Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

*|*

# 52013SC0249

**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 a European Metrology Programme for Innovation and Research jointly undertaken by several Member States /\* SWD/2013/0249 final \*/**

  

Table of Contents

Introduction. 1

1........... Procedural Issues and
Consultation of Interested Parties. 3

1.1........ Organisation and Timing. 3

1.2........ Consultation of the IA
Board. 3

1.3........ Inter-service Impact
Assessment Steering Group (IASG) 3

1.4........ Consultation and
Expertise. 3

1.4.1..... Interim evaluation of EMRP. 4

1.4.2..... Public online consultation. 5

1.4.3..... Public consultation:
stakeholder meeting. 6

1.4.4..... Expert Group. 6

2........... Problem definition. 7

2.1........ Responding to the
metrology research & innovation challenge. 7

2.1.1..... Metrology research for
innovation and industrial competitiveness. 7

2.1.2..... Metrology research for major
societal challenges. 9

2.1.3..... Call for coordinated action
at EU level 9

2.2........ Key problems and their
drivers. 10

2.2.1..... Underexploited potential to
have a greater impact on growth and socio-economic challenges. 12

2.2.2..... Fragmentation and structural
weaknesses of the European metrology research and innovation system   13

2.3........ EMRP: Key achievements
and lessons learned. 15

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

2.5........ The EU's right to act and
the application of the subsidiarity principle. 17

3........... Objectives. 18

3.1........ General Objectives. 18

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

3.3........ Operational Objectives. 18

4........... Policy Options. 20

4.1........ Options. 20

4.1.1..... Policy Option 1: "No
dedicated EU action" 20

4.1.2..... Policy Option 2:
"Business-as-usual – EMRP2" 20

4.1.3..... Policy Option 3:
"Improved Article 185 initiative – EMPIR”. 20

4.2........ Discarded Options. 21

5........... Analysis of the
Impacts of the Options. 22

5.1........ Impact on achieving the
operational objectives. 22

5.2........ Economic, social,
environmental and other impacts. 24

5.2.1..... The economic impacts. 24

5.2.2..... The social impacts. 26

5.2.3..... The environmental impacts. 26

5.2.4..... Impacts on European Research
and Innovation Policy. 27

5.2.5..... Efficiency and
administrative burden. 28

6........... Comparison of Options. 28

6.1........ Comparing the options on
contribution to objectives. 29

6.2........ Comparing the options on
impacts. 29

6.3........ Preferred Option. 30

6.4........ Risk register for the
preferred option. 30

7........... Monitoring and
Evaluation. 31

8........... Annexes. 33

Annex I: List of acronyms and abbreviations. 34

Annex II: National commitments to EMPIR (December 2012) 35

Annex III: Measurement and economic returns. 36

Annex IV: Public online consultation: analysis of the
responses. 37

Annex V: Examples of EMRP projects and expected results. 44

Annex VI: Metrology landscape in Europe. 49

              Introduction

The central nerve in the spine of our
high-tech world is metrology[1], the science of measurement. Every aspect of our daily lives is
affected by metrology and ever more precise and reliable measurements are
essential to drive innovation and economic growth within our knowledge based
economy. What we cannot measure, we do not understand properly, and
cannot control nor manufacture or process reliably. Thus, advances in
metrology have a profound impact on our understanding of, and ability to shape,
the world around us.

Metrology sets the basis for European and
worldwide standards increasing the competitiveness of European businesses in
the global market, supporting trade and allowing them to access foreign markets
with business partnerships around the globe. European standards and
standardisation are very effective policy tools for the EU to ensure, inter
alia, the interoperability of networks and systems, a proper functioning of the
Single Market, a high level of consumer and environmental protection.

Metrology is a particularly important
driver of innovation to improve European industrial competitiveness. New
scientific breakthroughs can be exploited through new metrological techniques
to bring improvements in manufacturing through better measurement instruments
and techniques. These advances spin off into industry resulting in new and
improved products, processes and services across the breadth of the economy. Countries
advanced in industrial economy invest between 3 to 6% of GDP for measurement
and measurement-related operations[2].

In the health sector, accurate and reliable
measurements are a necessary prerequisite to decide on the correct diagnosis
and therapy. Road and workplace safety as well as safety in many other areas
call for unambiguous regulations that can be verified by means of reliable
measurements. A prerequisite for environmental protection measures is that
pollutants in soil, air, and water can be accurately determined. Supervising
both measuring equipment and their use ensures global trade of goods.

Metrology is a key enabling tool for
advancement of fundamental research, often supporting progress into new,
hitherto unknown dimensions. In a mutually beneficial relationship, the
improved ability to measure facilitates scientific progress, whilst science
opens up new and improved measurement capability. The Nobel Prize in Physics
2012 was awarded jointly to Serge Haroche and David J. Wineland "for
ground-breaking experimental methods that enable measuring and manipulation of
individual quantum systems".

In summary, reliable and traceable
measurement underpins our modern society and plays a critical role in
supporting economic competitiveness, manufacturing and trade as well as quality
of life. In this modern world, a well-developed measurement infrastructure
provides confidence in many aspects of our daily life by enabling the
development and manufacturing of reliable, high quality and innovative
products, supporting industry to be competitive and sustainable in its
production, facilitating the removal of technical barriers to trade, ensuring
safety and efficacy of healthcare, as well as addressing the
measurement-related needs for energy and the environment.

National Metrology Institutes as the
metrology infrastructures in Europe

National Metrology Institutes (NMIs) are in
charge of this work and implement it on the basis of institutional funding from
central government agencies or ministries. The NMIs, some of them in operation
for more than 100 years, are additionally charged with ensuring that the
international system of measurement functions appropriately, and are firmly
imbedded in the mechanisms of the Metre Convention[3]. Most
national measurement research programmes and activities are stretched as they
respond to external demands and the need to improve their capabilities to
respond to an ever increasing, diverse range of applications and techniques to
measure to greater accuracies.

The complexity and scale of requirements
for quality-assured measurement in industry, and those associated with the grand
societal challenges such as energy, environment and health, cannot sufficiently
be covered by the traditional, nationally fragmented system. Only a coherent
and integrated European approach can ensure the necessary coordination between
national research programmes, achieve critical mass, reduce duplication and
fragmentation and allow common European inputs to standards and regulations.

EMRP – a joint European Metrology
Research Programme

The current EMRP initiative is a joint
European programme of coordinated R&D that facilitates closer integration
of metrology research programmes implemented by the NMIs and DIs. It is based
on Article 185 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),
which, in implementing the multiannual Framework Programme, makes it possible
to coordinate national research programmes. The current programme has a total
public budget of € 400 million for a duration of five years with matching
contributions from the participating countries and the European Union. The
interim evaluation has recognised the value of the initiative. A main
achievement is that an estimated 50% of the dedicated national investments in
metrology research are now influenced and coordinated by EMRP. This reduces fragmentation, avoids unnecessary duplication and
allows achieving critical mass by concentrating resources on areas with highest
relevance through close collaboration of best researchers. EMRP projects deliver European measurement solutions for major
societal challenges and provide common European inputs into standards and
regulations. It has established the European Metrology Research System as a global
reference.

The Horizon 2020 proposal allows for
continuation of existing public-public partnerships, provided they address
Horizon 2020 objectives, they meet the criteria laid down in Horizon 2020 and
they have shown to make significant progress under the Seventh Framework
Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration (FP7). A
successor to EMRP is specifically foreseen in the proposal for the Specific
Programme Implementing Horizon 2020. The public-public partnership on metrology
fulfils the criteria laid down in the proposals for Horizon 2020 and the
Specific programme and has consequently been included in the Commission Work
Programme 2013 as part of the initiative for reinforced partnering in research
and innovation under Horizon 2020.

1.           Procedural
Issues and Consultation of Interested Parties

This impact assessment (IA) report
accompanies the Commission proposal for a decision on the participation by the
European Union in the European Metrology Programme for Innovation and Research
(EMPIR). It details the findings of the impact assessment required for
legislative proposals and represents the ex-ante evaluation[4]
required for proposals occasioning budgetary expenditure.

1.1.        Organisation and Timing

The Commission's Directorate-General for Research & Innovation
(DG-RTD) is the lead DG for this initiative[5]. In
2011, the Interim Evaluation on the European Metrology Research Programme was
carried out. In 2012, the mandate of the existing interservice group on EMRP has
been extended to function as Impact Assessment Steering Group (IASG) and all
relevant consultations and gathering of evidence has been conducted.

1.2.        Consultation
of the IA Board

In February 2013, the Impact Assessment
Board reviewed and approved the report. In its opinion it requested
improvements of the impact assessment report which have been taken into
account. In particular the report now better explains the specific problems and
the underlying drivers and the relation between objectives and targets. The
description of the new programme in comparison of the running initiative was
improved in order to better clarify how the new programme will tackle the
identified weaknesses.

1.3.        Inter-service
Impact Assessment Steering Group (IASG)

Three meetings of the IASG were convened
between September 2012 and January 2013.[6] The
IASG contributed to the IA planning, the preparation of the public consultation
and to the IA report. The final report has been endorsed on 23 January 2013 and
the minutes of the meeting are submitted to the IA board together with the
report.

The existing interservice group for EMRP is
expected to be continued with a revised mandate covering also a future
initiative and ensure its linkage to relevant services.

1.4.        Consultation
and Expertise

A comprehensive set of expertise gathering and consultations with
relevant stakeholders parties have been carried out at different stages of the
preparation of this impact assessment, covering:

1.
Interim Evaluation on the European Metrology
Research Programme (EMRP)

2.
Public online consultation on a European
Metrology Research Programme under Horizon 2020

3.
Public consultation: stakeholder meeting on 22
January 2013

4.
Expert group supporting the preparation of the
impact assessment

This impact assessment regards the follow up to an already existing
programme. The consultations have been focussed on involving the key
stakeholders (researchers, industry, SME, civil society, citizens and governments)
as well as participants of the running initiative and funded projects.

1.4.1.     Interim evaluation of EMRP

An Interim Evaluation of the EMRP[7] was carried out by an Expert
Panel after three years of running of the programme. The report was adopted by
the Commission in April 2012.  The midterm evaluation of EMRP recognised
the value of the initiative and indicated in particular considerable progress
on coordination of research: "pooling excellence in metrology research’
had been achieved and this has contributed to a large share of European
research programming in the metrology field. The
evidence of integration is clear as some 50% of dedicated national funding for
metrology research has been jointly ‘programmed’ through the central
prioritisation and evaluation processes."

The 12 point framework of the ex-ante
impact assessment was used by the Panel to structure its qualitative
conclusions on the impact of the EMRP. This had two advantages. It allowed a
direct comparison with the expectations and minimised the risk of appearing to
be over-critical in areas where the potential impact was not expected to be so
great.

Figure 1: Overview of Impacts for EMRP (mid-term evaluation)

Although it is a subjective and qualitative
assessment it allowed the panel to conclude that:

·
The EMRP is performing well in relation to most
of its original expectations

·
There are significant gaps between expectation
and reality in relation to three qualitative impact indicators: capacity
building, interaction with the wider scientific community and mobility

·
Any future initiative should include dedicated
instruments to support industrial exploitation and innovation and a better
support for standardisation and regulatory work

The main recommendations of the interim evaluation relevant for a
future initiative that could not be implemented by EMRP were:

▪
Twin track innovation and policy driven approach
including separate instruments to enable advancement of new knowledge and exploitation
of existing knowledge

▪
Develop a more practical instrument to enable
better access to the best centres of excellence in the wider research community

▪
Help developing NMIs and DIs to build scientific
capacity that aligns with their national growth strategies through the use of
both the EMRP and Structural Funds

▪
Foster Joint Research Projects that promote
inclusion and development of embryonic centres of excellence consistent with
European strategies

▪
Explore options to exploit the well-known and
successful Marie Curie instrument.

▪
Introduce dedicated calls to support regulatory
and/or standardisation roadmaps

▪
Widely open foresight workshops to identify
metrology-related barriers to the safe and rapid exploitation of new
technologies

1.4.2.     Public online consultation

An online consultation collected input on
the state of play of the European metrology research system and the challenges
it is facing. The online survey was open for submission for 12 weeks (1 October
– 23 December 2012) and received 624 contributions from more than 40 countries.
The synthesis report on the public consultation was published in January 2013[8] (Annex IV: summary of results).
72% of the responses came from organisations and 28% from individual citizens.
The main contributions from organisations were received from research
organisations (32%) and businesses (16%, of which 69% SMEs).

Figure 2: Distribution of responses according to type of
organisation

The stakeholders responding confirmed the
high relevance of metrology research for (a) addressing Grand Challenges, (b)
for the European economy and industrial competitiveness and (c) for European
policies, standardisation and regulatory work (97% indicated very relevant or
relevant for all three). The majority of respondents agreed strongly with 15
specific underlying problems (chapter 2 and Annex IV).

1.4.3.     Public
consultation: stakeholder meeting

The consultation
meeting on 22 January was attended by around 30 participants representing major
stakeholder organisations. The main outcomes of the consultation meeting are
the appraisal of the success of EMRP in coordinating and integrating European
Metrology Research, the confirmation of the problem definition for the European
Metrology research system and the validation of objectives for a future
initiative[9].

1.4.4.     Expert
Group

An expert group has
provided analytical support and further evidence in supporting the preparation
of the impact assessment report between September 2012 and January 2013.

The Commission’s minimum standards for the
consultation of interested parties during the Impact Assessment have been met.

2.           Problem
definition

2.1.        Responding to the metrology
research & innovation challenge

2.1.1.     Metrology
research for innovation and industrial competitiveness

Metrology, the science
of measurement, is a hidden, often invisible infrastructure of services that
support fair trade, quality of life and environmental protection. This is
achieved by ensuring traceability to the International System of Units,
referred to as the SI, and covering the base units (second, metre, kilogram,
ampere, kelvin, mole, and candela) and the derived units. Internationally
compared and harmonized standards on primary level ensure that measurements,
which are traceable to them, are comparable in absolute terms. This
comparability of measurements and interoperability is crucial, with obvious
examples being the atomic clocks that form the basis of international time
keeping, and with it communications, banking, navigation etc. Another example
is industrial innovation and production process control: precise and traceable
measurements allow to assemble, e.g., a motor block from parts delivered by
different ancillary factories.

The hierarchy of modern
metrology activities from the primary measurement standards to the application
of knowledge for the benefit of industry and society is shown in the following
figure.

Figure 3: Hierarchy of Metrology

This shows the
hierarchical metrology chain from the basic physical units, via primary
standards and calibration methods, to the applications in industry and
commerce. It also highlights the need for a more open and inclusive approach to
scientific metrology with stakeholders from the NMIs, DIs, the wider scientific
community and government bodies that are concerned with societal regulations
and standards. All of these can now be considered as stakeholders of the
European Metrology Research Area.

Metrology is a General
Purpose Technology with strong spill-over effects across many sectors of the
economy and society. Thus the socio-economic effects are substantial but difficult
to quantify. The qualitative data that is available underlines strongly the
impact of improved measurements:

▪   Reports by the U.S. Commerce Department’s National
Institute of Standards and Technology[10]
demonstrated that the cost-benefit ratio of investments in measurements and
standards is conservatively estimated at 1:3. Many individual examples of
successful metrology research projects demonstrate significantly higher
cost-benefit rations (1:15 – 1:25 and more). E.g. the semiconductor design and
manufacturing requires cutting edge measurement technologies. Between 1996 and
2006, the US industry is estimated to have spent $12 billion on measurement
services, generating $51 billion in economic benefits.

▪   Countries advanced in industrial economy invest between 3
to 6% of GDP for measurement and measurement-related operations.

▪   Reducing measurement uncertainty has significant economic
impacts: The annual value of trade measurement transactions in modern industrial
societies is about 50% of GDP and a decrease in the average error of
measurement of 0.1%, would create an “economic benefit” of 0.05% of GDP. Such
an amount is significantly greater than the expenditure by governments in
maintaining the national trade measurement systems.

▪   A striking result of a recent study[11] is
that measurement knowledge is more strongly associated with novel than with
‘catch-up’ innovation; that is, it underpins cutting edge product and process
innovation creating high-value jobs.

 Figure 4: Example on economic impacts

Saving £50 million
for mobile network operators in the UK[12]

3G mobile phone
technology allowed to carry large amounts of data quickly so users can view
stream video and access the internet from handsets. To support 3G, network
operators had to install a new network of antennas. The antenna range, housed
in an anechoic chamber at UK National Measurement System, helped network
operators such as O2 by providing independent testing services to verify claims
made by antenna manufacturers. This helped to ensure that performance data was
comparable between products. Improved measurement could provide better
estimates of key performance parameters. This lead to substantial efficiency
savings through fewer base-stations needed in rural areas, lower masts and less
interference between adjacent base-stations in urban areas. Mobile phone
networks account for more than 1% of all UK electricity usage, so improvements
in network efficiency contribute to substantial energy savings (worth
approximately £1 million a year) and the associated carbon reduction. The
calibration data improvements supplied could also equate to a 1% one off saving
in network capital costs and a comparable saving in operational costs for the
lifetime of the network. Since each UK 3G network cost between £5 billion and
£10 billion to establish, the minimal one off saving was £50 million.

Standardisation
depends to a large extend on underlying measurement technologies. The benefits
of standards for the European industry are tremendous. Standards lead to cost
reduction or cost savings derived mainly from economies of scale, the
possibility to anticipate technical requirements, the reduction of transaction
costs and the possibility to access standardised components. Well designed and
timely European standards can support innovation in a number of ways. Existing
standards can codify and spread the state-of-the-art in various technologies.
They can also facilitate the introduction of innovative products by providing
interoperability between new and existing products, services and processes, for
example in the field of eco-design, smart grids, energy efficiency of
buildings, nanotechnologies, security and eMobility.

2.1.2.     Metrology
research for major societal challenges

Solving major societal challenges often
rely on metrology solutions. This is most prominently the case in the areas of
health, environment and energy, but applies also to other areas, e.g. transport
(automated guided vehicles, emission reductions), agriculture (food safety) or
secure societies (chemical and radiation measurements, improving data
security).

Metrology for Health delivers directly to understanding the determinants of health by
providing a better reliability and comparability of measurements. Accurate and
reliable measurements are a necessary prerequisite to decide on the correct
diagnosis and therapy. The economic impact of measurements related to medical
diagnosis and treatment is very large. Most industrialized states spend some
10% of their GDP on health. In the US, it is close to 15%. Studies have shown
that as much as 30% of the costs of medical care are in measurements and tests
related to diagnosis and therapy.

The potential impact of metrology on
the environment and climate is pervasive as the use of measurements,
reference materials and tools are applied in many sectors including
environmental technologies and energy efficiency. Reliable, comparable
measurements are required in order to identify and control pollutions of water,
air and soil, embedded in European Directives aiming at the protection of our
environment.

Metrology research for energy contributes in several areas to the transformation and
sustainability of European energy systems. Metrology supports maintaining the
stability of the energy system and the transformation of gas and electricity
networks into “smart networks”. The further development of effective and
efficient energy sources itself requires metrological support.

2.1.3.     Call
for coordinated action at EU level

All governments in advanced technological countries
support a metrology infrastructure because of the benefits it brings and its
strong character as a public good that justifies public intervention due to
market failure:

▪
Metrology research has important externalities
that make  it unlikely that a socially valuable
project will privately profitable to make the investment.

▪
The fixed costs of each metrology research
project are relatively high but the marginal costs of spreading the
knowledge to users for wide application is small.

▪
Metrology has large network effects with the benefit of the metrology infrastructure being greatest when
the number of users is as large as possible.

▪
Metrology requires impartiality and integrity
and are therefore traditionally defined by public
authorities entrusted with this role.

Major economic powers in the world are
increasing their investment. China, for example, increased the national
investment in metrology R&D between 2001 and 2007 by a factor of 25 –
albeit from a low base. Figure 5 shows the strong increase of metrology
investment in some major countries over recent years. Taking
account of the level of investment in metrology and its role in promoting
scientific excellence and industrial competitiveness, a single Member State or
several acting on their own would fail in competing in the global context.

Figure 5: Investment in metrology: comparison of change
(internal data NPL, UK)

The overall volume and rate of increase
of investment of the US in the metrology infrastructure is substantial and
based on the clear recognition of the role of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) for strengthening the conditions for economic
growth by promoting innovation, entrepreneurship and competitiveness. The 2011
budget proposed a funding level of $918.9 million, a 7.3% increase over the
2010 appropriations for the agency. This is underlined by
the following quotes of Commerce Secretary Gary Locke: "While the
President's budget request freezes most domestic spending, NIST needs this
increase to ensure we’re making the kind of future-oriented science and
technology investments that ultimately create high-wage jobs and jump-start the
economy" and NIST Director Patrick Gallagher: "The President's
request for NIST recognizes the critical role that measurement science and
standards play in fostering innovation and economic growth,” … "The budget
also maintains the President's commitment to double the NIST laboratory budget
by 2017 to support and enhance our world leadership in the physical sciences
and technology."

The economic benefits
for a coordinated approach have been demonstrated in a study[13] examining the economic impact of Mutual Recognition Arrangement
(MRA)  between NMIs in establishing mutual recognition multilaterally through
central coordination rather than bilaterally. It was estimated that there was a
notional saving to participating NMIs of €75.000 Euros per annum in the cost of
establishing and maintaining mutual recognition and the total notional saving
to the community of NMIs was of the order of € 85 Million.

2.2.        Key
problems and their drivers

The result from the Public Consultation has provided clear feedback
on the outstanding problems both in general and for different stakeholder
groups and confirms the results of the mid-term evaluation of EMRP.

There was almost unanimous agreement
(97%) on the importance of metrology research for addressing grand
challenges; for the European economy and industrial competitiveness; and for
European policies, standardisation and regulatory work. The majority also
agreed with 15 specific underlying problems (50% to 90% agreed important
or very important).

Figure 6: Results from the public consultation: problem
statements for the European metrology research system in order of importance

The view on the
importance of the problems showed some significant differences[14] across the different types of respondents. Compared to the
researchers, industry attaches significantly more importance to the
following problems:

▪
Weak industrial exploitation (+20%)

▪
Lack of engagement with standardisation (+17%)

▪
Insufficient access to specialised infrastructure
(+15%)

Those countries with
small metrology research contributions to EMRP, compared to the five
biggest contributors (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK) attach significantly
more importance to the following problems:

▪
Huge capacity gaps between EU Member States (+21%)

▪
Lack of cooperation of NMIs with the wider
scientific community (+17%)

▪
Insufficient mobility of researchers within the
National Metrology Institutes (+16%)

▪
Lack of engagement with European Standardisation
(+13%)

▪
Lack of a single voice in a global network
(+12%)

▪
Insufficient global cooperation with leading
metrology research programmes (+12%)

▪
Insufficient metrology research oriented towards
grand challenges (+11%)

▪
Weak scientific excellence of metrology research
in Europe (+11%)

▪
Lack of qualified researchers and formal career
paths (+11%)

▪
Weak inter-disciplinary research practices (+10%)

▪
Weak industrial exploitation (+10%)

▪
Insufficient access to specialised
infrastructure (+10%)

EU12 countries, compared to EU15, attach significantly more importance to the
following problems:

▪
Huge capacity gaps between EU Member States (+22%)

▪
Lack of qualified researchers and formal career
paths (+21%)

▪
Insufficient mobility of researchers within the
National Metrology Institutes (+22%)

▪
Insufficient access to specialised
infrastructures (+20%)

▪
Insufficient global cooperation with leading
metrology research programmes (+13%)

▪
Weak scientific excellence of metrology research
in Europe (+12%)

▪
Lack of cooperation of NMIs with the wider
scientific community (especially beyond physical sciences) (+10%)

The two main problems that a future
initiative has to address can be summarised as follows:

2.2.1.     Underexploited potential to have a greater impact on growth
and socio-economic challenges

As mentioned before the national,
European and global metrology infrastructure already makes a vital, but mostly
unrecognised, contribution to economic development, quality of life and
environmental protection through the development and application of precise and
harmonised measurement methods. The core function of the NMIs is to develop and
maintain the hierarchical chain that links primary standards to the validated
measurements that underpin trade and commerce. This knowledge base also has the
potential to better support technological innovation, both directly and
indirectly, through increased collaboration with other actors in the European
innovation system including industry, the wider scientific community and public
services. The key issues and underlying drivers are:

Metrology
needs to make a greater contribution to economic development, through post-research activities that reduce the barriers and
risks to exploitation of metrology research through new-to-market products. Industry
generally benefits from metrology via improved quality and increased
productivity of new and existing products and services. There is however a lack
of cooperation between NMIs and industry and insufficient access of industry to
related infrastructure. This insufficient support for measurement-related
product and process innovation results in weak industrial exploitation of
metrology results and underexploited potential for economic growth[15].

Technology
transfer traditionally is concentrated on national programmes and there are
huge differences of industrial strength and access to technology transfer
mechanisms among the European countries. This results in geographical
limitations of industrial exploitation and hampers broader spill-over effects.

Weakness of
cooperation with industrial partners and weak industrial exploitation are
regarded as important problem areas that could be addressed by a European
metrology innovation and research programme with specific activities aimed at
supporting industrial uptake.

The metrology community should enable
better and/or faster regulations and standards, by providing
the often missing independent scientific input on measurement methods and their
limitations. The benefits of standards for the European industry are
tremendous. Standards lead to cost reduction or cost savings derived mainly
from economies of scale, the possibility to anticipate technical requirements,
the reduction of transaction costs and the possibility to access standardised
components. Well designed and timely European standards can support innovation
in a number of ways. Existing standards can codify and spread the state of the
art in various technologies. They can also facilitate the introduction of
innovative products by providing interoperability between new and existing
products, services and processes, for example in the field of eco-design, smart
grids, energy efficiency of buildings, nanotechnologies, security and
eMobility. The European metrology community provides an important input to
standardisation committees and working groups through the participation of
individual experts. What is missing is the strategic engagement leading to the
development of mutually supportive scientific roadmaps for pre-normative and
policy-related research.

Metrology research needs to become
more interdisciplinary and open to the wider science base, only further modernisation of the metrology system towards
interdisciplinary and opening to the wider science base can ensure that it will
deliver better measurement technologies for societal challenges such as health,
energy and the environment. However, channels of cooperation between NMIs and
the wider science community, that may already have the relevant scientific
capacity, are insufficient. More openness will improve scientific excellence,
give the NMIs better access to qualified researcher across disciplines, and
thus create a more effective and efficient innovation system[16].

Figure 7: Underexploited potential to have a greater impact on
socio-economic challenges – underlying problems and drivers

2.2.2.     Fragmentation and structural weaknesses of the European
metrology research and innovation system

Critical mass of metrology research can
only be achieved with coordination and integration of national and European
efforts. There is a constant need to improve the efficiency and effectiveness
of public investments via better cooperation and coordination while there is in
addition the need to continuously re-focus research efforts and to invest more
in public metrology research to cover the increasing number of research needs,
in particular towards grand challenges. The key issues and underlying drivers
are:

The development and exploitation of
new measurement technologies in Europe needs to be more coordinated and
inclusive, to reduce unnecessary duplication and
allow the less research–intensive NMIs to reduce the knowledge gap and thus
better position themselves to support national socio-economic development
priorities.

There are two
main problems. The first is that scale and complexity of metrology requirements
call for investments that go beyond the core research budgets of the European
NMIs, resulting in the risk of under investment, in particular for challenge
driven metrology research. Critical mass of metrology research for the increasingly
complex measurement requirements can only be achieved with better coordination
and deeper integration of national efforts. The problem is reinforced through
the fact that in times of limited public investments - in particular in
countries with lower metrology capacities - additional financial support
through the EU is needed to achieve critical mass and stabilise national
investments.

The second is
that the metrology research in European NMIs is concentrated in just a few
countries and EMRP, through its focus on excellent research, has not
contributed to a more inclusive metrology research system. It is interesting to
note that there are significant differences in the relative importance of
certain problems between the more research-intensive countries (eg EU15, top
five EMRP contributing countries) and the others. The survey responses indicate
that the less research-intensive countries are more concerned about capacity
gaps, mobility and lack of qualified researchers. There is a need to reduce the
knowledge gap and better position the currently less research–intensive NMIs to
exploit metrology research and support national socio-economic development
priorities.

Europe
needs to ensure global leadership and develop a coordinated strategy

Europe does not have a single centre of
excellence for metrology, unlike NIST in the US, and relies on the structure of
NMIs and DIs across Member States. The approach to global engagement is
multi-lateral with individual NMI/DI operating in a way that is consistent with
their national strategy. Europe needs to develop a coordinated strategy to
cooperate at programme level with the rest of the world on metrology research
in a way that provides broader economic advantages and enables Europe to speak with one voice and demonstrate leadership in addressing global metrology
challenges.

Figure 8: Fragmentation and structural weaknesses of the
European metrology research and innovation system – underlying problems and
drivers

2.3.        EMRP:
Key achievements and lessons learned

The existing
European Metrology Research Programme (EMRP) is one of four Art.185 initiatives
foreseen in FP7. The General Agreement, to provide up to € 200 million of Union funding, was signed between EURAMET[17]
and the Commission in December 2009 following the Decision by Parliament and
Council[18].
This was matched by in kind and cash contributions from 19 EU Members States
and three Associated States valued at € 200 million, bringing the total nominal
budget to € 400 million. The aim of EMRP is to:

“Support scientific development and innovation by providing the
necessary legal and organisational framework for large-scale European
cooperation between Member States on metrology research in any technological or
industrial field.”

EMRP is a multi-annual joint R&D
programme organised into five annual calls from 2009 to 2013. These included
specific targeted programmes related to societal challenges, metrology for
industry and basic metrology research. Proposal selection is based on common
evaluation with international peer review. EURAMET reports that 117 Joint
Research Projects with a value of € 351 million are funded following the annual
calls 2009 - 2012. These research projects involve also 155 unfunded partners
(approximately 50% industry, 50% research organisations). In addition, they
have been enhanced through the funding of 224 associated researcher grants with
a total value of around € 27 million. On average more than 10 organisations
contribute to each individual project.

Figure 9: Pilot action iMERA
Plus and its outcomes

The implementation of a joint metrology programme was
tested in a first step in 2007 as an ERA-NET Plus action (iMERA-Plus) with
co-funding from FP7, with the funded projects just being finalised in 2012. A
joint call resulting in 21 collaborative Joint Research Projects totalling €
64.6 million was undertaken in four thematic areas, with just over two thirds
of the funding provided by the participating member states and about one third
co-funded by the EC. These projects resulted so far in NMIs producing about 300
peer reviewed papers and 390 presentations at high level conferences as well as
more than 110 novel devices developed, potentially relevant for industrial
application. Commercialisation potential is further underpinned by 37 resulting
projects with industry and three patent applications.

The current EMRP initiative has provided
a major opportunity to cooperate across Europe, thereby creating critical mass
and leveraging investments. The main achievements of EMRP can be summarised as
follows:

▪
A strong financial integration by jointly programming
50% of dedicated national funding for metrology research

▪
A strong and very efficient centralised
management integration under EURAMET governance with grant management almost
identical to FP7 rules

▪
A strong scientific integration oriented towards
grand challenges with jointly developed roadmaps underpinning the long-term
research needs and high scientific excellence of selected projects

▪
EMRP projects deliver European measurement
solutions rather than many national ones and common European inputs into
standards and regulations

▪
EMRP has a broader impact on a European Research
Area in metrology, with nine national metrology research programmes that have
been established since 2007 in order to enable countries to participate in the
initiatives

▪
EMRP is considered as the leading metrology
programme worldwide with many partners from NMIs beyond Europe participating in
projects

Figure 10: EMRP projects related to societal challenges and
expected outcomes (see also Annex V)

Health

Increase access to Magnetic Resonance
Imaging: Approximately 10
% of the population with medical implants are excluded from MRI because of the
inability to properly quantify the risk for these patients. The project will
improve risk assessments for MRI scans and also remove any unnecessary safety
margins due to insufficient knowledge, leading to improved diagnosis and
shorter scan times.

Supporting a faster detection of infectious
disease: An accurate and
rapid diagnosis of infectious diseases is vital to protect public health, as
they account for 20% of human deaths on global scale. By assessing quality,
comparability and traceability, the project supports building up a superior –
and faster – measurement infrastructure (sequence analysis) as compared to
conventional microbiological methods.

Environment

Better climate models through better
measurements: Measurements
of pressure, temperature, humidity and airspeed are key to understanding the
climate of the Earth – but current measurement techniques lack sufficient
accuracy, e.g. for determining the (low but important) levels of water vapour
in the stratosphere. This project aims to improve climate models by improving
these measurements.

Measurement standards for critical water
pollutants: Reference
standards for some of the most important water pollutants, e.g. tributyltin
(TBT), polybrominated diphenylether (PBDE) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAH) will be developed to understand how these pollutants interact with each
other and with other chemicals. This will allow accurate monitoring of
pollutants and delivers to the European Water Framework Directive (WFD).

Energy

Making power plants more efficient: Reducing the measurement uncertainty of the
important control parameters (temperature, flow, thermal energy and electrical
output) of power plants. The research will allow for an overall additional
enhancement of energy efficiency of 2-3 % for all types of large power plants,
resulting in a comparable amount of reduction of emissions.

Fuels for the future: To support market take-up of biofuels, they
need to be able to mix with traditional fuels and form blends that can be used
without affecting vehicle engine performance, reliability or safety. The
project delivers accurate measurements results, and a greater understanding of
biofuel properties, to improve public conﬁdence in low-carbon fuels.

There are
however clear limitations of the current initiative EMRP in addressing the
challenges the European Metrology Research system is facing:

Figure 11: EMRP contributions and
limitations in addressing the challenges

Challenge || EMRP contributions and limitations

Lack of industrial cooperation and weak industrial exploitation || EMRP has established some level of industrial cooperation with two calls for industrial metrology. Lack of post-research activities and dedicated instruments for industry driven research supporting innovation result in limited possibility to addressing the challenge.

Underexploited potential for better and faster regulations and standards || EMRP projects generate a coordinated input to standardisation, but rather as a spin-off. Pre- and co-normative metrology research driven by priorities of standardisation bodies and regulators cannot be addressed by EMRP.

Metrology research needs to become more open and interdisciplinary || EMRP researcher grants have achieved only limited opening of the system. Full participation of the wider research community is not possible with the current programme structure, number of participation limited.

Development and exploitation of metrology in Europe needs to be better coordinated and inclusive || Large contribution to coordination of research (50% of dedicated national metrology research). No contribution to capacity building.

Europe needs to ensure global leadership and develop a coordinated strategy || No coordinated strategy at programme level due to project based international cooperation of EMRP.

2.4.        Baseline
scenario

The baseline scenario,
presented as the ‘business-as-usual’ option, would be the continuation of EMRP.
This means a future joint programme on metrology research would be co-financed
by the national participants and the EU (Horizon 2020) with matching
contributions. The scope of the EMRP follow-up programme would remain the same
in 2014-2020 and focus on metrology research oriented towards basic metrology
and grand challenges and some topics dedicated to industrial projects, with a
similar annual budget (€ 80 Million) for a duration of seven instead of five
years, thus resulting in a total volume of € 560 Million compared to the
running initiative with € 400 Million.

2.5.        The
EU's right to act and the application of the subsidiarity principle

The initiative is embedded into the
Treaty’s objectives to strengthen the EU’s scientific and technology bases
(Art. 179.1 TFEU), and to develop a European research area based on cooperation
among researchers across borders (Art. 179.2 TFEU), such as through the EU
participation in research and development programmes undertaken by several MS
(Art. 185 TFEU[19]).

The European strategy for smart,
sustainable and inclusive growth – EUROPE 2020[20]
– sets the agenda for European research & innovation for the coming
years. Several of the flagship initiatives of that strategy are affected by
metrology research, including “Innovation Union”, “A digital agenda for
Europe”, “Resource efficient Europe” and “An industrial policy for the
globalisation era”.

In this respect, the added-value of public
intervention at EU level lies in the EU's capacity to bring together
compartmentalised national research programmes, help design common research and
funding strategies across national borders, and achieve a critical mass of
actors and investments required for tackling the challenges the metrology
research system is facing. This would contribute to achieving the European Research
Area in the field of metrology research, thereby increasing the
cost-effectiveness and impact of European activities and investments in this
field.

The Commission's proposal for Horizon 2020 provides
an opening for a possible continuation of the EU’s participation and co-funding
of the new programme. The actual budget allocation will be subject to the
outcome of the Horizon 2020 decision.

In the current initiative EMRP Member States and their NMIs together with the dedicated implementation structure EURAMET
have proven that a lightweight governance structure can deliver efficient and
effective implementation of the programme. The improved successor programme
EMPIR would also respect the subsidiarity principle, as the Member States would
be responsible for developing their joint strategic work programme and all
operational aspects. The role of the EU is to ensure improved coordination, to
help achieving critical mass and aligning national and European strategies, raising efficiency of public spending, as well as
ensuring synergies with and contribution EU policies and to the priorities of
Horizon 2020.

3.           Objectives

3.1.        General
Objectives

In line with the Europe 2020 strategy, the Innovation Union flagship
initiative, Horizon 2020 and ERA, the overarching goal of the future initiative
is to address the challenges the European Metrology Research System is facing
and to fully exploit the benefits of improved measurement solutions for Europe. Thus the general objectives are to:

▪
Provide appropriate, integrated and
fit-for-purpose metrology solutions supporting innovation
and industrial competitiveness as well as measurement technologies addressing
societal challenges such as health, environment and energy including support to
policy development and implementation (GO1)

▪
Create an integrated European Metrology
Research system with critical mass and active engagement
at regional, national, European and international level (GO2)

3.2.        Specific objectives

In order to achieve the general objectives and to assure in all
relevant activities a high level of scientific, financial and managerial
integration as well as a high impact, the following specific objectives and
related benchmarks have been set:

▪
Boost industrial uptake and improve
standardisation

- At least €400m of European turnover from new or significantly
improved products and services that can be attributed to the research
activities of EMPIR and its predecessors

- At least 60% of CEN/CENELEC /ISO/IEC Technical Committees and
equivalent standardisation bodies with potential to benefit directly from EMPIR
projects to engage with the programme

·
Underpin a coherent, sustainable and
integrated European metrology landscape to fully
exploit the EU potential

- Maintain a level of at least 50% of dedicated national metrology
research investments in Europe being coordinated or influenced via the
programme

- All European NMIs and their designated institutes interact with the
programme

-
European leadership in at least 20% of
international metrology committees[21]

3.3.        Operational
Objectives

From the above Specific Objectives follow six Operational Objectives,
each with concrete and measurable targets:

▪ Establish common agendas with strong integration of basic as well as challenge-oriented metrology research via common
priorities and joint calls with excellence based projects selection (OO1)

▪ Support innovation related activities through
the development of new technologies, industry-driven joint research projects
and industrial uptake
This requires a systematic technology screening of projects and at least 20%
industry driven research (no dedicated module under the present EMRP) (OO2)

▪ Increase immediate relevance for policy makers and standardisation
bodies
At least 10% is dedicated to normative research, compared to 0% in EMRP (OO3)

▪ Open the programme to the relevant
scientific communities and raise awareness and involvement of European
technology and research organisations. This means to at least double the
participation of non NMI/DI scientists in the programme (OO4)

▪ Support capacity building in developing
NMIs, in particular by assisting national authorities to fully exploit the use
of structural funds and other relevant programmes. The expectation is to
increase the leverage of EU structural funds and other programmes, from 0% to
10% of the co-investment in EMPIR (OO5)

▪ Strengthen European leadership through
EURAMET and foster global cooperation. It should lead to at least two
structured cooperations with major metrology actors outside Europe (e.g. US, Canada) (OO6)

The objectives and
targets are designed in a way that supports the changes required compared to
the current programme in order to address the identified problems. On the one
hand they reflect the need to shift part of the research budget into new areas
and provide targets for the allocation, e.g. around 20% of the programme budget
dedicated to industry driven research or 10% for the pre- and co-normative
research. On the other hand they provide ambitious, yet feasible targets that
support the necessary structural changes, like the opening of the programme
aiming at doubling the participation of external researchers. This expected to
lead to around 15% of the budget going to non-NMIs/DIs. The target on the
leverage into structural funds and other programmes takes into account the
relevance of metrology for smart specialisation. The indicator for the turnover
has been developed under the assumption that programme investments in research
at NMIs/DIs for basic/challenge driven and industrial research (€ 400 million) should
at least yield the same amount of new products/services as a directly
attributed outcome.

The specific targets for the operational as
well as for the specific objectives have been validated in discussions with the
expert group that supported the impact assessment.

The link between the problems and the operational
objectives is shown below:

Figure 12: Relationship between
the problems and the operational objectives

4.           Policy
Options

4.1.        Options

The following three main policy options
have been identified for a successor to EMRP:

4.1.1.     Policy Option 1: "No dedicated EU action"

Discontinue the EU participation and
financial contribution to this initiative after the end of its current funding
phase in 2013. Furthermore, no dedicated provision would be made in EU research
policies, programmes or funding to support EMRP objectives. Access to EU
funding would be limited to competition for ad hoc project funding through
Horizon 2020 for topics that include aspects of metrology.

4.1.2.     Policy Option 2: "Business-as-usual – EMRP2"

Continue with an identical initiative that
is focussed entirely on coordination of research (EMRP2). A new Article 185
continuing the EU participation and financial contribution to a successor
programme would be adopted, based on the same terms as for the current
programme. EURAMET would continue to be the dedicated legal entity and the work
programme would focus mainly on fundamental and challenge research. This would
include, as now, some calls on industry relevant topics. The un-tackled recommendations
of the mid-term evaluation could not be addressed under this option.

4.1.3.     Policy Option 3: "Improved Article 185 initiative – EMPIR”

Build on the success
of the EMRP by implementing a more ambitious and inclusive Article 185
initiative that is aligned with ERA and Europe 2020 objectives as a European
Metrology Programme for Research and Innovation (EMPIR). This
would still have a significant proportion of the budget (around 50% compared to
around 70% in EMRP) dedicated to fundamental and challenge driven research. The
improvement from EMRP to EMPIR consists of:

▪
Stronger focus on innovation and industrial
uptake including new actions to help bridge the innovation gap and leveraging
private investments. This will include more industry driven research and
post-research (technology transfer) activities supporting the exploitation of
existing knowledge as well as new research. Industry is expected to mainly
participate as unfunded partners in the selected projects. This will increase
leverage and lead to additional private sector investment.

▪
Entirely new dedicated module to support
standardisation, with a link to the European standards developing organisations
and to other actors incl. industry. It is primarily aimed at pre and
co-normative metrology R&D, where the vast bulk of research effort is
needed. It will support demand driven metrology R&D (e.g. specified by
CEN/CENELEC) needed for the implementation of European legislation, whether
through Directives or Regulations.

▪
Opportunities for those countries with small,
medium or less developed metrology systems to take a greater role in the
programme

▪
Dedicated capacity building and link to other
funding sources such as structural funds in order to support participating states
with incomplete or emerging metrology systems to allow them to decrease the gap
to established metrology systems.

▪
Accompanying measures addressing both
strengthening of organizations and human capacity development. They include
advice provided by EURAMET staff and mobility support from and to the partners.
This includes training, on-site help for the establishment of quality
infrastructure, and practical advice. The capacity building will be seen in
regional contexts and strictly demand-oriented.

▪
Wider participation of academia through direct
participation in projects (instead of issuing researcher grants), allowing
stronger interdisciplinarity and better use of expertise of other research
organisations.

▪
Facilitated participation of key players “beyond
Europe” when beneficial for Europe.

The increased scope of the initiative will
facilitate the broader participation of all NMIs and reduce the metrology
divide. Participating countries have presented financial commitments in excess
of € 300 Million (Annex II). With matching contributions from the EU this would
result in a € 600 Million programme with calls over 7 years. The annual budget
would increase by 7% (€ 85,7 Million per year). This increase would be
sufficient to support the additional activities with only a small reduction of
current core activities.

Figure
13: Overview on the
options and their main features

|| Option 1: No dedicated EU action || Option 2: Business as Usual EMRP2 || Option 3: EMPIR

Coordination framework || None || Article 185, 22 countries[22] || Article 185 28 countries[23]

Coordination entity || EURAMET || EURAMET || EURAMET

Basic research || Ad hoc || Integrated || Integrated

Challenge research || Ad hoc || Integrated || Integrated

Policy/normative research || No || No || Coordinated

Industrial research || Ad hoc || Two Calls || Coordinated

Support for innovation || Ad hoc || No || Coordinated

Support for capacity building || No || No || Coordinated

Support to Horizon 2020 priorities || No || Partially || Coordinated

4.2.        Discarded
Options

An option
that has been discarded from early on is the top-down EU indirect action by
reinstalling a dedicated metrology priority under Horizon 2020. This
approach was previously abandoned after the "Measurements and testing"
activities under Framework Programme 5[24]
(0,5% of FP5 budget), since the specific needs of the community and the
horizontal character of metrology research could already then only be met with
stronger efforts for coordination between national programmes and actors.

A
further option that has been excluded is a single European research
programme to be implemented by the Institute for Reference Materials and
Measurements (IRMM) of the Joint Research Centre as a fully institutional
programme at the level of the Commission services. The option was considered under
the impact assessment for the current initiative but not maintained for comparison
since it was not viable to address the problems stated (isolation from NMI work
and national metrology needs, level of investment and staffing needed, no
effect on modernisation of NMIS, no effect on openness of the system etc.).
Given the level of coordination and integration of national efforts that have
been achieved with EMRP the option is now even less realistic.

5.           Analysis
of the Impacts of the Options

Chapter 5 assesses the impacts of each option
against the degree they allow achieving the operational objectives. In addition
they are assessed in their economic, social, environmental and other impacts.
The links between the three levels of objectives logically support each other
with operational objectives feeding the achievement of the specific objectives
and via the specific objectives feeding the achievement of general objectives.

5.1.        Impact
on achieving the operational objectives

The following
figure summarises the overall impacts of the options on the six operational
objectives that have been defined.

Figure
14: Assessing the
potential impacts of the options in in achieving the operational objectives

Operational objectives || Option 1 No dedicated EU action || Option 2: Business as Usual - EMRP2 || Option 3 EMPIR

1) Common agenda with strong integration || ▪ Collaboration between NMIs beyond their national needs and strategies comes to a halt ▪ EURAMET falls back to a purely co-ordinating body of NMIs without any forum for joint research programming ▪ Only strong NMIs will participate in individual thematic Horizon 2020 projects ▪ No common agenda setting and coordination of metrology research || ▪ The successful experience of the first EMRP will be continued and adapted to the extended Societal Challenges of Horizon 2020 ▪ EURAMET will remain a powerful body to promote the collaboration of NMIs and their programmes ▪ An increasingly strong integration of research will be achieved due to the concentration on coordination of fundamental and challenge driven research || ▪ Agenda setting and support for research projects to address basic and challenge driven metrology will continue with improved efficiency due to the experience gained in EMRP ▪ Additional modules will however divert resources and efforts into other areas, thus resulting possibly in a lower overall coordination compared to option 2 ▪ Participating States are fully (financially) committed to the new programme with the extended scope.

2) Support innovation || ▪ Few individual Horizon 2020 projects addressing metrology with weak links between NMIs and industrial users ▪ Individual projects of high scientific level with potential for breakthrough technologies ▪ Limited wider impact of NMIs on innovation across industries ▪ No European coordination of metrology in relation to industrial needs and related standardisation || ▪ EMRP will remain focused on basic and challenge oriented metrology research ▪ There will be no dedicated action to foster innovation and technology transfer beyond opening up to industry to express their needs and individual calls for industry driven research ▪ The individual NMI/DIs will need to make an effort to improve their technology transfer activities || ▪ EMPIR will set up dedicated post research activities to support innovation in emerging fields and in traditional industrial sectors ▪ Much higher impact on innovation by building a strong interaction with the demand side (≥ 20% industry driven research) and leverage of private investment ▪ Increasing impact on industrial standardisation needs will improve market position and trade opportunities of European firms

3) Increase relevance for policy makers and standardisation bodies || ▪ Mainly bilateral connection of NMIs and standardisation bodies ▪ Metrological research activities are not coordinated with standardisation/regulation efforts ▪ Fragmented research in different MS often too late for mandated standards from legislation ▪ Missed opportunities for Europe in setting industrial standards, especially in areas of emerging technologies, or regulations with global importance, affecting Europe’s com petitiveness in open world markets || ▪ Basic and challenge oriented metrology research will eventually lead to diffusion of knowledge into the European standardisation system ▪ Missed opportunities for Europe in setting industrial standards, especially in areas of emerging technologies, or regulations with global importance, affecting Europe’s competitiveness in open world markets ▪ No direct and early influence on standardisation and related regulation || ▪ EMPIR includes a specific module engaging with regulators and standardisation bodies ▪ EMPIR will support European standardisation through early involvement and demand driven research ▪ Dedicated research to pre-normative research and working groups of standardisation bodies with relevance to metrology ▪ Early involvement will increase timely metrology research for regulations relying on measurements

4) Open up the programme to relevant scientific communities || ▪ No incentive for NMIs to work with the wider scientific community to support further modernisation of the overall European metrology system ▪ Metrology issues within research projects addressing Grand Challenges will play a minor part in the overall research projects || ▪ The efforts to encourage opening to the wider science community in order to speed up modernisation of the national institutes have shown first results and has improved since the mid-term Review took place ▪ The current system of researcher grants does not allow adequate participation of relevant research organisations. Projects are designed and implemented by the NMIs. External researchers participate as individuals. || ▪ With the target to at least double the number of non-NMIs, non-DI scientists, the programme will necessarily have to open up to strongly to scientists from outside the current communities ▪ EMPIR would allow for participation of research organisations (instead of individuals) as full partners in funded projects, making their participation more attractive and fully integrating their expertise.

5) Capacity building || ▪ Stronger NMIs will develop some European activities in project specific consortia, raising the entry barrier for weaker NMIs ▪ NMIs focus on national priorities ▪ No possibility to design and implement an integrated European metrology system ▪ No incentives to share expertise and capacity building within the European metrology system as || ▪ EMRP remains mainly a strategic tool to ensure international recognition of the measurements of different NMIs ▪ Nevertheless the gap among the different members is still evident. Consequently maintaining a similar strategy means the gap will continue to exist ▪ No dedicated action to make linkages with the Structural Funds || ▪ Broader thematic scope will increase the points of entry for partners in Member States with weaker NMI infrastructures ▪ Dedicated actions will reduce the divide in capabilities, taking into account smart specialisation ▪ Dedicated actions reinforce the interaction with the Structural Funds, although decisions remain outside the control of EMPIR

6) Strengthened leadership & global cooperation || ▪ Only limited collaboration between EURAMET or strong NMIs and third countries ▪ Only few bilateral international research projects with fragmented exploitation of the benefits ▪ No coordinated international research efforts in metrology ▪ No single European voice || ▪ No global co-operations beyond individual projects ▪ Continuity in project based international cooperation with some of some of the large international NMIs ▪ No strategic approach to global cooperation || ▪ EMPIR can drive international cooperation in a strategic manner and address multiple objectives (scientific exchange, mobility researchers standardisation) ▪ Research collaboration can be established as part of a dedicated long-term strategy for Europe ▪ Global cooperation integrated in EMPIR road mapping exercise

5.2.        Economic, social,
environmental and other impacts

5.2.1.     The
economic impacts

The broader economic impacts of metrology
have been illustrated in chapter 2.1. A good synthesis of the existing
literature on the economic impacts of metrology is made by Ray Lambert[25] (2010) and Peter Swann (2009)[26]. They
conclude that use of measurement can increase the productivity of
organisations, that is supports innovation (directly particularly in the
measurement tools industries and also indirectly by giving innovators the tools
to demonstrate the better performance of their novel products) and that is
reduces transaction costs. A full overview of underlying mechanisms is provided
in Annex III.

Due to a lack of models that would allow
a quantification  of economic impacts of metrology research in the four options
the economic impacts have been assessed according to the degree they allow
addressing the challenges and the achievement of objectives.

The economic impacts on growth and
high quality jobs of the options would be particularly expected to stem from
successfully addressing objectives at all three levels. In particular: (GO1): “Provide appropriate, integrated and fit-for-purpose metrology
solutions supporting innovation and industrial competitiveness as well as the
solving of societal challenges and better regulation;
and (SO1): Boost industrial uptake and improve
standardisation and OO2 and OO3 the support of
innovation related activities and the increase of immediate relevance for
policy makers and standardization bodies.

Figure 15: Economic impacts of
the three options

|| Economic impacts

Option 1 No dedicated EU action || Metrology research will continue via individual initiatives at national level and contribute to strengthening of the scientific and technological basis of some NMIs and indirectly the ability for industry to benefit. Economic impact will be on a smaller scale compared to initiatives with a coordinated approach and budgets (Option 2) or, in addition, dedicated activities supporting industrial exploitation and uptake in standards and norms (Option 3). Little effort is made to align metrology with national and European regulation and thus negatively affect Europe’s competitiveness in open world markets and weaken the promotion of social and environmental values.

Option 2 Business as usual EMRP2 || Metrology research will continue to be conducted in a European joint programming initiative similar to the current EMRP. This will contribute to strengthening of the scientific and technological basis and thus indirectly support the ability for industry work with standardised measurements and include these in their innovative products. Increased coordination of the national metrology research will lead to a pre-selection of most relevant and most promising areas. Projects will be of higher excellence via competitive selection mechanisms and will be implemented with large consortia (in EMRP on average 10 organisations participate in a project) instead of in national isolation. Thus the economic impact will be on a larger scale compared to project-by-project initiatives as in Option 1. A limited number of calls with industrial relevance will only make small contributions to innovation. A lack of post-research activities will hamper the broader exploitation of results and not allow industry to fully benefit from cutting-edge metrology for new and improved products and processes. Overall, direct impacts on industry will be substantially smaller than in option 3. Collaborative metrology research will eventually diffuse knowledge to support standardization. Influence on standardisation and regulation will be delayed compared to option 3 that offers a coordinated and demand riven input. This can mean that European industry will not benefit from a ‘first mover advantage’.

Option 3 Improved Art.185 initiative EMPIR || There will be deliberate modules and actions to involve industry and to develop technology transfer activities. Compared to Option 2 the direct involvement of industrial users will be fully developed and result in direct economic impact through the industrial uptake. Individual industry driven projects will allow short term impacts. Post research activities will create a technology push into European industry by exploiting cutting edge measurement technologies from on-going and past EMRP and EMPIR projects as well as NMIs in general. This will increase substantially the use of improved measurement technologies for new and improved products and services and overall accessibility for industry[27], thus boosting competitiveness of the industry by cutting-edge metrology. Given the explicit capacity modules in Option 3, the potential access of (industrial) users to high quality metrology services and infrastructures across European countries will be improved, thus widening the geographical scope of the potential economic impact of individual projects. Proactive early involvement in European and international standardization will be supported. This supports leading positions of European companies on the global markets. These activities will serve European innovation especially in highly accelerated areas of emerging technologies or areas in which the value of metrology is increasingly being recognized for standards, e.g. chemistry, clinical medicine or food safety. Thus the scope of potential economic impacts with regard to economic sectors and industries is greater than in the more narrowly defined metrology activities of Options 1, 2 and 4. A strategic approach to global networks combined with a proactive approach to standards and regulation will provide competitive advantage to European industrial actors who have been involved in the related metrology research projects from an early phase.

5.2.2.     The
social impacts

The social impacts of the three options
will potentially stem from a wider dissemination and access to metrology
knowledge and expertise across all MS. This will underpin the cohesion and
indirectly the capabilities of people and organisations to benefit from
metrology as an enabling technology. This is particularly related to the
general objective of creating an integrated European Metrology Research system
(GO2), underpinning a coherent, sustainable and integrated European metrology
landscape (SO2) and in particular the Operational Objective to support Capacity
building (OO5). Social impacts also stem from the contribution to Grand
Challenges such as health and environment, benefiting citizens as well as
creating high quality jobs. With accurate assay methods and metrological calibrated
measurement instruments the risks of erroneous diagnosis will decrease, which
will lead to improved health and reduced health costs. Thus the option most
capable of addressing the Grand Challenges by opening up to new scientific
communities (OO4) will generate more societal impacts.

Figure 16: Social impacts of the
options

|| Social impacts

Option 1 No dedicated EU action || Integration will be limited to individual Horizon 2020 projects. Compared to Option 2 and 3, Option 1 is less inclusive as it is likely that the countries with the strongest NMIs and well-positioned DIs will be more successful in Horizon 2020. There are no specific modules in Horizon 2020 to support capacity building or establish linkages between metrology research and Structural Funds.

Option 2 Business as usual EMRP2 || By means of a more coordinated research agenda setting and an inclusive membership in EMRP the chances for a coherent system are better than in the Option 1 as the achievements of EMRP have shown. Involvement of NMIs from all member countries in the strategic programming and expert groups will have an effect on dissemination capacities across Europe. This has however only led to an overall increase of capacities and capabilities for the strong and for the less capable NMIs, the gap as such has not decreased but rather increased. EMRP2 will have a similar effect due to the lack of focus on capacity building and not allow widening the geographical scope of the potential social impact of individual projects. The contribution of Option 2 to social impacts is comparatively high, as EMRP2 would dedicate its activities to addressing societal challenges, and this would involve inclusion of relevant scientific communities.

Option 3 EMPIR || Dedicated attention to capacity building is required to contribute to closing the gap. EMPIR foresees a module with targeted activities for capacity building explicitly focused on assisting national authorities to use Structural Funds in building up metrology capacity. This will allow a more inclusive metrology landscape necessary for the full exploitation of measurement benefits across Europe. In addition it will contribute to influencing the national/EU policy agenda. EMPIR will increase the overall contribution to addressing societal challenges by opening the programme up to new relevant scientific communities that have the competences often not available in NMIs.

5.2.3.     The environmental impacts

Environmental impacts will likely occur if metrology is applied to tackle the Grand
Challenges related to sustainable energy, climate change, eco-innovation and
other environmentally relevant areas. Another route to environmental impact is
through its effect on sustainable industrial processes to make them cleaner and
energy/resource efficient. The latter is thus best addressed in the options
with most active industrial participation.

Figure 17: Environmental impacts
of the options

|| Environmental impacts

Option 1 No dedicated EU action || The explicit matching of research institutes from different communities and from different disciplines is less likely to happen as the consortia are formed in a bottom-up fashion and the calls under Horizon 2020 are not geared to addressing underlying measurement challenges, as there is no dedicated metrology programme foreseen in Horizon 2020. While individual projects at national level will obviously continue to have positive environmental impacts, the coupling of measurement challenges with environmental problems will be less systematic and happen in an ad hoc manner.

Option 2 Business as usual EMRP2 || Projects in the domain of climate change and sustainable energy have been launched in EMRP. These projects will contribute to a more sustainable environment and energy efficiency. Nevertheless there is still a large emphasis on basic research in the traditional metrology disciplines and domains in EMPR, thus the contribution to tackling environmental challenges would be at a slower pace than in Option 3.

Option 3 EMPIR || EMPIR will provide a clear strategy on measurement for environmental challenges in combination with an even stronger objective to open up to relevant scientific communities with an ambition to double the participation of non-NMI/DI scientists in the programme. This would give better opportunities to address the specific research projects and competence building needed to tackle these emerging topics. The speed and scale of Option 3 compared to Option 2 would be more optimal. Option 3 is also better equipped than the other options to involve industry and their customers in measurement and calibration activities, leading to cleaner and more efficient manufacturing processes

5.2.4.     Impacts
on European Research and Innovation Policy

Figure 18: Impacts on European Research and Innovation Policy

|| Impacts on European Research and Innovation Policy

Option 1 No dedicated EU action || National metrology research will be detached from European Research and Innovation policies. Contribution to Horizon 2020 priorities would be limited to selected collaborative projects in which NMIS participate. No alignment of national and European roadmaps and strategies. Little contributions can be expected to relevant flagship initiatives as “Innovation Union”, “A digital agenda for Europe”, “Resource efficient Europe” and “An industrial policy for the globalisation era".

Option 2 Business as usual EMRP2 || An alignment of national and European metrology research agendas for some of the Horizon 2020 challenges can be achieved. EMRP2 will directly contribute to achieving the objectives of Horizon 2020 by include in its workprogrammes topics of direct relevance for a number of Horizon 2020 priorities including excellence of research and the challenges health, environment and energy. Some contributions can be expected to relevant flagship initiatives as “Innovation Union”, “A digital agenda for Europe”, “Resource efficient Europe” and “An industrial policy for the globalisation era".

Option 3 EMPIR || Strong alignment of national and European metrology research agendas for some of the Horizon 2020 challenges and other priorities (key enabling technologies, future and emerging technologies) EMPIR will strongly contribute to achieving the objectives of Horizon 2020 by including in its workprogrammes topics of direct relevance for a number of Horizon 2020 priorities including excellence of research, challenges health, environment and energy, key enabling technologies, future and emerging technologies. Dedicated pre-and co-normative research will provide additional input to relevant flagship initiatives as “Innovation Union”, “A digital agenda for Europe”, “Resource efficient Europe” and “An industrial policy for the globalisation era".

5.2.5.     Efficiency
and administrative burden

Figure 19: Efficiency and
administrative burden of the options

|| Efficiency and administrative burden

Option 1 No dedicated EU action || The Art 185 initiative will be dismantled. This will reduce the administrative burden for both EURAMET and the scientists involved in preparing proposals for Joint Research Projects. However, it will significantly increase the bureaucracy and reduce the overall efficiency for those in the metrology community that are committed to collaborative research in Europe. This is due to the fragmented nature of national research and the relatively high competitive intensity of the EU Framework programme (for ad hoc collaborative projects).

Option 2 Business as usual EMRP2 || EURAMET has established an elaborate, but highly efficient, management process for organising the annual joint programming, EMRP Calls and negotiating/monitoring funded projects. This is subject to continuous improvement. A maximum 4% of the total EMRP budget is allocated to the central managements system and this is financed by cash contributions from the participating countries. Option 2 would therefore have a similar level of bureaucracy but the mutual learning from the FP7 programme would mean that further incremental improvements in efficiency would be achieved. Some additional bureaucracy might be required at the beginning to adapt the rules from the FP7 model to those of Horizon 2020 but this should be a one-off investment.

Option 3 EMPIR || The structures and processes to define and implement the joint research programme would remain the same. This would ensure a relatively seamless transition to the governance system that has been created by EURAMET. There will be some additional bureaucracy to establish and implement the additional instruments and modules. New parallel processes will be needed for innovation, capacity building and normative research. This will need to include more front-end stakeholder engagement to steer the joint programming and dedicated expertise within EURAMET to help the smaller and less scientific NMIs to secure scientific resources and play an effective role in technology commercialisation. This will significantly increase the start-up costs but the overall increase in management costs should be relatively low (perhaps increasing from 4% to 5%). More importantly there should be quite important efficiency gains for the overall European innovation system and through dedicated and coordinated research and technology transfer activities. Administrative burden for standardization bodies and regulators will significantly decrease. They will be able to specify their priority metrology needs in close collaboration with EMPIR and benefit from a precise and faster input from dedicated pre- and co-normative research. This will substantially reduce resources needed for acquiring metrology inputs.

6.           Comparison
of Options

The analysis of impacts on the six
operational objectives as well as the analysis of the economic, social and
environmental impacts provides the basis for a comparison.

6.1.        Comparing
the options on contribution to objectives

The following Figure provides an overview
of the options on the basis of the foreseen contribution of each of them to the
six operational objectives that have been defined for the successor of EMRP. This
is based on the set of considerations described in Chapter 5. It is clear
that overall Option 3 is the option that has the highest overall effectiveness
in achieving the objectives, with the exception of the first objective (integration
of research programming).

Figure 20         Comparison of
impact of the options on the six Operational Objectives (OO)

|| Option 1: No dedicated EU action || Option 2: Business as Usual EMRP2 || Option 3: EMPIR

OO1 Integration || Low/Medium || Very High || High

OO2 Innovation || Low/Medium || Medium || High

OO3 Policy relevance || Low/Medium || Medium || Very High

OO4 Opening programme || Low || Medium || Medium/High

OO5 Capacity Building || Low || Low/Medium || Medium

OO6 Global cooperation || Low/Medium || Low/Medium || Medium/High

6.2.        Comparing
the options on impacts

A similar comparison
is made for the options on economic, social and environmental impacts (as
discussed in Section 5.2) as well as on the effects on efficiency and
bureaucracy for the main stakeholders (as discussed in Section 5.2.5). This
again underlines Option 3 as the most favourable option.

Figure 21: Comparison of impact
of the options on economic, social, environmental and other impacts

|| Option 1: No dedicated EU action || Option 2: Business as Usual EMRP2 || Option 3: EMPIR

Economic Impacts || Low || Medium || Medium/High

Social Impacts || Medium || Medium/High || High

Environmental Impacts || Low || Medium/High || Medium/High

Impacts on European Research and Innovation Policy || Low || Medium/High || High

Efficiency || Very Low || High || Very High

Administrative burden || High || Medium || Medium

6.3.        Preferred
Option

Option 3 is clearly the preferred option
after consideration of effectiveness in achieving the objectives, efficiency as
well as coherence across all criteria. This is fully supported by the results
of the public consultation (93% of responses rate very suitable or appropriate).
The option will build on the previous achievements of EMRP with continuity of
current activities and their implementation in the new programme while allowing
a smooth integration of additional activities right from the start so as to
addressing problems that could not be addressed with the setup of the current
initiative. The structural provisions with the dedicated modules for
innovation, normative research and capacity building link directly to the main
recommendations of the mid-term evaluation, e.g. the need for better industrial
cooperation and exploitation is addressed by introducing the annual calls for
industry driven research and the additional activities to exploit existing
knowledge.

6.4.        Risk
register for the preferred option

Figure 22: Risk register for the
preferred option

Risk || Importance || Probability || Mitigation Strategy for Option 3

Lack of buy-in from research-intensive countries || High || Low || Majority of budget for research

Lack of interest from wider science community || Medium || Medium || Continuing support for basic and challenge driven research

Lack of interest from regulatory and standardisation communities || High || Low || Joint development of metrology roadmaps for regulations and standards

Research not relevant for exploitation || High || Low || Governance system should include external steering of joint programming cycles

Austerity measures make it impossible for some countries to participate at full level || Low || High || Opportunities to participate at a lower level through dedicated innovation activities

Inability to access Structural Funds to support capacity building || Medium || High || Dedicated central function to help develop strategies and influence national policies Implementation of EMPIR does not depend on the structural funds. MS with lower capacities benefit significantly by access to and sharing of results. Access to structural funds mainly will improve overall impacts and long-term structural changes

Inability to influence global metrology community || Medium || Medium || Continuing support for basic and challenge research

Under EMRP the MS have so far fully
honoured their financial commitments and it is not expected that the situation
under EMPIR would be different. The underlying risk is limited, since the MS
commitment is demonstrated during the implementation at the level of individual
projects in which NMIs/DIs participate with their in-kind contribution as a
prerequisite for the EU contribution to the respective projects.

7.           Monitoring
and Evaluation

Monitoring and evaluation are well
established with EMRP: Currently a true cross-European ownership exists with
long-term obligations, well-functioning structures, and additional national
programmes. Budgets are available or committed for a sound common work-plan,
objectives, mile stones in combination with simple but effective governance.

For a successor programme several of the
existing generic key performance indicators from EMRP should be employed to
establish a robust timeline for long-term impact assessment of metrology. Annual
reporting will be done by the DIS and will refer to the indicators on the basis
of the expected actions within the programme. The monitoring and evaluation
will be accompanied by:

▪
A mid-term evaluation, carried out by an
independent expert panel convened by the European Commission, conducted not
later than 2018, with a specific focus on the implementation so far, the
quality of the research and innovation, progress towards the objectives and
targets set, and recommendations for possible improvements.

▪
At the end of the Union participation in EMPIR,
and not later than 2024, an independent final evaluation reviewing the
achievement of objectives, outcomes and impacts.

At a strategic level the evaluation
will be guided through the two general objectives. The measurement of these two
overarching objectives follows from measuring the specific and operational
objectives and require a rounded and comprehensive assessment of the European
metrology system to provide an answer whether the successor of EMRP has
achieved these goals. Indicators at the level of specific objectives and
operational objectives as well as for the programme efficiency could be

Boost
industrial uptake and improve standardisation
Indicators: (a) turnover from new or significantly
improved products and services that can be attributed to the research
activities of EMPIR and its predecessors [target: EUR 400 Million], (b) share
of industry driven research projects [target: 20%], (c) value of business
investment in EMPIR projects, (d) share of dedicated normative research
[target: 10%], (e) CEN/CENELEC/ISO/IEC Technical Committees and equivalent
standardisation bodies with potential to benefit directly from EMPIR projects
engaging with the programme

Underpin
a coherent, sustainable and integrated European metrology landscape to fully
exploit the EU potential
Indicators: (f) share of dedicated national
metrology research investments in Europe being coordinated or influenced via
the programme [target: 50%], (g) participation of non NMI/DI scientists in the
programme [target: double compared to EMRP] (h) level of investments from
Structural Funds and other relevant European, national or regional programmes
in metrology-related activities (i) European leadership in international
metrology committees

Programme
efficiency
Indicators: (j) quality of the proposal submission, evaluation and selection
procedure, (k) time to grant, (l) running costs for the operation of EMPIR
[target: ≤ 5%]

The following Figure has grouped the
performance indicators by the operational objectives. These would mainly
be collected by EURAMET/EMPIR as part of programme implementation (analysis of
contractual data), standardised reporting by the projects or via survey of the
member organisations (already planned by EURAMET), thus limiting additional
costs for the different actors to a necessary minimum.

Figure 23: Performance indicators for the operational objectives

Objectives || Indicator

Integration of basic & challenge based research and opening of programme || % of EMPIR research budget as part of total NMI/DI research budget % "Perceived influence" of EMPIR on national research agendas # of publications in refereed journals # of publications in non-refereed journals incl. books, conference proceedings % of the above with co-authors from more than one country % of projects involving wider science community % of person month and % of budget allocated to wider science community # of different organisations involved in the programme (non-NMIs/DIs) % split of research investments for different research areas

Support innovation || # of companies (incl. SMEs) participating in EMPIR projects % of EMPIR projects with industry participation Value of business investment in EMPIR projects, ' of person month # patents (applied for / granted) # of licence agreements # value of products and services coming from innovation projects

Relevance to policy and standardisation || % of EMPIR budget programmed in partnership with standardisation /regulation # of projects with direct references or impact on standards and regulation, percentage of CEN and ISO projects % of EURAMET working groups with relevance for standardisation bodies

Capacity building || # of Member States and third countries involved in EMRP with financial commitment Increased capacities in MS with low level of metrology capacities, e.g shown by their involvement in committees and projects Value of Structural Funds invested in metrology-related activities # of mobility grants, post docs, doctoral students, postgraduates, guest scientist # of calibrations with new capacities

Strengthening European leadership in global networks || # of unfunded participants from 3rd countries % of EU leadership in committees

8.           Annexes

              Annex
I: List of acronyms and abbreviations

AC                       FP6/FP7
Associated Country

CC                       Consultive
Committees

CIPM                   Metre Convention (Comité
international des poids et measures)

DI                        Designated
Institute

DIS                      Dedicated implementation
structure

ERA                     European Research
Area

EMRP                  European Metrology
Research Programme (Art.185 initiative on Metrology under FP7

EMPIR                 European Metrology
Programme for Innovation and Research

EURAMET          European Association of
National Metrology Institutes

FP6                      Sixth Framework
Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and
demonstration activities (2003-2006)

FP7                      Seventh Framework
Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and
demonstration activities (2007-2013)

Horizon 2020       Eighth Framework
Programme of the European Union for research, technological development and
demonstration activities (2014-2020)

IA                        Impact
Assessment

IAB                      Impact Assessment
Board

IASG                   Impact Assessment
Steering Group

MS                       EU Member State

NMI                     National Metrology
Institute

SI                         International
System of Units

              Annex II: National commitments to EMPIR (Mai 2013)

|| Country || Commitment max

1 || Austria || 840.000

2 || Belgium || 1.000.000

3 || Bosnia and Herzegovina || 200.000

4 || Bulgaria || 840.000

5 || Croatia || 700.000

6 || Czech Republic || 8.600.000

7 || Denmark || 2.000.000

8 || Estonia || 910.000

9 || Finland || 10.000.000

10 || France || 27.000.000

11 || Germany || 90.000.000

12 || Greece || 160.000

13 || Hungary || 1.050.000

14 || Ireland || 350.000

15 || Italy || 21.000.000

16 || Netherlands || 16.500.000

17 || Norway || 3.750.000

18 || Poland || 2.500.000

19 || Portugal || 840.000

20 || Romania || 120.000

21 || Serbia || 700.000

22 || Slovakia || 200.000

23 || Slovenia || 3.000.000

24 || Spain || 6.000.000

25 || Sweden\* || 2.388.854

26 || Switzerland || 8.300.000

27 || Turkey || 12.000.000

28 || United Kingdom || 87.000.000

|| Total || 307.948.854

              Annex
III: Measurement and economic returns

Swann[28] identified a list of 19 mechanisms by which measurement can deliver
economic returns. Some aspects are not fully captured (environmental benefits
or health and safety benefits):

1. Better decisions || Statistical hypothesis testing recognises Type I and Type II errors. Improved measurement can reduce the probabilities of Type I and/or Type II errors.

2. Better standards and use of standards || Better measurement can help to achieve faster standards development, and better quality standards.

3. Common pools for product innovation || Measurement underpins the use of novel product characteristics for competitive advantage. An open measurement system can help to create a common pool of potential product innovations.

4. Comparability of measurements facilitates trade || The growth of trade requires the reduction of transaction costs, and an essential part of that is the emergence of common standards and measurements.

5. Division of labour - interchangeable parts || Accurate and comparable measurement enables further division of labour, and greater use of interchangeable parts.

6. Dosage issues || For a wide variety of products, precise measurements of product characteristics (or doses) are essential for efficacy and safety.

7. Easier to demonstrate quality and safety || Accurate measurement of product characteristics makes it easier to demonstrate quality and safety, and hence to sustain a price premium for superior products.

8. Enabling a new market || The creation of new forms of market is as important as other types of innovation. Measurement also plays an important role in the reduction of "market failure".

9. Enabling a new process || Measurement is often essential to the control of complex systems that enhance productivity. Better measurement can increased process efficiency, and help to achieve energy savings.

10. Enabling a new product || Measurability of product characteristics promotes product innovation, by making it easier to demonstrate quality, and hence sustaining a price premium for quality.

11. Improved product quality || Improved measurement enables quality control, allows the sorting of products by quality, enables more accurate doses, tighter tolerances and higher purity.

12. Increased productivity / process efficiency || Better measurement can enable the use of new processes and/or increased process efficiency. It enables the implementation of new complex systems that enhance productivity.

13. Patent protection || Measurement has an important role in the patenting process, which in turn enhances the profitability of the patent-owner.

14. Quality control || Improved measurement enables quality control.

15. Reduced costs of meeting regulations || Improved measurement can make it easier and cheaper to ensure regulatory compliance, and can thereby lead to a lower regulatory burden.

16. Reduced damage from externalities || Improved measurement can make it easier to achieve more demanding environmental regulations, and hence reduce the environmental damage from externalities.

17. Reduced transaction costs || The comparability and traceability of measurement reduces some of the risks in trading, and hence reduces transaction costs.

18. Shorter times to market || Better measurement can help companies bring products to market in a shorter time-span.

19. Testing that equipment is working properly || Measurement obviously plays a key role in testing equipment and ensuring it works properly.

              Annex
IV:     Public online consultation: analysis of the responses

1.         Nature of the consultation

As part of the impact
assessment for the preparation of a European Metrology Programme for Innovation
and Research (EMPIR), based on Art.185 of the Treaty for the functioning of the
European Union, a stakeholder consultation has been carried out. This
consultation consisted of an online survey with the results being presented
here and a dedicated stakeholder meeting (conclusions documented in a separate
document). The survey collected stakeholder views on the state of play of the
European metrology research system and the challenges it is facing. The online
survey was open for submission for 12 weeks (1 October – 23 December 2012). The
annex provides a summary of the analysis, the full report is available on the
Research Europe website[29].

2.         Profile of respondents

A total of 624
responses have been received, with the vast majority (95%)
agreeing to the publication of their contribution. Figure 1 shows the
distributions of responses across the different EU Member States (in total 91%
of replies), with the largest groups contributing being from France, Germany, Spain and the UK. Replies outside the EU where received from more than 10 different
countries ranging from Switzerland, Turkey, Iceland, Serbia, Montenegro and Albani a to South Africa, Mexico, China and Thailand.

Figure 1: Country distribution of responses

72% of the responses came from organisations and 28% of the responses from individual citizens. The main
contributions from organisations were received from research organisations (32%) and businesses (16%, of
which 69% SMEs). Figure 2 illustrates the
distribution of respondents.

Figure 2: Distribution of responses according to type
of organisation

Figure 3 shows the
involvement of those responding in the different aspects of metrology, with 61%
of the respondents being involved in metrology research and 51% in its uptake. 36%
are involved in standardisation or regulatory work. Only 3% of the respondents
state to have no involvement in metrology research at all.

Figure 3: Involvement in the different aspects of
metrology [multiple answers where allowed]

The survey reached
respondents that are fairly familiar with the running initiative EMRP: 67%
claim to be familiar or very familiar (figure 4). Only a minority (34%) has
applied for funding from EMRP, 30% successfully (figure 5).

Figure 4: Degree of familiarity with the running
initiative
European Metrology Research Programme (EMRP)

Figure 5: Respondents that have applied for or
received funding from the running initiative
European Metrology Research Programme (EMRP)

3.         Summary of the results

3.1       Importance of metrology
research

In a first step participants were asked to
give their view on how important metrology research is for (a) addressing grand
societal challenges such as health, energy or environment, (b) for the European
economy and industrial competitiveness and (c) for European policies,
standardisation and regulatory work. The overall assessment shows that
respondents see equally strong relevance of metrology research for all three
areas (on average 97% answer very relevant or relevant). On the importance of
metrology research the replies do not show any distinctive difference for
different types of respondents (large versus small research contributors to
EMRP, EU15 versus EU12 or industry versus research).

Figure 5: Relevance of Metrology

3.2       Problem
definition

In order to
better identify and define the underlying problems, respondents were asked to
rate the importance of a number of problem statements (figure 6). There was a
strong agreement with the overall set of proposed problems (minimum of 50% very
important or important).

Figure 6: Problem statements for the European
metrology research system in order of importance

The view on the importance
of the problems showed some significant differences[30] across the different types of
respondents. Compared to the researchers, industry attaches
significantly more importance to the following problems:

▪
Weak industrial exploitation (+20%)

▪
Lack of engagement with standardisation (+17%)

▪
Insufficient access to specialised
infrastructure (+15%)

Those countries with
small metrology research contributions to EMRP, compared to the five
biggest contributors (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK) attach significantly
more importance to the following problems:

▪
Huge capacity gaps between EU Member States (+21%)

▪
Lack of cooperation of NMIs with the wider
scientific community (+17%)

▪
Insufficient mobility of researchers within the
National Metrology Institutes (+16%)

▪
Lack of engagement with European Standardisation
(+13%)

▪
Lack of a single voice in a global network
(+12%)

▪
Insufficient global cooperation with leading
metrology research programmes (+12%)

▪
Insufficient metrology research oriented towards
grand challenges (+11%)

▪
Weak scientific excellence of metrology research
in Europe (+11%)

▪
Lack of qualified researchers and formal career
paths (+11%)

▪
Weak inter-disciplinary research practices (+10%)

▪
Weak industrial exploitation (+10%)

▪
Insufficient access to specialised infrastructure
(+10%)

EU12 countries, compared to EU15, attach significantly more importance to the
following problems:

▪
Huge capacity gaps between EU Member States (+22%)

▪
Lack of qualified researchers and formal career
paths (+21%)

▪
Insufficient mobility of researchers within the
National Metrology Institutes (+22%)

▪
Insufficient access to specialised
infrastructures (+20%)

▪
Insufficient global cooperation with leading
metrology research programmes (+13%)

▪
Weak scientific excellence of metrology research
in Europe (+12%)

▪
Lack of cooperation of NMIs with the wider
scientific community (especially beyond physical sciences) (+10%)

3.3       Objectives
for the future European Metrology Research

The survey invited the
participants to provide their view on the relevance of possible objectives for
a future European metrology research system. All the proposed objectives were
considered relevant (minimum of 73% consider as very relevant or relevant),
with the strongest support (>85%) for the following:

▪
Support innovation and industrial
competitiveness through metrology research activities (94%)

▪
Support strategic metrology research projects to
address basic metrology (93%)

▪
Support metrology related to the three Grand
Challenges - Energy, Environment and Health (93%)

▪
Establish structured interaction of NMIs with
science community to support further modernisation of the overall European
metrology system in all concerned EU (86%)

The
view on the relevance of objectives showed significant differences between the
two country comparisons (small versus large contributors, EU12 versus EU15) for
the objective "Support capacity building in MS and link where appropriate
to the use of structural funds" (+13%, +14%).

Figure 7: Relevance of possible objectives for the
European metrology research system

The view on the relevance of objectives
showed significant differences between the two country comparisons (small
versus large contributors, EU12 versus EU15) for two objectives "Establish
structured interaction of NMIs with science community to support further
modernisation of the overall European metrology system in all concerned
EU" (+12%) and "Support capacity building in MS and link where
appropriate to the use of structural funds" (+12%).

3.4       Policy options

The survey was closed
with a question that allowed participants to rate the appropriateness of the
different policy options proposed:

▪
Policy Option 1: "No EU financing
action"
Discontinue the EU participation and financial
contribution to this initiative after the end of its current funding phase in
2013. Furthermore, no provision would be made in EU research policies,
programmes or funding to support EMRP objectives, either in terms of financing
or coordination support.

▪
Policy Option 2:
"Business-as-usual"
Same type of Art. 185 programme like EMRP. A new EU
decision continuing the EU participation and financial contribution to a
successor programme would be adopted based on the same terms as for the current
EMRP programme with article 185 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union (TFEU). In this respect, EMRP would remain focused on basic and challenge
oriented metrology research.

▪
Policy Option 3: "New reinforced Article
185 initiative under Horizon 2020"
A new EU decision continuing the EU participation
and financial contribution to a reinforced and broadened successor programme of
the EMRP to be adopted on the same legal basis, namely Article 185 TFEU. The
new programme would intend to fully exploit the EU potential in metrology in
order to assure the optimal answers to societal challenges. It would support
capacity building much stronger, establish closer links to standardisation and
regulation and serve industrial need by addressing innovation and exploitation
of research project results.

▪
Policy Option 4: "JRC – direct action"
A single European research programme to be
implemented via the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission (JRC)
would be set up to cover all metrology needs at European level. This programme
would be a fully institutional programme at the level of the Commission
services being fully independent from the existing national metrology systems
and capacities.

The results are
summarised in figure 8. Responses demonstrate a clear preference for the policy
option 3 with a new, reinforced Art.185 initiative under Horizon 2020 (92% very
suitable or appropriate). The business-as-usual option is still considered
fairly appropriate (69% very suitable or appropriate). For the remaining two
options the views are negative: 89% consider option 1 is inappropriate or
should be avoided, and 57% conclude the same for option 4 (JRC direct action).

Figure 8: Rating of the proposed policy options

              Annex V: Examples of EMRP projects and expected
results

Environment

Tackling accidental impact of catalytic
convertors - Once thought to be harmless, platinum
and mercury elements used in catalytic convertors of cars are now subject of
concern for their total amounts released into the environment. Expertise in
measuring small particle pollutants will allow to set the appropriate
regulatory targets.

What is the impact of solar ultraviolet
light? - The measurement of effects of solar
ultraviolet light (UV) on the environment through its role in generating
substances in the earth´s atmosphere is currently too uncertain for detecting
changes of modelling future trends. The project works on a considerable
reduction of the uncertainty and a fast dissemination of its results for more
reliable UV measurements.

What´s the effect of ocean circulation
patterns? - Scientists need to understand water
properties such as salinity because they influence ocean circulation patterns,
which affect the Earth’s climate. Salinity measurements, inferred from the
conductivity of water, are currently not traceable to SI units which means that
long-term measurement are not necessarily stable. This research allows
measurements of salinity to be traced back to SI units, thereby improving
confidence in salinity measurements.

Improved data accuracy for better
atmospheric models - Some data of atmospheric
substances measured with spectro-analytical techniques are not traceable to SI
units, which leads to high levels of uncertainty in atmospheric models. The
research develops a European spectroscopy infrastructure that is traceable to
SI units and a database of the spectral line data for improved atmospheric
modelling.

Better climate models through better
measurements - Measurements of pressure,
temperature, humidity and airspeed are key to understanding the climate of the
Earth – but current measurement techniques lack sufficient accuracy, e.g. for
determining the (low but important) levels of water vapour in the stratosphere.
This project aims to improve climate models by improving these measurements.

Measurement standards for critical water
pollutants - Reference standards for some of the
most important water pollutants, e.g. tributyltin (TBT), polybrominated
diphenylether (PBDE) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) will be
developed as to understand how these pollutants interact with each other and with
other chemicals. This project delivers to the European Water Framework
Directive (WFD).

Disposing nuclear waste safely - For a safe and cost effective disposal of nuclear waste, it is
necessary to accurately measure the radioactivity of the materials involved.
With novel methods, standards, decay data, reference materials and instruments
for improved radioactive waste, the project supports to the successful
decommissioning of nuclear power plants.

Health

Increase access to Magnetic Resonance
Imaging - Approximately 10 % of the population with
medical implants are excluded from MRI because of the inability to properly
quantify the risk for these patients. The project will improve risk assessments
for MRI scans and also remove any unnecessary safety margins due to
insufficient knowledge, leading to improved diagnoses and shorter scan times.

Improving treatment by knowing the flow
rate of drug delivery - Besides the amount of a
drug, its flow rate, i.e. how fast a quantity of drug is delivered, is also vital
for safe and efficient health care treatment. This project develops knowledge
for low flow rates and multi-pump infusions, thus making drug delivery more
reliable.

Supporting a faster detection of
infectious disease - An accurate and rapid
diagnosis of infectious diseases is vital to protect public health, as they
account for 20% of human deaths on global scale. By assessing quality,
comparability and traceability, the project supports building up a superior –
as faster – measurement infrastructure (sequence analysis) as compared to
conventional microbiological methods.

Protect human hearing - New technologies and industrial processes emit infrasound (low
frequency) or airborne ultrasound (high frequency) with no clear understanding
on their hazardous level for human hearing. The project investigates human
perception of non-audible sound and develops new ear simulators for calibration
of equipment such as headphones.

Just the right dose for ultrasound
treatment - The lack of techniques to standardise
the dosage of ultrasound results into non-ability to calculate the right
personalised amount for a particular therapy with a risk of over- or under
treatment causing harm to the patient. By establishing reference standards, the
project supports the increase of promising ultrasound treatments for cancer,
stroke and bone repair.

Energy

Making power plants more efficient - The project will reduce the measurement uncertainty of the important
control parameters (temperature, flow, thermal energy and electrical output) of
power plants. The research will allow for an overall additional enhancement of
energy efficiency of 2-3 % for all types of large power plants, resulting in a
comparable amount of reduction of emissions.

Fuels for the future - To support market take-up of biofuels, they need to be able to mix
with traditional fuels and form blends that can be used without affecting
vehicle engine performance, reliability or safety. The project delivers
accurate measurements results, and a greater understanding of biofuel
properties, to improve public conﬁdence in low-carbon fuels.

Allow biogases to complement natural
gases - Natural gas resources in the EU are
declining and the public gas networks need to include alternative energy gases,
such as biogas. The project develops the measurement infrastructure to
characterise the new type of gases for their 100% fit with existing equipment.
Measurements include gas composition, caloriﬁc value (energy content)
and humidity, which are all needed to ensure efficient trade, safe use and
transportation.

Make the best power transmission
possible - To transport energy from their place of
generation, for many renewables quite distant from the place of consumption, High-Voltage
Direct Current (HVDC) is the preferred option as it provides low energy losses,
enhanced grid stability and the economically viable transmission of
electricity. The project works on reliable measurements for operational and
billing purposes, quality monitoring and the determination of losses.

Enabling fair trading of natural gas - For countries outside the reach of a gas pipeline, natural gas is
best liquefied for transport in tankers and regasified at its destination. Too
high measurement uncertainties for values of volume, density and
caloriﬁc value cannot guarantee a fair trade – and this project aims to
reduce the uncertainty to half its present value.

Replacing toxic batteries by energy
harvesting - Every year, only the EU market for
batteries is about 800,000 tons of automotive batteries, 190,000 tons of industrial
batteries and 160,000 tons of consumer batteries. The project develops the
metrological framework, technical capability, and scientific knowledge to
enable the development of effective and commercially successful energy
harvesting technologies incl. new technologies of micro and nanogenerators for
their use in portable electronics and mobile communication devices.

Industry

Enabling more efficient high temperature industrial applications: Temperature measurements above 1000 °C are difficult to make but
necessary for many industries such as aerospace and steel production. As
industries cannot accurately measure these high temperatures, they often run
processes too hot and therefore operate inefficiently. By developing a range of
measurement methods, accurate at high temperatures, this project will enable
more efficient operation of industrial processes, reduced energy use and lower
greenhouse gas emissions.

Measuring high-speed electronics: To
cope with the increasingly high operational speeds of modern electronic
equipment, new measurement techniques are required to assess the
electromagnetic materials used in the fastest applications – at microwave
frequencies up to 80 GHz. The improved techniques produced by this project will
support innovation in the European electronics industry by enabling reliable
measurements at nano, micro and macro scales and less resource-intensive
production processes.

Improving high pressure measurements: Advanced
high-pressure technologies are frequently used in the petrochemical,
pharmaceutical and car industries. In the car industry the application of high,
continuously increasing, pressures plays a vital role in the manufacturing of
direct injection fuel systems, which have improved petrol and diesel engine
performance. The pressures used in some modern systems are higher than the
current European calibration capability, which is limited to around 1 GPa
(gigapascal). This project aims to develop new standards to extend this
capability to 1.6 GPa and to support the continuing use of high pressure
technologies.

Improving data security with quantum technology: An ever-increasing amount of sensitive information such as bank
details is stored, transferred and accessed over computer networks. Quantum
communication technologies such as Quantum Key Distribution (QKD) can improve
the security of this data. Their unique feature is that, when implemented
correctly, the system guarantees that the encryption key has not been
intercepted. It works by transmitting information in a photon in a particular
‘quantum state’ and then detecting if an intruder has disturbed that state. In
theory it is extremely effective but there are no agreed methods to demonstrate
that practical implementations are robust. This project will develop new measurement
techniques to validate the practical use of QKD.

Measuring optical curved surfaces: Measurement
of the full 3D form of optical curved surfaces is important for characterising
surfaces used in the optics and precision engineering industries as well as in
astronomy and science. Currently, two types of measurements are used; imaging
or single point scanning – both of which have advantages and disadvantages that
limit manufacturing capability. This project will create standards and perform
comparisons so that reliable characterisation of a full 3D free-form surface is
possible. Once characterised, advanced optical surfaces can be used to
calibrate instruments used in precision engineering and scientific projects
such as the European X-ray Free Electron Laser (XFEL), which aims to map the
atomic structure of viruses and view them at the nanoscale in 3D.

Making measurements of engineered surfaces: An estimated loss of 2 % of GDP in developed countries is attributed
to losses caused by friction and wear. Therefore, advances in surface
engineering, such as low friction coatings on machine components will improve
industrial efficiency and the sustainability of transport, power production and
manufacturing. This project will develop advanced measurements from the
macroscale to the nanoscale for the assessment of engineered surfaces. This
will lead to an improvement of surface engineering, for example reducing
downtime and waste in aluminium forging or increasing the lifetime of mining
components used to drill for oil. There could also be health benefits, as high
durability coatings can eliminate the health risks posed by contamination of
food products during processing.

Strengthening industrial vacuums: Historically,
vacuum has been an important tool in industry and has been used in many
applications, ranging from protecting light filaments from chemical degradation
to controlling the flow of current in electronics. The use of vacuum is still
important today, in modern lighting, the semiconductor industry and fusion
power research. However, vacuum is poorly understood when used outside the
laboratory, as traditional measurements are unsuitable and based on the
pressures of pure gases in stable conditions. This project will improve vacuum
measurements in conditions representative of those found in industry. The
improved measurements will lead to a more efficient use of vacuum and better
end products.

Understanding chemical reactions at surfaces: Accurate chemical measurements at surfaces are vital for all areas
of engineering and industry that rely on surface analysis. This includes
microelectronics, the development of corrosion resistant materials in
aerospace, the assessment of the toxicity of medical implants and the design of
industrial catalysts. The properties of a surface and of the bulk material can
be markedly different, with bonding, wettability, cell adhesion and reactivity
all radically affected by surface chemistry. This project will provide
reference materials and develop methods for the highest priority industrial
applications leading to cost and time improvements for many industrial
processes across Europe.

Participation of High-tech SMEs

The EMRP programme has
already seen a number high-tech SMEs as unfunded research partners. Being fully
obliged to all project activities, incl. reporting, the participation is an
expression of the high beneficiary expectation of the companies, among them:

▪
IDQ provides innovative and cost-effective
solutions that leverage the tremendous capabilities offered by quantum
photonics, associated with cutting edge analogue and digital electronics.
Founded as a university spin-off in 2001 in Switzerland, the company operates
in the fields of network encryption, scientific instrumentation and random
number generators with its products being used by customers in more than 60
countries and on every continent.

▪
Since 1993, the Dutch IBS
Precision Engineering is a high-tech and innovate company offering a
variety of products and services in the area of precision engineering, metrology
and high-end mechatronic applications.

▪
INFICON, with its headquarters in Switzerland, is a provider of innovative instrumentation, critical sensor technologies, and
advanced process control software that enhance productivity and quality in
sophisticated industrial vacuum processes.

▪
ION-TOF GmbH from Germany with more than 55 employees
working in Münster and New York offers innovative ion beam technology for
surface analysis with different product lines in Time-of-Flight secondary ion
mass spectrometry (TOF-SIMS) and low energy ion scattering (LEIS).

▪
The Dutch company Kipp
& Zonen provides class-leading instruments for measuring solar
radiation and atmospheric properties in Meteorology, Climatology, Hydrology,
Industry, Renewable Energy, Agriculture and Public Health.

▪
Italian LAZZERO
Tecnologie, founded in 1990, is engaged in the production of the industrial
leaktesting units using helium and mass spectrometers. Extensions in 2009 saw a
doubling of the production premises to accommodate a large, modern assembly
area, a fully equipped workshop, and a modern metrological laboratory for
dimensional measurement.

▪
The German SCIENION
AG´s product range enables customers to facilitating and improving
multiparallel bioanalytics, high throughput screening and high throughput
production of microarrays in the genomics and proteomics fields – from early
research to manufacturing.

▪
Founded in 2004, the
Dutch company Xpress Precision Engineering is a supplier of ultra
precision 3D measurement systems for dimensional metrology. With about 60% of
staff working in R&D, the main research focus is on improving the
measurement uncertainty of our probing systems and facilitating measurements on
ever decreasing feature sizes

              Annex VI: Metrology landscape in Europe

In October 2012,
EURAMET, the European Association of National Metrology Institutes e.V.,
conducted a survey among its members, i.e. National Metrology Institutes and
Designated Institutes, asking for actual data (2011) in relation to

▪
Scientific Contributions

▪
Standardisation Activities

▪
Services (mostly to Industry) and

▪
International Liaisons

86 NMI and DI from 32
of the 37 EURAMET countries responded to the survey. Before the results are
presented in the following, a first chapter describes the membership within
EURAMET. The metrology landscape in Europe is very diverse in many respects. 16
of the 37 EURAMET members have a single metrology institute in place, while two
countries, France and Slovenia, have each 10 institutes performing official
metrological tasks on highest national level. As per August 2012, EURAMET
members comprise 108 institutions in total, 37 National Metrology Institutes
send formal representatives to the General Assembly, 71 Designated Institutes
have an associate member status. The following table indicate the number of
institutes per country:

Country || No. of NMI/DI

France || 10

Slovenia || 10

Denmark || 7

Spain || 7

Croatia || 6

Finland || 6

Czech Republic || 5

Germany || 4

Lithuania || 4

Norway || 4

Switzerland || 4

UK || 4

Austria || 3

Greece || 3

Poland || 3

Estonia || 2

Italy || 2

Portugal || 2

Romania || 2

Sweden || 2

Turkey || 2

Albania || 1

Belgium || 1

Bosnia-Herzegovina || 1

Bulgaria || 1

Cyprus || 1

FYR Macedonia || 1

Hungary || 1

Iceland || 1

Ireland || 1

Latvia || 1

Luxembourg || 1

Malta || 1

Montenegro || 1

Netherlands || 1

Serbia || 1

Slovakia || 1

SUM || 108

In addition, the European Commission´s
Joint Research Centre Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements
(JRC-IRMM) is an associated member of EURAMET.

The individual NMIs/DIs differ quite
substantially. Staffs range from just 2 employees
(for 3 DIs) to 1925 for the German PTB which is – not only due to its size – an
outstanding institution in Europe. In total, more than 6700 persons work in the
responding EURAMET organisations. It is likely that this number would go beyond
7000 if all European metrology institutes would have responded. Consolidated
figures on national scale, i.e. staff of all NMI and DI in a single country
summed up, reveal the following top ten list in terms of staff employed in
European metrology institutes:

Country || Institutions comprised || No. of staff

Germany || PTB, BAM and UBA || 2185

UK || NPL, NMO || 706

Turkey || UME and 2 DIs || 486

Czech Republic || CMI and 4 DIs || 395

Italy || INRIM, ENEA || 360

Poland || GUM, POLATOM || 353

France || LNE and all 9 DIs || 340

Spain || CEM and 6 DIs || 192

Switzerland || METAS and IRA || 166

Slovakia || SMU || 140

While a number of EURAMET DIs are quite
large in terms of employees, with the host organisation typically being a
public research institution, the figures indicated here consider only the
personnel that is concerned with metrological activities[31]. The average staffs for all
NMI/DI is 114, the median is 22 and the mode is just 4.

Scientific contributions

For 2011, the responding metrology
institutions reported more than 2700 scientific publications, thereof
more than 1000 in refereed journals. It is only that 12 institutions of the 86
respondents have not published any scientific contribution in 2011, while this
number increases to 27 for contributions in refereed journals. Four countries (Germany, UK, France and Italy) contribute 80 % to all refereed scientific publications.

More than 2400 presentations were
given at scientific conferences. While it is not possible to judge the
quality of the conferences, some presentations were awarded with best paper
prices (e.g. for Danish DFM). It is again the NMIs/DIs from 4 countries (Germany, UK, France and Italy) that deliver 75% of all presentations. At the other end, 14
institutions did not give any presentation.

As for presentations in relation to staff
members, Portugal leads this ranking with one presentation for each staff
member, followed by Croatia, France, The Netherlands, Italy, Finland and Slovenia. While being cautious in general in interpreting the figures it is
probably fair to say that NMI and DI are quite active in “spreading the word”
on metrology.

Having asked for qualitative examples for
outstanding scientific contributions, individual NMI/DI answers demonstrate a pro-active
role in education: In France, 52 PhDs were coached in its 10 national
NMI/DI institutions in 2011. The small Portuguese DI (IST/ITN with 3 staff)
supervised 4 Master theses. UK´s NPL counted 20 visiting professors and
Germany´s BAM is engaged in the “Analytic City Adlershof”, a Berlin based competence
centre bundling university, non-university and industrial expertise available
at the Adlershof site that focuses on questions and problems related to
analytical chemistry.

NMI and DI are no stand-alone entities but
network within their countries and internationally (see also last chapter of this
document). They have formal agreements for research cooperation (MoU or
similar) on national as well as international level, with both figures just
exceeding 400 agreements, i.e. with an average of almost 7 per responding
NMI/DI. 10 NMI/DI responded of not having such agreements on the national, 24
on the international level. Some NMI/DI report remarkable numbers, though, as
e.g. the Czech institute that pursues active scientific cooperation in field of
metrology within the framework of intergovernmental industrial and scientific
groups with 17 non-European countries, especially with the Russian Federation.

Standardisation activities

NMI and DI contribute substantially to standardisation
working groups. The responding institutions reported on more than 1850
involvements in standardisation working groups, thereof 956 on the national,
321 on the European and no less than 584 on the international level. These
engagements are secured by 1063 staff members.

Activities comprise the implementation or
harmonisation of international standards as or with national standards, to
refine or revise regulations for legally controlled measuring instruments, and
purposefully improve standardisation per se. Also, single NMI translated
official documents into their language thus supporting the national
standardisation.

Services, mostly to industry

One of the most important activities is the provision of services to
industry.

The number of calibrations, i.e. comparisons of measurement
instrumentation with a national measurement standard hold in an NMI or DI,
reached more than 165000 conducted in 2011. This activity has also led to
substantial revenues for the NMI/DI of more than 66 Mio. €[32]. All NMI/DI perform
calibrations, although the number varies quite considerably: The minimum number
was 3 (for a small Finnish DI), the maximum 39630 (for the Czech NMI). The
overall annual person-effort for performing calibrations is about 1/6 of total
staff´s capacity.

These differences must be seen against different national strategies
regarding the role of the NMI. Most NMI/DI act under a subsidiarity principle,
i.e. they provide calibrations for (mostly private) secondary-level calibration
laboratories and provide service directly to industry only if those
laboratories are not available. The secondary-level laboratories then do the
routine calibrations for industry and thus are multipliers the calibrations of
NMI/DI. This “pyramid of calibration levels” ensures that an enormous number of
measurement devices in industry (many 100 millions) are traceable to the
internationally harmonized SI units via factory standards, secondary
laboratories and finally NMI/DI.

At the same time, income generation from
industry related services is perceived differently. While most NMI/DI can keep
their income, few others are not allowed so as to not create any incentive of
disturbing market based activities.

Calibrations numbers are even topped by the
number of conformity assessments, with the Czech NMI performing 80% of
the total of 230000 assessments. Remarkably, over 30 institutes do not perform
conformity assessments at all while the overall staff capacity for this
activity is still about 6% across all responding institutes.

About 600 staff members, (~9% of all staff)
are involved in accreditations of other laboratories, with 85 being
active on European and 53 on international level.

330 agreements with industry were reported to have happened
in 2011, with the German PTB and UK´s NPL accounting for one third of all
cases. Agreements comprise research and development projects, i.e. solving a
concrete problem at the site of a company, licensing agreements and cases of
technology transfer. This kind of endeavour is followed by ¾ of the responding
NMI/DI with interesting examples, e.g. that the Hungarian NMI pursues a
continuous technology transfer in the field of verification of the measuring
instruments (radiation physics) for the national Nuclear Power Plant that
accounts for 40% of national energy production.

Other important activities related to industry are conduction of
technology conferences, stands at industry conferences, other knowledge
transfer activities or PR activities (e.g. regular newsletters) related to
industry clients etc. However, EURAMET members differ quite substantially in
their attitudes and invested capacities in these activities.

International liaisons

The final section of the survey covered the degree of international,
i.e. beyond Europe, liaisons of the NMI and DI. The reported figure of 108
concluded MoUs or similar agreements reveal a high degree of international
networking – while 38 respondents, among these 16 NMI, do not cooperate on this
level (but of course within EURAMET on the European level).

About 5% of NMI/DI staff (about 320 persons), a vast majority from
the NMIs, are involved in Consultive Committees (CCs) of the Metre Convention (Comité
international des poids et measures, CIPM). To become a member of a CC, the
national laboratory must be active in research, have a record of publications
in journals of international repute and also have demonstrated competence for
participations in international comparisons. The CC bring together the world's
experts in their specified fields as advisers on scientific and technical
matters. Among other activities, CC reflect on advances in physics that
directly influence metrology and prepare recommendations for discussion at the
CIPM. [33]

In addition to these international engagements, several NMI/DI are
actively engaged in technical cooperation projects with the aim of helping Developing
Countries to establish a national and regional metrology infrastructure that
serves their economic and social development. A separate survey from 2009
showed that 10 EURAMET members were involved in 136 projects since 2004.

[1]               Metrology is defined by the International Bureau of
Weights and Measures (BIPM) as "the science of measurement, embracing both
experimental and theoretical determinations at any level of uncertainty in any
field of science and technology”.

[2]               Comptes
Rendus Physique, Vol 5 - N°8 - October 2004 (p. 791 – 797): Measurement and
society; Terence J. Quinn, Jean Kovalevsky

[3]               The Metre Convention was signed in 1875 by 17 states.
It was the first international diplomatic treaty. The signatory states, today
56, agree to adopt the metric system.

[4]               Article 21 of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No
2342/2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council
Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to
the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002/L 357/1).

[5]               CWP, EMPIR Roadmap http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/planned\_ia/roadmaps\_2013\_en.htm#RTD

[6]               The following Commission DGs had been invited to join
the IASG: AGRI, CLIMA, CNECT, ENER, ENTR, ENV, JRC, MOVE, SANCO, SJ. In
addition thematic directorates of DG RTD participated in the meetings. Meetings
were held on: 20 September 2012, 20 November 2012 and 23 January 2013.

[7]               http://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/archive/other\_reports\_studies\_and\_documents/mtr\_report\_final.pdf,
http://www.euramet.org/index.php?id=emrp

[8]               See http://ec.europa.eu/research/consultations/pdf/empir-survey-final-report.pdf
for the full report

[9]               Report: http://ec.europa.eu/research/consultations/pdf/stakeholdermeeting.pdf

[10]             NIST (2007a): An Assessment of the United States Measurement System: Addressing Measurement Barriers to Accelerate Innovation.
NIST Special Publication 1048, Gaithersburg. http://usms.nist.gov/usms07/usms\_
assessment\_report\_2006.pdf

[11]             Paul Temple, Economic Impact of the National
Measurement System, Evidence Paper, Department of Economics, University of
Surrey, July 2010,

[12]             Economic impact of the national measuremtn system, Ray
Lambert

[13]             KPMG, Potential Impact of the CIPM mutual Recognition
Arrangement, April 2002

[14]             Based on the difference (minimum 10%) in responses for
very important or important

[15]             This is underlined by the responses to the public
consultation: 72% consider "lack of cooperation of NMIs with industrial
partners" an important or very important problem, 70% conclude the same
for "weak industrial exploitation.

[16]             This is underlined by the responses to the public
consultation: 70% consider "Lack of cooperation with the wider scientific
community" and "Weak inter-disciplinary research practices" an
important or very important problem.

[17]             EURAMET e.V. is the legal entity that was established
to implement the EMRP

[18]             Decision No 912/2009/EC of the European Parliament and
the Council of 16 September 2009

[19]             Article 185 TFEU (ex Article 169 TEC): “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”

[20]             COM(2010) 2020 final  Europe 2020 A strategy for smart,
sustainable and inclusive growth

[21]             E.g. in the committees of the meter convention: www.bipm.org/en/committees

[22]             Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,
Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland,
Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey,
United Kingdom (all EU Member States with a Metrology Research Programme
participate)

[23]             In addition Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Ireland and Serbia join the programme. All EU Member States with an
existing Metrology Research Programme participate.

[24]             An independent expert panel recommended as part of
their 5 year assessment of FP5 in 2000 a strong coordinating character and
increased budgets.

[25]             Ray Lambert, Department for Business, Innovation &
Skills, Economic Impact of the National Measurement System, Evidence Paper,
July 2010

[26]             Peter Swann, The Economics of Metrology and
Measurement, Report for the National Measurement Office, Department for
Business, Innovation & Skills, Innovative Economics Ltd, October 2009.

[27]             A recent example is Luminanz, a UK high technology start up (founded in 2007) which has pioneered a number of light
emitting diode (LED) lighting innovations. Vital to the accurate prediction of
lifetimes is accurate measurement of junction temperatures of LEDs. NPL
provided a brief consultancy in related measurement methods. The company
invested significantly in implementing the advice given, an estimated £10,000.
The identified commercial benefits were in the order of £250k - giving a
cost-benefit ratio of 1:18.

[28]             Swann
G.M.P. (2003) Engineering Economics: Case Studies, Mechanisms and a Micro Model
of Measurement Impact, Report for DTI

[29]             http://ec.europa.eu/research/consultations/pdf/empir-survey

[30]             Based on the difference (minimum 10%) in responses for
very important or important

[31]             E.g. German BAM has 1750 staff, but only about 250
(counted here) are concerned with metrological tasks.

[32]             National currencies were calculated into € by using an
exchange rate of Oct. 2012. The figure is deemed to provide a rough orientation
only.

[33]             See http://www.bipm.org/en/committees/cc/cc\_criteria.html
for further details

[Top](#document1)