  in  total);4  Associated 
Mediterranean third countries: Turkey and Tunisia (5 participations in total); 2 Non-Associated Mediterranean countries: Morocco 
and Egypt (4 participations in total) 
41 http://www.cgiar.org/our-strategy/ 
42 http://www.icarda.org/ 
43 http://planbleu.org/en/publications/lagriculture-mediterraneenne-en-recherche-dadaptation-climatique 

19 

 
 
 
                                                            
2.  Section 2. Why should the EU act? 

2.1.  EU right to act 

The EU's right to act in the area of R&I, including through cooperation with third countries, is set 
out  in  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union  (TFEU),  which  also  provides 
instruments that can be used for such cooperation, see Box 1 for details. 

International  cooperation  in  R&I  is  a  key  aspect  of  the  EU's  global  commitments  and  has  an 
important  role  to  play  in  the  EU  partnership  with  developing  countries,  which  are  often 
disproportionately affected by global challenges.44 This cooperation can promote inclusive growth 
and  is  essential  for  the  achievement  of  the  Sustainable  Development  Goals  as  set  by  the  2030 
Agenda for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)45. Horizon 2020 complies with the principle of 
general openness, while encouraging reciprocal access to third countries' programmes. 

BOX 1: EU's right to act in the area of R&I and to collaborate with third countries in the TFEU 

 Article  4  point  3  TFEU  indicates  that  in  the  area  of  research  and  technological  development,  the  Union  has 
competence  to  carry  out  activities,  in  particular  to  define  and  implement  programmes,  in  parallel  with  Member 
States.  

 Article 180 TFEU provides that these activities should complement the activities carried out in the Member States 
and include implementation of research, technological development and demonstration programmes, by promoting 
cooperation with and between undertakings, research centres and universities; promotion of  cooperation in the field 
of  Union  research,  technological  development  and  demonstration  with  third  countries  and  international 
organisations;  dissemination  and  optimisation  of  the  results  of  activities  in  Union  research,  technological 
development and demonstration;  stimulation of the training and mobility of researchers in the Union.  

 Article  181  TFEU  provides  that  "The  Union  and  the  Member  States  shall  coordinate  their  research  and 
technological development activities so as to ensure that national policies and Union policy are mutually consistent". 
The  Commission  may,  in  close  cooperation  with  Member  States,  take  any  useful  initiative  to  promote  such 
coordination. 

 Article 182 TFEU provides the legal basis for a multiannual framework programme (FP) setting out all the activities 

of the Union in the area of research, technological development and demonstration. 

 Article  185  TFEU  provides  that  "In  implementing  the  multiannual  framework  programme,  the  Union  may  make 
provision,  in  agreement  with  the  Member  States  concerned,  for  participation  in  research  and  development 
programmes undertaken by several Member States, including participation in the structures created for the execution 
of those programmes".  

 Article  186  TFEU  provides  that  "In  implementing  the  multiannual  framework  programme  the  Union  may  make 
provision for cooperation in Union research, technological development and demonstration with third countries or 
international organisations". 

The EU right to act also derives from the characteristics of the problem identified (see Box 2). The 
cross-border  dimension  of  the  problem  and  the  links  with  R&I  European  policies  call  for 
intervention  at  EU  level  and  beyond.  Achieving  a  resource-  and  water-efficient  economy  and 
society  calls  for  investment  in  R&I  with  a  long-term  vision  and  strengthened  cross-borders 
cooperation. This is both an EU and a global challenge of particular relevance for EU and non-EU 
countries in the Mediterranean area, where the adverse effects of climate change and the impacts of 

44 https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/news/grand-challenge-design-and-societal-impact-horizon-2020 
45 Activities at the international level are equally important to enhance the competitiveness of European industry by promoting  the 
take-up  and  trade  of  novel  technologies,  for  instance  through  the  development  of  worldwide  standards  and  guidelines,  and  by 
promoting the acceptance and deployment of European solutions outside Europe. The three major third country groupings are: (1) 
industrialised and emerging economies; (2) enlargement and neighbourhood countries (which is the case of all Mediterranean Third 
Countries); and (3) developing countries. Horizon 2020 promotes cooperation at regional or multilateral level 

20 

 
 
 
                                                            
a  growing  population  are  increasingly  putting  under  stress  their  resilience  to  respond  to  the  on-
going and foreseen environmental, climate and social changes.  

BOX 2: Water provision and food systems from a sectorial perspective 

 Article 11  TFEU  provides  that  "environmental  protection  requirements  must  be  integrated  into  the definition  and 
implementation  of  the  Union's  policies  and  activities,  in  particular  with  a  view  to  promoting  sustainable 
development". 

 Article  191  TFEU  defines  the  objectives  of  the  EU's  policy  on  environment,  including  "prudent  and  rational 
utilisation of natural resources" and "promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide 
environmental problems, and in particular combating climate change" (§1). Such policy is guided by the principles 
of preventive action, precaution, rectification of environmental damage at the source and polluter pays (§2). It must 
take into account, amongst others "available scientific and technical data" (§3). 

2.2.  Why could Member States not achieve the objectives of the proposed action 

sufficiently by themselves? 

The reference framework for R&I in the water and food sectors at EU level is provided by major 
EU initiatives, but it does not tackle specifically the problem identified in the Mediterranean area. 

The national, bilateral and transnational programmes that have been used so far to improve 
R&I  on  water  provision  and  food  systems  have  not  proved  to  be  sufficient  to  tackle  cross-
border issues and attract further public and private investments. 

At national level, there is no evidence of synchronization between programmes, and alignment only 
takes place in a few thematic areas covered by Joint Programming activities. Moreover, the focus is 
on EU-EU alignment, and not on alignment with Mediterranean third countries. Internationalisation 
and cooperation in R&I are important objectives for Mediterranean countries in general. 

One  commonality  of  all  the  national  initiatives  currently  ongoing  is  that  industry  is  not  strongly 
involved. Three distinct weaknesses emerge at bilateral and transnational level:  

  Uneven  R&I  resources:  Past  and  present  portfolios  of  bilateral  initiatives  with  non-
synchronised  timeframes  have  not  been  able  to  leverage  national  efforts  of  Mediterranean 
countries at the required scale. In contrast, EU involvement would have the potential to attract 
and concentrate additional funding from the R&I community, industry, and other stakeholders. 
  Limited  coordination  of  R&I  policy  programming:  The  alignment  of  R&I  Mediterranean 

programmes cannot be achieved by bilateral programmes alone. 

  Lack  of  long-term  strategic  R&I  agenda  and  multi-stakeholder  governance:  Bilateral  R&I 
programmes of the Mediterranean countries in the area of water provision and food systems are 
not leading to the development of shared Mediterranean R&I Agendas. The creation and update 
of such agendas has been an aim of the EU since the establishment of MoCo in 199546. 

As previously mentioned, the challenges of water provision and food systems in the Mediterranean 
area  are  complex,  interrelated,  transnational  and  multi-sectorial.  They  require  trans-disciplinary 
research and integrated solutions that take into account not only innovation but also other factors, 
such  as  the  social  behaviour  of  rural  communities,  economic  constraints,  or  the  legal  and 
institutional stable frameworks that may favour the adoption of the most appropriate measures. This 
shows that one country alone would never be able to cope with the complexity of the challenges to 
be covered. 

46 The “Euro-Mediterranean Monitoring Committee on Research and Innovation” (MoCo, established in 1995) is now termed “Group 
of Senior Officials” (GSO).  

21 

 
 
 
                                                            
In addition, the PRIMA Expert Group identified a series of gaps on R&I that need to be addressed 
in an integrated and coordinated approach in the Mediterranean area. 

The same analysis also shows the need for actual R&I projects including demonstrators, pilot 
plants,  testing,  pre-commercial  deployment,  and  research  projects  addressing  the  complete 
range of Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) that need transnational cooperation (see section 4 
for more details). Moreover, to achieve the objectives that will be detailed in the next section, it is 
essential  to  develop  alignment  policy  mechanisms  not  only  in  research  policy  but  also  in 
agriculture,  environment  and  economy.  Finally,  the  problem  addressed  requires  not  only  the 
participation of EU Member States but of non-EU Mediterranean countries on equal footing. 

2.3.  What would be the added-value of action at EU-level? 

The added value of EU level action can be described along the three dimensions reported below. 

1. Attaining scale and scope and achieving a critical mass of resources 

Only action at EU level is capable of achieving a well-coordinated and integrated programme with 
adequate  scale  and  scope.  Experience  with  transnational  programmes  demonstrates  clearly  that 
without EU action and support, the level of ambition and the degree of coordination and integration 
is  significantly  lower  and  does  not  achieve  a  critical  mass  of  financial  and  knowledge  resources 
compared to a partnership approaches between the Member States and the Union. 

EU action entails in addition a stronger policy dimension as compared to separate Member States 
activities, which in turn is often a prerequisite for ensuring long-term financial commitments from 
all Participating States, as clearly demonstrated in the European & Developing Countries Clinical 
Trials Partnership (EDCTP2 Art 185 initiative). 

2. Leverage effects and delivery on impacts and broader implications to the EU's external policies 
and migration 

Experience  from  similar  initiatives  such  as  BONUS  (Joint  Baltic  Sea  research  and  development 
programme) demonstrates that action at EU level triggers significant additional public investments 
from  the  Participating  States,  which  increasingly  shift  available  national  resources  to  the  joint 
programme.  Better  coordinated  and  integrated  action  at  national  and  EU-level  within  a  joint 
programme  is  able  to  provide  significant  knowledge  gains  for  all  participants  but  notably  for 
those  partners  that  had  so  far  only  limited  access  to  world  class  knowledge.  This,  in  turn,  will 
improve  the  impacts  stemming  from  joint  efforts,  so  "the  value  for  money"  stemming  from  joint 
programmes is significantly higher than that stemming from discreet national activities. 

In  addition, action at EU-level following the Horizon 2020 rules  will have  significant impacts on 
the uptake of good practices in R&I policy design and implementation across Europe and beyond. 
This  has  been  shown  by  similar  initiatives  such  as  EDCTP2,  as  well  as  in  ERA-NET  activities 
supporting the coordination of national research programmes since FP6. 

As  discussed  in  the  introduction,  PRIMA  is  a  key  example  of  a  sectorial  initiative  that  will 
contribute  towards  addressing  some  of  the  root  causes  of  migration  by  providing  innovative 
solutions  to  water  resources  and  food  systems  that  will  help  manage  long-term  migratory  trends 
more efficiently. 

3. International leadership, global cooperation and the European Neighbourhood South 

A well-coordinated joint programme and thus action at EU-level will strengthen Europe's visibility 
and  global  responsibility  far  beyond  what  single  Member  States  action  would  be  able  to  deliver. 
With  respect  to  the  SDGs  in  the  field  of  water  and  food,  the  planned  initiative  will  therefore 
contribute significantly to the fulfilment of Europe's global responsibilities. On the other hand, joint 

22 

 
 
action proved to be instrumental for similar initiatives to achieve a stronger recognition of Europe 
as the world's leading knowledge hub for clinical trials on tropical diseases (in the case of EDCTP2) 
or metrology and related standardization activities (in the case of EMPIR, the European Metrology 
Programme for Research and Innovation). 

The  approach  towards  a  joint  programme  based  on  voluntary  participation  of  countries  from  the 
Neighbourhood South on an equal footing as MS reflects the spirit of EU Neighbourhood Policy 
towards differentiation and greater mutual ownership with neighbourhood partners based on 
their aspirations to draw their policy formulation closer to the EU. This is a key aspect of science 
diplomacy  within  the  region,  whereby  cooperation  between  nations  is  essential  to  addressing  the 
common  challenges  and  conditions  in  the  Mediterranean  area  that  are  not  confined  by  the  EU's 
geographical borders. These conditions are more likely to be addressed effectively at EU level than 
through bilateral action of MS with Southern Neighbourhood Countries. 

23 

 
 
 
3.  Section 3. What should be achieved? 

3.1. 

Policy Objectives 

The  general  objective  is  to  develop  the  fully  piloted  and  demonstrated  common  innovative 
solutions  in  the  field  of  water  provision  and  food  systems  that  the  Mediterranean  region 
urgently needs. 

Achieving this general objective will make water provision and food systems in the Mediterranean 
area more efficient, cost-effective, and sustainable. In this way, R&I can contribute to solving the 
higher-level  problems  in  the  field  of  nutrition,  health  and  social  wellbeing,  and  ultimately  help 
address mass migration trends. R&I policies can thus be leveraged to the maximum to address the 
migration challenge, in line with the Communication on a new Partnership Framework with third 
countries under the European Agenda on Migration. 

3.2. 

Specific Objectives 

This general objective can only be achieved if, in a structured way, a durable framework for R&I in 
the  field  of  water  provision  and  food  systems  is  put  in  place  in  the  Mediterranean  area.  The 
following  specific  objectives  need  to  be  achieved  in  order  to  reach  the  scale  and  scope  of  R&I 
efforts required: 

  Common long-term strategic R&I agenda: 

The  formulation  of  a  stable,  long-term,  common  strategic  R&I  agenda  in  the  field  of  water 
provision and food systems; 

  Alignment of national R&I programmes: 

The  orientation  of  all  national  R&I  programmes  towards  the  implementation  of  the  strategic 
R&I agenda; 

  Critical mass of actors and resources: 

The  structural  involvement  of  all  relevant  R&I  actors  (the  public  and  private  sectors)  in  the 
implementation of the strategic R&I agenda by pooling knowledge and financial resources so 
as to achieve the necessary critical mass; 
  Strengthening innovation capabilities: 

The strengthening of R&I funding and implementation capabilities of all involved actors. 

The  achievement  of  the  identified  objectives  will  rely  upon  the  establishment  of  long-term 
cooperation and upon end-user friendly and societally affordable solutions. The intervention logic 
reported  in  Figure  3.1  illustrates  the  links  between  the  general  objective,  the  problem  definition, 
problem drivers and the identified objectives. 

Synergies and trade-offs can be summarised as follows. 

  Cooperation  in  R&I  can  lead  to  knowledge  development  and  transfer.  It  increases  research 
capacities quantitatively (i.e. number of researchers or highly qualified workers like engineers 
or  technicians  that  are  supported)  and  qualitatively,  through  the  exchange  of  knowledge  and 
experience. Common work between researchers and other highly qualified people may enhance 
skills  and  capacities,  create  knowledge-based  job  opportunities  in  opportunities  in  the 
Mediterranean countries.  

  The activities linked with the operational objectives ensure proper attention to innovation and 
to the implementation of the developed solutions. These solutions, if adequately implemented 
and mainstreamed, would contribute: 

-  To  mitigating  environmental  pressures,  such  as  water  stress  or  pollution  derived  from 

over-exploitation of natural resources; 

24 

 
 
-  To opportunities for investments and development of new markets. 

PROBLEM DRIVERS 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES 

Uneven R&I 
resources in the 
Mediterranean 
countries 

Limited coordination 
of R&I policy 
programming 
between 
Mediterranean 
countries 

Lack of long-term 
strategic R&I agenda 
and multi-stakeholder 
governance 

Unsustainable 
management of water 
provision and food 
systems in the 
Mediterranean area 

lack of common 
innovative solutions 
to be fully piloted and 
demonstrated on the 
ground, adapted to 
the realities of the 
region, and easily 
transferable across it.  

Figure 3.1: Intervention Logic 

Develop the 
common innovative 
solutions in the field 
of water provision 
and food systems 
that the 
Mediterranean 
region urgently 
needs 

Common long-term 
strategic R&I agenda 

Alignment of national 
R&I programmes 

Critical mass of 
actors and resources 

Strengthening 
innovation 
capabilities 

Addressing the inefficient and unsustainable use of resources through R&I implies new governance 
approaches  (to  improve  regional  R&I  governance,  structures  for  the  evaluation,  funding, 
management  and  follow-up  of  R&I  proposals  and  grants,  and  water  governance),  based  on 
integration  and  cooperation  beyond  Mediterranean  neighbourhood  boundaries  and  between 
different stakeholders, on equal footing. This is a critical condition to address the main problem and 
to reach the other operational objectives. R&I can also help shaping future policies in the water and 
agro-food sectors. 

3.3.  Consistency with other EU policies 

The objectives are in line with the problem definition and cover the related R&I challenges ensuring 
adequate interaction with European, Mediterranean and global policies. 

As already mentioned in the introduction and in Section 1 of this impact assessment, the objectives 
to be pursued are fully in line with the recent Communication on establishing a new Partnership 
Framework  with  third  countries  under  the  European  Agenda  on  Migration  (New  Migration 
Partnership  Framework),  and  with  the  2011/2012  EU  Development  Report  (ERD)  "Confronting 
scarcity: Managing water, energy and land for inclusive and sustainable growth".  

In  particular  the  New  Migration  Partnership  Framework  calls  very  concretely  for  new 
development  cooperation  models  that  involve  private  investors  looking  for  new  investment 
opportunities in emerging markets, mobilise European private and public resources for investment 
in  third  countries  of  origin  thereby  contributing  to  the  sustainable  development  of  the  local 
economies, assign an important role to innovative financing mechanisms that can be deployed and 
developed  to  leverage  limited  budget  resources,  and  remove  bottlenecks  to  investment  in  SMEs 
and  sustainable  infrastructure".  Indeed,  the  PRIMA  Joint  Programme  constitutes  a  concrete 
example of how research policy can promote effective cooperation by leveraging national budgets 
and by bringing together Mediterranean countries around long-term common challenges. 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The R&I objectives concerning water provision and food systems in the Mediterranean area appear 
to be consistent with and relevant also to the following initiatives: 
  As highlighted in the Communication "A resource-efficient Europe – Flagship initiative"47, 
EU-wide,  coordinated  public  support  for  R&D  and  innovation  is  important  to  increase  the 
availability and performance of the necessary resource efficient solutions. 

  Horizon  2020  identifies  "Climate  action,  Environment,  Resource  Efficiency  and  Raw 
Materials"  and  "Food  security,  sustainable  agriculture  and  forestry,  marine,  maritime  and 
inland  water  research,  and  the  bio-economy"  as  two  of  the  priority  societal  challenges  to  be 
addressed  by  supporting  R&I  investments.  Moreover,  Horizon  2020  recognises  that  R&I 
activities for these challenges should be carried out at the Union level and beyond, given the 
transnational and global nature of the climate and the environment, their scale and complexity, 
and the international dimension of the food and agricultural supply chain. 
In the report "Science, Research and Innovation performance of the EU - A contribution to the 
Open  Innovation,  Open  Science,  Open  to  the  World  agenda"48  it  is  analysed  how  Europe 
should be leading the way in developing global research partnerships to address challenges 
in areas like energy, health, food and water. The report shows how the growing openness of 
the  global  R&I  system  has  enhanced  the  importance  of  international  collaboration,  and  has 
become  a  crucial  factor  in  accessing  new  sources  of  knowledge  and  improving 
competitiveness.  

 

  The Post-2015 Development Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals49,50. 
  The Barcelona Process launched in November 1995 at the initiative of the Euro-Mediterranean 
Foreign  Ministers,  and  the  related  Communication  "Barcelona  Process:  Union  for  the 
Mediterranean"(COM(2008)319), which was adopted by the Commission on 20 May 2008 and 
established a multilateral partnership, focusing on regional and trans-national projects. 

  The Communication "Enhancing and focusing EU international cooperation in R&I: a strategic 
approach"  (COM(2012)497final)  adopted  by  the  Commission  on  14  September  2012,  which 
establishes a focus on fostering integration into – or alignment with – the European Research 
Area (ERA) for the Neighbourhood.  

Regarding Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union51, the initiative is consistent 
with Article 37 on "Environmental protection: "A high level of environmental protection and the 
improvement of the quality of the environment must be integrated into the policies of the Union and 
ensured in accordance with the principle of sustainable development".  

47 A resource-efficient Europe – Flagship initiative under the Europe 2020 Strategy - COM(2011)21. 
48 Science, Research and Innovation performance of the EU - A contribution to the Open Innovation, Open Science, Open to the 
World agenda (European Commission, 2016) (http://bookshop.europa.eu/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/WFS/EU-Bookshop-
Site/en_GB/-/EUR/ViewPublication-Start?PublicationKey=KI0415512).  
49 Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda For Sustainable Development (A/RES/70/1), UN 2015 
(https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf). 
50 COM(2015)44final of 5.02.2015. 
51 OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, p. 391–407, (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT&from=EN). 

26 

 
 
 
                                                            
4.  Section 4. What are the different options to achieve the objectives? 

4.1.  Analysis of the possible options 

Several policy options are available to meet the objectives identified above. These options differ in 
terms of scope, geographical coverage and instrument used. 

As regards the scope of possible actions, the following options were identified: 
  Actions covering R&I activities related to water provision; 
  Actions covering R&I activities related to food systems; 
  Actions covering R&I activities integrating water provision and food systems. 

As regards the geographical coverage of possible actions, the following options were identified: 
  Actions with EU Member States;  
  Actions with EU Member States and third countries associated to Horizon 2020 ("Associated 

third countries"); 

  Actions with EU Member States, Associated third countries and non-Associated third counties. 

As regards possible approaches, the following options were identified: 

1.  No dedicated EU action ("Baseline scenario" - No policy change). 

2.  Support  to  coordination  between  Participating  States  (public-public  partnerships)  on  the 

basis of specific grant-based support from Horizon 2020 with: 

  ERA-NET  Cofund  actions,  where  the  Union  would  co-fund  one  joint  call  for  proposals 

leading to the funding of trans-national research and/or innovation projects; 

  European  Joint  Programme  Cofund  actions,  where  the  Union  would  support  the 
implementation of a joint programme of activities of governmental research organisations. 

3.  Support to integration between Participating States (public-public partnerships) on the basis 
of Article 185, where the Union participates in programmes undertaken by several EU Member 
States, and where that participation is justified by the scope of the objectives and the scale of 
the resources required. 

4.  Support  to  Public-Private  Partnerships  (PPP),  set  up  between  the  Union  and  stakeholders 
from  the  private  sector,  in  accordance  with  Article  187  TFEU,  where  all  partners  concerned 
commit to supporting the development and implementation of pre-competitive R&I activities of 
strategic importance for the Union's competitiveness and industrial leadership or for addressing 
specific societal challenges. 

4.2.  Options discarded at an early stage  

A  screening  of  all  these  options  was  undertaken  based  on  Tool  #14  of  the  Better  Regulation 
Toolbox  (Annex  6).  Many  options  do  not  fulfil  most  key  criteria  related  to  legal  and  political 
feasibility and relevance. 

As regards scope, options involving only water provision or only food systems were discarded at 
an early stage because of considerations related to relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and political 
feasibility.  Options  not  covering  both  issues  together  would  not  be  relevant  enough  to  address  a 
problem that is essentially of a cross-sectoral nature and requires an integrated approach. 

As regards geographical coverage, options involving only EU Member States were discarded at an 
early stage due to considerations related to legal and political feasibility as well as relevance, as the 
problem  identified  concerns  the  complete  Mediterranean  area,  which  requires  the  involvement  of 

27 

 
 
 
 
Mediterranean  third  countries  associated  to  Horizon  2020  and  third  countries  not  associated  to 
Horizon  2020.  Without  the  participation  of  both  associated  and  non-associated  third  countries,  it 
would  not  be  possible  to  achieve  critical  mass  in  terms  of  knowledge  and  financial  resources  on 
both sides of the Mediterranean. The non-EU countries have important R&I capabilities and have 
made substantial financial commitments. 

As  for  possible  approaches,  some  options  have  been  discarded  at  an  early  stage  on  the  basis  of 
legal and political feasibility, effectiveness and efficiency, as well as relevance: 

  European Joint Programme Cofund would not allow addressing the full range of stakeholders, 
as it would be limited to selected governmental research organisations. The political feasibility 
would  be  low.  EJP  Cofund  would  provide  little  support  to  common  long-term  R&I  agendas, 
little support to National alignment, create only a limited critical mass of actors and resources 
and  would  provide  no  support  to  Strengthening  innovation  capabilities,  thus  not  meet  the 
relevance requirements. 

  For Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) the preconditions are not met (Industrial leadership and 
its strong financial commitment). There is no political support from the Participating States for 
this approach. Furthermore PPPs would not necessarily provide support to a common long-term 
R&I  agenda  of  the  Participating  States,  or  to  the  alignment  of  national  activities,  thus  not 
meeting the relevance requirements. 

4.3.  Retained policy options  

On the basis of the options screening undertaken, the following policy options have been retained: 

  Option 0: No dedicated EU action ("Baseline scenario" - No policy change) 
  Option 1: ERA-NET Cofund actions 
  Option 2: PRIMA Joint Programme based on Article 185 TFEU 

Option 0: No dedicated EU action ("Baseline scenario" - No policy change) 

Under the baseline scenario, which consists of no dedicated EU action under Horizon 2020, usual 
calls  for  R&I  proposals  would  continue,  and  Participating  States  would  continue  to  implement 
national  activities,  mostly  in  a  bottom-up  manner  with  little  orientation  towards  the  challenge 
identified.  No  support  for  coordination  and  collaboration  between  Participating  States  at 
programme level would be ensured. 

The  main  elements  of  this  Option  0,  as  already  described  in  detail  in  Section  1.4,  can  be 
summarised as follows: 

  No dedicated EU action targeting specifically Water and Food in the Mediterranean; 
  Horizon 2020 will continue supporting R&I on Water and Food issues in general and ad-hoc; 
  Projects  (indirect  actions)  will  be  selected  from  open  calls  for  proposals,  mainly  for  R&I 
Actions and Innovation actions, within Horizon 2020, some of which may or may not involve 
beneficiaries from the Mediterranean area; 

  The beneficiaries would be any legal entity eligible for funding (in accordance with Article 10 
of Framework Programme Regulation), typically research organizations and private companies; 
Individual actions would typically last 3-4 years. 

 

Option 1: ERA-NET Cofund actions  

The  EU  could  intervene  through  Horizon  2020  ERA-NET  Cofund  actions,  which  support  the 
coordination of national research programmes. The main, compulsory activity of ERA-NET Cofund 
actions under Horizon 2020 is the implementation of a single co-funded joint call for R&I proposals 

28 

 
 
 
 
that results in funding for trans-national research and/or innovation projects. In addition, ERA-NET 
Cofund  actions  can  also  support  the  preparation  and  implementation  of  other  joint  activities 
(including  additional  joint  calls  without  EU  cofunding)  that  contribute  to  the  coordination  of 
national  research  programmes,  such  as  workshops,  meetings  and  studies.  Past  and  ongoing  ERA-
NETs relevant to water and food in the Mediterranean area (e.g. ARIMNet2, ERANETMED) have 
been  mentioned  in  previous  sections52.  In  an  ERA-NET  action,  all  Participating  States  (EU  and 
Third Countries) have the same rights and obligations as regulated by the Grant Agreement. 

The  cofunding  of  the  Union  has  a  positive  impact  on  proposal  evaluation  and  selection 
(international  peer  review,  selection  according  to  excellence)  but  also  maximises  the  number  of 
proposals that can be supported53. 

The implementation of ERA-NETs relies on existing national programmes. The scope of calls for 
proposals,  the  nature  of  eligible  activities,  and  the  type  of  beneficiaries  depend  on  the  applicable 
national  funding  rules.  The  result  is  that  in  many  countries  participating  in  ERA-NETs, 
predominantly public research organisations participate in calls. In ERA-NETS in the area of water 
and food, all participants are public research organizations. Also, only in some areas, ERA-NETs 
have  been  established  that  address  the  innovation  dimension,  e.g.  MANUNET  (with  70%  SME 
participation) or the Horizon 2020 energy ERA-NETs (with a focus on demonstration projects and 
higher Technology Readiness Levels). The total duration of the action should normally not exceed 5 
years. 

Option  1  would  consist  of  a  series  of  ERA-NET  Cofund  actions,  limited  to  the  remainder  of 
Horizon 2020. They would result in calls being launched by Participating States in the years 2018, 
2019  and  2020  respectively.  On  the  basis  of  past  experience  with  ERA-NETs  and  Participating 
State commitments, it can be assumed that Participating States would contribute around €20 million 
to each call, and that consequently the Union would provide support amounting to €10 million (on 
the basis of the reimbursement rate, which for ERA-NET Cofund actions is set at 33%). This would 
lead  to  a  total  investment  from  the  Participating  States  of  around  €60  million  and  a  Union 
contribution of €30 million. 

Option  1  would  not  allow  for  addressing  substantially  the  innovation  dimension,  since  the 
national programmes that would collaborate and coordinate their activities during these three 
years  are  mainly  addressing  research  activities  of  public  research  organisations. 
Furthermore,  Option  1  is  not  expected  to  integrate  national  funding  programmes  in  a 
common research strategic agenda. 

Option 2: PRIMA Joint Programme based on Article 185 TFEU 

Article  185  TFEU  enables  the  EU  to  make  provision  for  its  participation  in  research  and 
development  programmes  undertaken  by  several  Member  States,  including  participation  in  the 
structures  created  for  the  execution  of  those  programmes.  Article  26  of  the  Horizon  2020 
Framework  Programme  Regulation  specifies  the  conditions  and  criteria  for  identifying  and 
proposing an initiative pursuant to Article 185 TFEU. Among other criteria, Article 185 initiatives 
may  only  be  proposed  by  the  Commission  in  cases  where  there  is  a  need  for  a  dedicated 
implementation structure and where there is a high level of commitment of Participating States 
to integration at scientific, management and financial levels. In order to submit a proposal, all 
criteria set out in Article 26(2) of the Horizon 2020 Regulation must be met and the Participating 
States must demonstrate that they are committed to integrating (rather than coordinating) their R&I 

52  An  overview  on  past  and  ongoing  ERA-NET  actions  and  country  participation  can  be  found  on  ERA-LEARN  2020 
https://www.era-learn.eu/network-information/countries  
53 JPco-fuND would have been able to fund only 8 to 10 proposals from the call; with the EC top up funding they were able to fund 
20 proposals. 

29 

 
                                                            
efforts by defining and committing themselves to a joint programme. This high level of integration 
requires  a  new  or  pre-existing  implementation  structure  -  Dedicated  Implementation  Structure 
('DIS') - that is designated by the Participating States, and entrusted under certain conditions, by the 
Commission  with  budget  implementation  tasks  for  indirect  management  purposes  and  with  long-
term commitment. The EU would provide financial support by matching under certain conditions 
Participating  States  contributions  up  to  a  ceiling.  It  deserves  emphasis  that  Article  185  initiatives 
have a strong track record with respect to the long-term integration of national and European R&I 
efforts on common challenges, leverage effects and the delivery of impacts, international leadership 
and global cooperation, and implementation, budget and sound financial management (Box 3). 

BOX 3: The track record of past Article 185 initiatives 

The experience from past and on-going initiatives from FP6 to Horizon 2020 can be summarised as follows: 

Long-term integration of national and European efforts on common challenges 
 Article185 initiatives are the only legally possible form to address jointly common challenges in a long-term 
collaboration  between  R&I  programmes  of  Member  States,  with  clear  up-front  financial  and  political 
commitments; 

 Art  185  initiatives  are  policy  driven  programming  activities  that  ensure  through  their  basic  acts  a  high 

visibility and recognition among national and EU policy makers; 

 They allow a high degree of scientific, management and financial integration within their narrow borders (in 
the case of EMPIR, the Article185 initiative on Metrology 50% of all related research in Europe) and wider 
coordination effects beyond; without the need to institutionalise joint efforts or create large new structures;  
 Article185 initiatives operate on the basis of Annual Work Plans that allow flexible programming according 

to changing needs and coordination with broader Union and Participating States policy objectives; 

Leverage effects and delivery on impacts 
 They  achieve  substantial  direct  and  indirect  leverage  both  in  terms  of  financial  resources  and  overall 

knowledge gains; 

 Article185 initiatives are designed around clearly specified objectives and targets in order to deliver economic 
and wider societal impacts, e.g. the Active and Assisted Living Programme (AAL2) accelerating innovative 
ICT-based solutions for active and healthy ageing; or the European & Developing Countries Clinical Trials 
Partnership  (EDCTP2)  developing  new  or  improved  drugs,  vaccines  and  diagnostics  against  HIV/AIDS, 
tuberculosis and malaria in sub-Saharan Africa;  

 They disseminate the uptake of good practice in R&I policy design and implementation across Europe and 

beyond, driven by principles and standards of Horizon 2020; 

International leadership and global cooperation 
 They  have  demonstrated  the  potential  to  set  global  R&I  agendas  and  increase  visibility  of  joint  European 
efforts.  Article185  initiatives  on  clinical  trials  (EDCTP2)  or  metrology  (EMPIR)  are  perceived  as 
internationally leading programmes; 

 The  joint  partnership  in  the  governance  of  EDCTP2  demonstrate  the  EU  leadership  in  paving  the  way 

towards a new model for development cooperation; 

Implementation, budget and sound financial management 
 The efforts for the preparation, set-up and implementation of Article185 initiatives are high and need to be 

justified in particular by the scale and scope of the initiatives; 

 The implementation of Article185 initiatives is considered efficient and in line with the requirements of the 

financial regulation for indirect management of Union funds. 

 The  frontloading  of  the  commitments  from  the  EU  budget  –  with  the  actual  fulfilment  of  matching 
commitments  from  Participating  States  being  accounted  for  in  later  years  –  applies  in  principle  to  all 
Article185 initiatives. In the case of BONUS this expanded to the next MFF. This has not compromised the 
sound  financial  management  of  the  Union  contribution.  In  case  the  Participating  States  contribute  less,  the 
Union contribution will be reduced proportionally, with the recovery of any amount unduly paid. 

Third country participation in Article 185 initiatives 

30 

 
 
In an Article 185 initiative, all Participating States (EU Member States and third countries) have the 
same rights (e.g. participation in governing structures with decision-making power) and obligations 
(e.g.  financial  contribution)  under  the  relevant  basic  act.  Even  though  Article  185  TFEU  refers 
specifically to the participation of the EU in programmes undertaken by several EU Member States, 
it does not preclude the participation of third countries in the Programme. However, depending on 
the  status  of  these  third  countries  in  relation  to  the  EU  (especially  their  legal  ties),  different 
requirements  have  to  be  met  to  guarantee  involvement  on  an  equal  footing  of  all  Participating 
States. 

Third  countries  associated  to  Horizon  2020  are  already  allowed  to  participate  in  Article  185 
initiatives.  The  text  of  the  specific  Horizon  2020  Association  Agreement  expressly  foresees  the 
possibility  for  an  associated  third  country  to  participate  in  various  Article  185  initiatives.  For  the 
participation of third countries not associated to Horizon 202054, the following requirements must 
be fulfilled: 

-  The basic act must contain an opening clause for third countries; 
- 

International agreements must be concluded with these countries to allow their participation. 

The purpose of these international agreements is to extend the legal regime from the EU basic act to 
the third countries. Article 185 initiatives establish obligations that include financial contributions 
and  financial  control.  Therefore,  mutually  agreed  mechanisms  that  guarantee  the  effective 
enforcement  of  rights  and  obligations  on  each  side  are  required.  These  international  agreements 
would have a purely bilateral nature regulating the obligations of third countries vis-à-vis the EU, 
making  direct  reference  to  the  basic  act.  As  a  consequence,  no  significant  subsequent  negotiation 
for the conclusion of these agreements would be needed. 

Implementation and management of the PRIMA Joint Programme 

For an Article 185 initiative, the Horizon 2020 Rules for Participation apply by default (Article 1). 
Article  185  initiatives  under  Horizon  2020  are  implemented  in  different  ways  as  regards  the 
management  of  the  Union  contribution  and  the  way  in  which  Participating  States  provide  their 
contributions to the programme. A PRIMA Joint Programme on the basis of Article 185 would be 
implemented  taking  full  account  of  good  practices  in  on-going  initiatives,  which  have  been 
analysed in detail in Box 4.  

The implementation would involve a reinforced version of the approach followed in the case of the 
Article 185 "European & Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP2)", involving 
the  matching  of  Union  and  Participating  State  contributions  at  programme  level.  Building  on  the 
strong commitment of cash contributions from Participating States to the PRIMA Joint Programme, 
and  on  their  commitment  to  increasing  the  integration  of  national  programmes  into  transnational 
activities, the main elements of the implementation and management are described in the following 
paragraphs. 

54 In the case of PRIMA, the EU has long-standing cooperation in R&I with third countries not Associated to Horizon 2020 (Egypt, 
Morocco,  and  Lebanon):  Egypt  and  Morocco  have  Science  and  Technology  Cooperation  Agreements  with  the  EU,  and  all  three 
countries have or are currently participating in ERA-NET activities funded by FP7 

31 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
BOX 4 – Implementation and management: Lessons learned from earlier Article 185 initiatives and 
applied to PRIMA 
Active and Assisted Living Programme (AAL2) and Eurostars2 (for R&D performing SMEs) 
Both  initiatives  make  use  of  decentralised  grant  management  on  the  basis  of  national  funding  rules,  with 
national and Union contributions being paid to projects by National Funding Bodies through national grant 
agreements.  The  matching  of  contributions  takes  place  at  project  level  (grant  amount  is  split  between 
national and Union contribution). While this approach works, it has certain drawbacks: 
  It requires significant derogations from the Horizon 2020 Rules for Participation (e.g. Eurostars: funding 

rules; AAL: IPR and funding rules); 

  The approach works well with national programmes marked by a high degree of similarity, which is not 
the case for PRIMA, thus not allowing for deploying a wide range of instruments to achieve objectives; 
  Different national funding rules apply. Beneficiaries are familiar with their national rules (an advantage) 

but would not fully benefit from the simplification under Horizon 2020. 
EMPIR (European Metrology Programme for Research and Innovation) 
The initiative and its implementation are based on National Metrology Institutes (NMIs), which are the main 
beneficiaries of the programme. Grant management is central, on the basis of the Horizon 2020 Model Grant 
Agreement.  The  Union  contribution  is  the  only  cash  contribution  to  the  resulting  projects.  Participating 
States  contribute  mainly  in-kind.  The  matching  of  contributions  takes  places  at  project  level,  where  the 
Participating  States'  contribution  consists  of  those  indirect  costs  that  are  not  reimbursed  by  the  DIS.  The 
overall approach and central implementation including grant management work very well. 
The approach for the matching contributions relies on full-cost accounting (additional requirement compared 
to Horizon 2020). For PRIMA, this is not appropriate and this for the following reasons: 
  The final beneficiaries will be very heterogeneous in terms of type and practices and it is likely that not 

all of them will have full cost accounting; 

  The real indirect costs will only be established after some years of implementation of the initiative, which 
does  not  allow  for  establishing  an  indicative  reimbursement  rate.  The  use  of  the  normal  Horizon  2020 
rates might lead to substantial recovery orders or drawing on guarantees from Participating States in case 
their contributions are lower. 

  It  would  reduce  the  overall  budget  of  the  programme  for  the  funding  of  new  projects  compared  to  the 
initial intention of Participating States to provide Euro 200 million in cash: the cash contribution would 
be from the Union and Participating States would contribute only in-kind at the level of projects. 

EDCTP2 (Article 185 European & Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership) 
This is the only initiative where the matching of contributions takes place at programme level: 
  The  transnational  calls  for  proposals  are  financed  by  the  Union  contribution,  with  central  grant 

management on the basis of the H2020 MGA; 

  Participating  States  contribute  mainly  with  in  kind-contributions,  the  so-called  Participating  States 
Initiated  Activities  (PSIAs).  These  are  included  in  the  Annual  Work  Plan  under  certain  conditions  and 
implemented  in  accordance  with  common  principles  agreed  by  the  Participating  States  and  the 
Commission. The Annual Work Plan is subject to approval by the Commission. PSIAs are purely national 
activities; no transnational collaboration at programme level takes place. The costs of these activities have 
to  be  determined  in  accordance  with  the  usual  accounting  practices  and  accounting  standards  of  the 
Participating  States  concerned  and  the  applicable  International  Accounting  Standards  /  International 
Financial Reporting Standards. 

Important to recall in comparison to PRIMA is that  in EDCTP2 the African countries are not Participating 
States  (third  countries)  in  the  basic  act.  They  do,  however,  participate  in  the  governance  of  the  EDCTP 
association  with  the  same  voting  rights.  This  approach  works  well,  in  particular  concerning  the  central 
management  of  the  Union  contributions.  There  are  clear  advantages,  in  particular  concerning  Participating 
States' commitments: 
  The  Participating  States'  national  activities  are  aligned  with  the  strategic  research  agenda  for  EDCTP2 
and all activities include collaboration between Participating States and Sub-Saharan countries. A number 
of calls or joint activities between several Participating States take place.  

  The commitments expressed so far by the Participating States in the Annual Work Plans 2014-2016 are 
high and exceed by Euro 400 million the amounts that are necessary to justify the Union contribution. 

32 

 
Delivering innovative, integrated R&I solutions through the PRIMA Joint Programme 

The  PRIMA  Joint  Programme  will  operate  on  the  basis  of  a  jointly  formulated  strategic  R&I 
agenda comprising (1) operational objectives, (2) R&I gaps identified, and (3) main expected R&I 
results. 

A substantial start has already been made with the formulation of this agenda, as reflected in Table 
4.1. 

Operational 
Objectives 

Gaps on R&I 

Main Expected R&I Results 

1. Smart and 
sustainable 
farming  

Overexploitation 
natural 
unsustainable farming 

of 
resources  and 

2. Water-saving 
solutions 

3. 
Mediterranean 
food products  

irrigation 

On-farm 
inefficiencies 
Changes in food demand 
and  consequences  on 
food 
chains, 
supply 
nutrition and health 

4. Food and 
water efficiency 

Food  and  water  losses 
and wastes 

5. Pests and 
pathogens in 
farming 

Animal 
diseases 

and 

plant 

6. New agro-
business models 

Business  food  systems 
create 
unable 
to 
employment 
and 
economic growth 

7. Land and 
water 
sustainability  

Soil 
erosion 
mismanagement 
water 
watershed level 

cycle 

at 

and 
of 
the 

  New plant genotypes 
  New cropping systems 
  New techniques 
  New tools 

  Improved irrigation strategies and methods 

  Feed/food security and safety 
  Innovation and functional foods 
  Innovation in recipes and ingredients 
  Environmentally friendly solutions 
  Reusing and co-using biomass, by-products, waste, water processing 
  Post-harvest processing 
  Water and energy efficiency 
  Better knowledge of pest and disease distribution and their drivers 
  Better pest and disease surveillance methods and networks 
  Pest and disease modelling 
  Better  preparedness  at  the  national  and  regional  levels  to  emerging 

trans-boundary pest and disease events 

  Identification of best practices in sustainable business models  
  Eco-friendly  Mediterranean  food  industry,  integrating  safe  and  quality 

food production and ecosystem conservation 

  Premium quality Mediterranean products  
  Anticipation of the impacts of future changes on resources and societies 
  Test of resilience of natural socio-environmental systems to variability 

and long term trends impacting land and water 

  New  strategies  for  soil  management  to  provide  higher  sustainable  and 

productive use  

  Mitigation  of  salinization  processes  by  combining  land  conservation 
and efficient water desalinization and water use from farm to watershed 
scale 

  New  vision  of  the  dynamic  management  of  natural  resources, 

considering simultaneously  quantity and quality dimensions 

8. Water 
governance 
systems 

Inequitable 
allocation 
sustainable 
management 

and 

  New  models  for  the  governance  of  water  management  systems, 
including:  innovative  tools/Decision  Support  Systems  for  planning, 
monitoring and forecasting systems, unconventional water resources 
  New  methodological  approaches  to  enhance  public  and  stakeholder 

water 
un- 
water 

involvement and the empowerment of civil society 
  Water sanitation and detoxification in food production 

Table 4.1: Main R&I outcome of PRIMA Joint Programme 

This  strategic  joint  R&I  agenda  will  be  implemented  through  a  succession  of  Annual  Work 
Programmes. 

A clear division of labour will guide the formulation and implementation of these Annual Work 
Programmes. The EU financial contribution and the national financial contributions will essentially 
be used for different, but fully complementary, purposes. 

33 

 
 
 
The EU financial contribution will be focused mainly on R&I activities at higher TRLs. The 
EU Financial contribution will be managed exclusively by the DIS and used for transnational calls 
for proposals deploying Horizon 2020 instruments. However, not all Horizon 2020 instruments will 
be deployed. The EU financial contribution will be used in a highly focused manner. As Table 4.2 
shows,  the  achievement  of  a  number  of  operational  objectives  included  in  the  strategic joint  R&I 
agenda  involves  R&I  activities  at  higher  Technology  Readiness  Levels.  These  activities  at  higher 
Technology  Readiness  Levels  are  of  crucial  importance  for  the  achievement  of  the  PRIMA 
objectives  since  they  are  the  most  promising  in  terms  of  the  quick  delivery  of  the  innovative, 
integrated  and  easily  transferable  solutions  urgently  needed  to  address  the  unsustainable 
management  of  water  provision  and  food  systems  in  the  Mediterranean  area.  These  activities  are 
also  the  most  demanding  in  financial  terms  and  the  most  demanding  in  terms  of  complementary 
knowledge  requirements and in terms  of public-private stakeholder involvement needed for quick 
valorisation  and  dissemination  of  results.  This  is  why  there  are  most  effectively  and  efficiently 
supported through the EU financial contribution. 

Table 4.2: Technological Readiness Levels (TRLs) 

Concretely,  the  EU  financial  contribution  will  be  mainly  used  to  support  pilots  and 
demonstrators. R&I activities at higher Technology Readiness Levels inevitably involve close-to-
market  pilots  and  demonstrators  that  can  test  adequately  real  life  solutions.  The  EU  financial 
contribution  will  therefore  be  focused  on  a  limited  number  (5  to  10)  of  such  pilots  and 
demonstrators in strategically identified and carefully assessed areas. 

On the other hand, national financial contributions will be focused on R&I activities at lower 
Technology Readiness Levels, on mobility and training actions, on networking activities, etc. 

The  Annual  Work  Plans  (AWP)  will  ensure  the  consistency  between  all  activities  and  their 
orientation  towards  the  achievement  of  the  operational,  specific  and  general  objectives  of 
PRIMA. The AWP, which is subject to approval by the Commission, will include:  

-  Transnational calls for proposals to be funded by the DIS with Union contribution, in accordance 

with the Horizon 2020 Rules for Participation; 

-  Activities only funded by the Participating States, and counting for the matching with the Union 
contribution under certain conditions. In particular, these activities will be included in the AWP 
after positive external evaluation by international peer review with regard to the objectives of the 
PRIMA Joint Programme. They will be implemented in compliance with common principles, to 
be  agreed  by  the  Participating  States  and  the  Commission.  These  activities  will  include  joint 
calls between Participating States' programmes for transnational projects, organised by the DIS 
(including proposal evaluations). 

34 

O1Smart, sustainable farmingO2Water-saving solutionsO3Mediterranean food productsO4Food and water efficiencyO5Pests and pathogens in farmingO6New agro-business modelsO7Land and water sustainabilityO8Water governance systems123456789Technological Readiness Level:Operational ObjectiveResearchApplied Research and DevelopmentDemonstrationPre-Commercial Deployment 
 
PRIMA will be implemented with seven Annual Work Plans (2018 – 2024). It is expected that 
activities, including grant agreements for proposals selected for funding from calls of the last 
Annual Work Plan will be concluded still in 2024 and implemented until 2027-2028. 

The budget of the PRIMA Joint Programme 

The  development  of  the  joint  strategic  R&I  agenda  has  been  accompanied  by  a  careful  financial 
estimation  of  the  costs  involved  in  its  implementation.  It  has  been  concluded  that  at  least  €400 
million is required to implement fully all required R&I activities and reach the operational, specific 
and general objectives of PRIMA. 

The Participating States have already committed to providing at least €200 million in cash. In 
fact,  the  current  commitment  of  cash  plus  in-kind  contributions  exceeds  €300  million  of  public 
funding for  R&I activities towards achieving the objectives of the PRIMA Joint Programme. The 
Participating  States  would  also  contribute  any  administrative  expenditure  beyond  the  5% 
contributed by the Union. 

The  EU  financial  contribution  would  not  exceed  €200  million.  95%  of  these  funds  would  be 
used for operational purposes. As set out above, this EU operational contribution would be used to 
support a limited number of critical pilots and demonstrators in strategically identified and carefully 
assessed areas. The Union would also contribute to the administrative expenditure of the PRIMA 
Joint Programme implementation, with a maximum of 5%. 

The governance of the PRIMA Joint Programme 

The  PRIMA  Participating  States  intend  to  designate  as  Implementing  Structure  a  newly  created 
legal entity that will implement the PRIMA Joint Programme, as body governed by private law with 
a public service mission, under Spanish law that will be hosted in the same premises as the Union 
for the Mediterranean (UfM) Secretariat. This approach is in line with the one chosen in the context 
of  ongoing  Article  185  initiatives  and  is  considered  to  be  appropriate  in  principle  for  a  potential 
PRIMA Joint Programme.  

The  DIS  will  be  subject  to  an  ex-ante  assessment  (audit)  before  the  European  Commission 
delegates budget implementation tasks to it. PRIMA Participating States have declared that they 
will provide adequate financial guarantees, as required for indirect management under the Financial 
Regulation.  

The  main  bodies  taking  part  in  the  Governance  of  the  PRIMA  Joint  Programme,  and  their 
respective tasks, are described below. 

  PRIMA  General  Assembly:  The  General  Assembly  will  be  the  decision-making  body  of  the 
PRIMA  Joint  Programme  and  will  include  all  Participating  States  –  whether  EU  Member 
States,  Horizon  2020  associated  third  countries,  or  Southern-Eastern  Mediterranean  third 
countries – on an equal footing. The European Commission will have the role of Observer in 
the PRIMA General Assembly. 

  PRIMA Chair and Co-Chair: These will come from the EU Member States and the Southern-

Eastern Mediterranean third countries and will act as legal representatives of the DIS. 

  PRIMA  Executive  Board:  Appointed  by  the  PRIMA  General  Assembly,  it  will  include  a 
selected number of Participating States and the Chair and Co-Chair. It will take decisions on all 
issues related to the administration of the PRIMA Joint Programme. 

  PRIMA Scientific Advisory Board: Composed of experts in the scientific fields of the PRIMA 
Joint Programme, it will provide strategic advice for the PRIMA Joint Programme and will be 
consulted as part of the decision-making process for the implementation of the Programme. It 

35 

 
 
 
will provide recommendations for priorities and topics to be addressed in the calls for proposals 
and other actions of the PRIMA Annual Work Programme (AWP). 

  PRIMA  Secretariat:  This  will  be  the  Operational  Management  Unit,  as  the  DIS  shall  be 

responsible for the management of the PRIMA Joint Programme. 

Ensuring  the  sound  financial  management  of  PRIMA  Joint  Programme:  monitoring  and 
audit mechanisms, protecting the financial interest of the EU 

DG  RTD  has  adopted  standard  supervision  arrangements  for  initiatives  pursuant  to  Article  185 
TFEU that will apply equally to the PRIMA Joint Programme. The details of monitoring and audit 
mechanisms are described in paragraph 7.2 of this report. 

Stakeholder support for an Article 185 initiative 

The  on-line  public  consultation  launched  in  the  frame  of  the  present  impact  assessment 
highlighted  that  55%  of  respondents  (58%  of  EU  and  35.5%  of  Non-EU)  believe  that  existing 
national  and  EU-level  R&I  actions  in  the  field  of  water  provisions  and  food  systems  in  the 
Mediterranean  Area  do  not  adequately  address  the  identified  problem.  As  an  alternative  to  the 
current  scenario,  69.3%  suggest  to  create  a  permanent  dedicated  structure  (Article  185  TFEU); 
29.1% would opt for a Cofund action; 1.6% (all from EU countries) selected "Other policy option" 
but  did  not  provide  any  alternative  policy  option,  except  for  one  suggestion  to  launch  a  series  of 
small grants, which can be likely associated to a specific implementation of the baseline scenario. 

4.4. 

Stakeholders targeted by the different policy options 

Policy  Option  0  would  not  target  any  specific  stakeholder,  since  it  would  rely  on  a  bottom-up 
participation  of  stakeholders  concerned  in  proposals  submitted  to  Horizon  2020  calls  that  are 
relevant for food and water.  

Policy Option 1, all ERA-NETs would directly target research funders, and to a lesser extend the 
ministries that allocate the funding to their programmes. The final target audience is the one that is 
invited  to  apply  to  the  calls  launched  under  ERA-NETs,  for  the  relevant  programmes  of  the 
Mediterranean Countries mostly researchers in public research organisations.  

Policy  Option  2,  the  PRIMA  Joint  Programme  based  on  Article  185  TFEU  would  allow,  for  the 
calls  implemented  by  the  DIS,  the  participation  of  all  relevant  R&I  actors,  in  particular 
industry and other end-users. The activities of the Participating States would target mainly public 
research  organisations.  Option  2  would  furthermore  target  the  different  ministries  and  other 
governmental authorities involved on the side of the Participating States.  

In Annex 7 a detailed analysis of the actors affected by the three policy options is reported. 

No different digital solution subject to assessment has been identified as relevant to the problem at 
stake. 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
5.  Section 5. What are the impacts of the different policy options and who will be affected? 

5.1.  Likely economic, social and environmental impacts of each of the short-listed options 

Taking account of the identified problem, problem drivers and objectives, this section assesses the 
retained options of section 4.3 according to their direct and indirect impacts. 

In particular, the following most significant impacts have been identified: 

  Direct impacts of economic nature: 

-  Increased innovation and research 

  Integration of national R&I programmes and activities  

-  Technological development 

  Delivery of fully piloted and demonstrated, common innovative, integrated solutions for 

the sustainable management of water provision and food systems  

-  Growth and investment 

  Opportunities for agro-food industry and other SMEs and other companies 

 

 

Indirect impacts of economic nature 
-  Growth and investment 

  Large-scale aggregate economic impacts 

Indirect impacts of social nature 
-  Working conditions 

  Improved livelihoods for farmers 

-  Public health and safety 

  Improved nutrition and health 

-  Social impact in third countries 

  Political stability and reduced migration 

 

Indirect impacts of environmental nature 
-  Fostering the efficient use of resources and fighting climate change 

  Large-scale environmental impacts  

5.2.  Direct impacts  

The identified likely direct impacts of the Article 185 option are of economic nature, according to 
the impacts category of Tool #16 of the Better Regulation Toolbox. Article 185 option is expected 
to  have  relevant  positive  impacts  on  innovation  and  research,  technological  development  and 
growth and investment, as described in the following paragraphs. 

5.2.1.  Rapid integration of national R&I programmes and activities in the Mediterranean 

area 

The  most  immediate  direct  impact  of  the  Article  185  option,  and  an  impact  that  no  other 
option  can  achieve,  is  the  rapid  integration  of  the  R&I  programmes  and  activities  of  the 
Participating States within the context of a jointly formulated strategic R&I agenda focused on 
addressing  the  challenge  of  unsustainable  managed  water  provision  and  food  systems.  This 
will  provide  a  comprehensive,  long-term  stable  and  predictable  framework  for  all  relevant 
stakeholders  to  collaborate  towards  the  achievement  of  the  operational,  specific  and  general 
objectives of the PRIMA Joint Programme.  

Considering the strategic and specific objectives described in Section 3, and based on Tool #16 of 
the Better Regulation Toolbox, the direct impacts on the  integration of national R&I programmes 
and activities are summarised in Table 5.1. 

37 

 
 
 
Direct impact category 

Baseline scenario: No 
dedicated EU action 

Option 1: ERA-NET Cofund 
actions 

Mobilisation of additional 
resources in R&I in the 
field of water provision 
and food systems 

Baseline scenario would not 
specifically address 
additional resources. The 
instruments available under 
Option 0 are not specifically 
designed to directly 
leverage R&I resources. 

ERA-NET Cofund actions 
would be able to attract further 
public funding, but it would 
likely more difficult to mobilise 
private investment. In fact, in 
ERA-NETs predominantly 
public research organisations 
are participating in the call. 

Uptake of innovative 
solutions 

Knowledge transfer and 
skill creation 

ERA-NET Cofund actions are 
likely to address research 
activities, but have limited 
capacity to address the 
innovation dimension. 

Baseline scenario would be 
able to address directly the 
innovative solutions, 
through dedicated calls. 
However, it does not 
present the necessary scope 
and scale for addressing the 
challenges of water 
provisions and food systems 
in the Mediterranean area. 
Baseline scenario and ERA-NET Cofund actions are expected 
to have a positive impact on knowledge transfer and skill 
creation. However, given the need to develop innovative 
integrated solutions for the sustainable management of water 
provision and food systems and to ensure sufficient 
geographical coverage, they are likely to have only a limited 
impact. These options, in fact, don't have the necessary long 
term spam and cooperation capacity to cope with societal 
challenges, such as the ones addressed by the identified 
objects, that are of scale and complexity, requiring different 
types of knowledge and skills from different sectors and 
disciplines to resolve them. 
Main features concerning R&I activities and their coordination 
Ad-hoc, bottom-up 

Priority setting 
Coordination framework  None 

Coordination entity / 
governance 

none 

Commission Driven 
ERA-NET,  variable  geometry 
for countries participating 
ERA-NET consortia of research 
funders 

No 

Coordinated 

Ad hoc, bottom up 

Ad hoc, bottom-up 

Research on water and 
food 
Innovation activities incl. 
demonstrators and 
industrial research 
Policy/normative 
research 
Support for capacity 
building and skills 
Time frame for resulting 
R&I activities 
Table 5.1: Direct impacts on the integration of national R&I programmes and activities 

2018 – 2023 

2018 – 2023 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Option 2: PRIMA Joint 
Programme based on Article 
185 TFEU 
Article 185 option presents a 
longer-term engagement towards 
common R&I investment over a 
period that generally lasts 10 or 
more years  would enable the 
structural involvement of different 
types of stakeholders, both public 
and private, bringing together and 
leveraging their respective 
knowledge and financial resources. 
Article 185 would likely result in 
the development of innovative 
solutions with high TRL by 
implementing large scale 
demonstration project in the 
Mediterranean area. 

Article 185 ensures long-time 
commitment on specific objectives 
of EU and third countries on equal 
footing. The long term cooperation 
could lead to the generation of new 
knowledge to be valorised in the 
form of new products, processes, 
services and economic, social and 
environmental impacts. 

Joint decision 
Article 185 
(14 countries55) 
PRIMA DIS and PRIMA General 
Assembly with Participating States 
representatives 
Integrated, based on common R&I 
agenda  
Integrated, based on common R&I 
agenda 

Integrated, based on common R&I 
agenda 
Integrated, based on common R&I 
agenda 
2018 - 2027 

55   Cyprus,  Czech  Republic,  Egypt,  France,  Greece,  Israel,  Italy,  Lebanon,  Luxembourg,  Malta,  Morocco,  Portugal,  Spain  and 

Tunisia 

38 

 
                                                            
5.2.2.  Efficient and effective delivery of fully piloted and demonstrated, common innovative, 
integrated solutions for the sustainable management of water provision and food 
systems 

The aforementioned stable, focused, comprehensive framework provided by the Article 185 option, 
which involves all relevant stakeholders and establishes a clear division of labour between the use 
of  the  EU  financial  contribution  (pilots,  demonstrators,  higher  TRL  levels)  and  the  use  of  the 
national  financial  contributions  (training,  networking,  lower  TRL  levels),  will  ensure  the  best 
delivery  of  the  intended  scientific  and  technological  outcomes,  whether  on  the  input  side  (higher 
levels  of  R&I  investment,  skill  creation)  or  on  the  output  side  (actual  development,  piloting  and 
demonstration of innovative integrated solutions for the sustainable management of water provision 
and food systems, uptake of those solutions). 

Due to the features of R&I activities linked to the policy options, only Option 2 is likely to have 
significant impacts in terms of delivery of fully piloted and demonstrated and integrated solutions. 
Option 1 usually addresses lower TRL projects with very low involvement of industry. Option 0 
would require specific and ad-hoc actions under Horizon 2020 Work Programmes that are not likely 
to  achieve  the  adequate  level  of  integration  and  involvement  of  all  relevant  stakeholders  in  the 
Mediterranean area. 

5.2.3.  Greater opportunities for food industry and other SMEs and other companies 

In  the  Mediterranean  area,  Micro,  Small  and  Medium  Enterprises  constitute  a  key  economic  and 
employment driver, accounting for about 70% of the total workforce and 99% of overall enterprises 
in the region56. 

Food industry SMEs account for a large share of the total number of SMEs and have much 
innovation potential. Dedicated statistics show, for instance, that about half of Spanish food SMEs 
carry out either product or process innovations. The figures for Italy are similar: 54% of all Italian 
food  SMEs  carry  out  product  or  process  innovations,  and  28%  develop  their  own  R&I  activities. 
According  to  the  PRIMA  Expert  Group,  extrapolating  the  abovementioned  figures  to  the 
Mediterranean  region  would  mean  that  around  half  of  the  food  SMEs  would  be  able  to  perform 
innovation activities. This percentage might be lower in Southern-Eastern Mediterranean countries 
due  to  the  predominantly  micro-character  of  the  local  food  producing  and  processing  companies, 
with restricted or no market access.57 

The current position of the fragmented Mediterranean food industry is not competitive, however, in 
a market dominated by large food multinationals (even if food chains of Mediterranean products are 
characterised by the strong presence of SMEs in food production and food processing) because of 
low  levels  of  innovation.  Regarding  organisational  innovations,  only  part  of  the  food  and 
agricultural  SME  sector  of  the  Mediterranean  will  be  able  to  develop  and  implement  it  to  be 
competitive  (e.g.  improved  cost  structures,  better  market  access,  increasing  sales  figures  or  profit 
margins).  

All  Policy  Options  are  expected  to  affect  the  food  value  chain,  farming  and  related  services  and 
water management sectors, from firms in the process industry to retailers.  

56 Euro- Med Development Center for Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, 2012, presentation at the Workshop on challenges and 
opportunities for the textiles and clothing sector in the Euro Mediterranean region, based on Eurostat data 
57 Extrapolations made by the Commission services based on erva, M.C., Triguero-Cano, A., and Corcoles, D. (2013), Differences in 
innovation between food and manufacturing firms: An analysis of persistence. Agribusiness Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 273-292. 

39 

 
 
                                                            
Option 0 is expected to produce low impacts on SMEs and competitiveness because of the limited 
capacity of single (and not continued over time) Horizon 2020 actions to produce innovations to be 
brought to the market. 

Option 1 is expected to provide a moderate positive impact on SMEs and competitiveness, because 
of  the  larger  cooperation  among  a  specific  set  of  Mediterranean  Countries  and  because  of  the 
leverage effect on investments they make. 

Option 2 is expected to produce much more positive impacts on SMEs and competitiveness due to 
the long-lasting commitment period and to the common strategy for the adoption of eco-innovation 
and sustainable business models, together with the set-up of more sustainable marketing chains. The 
wide scientific and stakeholder base achievable within Option 2, the strong economic commitment, 
the closeness to regional policy-making and the long timeframe are likely to bring positive impacts 
on SMEs and competitiveness. 

5.3. 

Indirect impact  

The  identified  likely  indirect  impacts  of  the  Article  185  option  are  of  economic,  social  and 
environmental  nature,  according  to  the  impacts  category  of  Tool  #16  of  the  Better  Regulation 
Toolbox. Article 185 option is expected to indirectly generate relevant positive impacts on growth 
and  investment,  working  conditions,  public  health  and  safety,  social  impact  in  third  countries, 
efficient use of resources and fighting climate change. The expected significance of the identified 
likely indirect impacts is assessed in the following paragraphs. 

5.3.1.  Large-scale aggregate economic impacts 

To  assess  the  economic  impact  of  the  different  options  it  is  crucial  to  address  the  nexus  'climate 
change, water availability/variability/predictability, and food systems, and the role the R&I can play 
within this nexus. 

Climate change already has, and will increasingly have in the coming years and decades, large-scale 
effects on water quality and availability. As a recent World Bank report (2016) argues, the impacts 
of climate change will be channelled primarily through the water cycle. Water will become scarcer, 
more variable and less predictable. The World Bank argues that this will have large-scale economic 
effects.  Water-related  climate  risks  cascade  through  food,  energy,  urban,  and  environmental 
systems. Water is a vital factor of production, so diminishing water supplies can jeopardise growth 
and economic prospects. Some regions could see their growth rates decline by as much as 6% 
of  GPD  by  2050  as  a  result  of  water-related  losses  in  agriculture,  health,  income,  and 
impacts  of  water  mismanagement  are  felt 
property.  As 
disproportionately  by  the  poor,  who  are  more  likely  to  rely  on  rain-fed  agriculture  to  feed  their 
families, live on the most marginal lands, which are more prone to floods, and are most at risk from 
contaminated water and inadequate sanitation. Changes in water availability and variability can also 
induce migration and ignite civil conflict according to the World Bank. Where economic growth is 
impacted  by  rainfall,  episodes  of  droughts  and  floods  have  generated  waves  of  migration  and 
statistical spikes in violence within countries. In a globalised and connected world, such problems 
are  impossible  to  quarantine.  Furthermore,  where  large  inequities  prevail,  people  move  from 
regions of poverty to regions of prosperity, which can lead with increased social tensions. 

the  World  Bank  argues, 

the 

While ineffective water management policies can exacerbate the adverse growth impacts of climate 
change,  forward-looking  policies  can  go  a  long  way  towards  neutralising  them,  according  to  the 
World  Bank.  In  the  Middle  East,  for  instance,  business-as-usual  water  management  policies  can 
lead to GDP being smaller by 14% by 2050 while efficient water management policies can reduce 

40 

 
 
 
the effect to minus 6.02%. And in the Sahel, the business-as-usual scenario leads to minus 11.7% of 
GDP while good policies can reduce it to minus 0.82%. 

In the Mediterranean region, water supply and food supply are inter-related. Irrigation accounts for 
70%  of  total  water  use  in  the  region  and  in  some  Southern  and  Eastern  Mediterranean  countries 
even  for  80%.  As  a  consequence  of  climate  change,  in  order  to  sustain  agriculture  and  meet  the 
growing  need for food (by 2050, the population will exceed the 600 millions), the Mediterranean 
area as a whole may face an increase of between 4% and 18% in gross irrigation requirements (if 
irrigation  systems  and  conveyance  are not  improved).  At present,  the Mediterranean region  could 
save 35% of water by implementing more efficient irrigation and conveyance systems. 

According to the McKinsey report "Pursuing the global opportunity in food and agribusiness, 
Chemicals  &  Agriculture  June  2015",  fruits  and  vegetables  in  the  Middle  East  and  North 
Africa are one of the 24 most attractive global hotspots for investors in the period 2011-2020. 

R&I are absolutely key for bringing about better water management policies and thus have, 
against the abovementioned background, huge potential economic and socio-political impacts. 
The  aforementioned  World  Bank  report  explicitly  calls  attention  to  the  opportunities  offered  by 
advancing  technologies  for  water  supply  expansion  and  water  resource  recovery  and  calls  for 
greater research inter alia to determine the commercial viability and opportunities to scale up new 
technologies. It also calls for carefully researching investments in technologies to reduce the impact 
of extremes, variability and uncertainty. 

In  general  terms,  the  returns  on  total  R&D  expenditure  are  high.  For  instance,  a  0.1  percentage 
point  increase  in  R&D  could  boost  output  per  capita  growth  by  some  0.3–0.4%.  The  returns 
specifically on public R&D expenditure are also high. For instance, the rate of return on publicly 
funded R&D usually exceeds 30% while each extra 1% in public R&D generates an extra 0.17% in 
productivity  growth.  The  returns  specifically  on  private  R&D  are  equally  high.  Firms'  returns  on 
their own investment in research usually range from 20% to 30% while societal returns on firms’ 
investment  in  research  usually  range  from  30%  to  40%.  Each  extra  1%  in  business  R&D  also 
generates an extra 0.13% in productivity growth. 

These overall figures are confirmed by empirical evidence on returns to water and agricultural R&I. 
For instance, a recent study on the rates of return to water management research estimated 
returns between 11% and 20% per year. A recent study re-examining the reported rates of return 
to food and agricultural research and development estimated a median of 9.8% per year and a mean 
of 13.6% per year. 

According to the PRIMA Expert Group, closing the gap between supply and demand by deploying 
water productivity improvements across regions and sectors around the world could cost about $50 
billion to $60 billion annually over the next two decades. Private-sector companies will account for 
about half of this spending. Many of these investments yield positive returns in just three years. 

R&I make their greatest contribution if governments support it. This is because of the existence of 
market  failures.  Firms  often  find  it  difficult  to  finance  risky  R&D  projects,  especially  during 
recessions.  R&D  investment  also  has  beneficial  effects  for  the  wider  economy  as  a  result  of 
knowledge spill-overs but firms do not take these effects into account in their decisions. The IMF 
(2016) therefore calls for promoting private R&D by providing subsidies and tax incentives. 

The large-scale returns on public support for R&I are demonstrated by evidence from the ex-post 
evaluation of the FP7. According to the High Level Expert Group (HLEG) that carried out the ex-
post evaluation of FP7, the programme will directly create 130,000 research jobs over a period of 
10 years and indirectly 160,000 additional jobs over 25 years. The HLEG also estimated an indirect 
economic effect of €500 billion over 25 years, or approximately €20 billion annually in additional 
GDP. According to the external evaluation of the HLEG, through short-term leverage and long-term 

41 

 
multiplier effects, each euro spent by FP7 generated approximately €11 of estimated direct and 
indirect economic effects through innovations, new technologies and products. 

In the specific case of the Mediterranean area, strong efforts are needed in product, processing and 
marketing  innovation  to  succeed  in  competitive  food  markets  (both  locally  and  internationally). 
Many  companies,  and  mostly  SMEs,  are  developing  products  and  services  that  can  help  business 
customers raise their water productivity. In agriculture, improved irrigation technologies and plant-
management techniques are yielding “more crops per drop”. 

Developing innovative solutions for water provision and food systems in the Mediterranean could 
also contribute to generating employment opportunities. A number of EU Mediterranean countries 
show  high  unemployment  rates,  while  non-EU  Mediterranean  countries  offer  unattractive, 
unspecialised jobs incentivising migrations. The implementation of innovations in (traditional) food 
products can contribute to job opportunities. Product innovation in food SMEs is positively linked 
to employment, and process innovations do not necessarily reduce employment in the food industry. 
Additional  market  opportunities  will  be  created  for  agricultural  producers  of  raw  materials  for 
traditional food products.  

Enhanced  investment  in  R&I  are  likely  to  achieve  the  aforementioned  broad  economic  indirect 
impacts if the effects of a more sustainable management of water provision and food systems would 
be  beneficial  also  to  other  sectors,  e.g.  more  availability  of  water  in  urban  area  and  non-food 
industrial sector.  

Policy  Option  0  and  Option  1  have  a  limited  capability  of  achieving  an  appropriate  scale  of 
resources as to have cross-sectoral impacts thorough the Mediterranean area, for their low level of 
integration and short time frame.   

Policy Option 2, due to the long time-frames associated with innovation development and adoption 
and the integrated approach, has the capacity to address regional strategies and policies to transfer 
positive impacts in the broader regional economy. 

5.3.2.  Improved livelihoods for farmers 

Farmers would be amongst the most immediate beneficiaries of improved water provision and food 
systems.  Productivity  enhancements  increasing  farmers'  resilience  in  the  face  of  climate  change 
pressures can alleviate poverty, create jobs and lower food prices58. The analysis suggests that while 
all policy options can be expected to have some impacts (in proportion to the resources invested), 
Option 2 is likely to be the most fit for purpose due to its wide scope, mobilisation of resources 
and  integrated  nature  able  to  stimulate  co-fertilisation  among  Mediterranean  countries  and 
economic sectors. In addition, R&I on sustainable agricultural practices will provide incentives for 
young people to invest in becoming farmers59,60. Large, long-term R&I programmes could develop 
or enhance instruments to attract young farmers through: a) education and increased awareness with 
regard  to  sustainable  agriculture  practices;  b)  capacity-building  with  regard  to  implementation  of 
relevant  education;  and  3)  financial  schemes  enabling  access  to  land  and  credit  for  relevant 
investments and insurance coverage.  

A  new  generation  of  educated  young  farmers,  able  to  use  advanced  technologies  and 
innovation-ready, will require an array of new services in rural areas. Young farmers also have 

58  Nelson,  G.C.,  Rosegrant,  M.W.,  Koo,  J.,  Robertson,  R.,  Sulser,  T.,  Zhu,  T.,  Ringler,  C.,  Msangi,  S.,  Palazzo,  A.,  Batka,  M., 
Magalhaes,  M.,  Valmonte-Santos,  R.,  Ewing,  M.,  and  Lee,  D.,  2009.  Climate  Change  Impact  on  Agriculture  and  Costs  of 
Adaptation. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C. (USA) 
59 IFAD (2010) Rural Poverty Report 2011, Rome: International Fund for Agricultural Development 
60  White,  B.,  2012.  Agriculture  and  the  Generation  Problem:  Rural  Youth,  Employment  and  the  Future  of  Farming.  Institute  of 
Development Studies (IDS) Bulletin Vol. 43 (6):9-19. 

42 

 
 
                                                            
a longer-term stake in their farmland and need to be able to rely on its continued productivity for 
decades to come, and then for future generations, too. Young farmers are particularly conscious of 
soil health and sustainability, and therefore it is crucial that they are supported by R&I programmes 
to  protect  fertile  but  fragile  Mediterranean  natural  resources  (as  well  as  the  services  these  soils 
provide).  

5.3.3.  Improved nutrition and health for the people of the Mediterranean area 

The activities identified by the PRIMA initiative are likely to  have  positive  indirect impacts with 
respect to achieving the SDGs. In particular, developing and implementing innovative solutions for 
sustainable  management  would  likely  lead  to  reduced  unsustainable  water  use  and  agricultural 
practices, thus significantly contributing to SDG 2 and 6. The analysis suggests that Option 2 and, 
to  a  lesser  extent,  Option  1  would  both  be  aligned  with  and  complement  high-level  EU  goals 
related to the attainment of the Sustainable Development Goals. 

Sustainably managed water provision and food systems will not only improve the livelihoods 
of  farmers  and  create  large-scale  economic  opportunities  in  the  food  industry  and  other 
sectors,  they  will  also  directly  improve  the  nutrition  and  health  status  of  the  people  of  the 
Mediterranean area.  
According to a study by the World Bank (2016)61, there is growing evidence that water shocks, due 
water  scarcity  and  variability,  and  climate  change,  may  have  much  longer-term  effects.  This  is 
particularly true when water shocks cause nutritional deficits or health impacts in young children, or 
income shocks which prevent families from investing in their children. 

The  establishment  of  clear  links  between  food,  nutrition  and  health  in  the  Mediterranean  is  an 
extremely complex issue requiring a very long-term time perspective, that can exceed even the time 
frame of all three policy options. It would anyway be possible to influence the diet of the population 
in  the  Mediterranean  region  towards  health-promoting  nutrition  and  reorganising  the  agro-food 
value  chain  accordingly.  This  approach  requires  multidisciplinarity  (agriculture,  food  technology, 
nutrition  science,  social  sciences,  economics,  psychology,  sociology,  IT  experts),  and  the 
involvement of a wide range of societal and value chain actors. Additionally a significant increase 
in Mediterranean scientific knowledge is required in the areas of food, nutrition and health and the 
interactions between them.  

5.3.4.  Greater political stability and reduced internal and external migration 

It is now widely recognised that climate changes, increased frequency and severity of droughts and 
storms,  changes  in  rainfall  patterns  and  losses  of  agricultural  productivity  are  likely  to  increase 
migration in the coming decades. Building resilience to the more extreme precipitation events of 
climate  change  will  become  a  more  urgent  priority  especially  in  rainfall  vulnerable  areas. 
Migration within and between countries tends to increase in areas facing water shocks (World Bank 
2016). 

A R&I strategy addressing water provision and food systems by deploying innovative solutions to 
tackle the adverse effects of climate change in the Mediterranean area can have positive impact on 
nutrition  and  health  status  for  the  people  of  the  Mediterranean  region,  and  more  economic 
opportunities  for  them,  as  explained  in  the  above  paragraphs.  These  improved  conditions  will 
contribute  to  greater  political  stability,  which  in  return  will  reduce  internal  and  external 
migration. In fact, water scarcity and unsustainable farming can destroy agriculture, causing many 

61 World Bank(2016) High and Dry: Climate Change, Water, and the Economy 

43 

 
 
 
                                                            
farm  families  to  migrate  to  cities.  In  Sub-Saharan  Africa  a  1  percent  reduction  in  precipitation  is 
associated with a 0.59 percent increase in the urbanization rate62.  

The  2030  Agenda  for  Sustainable  Development  included  migration  in  the  SDG  #10  on  reduced 
inequalities  within  and  between  countries.  PRIMA  is  likely  to  contribute  to  SDG  #10  reduce  the 
transaction  costs  of  migrant  remittances  and  eliminate  remittance  corridors  among  Mediterranean 
countries. 

The analysis suggests that Option 2 is likely to be the only one that can achieve significant impact 
in this regard, thanks to its wide scope, mobilisation of resources and integrated nature. 

5.3.5.  Large-scale environmental impacts 

All Options are likely to have positive indirect impacts - though clearly with different intensity - on 
the environment in  terms of improving  the resource-efficient management of water provision and 
food systems. 

The three options would, in fact, support R&I activities aiming at the development of solutions able 
to address the wide societal challenges of "Climate action, Environment, Resource Efficiency and 
Raw  Materials"  and  "Food  security,  sustainable  agriculture  and  forestry,  marine,  maritime  and 
inland water research, and the bioeconomy". Under Option 0 and Option 1, the focus of the topics 
of  future  calls  for  proposal  would  depend  on  the  Work  Programmes  of  Horizon  2020  and  future 
Framework  Programmes.  Water  provision  and  food  systems  represent,  therefore,  potential  topics 
that could be addressed in specific calls and/or topics. 

Under  Option  2,  the  increasing  investment  in  and  cooperation  on  R&I  with  a  long  term 
perspective, in line with a common defined strategic R&I agenda, focusing on water provision and 
food systems would create the appropriate conditions to develop and implement resource-efficient 
and  cost-effective  solutions  in  the  Mediterranean  area.  If  successful,  these  solutions  would  bring 
benefits to the environment, reducing resource use and waste generation. 

In  particular,  positive  environmental  effects  will  be  achieved  more  effectively  if  innovative 
solutions  could  be  developed  and  demonstrated  in  the  frame  of  an  increased  collaboration  and 
exchange of knowledge and expertise among  Mediterranean countries, which are facing the same 
challenges due to the climate change, increasing population and social instability. 

As  illustrated  in  the  previous  sections,  the  PRIMA  Joint  Programme  based  on  Article  185  could 
make  use  of  the  Union  contribution  to  fund  large-scale  demonstration  projects  by  transnational 
calls, thus reducing the time needed to implement innovative solutions. 

Based  on  the  analysis  of  the  PRIMA  Expert  Group,  below  are  reported  examples  of  areas  where 
Option 2 could help achieving more effectively large-scale environmental impacts: 

-  Improved  water  conservation  by  developing:  (i)  novel  plant  varieties  for  irrigated  and  dry 
farming conditions; (ii) innovative irrigation technologies and user-centred water conservation 
processes;  efficient  water  allocation  between  different  economic  sectors;  (iii)  user-centred 
water-saving  processes  and  programmes;  (iv)  improved  water  governance,  management  and 
coherence between agriculture, water and energy policies; 

-  Sustainable  farming  practices  by  implementing  innovative  solutions  for:  (i)  reducing  land 
conversion and habitat loss, (ii) improving water-use efficiency for irrigation, (iii) reducing soil 
erosion and degradation; (iv) producing and using safer fertilisers; (v) increasing productivity 
of local crops and farm animals; 

62 Barrios, Luisito, and Strobl 2006 

44 

 
 
                                                            
-  Recovery  of  water  and  nutrients  from  wastewater  for  agricultural  use  by  developing:  (i)  new 
site-specific policies, (ii) user acceptance strategies, (iii) and innovative wastewater treatment 
and reuse technologies; 

-  Water desalination by developing : (i) technological breakthroughs in energy consumption and 
desalinated  water  quality,  (ii)  brine  disposal,  (iii)  integration  into  energy  networks  and  local 
water  management  strategies,  (iv)  coordinated  strategies    for  water  reuse  solutions  and 
desalination as to close water loops; 

Implementing integrated innovative solutions in these areas can result in reducing greenhouse gases 
(GHG) emissions, harvest shocks due to droughts, heat waves and floods, and build resilience and 
adaptation capacity in the Mediterranean area. 

5.4.  Budgetary impacts 

As it regards the impact on the costs and budgetary implications of the different policy options, a 
detailed analysis is reported in Table 5.2. 

Baseline scenario: No 
dedicated EU action 
≈ € 30 million 
2018 - 2020 
13% 

Option 1: ERA-NET 
Cofund actions 
≈ € 30 million 
2018 - 2020 
200% 

PRIMA Joint Programme 
based on Article 185 TFEU 
€ 200 million 
2018 - 2020 
≈ 150 – 300% 

Union contribution  
(commitments) 
Crowding in public funding 
(Direct contribution from 
Participating States) 

Crowding in private 
Total funding 

Total leverage on Union 
contribution 
Additional administrative 
expenditure 
(Commission/Participating 
States) 

Monitoring 
Evaluation 

39% 
≈ € 45.6 million 
2018 - 2020 
0.52 

None/none 

Project based 
Part of overall H2020 
evaluation 
Project based - low 

≈ € 60 million 
2018 - 2023 
0% 
≈ € 90 million 
2018 - 2020 
2 

None/5% 
Participating States 
have additional costs 
for the transnational 
calls 
Project based 
Part of overall H2020 
evaluation 
Project based - low 

Administrative effort 
Commission  
Prevention of errors, 
irregularities or fraud 
Financial risks for Union 
contribution 
Operational risks 
Table 5.2: Budgetary and financial impacts, including risks 

Project based 

Low 

Low 

Project based 

Low 

Medium 

€ 300 – 600 million 
2018 - 2028 
39% 
≈ € 695 - 1112 million 
2018 - 2028 
3.48 – 5.56 

None/5-7% 

Programme based  
Dedicated interim and final 
evaluation 
Programme based - medium 

Programme based (indirect 
management by the DIS) 
Low 

Medium 

Concerning the financial and operational risks associated with the different options the assessments 
is based on the requirements and specificities in place described below. 

  For Option 0 (baseline scenario) the operational and financial risks are comparable to those 
that  apply  to  Horizon  2020  funding  of  indirect  actions  in  general.  Risks  of  non-recovery  are 
covered  by  the  Participant  Guarantee  Fund.  Beneficiaries  report  on  the  basis  of  standard 
Horizon  2020  reporting,  including  where  appropriate  provision  of  certificates  of  financial 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
statements.  Supervision  of  the  actions  is  done  by  the  Commission  services  or  its  Executive 
Agencies.  

 

  For Option 1 (ERA-NET Cofund actions) the financial risks are low. The principle is that the 
comparable Union contribution is reimbursing part (up to 33%) of the public funding (financial 
support  to  third  parties)  that  is  paid  by  national  programmes  to  beneficiaries  participating  in 
successful projects resulting from the transnational calls. The ERA-NET participants report on 
the  basis  of  standard  Horizon  2020  reporting,  including  provision  of  certificates  of  financial 
statements  concerning  the  funding  they  have  paid  according  to  national  funding  rules.  There 
are certain operational risks associated with it, typically that national commitments are not as 
high as expected when publishing the topic for the ERA-NET in the Work Programme, or the 
transnational proposals selected are not fully consuming the call budget.  
In  case  of  the  Option  2  (PRIMA  Joint  Programme  based  on  Article  185  TFEU)  the 
management mode is different. Article 185 uses the indirect management of Union funds by the 
DIS. Before the delegation of management and transfer of funds the DIS will be subject to an 
ex-ante assessment in accordance with the requirements set  out in Article 61 of the Financial 
Regulation,  in  order  to  assess  its  capacity  to  implement  the  programme,  including  receiving, 
allocating  and  monitoring  the  Union's  financial  contribution  in  the  framework  of  indirect 
management of the Union budget. The assessment is usually carried out by using a Framework 
Contractor  to  the  European  Commission  (DG  BUDG  or  DG  RTD)  for  audit  services,  using 
terms  of  reference  developed  and  agreed  within  the  DG.  The  ex-ante  assessment  leads  to  a 
conclusion  accompanied,  where  appropriate,  by  a  number  of  recommendations,  prioritised 
according to the nature and importance of the audit findings, that need to be followed up by the 
DIS (action plan) in order to ensure full compliance with the rules.  
Once  the  DIS  has  been  positively  assessed,  financial  guarantees  provided  and  the  delegation 
agreement with the Commission signed, the implementation of the Joint Programme can start. 
The  DIS  provides  comprehensive  annual  reporting  including  auditor  opinions  and  a 
management  declaration.  The  DIS  is  furthermore  responsible  for  the  ex-ante  control  of 
expenditure of all indirect actions funded by the DIS. The financial risk for the Union is low, as 
the risk of non-recovery is covered by the financial guarantees that the Participating States have 
to  provide  will  have  to  provide  in  due  time  and  at  the  latest  before  the  signature  of  the 
delegation  agreement.  There  are  minor  operational  risks  that  can  be  identified,  in  particular 
concerning the fully fledged start of programme implementation. This can be mitigated by with 
annual budgets starting low and increasing over time.  

It has to be pointed out that the Participating States have requested flexibility concerning the central 
management of national contributions. This has been taken into account in the design of the Option 
2 by using a two-tier approach: 

  Tier  1:  Transnational  open  and  competitive  calls  organised  and  funded  by  the  DIS  and 
resulting  in  financial  support  mainly  in  the  form  of  grants  to  beneficiaries  in  indirect  actions 
managed  by  the  DIS,  including  R&I  activities,  e.g.  demonstrators,  pilot  plants,  testing,  pre-
commercial  deployment,  and  research  activities  addressing  the  complete  range  of  TRLs;  as 
well as Dissemination and outreach activities to promote PRIMA and maximise its impacts. 
  Tier  2:  Activities  funded  by  the  Participating  States  or  their  national  funding  bodies  without 

Union contribution. 

This approach allows flexibility for Participating States in deciding which national contributions are 
managed centrally by the DIS, and which contributions remain at national level, but count for the 
matching with the Union contribution at programme level under the conditions set out in the basic 
act, and are determined in accordance with the usual accounting practices and accounting standards 
and  to  the  applicable  International  Accounting  Standards  /  International  Financial  Reporting 
Standards.  

46 

 
In  addition,  the  above  described  approach  for  the  implementation  of  the  Option  2  (PRIMA  Joint 
Programme  based  on  an  Article  185)  requires  only  limited  derogations  from  the  Horizon  2020 
Rules  for  Participation.  To  ensure  balanced  core  participation  in  indirect  actions  under  a  north-
south  configuration,  as  a  derogation  from  point  (b)  of  Article  9(1)  of  Regulation  (EU)  No 
1290/2013, the minimum number of participants should be three legal entities established in three 
different  Participating  States  of  which  one  is  established  in  a  Member  State  or  in  a  country 
associated to Horizon 2020, and one is established in a third country, associated or not to Horizon 
2020. Derogation from Article 9(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013 is necessary to ensure that 
the  minimum  eligibility  conditions  for  participation  in  indirect  actions  are  not  discriminatory  for 
entities established in third countries participating in the PRIMA Joint Programme as Participating 
States.  Derogations  from  Article  12  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1290/2013  are  necessary  to  allow 
broadening  cooperation  through  joint  calls  launched  by  DIS  with  legal  entities  other  than  third 
countries and international organisations. 

Commitments and their fulfilments 

The Participating States and the Union make up-front commitments to contribute to PRIMA. The 
commitment  from  the  Union  of  €200  million  will  be  mainly  used  to  finance  indirect  actions 
resulting  from  calls  launched  by  the  DIS.  This  will  cover  a  series  of  seven  Annual  Work  Plans 
(2018  –  2024).  The  Participating  States  will  at  the  same  time  describe  in  the  Annual  Work  Plan 
their  activities  funded  from  national  programmes  and  the  respective  budgets  allocated  to  these 
activities. 

The  commitment  of  the  Union  contribution  to  each  Annual  Work  Plan  will  not  exceed  the 
commitment of the Participating States to it. This ensures that at the level of commitments there is a 
balance with at least matching contributions of Union funding and Participating States. This allows 
an automatic mechanism to reduce the Union commitment if Participating States fail to commit as 
expected. 

The fulfilment of the commitments (actual contribution) can be verified in two steps: 

1.  Indicatively at the level of implementation of activities: 

  For the Union: the amount of funding for e.g. the respective Grant Agreements signed by the 

DIS;  

  For  the  Participating  States:  the  amount  of  funding  actually  committed  at  the  level  of 
in-kind 

(national  grant  agreements  and  other 

individual  activities 

implemented 
contributions).  

2.  Concretely at the level of the expenditure after end of implementation of the activities: 

  For the Union: the sum of the expenditure incurred by the DIS for the implementation of the 
their 

the  Commission  and  of 

the  remuneration  for 

tasks  accepted  by 

entrusted 
implementation;  

  For the Participating States: the sum of expenditure incurred by Participating States or their 

national funding bodies and accepted by the Commission.  

The annual reporting of the DIS will cover both strands. This allows close monitoring by the 
Commission services and facilitates taking corrective measures, if necessary, in particular reducing 
Union commitments to individual Annual Work Plans if the implementation of the activities by 
Participating States does not maintain the necessary level of commitment to match the one of the 
Union. 

47 

 
 
 
5.5.  Affected actors, measures to comply with requirements, and potential obstacles 

The  main  affected  actors,  compliance  requirements  for  beneficiaries  and  Participating  States' 
authorities, and potential obstacles are reported in the Table 5.3.  

Baseline scenario: No 
dedicated EU action 

Main actors affected  Public and private research 

actors 

Compliance 
requirements for 
beneficiaries 

Beneficiaries need to 
comply with the Horizon 
2020 rules for 
participations 

none 

Compliance 
requirements on 
Participating States' 
Authorities 

Option 1: ERA-NET 
Cofund actions 
Funding agencies of 
participating states, Public 
research actors 
Funding agencies need to 
comply with Horizon 2020 
rules for participations, final 
beneficiaries need to comply 
with national funding rules 
Participating States, via their 
funding agencies, have to 
ensure that they provide 
financial certificates on their 
expenditure for selected 
projects, according to 
national funding rules 

Option 2: PRIMA Joint Programme 
based on Article 185 TFEU 
Participating States authorities, Public and 
private research actors 

Final beneficiaries need to comply with  
  Horizon 2020 rules for participations 
  national rules in case of activities funded 

by Participating States 

Fulfilment of obligations resulting from the 
basic act, e.g.: 
  designate a dedicated structure (DIS) for 
the implementation, including receiving, 
allocating and monitoring funding;  

  provide financial guarantees; 
  establish  and  maintain  the  governance 
model  in  accordance  with  the  Article 
185 Decision; 

  provide 

formal 

to 
contribute  to  the  financing  of  PRIMA 
and fulfil those commitments;  

commitments 

Compliance 
requirements on DIS 

- 

- 

  ensure  implementation  in  accordance 
with  the  requirements  of  the  basic  act 
e.g. for activities funded by the PS only;  
  ensure  that  costs  of  activities  funded 
only  by  them  and  counting  for  the 
matching with the Union contribution at 
programme  level  have  been  determined 
in  accordance  with  the  requirements  set 
out in the basic act. 

  ensure  implementation  in  accordance 
with  the  requirements  of  basic  act  and 
H2020  Rules  for  Participation  (subject 
to  any  derogations  set  out 
the 
Decision); 

in 

  Implement  EU  funding  and  financial 
commitments of participating states. 
  comply  with  the  relevant  provisions  of 
the  Financial  Regulation  concerning 
indirect management. 

Compliance 
requirements on 
final beneficiaries in 
Participating States  

Determine  costs  of  their 
activities 
in  accordance 
with  the  usual  accounting 
practices  and  accounting 
to 
standards 
the 
and 
International 
applicable 
Standards/ 
Accounting 
International 
Financial 
Reporting Standards. 

and 

usual 

their 
Determine  costs  of 
activities  in  accordance  with 
accounting 
the 
accounting 
practices 
standards 
the 
International 
applicable 
Accounting 
Standards/International 
Financial 
Standards. 

Reporting 

and 

to 

  Determine  costs  of  their  activities  in 
accordance  with  the  usual  accounting 
practices  and  accounting  standards  and 
to 
International 
Accounting  Standards  /  International 
Financial Reporting Standards. 

applicable 

the 

  For costs counting as PS contributions at 
programme level, it is the responsibility 
of  the  PS  to  ensure  they  have  been 
the 
in  accordance  with 
determined 
requirements set out in the basic act. 

48 

 
 
 
Potential obstacles 
for an effective 
implementation of 
the option and 
compliance by 
participating states/ 
beneficiaries 
Frequency of 
reporting 

None identified 

Usually every 18 month 
for each individual project 

Potential obstacles are 
linked to lower national 
commitments when 
publishing the Work 
Programme; limited 
participation to the 
transnational proposals. 
Usually twice in 60 month 
for each ERA-NET action; 
Resulting projects according 
to national rules 

Potential obstacles on the basis of past 
experiences are difficulties on timely 
provision of financial guarantees. They 
have so far not put at risk the 
implementation of the initiatives. 

  Annual  reporting  for  the  DIS  and  the 
the 
States 

towards 

Participating 
Commission; 

  Resulting  projects  funded  by  the  DIS 

usually every 18 months; 

  Resulting national activities according to 

national rules. 

Table 5.3: Main affected actors, compliance requirements for beneficiaries and Participating States' authorities, 
and potential obstacles 

In  the  case  of  Option  2,  it  is  important  to  distinguish  between  the  compliance  requirements  on 
Participating States that apply collectively at the level of the programme, and those that are relevant 
for  the  individual  Participating  State.  In  the  approach  for  the  PRIMA  Joint  Programme  there  is  a 
clear  separation  between  the  activities  funded  by  the  Union  contribution  and  implemented  by  the 
DIS,  and  those  that  are  funded  by  national  programmes.  Therefore  there  is  no  requirement  for 
compliance  for  specific  implementation  capacities  at  national  level.  The  Participating  States 
collectively  set-up  the  DIS  for  the  implementation  of  the  PRIMA  Joint  Programme,  including 
receiving,  allocating  and  monitoring  of  funding,  and  establish  the  PRIMA  governance  structure. 
The  compliance  with  the  financial  regulation  and  the  Rules  for  Participation  of  Horizon  2020  is 
required for the Participating States to the extent they do not implement activities funded by them. 
Furthermore,  the  basic  act  allows  flexibility  for  the  Participating  States  to  contribute  either 
financially through the PRIMA DIS to activities funded with Union contribution, thus achieving a 
high  degree  of  financial  integration,  or  in  kind  to  activities  only  funded  by  them  without  Union 
contribution.  

Participating  State  have  to  provide,  inter  alia,  financial  guarantees,  contribute  via  the  national 
activities to the programme in accordance with the requirements of the basic act, determine costs of 
their activities in  accordance with the usual accounting practices and accounting  standards and to 
the  applicable  International  Accounting  Standards  /  International  Financial  Reporting  Standards. 
Requirements incumbent on the Participating States in general can be fulfilled by all Participating 
States,  as  most  of  their  capabilities  are  already  in  place  through  implementation  of  national 
activities under their national programmes. 

5.5.1.  Assessment of capability and expected contribution of third countries not associated to 
Horizon 2020 in relation to the conditions to be met by Participating States in PRIMA 
under Option 2 (Article 185 TFEU) 

The  compliance  requirements  on  Participating  States  set  out  in  Table  5.3  shall  apply  equally  to 
Member States and countries associated to Horizon 2020 as well as to third countries participating 
in  the  PRIMA  Joint  Programme.  The  only  notable  distinction  is  that  the  first  two  groups  of 
countries  (Member  States  and  countries  associated  to  Horizon  2020)  would  be  bound  by  the 
Decision  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the  participation  of  the  Union  in  an 
Article  185,  while  non-associated  third  countries  would  accede  to  an  Article  185  regime  through 
bilateral international agreements with the EU. In order to ensure participation of all countries on an 
equal footing international agreements would need to mirror the provisions in the aforementioned 
Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Article 185.  

49 

 
 
 
Countries  associated  to  Horizon  2020  enjoy  equal  status  as  Member  States  under  Horizon  2020, 
having met the conditions in Article 7 of the Regulation establishing Horizon 2020. This refers to 
the whole of Horizon 2020 beyond joint programming initiatives such as PRIMA.  

As indicated in the introduction of this Impact Assessment Report, the non-associated Participating 
States  (i.e.  having  committed  to  contributing  resources)  to  PRIMA  Joint  Programme  are  Egypt, 
Lebanon and Morocco. 

Egypt  

State contribution to PRIMA 

  €15  million  cash  contribution  (corresponding  to  7.5%  of  total  cash  contribution  from 

Participating States) 

  €3 million in-kind 

Nature of research and innovation relationship with the EU and track record of cooperation 

  The  overall  framework  for  R&I  cooperation  with  the  EU  is  provided  by  the  EU-Egypt 
Association Agreement (OJ L304, 30/09/2004, p. 39), in which Article 43 addresses 'Scientific 
and technological cooperation' on access Union R&D programmes; 

  The  EU  and  Egypt  have  signed  a  science  and  technology  agreement  (OJ  L182,  13/07/2005, 

p. 12) which is in force since 2008; 

  Legal entities from Egypt are already eligible to receive EU funding under Horizon 2020. 
  Participation record in EU Research Framework Programmes: 

-  2007-2013 (FP7): Total participant costs: €19 million; EU contribution: €15 million drawn 

in accordance with research framework programme rules. 

-  2014-on-going (Horizon 2020): Total participant costs: €2.3 million; EU contribution: €1.6 

million drawn in accordance with research framework programme rules. 

Record of administrative and financial management in cooperation with the EU, and management 
of EU funding. 

  See track record in the participation in EU Research Framework Programmes above. 
  Proven experience of funding agencies in the participation in joint programming actions (ERA-
NET type projects) and a successful track record of fulfilment of financial commitments from 
national budgets combined to EU funding. 
-  ERANETMED:  Egypt  contributed  national  funds  amounting  to  €1.5  million63  in  Call  1 
(2014), which has now been allocated to selected projects on a competitive basis. A further 
national funding amounting to €1.25 million has been committed to Call 2 (2016), which has 
attracted 174 proposals. 

-  ARIMNet  and  ARIMNet2:  Egypt  committed  €0.5  million  of  national  funding  to  Call  2 

(2016). 

  Under the ENPI, Egypt has successfully completed phase 1 of the Research, Development and 
Innovation  programme,  which  had  a  financial  package  of  €11  million,  with  the  Ministry  of 
Scientific  Research  in  the  lead.  The  success  of  this  programme  has  led  to  a  second  phase, 
which started in 2011, for which the EU has committed budget of €20 million. Most recently, 
Egypt awarded  26 projects under  RDI  in  January  2015, with  a total  EU Contribution  of €7.5 
million. 

  In  terms  of  broad  EU-Egypt  relations,  bilateral  programmes  under  the  EU  Neighbourhood 
policy (ENI funding) see transfers from the EU budget toward Egypt amounting to above €100 

63  Contributions  from  Egyptian  national  funding  agencies  as  follows:  Science  &  Technology  Development  Fund  (STDF):  €0.75 
million – 2014, €0.75 million – 2016; and the Academy of Scientific Research and Technology (ASRT): €0.75 million  – 2014, 
€0.5 million – 2016 

50 

 
                                                            
million  annually  (2014:  €115  million,  2015:  €105  million),  which  are  allocated  to  specific 
national projects and/or direct contributions to the national budget. 

  Egypt’s STDF also has joint research funds with Germany, Italy France, Japan, South Korea, 
Jordan,  Russia  and  USA  (U.-Egypt  STI  Joint  Fund  amounts  to  $4  million  per  country/year). 
Given  the  availability  of  budget  and  the  openness  of  the  STDF  to  co-fund  R&I  international 
cooperation  (9%  of  the  STDF  budget  is  dedicated  to  joint  funds  with  other  countries),  it  is 
expected that Egypt will remain committed to international cooperation with the EU. 

Related R&I actions and national capacity 

  The governance structure of the national STI system rests on the Ministry of Higher Education 
and  Scientific  Research,  the  Higher  Council  of  Science  and  Technology,  which  sets  research 
strategy, the ASRT, which is in charge of planning and programming, and the funding agency 
STDF. This institutional setup is supported by the network of research centres and universities. 
A key challenge to the country is to step up private sector R&D to lower dependence on public 
research funding. 

  Egypt has Science and Technology Agreements with many countries, such as the USA, China 
and Japan, and almost all EU MS. In it national research funding policy, it maintains a highly 
international profile and mutual openness by dedicating 9% of the programme budget to joint 
programmes with international partners adopting primarily a matching fund approach. 

  Water  scarcity  is  a  key  issue  in  Egypt,  which  relies  on  the  Nile  for  95%  of  renewable  water 
resources,  while  agricultural  production  (81%  of  water  usage)  depends  heavily  on  irrigation. 
The  Egyptian  Water  Resources  Vision  2050  includes  research  as  a  major  driver  in  the 
development  and  management  of  water  resources,  conservation  of  water  quality  as  well  as 
adaptation to expected impacts of climate change. Egypt has succeeded in participating for the 
first  time  in  JPI  related  to  water  "WaterWorks2015"  under  Horizon  2020  WP  2014-2015, 
where Egypt will be contributing €0.65 million to the project. 

  Public  research  in  water  has  a  dedicated  research  centre  (National  Water  Research  Centre  – 
NWRC),  which  is  supported  by  12  research  institutes  that  focus  on  water  management, 
drainage,  water  resources,  Nile  research,  hydraulics,  channel  maintenance,  groundwater, 
construction,  mechanical  and  electrical  research,  survey  research,  coastal  research  and 
environmental and climate research. 

Lebanon 

State contribution to PRIMA 

  €4 million cash contribution (corresponding to 4% of total cash contribution from Participating 

States) 

  €2 million in-kind 

Nature of research and innovation relationship with the EU and track record of cooperation 

  The  overall  framework  for  R&I  cooperation  with  the  EU  is  provided  by  the  EU-Lebanon 
Association  Agreement  (OJ  L143,  30/05/2006,  p.  2),  in  which  Article  44  governs  'Scientific, 
technical and technological cooperation' on access Union R&I programmes and to study means 
for Lebanon to participate in European Framework Programmes for Research. 

  Legal entities from Lebanon are already eligible to EU funding under Horizon 2020. 
  Participation record in EU Research Framework Programmes: 

-  2007-2013 (FP7): Total participant costs: €3.3 million; EU contribution: €0.8 million drawn 

in accordance with research framework programme rules 

-  2014-on-going (Horizon 2020): Total participant costs: €2.8 million; EU contribution: €0.8 

million drawn in accordance with research framework programme rules. 

51 

 
Record of administrative and financial management in cooperation with the EU, and management 
of EU funding 

  See track record in the participation in EU Research Framework Programmes above. 
  Proven experience of funding agencies in the participation in joint programming actions (ERA-
NET type projects) and a successful track record of fulfilment of financial commitments from 
national budgets combined to EU funding.  
-  ERANETMED:  Lebanon  contributed  national  funds  amounting  to  €0.2  million64  in  Call  1 
(2014). A further national funding amounting to €0.4 million has been committed to Call 2 
(2016). 

  Under  the  ENPI,  Lebanon  receives  approximately  €50  million  annually;  partly  disbursed 
through  dedicated  programmes  managed  by  Lebanese  authorities  and  partly  directly  injected 
into the national budget. 

Related R&I actions and national capacity 

  National  STI  policy  is  driven  and  monitored  by  the  National  Council  for  Scientific  Research 
(CNRS), which established a first national policy in 1966. While research funding is small in 
absolute  terms65,  80%  of  the  budget  is  dedicated  to  funding  the  activities  of  research  centres 
and  programmes.  The  national  STI  system  is  also  supported  by  a  network  of  41  accredited 
universities, of which some are internationally recognized research universities66. 

  Lebanon  also  has  bilateral  STI  agreements  with  France  and  Italy  as  well  as  joint  Lebanese-

French and Lebanese-Syrian research grant programmes. 

  Among  its  public  research  capabilities,  Lebanon  has  a  National  Centre  for  Remote  Sensing 
(CRS),  which  has  carried  out  several  projects  using  remote  sensing  and  GIS  techniques  in 
applications  that  are  highly  relevant  to  PRIMA  such  as  environmental  surveys  on  land 
degradation  and  desertification  risks,  watershed  mapping,  forestry  management,  integrated 
coastal  zone  management  and  natural  hazards.  CRS  has  also  set  up  a  detailed  soil  map  of 
Lebanon  for  the  purposes  of  environmental  monitoring.  The  CRS  also  collaborates  with  the 
French Centre Nationale de la Recherche Scientifique in this field. 

Morocco 

State contribution to PRIMA 

  €20  million  cash  contribution  (corresponding  to  10%  of  total  contribution  from  Participating 

States) 

  €20 million in-kind 

Nature of research and innovation relationship with the EU and track record of cooperation: 

  The overall framework for research and innovation cooperation with the EU is provided by the 
EU-Morocco Association Agreement (OJ L70, 18/03/2000, p. 2), in which Article 45 'Regional 
cooperation':  d)  addresses  how  'research  in  science  and  technology'  is  to  be  fostered  with  a 
regional impact involving third countries'. 

  The EU and Morocco have signed a science and technology agreement (OJ L37, 10/02/2004, 

p. 9) which is in force since 2005. 

  Legal Entities from Morocco are already eligible to EU funding under Horizon 2020. 
  Participation record in EU Research Framework Programmes: 

64 Contributions from Lebanese National Council for Scientific Research (CNRS) 
65 The annual budget of CNRS amounts to approximately USD 8 million per year. 
66 Source: MERID, FP7 project 645846. 

52 

 
 
                                                            
-  2007-2013  (FP7):  Total  participant  costs:  €17.2  million;  EU  contribution:  €13.6  million 

drawn in accordance with research framework programme rules. 

-  2014-on-going (Horizon 2020): Total participant costs: €3.3 million; EU contribution: €3.0 

million drawn in accordance with research framework programme rules. 

Record of administrative and financial management in cooperation with the EU, and management 
of EU funding. 

  See track record in the participation in EU Research Framework Programmes above. 
  Proven experience of funding agencies in the participation in joint programming actions (ERA-
NET type projects) and a successful track record of fulfilment of financial commitments from 
national budgets combined to EU funding. 
-  ERANETMED:  Morocco  contributed  national  funds  amounting  to  €1  million67  in  Call  1 
(2014). A further national funding amounting to €0.3 million has been committed to Call 2 
(2016). 

-  ARIMNet  and ARIMNet2: Morocco committed €0.5  million of national  funding to  Call  2 

(2016). 

  Under the EU Neighbourhood policy Morocco benefits from a privileged partnership with the 
EU.  Bilateral  financial  transfers  during  the  period  from  2014  to  2017  to  range  from  €728  to 
€890 million, which are allocated to specific national projects and/or direct contributions to the 
national budget. 

Nature of research and innovation relationship with the EU and track record of cooperation 

  The  national  STI  system  is  steered  by  the  Ministry  responsible  for  scientific  research 
(MENESFCRS),  together  with  the  Centre  National  pour  la  Recherche  Scientifique  et 
Technique  (CNRST),  which  is  primarily  responsible  for  the  implementation  of  national 
programmes.  Meanwhile  L'Association  Marocaine  pour  la  Recherche-Développement  (R&D 
Maroc) deals with innovation policy and private sector research. 

  Bilateral  cooperation  is  strongest  with  France,  whereby  54%  of  co-publications  with 
researchers outside Morocco occur with France, of which approximately two thirds are with the 
French Centre Nationale de la Recherche Scientifique68 

  Research  cooperation  in  the  area  of  water  management  includes  French-Moroccan  research 
programme  Sudmed  targeting  water  resources  in  the  region  of  Marrakech  Tensift-El  Haouz. 
Bilateral S&T agreements are also in place with Belgium, Portugal, Spain, Turkey and USA. 
  Water management is a key priority for R&I efforts in Morocco given a semi-arid climate and 
heavy recourse to irrigation for agricultural purposes. Agricultural production is an important 
contributor  to  Moroccan  economy,  accounting  for  10.5%  of  exports  and  65%  of  revenues  in 
rural areas and is highly volatile and susceptible to climatic fluctuations69.  

  The International Institute for Water and Sanitation (IEA) was set up in 2008 in Morocco with 
a regional (MENA) focus. It activities include research on water technologies and practices. A 
notable project undertaken with the Hassan II Institute of Agronomy and Veterinarian Studies 
studied crop yields and water productivity70. 

67 Contributions from the Morocco MESRSFC 
68 Source URL: http://www.cnrs.fr/derci/spip.php?article131 
69 Source (2012) URL http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/countries_regions/mar/index.stm 
70 Source URL: http://menanwc.org/projects/global-yield-gap-and-water-productivity-atlas-jordan-morocco-and-tunisia 

53 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
5.6. 

Impacts likely to change over time 

Impacts in Option 0 are not expected to change over time. 

Option 1 would contribute in a ad-hoc way to the short-term coordination of Mediterranean R&I 
systems.  The  implementation  of  transnational  research  projects  based  on  an  international  peer 
review  evaluation  process  should  contribute  to  increasing  the  quality  of  research,  increasing  the 
level of funding for challenges which no country can tackle alone and avoiding the duplication of 
research funding.  

In  Option  2,  which  implies  long-term  integration  and  substantial  resources  commitments,  a 
centralised  grant  management  by  the  DIS  would  lead  to  simplification  in  the  medium  and  long 
term. Effective co-ordination of Mediterranean R&I capacities, solid public and private investment 
in  R&I  in  the  field  of  water  provision  and  food  systems,  and  third  countries  and  international 
relations would increase.  

A  similar  situation  could  be  envisaged  regarding  knowledge  transfer  and  skill  creation  among 
Public Institutions and researchers and innovators.  

With  regards  to  the  scope  of  the  initiative,  Article  185  initiatives  could  be  enlarged  to  other 
countries European and third countries, and therefore, expected impacts may increase.  

In a mid to long-term perspective, achieving results of the R&I activities are expected to lead to a 
stable  Mediterranean  R&I  capacity  likely  to  entail  additional  positive  social  impacts,  impacts  on 
competitiveness  (e.g.  food  industry  and  water  management  solutions  for  small  agricultural 
producers) and environmental impacts. 

In  consideration  of  the  on-going  activities  reported  in  Section  1,  in  the  previous  paragraph  5.5.1, 
more extensively in the Annexes 4, 5 and 8, and in the next sections on the comparison of the policy 
options, the Prima Joint Programme based on Article 185 TFEU is not likely to have a crowding out 
effects of other existing or planned bi- or multilateral programmes. There are, in fact, no specific 
programmes  overlapping  with  the  objectives  of  the  PRIMA  Joint  Programme.  The  existing  or 
planned  bi-  or  multilateral  programmes,  that  are  partially  addressing  either  water  or  food,  are,  in 
most of the cases, taking place between the countries that have also committed to the participation 
to the PRIMA Joint Programme, with limited or no budget attached. In addition, many of the ERA-
NET actions are going to be terminated by the end of 2016. Therefore, in consideration also of the 
approach for the implementation of the PRIMA initiative, it is reasonable to assume that there will 
be no discontinuity in such bi- or multilateral programme, as many activities will still be managed 
at national level. On the contrary, PRIMA will likely to contribute to ongoing initiatives, resulting 
in  a  more  efficient  and  effective  expenditure  of  public  funding  for  R&I,  thanks  to  a  common, 
integrated and long term strategic agenda. 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
6.  Section 6. How do the options compare? 

6.1.  Compare the options 

Taking into account the likely impacts of the options and the assessment presented in Section 5, the 
different policy options have been compared against each other using the baseline scenario as the 
reference and applying the following criteria:  

  Effectiveness:  the  proposed  options  should  be  effective  at  improving  the  R&I  framework  in 

Mediterranean Area in the fields of water provision and food systems.  

  Efficiency:  the  proposed  options  should  achieve  the  identified  main  likely  impacts  with  the 

greatest benefit/cost ratio.  

  Consistency with other policies: the proposed options should be coherent with other European 
and National R&I policies and programmes and with coordination and cooperation policies at 
international level. 

Based on these three criteria, comparisons of the policy options have been carried out against the 
specific  objectives  and  analysed  main  impacts,  and  are  reported  in  Table  6.1  and  Table  6.2 
respectively. 

The Table 6.3 is intended to provide a summary of the option comparison assessment. 

Specific Objectives 

Baseline scenario: No 
dedicated EU action 

Option 1:  ERA-
NET Cofund actions 

Option 2: PRIMA Joint 
Programme based on 
Article 185 TFEU 

Common long-term SRIA 

National alignment 

Critical mass of actors and 
resources 

low 

low 

low 

Strengthening innovation 
capabilities 
Table 6.1: Comparison of impact of the options on Objectives 

low 

medium 

medium 

medium 

low 

very high 

high 

very high 

high 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
Likely impacts 

Economic 

Integration of national R&I 
programmes and activities 

Delivery of fully piloted and 
demonstrated, common innovative, 
integrated solutions for the sustainable 
management of water provision and 
food systems 

Baseline scenario: 
No dedicated EU 
action 

Option 1: ERA-
NET Cofund 
actions 

Option 2:  
PRIMA Joint 
Programme based on 
Article 185 TFEU 

Direct Impact 

low 

high 

very high 

medium 

medium 

very high 

Opportunities for industry 

low 

low 

high 

Economic 

Indirect Impact 

Large-scale aggregate economic impacts 

low 

low 

medium 

Social 

Improved livelihoods for farmers 

Improved nutrition and health 

Political stability and reduced migration 

Environmental 

low 

low 

low 

medium 

low 

low 

high 

medium 

high 

Large-scale environmental impacts 
Table 6.2: Comparison of impact of the options on economic, social, environmental and other impacts 

very high 

medium 

medium 

Criteria 

Baseline scenario: 
No dedicated EU 
action 

Option 1: ERA-
NET Cofund 
actions 

Option 2: PRIMA Joint 
Programme based on 
Article 185 TFEU 

Effectiveness 
Strengthening the integration of R&I 
systems and activities in the 
Mediterranean countries in the fields of 
water provision and food systems  

Efficiency 
Implementation of the policy options and 
meeting the expected likely impacts 

Synergy 
Coherence with other policies and 
programmes and wider coordination at 
international level 

0 

0 

0 

+ + 

+ 

+ + 

+ + + 

+ + + 

+ + + 

0 = Neutral, + = minor positive impact, + + = Moderate positive impacts, + + + = Significant positive impacts 

Table 6.3: Comparative effectiveness, efficiency and synergy of the policy options 

56 

 
 
 
6.2.  Highlight the trade-offs and synergies associated with each option  

There  is  no  significant  trade-offs  between  the  likely  impacts  of  any  of  the  Policy  Options  and 
desirable  outputs  of  other  EU  policies.  There  are  a  number  of  potential  synergies  highlighted  in 
Annex 8, regarding JPIs (on Water, FACCE, Healthy diet and Oceans), MIRA, MEDSPRING and 
ERA-NETs (ERANETMED, Foresterra, ARIMNet and ARIMNet2). Option 2 presents the highest 
potential to align national and EU R&I agendas, and to address overlapping and duplication in most 
relevant  areas.  Option  2  and,  to  a  lesser  extent,  Option  1  would  both  be  aligned  with  and 
complement high-level EU goals related to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals 
and improved North-South relations. 

Concerning risks of simultaneity or potential financial overlapping with other relevant initiatives on 
R&I on water provision and food systems in the Mediterranean, it has to be considered that: 
  The first joint calls under Option 2 would be launched in 2018;  
 

INCO-NETs  (MEDSPRING)  and  ERA-NETs  (ERANETMED  and  ARIMNet2)  will  be 
finished by the end of 2017; 

  Joint  Programming  Initiatives,  FACCE  JPI  and  Water  JPI  will  be  active  beyond  2017, 
focussing  on  pan  European  societal  challenges  (not  specifically  on  water  provision  and  food 
systems  in  the  Mediterranean),  and  they  do  not  imply  any  predefined  funding/financial 
instrument at conceptual level.  

The conceptual approach of JPIs stands for Strategic Research Agendas; therefore, synergies could 
be expected at the level of: (i) coordinated visibility and advocacy inside and outside Europe, (ii) 
mapping capacities, (iii) exploring interfaces, and (iv) joint activities.  

The  European  Innovation  Partnerships  stands  for  Strategic  Innovation  Agendas,  and  do  not  have 
any linked funding/financial instrument either. Therefore, the approach on synergies regarding EIP 
on water and on EIP on agriculture is the same as described above for the JPIs. 

6.3.  The likely uncertainty in the key findings and conclusions and how these might affect 

the choice of preferred option  

The likely uncertainty refers to the success to agree and implement, on time, common financial and 
administrative arrangements within EU and third countries in Option 2. It is not possible, however, 
to  discriminate  between  EU  Member  States  and  third  countries  in  an  Article  185  initiative 
considering  that  participation  to  the  Horizon  2020  Framework  Programme  is  open  to  all 
Mediterranean countries. The participation of the EU to Article 185 initiatives provides a number of 
inherent  safeguards  with  respect  to  the  use  of  the  EU  budget,  namely  that  the  EU  contribution  is 
subject to financial commitments by participating states being honoured.  

Options  0  and  1  do  not  imply  the  set-up  of  the  DIS,  the  agreement  on  a  feasible  and  integrated 
grant  management,  or  international  agreements  there  is  therefore  no  significant  implementation 
uncertainty. In terms of financing and programming, however, Option 0 and 1 cannot rely on a long 
terms  strategic  agenda,  as  budget  and  topic  addressing  water  provision  and  food  systems  in  the 
Mediterranean area are subject to the adoption of the (bi)annual Work Programme for Horizon 2020 
and future Framework programmes. 

6.4. 

Preferred policy option  

According to the outcome of the stakeholder consultation activities carried out in the context of the 
present  Impact  Assessment,  Option  2  is  considered  to  represent  the  optimal  policy  option. 
According to the Expert Group, as stated in its report, Option 2 is also considered representing the 
most favourable policy option. 

57 

 
 
 
From a broad policy perspective, the option to prioritize must be commensurate with the importance 
of the problem to tackle and its acuteness, the need to address it in earnest and without delay, and 
the  ambition  and  commitment  of  the  participants  to  devote  sufficient  resources  and  collective 
attention  to  ensure  a  successful  outcome.  In  this  perspective,  due  to  a  potentially  higher  level  of 
effectiveness  for  achieving  the  identified  objectives,  a  better  efficiency  of  implementation,  and 
more  coherence  with  other  policies  and  programmes,  Option  2  appears  the  most  adequate, 
although not exempt from a number of risks which would have to be properly mitigated. 

An  initiative  based  on  Article  185  TFEU  appears  as  the  most  efficient  and  effective  mode  of 
intervention to achieve the strategic and specific objectives. In particular, the use of an Article 185 
TFEU initiative is likely to have high leverage effect on national public funds in a stable, long-term 
and  integrated  manner,  as  demonstrated  by  previous  and  on-going  initiatives  (see  Box  3),  thus 
contributing to: 

  delivering  the  desired  structuring  effect  on  and  integration  of  national  R&I  policies  and 

programmes; 

  enabling  the  formulation  of  stable,  long-term,  common  strategic  research  agendas  with 

adequate scale and scope of actions;  

  supporting the alignment of national R&I programmes;  
  enabling the involvement of partner countries on an equal footing; 
  enabling  the  structural  involvement  of  different  types  of  stakeholders,  both  public  and 
private, bringing together and leveraging their respective knowledge and financial resources; 

  strengthening R&I capabilities in a lasting manner. 

An  Article  185  TFEU  would  enable  the  development  of  a  more  equal  relationship  with 
neighbourhood countries whereby the EU and the countries concerned will determine together their 
mutual priorities in a tailored manner, thus entering into a new phase of cooperation,  in line with 
the priorities of the European Neighbourhood Policy. 

Article 185 initiatives are only used in selected areas, ambitious in terms of their objectives, scale 
and scope, and are only used in cases where objectives cannot be achieved with other instruments. 
This  limits  their  number  by  definition  and  requires  a  strong  commitment  from  the  Participating 
States.  Four  initiatives  have  been  launched  so  far  under  Horizon  2020,  with  up  to  Euro  1.445 
million Union contribution and at least Euro 2.000 million contributions from Participating States. 
PRIMA would be the last Article 185 initiative launched under Horizon 2020. 

6.5.  Conformity to principles of subsidiarity and proportionality  

Problems  confronting  the  Mediterranean  area  go  beyond  the  scope  of  individual  countries,  thus 
there is a need to tackle them jointly. Under both Options 2 and 1, interventions by the EU can be 
justified by the principle of subsidiarity. The scale of the problems, including the inability of many 
individual countries to mobilise sufficient endogenous resources, justifies a proportionate response 
to  Option  2.  It  will  be  certainly  greater  than  any  response  dependent  solely  on  endogenous 
resources as in Option 0. 

58 

 
 
 
 
7.  Section 7. Monitoring and evaluation of impacts 

7.1. 

Plan for future monitoring and evaluation  

Key  evaluation  issues  for  the  initiative  should  be  effectiveness  (whether  it  has  realised  its 
objectives); efficiency (whether it has been well implemented); and impact (what are the intended 
and unintended impacts).  

In case of an Article 185, effectiveness should be evaluated at both programme level (focusing on 
whether  the  overall  objectives  have  been  achieved)  and  national  level  (focusing  on  whether  the 
goals and aspirations of individual countries have been attained). The initiative should be subject to 
mid-term  and  ex-post  evaluations  only  in  this  case.  Baseline  scenario  and  Cofund  action  do  not 
imply  specific  monitoring  and  evaluation  activities,  apart  for  the  ones  normally  envisaged  for 
Horizon 2020. 

7.1.1.  Core monitoring indicators for the main policy objectives  

Monitoring and evaluation are important activities that need to be adequately planned at the start of 
an initiative. Key elements include: 

 
 

the definition of major evaluation issues (e.g. effectiveness, efficiency and impact); 
the elaboration of an adequate logic model for the initiative, linking aims, objectives, actions 
and expected impacts; 
the design of appropriate indicators relevant to each of the chosen evaluation issues; 

 
  a baseline study to provide an adequate benchmark; 
  well planned and resourced monitoring strategies. 

To  the  extent  possible  the  indicators  should  be  able  to  provide  information  which  is  Relevant, 
Accepted, Credible, Easy to monitor, and Robust ('RACER').  

Implementation indicators 

A number of indicators will be further developed to measure the effectiveness and efficiency of the 
initiative. This will require qualitative research methods such as interviews and surveys with those 
directly  involved  in  the  governance  system.  A  baseline  study  of  the  situation  at  the  start  and  the 
expectations for the future is advisable.  

Table  7.1  presents  a  set  of  qualitative  indicators  that  should  contribute  to  assessing  the  medium-
term development of the activities. It is nonetheless important to stress the indicative nature of these 
indicators.  

The  first  set  of  indicators  refers  to  the  inputs  associated  with  the  activities  of  the  initiative. 
Indicators should look at the quantitative aspects such as scale (e.g. the amount of R&I funding that 
is allocated to the specific objectives, the geographical dispersion) and scope (e.g. the coverage of 
all themes set out in the programme, its coverage of relevant stakeholders, the inclusion of relevant 
Technology Readiness Levels). Qualitative input indicators should focus on the development of an 
implementation structure and a governance model that underpins the goals of the programme.  

The second set of indicators should cover the outputs and the overall outcome of the initiative.  

59 

 
 
 
 
Type 

Description 

Large-scale pilots and demonstrators 
The national research (funding) priorities adapted as results and the (R&I) priorities of the SRIA
Alignment of national R&I funding programmes 
New or updated country strategies that mirror the impact of the initiative
Efficiency  benefits  through  pooling  of  resources.  Share  of  public  investment  of  Participating 
States. Volume and share of co-funding from EU and Mediterranean third countries. Operating 
costs. Time to Grant. Time to Pay
Allocated funding through joint transnational calls for proposals or non-project funded activities 
Growth in share of implemented models of sustainable management of water provision and food 
systems in the Mediterranean area 
Growth  in  share  of  implemented  new  strategies  for  improved  water  and  food  efficiency  and 
waste reduction developed for the Mediterranean area 
New  water  and  food  quality  oriented  business  models  and  strategies  adopted  at  national  and 
regional levels 
Expansion of national teams involved in R&I projects on improving efficiency in management of 
water provision and food systems 
Number of countries in which water-saving solutions are implemented 
Number of transitional calls per year addressing water provision and food systems 
Participation grade of Participating States in Management Board meetings 
Additional countries participating in the initiative
Countries dropping out as Participant States
The actual financial commitment in kind by the Participating States
Progress on the updates of the Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda (SRIA)
Participation on equal footing by all third countries

Output 

Inputs 

Table 7.1: Qualitative indicators to assess the medium-term development of the PRIMA activities 

Impact indicators 

The  most  challenging  indicators  to  define  are  the  Impact  indicators,  as  they  should  be  able  to 
demonstrate a causal link between the outputs, on the one hand, and the impacts that the initiative 
wants to achieve, on the other hand.  

To  this  end,  a  set  of  Key  Performance  Indicators  (KPIs)  for  monitoring  the  achievement  of  the 
operational  objectives  of  the  PRIMA  Joint  Programme  have  been  defined.  They  are  aiming  to 
assess and monitor the performance of the initiative.  

The indicators have been selected based on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) framework 
and focus mainly but not exclusively on food security (SDG #2 End hunger, achieve food security 
and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture) and sustainable management of water 
(SDG #6 Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all). They aim 
at specific targets addressing social aspects: 

Cereal Yield (kg/ha) 

1.  Multidimensional Poverty Index 
2. 
Population overweight (%) 
3. 
Land Use (%) 
4.  GHG emissions (total and AFOLU – t CO2e) 
5. 
6.  Agriculture Value Added (EUR/worker) 
7. 
8. 
9. 
10.  Population using safely managed water services (rural, %) 
11.  Population using safely managed sanitation services (rural, %) 
12.  Amount of agricultural residues used for energy purpose (t) 

Fertilizers consumption (kg/ha of arable land – available also at 5 x 5 km scale) 
Crop water productivity (kg/m3) 
Proportion of total water used (% – available also at 5 x 5 km scale) 

60 

 
 
The  KPIs  defined  above  have  been  put  in  relation  with  the  eight  operational  objectives  of  the 
PRIMA initiative. The final  aim has been  to  identify which KPI  is  more adequate to address and 
measure each single specific objective. The results of this coupling exercise are reported in Figure 
7.1 here below: 

Figure 7.1: Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and PRIMA operational objectives 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
The targets to be achieved for each operational objective of the PRIMA Joint Programme have been 
listed in Table 7.2, which also makes the link with the most relevant SDGs: 

PRIMA Operational objectives 

Targets to be achieved 

1.  To  develop  smart  and  sustainable 
farming  systems  to  maintain  natural 
resources  and  to  increase  production 
efficiency 

2.  To  test  and  promote  adoption  of 
context-tailored water-saving solutions, 
in particular in agriculture.  

3.  To  innovate  in  the  Mediterranean 
food products based on Mediterranean 
diet  heritage  and  to  enhance  the  links 
between nutrition and health  

  Crop nitrogen use efficiency:  >60% 
 

(Target  context-specific,  primarily  depending  on  climate, 
yield,  current  nitrogen  use,  soil  quality,  irrigation,  and  other 
crop  management  practices.  This  indicator  needs  to  be 
interpreted  in  relation  to  other  indicators,  such  as  the  crop 
yield gap indicator and the water productivity indicator)  

  Mineral Nitrogen application: < 50 kg/(ha year)  

  Attainable  water  limited  yield  potential  on  a  sustainable 

basis: at least 80%  

  Population  Overweight:  All 

the  MCs  below  50%  of 

 

overweight population 
In  each  country  implement  a  system  for  the  valorization  of 
traceability of typical food and origin of products and at least 
5% of food products are traceable or qualitatively certified in 
all MCs. 

4. To find context-adapted solutions to 
increase 
chain 
food 
efficiency,  and  reduce 
losses  and 
wastes.  

and  water 

  Crop water productivity: for MPCs and ACs ≥ 1 kg/m3; for 
MSs > 1 kg/m3 and at least maintaining the present level. 
  Amount of Agricultural residues used for energy and/or value 
added products:  at least 10% of waste along the food chain  

5. To design and promote the adoption 
of  novel  approaches  to  reduce  the 
in 
impact  of  pests  and  pathogens 
farming 
(agriculture, 
systems 
aquaculture  and  fisheries),  including 
their consequences on human health  

  To diminish pesticide use by 20% in all MCs 
  Reduction of the 50% of pest outbreaks 
  Reduction  of  pesticide  residues  in  terrestrial  and  aquatic 

ecosystems, drinking water and the food chain by 30% 

and 

conceive 

6.  To 
implement 
innovative,  quality  oriented  models  in 
agro-business  as  potential  sources  of 
new jobs and economic growth  

  Agricultural  Value  Added  per  worker:    For  those  countries 
with AVApW<5000 US$ the target is AVApW> 5000 US$; 
the other countries should at least maintain the same number 
of jobs and the same AVApW. 

7.  To  improve  sustainability  of  land 
and  water  use  in  arid  and  semi-arid 
areas  

  Population  using  safely  managed  water  and  sanitation 
services  in  rural  areas:  >90%  for  all  MCs  and  at  least 
maintaining the present situation. 

  Do  not  diminish  the  percentage  of  forested  areas  in  each 

country 

SDG 

2 

6 

12 

3 

12 

2 

12 

2 

8 

12 

15 

8. To elaborate and stimulate adoption 
of  new  models  for  the  governance  of 
water management systems 

  Adoption  of  a  national  database  for  water  footprint  in  all 

6 

MCs  

  Signature of a Euro-Mediterranean trans-national declaration 
on water management in food production to be adopted in at 
least 10 MCs 

Abbreviations: AC=Associated Country; MC=Mediterranean Country; MPC=Mediterranean Partner Country; MS=EU Member State. 

Table 7.2: PRIMA operational objectives, targets to be achieved and SDGs  

62 

 
 
7.1.2.  Verification of monitoring arrangements  

An  Article  185  initiative  needs  to  be  evaluated  at  mid-term  as  well  as  ex-post,  as  already 
mentioned. The conditions and data requirements for these evaluations need to be specified at the 
start  of  the  initiative  as  an  Article  185,  as  it  requires  a  DIS  that  manages  the  programme  and 
oversees the adoption of common rules for the implementation of the programme. Resources will 
need  to  be  reserved  to  set  up  the  monitoring  and  evaluation  essentials,  such  as  a  data  collection 
system  and  a  baseline  study  of  the  situation  at  the  start  of  the  initiative.  In  terms  of  mapping 
international collaborations, some work has already been done by previous ERA-NETs and INCO-
NETs, but more work tailored to the topics related specifically to water provision and food system 
in  the  Mediterranean  area  is  needed.  Indicators  to  be  defined  at  the  outset  need  to  closely  fit  the 
main policy objectives of the initiative. 

7.2.  Monitoring and feedback process of Article 185  

For  an  Article  185,  the  results  of  the  monitoring  exercise  should  feedback  continuously  into  the 
daily management of the initiative, as should the results of the mid-term evaluation. The results of 
both  the  mid-term  and  the  ex-post  evaluation  should  feed  into  future  policy  formulation  and  the 
design of future policy initiatives. 

Results  will  be  used  by  the  European  Commission  and  the  Participating  States  to  better  improve 
performance, including fine-tuned measurements of key performance indicators. Key principles 
of the monitoring and evaluation system are the following: 

  Evidence and quality-based (e.g. indicators). 
  Comprehensive in the following sense: 

-  Indicators updated and published annually by Participating States.  
-  Annual reports on the implementation of the initiative giving details on its performance and 

progress towards targets. 

-  Initiative assessed through an interim evaluation, carried out by an expert panel convened by 
the  Commission,  conducted  no  later  than  2021,  with  a  specific  focus  on  implementation, 
quality of R&I, progress towards objectives and targets, and recommendations for possible 
improvements. 

-  At the end of the programmes, and not later than 2028, an independent evaluation conducted 
to  reviewing quality and performance  of the implementation and performance, and  funded 
activities. 

-  A final independent evaluation conducted no later than 2030. 

Participating  States  have  to  provide  detailed  evidence  on  the  nature  and  volume  of  direct  and 
indirect  contributions  to  the  joint  programme  annually.  The  Commission  will  also  ensure  that  all 
actions  taken  and  supported  in  the  context  of  the  initiative  respect  the  Charter  of  Fundamental 
Rights of the EU. 

7.3.  Monitoring and audit mechanisms 

DG  RTD  has  adopted  standard  supervision  arrangements  for  initiatives  pursuant  to  Article  185 
TFEU  that  will  apply  equally  to  the  PRIMA  Joint  Programme.  The  key  elements  are  described 
below. 

With  respect  to  monitoring  and  audit  mechanisms,  a  distinction  has  to  be  made  between  the 
responsibilities of the Commission Services and those of the DIS and the Participating States. They 
will  be  defined  in  the  basic  act  and  at  the  level  of  the  delegation  agreement  between  the 
Commission and the DIS.  

63 

 
 
 
The DIS will be subject to an ex-ante assessment in accordance with the requirements set out 
in  article  61  of  the  Financial  Regulation  before  the  delegation  agreement  is  signed,  in  order  to 
assess its capacity to implement the programme, including receiving, allocating and monitoring the 
Union’s financial contribution in the framework of indirect management of the Union budget. The 
DIS  provides  comprehensive  annual  reporting  including  auditor  opinions  and  a  management 
declaration. The DIS is furthermore responsible for the ex-ante audit of expenditure of all indirect 
actions funded by the DIS.  

The  Participating  States  will  determine  the  costs  of  their activities  in  accordance  with  the  usual 
accounting  practices  and  accounting  standards  of  the  concerned  Participating  States  and  with 
applicable  International  Accounting  Standards/International  Financial  Reporting  Standards.  These 
include audit certificates and a management declaration. 

The Commission is observer in the decision-making body of the DIS (without voting rights) and 
verifies  and  approves  the  AWP  and  related  budget  plans  by  Commission  decision.  Commission 
Services receive, examine and accept the comprehensive annual reporting. If the accounts cannot be 
accepted then follow-up action will be taken in order to mitigate any financial and reputational risks 
to the Commission. Where necessary, payments to the DIS will be suspended and/or recovered, if 
necessary by drawing on the financial guarantees provided by the Participating States. If all of the 
above  steps  are  inadequate  to  protect  the  financial  interests  of  the  Union  or  to  ensure  that  policy 
objectives  are  properly  achieved  then,  after  due  consideration,  an  audit  of  the  DIS  may  be 
performed. Furthermore, the Commission may decide if necessary to suspend the implementation or 
terminate the Delegation Agreement. 

In addition interim and final evaluations of the initiative will be undertaken. 

64 

 
 
 
Annexes 

Annex 1: Procedural information  

1.1. 

Identification 

This  Staff  Working  Paper  was  prepared  by  the  unit  I2  'Eco-Innovation'  of  Directorate  I  'Climate 
Action  and  Resource  Efficiency'  of  Directorate  General  'Research  &  Innovation'.  The  RWP 
reference of this initiative is 2015/RTD/009.  

1.2.  Organisation and timing 

The IA has been conducted through the following steps: 

  An internal RTD related PRIMA Task Force (members from DG RTD including Dir. A., B, C, 
F, I, J and R & DG AGRI.H.5) was set in March 2015 in order to discuss all the issues relevant 
for  the  IA  report  and  beyond,  including  a  drafting  team  for  the  IA  report  and  preparing  the 
contributions for the ISG meetings. 

  An ISG was set up in October 2015 that included the following DGs: AGRI, BUDG, CLIMA, 
CNECT, DEVCO, EEAS, ECHO, ENV, GROW, HOME, JRC, MARE, NEAR, REGIO, RTD, 
SANTE, SG and SJ. Ten meetings were organised from October 2015 to June 2016. 

  An  Expert  Group71  was  set  up  in  October  2015  and  duly  registered  in  the  SG  Register.  It  is 
composed of 9 experts. Their mandate was to support an informed and evidence-based decision-
making  processs  especially  with  regard  to  the  desired  economic,  environmental  and  social 
impacts of the proposed initiative, taking into account the impacts on the integration of national 
research and innovation systems in a common initiative. They submitted a first final draft report 
in April (final version in May 2016) This report provided results of different analyses and date in 
support of the IA report. 

  Public  Consultation:  an online  Public  Consultation  was  launched  on  the  1st  February  up  to  24 
April  2016. It  has  been  complemented  by  dedicated  events in  particular  a  'Public  Consultation 
Stakeholder Event' in Malta on 17 March. 

  The PRIMA Consortium sent an Addendum on 29 February 2016 to the initial Joint Proposal as 

requested by Robert-Jan Smits' letter on 25 November 2016. 

Each inter-service group meeting was dedicated to clarify different issues. 

Inter-service 
meeting 
1 – 21/10/2015 

group 

Main issues 

Inputs to the IA report 

•  Timeline presentation and 

discussion 

•  PRIMA initiative presentation 

and discussions 

•  Agreement on policy options 

based on IIA 

•  Comments and inputs of the final 
version of IIA to be approved 
•  Integration of comments from 

ISG members 

2 – 25/11/2015 

•  Discussion on the Inception 

Impact Assessment (IIA) in view 

•  Discussion on the need of extra 
information from the PRIMA 

71 http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=3342  

65 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
3 – 16/12/2015 

of its approval by the ISG 

•  Public Stakeholders' consultation 
•  Information on work of the 
Expert Group for the IIA 

•  Discussion around Consultation 

Strategy  

•  Presentation of the Expert Group  

4 – 13/01/2016 

•  Public consultation: questionnaire 

and press package 

5 – 17/02/2016 

•  Discussion on the experts' 

methodology (in presence of the 
Expert Group) 

Consortium to be received by the 
29/02/2016 

•  Revised version of the IIA  

•  Validation of the IIA 
•  Discussion with the Expert Group 
•  Discussion Stakeholders' 

consultation 

•  Communication related activities 
•  Validation of the Consultation 

strategy 

•  Draft questionnaire  
•  Finalise consultation related 

activities 

•  Validation of the Expert Group 

work methodology 

6 – 14/03/2016 

•  Consultation and Stakeholders 

•  Analysis of contribution from the 

7 – 04/04/2016 

8 – 04/05/2016 

PRIMA Consortium in their 
addendum sent on 29/02/2016 
•  Integration of the inputs of the 

Addendum of the PRIMA 
Consortium into the draft IA 
report 

•  Integration of comments from 
ISG into the draft IA report 

•  First final report from the Experts 

Group (30/04/2016) 

event 

•  First outline IA report 
•  Public Consultation Stakeholders 

event 

•  IA report - Problem definition 

and drivers 

•  Draft IA report  
•  Legal aspects of the DIS 
proposed by the PRIMA 
Consortium 

•  Grant management and funding 

model  

•  Discussion on the Short Summary 

report of the Stakeholders 
consultation 

9 – 13/05/2016 

•  Discussion with the rapporteur of 

•  Revised Short Summary Report 

the Expert Group 

•  Discussion on the international 

agreements 

•  Discussion on the letter sent by 
R.J. Smits (DG) to the PRIMA 
Consortium on the financial and 
grant management and the DIS 

•  Discussion of the IA report 
sections (1, 2, 3 & 4) and 
deadlines 

•  Planning for the consolidated IA 

report  

of the Public Stakeholders 
consultation taking into account 
comments from the ISG  

•  First final report from the Experts 

Group (09/05/2016) 

•  Agreement of the methodology 
for the inputs to the IA report 
during following weeks 

10 – 01 and 6/06/2016 

•  Discussion on the final Synopsis 

Report  

•  Comments to be integrated on the 
IA report to be sent to the RSB. 

•  Discussion on the IA Report, 

•  Agreement on the procedural 

section by section. 

follow up 

66 

 
 
 
1.3.  Evidence 

The whole report and the options considered in the IA report were designed by taking into account 
the following documents: 

  Science, Research and Innovation performance of the EU – A contribution to the Open 

Innovation, Open Science, Open to the World agenda – 2016 
(http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/science-research-and-innovation-performance-of-the-eu) 

  Ex-Post Evaluation of the Seventh Framework Programme-SWD(2016) 2 

final  (https://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/index_en.cfm) 

  Horizon 2020 Monitoring Report 2014 

(https://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/archive/Horizon 
2020_monitoring_reports/first_Horizon 2020_annual_monitoring_report.pdf)  

  PRIMA Joint Programme Proposal – December 2014 
  Addendum to the PRIMA Joint Programme – February 2016 
  Experts Group Final Report – May 2016 
  Public Stakeholders Event – March 2016 
  'EC Contributions to Sustainable Development Goals' workshop – February 2016 

The sources are clearly indicated in the bibliography and range from academic papers to industry 
figures and estimates. 

1.4.  External expertise 

The European Commission sought external expertise on the technical field, on Horizon instruments 
as well as on environmental and socio-economic impacts. 

An Expert Group was set up in October 2016 and duly registered in the SG Register. It is composed 
of  9  experts  coming  from  Mediterranean  MS,  non-Mediterranean  MS  and  Third  Countries.  The 
members of the Expert Group have covered a wide and complementary field of competences: water 
technologies  and  management,  agriculture,  food  systems,  sustainability,  sociology,  policy, 
econometrics, impact assessment, migration, Mediterranean, and SMEs. 

Five out of the nine members of the PRIMA Expert Group are based in countries participating in 
PRIMA.  The  organisation  these  five  experts  currently  work  for  could  eventually  become  grant 
beneficiaries  of  actions  launched  in  the  context  of  PRIMA.  All  of  the  experts  have  a  senior  R&I 
background,  and  have  long  been  involved  in  activities  and  initiatives  related  to  the  different 
Framework Programmes, with an emphasis on Mediterranean issues and cooperation. At this point 
of their careers, most of them have high-level management responsibilities. As a consequence, these 
five members could have more of an indirect interest in PRIMA rather than a direct one. 

The Expert Group collected evidence and drew their conclusions and recommendations based on: 

  the  analysis  of  an  extensive  set  of  policy  and  research  documents  related  to  PRIMA.  This 
resulted in a thematic CIRCA repository with over a hundred documents and 188 references to 
external documents in the Expert Group Report; 

  20 open-ended interviews and six questionnaires with relevant external stakeholders; 
  a review of the existing initiatives for cross-border R&I collaboration in the PRIMA domain; 
  a bibliometric analysis of Mediterranean scientific cooperation, including Article 185 initiatives 

AAL and BONUS; 

  an analysis of FP7 projects in the Themes of the PRIMA operational objectives; 
  an analysis on the demand for R&I projects in the Mediterranean Region. 

67 

 
 
The methodology followed by the expert group was shared and discussed in a constant interaction 
with the PRIMA ISG.  

The experts met five times: 
  1st meeting on 6 November 2015. 
  2nd meeting on 16 December 2015. 
  3rd meeting on 4 February 2016. The meeting was held in conjunction with the Workshop one 
EC  Contributions  to  the  Sustainable  Development  Goals'  and  included  a  first  meeting  of  the 
Expert Group with the PRIMA Consortium. 

  4th meeting on 8 March 2016. 
  5th meeting on 14 and 15 April 2016. 

Additionally: 

  The  Chair  of  the  Expert  Group  addressed  the  inter-service  group  on  16  December  2015,  17 

February 2016, and the Rapporteur on 13 May 2016. 

  The PRIMA Expert Group was represented at the PRIMA Stakeholders Event, which took place 

in Malta on 17 March 2016. 

The  inputs  from  the  Expert  Group's  report  were  duly  taken into  account  in  the  elaboration  of  the 
final IA Report and compared with the findings from other sources (e.g., literature review carried 
out by the EC services and results of the online public consultation). 

68 

 
 
 
Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation – Synopsis Report 

2.1.  Stakeholder consultation strategy 

In their meeting of 13 January 2016, the members of the PRIMA Impact Assessment (PRIMA IA) 
Inter-Service Group (ISG) agreed on a Consultation Strategy72, aiming at ensuring the inclusiveness 
and  full  transparency  of  the  IA  process  and  collecting  the  views  of  those  directly  or  indirectly 
affected by the PRIMA initiative. More specifically, the Consultation Strategy was designed with 
the purpose of collecting: 

  data and information on the state-of-the-art of research and innovation in the field of water and 

food systems in the Mediterranean area; 

 

 

input on the problem definition and on the scope of a potential EU intervention; 

feedback  on  the  different  options  for  future  research  and  innovation  in  the  field  of  water  and 
food systems in the Mediterranean area (including their impact). 

The  following  categories  of  stakeholders  have  been  considered  as  particularly  relevant  for  the 
purpose  of  the  PRIMA  IA:  research  organisations  and  associations  of  research  organisations; 
universities  and  associations  of  universities;  public  authorities  (including  regional/local 
administrations);  local  communities;  farmer  associations;  large  businesses;  SMEs;  business 
associations;  inter-governmental  organisations;  non-governmental  organisations  (NGOs),  and 
individual  citizens.  Giving  the  potential  area  of  intervention  of  PRIMA,  both  European  and  third 
countries' stakeholders (with a particular focus on Mediterranean countries) have been targeted. 

In  line  with  the  provisions  of  the  Consultation  Strategy,  two  main  consultation  activities  were 
organised in the context of the PRIMA IA: 

  a 12-week online public consultation, running from 1 February to 24 April 2016; 

  a stakeholder event which took place in Malta on 17 March 2016.  

Both  these  activities,  as  well  as  the  whole  PRIMA  IA  process,  have  been  actively  disseminated 
through: a webpage dedicated to the PRIMA initiative73; the mailing lists of the different members 
of the PRIMA IA ISG; social media (Facebook, Yammer, LinkedIn and Twitter); a press package 
sent to EU representations and delegations; the mailing list of some ongoing FP7 and Horizon 2020 
ERA-NET projects focusing on the Mediterranean Area; and a news alert sent in the occasion of the 
launch  of  the  online  public  consultation.  The  online  public  consultation  was  published  on  Your 
Voice  in  Europe.  The  members  of  the  PRIMA  Expert  Group  (PRIMA  EG)  also  contributed  to 
disseminate the different consultation activities via their network of contacts. 

Members  of  the  internal  PRIMA  Task  Force  were  also  invited  to  present  the  PRIMA  IA  process 
and the different consultation activities at the following events: 

  11  February,  Brussels:  Spanish  Office  of  Science  and  Technology  (SOST),  short  session 

dedicated to the PRIMA IA; 

  16 February, Brussels: UfM Senior Officials' Meeting (SOM); 

  1 March, Brussels: IGLO (Informal Group of RTD Liaison Offices) Open event; 

  15 March, Lisbon: final conference ARIMNet project and kick-off ARIMnet2 project; 

72 Link to the PRIMA Impact Assessment Consultation Strategy: 
 https://ec.europa.eu/research/environment/pdf/prima/prima-ia_consultation_strategy.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none   
73 Link to the webpage dedicated to the PRIMA initiative: 
 https://ec.europa.eu/research/environment/index.cfm?pg=prima  

69 

 
                                                            
  16 March, Brussels: UNIMED event. 

In  order  to  ensure  the  transparency  of  the  whole  IA  process,  the  outcome  of  the  two  main 
consultation  activities  were  published  in  the  webpage  dedicated  to  the  PRIMA  initiative  as  short 
summary reports74 75. Furthermore, the participants of the PRIMA stakeholder event in Malta were 
given  the  possibility  to  provide  a  feedback  on  the  initiative  via  a  post-event  questionnaire.  The 
feedback received via the post-event questionnaire was also included in the short summary report of 
the stakeholder event. 

EC 

services 

During the whole IA process, external stakeholders have been given the opportunity to interact with 
the 
RTD-PRIMA-STAKEHOLDER-
CONSULTATION@ec.europa.eu. In addition to this, and in line with the provisions of the Better 
Regulation Package, external stakeholders have been given the possibility to provide feedback on 
the PRIMA Inception Impact Assessment (PRIMA IIA) via the dedicated webpage76.  

functional  mailbox 

via 

the 

2.2.  The questionnaire  

Following the discussions taking place at Inter-Service Group (ISG) level, the questionnaire of the 
online  public  consultation  on  PRIMA77  was  structured  around  the  following  seven  sections: 
Respondent  profile;  Problem  definition;  Core  objectives;  R&I  priorities;  Actions;  Impacts  and 
Policy options. Some inputs and suggestions from the PRIMA EG have also been incorporated in 
the final version of the questionnaire. 

The  questionnaire  served  as  a  source  of  inspiration  for  the  parallel  tables  which  were  organised 
during the afternoon session of the PRIMA stakeholder event in Malta. The participants were asked 
to choose among 4 parallel discussion tables focusing on the following topics: Problem Definition; 
Objectives  and  R&I  Priorities;  Actions  and  Impacts,  and  Policy  Options.  A  copy  of  the 
questionnaire was distributed to the participants at the beginning of the session with no obligation 
for them to follow and/or base their discussions on the text of the questionnaire.  

2.3.  Feedback and analysis 

The  contributions  received  from  both  the  PRIMA  online  public  consultation  and  the  PRIMA 
stakeholder event were duly considered and analysed.  

In  the  specific  case  of  the  PRIMA  online  public  consultation,  a  quality  check  of  the  replies  was 
carried  out  at  the  end  of  the  consultation  period.  In  case  of  more  than  one  contribution  from  the 
same respondent, the respondent was contacted and asked to choose which contribution had to be 
finally retained. In the absence of a reply, the most recent reply only was taken into account, on the 
assumption that this reply was submitted with the purpose of amending the less recent one (-s). In 
the case of some organisations (mainly, universities), replies from different departments members 
or  persons  somehow  related  to  the  particular  organisation  were  received.  These  replies  were  sent 
mostly  on  each  respondent's  personal  behalf  and  their  individual  content  is  different  from  one 
another. These replies were therefore considered as separate replies. One contribution was not taken 
into account since its content appeared as automatically generated and not linked to this particular 

74 Link to PRIMA Impact Assessment Stakeholder Event – Short Summary Report: 
https://ec.europa.eu/research/environment/pdf/prima/prima-ia_stakeholder_event_ssr.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none  
75 Link to PRIMA Open Online Public Consultation – Short Summary Report: 
https://ec.europa.eu/research/environment/pdf/prima/prima-ia_consultation_ssr.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none  
76 Link to the Roadmaps/Inception Impact Assessments of the Better Regulation webpage:  
http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/index_en.htm 
77 Link to the questionnaire of the PRIMA Open Public Online Consultation: 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/consultations/prima/survey.pdf  

70 

 
 
 
                                                            
online  public  consultation.  A  statistical  analysis  of  the  replies  was  carried  out  with  the  aim  of 
identifying the most recurrent answers and their distribution among typologies of respondents. The 
results  of  this  statistical  analysis  were  included  as  an  annex  in  the  Short  Summary  Report  of  the 
online public consultation. 

In the summary of each stakeholder consultation activity, an effort was made to provide a complete 
overview  of  the  different  inputs  received,  by  reporting  the  full  range  of  the  collected  options 
without discarding possible minority views.  

The main findings of the PRIMA online public consultation and the PRIMA stakeholder event were 
then compared and grouped according to the seven sections of the questionnaire. The results of this 
comparison are presented in the paragraphs that follow. 

The views and perspectives of the external stakeholders have been incorporated in the final version 
of the IA Report and carefully taken into account in the formulation of a potential EU intervention 
in support of PRIMA.  

2.4.  Stakeholder profile 

A total number of 562 replies to the PRIMA online public consultation were received and 86 people 
participated in the stakeholder event which was held in Malta on 17 March 2016. 29 out of the 86 
participants of the stakeholder event also sent their contribution, under their individual name or on 
behalf of their organisation, to the PRIMA online public consultation. 

The online public consultation registered a large majority of replies from EU countries (86.5% of 
the total). third countries countries were relatively more represented at the Malta event, accounting 
for 28% of the total number of participants. 

At  the  time  of  writing,  no  feedback  on  the  PRIMA  Inception  Impact  Assessment  document  has 
been received via the dedicated webpage. One position paper – signed by The Netherlands' Ministry 
of  Economic  Affairs,  Ministry  of  Infrastructure  and  the  Environment  and  Ministry  of  Education, 
Culture  and  Science  –  was  sent  to  the  IA  functional  mailbox.  The  same  stakeholders  also  sent  a 
contribution  to  the  PRIMA  online  public  consultation.  The  only  difference  between  the  two 
contributions lies in the preferred policy option: while the baseline scenario was chosen in the case 
of  the  online  public  consultation,  Co-fund  action  was  selected  as  preferable  policy  option  in  the 
position paper.  

In  terms  of  typology  of  respondents/participants,  public  authorities,  research  organisations  and 
universities  were  the  most  represented  categories  at  the  Malta  event,  whereas  individual  citizens 
resulted  as  the  largest  contributor  (33.8%  of  the  total  number  of  replies)  in  the  online  public 
consultation. From an analysis of their replies and contact details, many of these individual citizens 
who  took  part  in  the  online  public  consultation  appear  to  be  staff  of  universities  and  research 
organisations who replied on their personal behalf. Their professional affiliation probably explains 
why more than half of them are, to various degrees, familiar with the Framework Programmes for 
Research and Innovation of the European Commission and with the PRIMA initiative. 

With  the  exception  of  organisations  representing  local  communities,  all  the  targeted  categories  of 
stakeholders appear to have been reached out by the consultation activities which were put in place. 
The  high  response  from  citizens  in  the  online  public  consultation  is  considered  to  somehow 
partially compensate the lack of replies from local community organisations. Small-sized and more 
local actors like SMEs and farmer associations have also been reached out: SMEs were 7% of the 
participants  in  the  Malta  event  and  3.7%  of  the  replies  to  the  online  public  consultation;  the 
representative of one farmer association from Malta was present at the stakeholder event and three 
other EU farmer associations replied to the online public consultation. 

71 

 
 
2.5.  Problem definition 

The  difficulty  to  implement  innovative  solutions  due  to  the  lack  of  effective  cooperation  among 
countries  and  actors,  as  well  as  inadequate  R&I  investments  and  R&I  governance  structures, 
emerge as the most relevant issues for R&I in the Mediterranean area. 

More  specifically,  in  the  online  public  consultation  the  following  three  problem  statements  were 
identified as the most relevant R&I challenges in the field of sustainable food production and water 
resources management in the Mediterranean area: 

 

 

 

lack of coordination and cooperation between countries and research organisations and 
duplication of research efforts; 

lack of cooperation between academic and non-academic actors; 

insufficient investments in R&I. 

More funding for R&I investments emerges as a less critical factor, above all among third countries 
respondents. According to the majority of respondents, encouraging synergies among countries and 
actors is considered essential to ensure the benefits of additional R&I funding. 

Similar  conclusions  can  be  drawn  from  the  discussions  on  Problem  Definition  which  took  place 
during  the  Malta  event.  Inadequate  R&I  governance  structures  and  processes  to  address  common 
and inter-related problems and the insufficient implementation of innovative solutions emerged as 
the  most  relevant  challenges  for  R&I  in  the  field  of  food  production  and  water  resources 
management  in  the  Mediterranean  area,  with  the  first  one  being  the  most  difficult  challenge  to 
implement.  Insufficient  investments  in  R&I  was  included  among  the  five  most  relevant  R&I 
challenges but it was considered as the least relevant one, with no particular implementation issues. 

2.6.  Core objectives 

Supporting the development and application of innovative solutions in the field of sustainable food 
production and water resources management in the Mediterranean region was identified as the most 
relevant  objective  for  PRIMA  by  both  the  respondents  to  the  online  public  consultation  and  the 
participants  in  the  stakeholder  event  in  Malta.  There  appears  to  be  a  general  consensus  on  the 
importance of this objective, independently on the country of origin (EU or third countries) of the 
respondent/participant.  

Another objective which was particularly emphasised is the need to reinforce cooperation not just 
among Euro-Mediterranean countries but also among sectors and regions. Knowledge sharing and 
transfer  (e.g.,  via  a  dedicated  platform),  capacity  building,  support  to  knowledge-based  jobs  and 
competences and ensuring research quality were also mentioned as relevant objectives for PRIMA. 

2.7.  R&I priorities 

As for the most relevant R&I priorities for the PRIMA initiative, a slightly different feedback was 
provided by the respondents to the online public consultation, on the one hand, and the participants 
in the stakeholder event in Malta, on the other. 

According to both EU and third countries replies to the online public consultation, finding context-
adapted  solutions  capable  of  increasing  food  and  water  chain  efficiency  and  reducing  losses  and 
waste in the region is the most relevant R&I priority for a Partnership for Research and Innovation 
geared towards improving the efficiency and sustainability of food production and processing and 
water  resources  management  in  the  Mediterranean  basin.  In  addition  to  this,  EU  respondents 
underlined the importance of supporting the common development of smart and sustainable farming 

72 

 
 
 
systems capable of maintaining natural resources and increasing production efficiency as well as the 
need to test and stimulate the application of context-tailored water-saving solutions, particularly in 
agriculture.  From  EU  respondents,  there  was  also  the  suggestion  to  address  within  PRIMA  the 
whole  water-food-energy  nexus,  thus  adding  energy  as  an  area  of  intervention.  As  for  third 
countries respondents, they strongly emphasised the need to improve land and water sustainability 
in arid and semi-arid environments. 

As already mentioned, slightly different R&I priorities were identified as a result of the dedicated 
discussion table which took place during the Malta event. Participants highlighted the importance of 
supporting the development of: 

 

tools for knowledge capitalisation; 

  climate modelling / services for end-users; 

  collaborative projects including different stakeholders. 

2.8.  Actions 

Asked about the most relevant actions for PRIMA to achieve its objectives, both the respondents to 
the online public consultation and the participants in the Malta event valued as very important the 
development  of  pilot  projects.  Respondents  to  the  online  public  consultation  also  considered  as 
particularly  relevant  the  following  two  actions:  public  sector's  direct  investments  in  R&I  and  the 
support to networking and coordination/cooperation activities. Training for researchers and career 
development  was  identified  by  third  countries  replies  as  a  very  important  element  for  PRIMA  to 
achieve  its  objectives.  In  addition  to  the  need  of  developing  and  supporting  pilot  projects, 
participants  in  the  stakeholder  event  underlined  the  relevance  for  PRIMA  of  having  the  private 
sector investing in R&I, with the public sector facilitating these investments. 

It  is  here  worth  mentioning  that,  in  the  optional  box  dedicated  to  any  potential  additional  actions 
which  might  be  relevant  for  PRIMA  to  achieve  its  objectives,  respondents  to  the  online  public 
consultation  –  and  EU  stakeholders  in  particular  –  strongly  underlined  the  need  to  set  up  those 
synergies among actors whose importance was emphasised in the problem definition section. For a 
R&I initiative to be successful, local actors and end-users need to be involved from the very early 
stage  of  the  process  and  specific  training  programmes  and  schemes  need  to  be  designed  and 
implemented. 

2.9. 

Impacts 

Respondents  to  the  online  public  consultation  and  participants  in  the  Malta  event  considered  as 
relevant  all  the  impacts  listed  in  the  questionnaire  of  the  PRIMA  online  public  consultation. 
Particular importance is attributed by external stakeholders to the introduction and dissemination of 
innovative products, technologies and production methods adapted to the specific socio-economic 
conditions of the Mediterranean area. 

According  to  EU  respondents  to  the  online  public  consultation,  more  effective,  sustainable  and 
responsible production, food consumption patterns and use of water resources in the region emerge 
as the most relevant impact for PRIMA. They particularly insisted on PRIMA's potential to improve 
wellbeing  and  quality  of  life  in  Mediterranean  Countries  (especially  in  the  Southern  shore),  thus 
contributing to mitigating the current migration crisis. Improving wellbeing is also very present in 
the  comments  regarding  additional  potential  impacts  for  PRIMA,  next  to  raising  awareness  of 
climate change issues and boosting cooperation and synergies. As for third countries respondents, 
they  strongly  emphasised  the  potential  for  PRIMA  to  support  economic  growth  in  the  region 
through job creation.  

73 

 
 
 
The potential for PRIMA to support job creation and economic growth, as well as to improve the 
competitiveness  of  the  SMEs  established  in  the  region,  was  particularly  stressed  during  the 
discussion table on Action & Impacts which took place during the stakeholder event in Malta. 

2.10.  Policy options 

From  the  outcome  of  the  stakeholder  event  in  Malta  and  the  analysis  of  the  online  public 
consultation results, it emerges that existing national and EU-level R&I actions in the field of water 
resources management and food systems in the Mediterranean Area do not adequately address the 
problem statements highlighted by the same stakeholders in the Problem Definition section.  

Only 26.5% of the total number of respondents (149 out of 562) to the online public consultation – 
less  than  one  quarter  of  EU  replies,  but  slightly  more  than  half  of  the  third  countries  replies  – 
believe that the current scenario is enough to address the R&I challenges in the field of sustainable 
food  production  and  water  resources  management  in  the  Mediterranean  area.  18.5%  of  the  total 
number of respondents (104 out of 562) did not express any opinion in relation to policy options. 
The reasons explaining the overall satisfaction of the majority of third countries respondents (43 out 
of  76,  corresponding  to  56.6%)  with  the  current  scenario  could  not  be  further  investigated  since 
none of these respondents provided any additional justification for their choice in the optional box 

A  positive  evaluation  to  the  current  state-of-play  has  been  interpreted  by  the  ISG  members  as  a 
preference for the baseline scenario option mentioned in the PRIMA IIA. It has not been possible 
though to dig more into the advantages of the baseline scenario, since none of the respondents who 
are  positive  about  the  current  scenario  provided  any  reason  in  support  of  their  choice  in  the 
dedicated optional box. 

Among those respondents not in favour of the baseline scenario, 69.3% (214 out of 309) suggest to 
create a permanent, dedicated structure (Article 185 TFEU), while 29.1% (90 out of 309) would opt 
for a Co-fund action. 1.6% of the respondents – five replies, all from EU countries – selected "Other 
policy option" but did not provide any alternative policy option, except for one reply suggesting to 
launch  a  series  of  small  grants.  While  long-term  cooperation  commitment  emerges  as  the  key 
advantage  of  Article  185  TFEU,  the  reduced  administrative  cost  and  burden  of  such  option  (in 
comparison  to  Article  185  TFEU)  is  indicated  as  the  key  advantage  of  a  Co-fund.  No  strong 
opposition from specific categories of stakeholders could be detected. All typologies of respondents 
are  represented  in  almost  similar  proportions  in  all  the  options,  with  the  exception  of  inter-
governmental  organisations  which  all  opted  for  Article  185.  For  instance,  individual  citizens 
represent 26.2% of the replies in favour of the baseline scenario, 33.3% of the replies in favour of 
Co-fund, and 32.3% of the replies in favour of Article 185; research organisations represent 25.5% 
of the replies in favour of the baseline scenario, 20% of the replies in favour of Co-fund, and 21.5% 
of the replies in favour of Article 185; universities represent 27.5% of the replies in favour of the 
baseline scenario, 25.6% of the replies in favour of Co-fund, and 27.1% of the replies in favour of 
Article 185. As a general remark, the absence of an overwhelming majority of replies in favour of 
the Article 185 is likely to indicate that the stakeholders who sent their inputs to the PRIMA online 
public consultation do not represent a biased sample of respondents. 

Article 185 TFEU emerged as the preferred policy option also from the Policy Options-dedicated 
discussion table at the PRIMA stakeholder event in Malta. In this case, participants were asked to 
identify  a  maximum  of  three  suitable  policy  options  for  addressing  the challenges  for  R&I  in  the 
field of food production and water resources management in the Mediterranean area. The pros and 
cons of each policy option were then to be counted and a final ranking list was to be provided. The 
participants  decided  to  base  their  discussions  on  the  three  policy  options  (baseline  scenario,  Co-
fund action and Article 185 TFEU) mentioned in the questionnaire of the online public consultation. 
Article185  TFEU  ranked  as  the  most  suitable  policy  option,  with  three  pros  and  three  cons.  The 

74 

 
 
three  pros  are:  the  long-term  commitment,  the  coherence/alignment  among  national  and 
international programmes that an Article 185 TFEU is expected to bring along, and the additional 
financial  contribution  from  the  EU.  At  the  same  time,  the  differences  among  national  R&I 
programmes, together with the legal and the implementation issues which are likely to arise, are all 
elements which can jeopardise the successful outcome of the initiative. 

With regard to the position paper sent by The Netherlands' Ministry of Economic Affairs, Ministry 
of Infrastructure and the Environment and Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, and based 
on the text of the e-mail which accompanied the paper, it can be concluded that the preference for 
the Co-fund option is intended to replace the one for the baseline scenario made in the contribution 
by the same stakeholders to the PRIMA online public consultation. As mentioned in the paper, Co-
fund  is  seen  as  the  most  suitable  option  to  implement  the  'virtual  common  pot'  mechanism 
envisaged by PRIMA proposers. There is no rationale – the paper continues – for the EU to support 
an  Article  185  initiative,  if  the  PRIMA  partner  countries  themselves  do  not  allow  for  further 
synergies between their national programmes. 

75 

 
 
 
Annex 3: Socio-economic outlook of the Mediterranean region 

3.1. 

Introduction 

The figures here  reported are intended to  provide a socio-economic outlook of the  Mediterranean 
region, which includes data on population, GDP, diversity, migration, inequality, competitiveness, 
unemployment, governance, easy of doing business. 

3.2. 

 EU vs. non-EU countries 

EU vs. non-EU Mediterranean countries (2015 data)78 

78 Litus Advisory / Alma Economics (2016) Mediterranean Growth Initiative, p. 7. 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
3.3.  Population: density and migration 

Population density per country (2016)79 

Recent migration figures in the Mediterranean region80 

79 Litus Advisory / Alma Economics (2016) Mediterranean Growth Initiative, p. 4. 
80 Litus Advisory / Alma Economics (2016) Mediterranean Growth Initiative, p. 11 

77 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Migrants living in each Med country as % of population (2013 data)81 

Arrivals by sea in 201682 

81 Litus Advisory / Alma Economics (2016) Mediterranean Growth Initiative, p. 33. 
82 International Organization for Migration (IOM) (2016): http://migration.iom.int/europe/  

78 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
3.4.  GDP 

GDP per capita (PPP US$ thousand)83 

GDP per capita (PPP US$ thousand – latest available data for each country) 84 

83 Litus Advisory / Alma Economics (2016) Mediterranean Growth Initiative, 16. 
84 Litus Advisory / Alma Economics (2016) Mediterranean Growth Initiative, p. 16. 

79 

 
 
 
                                                            
GDP growth forecast for 201785 

85 Litus Advisory / Alma Economics (2016) Mediterranean Growth Initiative, p. 15. 

80 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
3.5.  Unemployment 

Regional Unemployment (latest available data for each country)86 

86 Litus Advisory / Alma Economics (2016) Mediterranean Growth Initiative, p. 18. 

81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
3.6.  Governance 

Governance (2014 data) 87 

3.7.  Competitiveness 

Global competitiveness index ranking (2015 data)88 

87 Litus Advisory / Alma Economics (2016) Mediterranean Growth Initiative, p. 24. 
88 Litus Advisory / Alma Economics (2016) Mediterranean Growth Initiative, p. 23. 

82 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Ease of doing business ranking (2015 data)89 

3.8.  Trade 

International  trade  accounts  for  between  20%-40%  of  GDP  for  most  Mediterranean 
countries  

Less than a third of total international trade in the region is between Med countries, leaving 
substantial scope for expansion in intra-Med economic ties in the future90 

89 Litus Advisory / Alma Economics (2016) Mediterranean Growth Initiative, p. 22. 
90 Litus Advisory / Alma Economics (2016) Mediterranean Growth Initiative, p. 8. 

83 

 
 
 
                                                            
High technology exports (2014 data)91 

3.9. 

Inequality 

Inequality (Gini coefficient – latest available data for each country) 92 

91 Litus Advisory / Alma Economics (2016) Mediterranean Growth Initiative, p. 25. 
92 Litus Advisory / Alma Economics (2016) Mediterranean Growth Initiative, p. 28. 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Annex 4: Mapping of on-going programmes in areas to be addressed by the PRIMA Joint 
Programme (other than Horizon 2020) 

A non-exhaustive list of the main programmes of scientific and technological collaboration between EU Member 
States and third countries in areas to be addressed by the PRIMA Joint Programme is shown below. 

TYPE PRIMA THIRD COUNTRIES 

TOPIC 

INSTRUMENT 

BUDGET 

l
a
r
e
t
a
l
i
t
l
u
M
U
E

l
a
r
e
t
a
l
i

B

a
i
r
e
g
l
A

t
p
y
g
E

l
e
a
r
s
I

n
a
d
r
o
J

n
o
n
a
b
e
L

o
c
c
o
r
o
M

a
i
s
i
n
u
T

y
e
k
r
u
T

n
o
i
s
i
v
o
r
P
r
e
t
a
W

s

m
e
t
s
y
S
d
o
o
F

e
l
b
a
n
i
a
t
s
u
S

t
n
e
m
p
o
l
e
v
e
D

r
e
h
t
O

e
v
i
t
a
r
o
b
a
l
l
o
C

h
c
r
a
e
s
e
R

n
o
i
t
a
r
t
s
n
o
m
e
D

y
t
i
l
i
b
o
M

e
u
g
o
l
a
i
D
y
c
i
l
o
P

EUR 

X 

   X  X 

   X  X  X  X 

   X  X  X  X 

4 million 

X 

   X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X 

   X  X  X  X 

209 million 

X 

   X  X  X  X  X  X  X 

   X  X 

   X  X 

15 million 

X 

   X  X  X  X  X  X  X 

   X 

   X  X 

   X 

20 million 

X 

   X  X 

   X  X 

   X  X  X  X  X 

   X 

Defined 
according to 
sectors 

X 

   X  X 

   X 

   X  X 

   X 

   X 

70 million 

X 

   X  X  X  X  X  X  X 

   X  X 

   X 

   X 

6 million 

   X 

   X 

   X  X 

N.A. 

   X  X  X  X 

   X  X  X  X 

   X  X 

   X 

up to 0.6 million 
per year 

   X  X  X  X  X 

   X  X 

   X 

   X 

   1 million per year 

   X 

   X 

   X 

   X  X  X  X  X 

   X 

Defined on a 
yearly basis 

   X 

   X 

   X  X 

   X 

6,000 per year 

   X 

   X 

 X  X  

   X  X 

according to 
national schemes 

Name of the initiative 

The European 
Neighbourhood Programme 
for Agriculture and Rural 
Development (ENPARD) 
ENI Cross-Border Co-
operation (CBC) – 
Mediterranean Sea Basin 
Programme 
ENPI  SWIM (Sustainable 
Water Integrated 
Management) 
ENPI SWITCH‐Med 
Programme 

Programmes d'Appui aux 
Politiques Sectorielles  

EU-Africa R&I Partnership 
on Food and Nutrition 
Security and Sustainable 
Agriculture 
The Nexus Dialogue EU 
Programme  
Czech Republic – Israel 
Industrial R&D Cooperation 
Framework 
France - 6 Partenariats 
Hubert Curien + 1 Bilateral 
programme with Israel 
Germany - Africa Strategy 
+ 2 bilateral scientific 
cooperation programmes 
Italy – Bilateral 
programmes 
Portugal – Bilateral call for 
mobility actions 
Spain – Bilateral 
programmes 

Table 1: Synoptic table of the main programmes of scientific and technological collaboration in areas 
to be addressed by the PRIMA Joint Programme 

The details of the identified programmes between EU Member States and third countries related to PRIMA 
Joint Programme are reported are tables 2 and 3. 

85 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
The European Neighbourhood Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development (ENPARD) 

Countries   Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Tunisia 

Focus 

rural 
livelihoods;  agricultural  productivity,  food  safety  and  quality  standards; 
organisational  and  institutional  capacities  –  national  multi-annual  programmes  –  no 
demonstration 

Budget 

4 million € 

Duration 

2015-2020  

ENI: Cross-Border Co-operation (CBC) – Mediterranean Sea Basin Programme 

Countries  Algeria,  Cyprus,  Egypt,  France,  Greece,  Israel,  Italy,  Jordan,  Lebanon,  Libya,  Malta, 
Morocco,  Palestine,  Portugal,  Spain,  Syria,  Tunisia,  Turkey,  United  Kingdom 
(Gibraltar)  

Focus 

environmental  protection  and  climate  change  adaptation  and  mitigation,  water 
management  –  strengthening 
industry  – 
demonstration 

linkages  between  research  and 

the 

Budget 

over 209 million €  

Duration 

2014-2020 

ENPI:  SWIM  (Sustainable  Water  Integrated  Management)    +  H2020  Supporting  Mechanism 
(Phase II) and SWIM DEMOS II 

Countries  Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Palestine, Syria, Tunisia 

Focus 

Contribute  to  reduced  marine  pollution  and  a  more  sustainable  use  of  scarce  water 
resources; water co-operation, river basin management, water demand management, the 
water-energy-food-security  nexus,  broad  stakeholder  participation  and  open  access  to 
data – demonstration  

Budget 

18 million € 

Duration 

until January 2019 

ENPI  SWITCH‐Med Programme 

Countries  Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Palestine, Syria, Tunisia 

Focus 

sustainable consumption and production patterns – policy support – demonstration 

Budget 

20 million € 

Duration 

2012-2015 

Programmes d'Appui aux Politiques Sectorielles (PAPS) 

Countries  Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia 

Focus 

different policies, including water management, environment and research 

Budget 

e.g. 34 million € for the Environment PAPS Algeria  

Duration 

e.g. 2012-2016 for the Environment PAPS Algeria 

86 

 
EU-Africa R&I Partnership on Food and Nutrition Security and Sustainable Agriculture 

Countries  EU-Africa (including Algeria, Egypt, and Tunisia) 

Focus 

food and nutrition security and sustainable agriculture 

Budget 

70 million € between 2014 and 2017 

Duration 

complete  establishment  between  2018  and  2020,  with  an  operational  life  well  beyond 
2020 

The Nexus Dialogue EU Programme  

Countries  EU,  Africa  (Nile,  Niger  and  SADC),  Latin  America  (Andean  Region),  Asia  (Mekong 
Area),  Central  Asia  (Aral  Sea  region),  Neighbourhood  (with  particular  focus  on  the 
Mediterranean region) 

Focus 

water-energy-food nexus: policy recommendations and action plans, small pilot projects, 
human capacity development 

Budget 

6.17 million € 

Duration 

2016-2018 (Phase I) 

Table 2: Multi-lateral Programmes involving EU Member States and Third Countries 

Czech Republic – Israel Industrial R&D Cooperation Framework 

Countries 

Israel 

Focus 

The  program  supports  joint  commercially-focused  joint  industrial  R&D  projects 
between Israeli and Czech companies in all technological fields 

Budget 

n.a. 

Duration 

On-going 

France – 6 Partenariats Hubert Curien +  1 Bilateral Scientific Cooperation Programmes with 
Israel 

Countries  Algeria, Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco, Tunisia, Turkey + Israel 

Focus 

- mobility of researchers in the frame of projects only generally relevant to PRIMA, e.g. 
sustainable  development,  social  sciences,  environment,  health  (Partenariats  Hubert 
Curien) 

-  2014  call:  R&D  collaboration  between  French  and  Israeli  companies  interested  in 
jointly  developing  and  commercializing  new,  innovative  products,  applications  or 
services (Israel) 

Budget 

- 58,000 € /year - 610,000 € /year (Partenariats Hubert Curien) 

- Funding depends on national schemes and  whether the project meets the technical and 
economic evaluation criteria (Israel) 

Duration 

On-going 

GERMANY – The Africa Strategy + 3 Bilateral Scientific Cooperation Programmes 

87 

 
 
Countries  Algeria, Egypt, Tunisia+ Israel, Jordan, Palestine,  

Focus 

water, water technology, agricultural science, natural resources management and climate 
change (Algeria, Israel, Jordan and Palestine) 

Food security, climate change, water and renewable energy (Egypt) 

Budget 

1 million € /year per side 

Duration 

On-going 

ITALY – 2  Bilateral Agreement & Cooperative Programmes 

Countries  Lebanon, Israel 

Focus 

Topics of the 2015 call for proposals: marine sciences & biodiversity, management of 
natural resources, renewable energy, food security, archaeology and water (Lebanon) 

Areas of the 2016 "Industrial Track" call for proposals: any other area of mutual interest, 
including  agriculture and food science, environment and water treatment, innovation in 
production processes (Israel). 

Budget 

Funding availability to be set each year covering mobility costs (50-70%) and 
implementation costs (50-305): to date, there have been three successful calls for 
proposals, and a total of 12 projects have been funded (4 completed and 8 on-going) – 
Lebanon 

Each project that is selected can be financed up to 50% of the documented and eligible 
costs of research and development and depends on national schemes- Israel 

Duration 

On-going since 2011 

PORTUGAL Bilateral call for mobility actions 

Countries  Tunisia 

Focus 

mobility of researchers in the frame of projects only generally relevant to PRIMA 

Budget 

6,000 € /year 

Duration 

On-going since 2013 

SPAIN –  Bilateral Agreement & Cooperative Programmes 

Countries 

Israel 

Focus 

2016 Call for Proposal: developing innovative products and applications in all 
technological and application areas, with  special focus on agrotechnology, 
Biotechnology and life sciences, Cleantech (environmental, new energy sources and 
natural resource use and Water management technologies), ICT, Nanotechnology 

Budget 

Depends on national schemes 

Duration 

On-going 

Table 3: Bi-lateral Programmes between EU Member States and Third Countries 

88 

 
 
 
Annex 5 : Analysis of FP7 Projects in the Themes of the PRIMA Operational Objectives 

5.1. 

Introduction 

An  analysis  has  been  performed  on  the  participation  of  non-EU  Mediterranean  countries  in  FP7. 
The  analysis  performed  in  this  Annex  targeted  the  countries  participating  in  the  PRIMA 
Consortium:  Algeria,  Egypt,  Jordan,  Lebanon,  Morocco,  and  Tunisia.  It  is  important  to  note  that 
Turkey has long been an Associated Country to the Framework Programmes. As a consequence, the 
participation of Turkey in FP7 is very large, and covers all programmes within FP7. 

An analysis was performed of the participation of these countries in FP7. For each project related to 
PRIMA that had one of these countries as partner or coordinator, the acronym, the FP7 Programme 
and  the  EC  Contribution  were  recorded.  Additionally,  the  project  was  related  to  the  closest 
Operational Objective of PRIMA. The eight Operational Objectives are the following: 

Table 1. The eight objectives of the PRIMA Initiative. Source: PRIMA proposal. 

An additional Objective, Labelled “0. Horizontal” was added to classify projects related to PRIMA, 
but which could not be associated to any of the 8 Operational Objectives. This applied to a number 
of Mediterranean ERANETS and Coordination and Support Actions, as well as to projects with a 
wide thematic scope. 

A total of 151 projects were found. An analysis was performed of the investment per Operational 
Objective and in total. 

It is important to note that the scope of the Operational Objectives is wider than the topic of PRIMA 
overall aim (Food production and water provision). 

89 

 
 
 
 
5.2. 

Investment in FP7 PRIMA related projects 

The  total  EC  contribution  to  the  identified  projects  was  408  M€  over  the  seven-year  duration  of 
FP7.  This  Figure  exceeds  the  proposed  contribution  of  the  PRIMA  partners  of  200  M€  for  a  ten 
year  Article  185  initiative.  The  following  Figure  presents  the  EC  Investment  per  Operational 
Objective: 

Figure A7.1. Classification of the EC investment in FP7 projects with non-EU Mediterranean partners according to 
the  PRIMA  Objectives.  An  additional,  horizontal  objective  was  added  (Elaborated  by  the  Expert  Group  from 
consultation of the CORDIS database). 

The Figure shows the variation between the operational objectives. ''Sustainable farming' (Obj. 1) 
was the most funded objective, followed by ‘innovative food systems for growth and jobs' (Obj. 6) 
and then by ‘Food demand and supply chains' (Obj. 3).  

5.3.  Participation of non-EU Mediterranean Countries in PRIMA-related FP7 projects 

The following figure presents the participation of each country in the funded FP7 projects: 

Figure A7.2. Number of FP7 projects with non-EU Mediterranean partners, classified by country (Elaborated by the 
Expert Group from consultation of the CORDIS database). 

90 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.4.  List of projects per Operational Objective 

A list of the identified projects in each Operational Objective follows: 

0. Horizontal (31.30 M€) 

91 

AcronymProgrammeBudget, EC contributionAlgeriaEgyptJordanLebanonMoroccoTunisiaTurkeyARIMNETKBBE1.00xxxxxARIMNET2KBBE2.00xxxxxCORE ORGANIC IIKBBE0.99xCORE ORGANIC PLUSKBBE2.99xERA-ARD IIKBBE0.97xERANETMEDINCO2.50xxxxxxxFACCE CSAKBBE1.99xFORESTERRAKBBE2.00xxxFRACTALSICT6.90xIASONEnvironment0.99xMedSpringINCO4.00xxxxxxxMIRAINCO3.99xxxxxxxVISION RD4SDEnvironment0.99x 
 
 
 
 
1. Sustainable Farming (102.48 M€) 

92 

AcronymProgrammeBudget, EC contributionAlgeriaEgyptJordanLebanonMoroccoTunisiaTurkey TriticeaeGenomeKBBE5.30x3TO4KBBE6.80xAGINSURANCEPeople0.10xAGRICABEnvironment3.50xAgriPolicyKBBE0.99xANIMALCHANGEKBBE9.00xAQUALITYSME2.09xAQUAMEDKBBE1.00xxxxxAQUATRACEKBBE2.99xAWAREKBBE0.99xBIOBIOKBBE3.00xBIOPROTECHINCO0.50xCAPRI-RDKBBE2.29xCHAMPI-ONSME1.09xDEGRICOLSME1.71xDROPSKBBE5.99xECO-ZEOEnvironment2.01xEFISHENTSME1.00xENVIGUARDKBBE5.52xFORCEINCO0.50xHEALTHYMINORCEREALSKBBE4.92xIAM4MARSPeople0.10xICT-AGRI 2KBBE1.99xLOWINPUTBREEDSKBBE6.00xMAP2ERAINCO0.44xNEXTGENKBBE3.00xNUE-CROPSKBBE5.99xOSCARKBBE3.00xPHENOLIVE SME1.14xPRESTO GMO ERA-NETKBBE0.99xPro-EelKBBE3.00xRICE-GUARDSME1.40xROOTOPOWERKBBE2.99xRURAGRIKBBE0.99xSAFISPACE1.96xSTAR TREEKBBE5.99xStonePeople0.22xSUSTAINMEDKBBE2.00xxx 
 
 
2. Irrigation efficiency (12.31 M€) 

3. Food demand and supply chains (45.57 M€) 

4. Food and water losses (18.32 M€) 

93 

AcronymProgrammeBudget, EC contributionAlgeriaEgyptJordanLebanonMoroccoTunisiaTurkeyEAU4FOODKBBE3.99xENORASISEnvironment2.01xSIRIUSSPACE2.49xSIRRIMEDKBBE3.00xxxSMART-PADDYSME0.82xAcronymProgrammeBudget, EC contributionAlgeriaEgyptJordanLebanonMoroccoTunisiaTurkeyAGFORISERegions0.92xCERTCOSTKBBE2.73xFinishICT6.10xFispaceICT13.49xFLABELKBBE2.86xNU-AGEKBBE8.99xOPTIFELKBBE2.99xORGANICDATANETWORKKBBE1.49xVEG-I-TRADEINCO5.999xAcronymProgrammeBudget, EC contributionAlgeriaEgyptJordanLebanonMoroccoTunisiaTurkeyBIOWASTE4SPKBBE2.99xxBIOWASTE4SPKBBE2.99xCB-WR-MEDINCO0.49xETOILESME0.89xFUSIONSKBBE3.99xNOSHANKBBE2.99xORIONSME2.98xWATERBIOTECHKBBE1.00xxxx 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5. Animal and plant pests and diseases (40.95 M€) 

7. Soil erosion, mismanagement of water, Basin level (41.52 M€) 

94 

AcronymProgrammeBudget, EC contributionAlgeriaEgyptJordanLebanonMoroccoTunisiaTurkey SharCoKBBE2.94xARBO-ZOONETKBBE1.00xBCA_grapeSME0.77xC-IPMKBBE1.99xDETANMITEPeople0.13xECOSYNSME0.89xEMIDAKBBE1.00xENTOMATICSME2.19xEUPHRESCOKBBE0.99xICONZKBBE5.99xMARSKBBE0.99xPALM PROTECTA3.00xPARAVACKBBE8.94xPIROVACKBBE2.99xSMSKBBE4.14xVMERGEKBBE3.00xxAcronymProgrammeBudget, EC contributionAlgeriaEgyptJordanLebanonMoroccoTunisiaTurkeyAFROMAISONEnvironment3.34xCA2AFRICAKBBE1.00xCLARAEnvironment2.00xxCLIMBEnvironment3.15xxE-SOTEREnvironment2.60xFloodstatPeople0.08xGLOBAQUAEnvironment7.59xJORIEWINCO0.50xLEDDRAEnvironment3.06xMAQUAKBBE2.91xMIRAGEEnvironment3.50xPOLLINSSME2.21xREFRESHEnvironment6.99xSOILMOISTUREPeople0.10xSUDSOEINCO0.50xWAHARAEnvironment2.00x 
 
 
 
8. Improving water governance (38.20 M€) 

95 

AcronymProgrammeBudget, EC contributionAlgeriaEgyptJordanLebanonMoroccoTunisiaTurkeyAQUAWARNSME0.94xBEWATERSIS2.93xCLAIMKBBE1.50xDewforaEnvironment3.45xxFP4BATIWINCO0.99xxxGenesisEnvironment6.99xMARSEnvironment8.99xMOICTINCO0.49xPEGASOEnvironment6.99xWASSERMEDEnvironment2.93xxxWATEUREnvironment1.99x 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 6: Screening of the options 

Scope 

R&I activities related to 
water provision 

R&I activities related to 
food systems 

Geographical coverage 

Actions with EU 
Member States only 

Legal feasibility 
Technical feasibility 
Previous policy choices 
Coherence with other 
EU policy objectives 
Effectiveness and 
efficiency 
Proportionality 
Political feasibility 
Relevance in achieving 
the specific objectives 

Legal feasibility 

Technical feasibility 
Previous policy choices 
Coherence with other 
EU policy objectives 
Effectiveness and 
efficiency 
Proportionality 
Political feasibility 
Relevance in achieving 
the specific objectives 

Yes 
n.a. 
n.a. 
Yes 

Yes 
n.a. 
n.a. 
Yes 

R&I activities 
integrating water 
provision and food 
systems 
Yes 
n.a. 
n.a. 
Yes 

Medium 

Medium 

High 

n.a. 
Low 
Medium 
cross-sectorial nature 
requires integrated 
approach 

n.a. 
Low 
Medium 
cross-sectorial nature 
requires integrated 
approach 

n.a. 
High  
High  
integrated approach 
addresses cross sectorial 
dimension 

Actions with EU 
Member States and 
Associated third 
countries 
Partially 
Most of the identified 
approaches do not 
allow to exclude 
participation of legal 
entities established in 
third countries  

n.a. 
n.a. 
Medium 

Medium 

Actions  with EU Member 
States, Associated third 
countries and third 
countries 
Yes 

n.a. 
n.a. 
High 

High 

No 
None of the identified 
approaches allows to 
exclude legal entities 
established in Associated 
Countries 

n.a. 
n.a. 
Low 

Low 

n.a. 
Low 
Low  
Participation would 
strongly  limit scale and 
scope of resources, and 
would not address the 
geographic area 
concerned by the 
common challenges 

n.a. 
Low 
Medium 
Participation would 
limit scale and scope of 
resources, and would 
not address the 
geographic area 
concerned by the 
common challenges 

n.a. 
High  
High  
Full participation would 
ensure scale and scope of 
resources, and would 
adequately address the 
geographic area concerned by 
the common challenges 

96 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Approach 

Legal feasibility 

Technical 
feasibility 
Previous policy 
choices 
Coherence with 
other EU policy 
objectives 
Effectiveness 
and efficiency 
Proportionality 
Political 
feasibility 
Relevance in 
achieving the 
specific 
objectives 

Support to 
coordination 
between 
Participating 
States: ERA-NET 
Cofund 
Yes 

Support to 
coordination 
between 
Participating 
States:  
EJP Cofund 
Yes 

n.a. 

n.a. 

High 

Medium 

n.a. 
Medium 

n.a. 

n.a. 

Medium 

Low 

n.a. 
Low 

Support to public-
private partnerships 

Support to 
integration 
between 
Participating 
States: Article185 

Yes 

n.a. 

n.a. 

High 

High 

n.a. 
High  

No 
Precondition for a JTI 
(strong commitment 
and leadership of 
industry not met). 

n.a. 

n.a. 

Low 

Medium 

n.a. 
No 

Medium  
Medium support to 
common long-term 
R&I agendas, some 
support to National 
alignment, 
contributes to 
Critical mass of 
actors and resources, 
little support to 
Strengthening 
innovation 
capabilities 

Low 
Little support to 
common long-term 
R&I agendas, little 
support to National 
alignment, limited 
Critical mass of 
actors and resources, 
no support to 
Strengthening 
innovation 
capabilities 

High  
Based on common 
long-term R&I 
agendas, high 
support to National 
alignment, Critical 
mass of actors and 
resources, strong 
support to 
Strengthening 
innovation 
capabilities 

Low 
No support to common 
long-term R&I 
agendas, no support to 
National alignment, 
contributes partially to 
Critical mass of actors 
and resources, medium 
support to 
Strengthening 
innovation capabilities 

European Joint Programme Cofund (EJP Cofund) 

EJP  Cofund  is  a  new  type  of  action  introduced  in  Horizon  2020  that  is  currently  only  used  in 
selected pilots (one in 2016, a second under preparation for 2017). The EJP Cofund aims at pooling 
a  critical  mass  of  resources  of  publically  funded  research  programmes  with  a  focus  on 
governmental research organisation in  highly similar areas of expertise (mission  driven research). 
The participation is limited to public entities that are mandated by their governments to participate, 
typically one or two per country.  

Public-Private Partnerships 

The EU can establish public-private partnerships as so-called Joint Technology Initiatives (JTIs). 
They provide a way of creating new partnerships between publicly and privately-funded 
organisations involved in research, focussing on areas where research and technological 
development can contribute to European competitiveness and quality of life. They are designed to 
establish European leadership in certain technologies that are strategic to Europe's future and rely 
on the leadership and strong financial commitment from industry. 

97 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex 7: Who is affected by the initative and how 

The  following  Tables  7.1  to  7.3  present  an  analysis  of  the  actors  affected  by  the  initiative, 
considering the three Policy Options: 

  Policy Option 0. Baseline scenario; 
  Policy Option 1.ERA-NET Cofund action; 
  Policy Option 2. Article 185 TFEU. 

The list of actors does not change with the Policy Option, but the type of effect, the actions needed 
to comply and the related uncertainties may change. In specific cases distinctions are made between 
the EU and third countries' stakeholders of a given type. 

Who is affected 

R&I Ministries of 
the partner 
countries 
(National R&I 
policy makers) 

R&I Programmes 
of the Partner 
Countries 
(R&I Funding 
Organisations) 

Public R&I 
performing 
organisations 

Large companies 

SMEs 

NGOs 
representing 
farmers, 
consumers, 
citizens… 

Farmers 

Citizens 

Policy Option 0: Baseline Scenario 

How it is  
affected 

Actions needed  
to comply 

Related 
uncertainties 

Ministries will develop their 
policies following national 
interests exclusively. They will 
lose prospects for co-management 
or co-ownership of Mediterranean 
R&I programmes. 

R&I programmes will continue 
with their national programing. 
Mediterranean ERA-NETs will be 
discontinued, with increased 
funding for national activities and 
discontinued participation in 
ERA-NET meetings. 
Discontinuation of Mediterranean 
ERA-NETs will decrease 
opportunities for regional 
cooperation. Opportunities for 
national activities could increase. 

Large companies could obtain 
support from Horizon 2020 calls 
within specific topics. 

No specific action is required 
to comply 

No specific action is required 
to comply 

No specific action is required 
to comply 

No specific action is required 
to comply 

SMEs could obtain support from 
Horizon 2020 calls within specific 
topics.  

No specific action is required 
to comply 

NGOs representing farmers, 
consumers, citizens could obtain 
support from Horizon 2020 calls 
within specific topics. 

Farmers rarely participate in R&I 
activities in Horizon 2020 or at 
national level. Indirectly they will 
be negatively affected: local 
innovations may be disconnected 
from Mediterranean state of the 
art. 
Citizens rarely participate in R&I 
activities in Horizon 2020 or at 
national level. Indirectly they will 
be negatively affected: local 
innovations may be disconnected 
from Mediterranean state of the 
art. 

No specific action is required 
to comply 

No specific action is required 
to comply 

No specific action is required 
to comply 

National policies may become 
disconnected from 
Mediterranean efforts. 
Fragmentation and duplication 
will increase. This Policy Option 
puts an end to Mediterranean 
R&I cooperation. 

National policies may become 
disconnected from 
Mediterranean efforts. 
Fragmentation and duplication 
will increase. 

The public R&I system may be 
disconnected from regional R&I 
activities. This is particularly 
important for third countries. 

The private R&I system may be 
disconnected from regional R&I 
activities. This is particularly 
important for third countries. 
SMEs may be disconnected 
from regional R&I activities. 
This is particularly important for 
third countries. 

NGOs may be disconnected 
from regional R&I activities. 
This is particularly important for 
third countries. 

Farmers may have limited 
access to innovations in the 
national market, and will have to 
resort to technology imports. 

Citizens will have limited access 
to innovations in the national 
market. Food security, diet 
quality and environmental 
conservation may be affected. 

Table 7.1. Who is affected by Policy Option 0. Source: PRIMA Expert Group report. 

98 

 
 
Policy Option 1: ERA-NETCofund actions 

Who is 
affected 

How it is  
affected 

R&I Ministries 
of the partner 
countries 
(National R&I 
policy makers) 

Policy makers will combine 
internal interests and the 
interest of a series of 
Mediterranean ERA-NETs. 

R&I 
Programmes of 
the Partner 
Countries 
(R&I Funding 
Organisations) 

R&I programmes will apply 
funds and managerial efforts 
to national and ERA-NET 
efforts. This is the current 
situation in all EU and most 
Mediterranean third countries. 

Public R&I 
performing 
organisations 

Large 
companies 

SMEs 

NGOs 
representing 
farmers, 
consumers, 
citizens… 

Farmers 

Citizens 

This is the current situation in 
EU and Mediterranean third 
countries (Associated). 
Further Mediterranean ERA-
NETs will increase 
opportunities for regional 
cooperation.  

Large companies are hardly 
involved in calls launched by 
ERA-NET (Cofund), due to 
the national rules of the NfB 
involved in such ERA-NETs. 
SMEs companies are hardly 
involved in calls launched by 
ERA-NET (Cofund), due to 
the national rules of the NfB 
involved in such ERA-NETs 
NGOs representing farmers, 
consumers, citizens are 
unlikely to receive support 
from ERA-NETs due to the 
national rules of the NfB 
involved. 
Farmers rarely participate in 
R&I activities. This Policy 
Option will not affect them 
respect to the current 
situation. 
Citizens rarely participate in 
R&I activities. This Policy 
Option will not affect them 
respect to the current 
situation. 

Actions needed  
to comply 

All EU and most 
Mediterranean third 
countries, national policy 
makers are familiar with the 
activities of the ERA-NETs. 
In general, no specific 
actions will be needed to 
comply 
All EU and most 
Mediterranean third 
countries, national R&I 
programmes are familiar 
with the activities of the 
ERA-NETs. In general, no 
specific actions will be 
needed to comply 
All EU and most 
Mediterranean third 
countries, national public 
R&I performers are familiar 
with the activities of the 
ERA-NETs. In general, no 
specific actions will be 
needed to comply 

In general, no specific 
actions will be needed to 
comply 

No specific actions will be 
needed to comply 

No specific actions will be 
needed to comply 

Related  
uncertainties 

This Policy Option does not 
imply meaningful progress 
in Mediterranean R&I 
cooperation. 

This Policy Option does not 
imply meaningful progress 
in Mediterranean R&I 
cooperation. 

- 

In many countries large 
countries find problems to 
participate in ERA-NET 
calls for proposals. 

In many countries SMEs 
find problems to participate 
in ERA-NET calls for 
proposals. 

In many countries NGOs 
find problems to participate 
in ERA-NET calls for 
proposals. 

No specific action is 
required to comply 

No specific action is 
required to comply 

- 

- 

Table 7.2. Who is affected by Policy Option 1. Source: PRIMA Expert Group report. 

99 

 
 
 
 
 
Related  
uncertainties 

Risks have been identified 
associated with the 
commitment level of 
participating countries and 
their will to build an effective 
management structure, based 
on central grant management. 

Risks have been identified 
associated with the 
commitment level of 
participating countries and 
their will to build an effective 
management structure. 

The success ratio may be 
different in the context of a 
programme focussing on the 
Mediterranean region. 
Proposal and grant 
procedures will be similar to 
Horizon 2020. 

The success ratio may be 
different in the context of a 
programme focussing on the 
Mediterranean region. 
Proposal and grant 
procedures will be similar to 
Horizon 2020. procedures 
will be different 
The success ratio may be 
different in the context of a 
Mediterranean evaluation. 
Proposal and grant 
procedures will be different 

Who is 
affected 

R&I Ministries 
of the 
Participating 
States 
(National R&I 
policy makers) 

R&I 
Programmes of 
the 
Participating 
States 
(R&I Funding 
Organisations) 

Public R&I 
performing 
organisations 

Large 
companies 

SMEs 

How it is  
affected 

This Policy Option sets a 
transition path towards 
integration of thematic 
Mediterranean R&I 
programmes.  

This Policy Option sets a 
transition path towards 
integration of thematic 
Mediterranean R&I 
programmes.  

Policy Option 2: Article 185 TFEU 
Actions needed  
to comply 
A relevant effort is required 
from policy makers to set up 
the dedicated 
implementation structure of 
this initiative (DIS)and the 
grant management, establish 
a governance structure and 
provide financial 
guarantees..  
A relevant effort is required 
from policy makers to 
ensure coordination between 
national activities, 
transnational activities 
carried out in other contexts 
(e.g. JPIs) and the activities 
of the Article185 initiative. 

Adaptation to the call for 
proposal and grant 
management rules applied 
by the  DIS.  

More thematic funding will 
be available. Consortia 
consisting of European and 
third countries will be 
required in all cases. This 
Policy Option will count on 
more funds for R&I, 
therefore having a strong 
positive effect. 
More thematic funding will 
be available. European 
consortia will be required in 
all cases. Project management 
will be centralised in a DIS. 
This Policy Option will count 
on more funds to produce 
R&I, therefore having a 
strong positive effect. Large 
companies will be able to 
apply in transnational 
consortia consisting of 
European and third countries.  Adaptation to the call for 
SMEs will be able to apply in 
transnational consortia 
consisting of European and 
third countries. More 
thematic funding will be 
available. European consortia 
will be required in all cases. 
Project management will be 
centralised in a DIS. This 
Policy Option will count on 
more funds to produce R&I, 
and has committed to pay 
specific attention to SMEs, 
therefore having a strong 
positive effect 

proposal and grant 
management rules applied 
by  DIS. 

100 

 
 
  
 
NGOs 
representing 
farmers, 
consumers, 
citizens… 

Farmers 

Citizens 

More thematic funding will 
be available. European 
consortia will be required in 
all cases. Project management 
will be different and 
centralised in a DIS. This 
Policy Option will count on 
more funds to produce 
innovations, therefore having 
a strong positive effectNGOs 
can in principle apply to 
apply in transnational 
consortia consisting of 
European and third countries. 
Farmers rarely participate in 
R&I activities. This Policy 
Option will count on more 
funds to produce innovations, 
therefore having a strong 
positive effect, even if, 
specific actions to involve 
them could be design and 
launched rely on innovative 
solutions coming from the 
increased R&I efforts that 
will provide benefits for 
farmers. 
Citizens rarely participate in 
R&I activities. This Policy 
Option will count on more 
funds to produce innovations, 
therefore having a strong 
positive effect, even if, 
specific actions to involve 
them could be design and 
launched 

No specific action is 
required to comply 

No specific action is 
required to comply 

- 

- 

Table 7.3. Who is affected by Policy Option 2. Source: PRIMA Expert Group report. 

101 

 
 
 
Annex 8: Synergies 

The thematic aspects of PRIMA are defined by the intersection of the Mediterranean focus and each 
of the eight objectives described in the proposal. Two types of cross-border initiatives are related to 
PRIMA: 

  Cross-border  initiatives  focusing  on  the  Mediterranean  which  partially  cover  the  thematic 

pillars of PRIMA; and 

  Cross-border  initiatives  partially  covering  the  thematic  pillars  of  PRIMA  which  count  on 

non-EU Mediterranean countries. 

Some  cross-border  initiatives  focusing  on  the  Mediterranean  partially  cover  the  thematic 
pillars of PRIMA 

The  Expert  Group  Report  presents  three  INCO-NETs  and  three  KBBE  ERA-NETs  addressing 
Mediterranean  Cooperation.  In  Table  10.1  the  results  of  three  calls  in  ARIMNet,  ARIMNet2  and 
ERANETMED  are  presented.  More  information  on  these  calls  is  provided  in  Annex  9.  On-going 
Mediterranean initiatives include:  

  MedSpring.  Its  objective  is 

to  encourage  and  strengthen  the  Euro-Mediterranean 
Cooperation on Research and Innovation by creating a dialogue and coordination platform 
of  governmental  institutions,  research  organizations,  associations  and  civil  society.  It 
focuses  its  efforts  around  three  major  societal  challenge  themes:  resource  efficiency 
(particularly water), high quality affordable food and energy. MedSpring does not fund R&I 
projects. 

  ERANETMED.  The  main  aim  of  the  project  is  to  enhance  Euro-Mediterranean  co-
ownership  through  innovation  and  competitive  research  in  the  societal  challenges  of  the 
region.  The  project  aims  at  reducing  fragmentation  of  programming  in  the  Mediterranean 
region  by  increasing  coordination  among  national  research  programmes  of  European 
Member States, Associated Countries and Mediterranean Countries. 

o  Call 2014: 13.42 million EUR (thee topics), one related to PRIMA 
o  Call 2016 (open): 11.45 million EUR (four topics), one related to PRIMA 

  ARMINET2. Continuing from ARIMNet, this ERA-NET aims to establish itself as a source 
of funding for international collaboration responding to global stakes and challenges facing 
Mediterranean agriculture. 

o  Call 2015: 7 million EUR, three topics, all three related to PRIMA 
o  Call 2016 (open): 5.8 million EUR, two topics, both related to PRIMA 

102 

 
 
 
 
 
PRIMA Objective 

MedSpring 

ERANETMED 

ARIMNet2 

1. To develop smart and 
sustainable farming systems to 
maintain natural resources and to 
increase production efficiency 

Societal challenge 
“food” focuses on 
organic farming, 
traditional agriculture 
and tolerance to 
abiotic stresses 

2. To test and stimulate the 
adoption of context-tailored 
water-saving solutions, in 
particular in agriculture 

Societal challenge 
“scarcity of resources” 
has a strong focus on 
water 

Call 2014: a topic on 
Water 
resources management. 

3. To innovate in Mediterranean 
food products based on 
Mediterranean diet heritage and 
to enhance the links between 
nutrition and health 

Societal challenge 
“food” focuses on 
innovations in local 
Mediterranean food 
chains 

4. To find context-adapted 
solutions to increase food and 
water chain efficiency, and 
reduce losses and wastes 

Societal challenges 
“food” and “scarcity 
of resources” target 
food and water 
efficiency 

Call 2014: a topic on 
Water 
resources management. 

5. To design and promote the 
adoption of novel approaches to 
reduce the impact of pests and 
pathogens in farming, including 
their consequences on human 
health 
6. To conceive and implement 
innovative, quality oriented 
models in agro-business as 
potential sources of new jobs and 
economic growth 
7. To improve land and water 
sustainability in arid and semi-
arid watersheds 

Societal challenge 
scarcity of resources 
addresses water 
sustainability 

8. To elaborate and stimulate 
adoption of new policies and 
protocols for the governance of 
water management systems 

Societal challenge 
“scarcity of resources” 
is directly related to 
policy making 

Table 10.1. Synergies related to ERA-NETs 

Call 2014: a topic on  
Water 
resources management. 
Call 2016: a topic on 
“Land &Water/ Food” 
and Environment 
Call 2014: a topic on 
Water 
resources management. 

103 

Call 2015. A topic on 
sustainable production 
under stress.  
Call 2015. A topic on 
food chain: from 
production to 
consumption. 
Call 2016 (open). A 
topic on Promoting 
sustainable agriculture 
for socio-economic 
development 
Call 2015. A topic on 
sustainable 
management of 
landscape and 
resources 
Call 2015. A topic on 
food chain: from 
production to 
consumption. 
Call 2016 (open). A 
topic on Valorising 
local products through 
food value chains 
improvement. 
Call 2015. A topic on 
food chain: from 
production to 
consumption. 
Call 2016 (open). A 
topic on Valorising 
local products through 
food value chains 
improvement. 

Call 2015. A topic on 
food chain: from 
production to 
consumption. 

Call 2015. A topic on 
sustainable 
management of 
landscape and 
resources 

Call 2015. A topic on 
sustainable 
management of 
landscape and 
resources 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
All these ERA-NETs will be finished by the end of 2017. 

Some cross-border initiatives partially covering the thematic pillars of PRIMA count on 
Mediterranean third countries 

The most relevant European Initiatives approaching the topics of PRIMA are the Joint 
Programming Initiatives. Among the ten on-going Joint Programming Initiatives, two are 
particularly close to PRIMA: 

  FACCE JPI explores the intersection between food, agriculture and Climate Change. This 
thematic focus is particularly related to PRIMA objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7. Two non-EU 
Mediterranean Countries are partners of FACCE JPI: Israel and Turkey. The WaterWorks 
2015 call for proposals (launched in cooperation with Water JPI and partially focusing on 
water in agriculture) counted on three non-EU Mediterranean funding organizations from 
Egypt, Tunisia and Turkey. 

  Water JPI covers all aspects related to water in Europe. Out of the five thematic areas of 

Water JPI, only one (Implementing a Water-Wise Bio-Based Economy) is directly related to 
the PRIMA objectives. Two non-EU Mediterranean Countries are partners of Water JPI: 
Israel and Turkey. The WaterWorks 2015 call for proposals (launched in cooperation with 
FACCE JPI and partially focusing on water in agriculture) counted on three non-EU 
Mediterranean funding organizations from Egypt, Tunisia and Turkey. 

The following table presents the correspondence of the PRIMA objectives with the core themes of 
the Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda (SRIA) of FACCE JPI and Water JPI. Each SRIA 
has five core themes. 

PRIMA Objective 

FACCE JPI 

Water JPI 

1. To develop smart and 
sustainable farming systems to 
maintain natural resources and 
to increase production efficiency 

2. To test and stimulate the 
adoption of context-tailored 
water-saving solutions, in 
particular in agriculture 
3. To innovate in Mediterranean 
food products based on 
Mediterranean diet heritage and 
to enhance the links between 
nutrition and health 

1. Sustainable food security 
under climate change, based on 
an integrated food systems 
perspective: modeling, 
benchmarking and policy 
research perspective 
2. Environmentally sustainable 
growth and intensification of 
agricultural systems under 
current and future climate and 
resource availability 

1. Sustainable food security 
under climate change, based on 
an integrated food systems 
perspective: modelling, 
benchmarking and policy 
research perspective 
4. Adaptation to climate change 
throughout the whole food chain, 
including market repercussions 

104 

4. Implementing a Water-Wise 
Bio-Based Economy 

 
 
 
 
 
4. To find context-adapted 
solutions to increase food and 
water chain efficiency, and 
reduce losses and wastes 
5. To design and promote the 
adoption of novel approaches to 
reduce the impact of pests and 
pathogens in farming, including 
their consequences on human 
health 
6. To conceive and implement 
innovative, quality oriented 
models in agro-business as 
potential sources of new jobs 
and economic growth 
7. To improve land and water 
sustainability in arid and semi-
arid watersheds 
8. To elaborate and stimulate 
adoption of new policies and 
protocols for the governance of 
water management systems 
Table 10.2. Synergies related to JPIs  

4. Implementing a Water-Wise 
Bio-Based Economy 

4. Implementing a Water-Wise 
Bio-Based Economy 

4. Implementing a Water-Wise 
Bio-Based Economy 

These JPIs do not have the same  thematic focus as PRIMA, nor the same geographical coverage. 
JPIs  focus  on  pan  European  societal  challenges.  These  JPIs  will  be  active  beyond  2017,  and 
therefore will be coincident in time with PRIMA. As a consequence, Synergies could be expected at 
different levels: 

  Coordinated  visibility  and  advocacy  inside  and  outside  Europe.  Extending  the  ring  of 
informal co-ordination between FACCE and Water JPI to PRIMA would add coherence to 
the  set  of  initiatives  and  facilitate  interaction  with  partner  countries,  European  institutions 
and society at large. 

  Mapping  of  capacities, key  researchers/innovators  and  centres  of  excellence.  Coordinating 
the  mapping  activities  performed  by  these  initiatives  would  moderate  the  required  efforts 
and provide geographic continuity towards the south and east of the Mediterranean. 

  Exploring the interfaces and the complementarities of the Strategic Research and Innovation 
Agendas. A synergic effect will derive from consideration of the well-established Agendas 
of the JPIs when preparing the first release of the PRIMA SRIA. Discussing the update of 
one  of  these  three  SRIAs  with  the  other  two  initiatives  will  bring  efficiency  gains  and 
reinforce the pan-European strategy on food systems and water resources. 

  Coordinating  Joint  Activities.  Water  and  FACCE  JPI  implemented  the  first  coordinated 
Joint Call at the Joint Programming level. Coordination of activities should be extended to 
PRIMA to exploit thematic coincidences and to attain synergies at the implementation level. 
Possibilities for co-ordination cover the whole range of R&I activities.  

105 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
National budgets 
implemented 
through 
ERANETMED 
Call 1 (Joint 
Programming 
2014 only) -(direct 
flow of funds from 
National 
Administration to 
participants)® 

1,500,000  EUR 

- not participating 
in ERANETMED 

200,000 EUR 

Annex 9: EU Relationships in R&I with Non-EU PRIMA Participating States  

Country  EU-Country Formal 
cooperation relations 

Relationship in R&I 
Established through 
Agreement 

Participation in 
Research Framework 
Programmes (direct 
flow of funds from 
COM to participants) 

Egypt 

Israel 

Lebanon 

EU-Egypt Association 
Agreement (OJ L304, 
30/09/2004, p. 39) – Art 43 
'Scientific and technological 
cooperation' on access Union 
R&D programmes' 

EU-Egypt S&T 
Agreement (OJ L182, 
13/07/2005, p. 12) in 
force since 2008. 

Participant total cost 
(FP7: 19.070.831 EUR; 
Horizon 2020: 1,584,719  
EUR) 

Participant EC 
Contribution (FP7: 
15.019.131  EUR; 
Horizon 2020,:2.321.469 
EUR) 

Participant total cost 
(FP7: 997,654,830  EUR; 
Horizon 2020: 
282,072,106  EUR) 

Participant EC 
Contribution (FP7: 
832,123,423  EUR; 
Horizon 2020: 
357,126,581  EUR) 

Participant total cost 
(FP7: 3,331,925 EUR; 
Horizon 2020: 2,766,349  
EUR) 

Participant EC 
Contribution (FP7: 
842,269 EUR; Horizon 
2020: 842.269 EUR) 

EU-Israel Association 
Agreement (OJ L147, 
21/06/2000, p. 3) Art 40 
'Scientific, technical and 
technological cooperation' on 
the intensification of 
cooperation in science and 
technology 

Horizon 2020 
Association Agreement 
(OJ L 177, 17.6.2014, 
p. 1) applicable since 
01/01/2014. 
(previously Associated 
to RFPs since 1996)  

- 

EU-Lebanon Association 
Agreement (OJ L143, 
30/05/2006, p. 2 ) – Art 44 
'Scientific, technical and 
technological cooperation' on 
access Union R&I 
programmes and 'study' 
means for Lebanon to 
participate in European 
Framework Programmes for 
Research 

Morocco  EU-Morocco Association 

Agreement (OJ L70, 
18/03/2000, p. 2 ) – Art 45 
'Regional cooperation': d) 
'research in science and 
technology' to be fostered 
with a regional impact 

EU-Morocco S&T 
Agreement (L37, 
10/02/2004, p. 9) in 
force since 2005. 

Participant total cost 
(FP7: 17,212,149 EUR; 
Horizon 2020: 3,072,099 
EUR) 

1,000,000 EUR 

Participant EC 
Contribution (FP7: 

106 

 
 
Tunisia 

involving third countries' 

EU-Tunisia Association 
Agreement (OJ L97, 
30/03/1998, p. 2 )  Art 45 
'Regional cooperation': d) 
'research in science and 
technology' to be fostered 
with a regional impact 
involving third countries' 

Turkey 

- 

13.620.383 EUR; 
Horizon 2020: 3.275.187 
EUR) 

EU-Tunisia S&T 
Agreement (OJ L 37, 
10.2.2004, p. 17) in 
force since 2004. 

Participant total cost 
(FP7: 15,250,420 EUR; 
Horizon 2020: 1,622,772 
EUR) 

600,000 EUR 

Horizon 2020 
Association 
Agreement, applicable 
since 01/01/2016. 

Horizon 2020 
Association 
Agreement, applicable 
since 01/01/2014 
(previously Associated 
to RFPs since 2003)   

Participant EC 
Contribution (FP7: 
12,055,778 EUR; 
Horizon 2020: 2,044,210 
EUR) 

Participant total cost 
(FP7: 265,202,494 EUR; 
Horizon 2020: 
62,790,978 EUR) 

Participant EC 
Contribution (FP7: 
195,614,212 EUR; 
Horizon 2020: 
88,262,744 EUR) 

500,000 EUR 

Table 9.1. Cooperation relationships between PRIMA Participating States 

® Note: data refers solely to Call 1 of ERANETMED, an ERA-NET type joint programming projects under 
FP7  which  started  implementation  in  2014.  The  amounts  refer  to  national  budgets  being  implemented  by 
authorities.  Participating  Member  States  are  Cyprus,  France,  Portugal,  Germany,  Malta,  Spain,  Italy  and 
Greece. Other third countries participating are Algeria and Jordan. In total Call 1 raised 13,520,000 EUR, of 
which 5,020,000 EUR were contributed and are managed by non EU countries. 

107 

 
 
 
 
Annex 10: Analytical models used in preparing the impact assessment 

On  the  Expert  Group  side,  this  Impact  Assessment  does  not  rely  on  modelling,  given  the  broad 
range  of  potential  impacts  and  a  lack  of  adequate  data  sets.  It  was  not  possible  to  compare  the 
potential  impacts  of  the  Policy  Options  using  sophisticated  modelling  techniques.  Models  of  the 
relationship  between  R&D  inputs  and  economic  outcomes  (such  as  changes  in  productivity  and 
employment levels) do exist, but they are typically used at macro-levels (e.g. to explore the links 
between  total  national  R&D  inputs  and  changes  in  productivity  levels  across  all  relevant  sectors) 
where aggregate data exist on a relatively small number of relevant variables (typically one input 
and one output variable). They are not suitable for use at more disaggregated levels where data sets 
are rarely available and the number of variables of interest is much larger. Even if the number of 
variables of interest was restricted and data sets did exist across all countries in the Mediterranean 
region,  the  costs  associated  with  collecting  these  data,  developing  appropriate  models  and 
performing  the  requisite  analyses  would  be  considerable,  and  certainly  outside  the  scope  of  this 
exercise. 

Commission views stand for a problem that it is not suited to modelling anyway, as it is too broad 
and complex.  Models are generally suited to more narrowly-defined problems. Models available in 
the  JRC  are  in  the  MIDAS  portal:  http://midas.jrc.it/discovery/midas/,  which  shows  models  to  be 
potentially run in the Mediterranean, but in the scope of marine sciences, so they are not applicable 
to the complex R&I water provision and food systems problem of this impact assessment.  

108