ANNEX 1 {SWD(2017)220 final} {SWD(2017)222 final} - TAIPI

EN EN

ANNEX 1

{SWD(2017)220 final}

{SWD(2017)222 final}

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 29.5.2017

SWD(2017) 221 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

INTERIM EVALUATION

of

HORIZON 2020

{SWD(2017) 220 final}

{SWD(2017) 222 final}

1

A. PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................. 5

B. STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION RESULTS...................................................... 8

B.1. Overview of respondents ................................................................................... 8

B.2. Relevance ........................................................................................................ 11

B.3. Effectiveness ................................................................................................... 25

B.4. Efficiency and use of resources ....................................................................... 36

B.5. Coherence ........................................................................................................ 44

B.6. EU added value ............................................................................................... 47

B.7. Areas for future consideration ......................................................................... 49

B.8. Position Papers ................................................................................................ 51

C. METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED .............................................. 63

C.1. Main data sources ............................................................................................ 63

C.2. Overall limitations of the interim evaluation .................................................. 64

C.3. Monitoring data ............................................................................................... 65

C.4. The economic impact and the European added value of the programme ....... 66

C.5. Analysis of participation and publication networks, including

interdisciplinarity............................................................................................. 67

C.6. Stakeholder consultation ................................................................................. 69

C.7. Estimation of the costs of writing proposals ................................................... 69

C.8. Text mining on the relevance of the programme ............................................ 71

D. MONITORING DATA ON HORIZON 2020 STATE OF IMPLEMENTATION .. 74

D.1. Overall 74

D.2. Type of organisations ...................................................................................... 74

D.3. Per programme part ......................................................................................... 75

D.4. Type of instrument .......................................................................................... 78

D.5. Member States ................................................................................................. 80

D.6. Benchmarking with FP7 .................................................................................. 82

D.7. Newcomers ...................................................................................................... 83

E. SUCCESS STORIES FROM PREVIOUS FRAMEWORK PROGRAMMES ....... 86

F. EUROPEAN ADDED VALUE CASE STUDIES ................................................... 88

F.1. European added value case study 1: Antimicrobial resistance ........................ 88

F.2. European added value case study 2: Large-Scale Data gathering, omics

research and biobanks which contribute to personalised medicine approaches100

2

F.3. European added value case study 3: Fisheries .............................................. 113

F.4. European added value case study 4: Fuel Cell & Hydrogen ......................... 127

F.5. European added value case study 5: Food Waste .......................................... 144

F.6. European added value case study 6: Climate Change evidence .................... 156

F.7. European added value case study 7: Contributions to the Digital Single

Market through innovative online public services in an inclusive and reflective

society ............................................................................................................ 166

G. TOP 50 HORIZON 2020 PARTICIPANTS PER TYPE OF ORGANISATION .. 181

G.1. Organisations ................................................................................................. 181

G.2. Higher and secondary education institutions (HES) ..................................... 182

G.3. Other organisations (OTH) ............................................................................ 183

G.4. Private for profit companies (PRC) ............................................................... 184

G.5. Public sector organisations (PUB) ................................................................ 185

G.6. Research Organisations (REC) ...................................................................... 186

G.7. SMEs 187

H. THE COVERAGE OF CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES IN HORIZON 2020 ............ 188

H.1. Introduction ................................................................................................... 188

H.2. The development and application of key enabling and industrial technologies

as well as future and emerging technologies ................................................. 191

H.3. Bridging from discovery to market application ............................................ 191

H.4. Interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral research and innovation ........................ 195

H.5. Social and economic sciences and humanities .............................................. 202

H.6. Sustainable development, climate change and biodiversity .......................... 205

H.7. Fostering the functioning and achievement of the ERA ............................... 213

H.8. Framework conditions in support of the flagship initiative "Innovation Union"216

H.9. Contributing to the Digital Agenda for Europe ............................................. 217

H.10. Widening participation across the Union in research and innovation and

helping to close the research and innovation divide in Europe ..................... 220

H.11. International networks for excellent researchers and innovators such as

European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) ......................... 228

H.12. International cooperation - Cooperation with third countries ....................... 233

H.13. Science and Society: Responsible Research and Innovation ........................ 245

H.14. Gender equality ............................................................................................. 250

H.15. SME involvement in research and innovation and broader private sector

participation ................................................................................................... 261

I. FURTHER INFORMATION ON THE IN-DEPTH ASSESSMENT OF PUBLIC-

TO-PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS .............................................................................. 267

3

I.1. Introduction ................................................................................................... 267

I.2. Overview P2Ps .............................................................................................. 267

I.3. ERA-NET Cofund under Horizon 2020 ........................................................ 270

I.4. Art.185 initiatives .......................................................................................... 272

I.5. Joint Programming Initiatives ....................................................................... 274

I.6. Evaluation Results on Public-Public Partnershipss ....................................... 277

I.7. Lessons learnt ................................................................................................ 283

J. FURTHER INFORMATION ON THE IN-DEPTH ASSESSMENT OF PUBLIC-

PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS .................................................................................. 287

J.1. Introduction ................................................................................................... 287

J.2. Openness ....................................................................................................... 288

J.3. Transparency ................................................................................................. 297

J.4. Effectiveness ................................................................................................. 300

J.5. Overview Joint Undertakings Key Performance Indicators .......................... 308

K. FURTHER INFORMATION ON THE EUROPEAN INSTITUTE OF

INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY (EIT) ........................................................ 312

K.1. Overview ....................................................................................................... 312

K.2. Rationale ........................................................................................................ 313

K.3. Implementation .............................................................................................. 313

K.4. Achievements so far ...................................................................................... 315

K.5. Lessons learnt/Areas for improvement.......................................................... 325

L. FURTHER INFORMATION ON THE FAST TRACK TO INNOVATION PILOT

2015-2016 ................................................................................................................ 326

L.1. Relevance ...................................................................................................... 326

L.2. Effectiveness ................................................................................................. 326

L.3. Efficiency ...................................................................................................... 327

L.4. Coherence ...................................................................................................... 328

L.5. EU added value ............................................................................................. 328

M. IMPACT OF THE NEW MANAGEMENT MODES ON THE PERFORMANCE

OF HORIZON 2020 – FOCUS ON EXECUTIVE AGENCIES ............................ 329

M.1. Background ................................................................................................... 329

M.2. Setting up Executive Agencies under Horizon 2020 ..................................... 330

M.3. Assessment of implementation of Horizon 2020 activities delegated to the

Executive Agencies ....................................................................................... 332

M.4. Main findings and conclusions from the recent evaluations of ERCEA and

REA operations ............................................................................................. 337

4

N. THE IMPACT OF SIMPLIFICATION AND THE NEW FUNDING MODEL ... 340

N.1. Context and legal requirements – Horizon 2020 new funding model ........... 340

N.2. The impacts of the new model on attractiveness, accessibility and

participation in Horizon 2020........................................................................ 342

N.3. The impacts of the new model on funding levels .......................................... 342

N.4. Lessons learnt and areas for improvement .................................................... 343

O. ANALYSIS OF THE COMPANIES PARTICIPATING IN HORIZON 2020 ...... 345

O.1. Company sectors by age and grants .............................................................. 346

O.2. Company age and grants ............................................................................... 349

O.3. Company employment and grants ................................................................. 351

O.4. Company revenues and grants ....................................................................... 352

O.5. Companies by Member State ........................................................................ 355

P. POSITION IN INTERNATIONAL RANKINGS .................................................. 356

P.1. Companies ..................................................................................................... 356

P.2. Universities and research institutions ............................................................ 357

Q. PARTICIPATION PATTERNS AND BALANCE BETWEEN LARGE AND

SMALL PROJECTS ............................................................................................... 359

Q.1. Introduction and background......................................................................... 359

Q.2. Analysis 1 – Descriptive overview of participation in different-size projects

based on budget data ..................................................................................... 359

Q.3. Analysis 2 – Composite threshold and comparison Horizon 2020 - FP7 ..... 361

R. HORIZON 2020 NETWORKS - COUNTRIES AND GATEWAYS FOR

NEWCOMERS ....................................................................................................... 364

R.1. Trans-national collaboration in projects ........................................................ 364

R.2. Geographic collaboration networks in publications from the Framework

Programmes ................................................................................................... 366

R.3. Analysis of newcomers to the Framework Programme ................................ 370

5

A. PROCEDURAL INFORMATION

Lead DG: Directorate General Research and Innovation (RTD)

Agenda Planning number: 2015/RTD/005 Interim evaluation of Horizon 2020.

The requirement for the interim evaluation of Horizon 2020 derives from Article 32 of

Regulation 1291/2013/EC establishing Horizon 2020. This stipulates that "by 31 December

2017, and taking into account the ex-post evaluation of the Seventh Framework Programme to be

completed by 31 December 2015 and the review of the EIT, the Commission shall carry out,

with the assistance of independent experts, selected on the basis of a transparent process, an

interim evaluation of Horizon 2020, its specific programme, including the European Research

Council (ERC), and the activities of the EIT".

The interim evaluation of Horizon 2020 started in 2016 and has been guided by Terms of

Reference adopted by the Commission after a vote by the Member States’ Programme

Committee1. An evaluation roadmap, summarising the design, purpose and scope of the Horizon

2020 interim evaluation, was published in May 20162.

An Inter-Service Group (ISG) 3

gathering representatives of different Directorates-General (DG)

of the Commission was set up in early 2016 and held 7 meetings prior to submission of the Staff

Working Document to the Regulatory Scrutiny Board in March 2017 (14 April 2016, 12 May

2016, 13 June 2016, 13 July 2016, 20 September 2016, 27 October 2016, 23 February 2017). A

series of internal seminars were also organised between December 2016 and February 2017, to

which all ISG members were invited, at which the emerging interim evaluation results were

presented and discussed.

The interim evaluation was coordinated by the Evaluation Unit of the Commission's Directorate-

General for Research & Innovation (DG RTD) with inputs from several Commission services

that, in turn, contracted studies or steered groups of independent experts. A cross-DG Working

Group was established and held 13 meetings between March 2015 and November 2016. The

evaluation is based on a wide range of sources comprising internal assessments by Commission

services as well as external expert group reports, horizontal and thematic evaluation studies, the

results of the ex-post evaluation of 7th

European Research Framework Programme (FP7) and the

review of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology. The sources are systematically

described and identified throughout the Staff Working Document.

A public stakeholder consultation on the interim evaluation of Horizon 2020 was launched on 20

October 2016 and closed on 15 January 2017. On 28 April 2017 a conference was organised by

DG RTD in cooperation with the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) to present

the results of this consultation.

In accordance with the feedback received from the Regulatory Scrutiny Board on 31 March

2017, the Staff Working Document has been revised as presented in Figure 1 These revisions

were endorsed by the Inter Service Group during the meeting of 7 April 2017.

1 C(2016)5546. 2 See: http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/2015_rtd_005_evaluation_ie_horizon_2020_en.pdf 3 The ISG for the Horizon 2020 interim evaluation consisted of representatives from the following Directorates-General of the

European Commission: AGRI, BUDG, CLIMA, CNECT, EAC, ENV, ECFIN, ENER, GROW, HOME, JRC, MOVE, REGIO,

RTD, SG.

http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/2015_rtd_005_evaluation_ie_horizon_2020_en.pdf

6

Figure 1 Modifications to the draft Staff Working Document based on comments received

from the Regulatory Scrutiny Board

Comments from the Regulatory Scrutiny

Board

Actions taken for the Staff Working Document

(1) Expected vs actual results - key evaluation

questions

The report does not make enough use of the

available evidence to benchmark and compare

results with what was anticipated.

The introduction should elaborate on the

presentation of the programme. It should

highlight the differences with its predecessor,

FP7. On that basis, the report should clearly set

out the initial expectations of the programme. It

should link these to a strengthened analysis of

the results obtained so far and the reasons for

possible deviations. A clear intervention logic

should describe how the programme aims to

achieve its intended effects, what were the

projections made and how those compare with

the results achieved so far. Since this is an

interim evaluation, the report should focus on

the key channels of the intervention logic which

can be checked at this stage. It should formulate

key questions around the five evaluation criteria.

The report should select the relevant data that

answer these questions and explain how the

programme is performing. This is for instance

the case for the efficiency criteria where the

evaluation could benchmark the efficiency gains

against the forecasts of the cost-benefits study

on the externalisation of the management of EU

funds. In terms of coherence, the report should

provide a critical picture of how Horizon 2020

and some of its parts (such as the financial

instruments) fit with other programmes in a

complementary manner.

The’ background to the initiative’ section has been

completed to present the key evolutions from FP7

(novelties and continuity), and key features and

expectations of Horizon 2020 compared to FP7.

The objectives pursued through Horizon 2020 have

been clarified and the detailed intervention logic

used for the interim evaluation has been included

(including the different types of expected outputs,

results and impacts around which the effectiveness

analysis is structured).

Key questions for each evaluation criteria have

been included as well as a short explanation at the

beginning of each section on the purpose of the

analysis performed.

Under the effectiveness section, the structure of the

analysis of the progress towards impacts has been

further explained according to the channels used

under Horizon 2020 for the generation of impacts.

Comparisons with FP7 have been included where

relevant and possible (availability of comparable

data). A benchmarking table of the main

implementation data for FP7 and Horizon 2020 has

been added.

The baseline scenario and expectations from

Horizon 2020 based on the Impact Assessment

have been clarified for each evaluation criteria.

In the efficiency assessment, comparisons with the

forecasts of the cost-benefits analysis of the

externalisation of the programme management

have been added.

The coherence assessment has been strengthened

to provide a more critical and comprehensive

picture of the complementarity of the instruments

of Horizon 2020 with other instruments.

(2) From key questions to key conclusions

The conclusions do not always clearly stem from

the analysis.

The report should more systematically qualify

its key findings in terms of positive and negative

developments. It would clarify what issues will

be addressed at different stages. It should put

more emphasis on possible areas for

improvements in the remaining three years of

the programme. This would for examples

include adapting the SME instrument to support

the most disruptive innovations, increasing the

participation of third countries and reconciling

its focus on excellence with capacity building in

The conclusion section has been restructured to

present more clearly the key findings and areas for

improvement, with distinctions made between

improvements needed on the short term (e.g 2017-

2020) and in the longer term (e.g next Framework

Programme). These include suggestions for further

simplification.

The expectations from the programme have been

added under each evaluation criteria accompanied

by an overview box on the key conclusions from

the analysis.

7

Comments from the Regulatory Scrutiny

Board

Actions taken for the Staff Working Document

some countries. The report should also better

identify the remaining areas for further

simplification. As mentioned under point 1), for

each of these, it should start from the intention

of the programme, the actual results and suggest

possible solutions.

(3) Prioritisation

The report does not fully explain how activities

were given priority within and between the three

pillars.

The report should more clearly explain how

specific topics are prioritised under Horizon

2020. In particular the report should clarify

whether the programme properly addresses

current challenges identified by stakeholders.

Generally, it should break down stakeholders'

views and distinguish between beneficiaries and

other parties. It could supplement those views

with case studies, illustrating both good

practices and challenges encountered. In

addition, the report should provide further

explanations on the implementation of priorities

that are both pillar-specific and cross-cutting

(such as excellence or innovation).

The structure of Horizon 2020 has been clarified as

well as the way the priorities were defined at time

of programme design. The strategic programming

process has been further explained as well as

further references to the thematic assessments

(Annex Part 3) were introduced - where the

allocations per topics are discussed in-depth.

Stakeholder views are used for contextualising the

findings. These are based on a public consultation

questionnaire (app. 3500 respondents) and more

than 300 position papers received. In addition,

horizontal studies and thematic assessments used

surveys of project coordinators, participants/non-

participants and interviews of multiple

stakeholders as evidence base for their analysis.

The wording has been revised to ensure the

differences between the sources of information are

clear for the reader.

Projects’ example boxes have been introduced

throughout the document as illustrations.

The text has been clarified in order to stress that

the interim evaluation is not ‘pillar-based’ but

covers the whole programme according to the

objectives sought (e.g. excellence is supported

under all pillars and innovation can emerge from

ERC grants). Detailed assessments of each

programme part are provided in Annex Part 3.

(4) Synthesis:

The structure and presentation of the report do

not convey a clear overview of key messages.

The extended summary could serve as a basis

for a more synthetic Staff Working Document.

The report should in a balanced manner take

stock of the achievements and difficulties

encountered so far. This would correspond to the

evaluation's objective to inform the College and

feed into the impact assessment for a future

research programme. It would also pave the way

for future general orientations on issues like

innovation, basic research or support to SMEs.

The extended summary has been reworked to

clearly present the key findings from the interim

evaluation, the strengths from Horizon 2020 and

the remaining challenges to be addressed in the

(near) future as the main Interim Evaluation. In

order to ease the reading it follows the same

structure as the In-Depth Interim Evaluation.

8

B. STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION RESULTS

A public stakeholder consultation on the interim evaluation of Horizon 2020 was launched on 20

October 2016 and closed on 15 January 2017. The stakeholder consultation results were

discussed at a conference organised by the European Commission, DG RTD, with the European

Economic and Social Committee on 28 April 2017.This document presents an analysis of the

responses received, structured according to the five evaluation criteria: relevance; effectiveness;

efficiency and use of resources; coherence; EU added value.

The document concludes with the analysis of 296 position papers also received within the

context of the stakeholder consultation.

B.1. Overview of respondents

B.1.1. Who are the respondents?

In total 3483 responses to the online questionnaire were received:

49% (1721) from individuals;

5% (175) from representatives of "umbrella" organisations of EU interest; and

46% (1587) from representatives of a single institution or a company.

Among different types of organisations, the highest number of responses was submitted by

businesses (687 or 20%), of these 65% (443) were SMEs.

Answers come from 69 different countries. However, the majority of the respondents come from

EU15 countries with Spain and Italy being the most active. 65 respondents come from third

countries.

Table 1 What type of organisation do you represent?

Type of respondent 1. I am responding Total % of respondents

As an individual n/a 1721 49.4%

Academia

On behalf of a single institution/company 297 8.5%

On behalf of an “umbrella” organisation of EU interest 27 0.8%

Business



Non-Governmental Organisation



Public authority



Research organisation On behalf of a single institution/company 305 8.8%


Other



Total 3483 100.0%

9

Figure 1 Country of respondents

B.1.2. Which part of the programme have they participated in?

76% (2648) of the respondents received support from different parts of the Horizon 2020

programme. Most commonly, they participated in the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA,

30% of respondents) or the Leadership in Enabling and Industrial Technologies (LEIT, 22% of

respondents) parts of the programme. 30% (790) of the respondents who received support from

Horizon 2020 are newcomers to the programme (not having participated in FP7).

Figure 2 Share of respondents that have participated in Horizon 2020 (2648) stating which

part the programme they have participated in

29.6%

21.8%

16.1%

15.9%

15.8%

15.4%

15.1%

13.6%

13.4% 12.9% 11.5%

10.2%

10.0%

8.6%

6.9%

6.3%

6.3%

0.8%

0.0 %

5.0 %

10. 0%

15. 0%

20. 0%

25. 0%

30. 0%

MSCA

LEIT

SC3 : Secure, clean and efficient energy

SC5: Climate action, environment, resourceefficiency and raw materials

ERC

FET

SC1: Health, demographic change and well-being

SC2: Food security, sustainable agriculture andforestry, marine, maritime and inland water…

SC4: Smart, green and integrated transport

Innovation in SMEs (including SME Instrument)

RI

SC7: Secure societies – Protecting freedom and security of Europe and its citizens

SC6: Europe in a changing world – Inclusive, innovative and reflective societies

SWAFS

EIT

FTI

SEWP

ARF

10

Horizon 2020 Pillar Number of respondents Share of respondents

Societal Challenges 2227 36.6%

Excellent Science 2185 35.9%

LEIT 940 15.4%

Other 745 12.2%

B.1.1. Main reasons for not participating

24% (835) of respondents did not receive support from Horizon 2020. Besides not being funded,

the main reasons for not participating in Horizon 2020 were:

1) Success rates in Horizon 2020 are too low to be worth applying; and

2) Limited financial/human resources to prepare a proposal.

Figure 3 Main reasons for not participating to Horizon 2020 (max 3 answers)

Out of the 134 respondents, who listed "Other", 58 were not researchers/ innovators and a few

more quoted reasons for not participating that are already listed above ('lack of relevant topics-

areas', for example, because topics are too broad and limited resources). 8 indicated they were in

the process of applying or were awaiting results after a proposal submission, while 5 were still

involved in ongoing FP7 projects that had prevented them from applying to the new programme.

A few mentioned conflicts of interest or a desire to maintain an independent view of on the

programme, for example consulting firms involved in evaluations of Framework Programmes

(FPs).

Some respondents commented on Horizon 2020 requirements that had hampered their

participation mostly because they applied from third countries (e.g. Swiss respondents). Among

other reasons for not participating were the lack of incentives, lack of awareness of the Horizon

2020 programme, lack of experience in participating in such a programme, and the limited

involvement of end-users in FP projects.

262

194

190

175

122

118

106

63

63

60

30

15

134

I tried, but my proposal wasn't selected

Success rates in Horizon 2020 are too low to be worth applying

Limited financial/human resources to prepare a proposal

I'm not a researcher/innovator

Lack of a relevant area/topic for my needs

Difficulties to find project partners

Horizon 2020 project implementation rules are cumbersome

Preference to participate in other national or regional programmes

Lack of an adequate type of financial support needed for my work

Lack of awareness of the EU research and innovation framework…

Preference to participate in other European or international…

Concerns about sharing valuable knowledge with partners

Other

11

B.2. Relevance

B.2.1. Is Horizon 2020 tackling the right issues?

B.2.2. The relevance of Horizon 2020 given the challenges to address

When asked whether Horizon 2020 priorities address the current challenges confronted by the

European Union (e.g. migration, terrorism, ageing population), 77% of the consultation

respondents agree fully or to a large extent, and 8% judge that it is not the case at all. Academia

and research organisations tend to be more positive (86-83% think it does at least to some extent)

than business (71% think it does at least to some extent).

Figure 4 Do you think that Horizon 2020 priorities address the current challenges

confronted by the European Union (e.g. migration, terrorism, ageing population)?

Source: Replies to stakeholder consultation questionnaire launched in the framework of the Interim Evaluation of

Horizon 2020, October 2016-January 2017, N=348.3

12

B.2.3. The relevance of Horizon 2020 to address European objectives

Almost all the consultation respondents agreed to some extent or more that Horizon 2020 is

contributing to support jobs, growth and investments (95%) and to foster the role of the

European Union as a stronger global actor (92%).

The vision of respondents on the contribution of Horizon 2020 to other EU priorities is more

nuanced: 74% agree to some extent or more that Horizon 2020 is contributing to achieving a

deeper and fairer internal market with a strengthened industrial base, 72% to promoting an

Energy Union with a forward-looking climate policy (25% do not share this vision at all, that is

the priority which sees the highest proportion of disagreement), and 66% to helping to create a

Digital Single Market (however 29% of respondents declare that they do not know).

Figure 5 Do you think that Horizon 2020 is contributing to the following priorities of the

European Union?


Horizon 2020, October 2016-January 2017, N=3483

B.2.4. Does Horizon 2020 allow adapting to new scientific and socio-economic

developments?

While the majority of consultation respondents thought that the programme’s thematic coverage

was flexible enough to cope with changing circumstances (77% agree to some extent or more),

the rate of full disagreement is however higher than for other statements (12% do not agree at

all). In addition, NGOs tended to disagree more than the other categories of respondents did

(16% of NGOs do not agree at all).

13

Figure 6 Do you think that Horizon 2020 thematic coverage is flexible enough to cope with

changing circumstances?



A high percentage of respondents agreed, to some extent or more, that Horizon 2020

supported the latest developments in research and innovation (93% of agreement rate). The

most positive respondents are business and public authorities.

14

Figure 7 Do you think that Horizon 2020 priority areas and calls support the latest

developments in research and innovation at the national/European and international level?



Overall, consultation respondents think that Horizon 2020 is stimulating disruptive and

market-creating innovation but a large share think this is only the case to some extent (37%).

The most positive respondents on this question are SMEs, with 63% thinking that Horizon 2020

is fully or to a large extent stimulating disruptive and market-creating innovation.

15

Figure 8 Do you think that Horizon 2020 is stimulating disruptive and market-creating

innovation (a new process, product or service that upsets existing business models and

serves new set of customers)?



B.2.5. Is Horizon 2020 responding to stakeholder needs?

More than 80% of the consultation respondents agree that the frequency of the calls and

their clarity are either “good” or “very good”.

However, the views regarding the transparency of the process of formulating the Work

Programmes and the ease of finding the right call for proposal differ. Many of the respondents

(67%) had a positive opinion on both these aspects. But some respondents (26%) found that the

transparency of the process of formulating the Work Programmes and the ease of finding the

right call “poor” or “very poor”. 45% of the respondents thought that the inclusion of Social

Sciences and Humanities in the calls was “good” or “very good” and many (39%) did not know.

16

Figure 9 Please rate the following Horizon 2020 implementation aspects – Work

Programme and calls



The comments to the open responses elaborate on the observed quantitative results. Some

respondents highlight difficulties in finding and identifying the calls documents. For instance,

they mention a lack of clarity in the calls and the dispersion of documents and information in

various places. They also ask for explanatory documents, as it is judged difficult to find

aggregated and clear information on the programme.

In addition, through an open question, consultation respondents were asked to outline the main

reasons for participating in Horizon 2020. Three main reasons stand out from the analysis,

pointing to the type of needs Horizon 2020 is able to address:

Respondents highly value the financial support provided by Horizon 2020 (with a few

respondents underlying the long-term and reliable nature of Horizon 2020 funding streams);

Respondents value the access to new knowledge and know-how, mostly through exchanges

of experiences and skills with partners, that allow them to build new competences and

capacities;

Respondents underline that participation provides unique opportunities for collaboration

with European or international partners and for contacts with key players that are often

the best in their field. Respondents value the opportunities to strengthen partnerships inside

existing networks as much as the ability to meet new partners or build new networks.

Interdisciplinary work and the opportunity to work with other types of actors (business-

academia-research organisations- governments- end users) also stand out.

Among the other reasons for participating in Horizon 2020 that are underlined by respondents, it

is worth mentioning the following: products, solutions development and commercialisation

(mainly quoted by businesses); internationalisation, visibility and enhancement of the

participants’ research profile (mainly quoted by academia); the ability to advance global

knowledge and solve societal challenges such as climate change and health; and the ability to

perform or have access to high-profile research. Some business respondents also mention growth

17

opportunities and a better or secured position on markets, as well as the ability to develop

innovation faster.

30% (790) of the respondents who received support from Horizon 2020 are newcomers to

the programme (not having participated in FP7). 87% (2310) of respondents who received

support from Horizon 2020 are cooperating with a new partner(s) in Horizon 2020. The

main reason for collaboration with new partners in Horizon 2020 is to include specific

expertise from another discipline. Out of the 134 respondents, who list "Other reasons", 52

explained that they cannot choose only one main reason and that various or all reasons apply. 28

were approached by other organisations and were not themselves engaged in finding new

partners. Other reasons include: accessing new contacts, larger networks, expertise or

information on local specificities for product development, and benchmarking organisations'

practices (for public authorities).

Figure 10 Why did you look for a new partner (one main reason)?



When asked whether the different forms of funding provided through Horizon 2020 are relevant

to their needs or not, 76% of consultation respondents agree that grants for collaborative

projects are “fully” or “largely” relevant to their needs, while 49% do so for grants for single

beneficiary projects. Grants are therefore considered by consultation respondents to be the most

relevant forms of funding provided through Horizon 2020, followed by co-funding actions,

prizes, financial instruments and public procurement.

Compared to other respondents, SMEs value more the financial instruments and the grants

for single beneficiary projects. However they seem to be less aware of prizes than other types

of stakeholders.

It is also worth noting that some 8% of the respondents who did not participate in Horizon

2020 underline that they lacked an adequate type of financial support for their work and

15% mention that the programme lacked a relevant area/ topic for their needs (see Figure

2). This therefore suggests that despite increased interest from newcomers, there is still room for

attracting more participants.

18

Figure 11 Are the forms of funding provided through Horizon 2020 relevant to your needs?



Additional comments provided by survey respondents in the open boxes corroborated these

results. Collaborative grants and the European Research Council stand out as being particularly

relevant to respondents. Some respondents specify that they find grants more relevant than

financial instruments (this applies to research organisations and academia as well as to business

respondents). Some respondents indicate that Horizon 2020 is too costly and the process is too

slow and complex to efficiently meet their needs.

57% of the respondents find the balance between small and large projects in calls for

proposals “good” or “very good”, but 24% of them find it "poor" or "very poor" and 19%

of respondents do not know. In their open comments, consultation respondents ask for more

opportunities for small projects (although some respondents are in favour of more support for

large-scale demonstrators), more prescriptive calls (to decrease the number of applicants); and

more funding opportunities for SMEs.

19

Figure 12 Please rate the balance between small and large indicative project sizes in the

calls for proposals



A high percentage of respondents agree, to some extent or more, that Horizon 2020

addresses the main citizens’ needs (86% agreement rate), however 37% agree only to some

extent. The least positive respondents are NGOs.

20

Figure 13 Do you think that Horizon 2020 addresses the main citizens' needs in terms of

research and innovation?



Among the issues listed in the consultation as needed to further maximize the socio-economic

impact of the EU framework programme for research and innovation, four items stand out (i.e.

meaning that more than 30% of respondents strongly agree): i) more room for bottom-up

proposals; ii) more focus on the support for the exploitation of research results; iii) better

access to the programme for newcomers and iv) increased focus on fundamental research.

21

Figure 14 To what extent do you agree that the following issues are needed to further

maximize the socio-economic impact of the EU framework programme for research and

innovation?



Academia strongly agree with the statement that suggested increasing the focus on bottom-up

research and fundamental research (53% of the total number of academia respondents “strongly

agreed”), whereas 48% of business respondents “strongly agree” with an increased focus on

support to closer-to-market activities, 38% with an increased focus on demonstration and 43%

with an increased focus on supporting the exploitation of research results. 40% of research

organisations also “strongly agree” that more needs to be done with respect to the exploitation of

research results.

22



innovation? Specific issues

23



24

The consultation’s respondents were asked to share a short, telegraphic testimonial on Horizon

2020. The results were analysed using a word cloud. The most common words used by

stakeholders to express what Horizon 2020 means to them are ‘research’, ‘innovation’, ‘funding,

‘opportunity’, ‘collaboration’, ‘new’, ‘international’, ‘cooperation’ (see below).

Figure 16 Please share with us a short, telegraphic testimonial. What does Horizon 2020

mean to you? What is its main feature?

Wordle®, Source: Replies to stakeholder consultation questionnaire launched in the framework of the Interim

Evaluation of Horizon 2020, October 2016-January 2017, N=1704

B.2.6. Key points / Areas for improvement

To conclude, the respondents to the stakeholder consultation generally:

Agree that Horizon 2020 priorities address the current challenges confronted by the European

Union and are relevant for achieving European objectives (e.g. supporting jobs, growth and

investments and fostering the role of the European Union as a stronger global actor).

Agree that Horizon 2020 supports the latest developments in research and that the

programme’s thematic coverage is flexible enough to cope with changing circumstances.

Participate in Horizon 2020 mainly to access funding, knowledge and expertise, and to

collaborate with European or international partners.

See grants for collaborative projects as the most relevant form of funding for their needs,

compared to financial instruments and public procurement.

Referred to the complexity and length of the funding process.

25

B.3. Effectiveness

B.3.1. Progress towards achieving Horizon 2020's objectives

Stakeholders were asked about the progress of Horizon 2020 in achieving its objectives. The

figure below provides an overview of the results for each of the eight objectives. A more in-

depth analysis for each objective is presented in the subsections underneath.

Figure 17 Do you think that Horizon 2020 is helping to:



B.3.1.1. EU world-class excellence in science

94% (3279) of the public consultation respondents agree, at least to some extent or more,

that Horizon 2020 helps to foster excellent science. The contribution of the programme to this

objective is assessed very positively, since 36% (1242) of the respondents agree “fully” with this

statement, which is the highest result scored by the statements that were proposed in the

questionnaire.

26

Figure 18 Do you think that Horizon 2020 is helping to foster excellent science?



B.3.1.2. Fostering European Industrial Leadership

84% (2927) of the public consultation respondents agree, to some extent or more, that Horizon

2020 helps foster European industrial partnerships. Businesses agree more with this statement

(94% of agreement rate) when compared to academia or research organisations (83%).

The contribution of the programme to this objective is assessed positively by a large majority of

respondents, but a comparatively low number of respondents (17%) agree “fully" with this

statement. This is less than the number of respondents who do so for the contribution of the

programme to fostering excellence in science. Also a comparatively large share of respondents

(12%) "don't know" about the Horizon 2020 contribution to this objective..

27

Figure 19 Do you think that Horizon 2020 is helping to boost industrial leadership?



B.3.1.3. Spreading Excellence and Widening Participation

65% of the public consultation respondents agree fully or to a large extent that Horizon

2020 helps spread excellence and widen participation (and 91% agreed at least to some

extent) in research and innovation across Europe. The agreement level is similar for EU15

and EU13 respondents, but respondents from third countries (72%) and associated countries

(67%) are even more positive. The most positive types of stakeholders are SMEs (73% think it

does fully or to large extent) and individuals (63.4%). NGOs are slightly less positive.

28

Figure 20 Do you think that Horizon 2020 is helping to spread excellence and widen

participation?



29

B.3.1.4. Generating Science with and for Society

70% of the public consultation respondents agree fully or to a large extent that Horizon 2020 is

helping to support science with and for society (92% agreed at least to some extent). 3.3% do not

agree at all. The most positive respondents are businesses and research organisations, whereas

the least positive are NGO and public authorities.

In addition, 87% (2310) of the public consultation respondents who were funded by Horizon

2020 cooperated with new partners thanks to Horizon 2020 projects and 11% of them did so in

order to involve potential users of the results.

Figure 21 Do you think that Horizon 2020 is helping to support science with and for

society?



30

B.3.1.5. Generating Science for Policy

87% (3018) of the public consultation respondents agreed, to some extent or more, that

Horizon 2020 helps developing and implementing EU policies, yet a comparatively low

number of respondents (18%) agreed “fully" with this statement, which is less than the number

of respondents who did so for the contribution of the programme to support science with and for

society.

B.3.1.6. Integrating the knowledge triangle of higher education, science, and

education

96% (3279) of the public consultation respondents agree, to some extent or more, that

Horizon 2020 helps building a society and an economy based on knowledge and innovation.

87% (2310) of the respondents who were funded by Horizon 2020 cooperated with new partners

thanks to Horizon 2020 projects, and 1037 of them (45%) declare they have done so to include

specific expertise from another discipline. This result underlines the importance of

interdisciplinary work.

B.3.1.7. Addressing the Major Societal Challenges

The results of the consultation suggest that Horizon 2020’s contribution to addressing the

major societal challenges is assessed more negatively by respondents than its contribution

to the other objectives.

Horizon 2020 scored higher on its contribution to fostering a greater understanding of Europe,

providing solutions and supporting inclusive, innovative and reflective European societies

(Societal Challenge 6), with 79% of respondents agreeing at least to some extent, and on its

capacity to improve the lifelong health and well-being of all (Societal Challenge 1) (78% agree

to some extent, but also 18% think the programme is not helping at all). For all the other

challenges, around 30% of the respondents do not know, which is not surprising given the early

stage of the programme's implementation.

24% of respondents think Horizon 2020 is not helping at all to address the challenge of securing

sufficient supplies of safe, healthy and high quality food and other bio-based products (Societal

Challenge 2). A comparatively lower number of respondents agreed “fully” with the statements

that were provided and more respondents expressed their disagreement.

31

Figure 22 Do you think that Horizon 2020 is helping to address major societal challenges?



B.3.2. Contribution of Horizon 2020 to Growth, Jobs and Investments

60% of the survey respondents agree "fully" or "to large extent" that Horizon 2020 is

supporting jobs, growth and investments (95% of the respondents think so at least to some

extent). Only 1.7% entirely disagreed.

32

Figure 23 Do you think that Horizon 2020 is contributing to the following priorities of the

European Union? Supporting jobs, growth and investment



B.3.3. Contribution of Horizon 2020 to the Europe 2020 Strategy

62% of the survey respondents think that Horizon 2020 is helping fully or to a large extent to

‘implement the Europe 2020 strategy, the EU’s strategy for jobs and smart, sustainable and

inclusive growth’ (90% of the respondents think so at least to some extent). Only 2% do not

share this view at all. In addition, 72% of the respondents think that Horizon 2020 is helping

fully or to a large extent to build a society and an economy based on knowledge and innovation.

For both options, the least positive respondents are umbrella organisations representing research

organisations and NGOs.

33

Figure 24 Do you think that Horizon 2020 is helping to implement the “Europe 2020”

strategy, the EU’s strateagy for jobs and smart, sustainable and inclusive growth?



34

Figure 25 Do you think that Horizon 2020 is helping to build a society and an economy

based on knowledge and innovation?



B.3.4. Contribution of Horizon 2020 to the achievement and functioning of the

European Research Area

75% of the respondents to the stakeholder consultation think that Horizon 2020 is fully or to a

large extent ‘helping to support the development of the European Research Area, a unified area

open to the world, in which scientific knowledge, technology and researchers circulate freely’

(94% think so at least to some extent). Only 2.2% do not share this view at all. The least

positive respondents are umbrella organisations representing businesses and NGOs.

35

Figure 26 Do you think that Horizon 2020 is helping to support the development of the

European Research Area, a unified area open to the world, in which scientific knowledge,

technology and researchers circulate freely?





Agree that Horizon 2020 contributes to achieving the Europe 2020 strategy and the European

Research Area.

Agree that the programme is effective in achieving its own objectives, for instance in

fostering excellent science.

36

Agree to a lesser extent that Horizon 2020 is boosting European industrial leadership,

compared to other objectives.

Agree that the programme is having at least some impacts, but the rates of disagreement

increase when asked about the programme’s contribution to addressing a set of societal

challenges

B.4. Efficiency and use of resources

Satisfaction with the programme is high among respondents: 78% (2732) state that they are very

satisfied or satisfied with the programme. Comparatively, a higher number of NGOs are

dissatisfied with the programme (20%) and a higher number of businesses (25%) are very

satisfied with the programme. EU13 countries express a higher level of dissatisfaction (18%),

while 25% of third-country respondents are very satisfied with the programme. The satisfaction

rate reaches 88% among the participants in Horizon 2020, but decreases to 49% for the

respondents who have not participated in the programme.

Figure 27 Overall are you so far satisfied with Horizon 2020?



B.4.1. Programme's management and use of resources

B.4.1.1. New management modes

For 73% (1927) of the respondents, the support provided by the EC services (including

agencies) during grant preparation and implementation was either “very good” or “good”.

37

Figure 28 Please rate Horizon 2020 implementation aspects for support provided by the EC

services (including agencies) during grant preparation and implementation



The analysis of the open responses also reveals some testimonials of good working relationships

with European Commission project officers. However some of the respondents who described

this relationship underline the delays they experience in receiving answers to their requests from

the project officers, while a few others ask for more personalised support from the agencies.

Additionally, a few respondents specifically comment on "New management modes" in their

open responses to questions on the efficiency and implementation of the programme.

B.4.1.2. Use of resources

89% of respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that an increased budget was needed

for financing research and innovation at EU level.

Figure 29 To what extent do you agree that increased budget for financing research and

innovation at EU level is needed to further maximize the socio-economic impact of the EU

framework programme for research and innovation?



38

For 21% of respondents the frequency of use of a two-stage procedure in evaluating proposals is

“poor” or “very poor”.

Furthermore, in the open comments, some stakeholders call for a more competitive selection

process at the first stage of the two-stage application process. Given the competitiveness of

Horizon 2020 funding, they feel high-quality projects are not being funded, and this could reduce

the number of proposals submitted at second stage and mitigate the risk of “wasting” time in

developing proposals. In this respect, a large number of open comments deal with

oversubscription and the low success rate caused by the high number of (good) proposals given

the limited amount of funding. This is further illustrated by the fact that, out of the 835

respondents who did not participate in Horizon 2020, 194 explain that the main reason is the

success rates that are too low to be worth applying. This item is the most common explanation

for non-participation for respondents who have never applied for Horizon 2020 funding (see

Figure 2).

Figure 30 Please rate the following Horizon 2020 implementation aspects: frequency of use

of 2-stage procedures in evaluating proposals



39

B.4.2. Programme's implementation

B.4.2.1. The impact of simplification and the new funding model

Out of the 835 respondents who did not participate in Horizon 2020, 106 explain that the

main reason is that the Horizon 2020 project implementation rules are cumbersome.

The analysis of open answers confirm this result. While some respondents (participants as well

as non-participants) acknowledge that progress has been made, many mention that further

simplification is needed. Many note that more could be done in terms of simplification, for

instance regarding cost reimbursement and further simplification of the process and acceptance

of organisations’ accounting practices. However, 65% (1732) of the survey respondents to a

closed question note that the acceptance of organisations’ accounting practices in the programme

is “good” or “very good” and 18% (475) view it as “poor” or “very poor”.

Some respondents also note that the rules are different from one call to the other and recommend

more standardisation. Others point to a proliferation of funding and instruments that hamper their

ability to grasp the broader picture and apply for the funding that is most tailored to their needs.

Some additional ideas that were identified during the analysis of the responses to open questions

concern the need to diminish the administrative burden experienced by participants of the

process and to promote more flexibility. For example, by allowing for some adjustments during

the implementation of the projects (e.g. one respondent noted it is not possible to work with a

third party who was not a formal project partner at the project start).

The respondents also elaborate on the imbalance between the need for control and the

importance of trust. Some argue that the European Commission needs to focus on the quality of

project outcomes rather than paperwork, while others propose that past participations in the FPs

or a track record at the national level should be used as a proof that participants can be trusted.

Many comments deal with the high amount of time spent on reporting. Despite these comments,

a majority of respondents find the balance between control and trust of beneficiaries (71.5%,

1894) and the mechanisms for reporting and monitoring (79%, 2091) “good” or “very good”.

B.4.2.2. Mobilisation of stakeholders

This topic was covered through consultation questions that relate to the efficiency, transparency,

clarity and flexibility of the processes to attract participants.

More than 80% of the respondents agree that the time taken to sign a grant agreement and to

evaluate the proposal is either “good” or “very good”. 21% to 22% find that the communication

activities to attract applicants are “poor” or “very poor”. Furthermore, 62% (1647) of the

respondents assess the quality of the feedback from the evaluations as “good” or “very good”,

while 34% (905) judge it is “poor” or “very poor” (which is the highest score reached by the

“poor” and “very poor” categories compared to the other items related to the implementation

aspects of Horizon 2020 on which respondents were asked questions).

40

Figure 31 Please rate the following Horizon 2020 implementation aspects



In their feedback to open questions, many respondents asked for more transparency and an

improved quality in the feedback they received. Some respondents complained that not enough

details were provided, that the quality of the feedback varied greatly from one evaluation panel

to the other, and that discordant views could be provided to the participant. The selection of

experts for proposal reviews was also questioned by a few; with some participants stressing that

expertise in the field was not always available. Some mentioned that evaluations should not only

take place remotely.

B.4.3. Geographical dimension

The geographical dimension was covered in the survey questions that related to the non EU-

countries' and non-associated countries’ participation. The figure below suggests that the

majority of respondents from these countries were rather satisfied with the communication on

Horizon 2020 in their countries, with 69% (42) having “agreed strongly” or “agreed” that

communication activities helped them find out about the programme and that it was easy to find

calls which were relevant to their area (strong agreement or agreement of 62% (38) of the

respondents). 45% (27) felt that it was easy to find calls that encourage the participation of non-

EU and non-associated country partners and 43.4% (26) “disagreed” or “disagreed strongly”

with this statement.

41

Figure 32 If your organisation is established in a non-EU, non-associated country, to what

extent do you agree with the following statements?



In their open comments on the relevance of and the issues at stake for the programme, some

respondents from third countries as well as respondents from EU-countries explicitly referred to

the need to increase the possibility for third countries to take part in Horizon 2020.

B.4.4. Cost-benefit analysis

The consultation’s respondents were asked about the costs of participating in Horizon 2020

compared to previous or other international programmes. The interpretation of the results has to

take into account the high percentage of respondents (over 30%) who declared they could not

respond due to a lack of knowledge of previous or other programmes. This set aside, the results

suggest that slightly more respondents think that the costs of participating in Horizon 2020

compared to FP7 had decreased rather than increased with the simplification measures that have

been implemented by the European Commission. 20% (521) of the respondents shared the view

that the costs of participating in Horizon 2020 are lower than in the previous FP7, 14% (364) felt

they are higher and 36% (950) felt they are similar. A more detailed analysis indicates that

comparatively business have a slightly better opinion of the costs of Horizon 2020 than research

organisations. While 20% of research organisations found the costs of Horizon 2020 higher than

FP7, only 10% of the business did so (and 7% of the SME respondents).

42

Figure 33 Level of costs of participating in Horizon 2020 compared to the 7th

Framework

Programme as a result of the simplification measures



Keeping in mind that a high percentage of respondents (34%) declare they could not respond due

to a lack of knowledge of other programmes, the majority of those who responded assess the

costs of participating in Horizon 2020 as similar to other international research and innovation

programmes (see Figure 33). Going into further detail, 25% of research organisations say that the

costs of Horizon 2020 are higher than for other international programmes, while only 15% of

business (and 14% of the SMEs) do so. More specifically there are slightly more SMEs that,

overall, find that the costs of participating to Horizon 2020 are lower than other similar

international research and innovation programmes (19%) than SMEs judging these costs higher

(17%). 21% of the respondents from associated countries share the view that Horizon 2020 is

more costly than international programmes. Overall, the results seem to suggest that EU13

respondents and newcomers do not feel that the costs are higher compared to other respondents.

They even seem to have a more positive opinion about the costs of the programme (e.g. 18% of

EU15 respondents and only 11% of EU13 respondents find the costs of Horizon 2020 higher

than the costs of other international programmes).

43

Figure 34 Level of costs of participating in Horizon 2020 compared to those of other similar

international research and innovation programmes





Are satisfied with the programme. The support provided by the European Commission is

appreciated, although there is some criticism of the externalisation of grant management to

executive agencies. Some stakeholders reported delays in getting in touch with project

officers and asked for more personalised support and an improvement in the quality of

evaluation feedback.

Agree that an increased budget was needed for financing research and innovation at EU

level.

Assess the cost of participation to be lower than in previous programmes but noted there is

room for further decreasing the costs. Simplification measures are welcomed (processes are

efficient) but the administrative burden is still high for some respondents. Further

simplification (in terms of cost reimbursement for instance) is an area for improvement.

44

Note that there is room for improvement in the standardisation between the different calls

and the information and communication activities to attract applicants (dispersion of

information, lack of explanatory documents).

Prefer a ‘real’ two-stage application processes (in which proposals would be thoroughly

selected at the first stage) to address the oversubscription issue.

B.5. Coherence

B.5.1. Internal coherence within the Framework Programme

B.5.1.1. Coherence between the implemented actions

71% of the respondents agree that combining different forms of support for research and

innovation into one single programme better address stakeholder needs than having

separate programmes.

B.5.1.2. Coherence between Horizon 2020 intervention areas

76% of the respondents agree that the increased use of calls for cross cutting activities and

interdisciplinary is a positive feature in the programme (see Figure 35). 66% find that the

different parts of Horizon 2020 complement each other but only 46% agree that there is more

coherence and synergies in Horizon 2020 than in the FP7 (a large share of stakeholders (44%)

don't know). More academia and research organisations subscribe to these last two statements

than businesses and NGOs.

Figure 35 To what extent do you agree with the following statements regarding the internal

structure of Horizon 2020?



The majority of respondents agree that to increase the socio-economic impact of EU Framework

Programmes for research and innovation, there is a need for more cross-cutting calls (16.8%

disagree), more focus on capacity-building activities for R&I (15% disagree) and increased

coordination/synergy with other programmes (23% disagree). More than 30% of NGOs and

public authorities are in favour of more cross-cutting calls. However only 23% of research

organisations, 22% of academia and 16% of business feel this is needed.

45



innovation?



B.5.2. Coherence with other EU initiatives

The results of the consultation survey are difficult to interpret as most respondents feel they were

unable to answer because of their lack of familiarity with other initiatives, which explains the

high number of respondents having ticked the “I don’t know” box.

B.5.2.1. The European Structural and Investment Funds

Of the respondents who were able to provide an opinion, 15.6% find that Horizon 2020 and the

European Structural and Investment Funds complement each other and 12% judge that they work

in synergy (despite the existence of overlaps for 2.7% of the respondents) (cf. Figure 37).

B.5.2.2. The European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI)

For respondents who were able to provide an opinion, 10.4% find that Horizon 2020 and the

European Fund for Strategic Investments complement each other and 6.7% judge that they work

in synergy (despite the existence of overlaps for 1.8% of the respondents) (see Figure 37 below)..

B.5.2.3. Other EU initiatives

Among other programmes, Erasmus+ is assessed as the most complementary to Horizon 2020

(28% of respondents assess positively the complementarity between the two programmes) and

8% of respondents judge that they work in synergy (despite the existence of overlaps for 2% of

the respondents).

46

Figure 37 The European Commission implements several funding programmes.

How would you describe the linkages between Horizon 2020 and the following

programmes?



Additional comments provided by the respondents suggest that the funding architecture is seen

as too complex and prevents organisations from identifying the calls and instruments that are

best fitted to their needs. Promoting synergies at project level is said to be very difficult and not

always realistic, given the fact that the rules and procedures are not standardised across different

EU funding programmes. Some recommendations include a joint funding of projects by different

instruments or funding of cross-project networking activities.



Agree that combining different forms of support for research and innovation into one single

programme is better for addressing their needs than having separate programmes.

Agree that the programme should increase the use of cross-cutting activities to further

maximize its socio-economic impact.. Respondents also note that the coherence between the

different parts of Horizon 2020 improved compared to the previous Framework Programme.

Indicate that more could be done to simplify the funding landscape and make it easier for

participants to identify the call(s) that best fit their needs.

Lack knowledge of other, complementary funding opportunities at the EU level which

indicates that synergies with other EU programmes could be very limited.

47

B.6. EU added value

For 63% (2176) of the respondents the added value of Horizon 2020 is higher than that of

national and/or regional programmes for research and innovation (see Figure 38 below).

Research organisations and business respondents have the highest rate of agreement (66% and

65% respectively), while the agreement rate is lowest for public authorities (56%) also because

many note that they "don't know".

Figure 38 How do you rate the overall added value of Horizon 2020 compared to national

and/or regional level research and innovation programmes in EU Member States?



Furthermore, out of the 835 respondents who did not participate in Horizon 2020, a rather low

number prefer participating in other regional/ national programme (63 respondents) or in other

European or international programmes (30 respondents).

For respondents, the main added value of participating in Horizon 2020 compared to national

and/or regional research and innovation programmes is cooperation with partners from other

countries, followed by improved international visibility and the financing of the projects that

otherwise would not be supported (see below).

48

Figure 39 What are the main expected benefits of participating in Horizon 2020 compared

to national and/or regional research and innovation programmes in EU Member States?

Number of respondents per option (1-5 answers)



In terms of effectiveness, respondents strongly agree with statements suggesting that Horizon

2020 strengthens the quality and visibility of research in the EU. For 1908 respondents, the

programme contributes to improving international visibility and 1,357 are confident it improves

excellence in research and innovation. In their open comments, respondents also outline the

visibility and reputation they gain from being selected for funding. Horizon 2020 is qualified as a

“prestigious” programme that set high standards for research and innovation in Europe and could

lead to career development or help organisations to attract top researchers.

In terms of efficiency, for 1,076 respondents, the programme strengthens critical mass to address

pan-European challenges. In their open comments, respondents go as far as saying that Horizon

2020 promotes trust between partners and a more coherent and integrated Europe through shared

goals and joint work. 1,574 respondents highlights that it finances projects that otherwise could

not be supported at national or regional level. 788 respondents state that European funding is all

the more important given that the reimbursement of costs is higher than in national / regional

programmes. Within the open responses, some respondents also outline that 100% cost funding

for SMEs is a major incentive to participate (although it should also be noted that a few

comments were against full reimbursement of costs).

In terms of synergy, Horizon 2020 is said to contribute to strengthening interdisciplinary

cooperation (by 1147 respondents) as well as cooperation between academia and the private

sector (873 respondents). Additional comments provided by respondents suggest that the

programme offers opportunities (qualified by some respondents as “unique opportunities”) to

access new partners and new expertise, and to work with the best and internationalise their

activities. It promotes a more integrated vision of the research and innovation system, one that

49

links together academia, business and SMEs. Working with different types of organisations and

across different countries fosters cross-cultural experiences (to the benefit of young researchers

more particularly), thus encouraging the confrontation of different points of views, stimulating

ideas and fostering creativity and the emergence of disruptive ideas.

To provide a further analysis of the programme's added value and additionality, respondents

were asked what would be the impact if EU support to research and innovation (Horizon 2020

and its possible successor) were to be discontinued. According to the basic analysis that was

carried out, very few of the respondents judge that a discontinuation of the framework

programme would only have a limited impact on their organisation and most of the ones who do

are NGOs and public authorities (a few businesses, very few academia organisations). Overall,

the discontinuation of the programme would be judged as “catastrophic”, “devastating” “a

nightmare”, or a significant “drawback”.

Potential negative impacts are numerous and vary based on the dependence of the organisation to

Horizon 2020 funding:

The impacts would be worst for business whose activities are very much dependent on EU

funding, as a programme’s discontinuation would result in a reduction in scope or even in a

discontinuation of research and innovation activities, less or slower product development and

it could reduce business activities and staff (one business even indicates this would mean

moving its research activities outside of the EU and, for another, that it would question its

viability as a business).

For academia and research organisations, it would mean less funding for fundamental,

interdisciplinary, risky and disruptive research, less drive to cooperate and less international

contacts, less exposure to new knowledge and more limited capacity to anticipate new trends,

less learning and exchange of ideas, less ability to carry out high level research and a

withdrawal into national research capacities hence losing the ability to create critical mass at

the European level. It could lead to the disappearance of existing networks since a stable

framework would no longer be available to support joint work. Ultimately, this could be a

drawback for research and innovation in the EU, affecting the ability of Europeans to carry

out top research and to address global challenges, thus resulting in a loss of competitiveness

and international visibility of the EU on the international research and innovation stage.



Judge the added value of Horizon 2020 to be higher than that of national and/or regional

programmes for research and innovation.

Indicate that the cooperation with international partners is a key feature of Horizon 2020’s

added value.

Agree that the additionally of the programme is strong and feel that a possible

discontinuation of the programme would have strong negative impacts, which would extend

far beyond a simple reduction of research and innovation funding for their organisations.

B.7. Areas for future consideration

Stakeholders were asked to choose up to 5 Sustainable Development Goals on which the future

EU framework programmes for research and innovation should focus. Six areas top the list

where each area is selected by more than 1,000 respondents: i) Combat climate change and its

impacts; ii) Healthy living and well-being at all ages; iii) Affordable, reliable, sustainable and

50

modern energy for all; iv) Inclusive and quality education for all and lifelong learning; v)

Inclusive and sustainable economic growth, employment and decent work for all; and vi)

Resilient infrastructure, sustainable industrialisation and innovation.

Figure 40 Please choose up to 5 Sustainable Development Goals on which, in your opinion,

the future EU framework programmes for research and innovation should focus. Number

of respondents per option



Respondents were also asked to state what is for them the most important area/ topic to be

addressed by the EU framework programmes for R&I. The results are broadly in line with the

above findings. The most frequent words quoted are climate change (190 times), health (188

times), society/ societal (139 times) and social (73 times), inclusive (100 times), growth (99

times), education (87 times), and environment (83 times). The topics of safety (69 times) and

security (59 times) also emerge strongly.

51

Figure 41 In your opinion, what is the most important issue/problem/opportunity to be

addressed by the EU framework programmes for research and innovation? Indicate one

area/topic.

Wordle®, Source: Replies to stakeholder consultation questionnaire launched in the framework of the Interim

Evaluation of Horizon 2020, October 2016-January 2017, N=191

B.8. Position Papers

387 position papers were received as part of the stakeholder consultation exercise. After the first

screening and the removal of duplicates and documents that were not addressing the Horizon

2020 programme directly (e.g. promotional material), 296 papers were retained and analysed

internally by the European Commission services.

The analysis followed a qualitative method of approach. Based on a sample of 20 position

papers, a coding frame of 18 broad themes was constructed. Based on the frame, the European

Commission developed a template to ensure a systematic and comparative analysis across the

group of officials reading the papers. Each piece of text of every position paper was then

categorised under one or more of the 18 broad themes. The final analysis per theme and any

emerging sub-themes was conducted by a stakeholder group: academia, research organisations,

public authorities, businesses, NGOs, individuals, international stakeholders (i.e. non-EU

Member States) and others.

More than 7,000 pages were submitted by stakeholders in the form of position papers.

The figure below shows the most common words used in the analysed stakeholders’ input.

52

Figure 42 Most common words used in the analysed stakeholders' input

Source: Position papers, N=296.

The analysed position papers submitted by stakeholders for the Interim Evaluation of Horizon

2020 include:

89 (30%) position papers submitted on behalf of an "umbrella" organisation of EU

interest;

185 (63%) position papers submitted on behalf of a single institution or a company; and

22 (7%) position papers submitted by individuals.

The majority of the position papers were submitted by stakeholders from EU15 countries 68%

(202 position papers), whereas from the EU13 only stakeholders from Poland, Estonia and

Slovenia submitted their position papers (4%, 11 position papers). 9% (27 position papers) were

received from international stakeholders including Norway, Switzerland, Israel, Chile, Turkey,

USA and international organisations.

The representation of the position papers according to the stakeholder group (self-reported) and

country is provided in figure below.

53

Figure 43 Overview of stakeholder groups (left) and countries (right) represented in the

selected 70 position papers

The remainder of the section summarises main views expressed in position papers with the

following structure:

The role of Horizon 2020 in policy priorities;

Design of Horizon 2020;

Implementation of Horizon 2020;

EU added value;

Views or recommendations specific to a future European Innovation Council; and

Overall comments regarding impact, openness (3Os) or excellence.

B.8.1. Role of Horizon 2020 in policy priorities

Horizon 2020 is addressing policy priorities of Europe but there is room to increase programme flexibility.

The majority of stakeholders representing different stakeholder groups commented on the role of

Horizon 2020 in policy priorities. More than half of those who commented depict a positive

view of the contribution of Horizon 2020 to current policy priorities. For instance, stakeholders

note that:

Horizon 2020 is tackling Europe's current challenges by contributing directly to

competitiveness which leads to increased jobs and growth. They wrote that Horizon 2020

is "key", "crucial" and "a step towards" the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy.

A few respondents highlighted the contribution of Horizon 2020 to the realisation of the

European Research Area (ERA) by funding collaborative research, trans-national

infrastructure and mobility.

Businesses that addressed this point specifically highlighted that the (societal) “challenge

driven” research and innovation approach of Horizon 2020 and the fact that the

programme covers the whole innovation chain is crucial for a competitive European

industry.

54

The international stakeholders that addressed this point also mention that Horizon 2020

plays a role that and should be further strengthened in addressing challenges that are of a

global nature (i.e contributing to COP21, the UN Agenda for Sustainable Development).

Similarly a few research organisations noted that there is a potential for Europe to

become a stronger global actor if Europe manages to properly address Sustainable

Development Goals or concentrate its research efforts into few/less priorities.

A few stakeholders also commented on the programme's flexibility and stated that improvements

are needed mainly regarding Horizon 2020's flexibility with respect to changing priorities. One

research organisation noted that the rapid response to emerging areas such as migration, Ebola

and Zika is a good practice example of the flexibility of the programme that could be applied to

other parts of the programme. An NGO suggested parts of the budget could be reserved for such

changing priorities.

B.8.2. Design of Horizon 2020

The current pillar structure improves the clarity of the programme but linkages among the pillars should be enhanced.

Almost half of the stakeholders commented on the current programme structure. Half of those

commenting have a positive view of the three pillar structure. They see it as a pragmatic and

easy way to clarify the goals of different programme priorities.

Others indicated that the coherence and linkages between activities and projects under the three

pillars could be strengthened. In particular, they mentioned a need for better links between the

excellent research supported under Pillar 1 and topics in Pillars 2 and 3. To enhance such

linkages, one representative of academia, for instance, suggested to extend the principle of ERC

proof of concept grants across the entire programme. It was suggested that cross-pillar

innovation should be enabled and ensured by the Work Programmes by, for example, giving a

preferential score for proposals that build on previous project results.

Grants should remain the primary funding instrument of Horizon 2020. Funding should not divert to loan based financing under the EFSI.

A few stakeholders including those representing academia, research organisations, public

authorities, international stakeholders as well as businesses, explicitly stated that grants should

remain the primary funding instruments under Horizon 2020. In their opinion:

Horizon 2020 funding should not be used for loans under the EFSI;

Not all R&D is viable on a short to medium term despite high potential for long term

impacts. Grants are the most suitable government support instruments for risky cutting

edge programmes with long term pay back. For instance an industry representative noted

that manufacturing companies participate in Horizon 2020 because of their desire to share

this risk; and

Research entities such as academia and research organisations are legally not allowed to

take loans.

55

The programme is complex and there is a need to streamline. Several instruments under Horizon 2020 work particularly well such as the ERC and MSCA grants. Some new instruments could be further improved.

A few stakeholders expressed their concerns about the complexity of the Framework

Programme. They believe that the policy mix of the overall programme should be simplified: the

number of instruments should be limited, their intervention logic clearly defined, and

complementary/synergies with other instruments well stated.

Public authorities that commented on the instruments mainly noted that the collaborative projects

and grants were preferred over other types of projects and loans. Some of them had a positive

view specifically of instruments bringing together states and regions such as the public-public

partnerships, cofund schemes and ERANETs, INNOSUP and MSCA.

Some stakeholders from academia and research organisations also depict a very positive view of

the current set of instruments fostering excellent science in particular the ERC and MSCA

grants. For instance, a representative from academia wrote that "the ERC is the single most

successful EU research funding instrument ever" due to reputational effects and the recognition

of bottom-up science.

Furthermore some representatives of the business community specifically commented on the

Joint Technology Initiatives (JTIs), Joint Undertaking (JUs) and the contractual Public Private

Partnerships (cPPPs). They noted that Horizon 2020 provides a ring-fenced budget to PPPs, JTIs

and other industry initiatives which is in particular beneficial for the industries that are

represented by, or are a member of, such initiatives. Besides giving access to a reserved budget,

these initiatives also enable the respective industries to be closely involved in the definition of

the research and innovation priorities of the initiative through the drafting of the Strategic

Research Agenda and in the definition of the call topics. The initiatives are seen as promising

tools to increase the introduction of a R&D&I application in real markets. Other benefits

mentioned are the fruitful collaboration possibilities between the different players in the

respective industries (bringing together both SMEs and large companies) and the creation of

scientific networks amongst them.

In addition, some SME and business representatives commented on and welcomed the inclusion

of innovation activities in Horizon 2020. They see the introduction of the SME Instrument as a

good opportunity for high-innovative and market ready SMEs. However, one research

organization noted that the SME instrument should be opened up to allow for collaboration with

universities.

A few international stakeholders included comments and suggestions regarding the financial

instruments, on average being relatively critical and requesting improvements.

Finally, a small number of stakeholders discussed the Seal of Excellence (SoE) initiative4. A few

stakeholders praised the initiative, whereas others pinpointed the need to review its effectiveness.

NCPs in particularly highlighted that the SoE is difficult to put into practice. One of the major

obstacles is the state-aid rules and the different funding principles within the Member States.

4 This quality label is awarded to project proposals which were submitted for funding under Horizon 2020 and have passed

stringent selection award criteria but could not be funded due to budget constraints. As such the SoE aims to highlight proposals

which deserve funding from alternative sources such as public, private, national, regional, European or international.

56

Horizon 2020 needs to ensure a good balance between research and innovation support (in Technology Readiness Levels). Concerns are voiced over the perceived increase in the funding of higher TRL levels to the detriment of collaborative lower TRL research.

Almost half of the stakeholders commented on the balance between research and innovation

support. The majority of those who commented stated that the programme needs to ensure a

good balance between research and innovation. By stakeholder group, the majority of

stakeholders from academia, research organisations and public authorities, indicated that

currently Horizon 2020 seems to be moving away from funding basic, collaborative and frontier

research. They believe there is a need to close the gap in funding lower technology readiness

levels (TRL) to create the ground breaking technological foundation for innovation. Only

business representatives are positive about the shift towards innovation that took place under

Horizon 2020. But still, a few pointed to the current lack of projects at the level of TRLs 3 to 5

under Horizon 2020.

Research organisations that commented on these issues were critical about the emphasis on

higher TRLs and the ‘unbalanced’ relation between basic and applied research funding. They

urge the European Commission to keep the number of calls and budget allocated to basic

research at the current level. Similarly, academic stakeholders unanimously denounced a shift

towards innovation that they do not see as justified for two main reasons: higher TRL research is

funded by companies and relies on other forms of finance; and public research grants and

funding for 'high TRL' research will result in less disruptive, radical innovation.

More than half of the public authorities commented on the TRL levels. Of those who commented

half noted that more support should be given to lower TRLs. Only one Swedish region advocated

strongly for higher TRLs e.g. for close-to-market activities.

There is also a clear message from international stakeholders that expressed an opinion that the

inclusion of innovation activities in Horizon 2020 (as opposed to the previous Competitiveness

and Innovation Programme, which ran from 2007 to 2013 in parallel to FP7) is in the right

direction but that it should not be done at the expense of funding for basic research. Therefore, it

is requested that the focus be on lower TRL levels, closer to basic research.

Half of the business respondents that expressed a view are positive about the shift towards more

innovation funding that took place under Horizon 2020. Still, a few business respondents pointed

out the current lack of TRL 3-5 projects under Horizon 2020.

Social science and humanities (SSH) need to be better integrated in the programme design.

Some stakeholders representing different types of organisations mentioned that social science

and humanities (SSH) are currently not adequately integrated into the programme specifically in

Pillar 2 and 3. Some stakeholders stressed that the SSH have an equal capacity to solve the

challenges of society today as the natural sciences. In their opinion, the SSH need to be better

integrated into the design of work programmes, into the description of calls and into project

evaluation (i.e. ensure at least one evaluator has an SSH expertise). None of the position papers

submitted by businesses addressed this issue.

57

The transnational and multi-sectorial approach for excellent research and innovation is working well.

Some stakeholders including academia, research organisations, public authorities and NGOs

commented on the transnational and multi-sector collaborative approach for excellent research

and innovation and perceive it as an "attractive" and "successful" method and "the backbone" of

Horizon 2020.

A few research organisations that commented on collaborative approaches depict a positive

view. For some of them, the links between natural sciences and the human and social sciences

seem to be very important. Others highlighted the benefits of research involvement in, for

instance, risk detection and development and validation of standards. Similarly, a few public

authorities that commented on the interdisciplinary approach in Horizon 2020 noted that it is

welcomed and should be continued, even in the case where some participants (e.g. SMEs) may

need help to deal with such an approach. Almost half of the NGOs appreciate the integration of

the collaboration and several positions from academia remarked on the benefits of collaborative

research.

Very few representatives from the business community commented on the topic of collaboration

and their opinions differ. On the one hand a few business representatives expressed a positive

opinion and the need for collaborative and interdisciplinary projects to bring solutions to societal

challenges. On the other hand, few suggested that these large collaborative projects need new

tools to manage and to safeguard relationships between partners that are created.

Furthermore, a few international stakeholders mention that the streamlining of international

cooperation in Horizon 2020 is not effective and that the participation of third countries in the

programme should be enforced.

Stakeholders have different opinions on the degree and appropriateness of their involvement in the design of Horizon 2020.

Some stakeholders commented on the degree of their involvement in the design of Horizon 2020

and its activities, but their opinions differ:

Of those commenting, some stakeholders representing different types of stakeholder groups have

a positive view on the current level of involvement and see the agenda-setting process as

contributing to a comprehensive and widely-supported programme;

Several others, however, noted that the current design of the Work Programmes is not

transparent and that processes vary in different parts of the programme. In general, organisations

found the involvement of stakeholders from their particular field to be lacking. For instance,

among others, the following issues were highlighted:

Inadequate coordination with the Member States specifically mentioned by Germany and France

but also from stakeholders in academia;

Estonia as well as one SME noted that larger players seem to have more influence on the

research programme and the call topics; and

58

A few stakeholders that commented on this issue from industry and the business community

noted they are not well represented in the Horizon 2020 projects, working groups, advisory

groups and committees (below 20%).

B.8.3. Implementation of Horizon 2020

Oversubscription is one of the most commonly quoted issues of Horizon 2020.

The majority of stakeholders touch upon the issue of oversubscription in Horizon 2020. In

general they consider that oversubscription discourages participation, reduces the quality of

evaluations, 'wastes' too many resources and leaves a number of high quality proposals

unfunded.

Stakeholders proposed a variety of solutions on how to reduce oversubscription rates:

Increase budget specially for the bottom-up calls to better meet the demand;

Reduce scope of calls;

Improve and expand the two-stage proposal procedure with the success rates at the

second stage reaching 30% to 50%. Increase the time between the first and the second

step so that proposers receive negative feedback before preparing their submission to the

second step. Make the first step lighter. Evaluators between the two stages should remain

the same to ensure continuity and coherence in the evaluation process. A few respondents

noted that the current introduction of a two-stage proposal procedure to manage

oversubscription in certain calls is welcomed, but that the process is not selective enough

in the first stage.

The quality of current evaluation process of Horizon 2020 calls should improve.

Some stakeholders from academia, research organisations as well as public authorities and

business commented on the evaluation process and noted that the quality of the current process

should be improved. A variety of issues was highlighted, in particular:

The Evaluation Summary Reports are reportedly too short and provide generic and not

tailored feedback. In particular, applicants would like to receive better feedback in

between steps in two-stage procedures. Some stakeholders suggested that a lack of

feedback partially caused the oversubscription issue of the programme.

A few business representatives further noted that the selection rules of expert panels

should be clarified and made transparent.

Excellence should remain the main driver of Horizon 2020 and subsequent programmes.

Some stakeholders representing different stakeholder groups underlined that excellence should

remain the highest priority and the driving principle of Horizon 2020.

59

Widening participation is crucial, but should not come at expense of excellence.

Some stakeholders representing different stakeholder groups commented on the need for a more

balanced participation of different stakeholders in the Horizon 2020 programme and in general

welcomed the "Spreading excellence and widening participation" activities of the programme.

Most commonly, stakeholders mentioned low participation rates of EU-13 countries due to their

lower research and innovation capacities. However, there seems to be an agreement that this

issue should not be addressed by changing the nature of the current research funding which is

based on excellence. Some other solutions were proposed such as:

Greater use of European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) for capacity building in

research and innovation or for financial incentives to catch up with research systems;

Follow-up and opening of the twinning and teaming mechanisms;

Introduction of a milestone prize mechanism;

Extension of the ERA Chairs to early stage researchers; and

Introduction of a bottom-up networking instrument for experienced researchers across

Europe.

Furthermore, a few representatives of research organisations and public authorities noted

that more could be done to attract SMEs and newcomers to the programme.

In addition, almost all business respondents stating their opinion on the topic of participation

believe that industry is under-represented in Horizon 2020 projects, although they see their

participation as essential for turning ideas into value in the market. Furthermore, they noted that

among the top-100 beneficiaries of Horizon 2020 funding, few are from the private sector.

Sharp decline in the participation of international partner countries is worrying.

A few organisations from different stakeholder groups are worried about the observed drop in

international partners' participation in Horizon 2020 and noted the issue should be addressed

strategically.

Some recommended that rules for participation and the regulatory framework should be

simplified, for instance through a standard contract with global acceptance and guarantee of IP

rights. Others noted that the programme should introduce topics that explicitly flag international

collaboration, have a ring-fenced budget or a separate pillar for international collaboration.

In a White Paper5 submitted to the public consultation, the USA offered some lessons learnt to

facilitate international cooperation, based on their own experience. For instance, they note that

the programme should further reduce the procedural burden and administrative and bureaucratic

requirements for participants, permit a greater range of options for governing law and choice of

5 United States Feedback on Horizon 2020 and Suggestions for Framework Programme 9, January 19 2017

60

courts in agreements, limit liability for third parties and allow for secondary recipients of funds

to negotiate the terms of their cooperation directly with their European partners.

Information exchange between National Contact Points (NCPs) and the European Commission could improve.

A few stakeholders representing different stakeholder groups noted that information exchange

processes between National Contact Points (NCPs)6 and the European Commission should be

strengthened.

According to a few representatives of research organisation, the current quality of NCP services

differs. One business representative noted that NCPs need to be better briefed to avoid the

submission of irrelevant proposals. This view was also shared by a representative from academia

who noted that the quality of communication varies depending on the thematic programme and

the Commission Directorate-General. One NCP network made the same observation in its

position paper and added that some struggle to get adequate and timely programme information,

specifically in relation to externalised programmes such as JTIs.

There needs to be a balance between small, medium and large projects.

Some stakeholders commented on the current project size in Horizon 2020. The majority of

those commenting noted that a better balance between small, medium and large projects should

be achieved within the programme. However, stakeholders do not seem to agree on what such a

balance should look like. For instance, it was noted that the effectiveness of very large size

consortia in some projects should be reviewed. At the same time, a few stakeholders noted that

larger projects are more efficient. A few others stated that smaller projects allow for higher

participation of SMEs and newcomers into the programme and can be as effective as large

projects.

Simplification is welcomed but further steps are needed.

Some stakeholders that commented on the simplification measures under Horizon 2020 have a

positive view. In particular, they see the Research Participant Portal and shorter time to grant as

important improvements.

However, they also noted that further simplification efforts are needed for instance related to

preparation and submission of proposals, reimbursement rules, cost declarations and recognition

of nationally accepted and audited accounting practices.

B.8.4. EU added value

Horizon 2020 brings an EU added value.

Many different types of stakeholders make comments reflecting the EU added value and the

majority of the views depict that Horizon 2020 brings an EU added value through:

6 The network of National Contact Points is the main structure to provide guidance, practical information and assistance on all

aspects of participation in Horizon 2020.

61

Collaborative cross-sectorial, interdisciplinary and international projects and associated

networking effects;

Faster and large scale implementation which is not possible on national or bilateral level;

and

Scientific excellence.

Business respondents specifically mentioned the following areas of EU added value:

Opportunity to leverage financial investment;

Opportunities for SMEs to globalize through their cooperation with large companies; and

Access to international/ European supply chain.

B.8.5. EIC specific views or recommendations

The current approach to building up the EIC seems to address the key challenges in innovation support to SMEs.

Some stakeholders from different types of organisations except the NGOs, expressed specific

views related to a future European Innovation Council (EIC), an initiative in the making that

could encourage breakthrough, market-creating innovation that helps European start-ups grow

into world-beating companies.

The majority of those who commented support for the current approach to build up the EIC. In

particular, they highlighted:

An EIC will seem to address the key challenges in innovation support to the best SMEs:

bottom-up calls, market creating innovations, face-to-face interviews, access to

mentoring and coaching and access to scale-up money;

A few representatives of the business community noted that the industry should be in the

steering board of the EIC to integrate the market and industry vision in the selection of

start-ups and to facilitate their future partnership with the manufacturing industry;

The financial allocation for the EIC should not be detrimental for fundamental research

and it should not come from Horizon 2020;

Both stakeholders from business community and research organisations noted that the

EIC should not contribute to a rigorous split between research and innovation.

Collaboration among different stakeholders should be encouraged;

The EIC could function as a 'trademark' similar to the European Research Council; and

Coherence and complementarity of the EIC with the existing instruments needs to be

ensured.

62

B.8.6. Other comments

More sophisticated measures are needed to monitor impact.

Some stakeholders from different types of organisations commented on the monitoring system

and, for the most part, noted that it needs to improve. Most of those commenting believe the

current interpretation of programme impact is narrow and too short-term focused and a more

"sophisticated" approach should be adopted. Some other stakeholders call for better monitoring

of downstream impacts.

A few NGOs in particular stressed a need for better measurement of impact. Similarly, one

public authority stressed that the interpretation of impact specifically related to societal

challenges should be broader in scope to account for a wide range of effects including social,

economic, environmental and cultural.

One business respondent stated that Horizon 2020 and the future Framework Programme should

be at the forefront of practice in monitoring, evaluation and impact assessment.

Views on the Open Data initiative diverge.

Some stakeholders commented on the Open Data initiative, on which views diverge:

Some stakeholders in particular NGOs, research organisations and academia welcome the

Open Data initiative and call for greater transparency and open access;

Yet others including representatives of businesses and industry, but also academia,

underline that the new emerging 3Os policy (Open Science, Open Innovation, Open to

the World) will need to be flexible to allow industry participation rather than being a

disincentive. In particular, open access should not apply by default to research data from

private-sector research, nor from public-sector research performed in collaboration with

industry.

63

C. METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED

C.1. Main data sources

Contrary to the ex-post evaluation of FP7, the predecessor Programme, the interim evaluation of

Horizon 2020 has not been carried out by one external expert group, but has been coordinated by

the Evaluation Unit of the Commission's Directorate-General for Research & Innovation, with

the support of a Working Group drawn from the services of the R&I family DGs and an Inter-

Service Group also comprising other Commission services. The interim evaluation of Horizon

2020 started in 2016 and has been guided by Terms of Reference adopted by the Commission

after a vote by the Member States’ Programme Committee7.

It has been based on the following data sources:

Monitoring reports of Horizon 2020 and statistical data mainly from the Commission’s

internal IT Tools as well as Eurostat/OECD data;

Extensive analysis carried out by the responsible Commission services on specific

objectives of Horizon 2020 (‘thematic assessments’), cross-cutting issues, the Horizon

2020 funding model and various Horizon 2020 instruments/actions (Article 185/187

initiatives, Fast Track to Innovation, SME Instrument EIT). Most internal assessments

benefitted from the support from external expert groups/studies as well as dedicated

surveys of beneficiaries;

External horizontal studies covering the entire Horizon 2020 programme on publications

and networking (‘Elsevier study’) based on Scopus data, EU Added Value (‘PPMI

study’) which included a detailed counterfactual analysis and macro-economic modelling

and work of a Methodologies Expert Group on relevance and impact using text- and data

mining tools;

Data from other EU Institutions such as the Conclusions on the Interim Evaluation of the

Council, work of the ITRE committee of the European Parliament, relevant Court of

Auditors’ reports and reports/evaluations of the European Economic and Social

Committee.

Input from various stakeholder consultations was used to triangulate the findings, in particular

the NCP surveys launched in the context of the Horizon 2020 Annual Monitoring reports, the

simplification survey, the Call for Ideas on the European Innovation Council and the stakeholder

consultation on the Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020 to which more than 3,500 stakeholders

replied and the input received through more than 300 stakeholder position papers.8

While detailed descriptions of the models and methods used in the external assessments on

which the interim evaluation draws upon are available in each respective external study or report

and, in the case of internal assessments, in dedicated sections of this Annex, below is a short

overview.

7 C(2016)5546. 8 A full analysis of the stakeholder consultation (both the questionnaire and the position papers) is provided in Annex – Part B.

The SWD summarised key stakeholder input to dedicated topics. Input received from stakeholders in position papers is

highlighted in blue boxes throughout the SWD.

64

C.2. Overall limitations of the interim evaluation

The main limitation of this interim evaluation concerns its timing: it is taking place only three

years after the beginning of Horizon 2020, when most projects have only just started. It is too

early to present a complete picture of results and impacts. Whereas for most innovation

instruments some effects may be expected in a five-year period, such as an increase in private

investment, this period is too short for wider impacts to emerge. Some lower risk actions have

many incremental and short term effects – easier to capture and to report on - whereas long term

or high risk actions (such as fundamental research) might bear more radical effects in the longer

term (e.g. 20-30 years) and have effects more difficult to capture through usual indicator systems

(e.g. the general advancement of knowledge).

Limitations include limitations on data availability and measurability of outcomes (for example,

most Horizon 2020 indicators focus on input/results but not on impact; in particular the

indicators to track progress on the societal challenges are not challenge specific, i.e. they relate

to classical outputs from R&I projects - publications, patents, prototypes - but not to their

impacts on e.g. decreasing CO2 emissions, improving health of citizen, or their security),

aggregation (for example most indicators are collected for specific programme parts only and not

for the whole programme and monitoring data covering the entire programme comes from

various data sources, which are difficult to aggregate) and reliability of certain monitoring data

(for example data on patents and publications are based on self-reporting by project coordinators;

data on the cross-cutting issues gender and social sciences and humanities is based on flagging

by project officers). It has not always been possible to validate findings from external

studies/expert groups, for example through a peer-review of macro-econometric modelling

results.

Another limitation is the lack of benchmarks to compare performance. Worldwide there is no

programme similar to Horizon 2020 in terms of size, thematic coverage and depth: the EU

Framework Programmes are rather unique in their form, covering R&I aspects from fundamental

research to close-to-market innovation, from programmed topics in specific thematic areas to

fully bottom-up blue-sky science. Also, the R&I performance of countries is influenced by many

other factors than Horizon 2020 only. The performance of Horizon 2020 should thus be seen in

the context of its role in the wider R&I support system in particular as regards its positioning

against (and impact on) the national and regional policy initiatives.

As regards the stakeholder consultation, the views represented by the respondents are not

random and representative of the EU population due to self-selection bias. In addition, whereas

qualitative data and analysis enabled a deeper look into the areas of the consultation, the methods

are very prone to bias. An attempt was made to minimise such bias with the use of a word cloud

function and a coding frame.

To overcome/mitigate these limitations, the interim evaluation is transparent in indicating its data

sources and all underlying data sources are made publicly available. The analysis of the evidence

by Commission services has allowed identifying data availability/quality problems that could

already be overcome over the course of the evaluation. Conclusions are drawn based on the

systematic triangulation of evidence from various data sources. All evaluation results have been

systematically checked against input from stakeholders. Whenever possible (i.e. in the case of

the analysis of participation patterns), FP7 was used as a benchmark.

65

C.3. Monitoring data

The Horizon 2020 Interim Evaluation focuses on the implementation of Horizon 2020 from 1

January 2014 to 1 January 2017. It follows the approach of reporting as implemented in the

Annual Monitoring Reports9. The included data is based on data collected directly from the

Common Research Data Warehouse (CORDA) Portal, using Commission's internal reporting

tools provided by the Common Support Centre in the Directorate-General for Research and

Innovation (DG RTD).

The scope of the Staff Working Document includes all calls with a closure deadline on and

grants signed by 1 January 2017. It includes grants to named beneficiaries under Horizon 2020

(and under Euratom, unless specifically stated). The overall report includes 1-stage calls and

second stage in 2-stage calls, producing results aggregated at programme's part level. It includes

calls from the Work Programmes of the Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs, Joint Undertakings),

while data on Public-Public Partnership (P2Ps) is collected separately but excluded from the

overall calculation. Special analysis has been made on 1 stage of 2-stage proposals. Calls from

the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI2) Joint Undertaking are not accounted for because IMI2

is not currently integrated in the CORDA database, while three calls from Clean Sky 2 (CS2)

Joint Undertaking are excluded since full integration to CORDA is to be finally implemented:

nonetheless, available figures regarding the implementation of IMI2 and CS2 are provided in a

dedicated annex on Funding for PPPs and P2Ps.

The horizontal analysis in the Staff Working Document does not include data on European

Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT)'s Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs),

however statistics on the EIT are presented separately in Section K of this annex, but excluded

from the overall calculation. Direct actions from the Joint Research Centre are also excluded.

Calls belonging to the Research Fund for Coal and Steel do not belong to Horizon 2020,

therefore are outside the scope of this Staff Working Document. Regarding some specific types

of action, the Framework Partnership Agreements (FPA) are excluded because there are no

grants associated to them, while prizes are reported separately where appropriate.

The statistics on applications and proposals excludes 2,063 non-eligible proposals (ex.

duplicates, withdrawals, inadmissible, etc.), which represent 2% of the total number of proposals

submitted, while statistics on participations and projects are also based on grants agreements

signed before 1 January 2017. Calculations regarding participants are limited to beneficiaries

who are signatories to the grant agreement, thus being real consortia members. Other categories

of participants, such as "Third Parties", "Partner Organisations" or others do not receive funding

directly from the EU, but indirectly from the beneficiaries, and are not computed in the

horizontal analysis.

Differences in reimbursement of indirect costs under Horizon 2020 imply, that beneficiaries no

longer report the real indirect project costs (i.e. under Horizon 2020 indirect costs are calculated

automatically as a share of direct costs). As a result, the reported total project cost to the

Commission under the Horizon 2020 programme is lower than the actual total project cost. To

allow a comparison of co-funding rates between Horizon 2020 and FP7 at programme level, the

indirect costs in Horizon 2020 were estimated for all beneficiaries of Research and Innovation

9 Annual Monitoring Reports 2014 and 2015: https://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/index_en.cfm?pg=monitoring

https://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/index_en.cfm?pg=monitoring

66

Actions (RIA) and Innovation Actions (IA) on the basis of the ratio between the real indirect and

direct costs for participants in FP7 collaborative projects10

.

The interim evaluation of Horizon 2020 includes statistics related to outputs of funded projects,

in particular publications, patent applications and patent awarded. It should be noted that output

data is collected through the continuous project reporting made by beneficiaries under their own

responsibility. At this early stage of data reporting, no systematic data quality check has been

performed by the Commission services, hence data on publications and patents is solely based on

self-declarations of project coordinators.

C.4. The economic impact and the European added value of the programme

Several of the quantifications of European Added Value in this interim evaluation are drawn

from a study11

that performed a counterfactual analysis (based on a regression discontinuity and

propensity matching) of FP7 top-scoring applicants who happened to be just above and below

the funding threshold. This FP7 evidence is corroborated in the study with a survey of a sample

of Horizon 2020 beneficiaries (for which not enough time has elapsed to carry out the same

analysis) and several in-depth case studies of European Added Value.

Within the same study, macro-econometric simulations based on the NEMESIS12

model were

used to assess the economic impact of the Framework Programmes. The simulations estimated

the contribution of FP7 and Horizon 2020 to growth and jobs on the basis of the difference

between the EU economic performance with and without the implementation of the Framework

Programmes. In the context of this study, the reference scenario was based on the assumption

that, at the end of the respective predecessor programme, FP7 and Horizon 2020 would have not

existed. The reference scenario is based on the extrapolation of past trends and different forecasts

at medium and long term, notably the EPC/DG ECFIN Ageing Report.13

It should be recalled that a similar assessment was done in the context of the ex-ante Impact

Assessment of Horizon 202014

, in which four options were analysed reflecting different

situations: business as usual (mainly continuing FP7), Horizon 2020 (more focused, innovation

oriented programme), renationalisation (lower MS contribution to EU budget, increased MS R&I

budget) and Framework Programme discontinuation (gradual decrease in total GBAORD). The

later was assimilated to the cost of non-Europe. The main differences between scenarios were the

amount and evolution of the European contribution through the Framework programme (EC

contribution), national investments in R&I, type of research (basic, applied), sectoral allocation

of funding, crowding-in and multipliers for national and EU R&I funding as well as spill-overs

(intersectoral, international). The coefficients used in the scenarios were based either on

academic literature or on deductions and analogies reflecting the implementation logic and

programme structure.

The key parameters of the simulations are the following:

10 The methodology identifies a coefficient (funding intensity) for each type of organisations (distinguishing SMEs and large

entities) calculated as the real indirect cost/direct cost (IC/DC) ratio for FP7 collaborative projects. The coefficient is then applied

to the equivalent types of organisations in Horizon 2020 RIA and IA projects and multiplied to their direct cost. 11 PPMI, “Assessment of the Union Added Value and the Economic Impact of the EU Framework Programmes (FP7, Horizon

2020)”, forthcoming 12 http://www.erasme-team.eu/modele-economique-econometrie-nemesis-vp14.html 13 http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/european_economy/2014/pdf/ee8_en.pdf 14http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/pdf/proposals/horizon_2020_impact_assessment_report.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=no

ne

http://www.erasme-team.eu/modele-economique-econometrie-nemesis-vp14.html

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/european_economy/2014/pdf/ee8_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/pdf/proposals/horizon_2020_impact_assessment_report.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none

http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/pdf/proposals/horizon_2020_impact_assessment_report.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none

67

Reference scenario: in the ex-ante Impact Assessment, the business as usual scenario was

used as benchmark for the comparisons, while for the Interim Evaluation the reference

scenario is based on the discontinuation of the Framework Programme.

Actual allocation by country: while in the ex-ante Impact Assessment, the EC

contribution to Member States was based on projections of FP7 data, in the Interim

Evaluation the analysis was based on a real allocation of Horizon 2020 funds during the

first years of Horizon 2020 (grants signed by 1 August 2016) and then projected for the

remaining years of Horizon 2020 implementation.

Crowding in factors: while it is not possible to identify the real indirect leverage of the

programme (i.e. the additional venture capital or public/private investments that project

results are able to attract), this is estimated on the basis of the assumption that the

elasticity of R&D intensity is constant with respect to the output of the sector. Therefore,

it is a function of the direct crowding-in coefficients: they were calculated as the

contribution by the type of actor to the total costs of the projects. Different estimates

were established for basic (mainly pillar 1) and applied research (pillars 2 and 3) as well

as for private and non-private beneficiaries. Different values for crowding-in factors were

used in the sensitivity analysis: in the pessimistic scenario, the crowding-in factor was

calculated on the basis of Corda data and it resulted in EUR 0.16 per each EUR of EU

contribution; in the optimistic scenario, the crowding-in was estimated on the basis of a

methodology to calculate real indirect project costs, which beneficiaries no longer report

in Horizon 2020 and it resulted in EUR 0.40 per each EUR of EU contribution.

Multipliers: for the study, a standard assumption used is that the European Framework

Programmes are 15% more efficient than national research activities. This value was

reinforced by a counter-factual analysis, which found that this figure is relatively

conservative considering the European Added Value of Framework Programmes. A

sensitivity analysis was carried out with the assumptions that the EU economic

performance is equivalent (0%) or higher (21%) compared to that of national research

activities: the economic impacts vary within the range of about 10% to 12%.

Sectoral allocation of funds: given that in Horizon 2020, data regarding NACE codes are

not systematically collected at participant level, the sectoral allocation (which is

important to establish how the EU funds are distributed at sectoral level in the Member

States) is based on FP7 Corda data (grandfathering principle). These data correlate well

with the Eurostat BERD (2014) sectoral allocation, therefore the FP7 sectoral allocation

can be considered still relevant.

C.5. Analysis of participation and publication networks, including

interdisciplinarity

Collaboration patterns were explored using two different approaches: through the analysis of

projects’ participation networks and through the analysis of publications from projects funded

through the Framework Programme.

The analysis of projects’ participation networks at institution type, sector or country level is

based on projects’ participations as of 1 January 2017. The networks have been mapeed using

68

the Tool for Innovation Monitoring run by the Joint Research Centre15

, an interface tool for

collaboration mapping, which is, based on data from EU Open Data Portal16

.

As regards the analysis of interdisciplinarity scientific publications, an external study17

analysed

the EU-funded publication output of both FP7 and Horizon 2020 through a citation-based

analysis. The basic principle of this approach is that an article is going to be interdisciplinary if it

cites papers that are 'far away' from each other in terms of the similarity of the journals they

appear in (based on how often those journals are cited together in a certain period). On the other

hand, if it cites papers in journals that are cited together very frequently, it is likely to be a mono-

disciplinary article. By thus focusing on the outcomes of research (i.e. journal publications and

citations), this approach does not take into consideration the underlying processes of knowledge

integration in cross-disciplinary research (research teams whose members have a variety of

disciplinary backgrounds). It also takes into consideration that the research landscape is

dynamic: what is considered interdisciplinary today may be disciplinary tomorrow.

Indicators used for this analysis are:

Institutional, national and international collaboration: all authors are from the same

institution (Institutional collaboration), authors are affiliated with at least two institutions

within a country (National collaboration), at least one author is from an institution outside of

the country (International collaboration), single-authored publications are used as a

benchmark. The indicators include for each type of collaboration: Absolute numbers, Share

relative to country/institution’s output and growth expressed by CAGR (Compound Annual

Growth Rate).

Inter-geographical dimension collaboration: international collaboration counts between

members of the geographical dimension.

Collaboration networks: the more intensive the collaboration, the more closely the two

countries/institutions are plotted to each other on a collaboration network map.

Interdisciplinary research publications: interdisciplinary research output as measured by

volume of publications (i.e. articles, reviews and conference proceedings). This indicator

includes: absolute numbers of interdisciplinary research output; interdisciplinary research

output growth per year as compound annual growth rate (used to identify the trend in the

volume of interdisciplinary research publications).

Field Weighted Citation Impact18

(FWCI) of interdisciplinary research publications: this

is a widely recognized proxy for research quality which normalizes the citations received

using the world benchmark of citations received in the same subject area, by publications

15 http://test.technologymonitoring.eu/TimCordis/main.jsp 16 https://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/data/dataset/cordisHorizon 2020projects 17 Elsevier, Study on overall output of select geographical group comparators and related FP7- and Horizon 2020-funded

publication output, forthcoming 18 Field-weighted citation impact (FWCI) is an indicator of mean citation impact, and compares the actual number of citations

received by an article with the expected number of citations for articles of the same document type (article, review or conference

proceeding paper), publication year and subject field. When an article is classified in two or more subject fields, the harmonic

mean of the actual and expected citation rates is used. The indicator is therefore always defined with reference to a global

baseline of 1.0 and intrinsically accounts for differences in citation accrual over time, differences in citation rates for different

document types (reviews typically attract more citations than research articles, for example) as well as subject-specific

differences in citation frequencies overall and over time and document types. It is one of the most sophisticated indicators in the

modern bibliometric toolkit.

http://test.technologymonitoring.eu/TimCordis/main.jsp

https://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/data/dataset/cordisH2020projects

69

published in the same year and with the same document type (e.g., articles, reviews and

conference proceedings). The indicators include for each type of collaboration: Absolute

numbers Share relative to country/institution’s output growth expressed by compound annual

growth rate.

C.6. Stakeholder consultation

The stakeholder consultation on the interim evaluation of Horizon 2020 was based on an online

questionnaire and the submission of position papers.

The online questionnaire included 25 questions and several sub-questions. The majority of the

questions were of a closed type, but there were also 8 open questions where the respondents had

an opportunity to elaborate on their views. In total the Commission received 3,483 responses to

the questionnaire. Basic analysis of closed questions was performed by stakeholder groups to

explore differences in opinion between different stakeholders. The affiliations of respondents

(e.g. SME, academia, public authority) are self-reported, and were not verified. The analysis of

the open questions followed a qualitative method of approach. The questions were analysed

either with the use of basic qualitative analysis (i.e. grouping respondents into broad stakeholder

groups and reading the responses to get an overview of the key themes) or with the use of word

cloud function (the function is used to indicate the most frequently used words in the qualitative

responses and present the results graphically).

In addition to the online questionnaire, 386 position papers were received as part of the

stakeholder consultation exercise, After the compilation of all the position papers and the first

screening and the removal of duplicates, campaigns and documents that were not addressing the

Horizon 2020 programme directly (e.g. promotion material), 295 papers were analysed internally

by the Commission services. Those position papers are also published on the interim evaluation

website. The analysis followed a qualitative method of approach. Based on a sample of position

papers, a coding frame of broad themes was constructed. The final analysis per theme and any

emerging sub-themes was conducted by stakeholder group: academia, research organisations,

public authorities, businesses, NGOs, individuals, international stakeholders (i.e. non-EU

Member States) and others.

C.7. Estimation of the costs of writing proposals

In order to evaluate the cost of the programme, not only the expenses held by the European

Commission and its executive agencies should be included. In the first three years of Horizon

2020 about 74,769 distinct universities, private companies, research organisations, public entities

and others have applied for Horizon 2020 funding. The expenses related to processes on writing,

coordinating consortia and administrative questions vary greatly on the types of proposal, single

beneficiary vs. collaborative projects, salary level of participants involved, administrative

support needed etc.

Competition is an essential element of the scientific life, inextricably linked to cooperation and

openness. Researchers are therefore expected to apply for and compete for research funding,

including from the EU framework programmes as a part of their day to day jobs. Studies have

shown that depending on their age and position researchers spend between 5 – 10% of their time

applying for research funding.19

A study on the effects of participating in a project under the

19 E.g. see page 15 http://www.eui.eu/Documents/MWP/Publications/20111012MWP-ACOSurveyResearchFunding-Full.pdf

http://www.eui.eu/Documents/MWP/Publications/20111012MWP-ACOSurveyResearchFunding-Full.pdf

70

Framework programme (FP) from a human resource perspective showed that researchers that

participate in FPs strengthen almost all skills and capacities.20

Another study suggested that the

simplification efforts implemented in FP7 compared to FP6 had saved each participant EUR 8

66821

. In 2015 the Commission launched an online survey on the perception of the simplification

measures by stakeholders, addressed to all beneficiaries in ongoing Horizon 2020 grants. The

results cover the first 20 months of Horizon 2020 implementation and were published on 30 May

2016. In total 4,185 beneficiaries responded. 75% of those respondents with experience in FP7

and Horizon 2020, confirmed that, overall, the processes in Horizon 2020 are much simpler than

in FP7. The survey looked at the time spent on preparing proposals:

For coordinators in a multi-partner project 52.3% of the respondents say that they spend

more than 30 days, 32% stated that they spent between 15-30 days preparing a proposal.

For partners in multi-partner projects 14.3% spend more than 30 days, 52.6% that they

spend between 15 and 30 days.

For single beneficiary projects (non SMEs) 19.3% state they spend more than 30 days,

and 60.4% between 15 and 30 days.

For the SMEs in mono-partnered projects 59.8% state that they spend more than 16 days

and 27.7% say that they spend less than 15 person days. 22

The European University Association (EUA) states that these numbers are in line with costs

reported by their members. EUA estimates the cost per proposal to range from EUR 10 000 to

100 000 and applies these numbers to the overall proposals numbers and numbers of retained

proposals in the first year of Horizon 2020 to calculate the cost of unfunded projects: between

EUR 268 million and EUR 2.68 billion23

.

Based on these studies, a rough estimation was made by Commission services, based on a

division of four levels of average estimated expenses depending on the complexity of the

proposals from EUR 5 000 for phase/stage 1 proposals (stage 1 not included in the EUA

assessment), EUR 10 000 for single beneficiary smaller proposals, EUR 20 000 for medium size

collaborative proposals and more complex single beneficiary proposals and finally EUR 50 000

for large collaborative proposals. The calculations account for resubmission for bottom-up

calls.24

The estimation shows that the share of Horizon 2020 funding spent on proposal writing is

8.4% in the first three years of Horizon 2020. This is roughly EUR 1.9 billion or EUR 633

million annually. In total EUR 1.7 billion is spent on proposals that are not funded. Out of this,

the expense of writing high quality proposals that are not funded is estimated at EUR 643

million. Further details on this assessment are provided in the table below.

20 Study on assessing the contribution of the framework programmes to the development of human research capacity:

http://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/archive/other_reports_studies_and_documents/fp_hrc_study_final_report.pdf 21 Budgetary impact of the changes in the cost calculation regime in FP7 (EC and Euratom) as compared to FP6 (EC and

Euratom) and its effects on the administrative burden for participant:

https://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/archive/other_reports_studies_and_documents/budgetary_impact_fp6-fp7.pdf 22 Report on the Horizon 2020 Simplification Survey, page 20.

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/events/survey/h2020_simplification-survey_final-report_en.pdf 23EUA MEMBER CONSULTATION A CONTRIBUTION TO THE HORIZON 2020 MID-TERM REVIEW, page 32

http://www.eua.be/Libraries/publications-homepage-list/eua-membership-consultation-2016-a-contribution-to-the-horizon-2020-

mid-term-review.pdf?sfvrsn=4 24 From 2014-2016: MSCA-ITN 42.9%, MSCA-IF 15.4%, MSCA-RISE 27.9%, ERC 27%. SME-instrument 40%

http://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/archive/other_reports_studies_and_documents/fp_hrc_study_final_report.pdf

https://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/archive/other_reports_studies_and_documents/budgetary_impact_fp6-fp7.pdf

http://www.eua.be/Libraries/publications-homepage-list/eua-membership-consultation-2016-a-contribution-to-the-horizon-2020-mid-term-review.pdf?sfvrsn=4

http://www.eua.be/Libraries/publications-homepage-list/eua-membership-consultation-2016-a-contribution-to-the-horizon-2020-mid-term-review.pdf?sfvrsn=4

71

Table 2 Estimation of proposal writing costs

*Full number of proposals / excluding

resubmission

Number of

eligible proposals

Number of high-quality

proposals

Number of

retained proposals

EU funding

to retained

proposals (EUR

million)

Cost of writing

all propo-

sals (EUR

million)

Cost of writing

non-funded

proposals (EUR

million)

Cost of writing

non-funded high-

quality proposals

Share of funding

spent on proposal writing

High expense level: EUR 50 000 Instruments included: RIA and IA COFUND-EJP/PCP/PPI/ERA.NET

22338 / 22267

10246 /10189

2643 / 2616

13870.7 1113.4 982.6 378.7 8.0%

Medium expense level: EUR 20 000 Instruments included: CSA, ERC ADG/COG/LVG/ POC/STG, MSCA Cofund/ITN/RISE

32849 / 24571.7

15182 / 11176

4587 / 3621

7451.6 491.4 419.0 151.1 6.6%

Low expense level: EUR 10 000 Instruments included: MSCA-IF and SME-2

24737 / 18774

16706 / 13235

2973 / 2397

1244.9 187.7 163.8 108.4 15.1%

Very low expense level: EUR 5000 SME-1

22152 /13291

3498 / 2099

1864 /1118

93.2 66.5 60.8 4.925

22.3%

Stage 1 applications in two stage applications (not included in total number of eligible proposals)

(10001) (3203) (3100) N/A 50.0 N/A N/A N/A

Total 102076 45632 12067 22660.5 1908.7 1661.5 643.0 8.4%

Source: CORDA, Signed Grants cut-off date by 1/1/2017 (calculating cost, excludes resubmissions)

C.8. Text mining on the relevance of the programme

A dedicated expert group appointed by the European Commission on evaluation methodologies

for the interim and ex-post evaluations of the Framework programmes26

developed and applied

several methodologies to investigate the relevance of Horizon 2020. This was primarily done by

comparing the degree of matching between keywords extracted from the establishing act and the

25 No including stage 1proposals 26 European Commission Expert group on evaluation methodologies for the interim and ex-post evaluations of Horizon 2020,

Applying relevance-assessement methodologies to Horizon 2020 (forthcoming report).

72

work programmes against keywords extracted from international and EU policy documents,

social media, and patents and publications.

The assessment of relevance was defined as the process determining whether the original

objectives of the Framework Programme are still relevant and how well they still correspond to

present needs and challenges. The analysis was structured around three basic questions

concerning the institutional perspective, the citizens’ perspective, and the scientific and

technological perspective:

Is the programme in line with EU and International priorities?

Is Horizon 2020 in line with the needs of EU citizens?

How well adapted is Horizon 2020 to the subsequent technological or scientific

advances?

These questions guided the development of four methodologies for the assessment of the

relevance: an expert exploratory approach using computer-based content; an expert exploratory

approach using human-based content; a text mining approach; and a social media approach.

When applied to Horizon 2020, the following texts were considered as the basis for keyword

matching:

Council Decision of 3 December 2013 establishing the specific programme implementing

Horizon 2020 - (2013/743/EU);

The 2014 – 2015 Horizon 2020 Work Programme;

The 2016 – 2017 Horizon 2020 Work Programme.

The following texts were used to identify relevant keywords for the EU and International

priorities:

European Commission (2010). Europe 2020, A strategy for smart, sustainable and

inclusive growth, Communication from the Commission, Brussels, COM (2010) 2020

final.

Juncker, J.-C. (2014). A New Start for Europe: My Agenda for Jobs, Growth, Fairness

and Democratic Change. Political Guidelines for the next European Commission.

Opening Statement in the European Parliament Plenary Session. Strasbourg, 15 July

2014.

European Commission (2015). Communication from the Commission to the European

Parliament and the Council, The Paris Protocol – A blueprint for tackling global climate

change beyond 2020. /COM/2015/081 final/2. Brussels, 4.3.2015.

Gurría, A. (2015). “21-21”: A Proposal for Consolidation and Further Transformation of

the OECD.

United Nations, General Assembly, Seventieth session. (2015). Transforming Our World:

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (A/RES/70/1).

73

World Health Organisation (2015). Health in 2015: from MDGs, Millennium

Development Goals to SDGs, Sustainable Development Goals. ISBN 978 92 4 156511 0.

World Health Organization 2015.

G7 Leaders (2016). G7 Ise-Shima Leaders’ Declaration, G7 Ise-Shima Summit, 26-27

May 2016.

Several social media sources were used to identify the needs of EU citizens: Twitter, Facebook,

Wikipedia and YouTube.

In order to assess keywords relevant for subsequent technological and scientific advances, the

analysis used Google Scholar.

74

D. MONITORING DATA ON HORIZON 2020 STATE OF IMPLEMENTATION

D.1. Overall

Table 3 Overall proposal and project data

Number Applications Applicants

EU Contribution Requested (EUR

million)

Eligible Proposals 102076 379169 74769 172748.1

High Quality Proposals 45632 203308 41161 85006.1

Retained Proposals 12067 54466 19233 22660.5

Number Participations Participants EU Contribution

allocated (EUR million)

Signed Grants 11108 49090 16679 20400.1

Source: CORDA, cut-off date by 1/1/2017 (including grants to named beneficiaries)

D.2. Type of organisations

Table 4 Summary table of applications per type of organisation

Source: Corda, cut-off date by 1/1/2017 (including grants to named beneficiaries, success rate is calculated

excluding grants to named beneficiaries

Table 5 Summary of participations table by type of organisation

Applicants Applications

Success rate of applications

Newcomer applicants

Newcomer applications

Universities (HES) 5022 140900 12.3% 3024 7973

Other (OTH) 5376 14492 19.2% 4309 8460

Private Sector (PRC) 55296 141880 13.0% 46034 84462

Public Bodies (PUB) 3925 13551 24.8% 2815 5480

Research Organisations (REC)

5150 68346 17.0% 2464 5341

(SME's) 35288 99434 12.0% 28551 58646

Total 74769 379169 14.1% 58646 111716

Participants

Participations

Nr of Projects Coordinators in Signed Grants

EU contribution (EUR

million)

Newcomer

participants

Share of

newcomer

participants

Average

participation per

participant

Average EU

contribution per

participant (EUR million)

Universities (HES) 1421 16153 5266 7840.2 205 14.4% 11.4 5.5

Other (OTH) 1593 2599 211 689.2 1057 66.4% 1.6 0.4

Private Sector (PRC) 10367 16298 3017 5653.5 6352 61.3% 1.6 0.5

Public Bodies (PUB) 1315 3090 225 804.2 668 50.8% 2.4 0.6

Research Organisations (REC)

1983 10950 2389 5413.0 408 20.6% 5.5 2.7

(SME's) 6979 10147 2625 3270.3 4291 61.5% 1.5 0.5

Total 16679 49090 11108 20400.1 8690 52.1% 2.9 1.2

Source: Corda, cut-off date by 1/1/2017 (including grants to named beneficiaries)

75

D.3. Per programme part

Table 6 Proposals and success rates per programme part

27 NMBP stands for Nanotechnologies, Advanced materials, Biotechnology and Advanced manufacturing and processing. 28 The figures are presented within brackets because, while belonging to the Innovation in SMEs Programme Part in the legal

basis, the SME Instrument is implemented in both Industrial Leadership and Societal Challenges.

Number of eligible

proposals received

Number of high

Quality Proposals

Success rate

proposals

EC Funding requested in eligible proposals

Success rate

funding

Excellent Science 48128 27832 12.9% 71977.6 10.9%

European Research Council (ERC) 22832 8394 12.1% 40255.4 11.4%

Future and Emerging Technologies (FET) 3199 1506 4.1% 11133.7 4.7%

Marie-Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) 21644 17592 14.9% 18290 10.6%

Research Infrastructures (RI) 453 340 29.7% 2298.5 33.9%

Industrial Leadership 20436 6549 9.7% 34308.7 17.8%

Leadership in Enabling and Industrial Technologies (LEIT)

19746 6031 8.9% 33684.3 13.7%

Information and Communication Technologies

12772 3867 8.1% 21334.1 13.4%

NMBP27

5640 1493 9.2% 10455 13.7%

Space 1334 671 15.7% 1895.2 17.5%

Access to Risk Finance (ARF) 47 21 7.0% 79.2 9.3%

Innovation in SMEs 643 497 43.5% 545.2 15.3%

(The SME Instrument28

) 30901 7145 7.6% 15462.1 5.7%

Societal Challenges 29865 9819 11.1% 58873.8 14.7%

Health, demographic change and wellbeing (SC1)

6461 1928 9.1% 17912.6 9.0%

Food security, sustainable agriculture and forestry, marine and maritime and inland water research and the bioeconomy (SC2)

3489 1233 13.0% 6424.3 19.5%

Secure, clean and efficient energy (SC3) 5824 1515 11.6% 11688.8 15.7%

Smart, green and integrated transport (SC4) 4507 1766 18.0% 6280.7 30.6%

Climate action, environment, resource efficiency and raw materials (SC5)

3765 1216 10.0% 5810.8 18.9%

Europe in a changing world - inclusive, innovative and reflective societies (SC6)

3653 1221 5.4% 4953.1 6.6%

Secure societies protecting freedom and security of Europe and its citizens (SC7)

2166 940 9.9% 5803.5 10.1%

Spreading excellence and widening participation (SEWP)

826 487 14.3% 1281.1 20.5%

Science with and for Society (SWAFS) 771 414 9.0% 1540.2 9.5%

Euratom 67 56 33.3% 688.3 37.6%

Pilot: Fast-track to Innovation 1983 475 4.7% 4078.3 4.9%

TOTAL HORIZON 2020

102076 45632 11.6% 172748.1 12.7%

Source: CORDA, cut-off date by 1/1/2017 (including grants to named beneficiaries, except for calculation of

success rates)

76

Table 7 Number of signed grants and EU Contribution to signed grants per programme's

part

29 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32015R1017&from=EN 30 NMBP stands for Nanotechnologies, Advanced materials, Biotechnology and Advanced manufacturing and processing. 31 Around EUR 994 million of this amount may go towards the implementation of the Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET

Plan) projects. Around one third of this may go to SMEs.

32 Within the target of allocating a minimum of 20 % of the total combined budgets for the specific objective “Leadership in

enabling and industrial technologies” and the priority “Societal challenges” for SMEs, a minimum of 5 % of those combined

budgets will be initially allocated to the dedicated SME instrument. A minimum of 7 % of the total budgets of the specific

objective “Leadership in enabling and industrial technologies” and the priority “Societal challenges” will be allocated to the

dedicated SME instrument averaged over the duration of Horizon 2020. 33 The figures are presented withing brackets because, while belonging to the Innovation in SMEs Programme Part in the legal

basis, the SME Instrument is implemented in both Industrial Leadership and Societal Challenges.

34 Within the target of allocating a minimum of 20% of the total combined budgets for the specific objective “Leadership in

enabling and industrial technologies” (LEIT) and the priority “Societal challenges” for SMEs, a minimum of 5% of those

combined budgets will be initially allocated to the dedicated SME instrument. A minimum of 7% of the total budgets of the

specific objective LEIT and the priority “Societal challenges” will be allocated to the dedicated SME instrument averaged over

the duration of Horizon 2020.

Number of

signed grants

Share in

total signed grants

EU contribution to signed grants (EUR

million)

Share in total

EU contribution

to signed grants

Project total cost

Time to

grant in

days

Share of

grants signed within

8 months

Budget (EUR

million)29

Share of

budget allocat

ed

Excellent Science 5964 53.7% 7514.4 36.8% 7856.3 208.8 90.3% 24232.1 31.0%

European Research Council (ERC)

2440 22.0% 3874.2 19.0% 3879.5 377.8 8.0% 13094.8 29.6%

Future and Emerging Technologies (FET)

129 1.2% 654.4 3.2% 701.6 230.3 96.9% 2585.4 25.3%

Marie-Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA)

3246 29.2% 2114.9 10.4% 2303.9 280.5 91.1% 6162.3 34.3%

Research Infrastructures (RI)

149 1.3% 870.9 4.3% 971.3 264.1 67.6% 2389.6 36.4%

Industrial Leadership 1933 17.4% 4539.9 22.3% 6139.7 177.2 95.1% 16466.5 27.6%

Leadership in Enabling & Industrial Technologies (LEIT)

1728 15.6% 4462.2 21.9% 6058.7 175.3 96.3% 13035 34.2%

Information and Communication Technologies

1005 9.0% 2600.6 12.7% 3828.2 174.3 97.0% 7423 35.0%

NMBP30

512 4.6% 1505.3 7.4% 1823.4 154.9 98.2% 4242 35.5%

Space 211 1.9% 356.3 1.7% 407.1 182.3 88.3% 1403 25.4%

Access to Risk Finance (ARF)

7 0.1% 7.9 0.0% 8 272.5 0.0% 2842.331

-

Innovation in SMEs 198 1.8% 69.8 0.3% 73 242.4 55.3% 589.232

-

(The SME Instrument

33)

2090 18.8% 781.7 3.8% 1087.5 112.8 98.9% -34

-

Societal Challenges 2941 26.5% 7351.5 36.0% 9693.2 177.9 92.3% 28629.6 25.7%

77

35 The Fast Track to Innovation (FTI) pilot actions will be funded from the specific objective “Leadership in enabling and

industrial technologies” and from the relevant specific objectives of the priority “Societal challenges”. A sufficient number of

projects will be launched in order to allow a full evaluation of the FTI pilot.’ 36 Includes EUR 1855.7 million earmarked for EIT and EUR 2383 earmarked for Non-nuclear direct actions of the Joint

Research Centre (JRC)

Health, demographic change and wellbeing (SC1)

570 5.1% 1705.8 8.4% 2010.5 160.8 96.8% 7256.7 23.5%

Food security, sustainable agriculture and forestry, marine and maritime and inland water research and the bioeconomy (SC2)

365 3.3% 832.1 4.1% 1082.3 157.6 97.0% 3707.7 22.4%

Secure, clean and efficient energy (SC3)

640 5.8% 1735.2 8.5% 2333.7 179.2 94.2% 5688.1 30.5%

Smart, green and integrated transport (SC4)

655 5.9% 1376.8 6.7% 2152.4 192.3 86.4% 6149.4

22.4%

Climate action, environment, resource efficiency and raw materials (SC5)

340 3.1% 912.6 4.5% 1202.8 161.9 93.5% 2956.5 30.9%

Europe in a changing world - inclusive, innovative and reflective societies (SC6)

194 1.7% 342.1 1.7% 411.6 187.2 85.0% 1258.5 27.2%

Secure societies protecting freedom and security of Europe and its citizens (SC7)

177 1.6% 446.9 2.2% 499.9 209.1 88.6% 1612.7 27.7%

Spreading excellence and widening participation (SEWP)

118 1.1% 209.1 1.0% 213.7 233.9 91.3% 816.5 25.6%

Science with and for Society (SWAFS)

53 0.5% 108.9 0.5% 112.5 267.4 52.1% 444.9 24.5%

Euratom 24 0.2% 514.9 2.5% 989.4 278.1 65.2% - -

Fast-track to Innovation Pilot

75 0.7% 161.2 0.8% 215.1 230.8 78.7% -35

-

TOTAL HORIZON 2020

11108 100% 20400.1 100% 25220 192.2 91.6% 74828.336

27.3%

Source: CORDA, cut-off date by 1/12/2017 (including grants to named beneficiaries, time to grant excludes grants to

named beneficiaries and excludes ERC in overall calculations, as ERC is exempt from time to grant)

78

D.4. Type of instrument

Table 8 Summary table - proposals per type of instrument

Source: Corda, cut-off date by 1/1/2017 (including grants to named beneficiaries except for calculating success

rates)

Number of eligible

propo-sals

Number of

applica-tions

Number of high quality propo-

sals

EC funding requested by eligible proposals

(EUR million)

Success rate

propo-sals

Success rate

funding

New-comer

applica-tions

Private sector applica-tions

SME appli-

cations

COFUND-EJP

3 178 3 524.5 100% 100% 18 8 7

CSA 4706 34600 2459 6832.4 20.7% 19.5% 11236 8714 6400

ERA-NET-Cofund

49 1073 47 391.7 95.9% 99.0% 70 24 15

ERC-ADG 5931 6838 2562 14392.0 7.8% 7.9% 306 114 133

ERC-COG 6782 7417 2384 12856.7 14.5% 15.2% 288 97 129

ERC-LVG 2 2 2 0.1 100% 100% 1 0 1

ERC-POC 1150 1232 609 170.8 31.8% 32.0% 44 52 42

ERC-STG 8947 9605 2827 12816.3 10.6% 11.3% 507 145 191

IA 6090 52937 2374 24758.6 13.2% 17.5% 19858 29152 16826

MSCA-COFUND

207 1219 158 590.3 25.1% 25.7% 178 162 82

MSCA-IF 15988 17993 13059 2899.8 15.6% 15.7% 1946 402 305

MSCA-ITN 4282 47926 3645 13968.1 7.8% 7.9% 7256 12933 7456

MSCA-RISE 927 8018 588 787.4 27.7% 27.6% 2574 1926 1189

PCP 35 283 21 138.4 42.9% 45.5% 105 59 24

PPI 5 31 3 37.1 60.0% 84.5% 13 2 2

RIA 15989 154472 7664 66105 10.8% 12.5% 35858 53765 32040

SGA 82 385 82 16.7 100% 100% 227 96 37

SME-1 22152 23895 3498 1107.5 8.4% 8.4% 21819 23371 23626

SME-2 8749 11065 3647 14354.6 5.5% 5.5% 9412 10858 10929

Total 102076 379169 45632 172748.1 11.6% 12.7% 111716 141880 99434

79

Table 9 Summary table – signed grants and participations per type of instrument

Source: Corda, cut-off date by 1/1/2017 (including grants to named beneficiaries except for calculating success

rates)

Number of signed

grants

Share of signed grants

EU contribution

to signed grants (EUR

million)

Share of EU contribution

to signed grants

Partici-pations

Newcomer participa-

tions

Private sector partici-pation

SME parti-cipati

on

COFUND-EJP

3 0.0% 494.6 2.4% 99 3 1 0

CSA 923 8.3% 1212.8 5.9% 7379 1596 1426 1076 ERA-NET-Cofund

44 0.4% 340.5 1.7% 992 36 14 3

ERC-ADG 468 4.2% 1096 5.4% 563 6 6 7 ERC-COG 693 6.2% 1329.8 6.5% 773 5 4 2 ERC-LVG 2 0.0% 0.1 0.0% 2 1 0 0 ERC-POC 320 2.9% 47.7 0.2% 346 12 21 17 ERC-STG 950 8.6% 1397 6.8% 1027 7 3 4 IA 684 6.2% 3513.8 17.2% 7491 2295 4151 2169 MSCA-COFUND

55 0.5% 163.7 0.8% 55 1 0

MSCA-IF 2444 22.0% 450.5 2.2% 2467 14 16 8 MSCA-ITN 389 3.5% 1259.8 6.2% 3195 293 739 415 MSCA-RISE 265 2.4% 223 1.1% 1718 364 466 345 PCP 12 0.1% 47.9 0.2% 100 23 16 6 PPI 2 0.0% 5.4 0.0% 15 7 2 1 RIA 1680 15.1% 8018.2 39.3% 20046 3481 6996 3726 SGA 82 0.7% 17.6 0.1% 489 304 106 38 SME-1 1670 15.0% 83.5 0.4% 1817 1534 1815 1817 SME-2 422 3.8% 698.2 3.4% 516 393 516 513

Total 11108 100.0% 20400.1 100.0% 49090 10375 16298 10147

80

D.5. Member States

Table 10 Summary table - applications by Member States

Nu

mb

er

of

app

lican

ts

Shar

e o

f ap

plic

ants

Nu

mb

er

of

app

licat

ion

s

Shar

e o

f ap

plic

atio

ns

EU c

on

tri-

bu

tio

n

req

ue

ste

d

Shar

e o

f EU

con

trib

uti

on

req

ue

ste

d

Succ

ess

rat

e

(ap

plic

atio

ns)

Shar

e o

f p

riva

te

sect

or

app

licat

ion

s

Shar

e o

f SM

E

app

licat

ion

Shar

e o

f n

ew

com

er

app

licat

ion

s

Austria 1668 2.2% 9316 2.5% 4199.5 2.4% 16.6% 37.1% 27.3% 25.3%

Belgium 2397 3.2% 14080 3.7% 6185.1 3.6% 17.0% 31.5% 22.9% 23.9%

Bulgaria 1018 1.4% 2594 0.7% 716.1 0.4% 9.0% 47.1% 41.0% 60.7%

Croatia 632 0.8% 2020 0.5% 549.6 0.3% 10.6% 38.0% 26.8% 48.8%

Cyprus 362 0.5% 2082 0.5% 738.9 0.4% 10.7% 44.8% 41.6% 29.6%

Czech Republic

975 1.3% 4149 1.1% 1426 0.8% 13.3% 35.7% 26.7% 31.8%

Denmark 1382 1.8% 8382 2.2% 4488.8 2.6% 14.8% 33.5% 24.3% 24.6%

Estonia 501 0.7% 1961 0.5% 727.8 0.4% 12.1% 41.6% 36.9% 41.6%

Finland 1649 2.2% 8300 2.2% 4657.5 2.7% 12.9% 35.3% 34.0% 30.1%

France 5149 6.9% 28702 7.6% 15315.9 8.9% 16.5% 39.0% 23.6% 24.0%

Germany 7438 9.9% 42637 11.2% 22492.8 13.1% 15.6% 36.4% 23.1% 22.6%

Greece 1801 2.4% 12383 3.3% 4788.3 2.8% 12.2% 37.3% 26.1% 24.0%

Hungary 1478 2.0% 4740 1.3% 1650.8 1.0% 10.4% 52.5% 45.9% 48.8%

Ireland 1072 1.4% 6043 1.6% 3069.6 1.8% 15.0% 38.9% 26.7% 26.6%

Italy 9040 12.1% 43222 11.4% 18036.5 10.5% 11.4% 44.7% 31.9% 34.0%

Latvia 441 0.6% 1384 0.4% 384.5 0.2% 11.0% 42.3% 34.2% 51.8%

Lithuania 471 0.6% 1572 0.4% 404.6 0.2% 11.1% 37.3% 28.2% 45.2%

Luxembourg 216 0.3% 1045 0.3% 425.2 0.2% 15.8% 50.2% 29.5% 28.8%

Malta 154 0.2% 641 0.2% 182.6 0.1% 13.3% 52.6% 40.1% 48.2%

Netherlands 3527 4.7% 21174 5.6% 11161.1 6.5% 16.1% 36.7% 24.6% 24.6%

Poland 2227 3.0% 7630 2.0% 2414.4 1.4% 11.0% 41.3% 31.8% 44.2%

Portugal 1625 2.2% 9148 2.4% 3391.2 2.0% 12.4% 37.0% 29.9% 29.8%

Romania 1217 1.6% 4099 1.1% 1187 0.7% 11.3% 39.4% 22.3% 45.6%

Slovakia 613 0.8% 1842 0.5% 652.4 0.4% 13.2% 47.5% 34.9% 48.7%

Slovenia 1091 1.5% 4351 1.1% 1419.1 0.8% 10.0% 44.9% 39.6% 44.1%

Spain 7206 9.6% 40361 10.6% 16536.2 9.6% 13.3% 42.3% 30.8% 30.4%

Sweden 1912 2.6% 10843 2.9% 5899.2 3.4% 15.2% 32.0% 20.5% 24.4%

UK 7053 9.4% 45757 12.1% 24981.2 14.5% 14.4% 30.9% 22.2% 23.1%

EU-28 64178 85.8% 340458 89.8% 158081.9 92.1% 14.0% 38.1% 27.1% 28.5%

EU-13 11177 14.9% 39065 10.3% 12453.8 7.3% 11.1% 43.0% 34.2% 44.6%

EU-15 53013 70.9% 301393 79.5% 145628.1 84.8% 14.4% 37.5% 26.2% 26.5%

Associated Countries (16 in total)

6310 8.4% 26997 7.1% 12128.5 7.1% 13.7% 37.1% 23.9% 33.3%

Third Countries (144 in total)

4340 5.8% 11671 3.1% 1514.9 0.9% 18.3% 17.2% 5.5% 47.3%

Total (188 countries)

74769 100.0% 379169 100% 171725.4 100% 14.1% 37.4% 26.2% 29.5%

Source: CORDA, Cut-off date by 1/1/2017 (including grants to named beneficiaries, except for calculation of

success rate, where they are excluded)

81

Table 11 Country performance summary table (participations, participants, EU

contribution, number of coordinators, success rates, newcomers)

Num-ber of Participants

Share of

Participants

Num-ber of

participations

Share of

participations

Num-ber of coordinators

Share of

coordinators

EU contribution to Partici-pation (EUR

million)

Share of EU

contri-bution

to Participation

s

Success rate of

applica-tions

Share of

private sector partic-

ipations

Share of SME parti-

cipations

Share

Austria 463 2.8% 1404 2.9% 279 2.5% 576.2 2.8% 16.6% 37.7% 22.6% 20.5%

Belgium 713 4.3% 2194 4.5% 377 3.4% 965 4.7% 17.0% 26.9% 20.9% 19.6%

Bulgaria 150 0.9% 246 0.5% 18 0.2% 29.8 0.1% 9.0% 24.0% 18.7% 37.4%

Croatia 108 0.6% 208 0.4% 15 0.1% 32.1 0.2% 10.6% 26.0% 12.5% 38.5%

Cyprus 73 0.4% 230 0.5% 44 0.4% 61.8 0.3% 10.7% 36.1% 30.9% 18.3%

Czech Republic

201 1.2% 506 1.0% 49 0.4% 129.2 0.6% 13.3% 32.2% 20.6% 23.3%

Denmark 347 2.1% 1157 2.4% 326 2.9% 497 2.4% 14.8% 30.3% 20.1% 20.5%

Estonia 106 0.6% 241 0.5% 65 0.6% 66 0.3% 12.1% 34.0% 29.0% 27.8%

Finland 327 2.0% 995 2.0% 208 1.9% 430.3 2.1% 12.9% 32.0% 19.7% 22.3%

France 1394 8.4% 4409 9.0% 1013 9.1% 2097 10.3% 16.5% 36.2% 19.2% 18.5%

Germany 1974 11.8% 6280 12.8% 1281 11.5% 3464.4 17.0% 15.6% 35.5% 18.7% 17.6%

Greece 396 2.4% 1426 2.9% 211 1.9% 434.7 2.1% 12.2% 32.4% 21.7% 17.2%

Hungary 206 1.2% 439 0.9% 80 0.7% 108.8 0.5% 10.4% 36.7% 30.8% 33.3%

Ireland 254 1.5% 855 1.7% 253 2.3% 356.3 1.7% 15.0% 36.8% 24.9% 19.4%

Italy 1672 10.0% 4675 9.5% 996 9.0% 1663.6 8.2% 11.4% 40.3% 25.0% 23.4%

Latvia 72 0.4% 147 0.3% 18 0.2% 21.6 0.1% 11.0% 22.4% 17.0% 29.3%

Lithuania 81 0.5% 172 0.4% 26 0.2% 21 0.1% 11.1% 33.1% 20.9% 40.1%

Luxembourg 70 0.4% 165 0.3% 27 0.2% 54.2 0.3% 15.8% 44.8% 21.8% 29.7%

Malta 34 0.2% 84 0.2% 13 0.1% 15.6 0.1% 13.3% 27.4% 21.4% 39.3%

Netherlands 933 5.6% 3109 6.3% 770 6.9% 1565.5 7.7% 16.1% 32.9% 20.5% 17.9%

Poland 376 2.3% 784 1.6% 110 1.0% 184.5 0.9% 11.0% 27.3% 18.8% 28.6%

Portugal 389 2.3% 1091 2.2% 206 1.9% 342.9 1.7% 12.4% 31.4% 24.1% 23.3%

Romania 233 1.4% 439 0.9% 32 0.3% 77.2 0.4% 11.3% 25.1% 12.8% 37.6%

Slovakia 124 0.7% 239 0.5% 28 0.3% 50.3 0.2% 13.2% 40.2% 22.2% 37.2%

Slovenia 187 1.1% 419 0.9% 66 0.6% 109.4 0.5% 10.0% 37.2% 28.4% 30.3%

Spain 1781 10.7% 5006 10.2% 1344 12.1% 1812.8 8.9% 13.3% 38.8% 25.6% 23.1%

Sweden 474 2.8% 1517 3.1% 291 2.6% 703.8 3.4% 15.2% 32.0% 16.2% 20.4%

UK 1641 9.8% 6289 12.8% 2153 19.4% 3082.5 15.1% 14.4% 27.2% 19.4% 17.0%

EU-28 14779 88.6% 44726 91.1% 10299 92.7% 18953.4 92.9% 14.0% 33.9% 21.3% 20.8%

EU-13 1951 11.7% 4154 8.5% 564 5.1% 907.4 4.4% 11.1% 31.1% 21.8% 31.2%

EU-15 12828 76.9% 40572 82.6% 9735 87.6% 18046 88.5% 14.4% 34.2% 21.2% 19.7%

Associated Countries (16 in total)

1241 7.4% 3436 7.0% 805 7.2% 1332.1 6.5% 13.7% 30.3% 17.0% 22.5%

Third Countries (87 in total)

659 4.0% 928 1.9% 4 0.0% 114.7 0.6% 18.3% 11.0% 6.0% 33.3%

Total (131 countries )

16679 100% 49090 100% 11108 100% 20400.1 100% 14.1% 33.2% 20.7% 21.1%

Source: CORDA, Signed Grants cut-off date by 1/1/2017 (including grants to named beneficiaries, except for

calculation of success rate, where they are excluded)

82

D.6. Benchmarking with FP7

Figure 44 FP7 vs Horizon 2020 benchmarking

FP7

2007-2013,

€ 55 billion

Horizon

2020

2014-2020,

€ 74.8 billion

Status as of

01/01/2017

Difference

Eligible proposals submitted (number) 134 535

102 076

-

-

EC Contribution requested in eligible proposals (EUR million) 216 358 172 748 -

High Quality Proposals submitted (number) No info 45 632 -

EC Contribution requested in High Quality Proposals (EUR million) No info 85 006.1 -

Signed grants (number) 25 781 11 108 -

EC Contribution to signed grants (EUR million) 45 452 20 400.1 -

Applications in proposals (number) 563 079 379 169 -

Open Access (share of peer-review publications provided in open-access) 61.8% 60.8% 1 pps

Peer reviewed publications (number) 219 620 4 043 -

Patent applications (number) 2 669 153 -

Newcomers (share of participants) Above 70% 52.1% 19.9 pp

Collaborative projects (% of total EC contribution) 72% 76% 4pps

Time to grant in number of days (excl. ERC) 303 days 192.2 days 110.8

days Funding rate (EC contribution as % of total project costs) 70% 70% stable

Concentration of funding to top 100 beneficiaries (% of EC contribution) 34.6% 32.9% 1.7 pps

Yearly

(2007-

2013 for

FP7;

2014-

2016 for

Horizon

2020)

.. EU contribution to signed grants (EUR million) 6 493.1 6 800.0 4.7%

.. EU contribution requested in eligible proposals (EUR million) 31 111.1 57 582.7 85.1%

.. eligible proposals submitted 19 219 34 025 77.0%

.. participations supported 19 736 16 363.3 17.1%

.. signed grants 3 683 3 703 0.5%

.. participants supported 4332 5 559.6 28.3%

.. applications submitted 80 440 126 390 57.1%

.. applications submitted from private sector 20 443 47 293 131.3%

.. applications submitted from SMEs 19 027 33 145 74.2%

Private

sector

(PRC)

.. share of applications 25.4% 37.4% 12.0 pps

.. share of participations 30.4% 33.2% 2.4 pps

.. share of EU contribution 24.2% 27.7% 3.5 pps

SME




EU-13




Associate

d

countries




Third

countries




Success

rate

.. of projects’ proposals 18.4% 11.6% 6.8 pps

.. of total funding requested 19.9% 12.7% 7.2 pps

.. of total applications 21.8% 14.1% 7.7 pps

.. for private sector (applications) 23.3% 13.0% 10.3 pps

.. for SMEs (applications) 20.2% 12.0% 8.2 pps

.. of EU-13 countries (applications) 18.0% 11.1% 6.9 pps

.. of Third Countries (applications) 23.8% 18.3% 5.5 pps

.. of Associated Countries (applications) 21.7% 13.4% 8.3 pps

Proposals’

evaluation

Number of proposals evaluated per year ~20 000 ~33000 65%

Time spent per evaluator per proposal 0.8 day 0.7 day 0.1 day

Source: CORDA, cut-off date 1/1/2017 and EMM2

83

D.7. Newcomers

78% of all organisations that applied to Horizon 2020 funding in the first three years of

programme implementation where newcomers (i.e. have not received funding under FP7)

requesting 22% of the overall requested EC funding. Each returning participant applied for

Horizon 2020 funding 17 times on average whereas each newcomer applied for Horizon 2020

funding 2 times on average during the first three years of the programme implementation.

53.4% of the returning participants applying to the programme were successful with at least one

submitted proposal being selected, whereas only 18.1% of the newcomers were successful with

at least one submitted proposal being retained. This is in part explained by the fact that the

returning participants submitted many more proposals and as such increased their probability to

be selected. At the same time, the success rate of proposals submitted by returning participants is

still considerably higher (13.9%) when compared to newcomers (9.2%).

As a result, newcomers represent 52% of all organisations participating in Horizon 2020 but their

share of obtained funding is only 14% of the total Horizon 2020 budget implemented in the first

three years of the programme.

Figure 45 Number of applicants and participants (left) for newcomers and returning

participants to Horizon 2020 (compared to FP7) and total requested and obtained EC

contribution in signed grants (right)

Note: The percentages refer to newcomers. The figures above the bar refer to total numbers for the programme as a

whole. Source: CORDA cut-off date 1.1.2017

Newcomers Returning participants

The highest share of newcomers and returning participants that applied to Horizon 2020 is from the private sector: 79% of newcomers and 57% of the returning applicants were from the private sector.

84

The highest share of newcomers and returning participants that signed grants in Horizon 2020 is also from the private sector: 73% of the newcomers are from the private sector, compared to 50% of the returning participants. The success rates among the different types of organisations differ from 26.2% for public bodies to 12.5% for universities.

The highest share of requested EC contribution among the newcomers is also from the private sector (80%), but a few applicants (29% or 4684) from research organisations and universities requested 80% of the overall funding requested by returning participant. On average each returning participant from research organisation or university submitted 42 proposals to the Horizon 2020 programme in the first three years of implementation.

Amongst newcomers, the highest share of the funding goes to the private sector (78%). Amongst returning participants, the largest share of the funding of goes to research organisations and universities.

Looking at different types of actions implemented under Horizon 2020, Research and Innovation

Actions (RIA) and Innovation Actions (IA) attracted the highest number of newcomer applicants

(53% of all newcomer applicants applied to this type of support) followed by the SME

Instrument (25% of all newcomer applicants). Consequently 54% of all newcomers participating

in Horizon 2020 do so through RIA and IA actions, 33% through the SME Instrument. 64% of

the EC contribution to newcomers came through RIA and IA actions, 21% through the SME

Instrument.

Looking at the balance between newcomers and returning participants within each type of action

the European Research Council, the Cofund-EJP and the ERA-NET-Cofund are least attractive

to newcomers (less than 21% of all applicants to these actions are newcomers). However the

SME Instrument seems to attract almost exclusively newcomers to the Framework Programme

(91% of all applicants to these actions were newcomers, ie. did not participate to FP7) and as a

result 77% of the EC Contribution under the SME Instrument also went to newcomers.

85

Figure 46 Number of applicants and participants per action (above) for newcomers and

returning participants to Horizon 2020 (compared to FP7) and total requested and

obtained EC contribution in signed grants per action (below)

Note: The percentages refer to newcomers. Source: CORDA cut-off date 1.1.2017

86

E. SUCCESS STORIES FROM PREVIOUS FRAMEWORK PROGRAMMES

FP7 projects outcomes provide an illustration of the types of effects that can be generated by

R&I projects. The box below lists four projects and their main outcomes37

. These projects have

outcomes or results that have had a significant added value, impact on the society and potentially

on the economy.

Textbox 1: Examples of impacts from FP7 projects

HYPE

38

Based on the work conducted during HYPE (nine partners from four countries) and also during previous FP and nationally funded projects one partner built an advanced biorefinery demonstration plant at the port of Kalundborg in Denmark. The consolidated process developed during HYPE was tested in this plant. By the end of 2010 the demonstration plant was fully commissioned and went into the production phase. The first 2nd generation ethanol has been sold to Statoil and is now distributed in 100 filling stations all over Denmark as Bio95 2nd generation gasoline. Lignin pellets are also produced there and are sold to DONG Energy and used as high-quality solid biofuel in power plants.

METOXIA

39

This 11 partner project studied regulatory mechanisms which help cancer cells survive under micro-environmental conditions. The interviewed partners of the consortium state that the outcomes of this project were significant advancements in the area and led to new research projects, trials and commercialisation opportunities. One partner reported that his research group attracted more than EUR 20 million in grants and investment. The products developed during METOXIA are still at a very early stage, however, the impact could be large, as the drugs could address half of the population of patients with solid cancers that include breast, lung, prostate, cervix and brain tumours.

HIVE40

In 2013, the first computer mediated brain-to-brain communication was achieved using the knowledge and capabilities developed during the HIVE project. This ‘hyperinteraction’ communication achieved to send single words between one person in France and another in India using brain stimulation. The results of the experiment are considered a critical proof-of-principle demonstration of the possible development of conscious brain-to-brain communication technologies.

REBIOFOAM

41

The academia-industry collaboration between this 10 partners project developed an environmentally friendly biodegradable packaging material that can be used across a variety of industries, even for the packaging of heavy objects. The packaging material produces no waste; its production reduces energy use by more than 50% and cuts CO2 emissions. The REBIOFOAM project was the first eco-friendly packaging initiative with such a wide range of possible applications across industries.

37 For details and additional success stories please see Annex Part 2. 38 http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/88489_en.html 39 http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/91061_en.html 40 http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/87676_en.html 41 http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/90452_en.html

http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/88489_en.html




87

To showcase the longer term impact of previous Framework Programmes, the 'Expert Group on

evaluation methodologies for the interim and ex-post evaluations of Horizon 2020'42

delineated

several portfolios of projects spanning from FP5 to Horizon 2020. Projects from these five

portfolios were scrutinized for impact through an analysis of corresponding policy documents,

publications, patents, pilots and demonstrators in order to evince the economic, environmental

and social impacts of previous Framework Programmes.

The patents developed within the portfolio analysing the effects of applying the Life Cycle

Assessment technique to the circular economy confirmed the high market value of results.

Successful production, pilots and demonstrators from this portfolio led to: a 40% better

performance in terms of global warming for multilayer composite decking boards; a 80% better

performance of raw materials with recycled cellular concrete for subfloors in all impact

categories; recycled gypsum consuming less than 65% of the energy required to produce natural

gypsum and emitting less than 65% of greenhouse gases; a reduction of carbon dioxide

emissions of 0.3 kg CO2-eq. for every kg of broiler feed using a novel mix diet, with the net

results of a total avoidance of 0.62 million tons of CO2 emissions to the atmosphere each year. A

further analysis on policy documents related to this projects’ portfolio revealed that in one

instance, the agreement between local companies and a regional public waste agency resulted in

meeting the ambitious goal of 30,000 tons of cellular concrete recycled in high-end applications

in 2014.

Looking at the economic impacts of fuel cells related projects one project managed to lower the

commercial cost of modular heating systems, after the deployment of 80 fuel cell Combined

Heat and Power (micro-CHP) systems across a number of Member States. Numerous spin-offs

were generated out of the projects, such as the company Plant-e.

Considerable environmental impact was also achieved through FP projects, such as a single FP5

project managing to replace 945,000 liters of Diesel fuel and avoid 2.5 tons of CO2 emissions by

using 27 Hydrogen-powered buses to transport four million people for more than one million

kilometres in nine European cities.

42

European Commission Expert group on evaluation methodologies for the interim and ex-post evaluations of Horizon 2020,

Applying relevance-assessement methodologies to Horizon 2020 (forthcoming report).

88

F. EUROPEAN ADDED VALUE CASE STUDIES43

F.1. European added value case study 1: Antimicrobial resistance

F.1.1. Overall context

(a) Definition and expected impact of the area

Antimicrobial resistance is the ability of microorganisms to resist antimicrobial drugs. Various

pathogens, including bacteria, viruses, fungi and parasites can evolve to be resistant to

antimicrobial drugs due to gene mutations over time.44

Generally, gene mutation is a naturally

occurring phenomenon. However, due to certain factors the evolution of microbes happens faster

than the development of new antimicrobial drugs. Excessive and inappropriate use of

antimicrobial medicines on humans and animals, and poor infection control practices, are both

speeding up the evolution of resistant strains of microbes and transforming antimicrobial

resistance into a worldwide public health threat.

Antimicrobials are used in various settings for different purposes. They are used to treat

infectious diseases (e.g. pneumonia, tuberculosis, malaria, HIV/AIDS) and hospital-acquired

infections (HAI) (e.g. methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). They are also used

in complex medical interventions, such as hip replacements, organ transplants, chemotherapy

and the care of premature babies that are at a higher risk of infection. In addition, antimicrobials

are used in veterinary medicine and in animal husbandry for non-therapeutic purposes (e.g.

disinfectants, preservatives, and food and feed additives). Hence, antimicrobial resistance cuts

across a wide range of areas that affect human health both directly and indirectly.

The misuse of antimicrobials can also occur at different levels. It can occur due to individual

misuse at patient level or inadequate prescription patterns by health professionals. In addition,

lack of clear antimicrobial drug prescription policies at national level and their monitoring also

contribute to the misuse of drugs. Finally, extensive promotion or pressure to sell large quantities

of drugs at industry level can influence the overuse of antimicrobials.

Although the rates of resistance to various antimicrobials are increasing, the discovery of new

antimicrobial drugs has decreased. The pressure to reduce the use of antimicrobials, together

with weak market incentives and increasing difficulty and costs related to the development of

new antibiotics have discouraged investment in this area. As a consequence, only a few new

antibiotics are currently under development by pharmaceutical industry.

(b) Rationale for public intervention: key trends in the area, main challenges and

indicators

Antimicrobial resistance is a global public health concern involving many different sectors (e.g.

medicine, veterinary medicine, animal husbandry, agriculture, environment and trade).

antimicrobial resistance cannot be successfully tackled through isolated, sectoral efforts. The fact

that resistance may spread from country to country when people and animals travel, or when

food and feed are traded, stresses the need for coordinated efforts across borders. In addition,

43 The seven case studies of EU added value were developed within the following study: PPMI, “Assessment of the Union Added

Value and the Economic Impact of the EU Framework Programmes (FP7, Horizon 2020)”, forthcoming 44 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council - Action plan against the rising threats from

Antimicrobial Resistance. COM (2011) 748 final.

89

new antimicrobials, diagnostic tools or treatment guidelines are global public goods that should

be available to everyone in order for collective efforts to combat the resistance to be effective.

Antimicrobial resistance also carries a significant economic cost for countries’ healthcare

budgets. Several reports have produced estimates of mortality rates, productivity losses, societal

costs per patient and other associated expenditures related to antimicrobial resistance (see Table

1 for the full list of indicators). According to a report produced by ECDC and EMEA, a subset of

multidrug-resistant bacteria in Europe are responsible for about 25 000 of human deaths

annually.45

In addition to the avoidable deaths, this also translates into extra healthcare costs and

productivity losses of at least EUR 1.5 billion each year. In 2007, infections caused by antibiotic-

resistant bacteria resulted in approximately 2.5 million extra hospital days, which translated into

EUR 900 million hospital costs.

According to a report commissioned by the UK Government in collaboration with the Wellcome

Trust, 700 000 people die of resistant infections every year.46

If by 2050 the misuse of

antimicrobials does not decrease, approximately 10 million lives a year and USD 100 trillion of

economic output will be at risk due to the rise of drug resistant infections. If these projections

materialise, the mortality attributed to antimicrobial resistance would be higher than cancer

related deaths.

Table 12. List of key indicators related to antimicrobial resistance

Indicator Indicator values/examples

Antibiotic

consumption

Between 2000 and 2010, consumption of antibiotic drugs increased by 36% (from 54 083

964 813 standard units in 2000 to 73 620 748 816 standard units in 2010).47

Deaths attributable

to antimicrobial

resistance

10 million people die annually due to antimicrobial resistance.48

25 000 persons may have died in 2011 due to ARM in the EU.49

214 500 neonatal sepsis deaths are attributable to resistant pathogens each year.50

Antimicrobial

resistance cost

Hospital expenditure is on average an additional USD 10 000 to 40 000 to treat a patient

infected with antimicrobial resistance51

Antibiotics

consumed without

prescription

An estimated 20-30 % in Southern and Eastern Europe.52

Antibiotic use in

animal production

Global consumption of antimicrobials in food animal production was estimated at 63,151

(±1,560) tons in 2010 and is projected to rise by 67%, to 105,596 (±3,605) tons, by 2030.53

45 EMEA and ECDC Joint Technical Report. The bacterial challenge: time to react. 2009. 46 Tackling drug-resistant infections globally: final report and recommendations. The review on Antimicrobial resistance chaired

by Jim O‘Neill. (2016). 47 Van Boeckel, T. P., Gandra, S., Ashok, A., Caudron, Q., Grenfell, B. T., Levin, S. A., Laxminarayan, R. (2014). Global

antibiotic consumption 2000 to 2010: an analysis of national pharmaceutical sales data. Lancet Infectious Diseases, Vol. 14, pp:

742–50. 48 Tackling drug-resistant infections globally: final report and recommendations. The review on Antimicrobial resistance chaired

by Jim O‘Neill. (2016). 49 EMEA and ECDC Joint Working Group (2009). The bacterial challenge: time to react. A call to narrow the gap between

multidrug-resistant bacteria in the EU and the development of new antibacterial agents. Joint Technical Report 50 Laxminarayan, R., Matsoso, P., Pant, S., Brower, C., Røttingen, J. A., Klugman, K., Davies, S. (2015). Access to effective

antimicrobials: a worldwide challenge. Lancet Special Series. 51 Cecchini, M., Langer, J. and Slawomirski, L. (2015). Antimicrobial Resistance in G7 Countries and Beyond: Economic Issues,

Policies and Options for Action. OECD. 52 Morgan, D.J., Okeke, I.N., Laxmanirayan, R., Perencevich, E.N., Weisenberg, S. (2011). Non-prescription antimicrobial use

worldwide: a systematic review, Lancet Infectious Diseases, Vol. 11, No. 9, pp: 692-701. 53 Van Boeckel, T. P., Brower, C., Gilbert, M., Grenfell, B. T., Levin, S. A., Robinson, T. P., Teillant, A. and Laxminarayan, R.

(2014). Global trends in antimicrobial use in food animals. PNAS, Vol. 112, No. 18, pp: 5649-5654.

90


Denmark has a highly productive farming system with levels of antibiotic use of less than

50 mg / kg.

From 2010 to 2030, global consumption of antimicrobials in livestock production will

increase by two thirds, and that it will double in the rapidly growing economies of Brazil,

Russia, India, China, and South Africa.54

EUROBAROMETER data

Levels of knowledge

on the use of

antibiotics

Measure the levels of public knowledge about the nature and effectiveness of antibiotics and

the risks associated with their unnecessary use. Based on 4 statements:

Antibiotics kill viruses (FALSE)

Antibiotics are effective against colds and flu (FALSE)

Unnecessary use of antibiotics makes them become ineffective (TRUE)

Taking antibiotics often has side-effects, such as diarrhoea (TRUE)

On average, only around a quarter (24%) of Europeans answered all four questions

correctly, while around half (51%) gave at least three correct answers, and 94% gave at least

one correct answer.

Use of antibiotics

during the last year

A third of Europeans have taken antibiotics in the last 12 months

Ways of obtaining

antibiotics

93% say that they obtained their last course of antibiotics from their health care provider

Source: PPMI, “Assessment of the Union Added Value and the Economic Impact of the EU Framework

Programmes (FP7, Horizon 2020)”, forthcoming).

In order to tackle antimicrobial resistance the EU employed a "One Health" approach and also

initiated coordination efforts between countries and international organisations. In 2011 the

European Commission adopted an action plan against the rising threats of antimicrobial

resistance.55

It contains 12 actions (see Table below) for implementation within EU Member

States, with seven key areas identified as most in need of practical measures:

making sure antimicrobials are used appropriately in both humans and animals

preventing microbial infections and their spread

developing new effective antimicrobials or alternatives for treatment

cooperating with international partners to contain the risks of antimicrobial resistance

improving monitoring and surveillance in human and animal medicine

promoting research and innovation

54 Robinson, T. R., Wertheim, H. F. L., Kakkar, M., Kariuki, S., Bu, D., Price, L. B. (2015). Animal production and antimicrobial

resistance in the clinic. Lancet Special Series. 55 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council - Action plan against the rising threats from

Antimicrobial Resistance. COM (2011) 748 final.

91

Table 13. Actions outlined in the EC action plan against the rising threats of antimicrobial

resistance

No Actions

1 Strengthen the promotion of the appropriate use of antimicrobials in all Member States.

2 Strengthen the regulatory framework on veterinary medicines and on medicated feed via the

review package foreseen for 2013.

3 Introduce recommendations for prudent use in veterinary medicine, including follow-up reports,

using the same approach as 2002 Council Recommendation on prudent use of antimicrobial

agents in human medicine.

4 Strengthen infection prevention and control in healthcare settings.

5 Introduction of the new Animal Health Law, which will focus on prevention of diseases,

reducing the use of antibiotics and replacing current Animal Health provisions based on disease

control.

6 To promote, in a staged approach, unprecedented collaborative research and development

efforts to bring new antibiotics to patients.

7 Promote efforts to analyse the need for new antibiotics into veterinary medicine.

8 Develop and/or strengthen multilateral and bilateral commitments for the prevention and

control of antimicrobial resistance in all sectors.

9 Strengthen surveillance systems on antimicrobial resistance and antimicrobial consumption in

human medicine.

10 Strengthen surveillance systems on antimicrobial resistance and antimicrobial consumption in

animal medicine.

11 Reinforce and co-ordinate research efforts.

12 Survey and comparative effectiveness research.

Through its research framework programmes (e.g. FP7, Horizon 2020) the European

Commission contributed to several of these areas by funding research activities in the fields

related to antimicrobial resistance. Research projects directly or indirectly related to

antimicrobial resistance were conducted under different themes, including Health, Nanosciences,

Nanotechnologies, Materials & New Production Technologies (NMP), Knowledge Based

Bioeconomy (KBBE), Information and communication technologies (ICT) and others. A Joint

Programming Initiative on antimicrobial resistance (JPIAMR) was also established to create a

common research agenda and to integrate research efforts across national borders via alignment

and research funding.56

Since 2012 the JPIAMR is supported by the EC via a Coordination and

Support Action grant of EUR 2 million. The strategic research agenda of JPIAMR was launched

on 3 April 2014, and provides a framework for future investment and research priorities.57

So

56 http://ec.europa.eu/research/health/index.cfm?pg=area&areaname=amdr 57 Commission Staff Working Document: progress report on the Action plan against the rising threats from Antimicrobial

resistance. SWD(2015) 59 final

http://ec.europa.eu/research/health/index.cfm?pg=area&areaname=amdr

92

far, the initiative has brought together 22 members to coordinate their research in order to allow

greater impact in the field and avoid effort duplication.58

In order to promote adequate use of antimicrobial drugs, the European Commission launched a

EUR 1 million challenge prize to develop a rapid diagnostic test for upper respiratory tract

infections that can be safely treated without antibiotics.59

To foster the engagement of industry in

antibiotic research, several antimicrobial resistance related projects were launched under the

Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI). IMI was launched in 2008 and is currently one of the

largest public-private partnership between the EU and the European Federation of

Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA).

(c) Defining the scope of the European added value case study

The EU has contributed more than EUR 1 billion towards combating antimicrobial resistance

over the years.60

More than EUR 600 million was allocated through FP7 to foster research and

innovation (see Table below for more information). The FP7 Health theme and Joint Technology

Initiative (JTI) ‘Innovative Medicines Initiative’ received the largest proportion of the funding,

around EUR 406 million and EUR 337 million respectively. The Health programme also had the

highest number of projects. In total, 85 projects related to antimicrobial resistance were funded

under the FP7 Health theme. Under IMI, nine projects related to antimicrobial resistance were

funded.

Antimicrobial resistance-related projects conducted under the Knowledge Based Bioeconomy

(KBBE) programme as well as Nanosciences, Nanotechnologies, Materials & New Production

Technologies (NMP) have also received significant funding under FP7. These projects received

approximately EUR 109 million and EUR 48 million respectively. There were 26 projects

funded under KBBE and eight projects funded under NMP. Nineteen projects related to

antimicrobial resistance were also conducted under ICT, Regional potential and Research for the

benefit of SMEs. Together these projects received around EUR 40 million of EU funding.

Table 14. Projects related to the area of antimicrobial resistance and their allocated EU

contribution

Programme Number of projects EU contribution, EUR million

FP7 Health 85 406 180 902,2

FP7 ICT 4 20 410 712

FP7 Regional potential 2 5 218 112

FP7 NMP 8 47 802 599

FP7 KBBE 26 108 974 798

FP7 Research for the benefit of SMEs 13 14 227 801

FP7 JTI IMI 9 335 767 601

Total 147 602 814 924,20


Programmes (FP7, Horizon 2020)”, forthcoming , based on CORDA data

58 Matthiessen, L., Bergström, R., Dustdar, S., Meulien, P., Draghia-Akli, R. (2016). Increased momentum in antimicrobial

resistance research. Lancet, Vol 388, pp: 865. 59 http://ec.europa.eu/research/index.cfm?pg=newsalert&year=2015&na=na-260215 60 Matthiessen, L., Bergström, R., Dustdar, S., Meulien, P., Draghia-Akli, R. (2016). Increased momentum in antimicrobial

resistance research. Lancet, Vol 388, pp: 865.

http://ec.europa.eu/research/index.cfm?pg=newsalert&year=2015&na=na-260215

93

As antimicrobial resistance cuts across different areas, in this case study a choice was made to

include projects that were indirectly or directly related to antimicrobial resistance research.

Projects in the areas of infection control, diagnostics, public health, drug development and

clinical trials were included. As antibiotics are used in humans and animal husbandry, projects

related to both human and animal health were selected.

F.1.2. Key findings

(a) Factors/mechanisms of influence fostering European added value

Reduction of commercial/research risks

In terms of commercial and research risks, many interviewees agreed that risks are reduced

or shared between the partners in European FP projects. Small and Medium-sized

Enterprises (SMEs) that are working in the late development and close to market phases face

more risks compared to basic research projects. In addition, compared to academic researchers

companies need to deliver specific products and might need to take higher risks to achieve that.

Therefore, EU funding can help to mitigate those risks with upfront payments. Some funding for

companies might also be available at local levels. Many researchers said that national

governments are moving towards the implementation of different funding mechanisms for

SMEs. However, the situation still depends on the country and research funding policies. The

support available nationally might not be as substantial as provided through EU funding

mechanisms.

Regarding research risks, the fact that in the FP projects researchers work in consortia helps to

mitigate risks to a large extent. As stated by a number of interviewees, some projects are

successful and others might encounter obstacles in reaching their results or delivering results that

are different from what was initially planned. This is part of the overall research process. The

fact that there are different teams and work packages involved in projects helps to secure that

research progress is made, irrespective of possible setbacks. Also, FP projects in the

antimicrobial resistance field often involve different levels of research advancement, from basic

to applied and clinical research. This approach also helps to spread risks compared to a focused

project conducted by one research group.

Leverage of private and public investment

The interview participants agreed to a large extent that the participation in European FP

projects helps to attract further research funding. Regarding public investment, some

researchers stated that participation in a large international collaborative project is seen as a

benefit by funders, although this differs between countries and funding agencies. Depending on

the country, some national agencies (as stated by respondents from Norway, Sweden, the UK)

value participating in FP projects more and others (as stated by interviewees from Spain and

Austria) do not differentiate between research experience gained nationally or through European

collaborative projects.

In terms of leveraging private funding, the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) programme

New Drugs for Bad Bugs (ND4BB) has fostered the industry’s participation in the antimicrobial

resistance area and generated significant in kind contribution from the industry. The programme

was started with an aim to research and tackle the scientific, regulatory and business challenges

that lay in the development of new antibiotics. Through the partnership between industry,

academia and biotech organisations, seven large projects were funded. The total budget of the

94

programme was EUR 700 million, with industry contributing half of this sum in-kind (personnel

costs).

However, a few projects also mentioned the problem of attracting funding from the

pharmaceutical industry for the commercialisation of their project results. The projects are facing

a ‘valley of death’ where their formulations or technologies produced cannot be further

developed due to a lack of funding from companies. Although, the outcomes of the projects are

ready for commercialisation or licensing, finding industrial partners interested in conducting

clinical trials and continuing with development is proving difficult.

Pooling resources and building critical mass

The majority of interviewees confirmed that there was resource sharing or pooling in the

EU projects they participated in. In some cases, it included equipment, but mostly researchers

pooled and shared samples, animal models, patient data, research protocols or bacterial strains.

Most of the interviewees said that such resource pooling could be done nationally. Some

researchers also stated that doing it at national level could be easier due to faster communication

and lower transportation costs. However, the scale of the material available or collaboration

opportunities would be much smaller. For example, one project has established a network of 700

clinical trial sites across 42 countries in Europe and this would not be possible on a national

scale. The existence of such a network means that clinical sites are already identified and the

preparation phase for clinical trials is shortened to a minimum. Hence, clinical trials can be

initiated much faster.

The most commonly emphasised aspect of FP projects compared to national projects was

the pooling of scientific expertise and collaboration with the experts working in the

antimicrobial resistance area from other EU or third countries. Since resistance patterns are

different across the globe and human behaviours in antibiotic use also differ, working across

country borders helps to pool knowledge and expertise. Since antimicrobial resistance can spread

easily across borders, employing diverse expertise can help to build the knowledge base quicker

and more effectively.

Some respondents stated that due to the broad scope of FP projects, they require the

engagement of diverse interdisciplinary and inter-sectoral expertise. This is the case for IMI

projects that often involve more than 20 partners from academia and the private sector, and also

for regular FP7 projects. For example, they analyse different bacteria, several types of nano-

carrier systems, several drug formulations or are conducting clinical trials. These types of

projects require pooling various lines of work, including transcriptomics, microbiology,

proteomics, epidemiology and others. Gathering all the competencies and capacities needed for

such broad projects in one country would not be possible in any single Member State.

Another aspect of European added value emphasised by researchers was the larger sums of

funding available in FP projects compared to nationally funded projects. According to some

researchers, the amount awarded to some projects would not be feasible for some governments.

Support available from the EU helps to ensure longer term funding for projects focused on

research questions that cannot be addressed by individual laboratories or research groups.

Interviewees also said that large funding brings another dimension and size to project

activities and helps to build the critical mass needed for research in certain areas of

antimicrobial resistance. Some estimates state that it costs over USD 1 billion (EUR 0.9

billion) to bring a pharmaceutical to the market. Large scale projects are particularly needed

95

when running clinical trials. It also becomes cheaper and more effective to run clinical trials, as

the required levels of resistance and number of patients are much easier to reach when

collaborating across countries.

Increased international and/or inter-sectoral mobility of researchers

International and inter-sectoral mobility of students was emphasised by some beneficiaries

as a pertinent aspect of FP funded projects. There were PhD students and postdoctoral

exchanges between different academic centres, between academia and industry, and between

labs in different countries. However, the relevance of this aspect depended on the specific area of

the antimicrobial resistance research. Whereas some research groups saw it as a great

opportunity, others appreciated other aspects of EU projects more. For example, in clinical trials

mobility and exchange was not always seen as crucial:

Interviewed scientists said that in many countries student exchange is also funded by

national or regional funding agencies. Although in these instances mobility can take place

only on a national level or bilaterally. In European projects, mobility occurs across country

borders and contributes to networking, idea exchange and capacity building among young

scientists. According to some interviewees, collaboration between researchers from different

parts of Europe promotes capacity building as well. Particularly in countries where research

funding is lower (Eastern European or Southern European countries) FP projects allow them to

come on board and improve their research capacities.

(b) Better results achieved because of European added value

Improved research capabilities/excellence

Through the interviews with the beneficiaries, there are a few aspects of FP funding that were

found to improve research capabilities and excellence in the area of antimicrobial resistance. All

researchers agreed that FP funding gives many opportunities to network and exchange ideas

with the best scientists across the EU. It also provides opportunities to engage with new

expertise, new methodologies, techniques and instruments. Also, EU projects are

multidisciplinary and thus allow collaborations to happen across different fields. According to

the interviewees, the spill overs of knowledge and ideas that occur through such collaborations

can advance antimicrobial research.

Since EU funding is usually much larger than nationally available funding, bigger research

bottlenecks in the antimicrobial resistance can be addressed. This is of particular relevance

in the field where no new antibiotics have been developed for decades. Respondents said that to

change this situation, efforts across a spectrum of research activities are needed. From

identification of molecules, implementation of the formulations, pre-clinical in vitro testing, to in

vivo testing and clinical studies. These are large efforts in terms of the development phases they

include. Compared to EU projects, national research agencies fund much more focused, targeted

and smaller activities. They are also needed to complement EU projects but the scale and scope

of research questions they can address are much lower.

Through interviews, there were some distinct views found when comparing national

research capacities in the antimicrobial resistance field to capacities available at the

European level. Most of the scientists (although there were exceptions) working in the UK,

France, Belgium, Sweden and the Netherlands stated that for many research areas, nationally

existing expertise would be sufficient to implement projects of such broad scope as FP projects.

96

Scientists from Norway, Austria, Switzerland and Italy, and researchers working in

epidemiology or conducting clinical trials, said that national expertise would not be sufficient.

Particularly, in large comparative multicentre studies or, as one respondent said, in a very

specific field of science.

The opinions of interviewed scientists also differed on whether or not EU funding helps to

increase scientific capabilities better than national funding. Many interviewed researchers

stated that this was possible due to the large amount of funding available. But many Member

States, particularly in the North West of Europe, also have large R&D budgets and provide

funding for PhD and postdoctoral students. In certain cases, interviewed researchers suggested

that EU research funding could help certain countries to build up their research capacities.

Mostly, for the MS from the South and East of Europe, this can improve their research

capabilities due to collaboration and exchange opportunities offered by FP funding.

Wider availability and dissemination of knowledge

Some of the interviewed researchers agreed that European efforts to promote open access

and data sharing and wider dissemination of research results are stronger compared to

national level efforts (Sweden). Others stated that both national and EU efforts are at the

same level or that national research agencies are catching up and also include requirements

for open access publishing (Belgium, Norway, the UK). However, not all of the interviewees

saw open access publishing as the best way to disseminate one’s research results. The facts that it

is costly and that the open access journals are usually low ranked were named as significant

drawbacks of open access publishing.

Some of the researchers stated that with or without open access, disseminating research

outcomes and reaching wider audiences is becoming more and more difficult. With increasing

numbers of publications, it gets harder to draw attention of academia and the public. European

collaborative projects are seen to have an advantage here. Since there are many partners involved

and publications are usually co-authored, it helps to widen dissemination and strengthen the

impact of research results:

However, apart from open access publications, researchers emphasised the importance of

opening and depositing research data in online repositories. In the area of antimicrobial

resistance, this was stressed as a crucial factor to advance research and provide some urgently

needed answers. Interviewees stated that having more data openly available would make

research easier and more efficient, help to advance new treatment strategies and develop new

drugs faster. As data is not published or is not available, there is duplication of research efforts

and a subsequent waste of resources. When data is not open, scientists might be working on the

same discoveries that were already made. For example, when studying toxicity, there is a strong

probability that many models were tested for toxicity previously but the data is not published

openly. Conducting trials in this area would results in a significant waste of research money.

Openly depositing data would save time and resources but also would provide opportunities to

analyse data from different angles and perspectives. One project funded by FP7 (already

described above) is working to develop such a database of tuberculosis patient data. It will

comprise data from older and recent clinical tuberculosis trials and will provide ample

possibilities for further research.

Researchers also see a need for more guidance and stewardship in developing and setting up

one platform that would facilitate data storing. There is already a lot of data collected,

analysed and stored by ECDC on epidemiology, surveillance, resistance levels and antibiotic use.

97

Still, for new drug developments, more advanced techniques and the omics technologies, a data

depository is still missing. Having a common platform where publication associated original data

could be stored safely and accessed by peers was seen as a real benefit by the interviewed

researchers. In projects with industry involvement, a single platform and clear data publishing

rules in EU funded projects would help to open more data that companies are not always willing

to reveal. Feedback from researchers stated that currently there are many questions arising data

ownership and issues of intellectual property rights when working with private industry.

Economies of scale and scope

Although this aspect was not extensively addressed by respondents, some reported several

factors on why carrying out antimicrobial research through pan-European collaborations

can reduce research costs. Conducting smaller projects that have the same aim and scope in

different institutions and countries reduces the possibilities to pool the results and increases the

overall cost of running such projects. On the other hand, running several research lines in one

project might be more efficient. Also, the fact that antimicrobial resistance related projects are

complex in terms of the different disciplines and phases of development they encompass was

mentioned by many researchers. This complexity translates into projects that are very expensive

for national funders. By combining expertise and funds and running collaborative projects,

funders make the best use of resources and prevent that two or more expensive studies are

conducted simultaneously.

Better coordination of national research policies and practices at the EU level

Overall, researchers saw national and European projects in antimicrobial resistance differently

due to the much larger scale and scope of the later projects. Both types of research activities

were seen as complementary rather than fragmented or as duplications of a research

effort. This is because, according to researchers, there are many knowledge gaps in the

antimicrobial resistance area that need to be filled in by both smaller, more focused studies as

well as large scale projects. Also, rates of infections, levels of resistance and prescription and

consumption of anti-infective drugs are diverse across Europe and the world. Hence, conducting

studies with similar goals or validating results in different regions is seen as valuable to generate

stronger evidence.

Regarding research coordination, most of interviewed participants saw a need for a macro

level coordination between the EU, other big funding agencies (e.g. BARDA) and

international organisations such as WHO or EU organisations such as ECDC. This type of

coordination could help to align strategies and organise data management more efficiently.

Regarding coordination of national and EU research policies, not all researchers were aware of

the already existing mechanisms. As one of the interviewees put it that few results of these

mechanisms are disseminated. The researchers who knew or had participated in calls for ERA-

NETs and JPIAMR projects stated that these efforts do not provide equal opportunities for all

European research groups to participate but favour certain clubs. Some researchers also stated

that this kind of coordination is not always effective since resources are used to manage the

interests of the Member States.

Some researchers see a lack of coordination and communication between projects

conducted under FP7. They stated that projects should put more effort on aligning their

research activities and collaborate more in result dissemination. Particularly in projects where

data can be pooled together to validate the results or in projects that are funded under the same

calls. This might need a different leadership from the EC and possibly a different outcome-based

98

funding strategy for antimicrobial resistance related projects. According to some of the

researchers, more communication between projects themselves and between projects and project

officers would help to avoid duplication of research efforts. It would also ensure that the funding

is spent effectively and would help to maximise the uptake of the results and outcomes of FP

projects. Such close communication could also better inform further policy or research agenda

setting.

Although there were researchers saying that more coordination between FP projects is needed,

there are also examples of well-coordinated research activities. For instance, the FORMAMP,

PNEUMONP and NAREB projects funded under Nanosciences, Nanotechnologies, Materials

and New Production Technologies theme in FP7. They work towards unifying methods and

uniting efforts to disseminate their work to the general audience, industry and decision-makers.

There are challenges in management and result sharing due to IPR issues, according to the

coordinator of one of the projects. But the cluster of the three projects aims to overcome them

and foster collaborative and synergistic approaches.

(c) Long-term impacts resulting from European added value

Addressing societal/ pan-European challenges

Most researchers believed that European collaborative projects address infectious diseases and

the antimicrobial challenges better than national level projects. Pan-European projects can

have bigger impacts as they reach much wider audiences across Europe. National level

projects are still needed though, as they are complementary to European or international projects.

However, they are not equipped to produce as significant impacts in the antimicrobial resistance

area as FP projects since their scope is usually narrower, their funding is considerably lower and

the funding policies are more vulnerable to political circumstances.

In addition, to address antimicrobial resistance, very broad studies are needed that deal with

different levels of antimicrobial resistance, including prevention, infection diagnostics,

epidemiology and treatment strategies. Conducting such studies nationally would be less

efficient and more expensive. According to some researchers, 15 or more years are needed to

find a new drug and bring it to the market. Many different actors are involved in this process. EU

funding allows to address several aspects of the R&D chain of drug development in one project.

The interviewees also reported that FP funding has contributed to a significant change in

antimicrobial research through the IMI programme New Drugs for Bad Bugs. Industry’s

involvement is crucial in order to develop new anti-infective drugs and bring them to patients.

However, the monetary incentives for pharmaceutical companies to work in this area are very

low as the field is not profitable. The Innovative Medicines Initiative showcases a new

collaboration model between academia and industry to advance the developments in the

antimicrobial resistance field. The programme has already helped to generate more interest from

the industry to engage in this field of research.

Also, projects conducted under FP7 will contribute to overcoming several challenges in

antimicrobial resistance. The possibility to deliver new drug compounds to the market could

save many lives of patients that cannot be treated with currently available anti-infectives. Other

areas, such as immunization, epidemiology, new diagnostics or better surveillance could have

economic impacts. Healthcare costs and treatment costs that are very high, particularly for

multidrug resistant pathogens, could be reduced. Patient stays in hospitals or sick days could also

be reduced. Several projects also reported that they actively collaborate with policy makers, such

99

as the European Medicines Agency and that their results have had an effect on antibiotic

stewardship policies and infection control policies.

European research in the antimicrobial area has a good track record, according to the interviewed

participants. Due to already invested large amounts of funding and the expertise that has

been built up within the continent, Europe could take the lead in coordinating the

antimicrobial resistance research efforts globally. Compared to other continents, Europe is

ahead in many sub fields. Some of the researchers also emphasised that European wide

perspective might not be sufficient in the antimicrobial resistance field and that a broader view

spanning the globe would help to address the issue more effectively.

F.1.3. Stories of impact

Through research carried out for this case study several areas and projects were identified that

are examples of successful initiatives of FP7 funding. They include the IMI ND4BB programme,

advancement in diagnostic practices and product development, as well as the interdisciplinarity

of research conducted in European projects.

The Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI), according to some of the beneficiaries, has helped to

attract the interest of the pharmaceutical industry and generate more research in the

antimicrobial resistance field. The industrial partners contributed more than EUR 360 million

in-kind. The programme has also helped to bring larger scale and scope to the European

antimicrobial research. The projects in ND4BB have addressed a continuum of issues in the

antibiotic resistance research cycle. The topics of funded projects ranged from early discovery

and development, to preclinical as well as clinical phases. Also, one of the projects, DRIVE-AB,

was conducted in the area of new economic models to reward the antimicrobial development

while de-linking it from return on investment from sales volume. The results of these projects

will contribute to overcoming barriers that lay in antibiotic drug design, in delivery of new

leads in the antibacterial candidate pipeline, in clinical trials and in return on investment

models for antibiotic development.

One of the challenges that contributes to increasing antimicrobial resistance is the

incorrect diagnosis of diseases. This can lead to the wrong drugs being prescribed for

treatment. Tests to diagnose a specific disease or infection are not always available and doctors

might rely on symptoms to make a diagnosis and prescribe drugs. Some European FP projects

addressed this challenge and worked on developing diagnostic tests for various infections.

In one of those projects, NIDIAG, a large international consortium conducted research in several

low-income countries and developed a test for sleeping sickness (Human African

Trypanosomiasis), an infectious disease caused by a parasite. According to the World Health

Organisation, the estimated number of infections currently is below 20 000 and the estimated

population at risk is 65 million people. The Rapid Diagnostic Test developed by NIDIAG is

available on the market and will be particularly useful for remote rural settings where this

disease mostly occurs. The project focused not only on developing the specific test but also on

guidelines for health practitioners on how to make a more accurate and faster diagnosis of

this disease. The NIDIAG project developed the guidelines that can be used by health care

professionals to make more accurate diagnosis, do it quicker and prescribe a correct drug for the

treatment.

The EU funded various projects to develop specific products that could be used to avoid or

treat infections (drug formulations, vaccines and other products). For example, one project

100

called NanoTi developed a new titanium implant that is able to resist bacterial infections without

the addition of any antibacterial compounds. The incidence of infections related to dental

implants is between 2-5% and can sometimes reach 15%. The new implant can help to decrease

this number and at the same time reduce the need for anti-infective drugs. Many other FP7

projects worked on the development of similar products, vaccines or drugs. Their outputs will

contribute to providing better targeted treatments and lowering the overall numbers of

infections.

Antimicrobial resistance is a complex area, requiring research in animals and humans as well as

across an array of bacteria, viruses, fungi and protozoa. Also, research across a range of

disciplines is needed including molecular and pharmacological studies, epidemiology and

clinical trials. In this case study, we analysed a small fraction of all FP7 projects related to

antimicrobial resistance. Projects were conducted under different FP7 programmes such as

Health, ICT, NMP, KBBE and IMI. This fraction of FP7 projects illustrates and represents

the diversity and broad scope of topics addressed by European funding. The majority of the

interviewees agreed that with national research project such broad scope and scale could not be

achieved.

F.2. European added value case study 2: Large-Scale Data gathering, omics

research and biobanks which contribute to personalised medicine approaches


(d) Definition and expected impact of the area

‘Personalised medicine’ is not a precise term and no single definition has been agreed upon.

Many other terms, such as genomic medicine, stratified medicine and precision medicine are

frequently used synonymously with personalised medicine. For this analysis the definition of the

European Commission, which was revised by the Horizon 2020 Advisory Group for Societal

Challenge 1 ‘Health, demographic change and Wellbeing’ were used61

: “personalised medicine

refers to a medical model using characterisation of individuals’ phenotypes and genotypes (e.g.

molecular profiling, medical imaging, lifestyle data) for tailoring the right therapeutic strategy

for the right person at the right time, and/or to determine the predisposition to disease and/or to

deliver timely and targeted prevention”.

Large-scale molecular data are fundamental for the understanding of the molecular basis of

diseases. The high-throughput omics technologies as well as the resulting data are the

prerequisites for personalised medicine. Research into molecular understanding of diseases also

requires large-scale biobanking securing the availability and accessibility of high-quality

biological samples collected in a standardised manner. Access is needed to large-scale

population as well as to patient cohorts that are coupled with a large quantity of omics, clinical,

lifestyle and imaging information. Selected projects in this analysis belong to categories of basic

research and translational research and also include so-called enablers for personalised medicine

which generated large data and sample sets and developed or improved generic technologies.

According to the Advisory Group for Societal Challenge 1research should aim to establish or

support a ‘pipeline’ needed to implement personalised medicine:

61 Advice for 2016/2017 of the Horizon 2020 Advisory Group for Societal Challenge 1 ‘Health, demographic change and

Wellbeing’

101

Better understanding of diseases and their co-morbidities as well as resilience to

disease at the systems and mechanistic levels. Formulating hypotheses for biomarkers or

targeted interventions aimed at disease prevention or therapy.

Development of new tools for utilising/extracting/sharing new knowledge in the most

informative and efficient manner (e.g. molecular profiling, biotechnology, diagnostics,

ICT tools) in the most appropriate personalised setting (e.g. health care system, at home),

as well as accelerating and facilitating regulatory approval paths for new medical

products for personalised medicine.

Piloting the personalised medicine concept in real life settings (e.g.

genetic/phenotypic screening programmes, responding to the paradigm shift in clinical

trials which move away from unselected patient populations towards more individualised

approaches in molecularly defined subgroups), demonstrating the health benefit and cost-

effectiveness.

Sharing the data generated in new and existing studies, while ensuring confidentiality

and data security, and feeding this information towards the new discoveries.

Empowerment of individuals to manage their data, understanding of diseases and their

co-morbidities as well as resilience to disease.

The key challenges ahead and future research needs are the adaption of research tools for clinical

use, standards for data and sample collection, novel statistical and modelling methods for

analyses, clinical bioinformatics, translation of omics research into clinical applications,

identification, qualification and clinical validation of biomarkers, adapted clinical trial

methodologies, and research on the economic impact of personalised medicine. Many of these

aspects were already addressed in the later stage of FP7 and have been continued in Horizon

2020. In addition, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) launched a pilot project to explore

the adaptive pathways approach62

(MAPP - Medicines Adaptive Pathways to Patients), a

scientific concept of medicines development and data generation intended for medicines that

address patients’ unmet medical needs and improve timely access for patients to new medicines.

The Horizon 2020 Advisory Group came up with a list of key weaknesses and threats affecting

the development and uptake of personalised medicine. Insufficient interdisciplinarity and

existence of “silos” were identified as a key weakness, followed by insufficient entrepreneurship

and transfer of knowledge. Data privacy, ownership and security were identified as key

threats, as were reluctance to move from old to new ways of medicine by health professionals. In

this context public/FP7 funding had its role next to others in the promotion of interdisciplinary,

the creation of joined up databases, the interoperability of data and formats (overcome silos), and

contribute to addressing the data privacy, ownership and security issues.

62 http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/regulation/general/general_content_000601.jsp

102

Table 15 SWOT analysis of the personalised medicine area

Strengths

Comparatively strong health care system

infrastructures to conduct clinical studies.

Longitudinal/prospective cohort studies. Strong

basic research.

Rapid advances in ‘omics’ resulting in decreasing

costs.

Weaknesses

Insufficient interdisciplinary, existence of ‘silos’.

Different health care systems and regulations

across EU.

Insufficient entrepreneurship, making

implementation of personalized medicine in real

life challenging.

Lack of joined up databases.

Lack of training of health care and other providers.

Opportunities

Need for new business models

Need for improved public health.

Need for change to health care systems to reduce

the costs.

Threats

Inadequately addressing the risks associated with

personalized medicine, such as issues of data

privacy/ownership and security.

Resistance to change. Despite demonstrated

success, public and health care professionals do not

support implementation of personalized medicine.

Source: Horizon 2020 Advisory group for Health, demographic change and wellbeing

(e) Rationale for public intervention: key trends in the area, main challenges and

indicators

One of the greatest societal and economic challenges of the 21st century for European societies is

health and the increasing pressure on European health care systems in an ageing population. By

2025, more than 20% of Europeans will be 65 or older, with a particularly rapid increase in

numbers of over-80s. According to World Bank figures, public expenditure on healthcare in the

EU could jump from 8% of GDP in 2000 to 14% in 2030 and continue to grow beyond that date.

As a percent of a country’s GDP, the USA also spent almost 16% of their GDP on healthcare. As

an example the global economic impact of the five leading non-communicable diseases (NCDs)

– cardiovascular disease (CVD), chronic respiratory disease, cancer, diabetes and mental ill-

health – could total US$ 47 trillion over the next 20 years, according to a study released in 2011

by the World Economic Forum. Current medical treatments based on the “average patient” and

“one-size-fits-all” are in many cases not effective, but often also very harmful. The list of

conditions for which there is no satisfactory treatment is increasing and, even when treatments

are available, many patients either do not respond or experience unacceptable side effects. For

example, a 2001 study showed that the response rates of patients to common medications from

different therapeutic classes ranged from ~80% analgesics) to ~25% (oncology). Progress in

developing and adopting diagnostics to identify which medicines work best for which patients,

thus reducing adverse events, has been slow. In fact, between 2000 and 2011, the number of

adverse events recorded by the FDA nearly tripled. According to several studies, about 5.3% of

all hospital admissions are associated with adverse drug reactions (ADRs).

The increasing drug development cost with a decreasing success rate of approval is an additional

burden. In oncology, as an example, average costs for clinical trials are 1.5 billion dollars per

candidate. The current success rate for each candidate is between 8% and 25% with the vast

majority of drugs failing to be approved at the end of long overall development time (phase I-III)

of 6.5 years.

103

(f) Defining the scope of the European added value case study

Extensive desk research and content analysis of final and periodic reports were applied to

identify FP7 Health projects that were related to personalised medicine. The final list of

personalised medicine projects was narrowed down to 209 projects. In addition 17 research

infrastructure projects and 34 IMI projects related to personalised medicine were identified. 40

projects belonging to the research area of “large-scale data gathering, -omics research and

biobanks which contribute to personalised medicine approaches” were identified. The majority

of projects from FP7 Health were funded under pillar 1, activity 1.1. HIGH-THROUGHPUT

RESEARCH and pillar 2, activity 2.1.1 LARGE-SCALE DATA GATHERING (22 projects).

For the analysis 30 interviews were conducted with scientists covering 21 projects.

Projects belonging to the research area of “large-scale data gathering, -omics research and

biobanks which contribute to personalised medicine approaches” are transnational collaborative

projects involving large consortia. European collaborative research is a key element of the

European Research Framework Programmes. Cooperation in collaborative projects and the

resulting exchange or shared use of knowledge, methods, infrastructures and data provide critical

mass across national borders. European added value could most likely be realised within these

collaborative research projects.

Table 16 Projects related to the area “Large-scale data gathering, omics research and

biobanks which contribute to personalised medicine approaches” and their allocated EU

contribution


FP7 Health 30 296.767.230

FP7 Infrastructures 7 39.399.293

FP7 JTI IMI 2 47.840.380

FP7 ERC 1 2.498.658

Total 40 386.505.561


Programmes (FP7, Horizon 2020)”, forthcoming). based on CORDA data

F.2.2. Key findings


Reduction of commercial and research risks

The majority of projects in the area of “large-scale data gathering, omics research and biobanks

which contribute to personalised medicine approaches” were aiming at the generation of new

data sets, resources, generic technologies and infrastructures which could be later used by the

scientific community and were therefore more basic or clinical research projects. The

commercial risks of such projects were regarded as low. The participation of SMEs was seen as

beneficial for the projects, but the main drivers were the academic groups.

The research risk was mitigated by the composition and size of the research consortia. The large

European initiatives relied on project partners with a proven track record of synergistic expertise

and productivity. Even in case one partner failed to deliver the required research results, the

104

consortia were usually large enough to find a different partner which could took over the tasks.

This approach helped to spread risks compared to a project conducted by one research group.


EU funding leveraged other sources of support to research in their field. EU funding helped them

to access other funding to expand or continue their research. The majority of interviewees

reported that FP7 funding was beneficial to leverage additional funding from the EU including

Horizon 2020 grants, but also from other sources. Some interviewees from larger Member States

pointed out that the leverage of additional funding was not relevant for them, but they admitted

that leverage of additional funding was an important driver for participants of smaller countries.

The majority of newly attracted funding came from the public sector including European and

national grants. The European initiatives pay back to the national level and leverage additional

funds in several Member States. Without pan-European initiatives it would not have been

possible to promote certain national resources and programmes. European funds were

prerequisite to develop or/and improve national initiatives and roadmaps.

The ESFRI infrastructure projects received a limited seed funding by FP7 for a so-called

preparatory phase. This phase already included a fundraising exercise. BBMRI, Biobanking and

Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure, received EUR 5 million from the EU. BBMRI

secured EUR 170 million by Member States.

A clear leverage effect could be seen in the Czech Republic, the Netherlands and Finland in the

area of research infrastructures for mouse functional genomics, where according to the

interviewees there would be no national programmes without the European funding. As an

example, participation in the European initiative was the prerequisite to apply for national funds

for the France Phenomin - French National Infrastructure for Mouse Phenogenomics.

The participation in successful European initiatives also helped researchers to compete for

internal institutional funding. The programme-oriented funding (POF) within the German

Helmholtz Association is evaluated every 5 years and the European funding is an asset to secure

the basic funding of research groups.

Through the participation in large European initiatives existing networks were able to

successfully apply for ERA-NET grants. Scientists are not only partner in the ERA-NET grants,

but participate in Scientific Advisory Boards. They were able to shape the corresponding ERA-

NET calls, because specific calls were leveraging on existing infrastructures and other project

outcomes like data collections of these large European initiatives. The latest E-Rare calls

demand a data-managing plan and directly refer to the use of the infrastructures developed

within the RD-Connect project. In addition, the larger European initiatives influenced the

structure of later European grant applications. An increase of independent biobank work

packages dedicated towards sample quality and management could be observed as a clear trend.

The FP7 funding is also seen as a door opener for European Structural and Investment Funds like

the teaming actions disseminating best practises to countries with lower funding capacities.

Some European calls directly supported existing initiatives like the infrastructure calls aiming at

optimising the use and development of the best research infrastructures existing in Europe.

Several interviewees highlighted that the fact that they led or participated in a large European

project helped to attract additional national grants. Numerous examples were given including

MRC, BMBF, DFG, ANR, Genopole. National calls also aimed at the expansion of research

programmes towards for example the low and middle income countries.

105

Other national calls directly referred to existing European projects and only the partners of these

initiatives were eligible to apply for the national grants. This can be exemplified by the BMBF

call ” Improvement of German biobank sites for connection to BBMRI” where it was stated “The

development, testing and application of overarching, generic standards, products and solutions

for the integration of German biobank sites with human samples and data in BBMRI will be

promoted. The work of BBMRI must be taken into account in all work. It is not the objective of

the funding to develop or improve local, isolated infrastructures.”

The main aims of the large-scale data gathering, omics research and biobank projects were the

generation of data sets, resources and infrastructures. Interaction with industry happened mainly

in precompetitive areas. Therefore, the direct leverage of private funds plays for most of the

projects’ participants only a minor role, but several interviewees expect to attract private funds in

the near future, when projects are more advanced. On the other hand, projects’ participants often

claimed that initial contacts and discussion with biotech, pharma and medical technology

companies were started and small-scale side projects focussing on specific aspects of the

research between single project partners and industry were funded by private funds. European

projects helped to attract funding from foundations like for example the Wellcome Trust (UK),

Hannelore-Kohl Stiftung (Germany) and a foundation from the USA.


Projects in the area of “large-scale data gathering, omics research and biobanks which contribute

to personalised medicine approaches” are characterised by large and multidisciplinary consortia.

Nearly all of the interviewed project partners and coordinators emphasised that bringing the best

people in Europe together resulted in stronger collaborative networks and better scientific

excellence. These networks often outlive the duration of the grants. The required knowledge and

expertise for these large European initiatives were not available in single countries. Projects in

this area require individuals and institutions of proven expertise and productivity for the various

classes of data production, analysis and integration. Compared to national funded projects

European projects could tackle the full spectrum of analyses methods in contrast to smaller and

more focused projects funded nationally.

The second most important European added value aspect highlighted by the interviewees was the

pooling of samples and data. The large-scale data gathering projects are illustrations of the merits

of EU-induced critical mass. They had brought together large amounts of data on patients,

permitting the identification of susceptibility genes and biomarkers for common diseases.

Interactions of genetic variation, lifestyles and wider range and variety of environmental

exposures are best studied against a background of widely different environments, something

that is best leveraged between, rather than within, countries. Clinical expertise including

pathologists was needed from different countries in order to get enough high quality samples.

Genomic cancer projects rely on high numbers of fresh frozen samples, which are only available

by pooling samples transnationally. The European large-scale data gathering projects were able

to collect the worldwide largest disease cohorts. Interviewees conceded that the biggest countries

have the ability to raise individual cohorts for common diseases, but even then projects were

much better of with in international perspective to analyse the full spectrum of the disease

including genomics gene expression, methylation and copy number variation. Gathering all the

competencies and capacities needed for such broad projects in one country would not be possible

in many of the Member States. Rare diseases are prime examples of a research area that strongly

benefits from coordination on a European and international scale. The funding of transnational

collaborative research through FP7 Health was more efficient and enhanced the cooperation

between scientists working on rare diseases in Europe and beyond and thus reducing

106

fragmentation of research in this field. In many countries dedicated research programmes were

not available. This was especially true for the smaller countries of the EU.

Large sample sizes are required to investigate the variable incidence of specific cancers across

Europe. Incidence rates for renal cancer have been sharply increased with unexplained variation

in different countries. The highest rates that are observed worldwide occur in Central Europe and

some other European regions compared to elsewhere in the world. The underlying processes of

the disease vary in different European populations. Only the analysis of a European sample

collection can led to the explanation of these differences. Large sample sizes are even more

important in more homogeneous disease samples in order to stratify the disease samples.

One interviewee from France underlined that the European project was instrumental in getting all

clinical colleagues together at her local institute for patient recruitment. The fact that the project

was a European programme was key to motivate the clinicians to include their patients into this

study. Only at her side, 12 clinicians were involved in patient recruitment.

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is designed to inform health-care decisions by

providing evidence on the effectiveness, benefits, and harms of different treatment options. CER

makes use of large between-centre and between-country differences in treatment and outcome.

The stratification of patients by genomics, imaging technology and protein biomarkers and the

observational research design is dependent on large number of patients but also on big

differences in the variation of treatment. The aim is by identifying and disseminating best

treatment practises and the most cost effective practise across the European Union to reduce the

mortality rate to the lowest European level.


to personalised medicine approaches” mainly pooled and shared scientific expertise and patient

samples. In addition they pooled and shared research data and protocols. The pooling and

sharing of infrastructures and equipment were not regarded as a major aspect for European added

value, but the development of common resources and infrastructures were. Developing Europe-

wide infrastructures facilitated harmonisation of protocols and integration and interoperability of

data from multiple population samples. Harmonisation was recognised as a key enabling factor.

Samples were collected, stored and classified according to similar procedures. Compared to

national funded projects the required infrastructure could be build much faster. In one project,

the coordinator was able to set-up a core lab in his department completely dedicated to omics

and pain with the European FP7 funds. In several projects structures and pipelines for data

collecting and analyses, data sharing and standards were established. Building of common

resources helped to avoid multiplying the costs and gaining efficiency. The newly created

resources and infrastructures are already used by several European but also national projects.

Another aspect of European added value relates to the missing funding opportunities in single

Member States. In several of the smaller countries including the Netherlands, Belgium, Finland

and the Czech Republic no dedicated national programmes and funding calls for large-scale data

gathering or infrastructure projects were available. Researches in these countries were dependent

on European funds. In some cases, the European projects helped to initiate the respective

national programmes. However, even researchers from some larger Member States emphasised

that the scale of national funding compared to European funded projects is much smaller and did

not allow the same scientific ambition.


107

International and/or inter-sectoral mobility of researchers and training were considered as an

important European added value aspect by some, but not all interviewees. Often no explicit

training and mobility activities were part of the research plan. Training events were often

coupled to the annual project meetings or were organised as webinars. Exchange of researchers

occurred on a bilateral level between academic groups in order to learn new competences and

skills that were not accessible in their own institution. In addition, consortia supported the

exchange of early-stage researchers between partner laboratories through the implementation of

short-term travel fellowships. In IMI projects responders pointed to their short secondments from

EFPIA members to academic laboratories and vice versa.

Even in projects with a dedicated mobility and training work package, these activities were often

postponed, because other project tasks were considered as more important for the success of the

project. In other projects these activities were a central part of the research agenda and multiple

training courses in different institutions were organised by project partners. In addition, summer

schools were organised, often in collaboration with other FP7 funded projects, in order to train

young researchers of project beneficiaries but also scientists from outside the projects. Some of

the training materials established through these projects are now used for training courses at EBI

and elsewhere. Summer schools and training events were also used to reach out to smaller

countries embedding additional Eastern and Southern European countries in order to strengthen

the idea of the European Research Area.

In other cases the training and mobility activities were “outsourced” by obtaining addition grants

like MSCA ITN projects or by the participation in dedicated training projects like IMI

EMTRAIN. The landmark BMS Research infrastructures successfully applied for a Horizon

2020 training project for managers and operators of research infrastructure.


Improved research excellence / capabilities

UK based researchers considered European funded large-scale data production projects in

general as not successful compared to the larger, well-funded projects by the Wellcome Trust

and NIH, respectively. On the other hand they admitted that several projects in the area of

“large-scale data gathering, omics research and biobanks which contribute to personalised

medicine approaches” were success stories of European funding. These include the BMS

landmark research infrastructure initiatives and the European projects as part of larger

international initiatives. The larger amount of available funding for collaborative research allow

for larger and more multidisciplinary consortia where more ambitious research questions can be

tackled. Compared to EU projects, national funded projects are more focused, targeted and

smaller.

Scientific publications in peer-reviewed journals are good indicators for scientific excellence. It

can be shown that the EU level research projects resulted in higher quality publications

compared to national funded projects. Good examples are provided by European and national

projects funded as part of larger international initiatives like, IRDiRC, IHEC, ICGC and InTIBR.

For example, in November 2016 a collection of 41 coordinated papers were published by

scientists from across the International Human Epigenome Consortium (IHEC). A set of 24

manuscripts has been released as a package in Cell and Cell Press-associated journals, and an

additional 17 papers have been published in other high-impact journals. These papers represent

the most recent work of IHEC member projects from Canada, the European Union, Germany,

Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and the United States. The German Epigenome Programme

108

contributed four minor manuscripts to the collection whereas the European project contributed

26 publications in journal with highest impact factors. The scales of funding of both projects are

similar in scale.

According to the interviewees, good quality consortia with complementary expertise within FP7

projects led to higher quality research results, which attracted more interest from the scientific

community. Besides analysing the project results within the consortium, some projects made

them immediately available to the scientific community to allow optimal usage of the generated

datasets, which is in contrast to most national funded projects. An indicator is the numerous data

requests these projects received by the scientific community.

The European networks not only bring together European stakeholders but help build

competitiveness against other continental networks like the ones in Asia and USA. The network

of a single country does not have the same power of impact. The European epigenome

programme has been one of the leading consortia within IHEC which could be judged by the

mutual appearance in the boards and the scientific working groups. At the end of the funding

period Europe lost the leadership in this research area. Several interviewees stated they were

missing a funding opportunity to secure the scientific lead and sustain the acquired expertise and

project outcomes and resources. In contrast, USA and Asia increased their investment in

epigenomic research. In addition to the European funding gap, there were no appropriate national

funding programmes available in several countries to compensate for this.

FP7 projects also helped to create a strong position and visibility attracting interests by other

groups including groups from outside Europe which allowed the researchers to collaborate and

share data with other large international initiatives in the USA and Asia.

Another European initiative as part of the larger International Mouse Phenotyping Consortium

(IMPC) made it as the first life science project to the G7 list of research infrastructures of global

interest with global impact. The mission of IMPC is to build the first comprehensive functional

catalogue of a mammalian genome, which will give new insights into gene function and human

disease. This bold goal will require the support, infrastructures and cooperation of multiple

countries. The IMPC is coordinating efforts to generate a knockout mouse strain for every

protein-coding gene in the mouse genome (~20,000).



to personalised medicine approaches” are in general expensive and beyond the scope of most

national funding agencies. Pooling scientific expertise and funding allowed for larger and

coordinated collaborative research and prevent fragmentation and duplication of research efforts.


Most interviewees confirmed that a majority of scientific publications were published in open

access journals, but researchers differ in the handling of research data. Some projects released

and disseminated the data to the wider scientific community even before they analysed them

themselves. Other projects made the research data only available after the end of the project,

because scientists preferred to analyse their data first or secured protection of IP has happened

first. Most projects generated personal medical data which are more sensitive than other research

data. Access to these data were often organised by an instrument called controlled access, where

109

scientists have to apply for the access to the data and have to show that they are bona fide

scientists. Others were promoting an instrument called registered access.

The European Open Science Cloud (EOSC), a virtual environment to store, share and re-use data

across disciplines and borders, was known by most of the interviewees, but not all. Several

responders believed that EOSC would not be the optimal instrument for health related data.

Others could see the EOSC as a framework for the different cloud initiatives. Interviewees

stressed that long-term data stewardships for the different data sets would be an important aspect

which has to be introduced from the beginning, otherwise it would be only another online

repository with no additional benefits. One scientist alerted that with the implementation of the

EOSC the data analysis capacities in Europe have to be increased. The weakness in data analysis

in Africa and Europe compared to the USA and some other regions would otherwise penalise

European research. Several interviewees promoted the inclusion of data management plans

according to the FAIR data principle (make research data findable, accessible, interoperable and

reusable).

Some of the projects reached out to a broader audience in addition to researchers. One project

will publish an entire commissioned issue of a Lancet journal in order to inform policy makers

and funders about their research programme. Other projects coordinated the publication of a

collection of scientific papers to reach the maximum public awareness.

In addition, projects organised workshops and conferences together with other initiatives

including ERA-NETS to spread the project outcomes to a wider scientific community and

Member State funders. Also common guideline papers were published to reach a greater

acceptance. In other cases, common workshops were organised by all funded projects of one

specific call in order to inform the EU, policy makers and other stakeholders about their research

topic and results and to push for additional funding opportunities.

Several projects jointly organised a strategic meeting at the European Parliament in Brussels.

Other projects directly visited the responsible ministries in several Member States to discuss

what infrastructures are available at the national level and explain the added value of linking

these infrastructures on the European level.

Projects involved specific patient organisations or the European umbrella patient organisations

directly as project beneficiaries and by them reached out to patients but to the general public as

well. In addition, researchers were invited by EMA to provide their statements about the

utilisation of data, big data and omics, patient registries, data linkage and FAIR data principle.


The coordination of national research policies and practices at the EU level was no direct aim of

the projects in the area of “large-scale data gathering, omics research and biobanks which

contribute to personalised medicine approaches”. Nevertheless, most of these large initiatives

directly or indirectly contributed to the coordination of research policies and had an impact on

the structuring effect of the European Research Area (ERA) and on national programmes in the

area of health research. The members of the large collaborative networks are often key opinion

leaders serving as advisers to policy makers and other stakeholders in charge of research policies

that inform national funders about cutting-edge research performed by the large international

initiatives. They were participating in the European Union Committee of Experts in Rare

Diseases, were at the Scientific Advisory Boards of ERA-NETS, were coordinators of relevant

110

Joint Actions, and served as chairs of Interdisciplinary Scientific Committees and International

Scientific Steering Committee of large international initiatives.

In the area of traumatic brain injury the two coordinators of an FP7 project together with two

other colleagues started a lobbying initiative in 2009 resulting in the launch of the International

Initiative on TBI Research (InTBIR), a collaboration of funding agencies aiming to stimulate

TBI research. In addition the MRC will take the model of CENTER-TBI to South Africa and

India (low and middle income countries).

In the area of rare diseases FP7 researchers were in a leading position in other relevant initiatives

coordinating the EUCERD Joint Action on Rare Diseases and as lead principal investigators in

its successor initiative Joint Action RD-Action. These initiatives are in the science policy area of

the rare disease field complementing the more research oriented projects. EUCERD aimed at

aiding the European Commission with the preparation and implementation of Community

activities in the field of rare diseases and were considered as the midwife of the European

Reference Networks (ERN) for rare diseases, a novel EU initiative to form networks of centres

of expertise and healthcare providers that support clinicians and researchers to share expertise,

knowledge and resources across the EU. ERNs use communication and eHealth tools to enable

the mobility of expertise across borders, rather than the movement of patients who often travel

abroad, to access the care they need. The first successful ERNs were announced early 2017.

Services and pipelines on data sharing and analyses generated within the FP7 project RD-

CONNECT were offered to be used in the ERNs.

Another prime example was the BMS landmark research infrastructures. Without pan-European

initiatives it would not have been possible to promote certain national resources and

programmes. European funds were necessary to improve or even initiate national initiatives.

Without the European funding there would be no national programmes on infrastructures on

mouse disease models at least in several Member States according to the interviews.

In addition, the ESFRI BMS infrastructure initiatives published several common position papers

on policy issues, aiming to inform national and European policy makers about the relevance of

the BMS research infrastructures for building the European Research Area. As a latest example

they published the position paper “Contribution from the Health related infrastructures: BBMRI,

ECRIN, EATRIS, ELIXIR, EU-OPENSCREEN, INFRAFRONTIER and ISBE to Medicine

Roadmap for Europe” in response to the Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda of PerMed.

The interviewees gave multiple examples where the European initiatives directly pay back to

national research and research programmes. In one project the coordinator was able to set-up a

national database in Italy where 12 national centres for chronic pain research were collaborating

and submitted their research data for data sharing to the newly generated national database.

Through the European funded project these centres, which were no partners in the FP7 project,

got motivated to contribute their data to this central national database. Without the European

project this would not have happened. This model database will also be replicated in several

other European countries. The database and established protocols were already transferred to

another country with had no expertise in this specific topic before.

111


Better addressing societal / pan-European challenges

Research and Innovation in response to the challenge of “Health, demographic change and

wellbeing” is crucial to ensure better health for all European citizens. To the main research

priorities of Horizon 2020 belong next to others personalised medicine and rare diseases. The

projects in the area of “Large-scale data gathering, omics research and biobanks which

contribute to personalised medicine approaches” all contributed to this challenge by providing

insights in the underlying mechanisms of many diseases and establishing large cohorts including

patient cohorts associated with clinical, omics and environmental data. These projects

established or ensured a European leadership in various disciplines including epidemiology,

registers, biobanks and cohorts, rare diseases, cancer and epigenetics. Medical or health research

includes basic, translational and clinical research. Most of the projects of this area were basic

science projects and the transfer of scientific discoveries into the clinic is a long process often

outside the scope of these activities. The majority of projects in the area of “large-scale data

gathering, omics research and biobanks which contribute to personalised medicine approaches”

were aiming at the generation of new data sets, resources, generic technologies and

infrastructures which could be later used by the scientific community for supporting future

clinical trials in these areas. The gained knowledge and established and developed results,

resources and infrastructures were the prerequisites for the stratification of diseases and

personalised medicine. Understanding the critical mutational events underlying the development

of diseases, comprehensive catalogues of mutations and the detection of new disease genes are

paramount for advancing prevention, early detection and effective treatment of the diseases.

The interviewees argued that the private sector alone would not have been able to resource the

projects sufficiently. No concrete case was found where a project could have been implemented

using private or own funds in its entirety. Although some beneficiaries agreed that certain

aspects of their projects could have been implemented with their own or private funds, the

resulting outputs would have been either smaller/partial or substantially delayed. The Wellcome

Trust as a charitable foundation is able to fund large-scale data gathering projects on a similar

scale like the EC.

Several national strategic programmes for personalised medicine have been set up like the

“Stratified Medicine in the UK” and the Personalised Medicine –Action Plan” in Germany to

name only two. Some Member States initiated large-scale data gathering projects like the

100,000 genomes project by Genomics England and the UK Biobank initiative in England and

the UK respectively and the planned French Genome Project with an investment of

approximately EUR 700 million to build a network of sequencing and analysis centres capable of

processing the equivalent of 235,000 genomes a year by 2020. In addition to the European

funded ICGC and IHEC projects, several nationally funded ICGC and IHEC projects exist. But

all interviewees underlined that without the EU action their projects could not have been

realised. This means that the effective critical mass of knowledge and expertise were not

available within a single Member State, that the scale of the project would not have been

possible with national funding and/or that the appropriate funding programmes were missing at

least in some Member States.

The beneficiaries also highlighted the critical mass of data, research subjects and infrastructures

(cohorts, complementary capacities, multi-centre clinical trials and data collection) that were

superior to what would have been available nationally. Responses of the interviewees point to

the perception that participation brings benefits in terms of ability to tackle more ambitious

112

research objectives in European cooperation than in national funded collaborations. The

European setup of research in this area had a huge impact in coordinating and managing the

activities by creating, optimising and sharing resources, and avoiding duplication of efforts.

These are clear indications that the FP7 large-scale data gathering projects directly contribute to

the creation of the European Research Area in health research.

All interviewees were in line with the recommendation of the 2016 report of the Horizon 2020

Advisory Group for Societal Challenge 163

who identified as a main research gap that European

research suffers from lack of sustainability of successful projects, infrastructures and projects

outcomes. For better addressing the pan-European challenges the Horizon 2020 Advisory Group

expressed the need for assuring sustainability of publicly funded projects including the

possibility to follow up successful projects that have ended.


Comparative effectiveness research (CER) makes use of large between-centre and between-

country differences in treatment and outcome. The need for European action is dictated by these

national and regional differences. These inequalities in treatment provision and outcome are not

small. Up to 35,000 lives could be saved annually if traumatic brain injury mortality rates across

Europe could be reduced to the lowest observed national rate. Research is expected to provide

robust guidelines on best clinical and most effective practice, ensuring that every EU citizen

obtains the best possible care, regardless of country or region of residence.

Several European infrastructures supported health research in general, but other platforms were

specifically developed for rare diseases, which linked omics data, registries, biobanks and

developed analysis pipelines. The access and the connection to these European infrastructures

were already implemented in some later calls like in the E-Rare or some national calls

guarantying the long-term storage and re-use of large sample and data sets. European research

infrastructures served as facilities for storage, curation, annotation and distribution of samples

and data for re-use in academia and for commercial purposes. New models for public-private

partnerships were established.

In one of the large cancer projects, a large comprehensive catalogue of somatic mutations was

generated. The results of the project are now taken further towards translation. Women with

germline BRACA1/BRACA2 accounts for 1% of cases and PARP inhibitors are tested in clinical

trials as medication. Based on the obtained molecular signatures patients could be stratified

much better. They found additional 20% which looks like BRACA1/BRACA2 germline

mutation carrier, but they do not have mutations in these genes. By changing the clinical trial

strategy based on the genomic data, a therapy change of 20% of women with breast cancer can

be envisaged, if successful. Several patents have been filled.

In the area of rare diseases 80 new disease genes were identified in one project and further 100

genes are in the analysis pipeline. As a result, new disease panels for stepwise diagnostics are

under development. The diagnostic kits will result in the availability of targeted genetic testing.

This will help physicians provide the most appropriate treatment, allow affected families to make

informed family planning decisions, form better-stratified patient cohorts for interventional

trials, shorten the time to diagnosis and avoid unnecessary or invasive test procedures.

63 http://ec.europa.eu/research/health/pdf/ag_advice_report_2018-2020.pdf

113

F.3. European added value case study 3: Fisheries



Fisheries and aquaculture play an important role in European societies for their capacity to

satisfy the demand of safe, nutritious and healthy food as well as for their ability to provide a

large number of jobs and business opportunities.

Through the Common Fisheries Policy, the EU aims to ensure that fishing and aquaculture are

environmentally, economically and socially sustainable and that they provide a source of healthy

food for EU citizens. The future challenge lies on building a sustainable production system able

to meet food demand and provide jobs and economic growth in a context of increasing resource

scarcities and growing maritime services.

Research funded by FP7 and Horizon 2020 aims at creating the conditions for the development

of new technologies, maximising synergies with activities funded at national and regional levels

and avoiding duplication of research efforts. The focus of the Framework Programmes’ support

related to fisheries and aquaculture can be summarised in three areas.

The first area is the improvement of resource-efficiency and management of fisheries. This

sector lacks behind in the implementation and use of technologies already developed (i.e.

information technology, detection, monitoring and surveillance techniques, new materials, etc.).

Adaptation to new technologies would benefit the extraction sector by improving cost-efficiency

and limiting its environmental impact. At the same time, the EU needs to avoid the loss of

depletion of ecosystem services and produce “more with less” to achieve the sustainability goals

set in the reviewed ‘Common Fisheries Policy’64

. Projects from the Framework Programmes

aimed at exploring opportunities to increase the use of innovative technologies in fisheries

activities, as well as to enhance scientific knowledge to reinforce advice on fisheries

management. Some of the expected impacts of FP7 on resource-efficiency and management

would be:

Improvement in energy efficiency;

Increase in overall economic productivity;

Improved competitiveness of fishing sector;

Increase of private investment in innovation, notably leverage of private co-investor

and/or follow-up investments;

Reduction in damage to other marine resources and ecosystems;

Support decision making and better ecosystem-based fisheries management.

The second area of focus is the improvement of the technical performance of aquaculture.

Projects from the Framework Programmes seek to develop new technologies and implement

64 The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), January 2014. http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/reform_en

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/reform_en

114

existing ones to make the European aquaculture sector more competitive and help meet the

targets set in the ‘Strategic Guidelines for the sustainable development of EU aquaculture’. At

the same time, projects from the FPs aim to expand and diversify aquaculture in Europe by

promoting market-driven research, innovation and knowledge transfer. With this aim, FPs

synergized with national research programmes and incentivised the participation of industry

partners in research activities.

Examples of impacts of Framework Programmes on the competitiveness and technical

performance of European aquaculture can be found in the Strategic Research Agenda from the

European Aquaculture Technology and Innovation Platform. Some of these are:

Maximise health benefits, high quality and safety of aquaculture products;

Improve fish health, treatments and disease prevention methods;

Ensure an environmentally sustainable and profitable industry by developing improved

management systems and technology;

Improve output and cost control at every production stage of the lifecycle;

Implement innovations and improvements on fish genetics, reproduction in captivity and

new species in aquaculture;

Improve knowledge on fish nutritional and feeding requirements as well as safe

technologies to produce cost effective feed;

Ensure the availability and efficient use of aquaculture research infrastructures across all

boundaries to benefit the industry;

Build capacities and human capital in the European aquaculture sector.

The third area is research in marine conditions, safety and dietary properties of seafood and

the impact of oceans on human health. Projects from the Framework Programmes seek to

tackle challenges such as reducing sea emissions, noise and pollution. Both fisheries and

aquaculture need good quality aquatic environment to ensure the production of safe and

nutritious products. Projects from the FPs extensively cover areas of research related to

environmental sustainability of seafood production and processing industry, seafood quality and

safety and the assessment of potential public health risks caused by marine-degraded

environments. This degradation might be caused by debris, chemical and microbial pollution,

which cause increasing problems in oceans and seas. The economic and ecological costs of these

for fishing and aquaculture industries are considerable.

European research aims to improve the observation and monitoring of marine environment.

Examples of these are research on forecasting and anticipating effects of climate change and

efforts to develop non-invasive systems to monitor and assess fish-stocks and biodiversity. A key

focus area of Horizon 2020 Work Programme 2016-2017 programme65

is placed on the creation

of an integrated Mediterranean Sea Observing System, while the Horizon 2020 Work

65 Horizon 2020, Work Programme 2016-2017, Food security, sustainable agriculture and forestry, marine and maritime and

inland water research and the bioeconomy. http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/wp/2016_2017/main/h2020-

wp1617-food_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/wp/2016_2017/main/h2020-wp1617-food_en.pdf


115

Programme 2014-201566

focused efforts on tools and methodologies to model, understand and

predict Atlantic marine ecosystems.

Projects in this area are expected to create European added value by supporting trans-national,

pan-European research networks and synergies among national/regional and EU research

programmes as well as to facilitate economies of scale and research investment efficiency by

better aligning national/regional research programmes. Some of the expected impacts of FP7 on

this area of focus would be:

Providing solutions to minimise risks and transmission of fish and mollusc diseases;

Prevention and mitigation of diseases that impede the development of the European

fishing and aquaculture sectors;

Improved productivity, economic performance and image of European fishing and

aquaculture through improved biosecurity, health and welfare of marine animals;

Improve resources management to preserve ecosystems’ potential for sustainable

production;

Increased capacity to predict and measure the evolution of maritime pollution;

Mitigate negative impacts of marine pollution on the marine environment, fisheries and

maritime farms;

Improve modelling outputs and reduce cost of data collection in support of maritime-

related industrial and societal activities.


indicators

The European Union has agreed that by 2015 where possible and by 2020 at the latest all fish

stocks should be exploited at a level that will let them produce the maximum sustainable yield

for the long term (MSY)67

. This means taking the highest catches possible without affecting

future productivity of the stocks. As an example of the current situation, in the Mediterranean

Sea 93% of assessed fish stocks were overfished in 201568

.

Catches are limited to levels based on scientific advice. This is done by setting total allowable

catches (TACs) which are subdivided into national quotas69

. These set limits on the amount of

fish that can be caught and landed. The political and legal efforts of the EU will be in vain if all

actors do not collaborate. Therefore, the EU fisheries sector has a very clear EU dimension, as

choices at national or regional level directly impact the development and sustainability of the

activity in neighbouring Member States.

66 Horizon 2020, Work Programme 2014-2015, Food security, sustainable agriculture and forestry, marine and maritime and

inland water research and the bioeconomy. http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/wp/2014_2015/main/h2020-

wp1415-food_en.pdf 67 European Commission, Managing Fisheries. http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules_en 68 European Commission – Press release. Commission plans for 2016 fishing opportunities: North and Atlantic seas fisheries

progress to sustainability, serious overfishing in Mediterranean. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-5082_en.htm 69 More information on TACs and quotas can be found in European Commission, Managing Fisheries, TACs and quotas

webpage. https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules/tacs_en



http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules_en

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-5082_en.htm

https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules/tacs_en

116

The EU fishing fleet is very diverse, with vessels ranging from under six metres to over 75.

According to the Communication on the Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, fleet

overcapacity remains one of the main obstacles to achieve sustainable fisheries70

. Under EU law

the total capacity of the fishing fleet may not be increased and any decommissioning of vessels

or reduction of fleet capacity obtained through public support must be permanent. For the last 20

years, the EU fishing fleet capacity has declined in terms of both tonnage and engine power.

Despite enlargements to the EU, the number of EU vessels in 2015 was 85,154, 18,693 fewer

than in 1996. Restructuring the fishing industry is estimated to raise crew wages and improve job

attractiveness and working conditions in the sector. At the same time, the creation of jobs in the

processing industry should partially compensate job losses in the catching sector71

.

The unintended effects of fishing on the marine environment and ecosystems have to be

mitigated. Where necessary, the EU adopts measures to protect vulnerable habitats such as deep-

sea corals, and to reduce unintended harm to seabirds, seals and dolphins. Illegal fishing is also a

major threat to global marine resources. It depletes fish stocks, destroys marine habitats, distorts

competition, puts honest fishers at an unfair disadvantage, and destroys the livelihoods of coastal

communities, particularly in developing countries. It is estimated that between 11 and 26 million

tonnes of fish are caught illegally a year, corresponding to at least 15% of the world's catches.

Promoting the sustainable development of aquaculture is crucial to reduce the pressure on

fisheries and meet the growing global demand for fish and seafood. Europe represents the largest

market for fish in the world. Currently, an average of 23.1 kg of seafood per person per year are

consumed in Europe72

. Consumption has increased over the past decades and is predicted further

growth in the future. Only one out of four fish we eat in the EU comes from aquaculture today.

That is not nearly enough, especially considering that seafood products farmed in the EU are as

safe as can be – for animals and ecosystems as well as for us humans.

With EU landings of caught fish decreasing, fish imports have increased to around 65% of the

seafood consumed in the EU. In 2015, the UE produced only 1.53% of all worldwide

aquaculture production. Asian countries currently dominate aquaculture production, with China

producing 61% of the whole aquaculture production volume. EU aquaculture produces around

1.25 million tonnes of fish, which represents around 4 billion Euros in value and directly

employs 85.000 workers. EU aquaculture should be seen as an heterogeneous sector, with 90%

of EU enterprises in the sector having under 10 employees, ranging from coastal and pond

farming to a high-tech industrialised activity in particular marine fish farming. Current EU

aquaculture production is mainly concentrated in 4 countries: Spain, United Kingdom, France

and Greece making up 70% in volume and value of whole EU-28.73

Currently, the open method of coordination provides a framework for national strategy

development of aquaculture and for coordinating policies between EU Member States. This

voluntary process aims at giving practical answers to the challenges identified by the Member

70 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee

and the Committee of the Regions: Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0417&from=EN 71 Commission Staff Working Paper, Impact Assessment Accompanying Commission proposal for a Regulation of the European

Parliament and of the Council on the Common Fisheries Policy. Referenced in http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0417&from=EN 72 European Commission, Facts and figures on EU aquaculture production and consumption in an EU and global context.

https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/sites/fisheries/files/docs/body/2015-aquaculture-facts_en.pdf 73 The Economic Performance of the EU Aquaculture Sector – Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries

(STECF) https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/43805/839433/2014-11_STECF+14-18+-

+EU+Aquaculture+sector_JRCxxx.pdf

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0417&from=EN




https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/sites/fisheries/files/docs/body/2015-aquaculture-facts_en.pdf

https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/43805/839433/2014-11_STECF+14-18+-+EU+Aquaculture+sector_JRCxxx.pdf


117

States and stakeholders. According to the aquaculture Strategic Guidelines74

, four priority areas

should be addressed to unlock the potential of EU aquaculture:

Enhancing the competitiveness of EU aquaculture. Business development and

diversification can be promoted by market-driven research, innovation and knowledge

transfer. To this end, the Member States should foster synergy between national research

programmes and promote the participation of industry in research and innovation

activities.

Promoting a level playing field for EU operators by exploiting their competitive

advantages. Experience in the agricultural sector confirms that there is a growing

demand for sustainable, high quality food. High environmental, animal health and

consumer protection standards are among the EU aquaculture's main competitive factors

and should be more effectively exploited to compete on the markets. According to FAO,

organic aquaculture production in Europe increased by close to 30% annually between

1998 and 2007.

Securing sustainable development and growth of aquaculture through coordinated

spatial planning. The lack of space often cited as a hindering factor for the expansion of

EU marine aquaculture can be overcome by identifying the most suitable sites amenable

for aquaculture, as the current surface and coastline occupation by aquaculture activities

appears to be limited. Assessing environmental aspects in the frame of the spatial

planning process can reduce the administrative burden for private developers and limit

uncertainty in the licencing procedures, thus making investments more attractive.

Simplify administrative procedures. Available information suggests that in several

Member States authorisation procedures often take around 2-3 years to complete. Most

aquaculture producers are SMEs, and they are disproportionately affected by red tape.

Interacting with fishing and aquaculture activities, marine environment and conditions across

Europe are protected by the Marine Strategy Framework Directive since it was first adopted on

June 200875

. The Directive aims to achieve Good Environmental Status (GES) of EU’s seas and

oceans by 2020. This is defined as the “status of marine waters where these provide ecologically

diverse and dynamic oceans and seas which are clean, healthy and productive”76

. Moreover,

GES implies that: first, ecosystems are fully functioning and resilient to human-induced

environmental change. Second, the decline of biodiversity caused by human activities is

prevented and biodiversity is protected. Third, human activities introducing interacting with

marine environment do not cause pollution effects.

Member States are required to develop a strategy for achieving Good Environmental Status and

these must be kept updated and reviewed every 6 years. National marine strategies must include

an initial assessment of the current environmental status of national marine waters,

environmental targets with indicators and the establishment of a monitoring programme.

The table below provides a list of example indicators commonly used to measure the key trends

and challenges of European fisheries, aquaculture and marine conditions sectors.

74 European Commission, Strategic Guidelines for the sustainable development of EU aquaculture

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/aquaculture/official_documents/com_2013_229_en.pdf 75 Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. Establishing a framework for community action in the

field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008L0056&from=EN 76 Article 3. Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. Establishing a framework for community

action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008L0056&from=EN

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/aquaculture/official_documents/com_2013_229_en.pdf

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008L0056&from=EN




118

Table 17 Key indicators related to the areas of fisheries, aquaculture & marine conditions


Apparent seafood consumption 23.1 kg/year in 201277

Gross amount of catches from EU fishing sector 5.1 million tonnes in 201578

Gross profit of EU fishing fleet 1.3 billion Euros in 2013Error! Bookmark not defined.

Net profit of EU fishing fleet 506 million euros in 2013Error! Bookmark not defined.

EU fishing fleet capacity 83,734 vessels in 2013;

Combined gross tonnage of 1.6 million tonnes in 2013;

6.5 million kilowatts of engine power in 201379

.

Sector energy consumption in millions of litres of

fuel/ energy efficiency

2, 353 million litres of fuel in 2013;

502 litres per landed tonne of fish in 201380

.

Direct employment in the fishing sector 149,000 workers which correspond to a total of 110,000 jobs

in Full Time Estimates.Error! Bookmark not defined.

Productivity of EU fleet 23.000 Euros per full time job.Error! Bookmark not defined.

Sustainability of fish stocks Percentage of stocks overfished.

Gross production from EU aquaculture sector 1.2 million tonnes in 2014Error! Bookmark not defined.

Value of production from EU aquaculture sector 3.9 billion Euros in 2014Error! Bookmark not defined.

Direct employment in the aquaculture sector Direct employment of 85,000 workersError! Bookmark not defined.

Average yearly wage of aquaculture workers 22,100 euros in 2012Error! Bookmark not defined.

Aquaculture key performance indicators (KPI):

growth rates, mortality and feed efficiency/feed

conversion ratio

Feed conversion ratio of [1.0-1.2] for salmonids and [1.4-

1.8] for omnivorous fish.81

Aquaculture productivity & economic

performance

3,000 Euros per tonne in 201482

Net investments in aquaculture sector i.e. 64.8 million Euros in France in 2012; 223.8 million

Euros in Italy in 201283

Index of diversification of EU aquaculture 0.3504 for freshwater aquaculture, 0.3 for marine, 0.19 for

shellfishError! Bookmark not defined.


Programmes (FP7, Horizon 2020)”, forthcoming).

77 European Commission, Facts and figures on EU aquaculture production and consumption in an EU and global context.

https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/sites/fisheries/files/docs/body/2015-aquaculture-facts_en.pdf 78 Eurostat 79 Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries, 2015 Annual Economic Report on the EU Fishing Fleet.

https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/43805/1034590/2015-07_STECF+15-07+-+AER+2015_JRCxxx.pdf 80 Based on data in Table 3.6.1 in Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries, The 2015 Annual Economic

Report on the EU Fishing Fleet https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/43805/1034590/2015-07_STECF+15-07+-

+AER+2015_JRCxxx.pdf 81 JRC Technical Reports, An approach Towards European Aquaculture Performance Indicators: Indicators for Sustainable

Aquaculture in the European Union.

http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC75891/jrc_g04_fishreg_eapi%20final.pdf 82 Source: Eurostat 83 JRC Scientific and Policy Reports, The Economic Performance of the EU Aquaculture Sector (STECF 14-18).


https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/sites/fisheries/files/docs/body/2015-aquaculture-facts_en.pdf

https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/43805/1034590/2015-07_STECF+15-07+-+AER+2015_JRCxxx.pdf



http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC75891/jrc_g04_fishreg_eapi%20final.pdf


119


FP7 contributed with almost EUR 100 million to R&D activities in the fisheries sector. Most of

the funded FP7 projects in this area were supported by Food, Agriculture and Biotechnology

(FP7-KBBE) and Transport (FP7-TRANSPORT), contributing with EUR 28 and 27 million

respectively. Projects funded under FP7-KBBE were related to a wide range of topics such as: 1)

fisheries management and sustainability; 2) transmission of scientific knowledge to stakeholders;

and 3) mitigating the adverse impacts of fisheries on marine environment and ecosystems.

Fisheries projects under FP7-TRANSPORT were mostly related to technological improvements

of vessels such as reduction of fuel consumption and decreasing emissions. Projects funded

under FP7-ENVIRONMENT, with a total contribution of EUR 20 million, also had an important

role on promoting sustainable fisheries through the involvement of stakeholders on fisheries

management and diminishing the impact of fishing activities on seas and oceans.

With 51 projects and a total contribution of approximately EUR 130 million, FP7-KBBE and

FP7-SME had a major role in funding Aquaculture projects with around EUR 80 and 30 million

respectively. These programmes covered research areas such as: the introduction of new species;

the improvement of technical capabilities and productivity of the sector; achieving products with

higher market value; and minimising the environmental risk of fish escapes.

Research on marine conditions received around EUR 340 million from FP7 funding. The largest

part of the funding was supported under KBBE and ENVIRONMEMT programmes. Activities

in KBBE tended to interact with fishing and aquaculture activities. Some examples of issues

covered in this theme were monitoring toxins and pollutants in food production processes in the

aquatic environment, the study of genetic differences of released farmed fish and helping

consumers make fully informed choices with regards sustainability and safety of their seafood.

FP7 ENVIRONMENT projects focused on topics with slightly less direct impact on fisheries and

aquaculture. Examples of the areas covered are the better understanding and knowledge of

ecosystems and their interaction with human activities, improving capacities to obtain and

manage sea and ocean environmental data, reducing environmental risks such as algal blooms

and understanding the impacts of climate change on marine ecosystems.

Table 18 Projects related to the areas of Fisheries, Aquaculture and Marine conditions and

their allocated EU contribution

Fisheries Aquaculture Marine Conditions

Programme Number

of

projects

EU

contribution,

EUR million

Number

of

projects

EU

contribution,

EUR million

Number

of

projects

EU

contribution,

EUR million

FP7-KBBE 10 31.1 21 77.7 16 77.8

FP7-TRANSPORT 9 26.5 0 0.0 2 5.6

FP7-SME 4 6.0 24 29.1 5 7.1

FP7-ENVIRONMENT 3 20.1 1 6.0 23 74.8

FP7-SiS 2 6.6 0 0.0 0 0.0

FP7-INFRA 1 5.0 1 9.2 5 24.0

FP7-REGPOT 1 0.9 3 4.3 0 0.0

FP7-ICT 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 8.7

FP7-SPACE 1 1.6 1 2.5 5 69.3

Total 30 97.8 51 128.8 60 336.6


Programmes (FP7, Horizon 2020)”, forthcoming). based on CORDA data

120

F.3.2. Key findings



The reduction of commercial risk was an added value in certain areas of research with potential

return on investment. These areas were usually characterised by having long maturity processes

of their innovation and therefore being many years away from the market. Long-term research

actions could be considered too risky without public funds. According to interviews, projects of

this kind would most probably have been discontinued without public intervention. Most

interviewees were uncertain if national funds would have been able to cover commercial and

research risks to the same extent as FP7 did.

Reduction of research risks would also be important in specific projects where fish are farmed

and diseases or other biological hazards could have substantial negative impact on research

outcomes. The availability of a large number of partners in FP7 and the flexibility in distributing

funds across partners helped these projects diversify their risks.


Interviews with beneficiaries revealed that FP7 leverage of investment in fisheries and

aquaculture projects was rather limited and happened mostly from public sources of funding.

Fisheries and aquaculture R&D activities are not traditionally associated with large amounts of

funding from private sources. Interviews confirmed the difficulties of these research areas to

attract additional private funds. Only a limited number of projects achieved further direct private

investment. These projects were characterised by the development of close to market

innovations. There is, however, an interesting trend of FP7 attracting considerable in-kind

investments. This is especially relevant in aquaculture, where industry partners frequently

committed part of their eggs/fish stocks or facilities for research purposes. The value of these in-

kind investments is not easy to quantify in monetary terms, but it was relevant to kick-start many

projects.

Another trend found during the interviews is that many projects used European funds to start

research on specific areas. At later stages of the project, they obtained follow-up national grants

to further develop narrow research issues. These sub-areas of research funded by national grants

tended to be more geographically localised and more focused in scope. Follow-up national grants

were especially common in certain countries where national R&D policies have traditionally

allocated larger amounts of resources to support research on fisheries and aquaculture (i.e.

Norway and France).


Access to infrastructures not available in many EU countries was crucial for the development of

most FP7 projects in fisheries, aquaculture and marine conditions. There are at least three

reasons for this. First, many projects required infrastructures, skills or capacities that could only

be found in certain ‘innovation clusters’ around Europe. These are projects that require very

specific technical knowledge, skills or infrastructures that could not be found in any single

European country. Therefore, without FP7 funds, research teams would not have been able to

access key infrastructure or knowledge available somewhere else in Europe. Many projects in

121

fisheries and aquaculture were based on these kinds of ‘vertical cooperation’ where each partner

was in charge of a particular task or contributed with unique facilities.

In aquaculture, it was frequent to observe private partners in hatcheries and fish farms

implementing actual interventions and collecting data while universities or public research

centres focused on analysing results. Therefore, research centres tended to rely not only on their

own data, but also on important research data collected, in many cases, by private partners. A

number of interviews confirmed that most national programmes would not include the required

amount of international partners and kinds of collaborations that these projects require.

Therefore, a majority of these projects involving specialised partners would not have gone ahead

without European funding.

A second European added value aspect on pooling resources can be found on projects that were

based on comparative research. Many FP7 projects in the areas of fisheries, aquaculture and

marine conditions consisted on comparing the effects of an intervention on different species or

ecosystems. These frequently required international partners in different European sea basins to

cooperate in the implementation of the project. Data was usually collected in different

environments (i.e. different sea basins) and analysed to compare results. In this kind of

‘comparative projects’ interviewees said that, without FP7 funds, projects would have gone

ahead with a very substantial reduction in scope. This was mostly because they would not have

been able to do these comparisons or application of research in different

environments/ecosystems.

Related to this European added value aspect, interviews also showed that European fisheries and

aquaculture projects offered many more possibilities to include multi- and inter-disciplinary

teams than most national schemes. This made it possible to implement projects which were

based on innovative combinations of approaches (i.e. integrating social sciences and pure

sciences) or involvement of stakeholders. Therefore, without European funds the diversity of

partners would most likely have been lower.

A third European added value aspect related to pooling resources and building critical mass is

the size of certain European projects. The amount of funding of some of these projects is larger

than that available from most national funding schemes. Occasionally, EU funding acted as a

catalyst for projects that could not be developed only at national level. In this sense, EU funding

kick-started research in one area and later attracted further national funds for complementary

research activities.


Interviews with project beneficiaries confirmed that international and cross sectorial mobility

was one of the main European added value aspects in fisheries, aquaculture and marine

conditions projects. Practically all projects in these research areas included examples of

international mobility of researchers, PhD students and/or stakeholders. International exchanges

between public research institutions were very frequent. These tended to have relatively long

durations (6 months to 1 year) and largely contributed to knowledge transfer and creating

research networks.

International travels to visit research infrastructures (i.e. fish farms or hatcheries in case of

aquaculture projects) were also common. According to interviews, even these short-term

exchanges (few days to weeks) proved to support outstanding results and benefits, especially

when associated to detailed planning and preparatory work, with the establishment of long-term

122

collaborations that are still on force, even beyond the duration of the project. Interviews

highlighted the creation of knowledge and share of know-how that these visits meant for many

partners. There were even cases where professionals from academia switched to the private

sector and reached management positions in private research facilities. This happened in two

ways. First, researchers in public research institutions moved to technical positions in partner

companies. The second way was the direct creation of spin-offs from academy. Interviews

confirmed that the links and networks established during FP7 projects have been crucial for these

inter-sectoral exchanges of personnel and professional careers.

Some FP7 projects also included international stakeholder meetings and trips to exchange

experiences. Interviews confirmed that FP7 projects made sharing information among

stakeholders possible by bridging typical language barriers that would occur otherwise.



FP7 funding in the areas of fisheries, aquaculture and marine conditions had a considerable

positive added value on research excellence and capabilities. According to interviewees, the

European added value of FP7 on research capabilities was related to its ability to: 1) allow the

cooperation among best experts on a field; 2) promote multidisciplinary teams; 3) develop new

open access research infrastructures; and 4) create jobs in research institutions.

A clear added value of FP7 is its capacity to create first-class international networks with leading

partners and the best experts on the field. Inside of these networks, there is frequently a high

degree of multi- and interdisciplinarity that allows associates to complement each other in terms

of specific skills and knowledge. This larger diversity of partners in European networks also

allowed collaborations across different fields of research which were sustained once the project

was finished.

In certain cases, FP7 helped develop further research infrastructures and data which are now

openly available to the whole research community. A clear example is the ‘Transnational

Access’ online platform created during the FP7 - AquaExcel project (and developed under

Horizon 2020 – AquaExcel2020) 84

. This platform currently allows online applications to pursue

research using aquaculture research facilities located all across Europe. It also includes an

‘interactive map’ that allows to visualise these and other research infrastructures in Europe and

beyond. Another example are the data and models from FP7 - LifeWatch project, currently on

open access and under creative commons, which allow researchers from all around the world to

have an insight on marine biodiversity in European coasts 85

.

In many cases, the implementation of FP7 projects also created direct research job positions and

PhD vacancies in research institutions. These largely benefited from the European added value

of FP7 on mobility and research networks and are expected to contribute to improve future

research capabilities of European organisations.

84 Aquaexcel 2020. http://www.aquaexcel2020.eu/ 85 LifeWatch. E-Science European Infrastructure for Biodiversity and Ecosystem research http://www.lifewatch.eu/

And LifeWatch Marine VRE. http://marine.lifewatch.eu/

http://www.lifewatch.eu/

http://marine.lifewatch.eu/

123

In terms of research excellence, FP7 contributed to achieve a larger number of relevant and high

impact scientific publications. This was mostly due to the improved research capacities and new

approaches developed during FP7 projects. Research outputs greatly benefited from the

possibility of bringing together the best experts from all across Europe, the capacity of sharing

research data and infrastructures and the combination of different disciplines inside of FP7

projects. Many interviewees highlighted the possibility provided by FP7 of doing research in

different ecosystems (i.e. different sea basins, fish species, water environments, etc.) and with

people in different branches of science (including social scientists) as key factors behind the

improvement of their research outputs and excellence. The comparative and

multi/interdisciplinary approaches that FP7 allowed had a very large impact on producing new

methodologies, research results and high impact scientific publications.

Another important factor behind better research excellence was the prestige granted by having

received FP7 funds. The competition in FP7 calls was widely known in the research community.

Therefore, FP7 beneficiaries were helped by a label of ‘high competitive organisations’ obtained

from having been selected for European funding. According to interviews, this had a positive

impact on beneficiaries in terms of participation in scientific conferences and general scientific

publications. However, some interviewees reported that it is unlikely that this more prestigious

image of FP7 beneficiaries would have helped achieve more publications in peer-reviewed

journals. Peer reviewed journals in fields linked to aquaculture, fisheries and marine conditions

(i.e. genomics, biology, environmental sciences) typically have robust revision procedures that

only take into account the quality of submitted research. However, according to some

interviewees, there is still a lack of high quality journals that recognize the value of inter-

disciplinary research, as in the case of projects which applied a typical RRI approach. This

barrier might affect the interest of marine scientists to engage into inter-disciplinary studies.

The increased visibility of researchers, the data collected within projects, the network

established, and projects achievements, leveraged the capability of FP7 projects participants to

get involved in application to new EU/national project calls, both as a spill-over activity from

consortium already established or, as single partners involved by other, earlier unknown

scientists, in new consortium.

Some interviewees also revealed an European added value aspect related to the perspective of

reapplying to future FP7 and Horizon 2020 calls. According to them, there is a strong incentive

to publish scientific publications based on research results from FP7 projects. These publications

would show evaluators the capacities and achievements of the consortium members in previous

projects and would therefore increase the chances to get funding in future FP calls. This

motivation to publish is not present in most national programmes as they are usually not so

competitive.


Despite not being the main area of European added value in fisheries, aquaculture and marine

conditions, some interviewees agreed that their project achieved an increase in resource

efficiency due to the scale of the project. This was mostly due to sharing research infrastructures

and data between international partners. Without European-wide projects there would have been

a repetition of efforts on developing facilities that can already be found in other EU countries.

Moreover, those projects that involved data collection or analysis in different sea basins greatly

benefited from international partnerships in terms of travel costs. Without international partners

these projects would have sometimes required moving across Europe key infrastructures such as

research vessels.

124


Interviews with project beneficiaries confirmed that FP7 funding had a substantial added value in

terms of wider availability and dissemination of knowledge. More specifically, FP7 projects

related to fisheries, aquaculture and marine conditions would have produced many more

dissemination outputs and achieved a higher involvement of stakeholders than similar national

projects.

Interviewees indicated that the size of FP7 projects and the prestige of having won a competitive

EU grant allowed them to reach a much larger audience. A vast majority of projects had their

own webpage with full explanations of the project, highlighted news and activities and links to

publications with main results. However, in most cases these websites last only until a few years

after the finalization of the projects. Many interviewees noted their participation in activities

such as conferences, symposiums, expositions and radio interviews among others. According to

interviews, these activities also affected the visibility and interest on FP7 activities at national

level, thus also influencing national research interest on topics and innovative approaches

developed at European scale.

European projects, due to the fact of being larger and more prestigious, were more successful in

attracting and involving stakeholders. This further increased the impact and dissemination of

results. At the same time, some projects acted as a platform for stakeholders to reach and

influence European policy-makers. This was especially important in the fisheries sector, where

small actors usually do not have the resources to cooperate among them at an international level

(i.e. because of language barriers).

An obstacle to further added value of FP projects was the lack of incentives of certain partners to

disclose research results. Interviews identified that private partners in projects could sometimes

release only part of their research results in order to preserve their commercial interests.

Interviews showed disagreements between project partners in public institutions and those in the

private sector. While the former put emphasis on publishing results, the later were sometimes

slightly reluctant to share knowledge that could give advantages to their direct competitors. A

point of agreement between project partners was usually reached. This consisted on publishing

all important research results except those that involved a larger level of micro-managing of

privately owned research facilities.


FP7 funded four ERA-NET projects in the areas of fisheries, aquaculture and marine conditions

that had an added value in coordinating national research policies. These were the projects

MariFish (2006-2011), SEAS-ERA (2010-2014), MarineBiotech (2011-2013), and the still

active COFASP (2013-2017). The total EU funding for these four actions was around 8 million

euros. According to interviews, these ERA-NET projects greatly helped identifying gaps,

avoiding duplication of efforts and strengthening collaboration among national programmes and

agencies in the areas of fisheries, aquaculture and marine conditions. Moreover, ERA-NET

actions contributed to identify strategic and future priority sub-areas of research and reduced the

financial and research risks by spreading research and innovation costs.



125

EU level actions were crucial to develop a more resource-efficient Europe with sustainable

production of safe, nutritious and healthy food from renewable resources. FP7 largely

contributed to optimise the sustainable contribution of fisheries and aquaculture while providing

viable solutions to natural ecosystems. Interviewees mentioned that some national programmes

can also address these issues, but they tend to be too specific and do not have a long term

perspective of these pan-European challenges.

As explained in previous sections, the fisheries sector can not rely on fishing more because it

would not be sustainable. There needs to be a change towards fishing more intelligently with a

more modern and innovative fishing sector. FP7 projects have contributed to enhance scientific

knowledge and innovation which is used to support decision making and more sustainable

fisheries management. Moreover, some projects (e.g. Gap1, Gap2, Jakfish) also addressed the

benefits of an increased stakeholders participation into research activities, fisheries management

and marine governance, providing pan-European experiences, guidelines and toolbox to support

approaches for a more active engagement of societal actors to tackle EU societal challenges that

are relevant to managers and policy makers. At the same time, FP7 actions have played a part in

producing innovations to increase fuel efficiency of vessels which can reduce emissions and

noise in seas.

FP7 recognised the potential of aquaculture for growth, innovation and addressing pan-European

societal challenges. Interviews confirmed that Europe is one of the leading actors behind

aquaculture technological development and research. European R&D projects played a key role

in achieving innovations and research outputs much faster that it would have taken without

international cooperation.


SALMOTRIP

Escaped fish can potentially cause disastrous consequences on ecosystems. These animals can

impact the genetic pool of native fish populations through interbreeding, affect ecosystems

through predation and competition, and transfer diseases to wild fish. In a worst-case scenario,

escaped fish can expand, devastate local species and cause ecosystem collapse. Moreover, fish

escapes might have had a substantial impact on the image of aquaculture. From 2007 to 2009,

255 escape events were documented in Europe. These added an estimated 9.2 million fish86

.

These events were mostly caused by technical and operational failures such as cages break,

netting holes and operational accidents.

The FP7 project SALMOTRIP offered important steps to tackle negative impacts of fish escapes

in aquaculture87

. The project provided very relevant evidence of the possibility of farming and

commercialising sterile salmon. In the mid future, this could generate an important innovation

that could significantly improve the performance of European salmon industry and its ecological

risks.

SALMOTRIP achieved the production of sterile (triploid) salmon for experimental and

commercial trials and significantly strengthened the scientific understanding of biological needs

of sterile (triploid) fish. Moreover, the project provided important recommendations on how to

implement a full-scale production of sterile salmon and identified areas for further study before

86 Final Report from FP7 project Prevent Escape. http://cordis.europa.eu/result/rcn/56373_en.html 87 Salmotrip. http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/92644_en.html


126

triploid salmon can be commercialised. According to interviews performed, results from this

project could be potentially extended to other species in the future.

Sterile (triploid) fish are created by forcing the egg to keep a chromosome that is normally

eliminated during egg development. This is usually achieved by applying pressure to recently

fertilised eggs. Before SALMOTRIP, tripoloid salmon was associated to poor economic

performance due to higher mortalities and deformities. This occurred because traditional triploid

egg production was often based on using substandard quality eggs. SALMOTRIP proved that

with an adequate broodstock selection, triploid salmon can perform as well and even better than

diploid ones. This was an important result as it constituted a significant improvement in this area

of research and a potential culture change in the aquaculture sector.

FP7-SALMOTRIP was also an example of pan-European cooperation with strong trans-national

collaboration involving two leading salmon breeding SMEs along with fish farming SMEs from

three European countries and two UK research centres.

AQUAEXCEL

Interviewees highlighted the importance of cross-country cooperation in aquaculture. This allows

researchers to compare results of research in different ecosystems (i.e. sea basins); to find very

specific knowledge for cutting-edge projects; and to find particular infrastructures for

experiments.

European aquaculture research experienced a certain degree of fragmentation as well as a lack of

harmonization with important differences in criteria, methods and processes used for

experiments.

One key FP7 project in the area of aquaculture, AQUAEXCEL88

(2011-2015), provided a

platform of top class research infrastructures and common standards and protocols for the

aquaculture research community. This platform is still active under the follow-up AQUAEXCEL

2020 (2016-2020) project supported by Horizon 2020 funds. It currently integrates 39 facilities

which range from production systems and fish species to research centres with specialised fields

of expertise. Both projects (FP7-AQUAEXCEL and Horizon 2020-AQUAEXCEL 2020) were

excellent examples of pooling resources at European level and were pointed as having very large

European Added Value to aquaculture research.

The platform provides subsidised access to these facilities to selected research proposals and

offers training for aquaculture researchers, technical staff and industry stakeholders.

AQUAEXCEL was highly successful in this regard. It received 146 applications for research

projects and funded 97 of these. The current project AQUAEXCEL 2020 has a budget of 9.7

million Euros and grants access to research teams, industry and SMEs from the EU-28 and

associated research teams. Access for organisations based in third countries is limited to a

maximum of 20%. AQUAEXCEL 2020 offers transnational access to infrastructures located in

almost 20 different countries.

ARRAINA

88 Aquaexcel http://www.aquaexcel.eu/ and Aquaexcel 2020. http://www.aquaexcel2020.eu/

http://www.aquaexcel.eu/

http://www.aquaexcel2020.eu/

127

ARRAINA contributed to develop sustainable alternative fish diets with reduced use of fish meal

and fish oil89

. This was achieved by studying the impact of different diets on various fish species

over their full life cycle. The project carried out a large selection of tasks such as:

Analysing previous scientific findings on fish diet requirements;

Studying the most efficient method to feed fish larvae and develop diets for these;

Compiling a database to predict fish flesh fatty acid based on compared diets. This

resulted in a tool that predicts the nutritional value of fish for human consumption;

Comparing the effects of plant-based with traditional juvenile fish dietary supplements;

Analysing the presence of contaminants (i.e. pesticides and mycotoxins) associated to

non-marine based ingredients of aquaculture feed;

Estimating waste loads and environmental impact of fish farms depending on the diet.

ARRAINA is expected to have a positive impact on fish nutrition and growth. In the mid-future,

this will benefit aquaculture efficiency, competitiveness and economic performance. The project

will potentially reduce environmental impacts of fish farms and will contribute towards safer fish

for human consumption.

F.4. European added value case study 4: Fuel Cell & Hydrogen



The availability of sustainable, secure and competitive energy sources is a major factor

determining today’s economy’s growth, jobs, stability and general well-being of European

citizens. Energy is at the root of the climate change and air pollution: it accounts for 80% of all

greenhouse gas (GHG) emission in the EU. Unfortunately, even today Europe’s economy is still

largely dependent on unsustainable carbon-based energy sources that also pose major

environmental challenges. In the EU, the primary energy supply is 80% dependent on fossil

fuels. Changing this trend will be extremely difficult primarily because the current infrastructure

- networks and supply chains - have been optimised over decades to deliver energy from oil, coal

and gas. In addition to the threat of the climate change and other environmental issues, this

situation has made Europe vulnerable to energy supply fluctuations outsides its borders, which

poses a major security issue for Europe.90

It is estimated that Europe’s dependence on carbon-

based energy import will grow even more in the future: reliance on imports of gas is expected to

increase from 57% to 84% by 2030, of oil from 82% to 93%. Finally, dependence on old sources

of energy will likely to be a major challenges to Europe’s future competitiveness with the EU

becoming increasingly exposed to the effects of price volatility and price rises on international

energy markets. 91

89 Arraina http://www.arraina.eu/ 90 Communication from the Commission, „Investing in the Development of Low Carbon Technologies“

(SET-Plan), Brussels, 7.10.2009 COM(2009) 519 final. 91 Communication from the Commission, „An energy Policy for Europe“, Final, 2007.

http://www.arraina.eu/

128

All of the above challenges related to global climate change, Europe’s security and

competitiveness raise a need for a concerted EU-level action. Already the Europe’s Energy

Policy raised a strategic goal of 20% GHG reduction by 2020 (compared to 1990) and 80-95%

reduction of 1990 levels by 2050 to keep the global temperature increase below 2°C. Tackling

the energy-related challenges in Europe and meeting the above targets requires a transition to an

energy and transport system built around low-carbon technologies.92

Fuel cells and hydrogen

(FCH) technologies belong to the most promising research areas, likely to contribute to the

realisation of low-carbon economy in future’s Europe. The main reason for this is that hydrogen

is an energy carrier with the unequalled advantage of being storable in various forms and

transportable in various modes. Most importantly, it can be produced from carbon-free or

carbon-neutral energy sources, thereby allowing a drastic reduction of greenhouse gas emission

in energy sector. Fuel cells provide the most efficient conversion device for converting

hydrogen, and possibly other fuels, into electricity. In combination, fuel cells and hydrogen

provide a pathway for a safe, carbon-free and decentralised energy generation with multiple

applications.93

The importance of hydrogen as an alternative fuel is also acknowledged at the EU level. In 2008,

the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking was established by a Council Regulation as a

public-private partnership between the European Commission, European industry and research

organisations to accelerate the development and deployment of fuel cell and hydrogen

technologies. It was assumed that research, development and deployment strategies in which all

the stakeholders are committed to common objective are necessary in order to achieve a

significant market penetration by fuel cells and hydrogen technologies in transport and power

generation.

In 2013, the Commission issued a Communication on Clean Power for Transport: A European

alternative fuels strategy94

followed by a Directive on the deployment of alternative fuels

infrastructure95

. These documents list hydrogen as one of the alternative fuels to substitute fossil

oil sources in the energy supply to transport. Hydrogen is seen as having a potential to cover all

transport modes (road-passenger, road-freight, rail and water) except air transport.96

In order to

improve the acceptance of these technologies related to the alternative fuels, information

campaigns and large-scale demonstration projects are seen as important tools. The Strategy

emphasises that based on the experience gained with the European Technology Platforms and

Joint Technology Initiatives, public-private partnerships should be further developed. The

Directive indicates the need to better coordinate the policy in this field and therefore requires that

“Each Member State shall adopt a national policy framework for the development of the market

as regards alternative fuels in the transport sector and the deployment of the relevant

infrastructure”.97

92 Georg Zachmann, Cutting Carbon, not the Economy, Bruegel Policy Contribution, Issue 2012/03 FEBRUARY 2011. 93 Pierre-Etienne Franc et al., Fuel Cell and Hydrogen technologies in Europe 2014-2020: Financial and technology outlook on

the European sector ambition 2014- 2020, 2011. 94 EC, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social

Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Clean Power for Transport: A European alternative fuels strategy. Brussels,

24.1.2013, COM(2013) 17 final. 95 Directive 2014/94/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the deployment of laternative

fuels infrastructure. Official Journal of the European Union, 28.10.2014, L 307/1. 96 EC, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social

Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Clean Power for Transport: A European alternative fuels strategy. Brussels,

24.1.2013, COM(2013) 17 final. P. 4. 97 Directive 2014/94/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the deployment of alternative

fuels infrastructure. Official Journal of the European Union, 28.10.2014, L 307/1.

129

Expected impact

The overall long-term objective of the FP7-funded research projects in the area of fuel cells and

hydrogen is to accelerate the market introduction of fuel cells and hydrogen technologies,

realising their potential as an instrument in achieving a carbon-lean energy system in Europe.

However, to achieve this general objective intensive research efforts are needed in several

important areas, where the impacts of the EU-funded research in fuel cells and hydrogen are

mostly expected98

:

Hydrogen Production. In this area the research is expected to result in the development and

implementation of cost-competitive, energy efficient and sustainable hydrogen production,

storage and distribution processes that would satisfy Europe‘s long-term energy demands and

help to switch to hydrogen-based economy. When considered as based on natural gas, hydrogen

production is already an advanced technology. However, more intense research is needed in

order to provide hydrogen from ‚CO2-free‘ sources, such as renewables and nuclear power. The

sustainable hydrogen production technologies expected to result from the research include (i)

reforming (and gas purification) based on bio-fuels as well as conventional fuels; (ii) cost-

efficient low-temperature electrolysers adapted for the large-scale use of carbon free electricity

and (iii) biomass to hydrogen (BTH) thermal conversion.

Hydrogen storage and distribution. Major technical advances are needed in this area as the

current energy density is fairly low for existing hydrogen storage technologies, being 10 – 20 %

of that of gasoline or diesel. To increase the storage capacities, current research is expected to

result in the development and demonstration of technology options for high volume, safe

hydrogen storage such as storage in underground caverns and decentralized storage. In addition,

the research should provide improved hydrogen storage based on solid and liquid materials. In

terms of the hydrogen distribution, the research is expected to improve the means of hydrogen

distribution and delivery by road transport (e.g. increased capacity), in order to meet the needs of

large fuelling stations.

Stationary Power Generation and Combined Heat & Power. In this area, research is expected

to improve the technology for fuel cell stack and balance of plant components to the level

required by the stationary power generation and Combined Heat and Power (CHP) markets by

bridging the gap between laboratory prototypes and pre-commercial systems. For this purpose, it

will be important to achieve the principal technical and economic specifications necessary for

stationary fuel cell systems to compete with existing and future energy conversion technologies.

Research will deliver new or improved materials as well as reliable control and diagnostics tools

both at component and system levels. It will also improve their performance, endurance,

robustness, durability and cost. In addition, research will aim at making the new technologies

ready for their introduction into the market: this will require test campaigns for product

validation under real market conditions and preparations for the start-up of fuel cell installation,

operation and maintenance services.

Transport & Refuelling Infrastructure. In this area research is expected to support the

development and testing of competitive hydrogen-fuelled road vehicles and corresponding

hydrogen refuelling infrastructure, and the full range of supporting elements for market

deployment and increased industrial capacity. Most importantly, a variety of fuel cell hybrid

98 Fuel Cells And Hydrogen Joint Undertaking (Fch Ju), Multi - Annual Implementation Plan 2008 – 2013, Adopted by the FCH

JU Governing Board on 22nd November 2011.

Also: European Hydrogene & Fuel Cell Technology Platform: Strategic research Agenda, 2005.

130

vehicles, including cars and buses, hydrogen-fuelled vehicles and an appropriate number of

refuelling stations, should be generated and demonstrated in fuel cells and hydrogen focused

research projects. In addition, the research should demonstrate that this new type of vehicles are

suitable are ready for large-scale market use, including the durability, robustness, reliability,

efficiency and sustainability of both vehicles and support infrastructures. In addition, research

activities also envisage the application of fuel cells and hydrogen based technologies in the area

of heavy duty road transport, such as commuter trains, rail cars, city trains, trucks, aircrafts, as

well as maritime applications. Finally, in terms of the refuelling infrastructures, research

activities are expected to result in the development and integration of the necessary components

for hydrogen refuelling stations and their associated peripheral conditioning systems. As in the

case of transport, application, research should also lead to the improvement of refuelling

infrastructure‘s energy efficiency, robustness, functionality, safety, as well as prepare it for

large-scale introduction into the markets. Overall, research on the application of fuel cells and

hydrogen technologies in the area of transport and refuelling technologies is expected to be the

main instrument in reducing CO2 emissions, alleviating dependence on oil and improve fuel

economy in Europe.

Early Markets (portable applications). Although not highly relevant for reducing CO2

emissions and developing carbon-free energy economy, early market applications are important

in terms of proliferating fuel cells and creating an early industry consisting mainly of SMEs.

Therefore, it is expected that research projects focusing on fuel cells and hydrogen will also

contribute to the development and deployment of a range of fuel cell-based products capable of

entering the market in the near term. More specifically, research will show the technology

readiness of (i) portable and micro fuel cells for various applications; (ii) portable generators,

back-up power and UPS-systems; (iii) specialty material handling vehicles including related

hydrogen refuelling infrastructure. Most importantly, the expected impacts include not only the

development of these technologies, but also preparation for their wide-scale market introduction

by reducing the production costs, achieving the market economies.


indicators

Although fuel cells and hydrogen provide probably one of the most promising pathways to a

carbon-free economy in Europe, markets alone cannot encourage the development and

deployment of competitive technologies.99

The scale and scope of the financial resources and

technical capacities necessary for the development and deployment of fuel cells and hydrogen

technologies across the spectrum of applications goes beyond the capacity of single companies

or public research institutions. Several key barriers require a concerted EU-level action that

would unite and coordinate the efforts of industry and research community:

In order to introduce new technologies into a consumer market, a close collaboration

between public and private entities is necessary. This collaboration will help to bridge the

gap between the research/prototype demonstration stage and the full-scale commercial

introduction of fuel cells and hydrogen technologies100

. The Joint Undertaking in the area of

fuel cells and hydrogen supported by the European Commission helps to ensure the leading

role of industry in defining priorities and timeliness of the work;

99 Georg Zachmann et al., The great transformation: decarbonising Europe’s energy and transport systems, Bruegel 2012. 100 European Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Technology Platform, Deployment Strategy, August 2005.

131

As in the case of many new technologies, a threat of market failure poses a real threat for the

deployment of fuel cells and hydrogen technologies in European economies. During the

transition period, the initial investment cost and risks are too great for private companies and

mass-market volumes are too distant, as is return on investment. This means public

intervention is needed to share costs and risks with the private sector and to bridge the gap

to the market. A critical mass of public investment in R&D and infrastructure should help to

create the conditions for the emergence of a competitive consumer market101

;

Mobilisation and pooling of resources and expertise: strong involvement of the EU in

supporting the research in fuel cells and hydrogen helps to mobilise a critical mass of

financial resources and expertise necessary for complex and expensive tasks involved, as well

as to leverage the funds from private and national/regional entities. Moreover, a better

coordination of the European, national and private resources should increase the efficiency

and economic value of the research.

A European public-private partnership – Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking – was

established in order to address all of the above needs. High-level objectives and targets have

been identified following a thorough assessment performed primarily by working groups

comprising representatives of the Industry and Research Groupings and in consultation with the

Commission (see Table below). The targets represent qualitative and quantitative objectives

against which the progress of the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking is to be assessed in

four application areas: transportation and refuelling infrastructure; hydrogen production;

stationary power generation and combined heat and power; early markets. These targets and

indicators summarised below are of different types and concern the price of the fuel cells and

hydrogen technologies (e.g. it is aimed that the hydrogen delivered to retail stations should cost

around 5-9 EUR per kilogram by 2020), quantity (e.g. by 2020 it is expected to have 20 000 fuel

cell cars) and capacity (e.g. the target for distributed production of hydrogen by water

electrolysis for 2015 was 1.5 tonnes per day).

Table 19. List of key indicators related to the area of this European added value case study

Indicator Volume & cost

Application

Area

Market application 2015 mid-term

MAIP targets

2020 long-term

MAWP targets

AA1 –

Transpor-

tation &

Refuelling

Cars: Vehicle

PEM-FC System

>5,000 / <50k€

100€/kW

50,000 /<30k€ for C-segment

50€/kW

Busses: Vehicle

PEM-FC System

500 / <1M€

<3,500€/kW

200 / <650k€

<400€/kW

Hydrogen refueling stations <300 / 0.6 - 2.5 M€ (depending on

size of filling station)

/ 0.8 - 2.1M€ (depending on

size of filling station) no target

for nr of HRSs in MAWP

APU'

s

for truck

applications (5kW)

1,000€ <3000 €/kW for 3 kW

for aircraft

applications (20-

120kW)

flight validation supply <3000 €/kW for 3 kW

101 Pierre-Etienne Franc et al., Fuel Cell and Hydrogen technologies in Europe 2014-2020: Financial and technology outlook on

the European sector ambition 2014- 2020, 2011; Also http://www.fch.europa.eu/page/who-we-are

http://www.fch.europa.eu/page/who-we-are

132

Indicator Volume & cost

for maritime

applications (50-

500 kW)

some tens / 3000-4000 €/kW <3000 €/kW for 3 kW

AA2 –

Production

Hydrogen delivered to retail

station

5 €/kg 5-9 €/kg

Distributed production of

hydrogen by water

electrolysis

1.5 t/d cap. | 68% eff. | 2.8 M€/(t/d) No capacity and no efficiency

targets in MAWP | 2 M€/(t/d)

for electrolysers (irrespective

of whether distributed or

centralised H2 production

Distributed production by

reforming of biogas SMR

(incl. purification)

1.5 t/d cap. | 64% eff. | 3.8 M€/(t/d) No capacity target in MAWP|

70% eff. | 3.1 M€/(t/d)

Total installed production

capacity from renewables

- No target in MAWP

Centralized production of

hydrogen by water

electrolysis

- No target in MAWP

specifically for centralised or

distributed electrolysers

Centralized underground

storage of hydrogen

- No target in MAWP

Target of 0.45 M€/t for gas

storage

Distributed storage of

gaseous hydrogen

5 t cap. | 0.45 M€/t No target in MAWP

Storage of hydrogen in solid

materials

5 t cap. | 1.5 M€/t No target in MAWP

Total installed storage

capacity of H2 produced

from grid

- No target in MAWP

High capacity compressed

H2 trailer

1.3 t cap. | 0,55 M€/t No capacity target in MAWP.

| 0.55 M€/t

AA3 –

Stationary

Micro-CHP (residential),

natural gas based

1,000 units / 10,000 € per system

(1kWe + household heat) Assuming

supported deployment from 2013+

No deployment targets in

MAWP /12000€/kW

Industrial/commercial, H2

based

>5 MW / 3,000 €/kW Assuming


No deployment target in

MAWP / 2000-3000 €/kW

without limitation to H2 feed

Industrial/commercial,

natural gas based

>5 MW / 4,000 €/kW Assuming


No distinction in MAWP

whether H2 or natural gas

AA4 -

Early

markets

Heavy duty material

handling vehicles

>1,500 units | <1,500€/kW fuel cell

system Anticipating supported

deployment from 2013+

No deployment targets in

MAWP | <1,200€/kW fuel cell

system

Back-up power systems 9.000 units | <1.500€/kW fuel cell

system

No specific targets in MAWP

Small micro fuel cells >30,000 units | <6,000€/kW fuel

cell system

No specific targets in MAWP

Source: Source: PPMI, “Assessment of the Union Added Value and the Economic Impact of the EU Framework

Programmes (FP7, Horizon 2020)”, forthcoming based on Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking (FCH JU),

Multi - Annual Implementation Plan 2008 – 2013, Adopted by the FCH JU Governing Board on 22nd November

2011; FCH2 JU, Multi-Annual Work Plan 2014 – 2020, Adopted by the FCH2 JU Governing Board on 30th

June

2014.

133


With 155 projects and EUR 450 million EC contribution, the largest and the most important

programme supporting research in fuel cells and hydrogen was the FP7 Fuel Cells and Hydrogen

Joint Undertaking. The relevant research, however, was conducted under other FP7 specific

programmes, including FP7-Energy, FP7-NMP and others.

The distribution of FP7 funding for fuel cells and hydrogen research across different

programmes shows the current state-of-play and the general policy objectives in this area.

Around 72% of all FP7 projects in fuel cells and hydrogen and 71% of all funding was

distributed through the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking, thereby implying that fuel

cells and hydrogen research in Europe has reached advanced stages and the major efforts are

made to bring the technology closer to the market and translate it into specific products.

Although to a considerably smaller extent, FP7-ENERGY was the second most popular

programme for the fuel cells and hydrogen related research, thereby showing that fuel cells and

hydrogen is one the most promising research area in terms of advancing alternative sources of

energy.

Table 20 Projects related to the area of fuel cells and hydrogen and their allocated EU

contribution


FP7-ENERGY 20 73.3

FP7-ENVIRONMENT 4 11.8

FP7-NMP 16 58.3

FP7-Infrastructures 1 8

FP7-KBBE 1 4.5

FP7-REGPOT 4 4.9

FP7-REGIONS 1 2.7

FP7-SME 10 13.5

FP7-TRANSPORT 3 7.8

FP7-JTI 155 450

Total 215 634.8


Programmes (FP7, Horizon 2020)”, forthcoming based on CORDA data

F.4.2. Key findings



Interviews confirmed that the sharing of risks was indeed an added value of implementing a

project at the EU level. First, the substantial investments from EC provided the certainty and

trust in the future returns of research, which is crucial to attract investment from private

companies. The interviewees indicated that the “Commission brand” helped private companies

consolidate the funds necessary for project realisation, especially in terms of negotiating and

134

securing bank loans. This was particularly important for SMEs, which have limited resources

and therefore are very sensitive to potential risks. Similarly, a number of beneficiaries confirmed

that by pooling together a number of different organisations FP7 projects helped to share the

potential financial risks related to the withdrawal of one or several partners:

In addition to reducing the financial risks, the quality of the consortia in terms of the

complementary expertise helped to reduce the potential research risks. Certain tasks and

activities were shared among the organisations and researchers who were the best fit for their

implementation. A larger number of partners involved in the project implementation also

allowed to reduce the risks in case some other partners quit or failed to deliver the required

outputs. However, some interviewees noted that the sharing of research and financial risks is a

characteristic of any large project involving a number of different partners and that this is not an

exclusive advantage of European projects alone.


Interviews with the participants of the projects and other stakeholders supported the claim that

FP7 funds helped to leverage additional research funding both from private and public

sources. A leverage effect can materialise at two stages: leverage of private and public

investments for the implementation of the specific project and leverage after the project

implementation in attracting funding for further research.

Interview respondents were quite reserved in claiming that the fact that it was an FP7 project

made it more attractive for project partners to invest their own financial resources into the

project. The decision to get involved in the implementation of a EU level project and to invest

their money is much more complex and cannot be explained by one sole reason. However, quite

a few respondents noted that the changed co-financing requirements under Horizon 2020

increased the attractiveness of EU level projects.

However, according to official information, for the closed projects as of 31 December 2015 the

leverage effect of the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking was EUR 1.2 /EUR 1, meaning

that each EUR 1 spent by the EC for Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking research

projects attracted EUR 1.2 into the project from private industries and research partners.102

Moreover, according to the representatives of the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking,

before the coordinated European efforts in this field, only Germany was making major

investment in fuel cells and hydrogen research. Although the national/regional funding for fuel

cells and hydrogen research differs across Europe, the trend is that funding for this research area

is quite limited: there are almost no dedicated programmes for fuel cells and hydrogen research

at the national/regional level. Most of the national funding comes from the general R&D

research programmes, but due to the financial crisis these funds were also reduced, especially in

Southern Europe.103

Coordinators and participants of these projects have noticed a positive trend

that after the establishment of the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking, a number of other

European countries started to pay more attention to this research area and invest in order to bring

these technologies closer to the market.

Almost all respondents agreed that the EU funding received and the implementation of EU level

projects helped their organisations to stand-out in the national context and therefore to

indirectly attract further funds for their research. The fact that an institution participated in a

102 Report to the European Parliament On The Socio-Economic Impact Of The FCH JU Activities, 21st January 2016. 103 Based on the information provided by the interview respondents

135

European project provides quite a good outreach in terms of image and marketing, which in

return results in better exposure to industry and helps to leverage additional funding.

Participation in EU level projects also allowed SMEs to establish contacts with other big

companies prominent in the field and as a consequence to establish cooperation for continuing

their research and to sign new contracts for their further research.


Access to large infrastructures is particularly important for the success of fuel cells and hydrogen

research, which requires the use of complex measurement, testing and other tools. The majority

of interviewed project coordinators and participants confirmed that the implementation of their

project at the EU-level helped to access and share one or another type of research

equipment crucial to the project’s success, including large-scale computational equipment,

pressure vessel testing facilities etc. Without the European collaborative projects, especially

smaller countries would not have the opportunity to access and use these infrastructures because

they are not available in their own countries. In some cases only a few countries in Europe have

the equipment for these specific types of computation or testing, and project beneficiaries even

coming from large countries like Germany or Italy would not be able to perform their research

without the access to these infrastructures or the support from institutions who have them.

Even if such infrastructures are available at the national level, the respondents still emphasised

the advantages of being able to choose from the best partners from across the EU with the

highest quality and fit of the infrastructure for the specific project needs. Very often project

partners shared technical tasks within the consortium depending on the relative capacities and

expertise of each partner to implement a specific task. In many cases, EU-level cooperation and

sharing of infrastructure continued even after the end of the project, thereby contributing to the

establishment of long lasting collaborations.

The evidence also confirms that FP7 projects in fuel cells and hydrogen allowed gathering larger

consortia that, as a consequence, had considerable added value in terms of pooling

complementary expertise and skills available in different countries and organisations. One

project, for instance, brought together the leading European research institutes and companies to

use their specific expertise in specific components of fuel cells stack in order to put this expertise

together and come up with a European stack platform, which can address any applications in

cars, busses or residential applications. According to the project coordinator, many of the project

partner organisations were willing to participate only if they were supported by the Fuel Cells

and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking. Otherwise, without the EU-level platform and support, it

would not be possible to realise these kinds of projects in the real world. According to the

representative of the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking, almost all of the 200 projects

in this programme have a similar story of the European added value created behind it. Similarly,

in another case, developing a strong expertise in deploying hydrogen refuelling stations in one of

the partner countries (the UK) and project success could have been achieved only by sharing the

expertise with partners from other countries.

A number of interviews with project coordinators confirmed that without the EC financial

support the projects could not be realised either because they required sharing of certain

infrastructures, access to international expertise in fuel cells and hydrogen research or the

funding itself was quite limited at the national/regional level. This was the case even for research

organisations from large countries with a highly developed RTD landscape.

136

Some of the organisations with the necessary skills and expertise could have also been found at

the national level, though, the diversity and motivation of the partners would be considerably

lower.

Similarly, several beneficiaries also confirmed that their projects could have been realised even

without the EU funds, although at a much lower scale and scope. It was estimated that

without the EC contribution and relying only on private industry and national public funds, the

FP7 project HyFIVE would have deployed only around 70 fuel cell cars, instead of the actual

185. Without the EC contribution, the research projects would have also been slower in the sense

that it would have taken more time to implement the project activities. In some other cases

project coordinators also indicated that without the FP7 funds their project would have started at

least 1-2 years later than it actually did. The main reason for this is that the EC funds reduced the

financial and research risks related to the project results: some of the organisations involved

would have waited for a longer period until it was better proven that it is possible to achieve the

research results with the research and technological means available.

Finally, in some projects the European dimension helped some beneficiaries to access the

research data crucial for the project success. For instance, in the project HyFIVE the

participating car manufacturers and fuel cell infrastructure developers acquired from the

partnering research institutes access to crucial research data which revealed the technically

strong and weak sides of their products. As it is very difficult for private companies to

implement their own research data collection, they would not have had the access to these data

without the FP7 funds.

Increased international and/or inter-sectoral mobility of researchers:

Interviews with the coordinators and participants of the projects suggested that

international/cross-sectorial mobility of the researchers and staff was quite limited in FP7 fuel

cells and hydrogen projects. In those cases where mobility actually took place, it was usually

between academia and public research institutions. The involvement of industry partners in the

mobility activities during the implementation of these projects was limited.

Despite the limited mobility in fuel cells and hydrogen projects, beneficiaries noted that in order

to develop the necessary skills and expertise, it is crucial for young researchers working in the

field of fuel cells and hydrogen to be internationally mobile: only by working in an international

environment could they develop a broad perspective in relation to experimenting techniques and

other skills. Mobility was identified as a crucial prerequisite in developing human research

capacities in the fuel cells and hydrogen area because the research facilities in this field are still

scarce and distributed across different European countries: training of top-class researchers able

to work with the newest research equipment thereby requires mobility. Although the evidence of

mobility in fuel cells and hydrogen projects is limited, there were several examples of MSCA

Innovative Training Networks (ITN) projects specifically focusing on training young researchers

working in the area of hydrogen storage: in one of these projects 10 PhDs and in another – 12

PhDs were trained.



Interviews with project beneficiaries confirmed that FP7 support had considerable added value in

terms of improved excellence and research capabilities in the area of fuel cells and hydrogen

137

research. First, the case study findings indicate that the European scale of research funding

helps to ensure the high quality of research proposals selected. A number of project

coordinators confirmed that the evaluation procedure of FP7 projects (especially those under the

Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking) are very competitive since the staff involved in the

proposal evaluation have high expertise and experience in this area. In addition, the interviewees

indicated that the FP7/Horizon 2020 project proposals in fuel cells and hydrogen tend to be of

higher quality since they attract the top experts in relevant research areas. This is particularly

important for fuel cells and hydrogen because the pool of top experts and organisations deeply

involved in fuel cells and hydrogen in Europe is not large, and none of the single countries have

enough expertise covering all of the application areas. The representatives of the Fuel Cells and

Hydrogen Joint Undertaking confirmed that overall the proposals quality of the research projects

under the Joint Undertaking is very good and has been steadily increasing over the last years: the

proposal are now much more competitive than they were before. According to one member of

the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking, an American expert that they were consulting

recognised that the quality of the EU proposals was much higher than those usually developed in

the USA.

Some project coordinators noted that in comparison to national level projects, the funding

selection procedures in FP7/Horizon 2020 are much more objective, transparent and clear.

In contrast, the criteria under which projects are selected under national funding schemes are not

always as transparent and are often influenced by lobbying. The level of excellence within FP7

fuel cells and hydrogen projects was also increased due to the efficient coordination during the

project implementation: project coordinators from the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint

Undertaking side usually have a high technical knowledge and can even advise and criticise

technical aspects of the research approach. This also facilitates and improves the project’s

reporting phase because the involvement of highly-qualified project coordinators allows to

include more technical details into the report.

Second, a number of FP7 projects focusing on fuel cells and hydrogen research resulted in a

common development of advanced applications and scientific breakthroughs that could

have hardly been realised by a single institution or Member State. For instance, one project

developed a completely new model to measure the heat and mass balances in solid fuel cells,

while taking into account the 3D mechanical design of the system. This model was later shared

among all of the project partners, and the staff was trained on how to use it. According to the

project coordinator, this was made possible only due to the combination of the expertise and

knowledge of different countries and organisations involved. Similarly, in one of the major

projects 54 new generation fuel cell buses were deployed across different European cities. New

generation buses included a number of improvements, including hybridisation of the fuel cell

drivetrain, with the integration of batteries/super capacitors allowing the bus to buffer peak

loads, boost acceleration and allow energy recovery from braking. In addition, the new hybrid

systems allowed smaller and cheaper fuel cell systems, offering extended lifetimes and better

fuel efficiency, leading to the use of fewer storage tanks while maintaining the range.

In other projects, the research led to the improvement of the efficiency of multiple fuel cells

and hydrogen technologies in one country. In one of such instances, meetings between

partners from different countries and organisations allowed British partners to learn and apply in

their national context the superior technologies already developed by partners abroad, as well as

to solve the existing technical problems and shortcomings, including the deployment of

hydrogen stations, fixing problems of the compressor or pump in the refuelling stations and

increasing the accuracy of metering in hydrogen refuelling stations. In some cases the

technological improvements were related to the improvements of user experience in the already

138

developed fuel cells and hydrogen applications: one of the projects, for instance, helped the

German partners to improve the vehicle charging card technology for users, which was more

advanced in partner countries.

Third, although publications in peer-reviewed academic journals are the usual outcomes of

collaborative projects at both national and at the EU level, the evidence shows that the EU-level

research projects resulted in higher quality publications. According to the respondents, good

quality consortia with complementary expertise within FP7 projects led to higher quality

research results, which, in its turn, attracted more interest from the scientific community. This

allowed the project beneficiaries to publish their research results in more prestigious journals

with a higher impact factor. The exception to this general trend was the demonstration and

applied research projects with high technology readiness levels or pre-normative research, as

well as the studies commissioned by the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking in which the

academic publications are not very usual due to their specificity.

Table 21. Number of publications and patents produced in Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint

Undertaking projects

2013 2014

Number of projects with publications in peer-reviewed journals 9 21

Number of publications in peer-reviewed journals 70 115

Number of projects generating one or more patent applications 4 6

Number of patent applications 12 14

Source: Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking Annual Activity Report 2014

Fourth, the interview results indicate that the network and communication activities between

researchers and organisations involved in fuel cells and hydrogen projects resulted in significant

learning effects for all sides. This learning experience, increased knowledge and updated skills

mainly resulted from the large scope and interdisciplinary nature of the research activities

undertaken. Beneficiaries from different countries shared their experience, thereby contributing

to the growing understanding and expertise in each of the researchers involved. This was

particularly the case during the early project stages (when, for instance, the partners from

different countries met to discuss the results of the calculations, thermodynamic measurements

and testing), as well as the phase when various prototypes and demonstration modules had to be

assembled and the technologies developed by different partners integrated. A number of

beneficiaries acknowledged that they learnt new competences and skills that were not accessible

in their institution or even country.

Finally, the representatives of the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking confirmed that

tremendous progress was made in all of the five Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking

application areas: whereas some of the long-term indicators for 2020 might not be achieved, it

was estimated that around 90% of the targets will be achieved. Moreover, during the period

between FP7 and Horizon 2020 significant progress has been made in terms of the Technology

Readiness Levels (TRL) in Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking projects: whereas at the

beginning of the initiative, the first projects mainly focused on fundamental research, by 2014-

2016 the majority of projects supported under the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking

corresponded to the proof-of-concept and even higher TRLs.


139

The main economies of scale and scope in FP7 projects resulted from pooling together the

research infrastructure possessed by project partners. One of the main strengths of the Fuel Cells

and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking was that it gathered into one pool all the major European

industries (more than 100 enterprises as of 2016) and research players (more than 60 institutions)

in this field. All the major European research institutes working in fuel cells and hydrogen

research (ENEA, CEA, SINTEF, JRC and others) are members of the Joint Undertaking and

support the research with opening-up their infrastructures and other facilities. Thanks to the FP7

fuel cells and hydrogen projects, beneficiaries from smaller countries, like Denmark, the

Netherlands or Belgium, had access to large and complex infrastructures that could only be

provided by large research centres. This opportunity helps to save up large amounts of

funding, which would otherwise had to be spent on building similar infrastructures across

different Member States.

Some of the business partners indicated that the EU contribution is the sole means to achieve

the economies of scale necessary for the market introduction of fuel cells and hydrogen

technologies. The main reason for this is that market introduction of fuel cells and hydrogen

products, in addition to technological advance, also and foremost requires the increase in sales

volumes. Currently single hand-crafted models of fuel cells and hydrogen applications have to

compete with the series of traditional products produced at a mass scale. However, in practice it

is possible to compete only if sufficient quantity of applications are produced and sold on the

market. Private industries usually start at very low sales volumes and there is very little chance

that they could alone reach the necessary sales volumes and start competing at price. In order to

speed up the market application of fuel cells and hydrogen technologies, volume effects must be

created in the value chain and the price must be reduced so that the industries could compete

with the traditional systems. Interviews with beneficiaries indicate that the FP7 support already

contributed in this area, though, public funding should be boosted in order to accelerate further

market application of fuel cells and hydrogen technologies in Europe.

The available evidence shows that coordination activities by the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint

Undertaking already contributed to the achievement of the economies of scale in fuel cells and

hydrogen products. Five procurement clusters of bus operators and cities from different

European regions/countries were established under the lead of the Joint Undertaking, in order to

agree on a common bus specification and enable joint procurement of fuel cell buses. By 2016,

all five clusters reached an agreement to procure 600 new fuel-cell buses, thereby creating

economies of scale and reducing the unit price. Successful application for funding has already

been made which will support the deployment of the first 142 buses. It is estimated that this

large-scale joint procurement alone will reduce fuel cell bus capital costs by 25% versus the

current state-of-the-art (i.e. from today’s EUR 850,000 per 12 m bus to below EUR 650,000). It

will also double the size of Europe’s fuel cell bus fleet - from 90 by the end of 2016 to more than

220.104


The available evidence shows that FP7 projects focusing on fuel cells and hydrogen research

had considerable knowledge dissemination effects through the organisation of and

participation in conferences and workshops, as well as the preparation of reports and

papers. Some larger projects (CHIC, HYTEC and MobyPost) included wider-ranging

104 Element Energy et al.: Strategies for joint procurement of fuel cell buses [July 2016]

http://www.fch.europa.eu/sites/default/files/Strategies%20for%2joint%20procurement%20of%20FC%20buses_0pdf

140

dissemination and awareness-raising activities, such as launch events, test-drive opportunities,

school visits, participation in fairs or local festivals, a shuttle service at public events and

substantial press presence.105

Especially the demonstration projects involved a high scope of

dissemination activities. e.g. during the H2moves Scandinavia project public ride and drive

events of hydrogen vehicles were organised. Similarly, the hydrogen road tour took place in

2012, during which nine different cities in Europe were visited (in the United Kingdom,

Northern Italy, Germany and Denmark). Some of the projects were also tackling broader

audiences in addition to researchers and other stakeholders directly involved in fuel cells and

hydrogen research. For instance during the RELHY project an article was published in a more

general technological-political EU journal called International Innovation, which is accessible to

a wider audience. In some cases, project outputs included studies on the factors determining the

acceptance of the new technology: the CHIC project, for instance, conducted a study on

influencing factors for fuel cell bus acceptance. The study included 185 face-to-face, one-hour

interviews in five European regions.

The representatives of the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking maintain a constant

contact with key EU and national policy makers and inform them about the state of play

and future prospects of fuel cells and hydrogen research. The events organised by the Fuel

Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking were a good platform for SMEs to promote and introduce

themselves to the big players prominent in the field. The interviews also show that coordination

activities by the Joint Undertaking also provided synergies between the dissemination activities

under different projects: meetings organised by the Joint Undertaking allowed the project

coordinators to get acquainted with each other’s work and to organise common dissemination

activities such as workshops and conferences. Some of the projects focusing on pre-normative

research disseminated information about the knowledge produced in their work, in order to

change the industrial standards, as this is the only way to bring knowledge closer to the market.

The main instruments used for this purpose were the publications, presentations and workshops

dedicated to key European industrial and research stakeholders in this field.

Even though the EU research funding programmes aim at making knowledge more widely

available, e.g. through open access to publications and data, some of the beneficiaries noticed

that many companies tend to protect the knowledge developed during fuel cells and hydrogen

research and not to share it publicly in order to protect their commercial interests. This trend was

identified as a potential source of tensions between the companies cautious of sharing any

research results with a potential commercial value and academia/public research institutes, which

are strongly interested in producing high-quality publications.


The European added value in the area of EU-level coordination of fuel cells and hydrogen

research was very clear and specific since more than 70% of the EU funding in this area was

distributed through the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking– a large public-private

partnership, which helps to coordinate research in accordance to the interests and needs of

different stakeholders involved. A number of interviews confirmed significant added value of

this coordination at different levels. First, the presence of such a public-private partnership

ensured a strong involvement of industry and its role in leading research activities, which is

crucial to push technologies into the market. This is mainly achieved through the involvement of

both academic and industry partners in drafting common implementation plans and strategies,

105 FCH Joint Undertaking: Programme Review Report 2015.

141

which set the research agenda and priorities while taking into account the industry interests and

needs.

Some beneficiaries, however, noticed that because of the industry’s strong role in the Fuel Cells

and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking, there is too much focus on demonstration projects at the

expense of fundamental research. In the future this might jeopardize the progress in the area of

fuel cells and hydrogen research. According to some opinions, the European research funds

should instead concentrate on fundamental research, since it is more sensitive to sharing of top

expertise and infrastructures, whereas demonstration projects could be supported at national or

even regional level with high support from private industries. Divergent opinions of the

respondents clearly shows the importance (and difficulty) of finding the optimal balance between

supporting low and high technology readiness levels activities.

Second, hydrogen technology has a number of different application areas and makes links to

other technologies (solar, wind energy, transport, medicine etc.). Because there are so many fuel

cells and hydrogen application areas and because they are so interlinked, it was necessary to

establish one formal European-wide coordination platform and strategy, which helps to set

priorities and ensures the pooling and rational distribution of resources for research. A

single European research coordination platform is necessary because an overall success in fuel

cells and hydrogen research can only be achieved if research in different application areas is

implemented simultaneously and is being jointly coordinated. For example, in order to have a

clean hydrogen-based transport system, it is necessary to have clean (CO2 emission-free)

hydrogen production, as well as efficient and safe hydrogen storage and transportation

technology. Similarly, in order to have a system of harvesting the unused electric energy in a

form of hydrogen, it must be possible to apply it in the transport system: the two application

areas are therefore closely interdependent. According to one of the interviewees, the Fuel Cells

and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking provides this European-wide framework for coordination and

priority-setting, which is essential for long-term success in this area.

Every year the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking reviews the progress achieved against

target indicators in five different application areas. This helps to maintain progress across all of

the areas, since it helps to trace which areas of research are lagging behind and need further

stimulation. After identifying these areas the Joint Undertaking launches a new call in the

area/topic that needs acceleration. This approach allows efficient distribution of resources and

prevents the duplication of funding for those areas where substantial progress has been

already achieved. However, one respondent stated that the Joint Undertaking should me more

directive in deciding what kind of topics should be financed and better strategic prioritisation

should take place on what research projects should be continued and where the funding flows

should be directed.

Third, some of the FP7 projects had considerable impact on national policy regulations and

even the general outlook of policy makers towards fuel cells and hydrogen technologies. For

instance, the agreement between two project partners in FP7 HyFIVE project (ITM Power and

Shell) influenced the UK’s regulations and facilitated collocating the hydrogen and petrol on the

same refuelling forecourts. The implementation of EU-level projects helped to showcase the

importance of this research area and therefore contributed to allocating higher national/regional

financing. Similarly, some of the private companies indicated that the presence of the Fuel Cells

and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking demonstrates the political support at the highest level, as well

as the need of fuel cells and hydrogen technology for the society at large. This support

encourages businesses to invest in this research area even when the financial returns of this

investment are not immediate and the payback time is quite in the future.

142



Horizon 2020 addresses major concerns shared by citizens in Europe and elsewhere by tackling

seven main societal challenges.106

All of the interviewees agreed that their research in the area

of fuel cells and hydrogen is particularly relevant and contributing to solving three of these

seven societal challenges:

Secure, clean and efficient energy;

Smart, green and integrated transport;

Climate action, environment, resource efficiency and raw materials.

A number of interviewees confirmed that the EU research funding has already contributed

a lot in solving the above societal challenges, mainly by helping to demonstrate the

applicability of hydrogen as a transport fuel across Europe and building necessary infrastructure

(e.g. hydrogen refuelling stations). One of the largest projects under the FP7 Fuel Cells and

Hydrogen Joint Undertaking, for instance, gathered good practices and demonstrated to other

cities in Europe how effectively the deployment of fuel cell buses can address CO2 emissions

and climate change issues. It was shown that the deployment of 12 meter fuel cell bus using the

hydrogen mix (combination of hydrogen from renewable and conventional sources) reduces the

global warming potential impact by 43% compared with a corresponding state-of-the-art diesel

bus, whereas fuel cell bus using 100% green hydrogen fuel reduces the global warming potential

impact by 85%107

.

Overall, in terms of CO2 emissions, fuel cells are currently the most efficient way of

addressing climate change: studies conducted under the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint

Undertaking estimated that even the natural gas based fuel cell technology can reduce the CO2

emissions by up to 80%. The technology combining fuel cells with hydrogen produces a 0% CO2

emissions. Due to the increased efficiency and reduced consumptions of energy, the introduction

of fuel cells and hydrogen technology could save around EUR 1,000 of energy bills per year for

an average European family. In addition, the shift towards a fuel cells and hydrogen based

energy and transport system would significantly increase Europe’s energetic security and

stability by reducing its dependence on energy imports: hydrogen can be produced locally in a

number of different ways, depending on the original feedstock. For instance, hydrogen can be

produced through electrolysis, which is a completely zero-emission based production method. A

number of interviewees recognized that the future transformation of energy and transport sector

will probably be based on a mix of electricity and hydrogen based applications, rather than

hydrogen alone.

The interviewees also agreed that it is indispensable to implement the shift towards a fuel

cells and hydrogen based energy and transport system at the European, rather than

national or regional levels. Due to their importance, the coordinated and concerted actions at

the EU level are needed in order to avoid any contradictions among the national policies. The

main reason for this is that the EU energy and transport infrastructure is so interlinked that it

106 https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/societal-challenges 107 Source: Clean Hydrogen in European Cities (CHIC) 2010-2016 project, Fuel cell electric buses: a proven zero-emission

solution. Key facts, results, recommendations. 2016.

https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/societal-challenges

143

would be impossible to have a fuel cells and hydrogen based system in one country and a

completely different system in another.

In addition, because of the natural-geographic factors, every European country has different

advantages and capabilities to produce hydrogen: some countries or regions (for instance,

southern European countries) have the potential to produce hydrogen from solar energy, others

from hydro energy (for instance, Scandinavian countries), whereas others have none of these

natural advantages. As a consequence, in order to achieve a zero-emission based system in

Europe countries have to cooperate and share the resources necessary for the introduction of fuel

cells and hydrogen technologies.


The FP7 H2SusBuild project (Development of a clean and energy self-sustained building in the

vision of integrating hydrogen economy with renewable energy sources), implemented from

2008 to 2012, aimed at developing a self-sustainable and zero-CO2-emission hybrid energy

system, in which the storage of hydrogen provides the energy supply for heating, cooling and

electricity of buildings in case of energy shortage. The new system allows converting the excess

of renewable energy produced from photovoltaic solar panels and wind power generators into

hydrogen to be used as energy storage medium. The project resulted in the development and

installation of this full-scale system in a medium-sized (525 m2) office building located in

Greece. At the time H2SusBuild project demonstrated the first and the most advanced

technology in this area,.

The FP7 SOFCOM proof-of-concept project (SOFC CCHP with poly-fuel: operation and

maintenance), implemented from 2011 to 2015, was the world’s first demonstration of an

innovative system where fuel cells were used to generate electricity and water that is clean

enough to be drunk by consuming organic waste that is collected from wastewater treatment

plants. Project partners built two demonstrations of biogenous-fed solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC)

systems in order to test the proof of concept. The first was in Turin, Italy and featured a fuel cell

system fed with biogas produced from an industrial water treatment plant. The second system

was based in Helsinki, Finland and comprised a fuel cell stack fed with another type of

renewable fuel – syngas produced from biomass gasification. The system developed for

electricity production from renewable energy sources ensured negative CO2 emissions. This

project is expected to have a positive impact on society and the environment through the

sustainable management of energy and its related effects on the global climate. The follow-up

project (DEMOSOFC), financed under Horizon 2020, started in 2015 and aims at scaling up the

technology. This will result in the installation of a 174 kW electric biogas-fuelled SOFC system

that will also be the biggest size plant in the EU so far.

Even though the functional readiness of the fuel cell technology in automotive application is

very advanced, durability, efficiency, power density and cost of the fuel cell stack need further

advancements and in some cases substantial improvements. The Auto-Stack Core project

(Automotive Fuel Cell Stack Cluster Initiative for Europe II), implemented from 2013 to 2017,

therefore aims to develop the best-of-its-class automotive stack technology with superior power

density and performance. The newly developed stack technology will be beyond of what is

currently known for the global market in respect to power density and volume of the stack. The

project’s current progress shows that the targets will be reached as planned and automotive stack

production in Europe will start from 2018/19.

144

The aim of the HyLIFT-EUROPE project (Large scale demonstration of fuel cell powered

material handling vehicles), implemented from 2013 to 2017, is to demonstrate more than 200

fuel cell materials handling vehicles and associated refuelling infrastructure at 5-20 sites across

Europe, making it one of the first and the largest European demonstrations of hydrogen fuel cell

materials handling vehicles. By 2016, a fleet of 46 vehicles was already in operation in one of

the project partner’s logistics facility in France and contracts for more vehicles were already

signed. In addition, Carrefour Group, the second-largest retailer in the world, plans to purchase

more than 150 fuel cell forklifts, which will be deployed at Carrefour's brand new distribution

centre located in Vendin-lès-Béthune, France. It is expected that the demonstration of the fuel-

cell vehicles at large industrial companies will ensure maximum exposure of the project results,

whereas the project’s best practice guide to be shared with potential future vehicle-users will

help streamlining the procedures for future deployments of fuel cell materials handling vehicles.

Several large-scale FP7 projects included some of the most significant breakthroughs in

developing fuel cells and hydrogen transport infrastructure in Europe. In HyFIVE the

project consortium uniting the researchers and some of the largest car manufacturers in the world

(including Daimler, BMW, HONDA, Hyundai and Toyota) are deploying 185 fuel cell electric

vehicles (FCEVs) and 6 new hydrogen refuelling stations across three geographical clusters in

Europe. Similarly, the FP7 CHIC project deployed a fleet of 54 fuel cell electric buses and 6

hydrogen refuelling stations across 8 European countries. In addition, the project consortium

achieved a number of technical improvements significantly facilitating the commercialization

and wider applications of fuel cells and hydrogen technologies in transport in the future: these

include short refuelling times at hydrogen refuelling stations, high fuel consumption efficiency,

reduction of CO2 by up to 85% and other. It is estimated that these project will significantly

contribute to removing the remaining barriers to wide-scale application of fuel cells and

hydrogen in European transport system, thereby making a major step in cutting greenhouse gas

emissions and increasing the share of renewable energy sources in the Union's energy mix.

F.5. European added value case study 5: Food Waste



Food waste is an important ethical, economic and environmental issue. Recent studies show that

between one-third and half of the world’s food production is wasted at different stages of

production and throughout the supply chain, starting at the farm (e.g. vegetables/fruits that do not

meet quality requirements thrown away) and ending at consumer level waste108

. By conservative

estimates, about 1.3 billion tonnes of food produced for human consumption is lost globally

every year. In the EU alone about 88 million tonnes of food are wasted every year, worth an

estimated EUR 143 billion (Stenmarck A. et al, 2016). Surprisingly, developing and developed

countries experience similar levels of food waste – about 40%. The largest food losses in the

developing world occur at the harvesting and processing stages, whereas in the developed world

most of the food is wasted at retail and consumer levels. The European Commission is

committed to preventing and reducing food waste in order to transition towards a resource

efficient and more environmentally friendly Europe.

108Jenny Gustavsson, Christel Cederberg, Ulf Sonesson, Robert van Otterdijk & Alexandre Meybeck (2011). “Global Food

Losses and Food Waste: Extent, Causes and Prevention”, Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations; Åsa

Stenmarck, Carl Jensen, Tom Quested, Graham Moates (2016). “Estimates of European food waste levels“. FUSIONS EU

project.

145

Food waste causes negative environmental (e.g. energy, climate change, water, availability of

resources), economic (e.g. resource efficiency, price volatility, increasing costs, consumption,

waste management, commodity markets) and social (e.g. health, equality) consequences.

Moreover, a significant amount of food, especially in developed countries, is wasted at the

consumption stage. To tackle these issues and meet the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs),

the European Commissions has introduced a new Circular Economy Package109

, which

stimulates Europe’s transition towards a circular economy that boosts global competitiveness,

fosters sustainable growth and generates new jobs. Food waste prevention is an integral part of

the package and aims to halve the per capita food waste at the retail and consumer level by 2030,

as well as significantly reduce food losses along the food production and supply chains.

Food waste distribution among different food production and supply stages is presented in the

chart below.

Figure 1 Split of EU-28 food waste in 2012 by sector

Source: Stenmarck A. et al, 2016

Ensuring global food security, good environmental governance and prevention of food losses is

of vital importance. Food waste, in addition to a loss of resources used in production such as

land, water, energy and inputs, produces negative externalities as a result of the production -

such as CO2 emissions - and represent a loss of economic value of the food produced. Thus,

actions geared towards food waste prevention and reduction play a big role in combating hunger

and climate change. Becoming more efficient in food production and more responsible at the

consumption level will have positive economic and environmental impacts.

United Nations (UN) members agreed to frame their agendas and policies following the SDGs,

which aim to end poverty, protect the planet and ensure prosperity for all. Since food waste

reduction is an essential part of the agreement, the UN carried out a study on food waste,

detailing the main causes and proposed prevention mechanisms to combat food loss throughout

the food production and supply chains (Gustavsson J. et al, 2011). The main goal of the EU is to

reduce food waste without compromising food safety (the EU food safety policy – to protect

both human and animal health). Thus, in addition to the UN’s propositions on achieving food

109More on Sustainable Development Goals: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/topics. More on the EU Action Plan for the

Circular Economy: http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/jobs-growth-investment/circular-economy/docs/communication-action-plan-for-

circular-economy_en.pdf

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/topics

http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/jobs-growth-investment/circular-economy/docs/communication-action-plan-for-circular-economy_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/jobs-growth-investment/circular-economy/docs/communication-action-plan-for-circular-economy_en.pdf

146

waste SDG targets, the Commission is in the process of pursuing several actions aimed to reduce

food losses110

:

Elaborate a common EU methodology to measure food waste consistently across the

Member States and stakeholders (unified quantification of food waste levels);

Create a new platform (EU Platform on Food Losses and Food Waste111

) involving

both Member States and actors within the food chain (the goal is to define measures

needed to achieve the food waste SDG, facilitate inter-sector co-operation, and share best

practices and results achieved);

Take measures to clarify EU legislation related to waste, food and feed and facilitate food

donation and the use of former foodstuffs and by-products from the food chain for feed

production, without compromising food and feed safety;

Examine ways to improve the use of date marking by actors in the food chain and its

understanding by consumers, in particular "best before" labelling.

The EU Member States are committed to meeting the SDGs, and if prevention mechanisms are

implemented successfully, expect:

A 50% reduction in the per capita food waste at the retail and consumer level by 2030;

A significant reduction of food losses across entire food production and supply chains.

In order to achieve these targets, all actors in the food chain have to play a role in preventing and

reducing food waste, from those who produce and process foods (farmers, food manufacturers

and processors) to those who make foods available for consumption (hospitality sector, retailers)

and consumers themselves.


indicators

As discussed above, food waste has a negative impact on a wide range of issues in particular

ethical, economic and environmental. Food losses occur, to various degrees, at all stages of

production and the supply chain. Studies argue that public intervention is necessary in preventing

and reducing food waste for a number of reasons:

Government agencies and public institutions are better positioned than non-profits to

inform and raise awareness about the benefits of reducing food wastage (saving money

by reducing over-purchasing and disposal costs, positive environmental impacts) via

public education, public campaigns, etc. For example, in 2008, the University of Texas at

Austin initiated a programme to raise awareness among students about food waste that

produced impressive results – a 48% reduction in wasted food112

;

110 More on EU actions against food waste:

http://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/food_waste/eu_actions/index_en.htm 111 http://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/food_waste/eu_actions/eu-platform/index_en.htm 112 EPA (2016). “Reducing Wasted Food & Packaging: a Guide for Food Services and Restaurants”; European Commission,

http://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/food_waste/eu_actions/index_en.htm



147

Investments in infrastructure, transportation, food processing and storage require

enormous resources, and the private sector would not be able to do it alone, especially in

developing countries (Gustavsson J. et al, 2011);

Data collection – the European Union will create a unified methodology and then

Member States will calculate food waste based on the proposed methodology. A common

methodology will allow different countries to better understand levels of food waste, and

therefore, encourage them to take action if necessary (Gustavsson J. et al, 2011;

Stenmarck A. et al, 2016; European Commission’s commitment113

);

Governments can create policies that promote prevention and reduction of food waste,

and punish food waste (e.g. recent French legislation, which forbids food waste for

supermarkets114

).

Therefore, public intervention not only raises public awareness, but makes a difference in food

wastage – through creative legislature that significantly reduces food waste. The main food

recovery strategies food waste projects pursue (from the most environmentally friendly to the

least):

Reduction (seeking supply demand balance, better processing and storage practices,

increasing consumer awareness)

Reuse (feed hungry people, feed animals)

Recycle/Recover (Industrial uses, recover food waste to energy, composting)

Landfill/incineration (Last resort option for food waste management)


Food waste is a complex and new area of research, requiring collaboration between top experts,

sharing of infrastructure and heavy investments. A multidisciplinary approach is needed to tackle

the food waste challenge effectively. In the case study, a big fraction of all FP7 projects related

to food waste were analysed. Projects were implemented under different FP7 programmes

including Energy, Environment, KBBE, NMP, Regions, Science in Society, SME and ICT.

Projects analysed represent the diversity and broad scope of topics addressed by the FP7.

Overall, approximately 40 European projects tried to determine or solve problems related to food

wastage. Most of the observed projects associated with food waste either produced new

technologies (e.g. robotic flexible food handling, innovative packaging) or provided services

(databases, policies, various innovative tools). Most projects, 23 in total, were implemented

under the FP7 KBBE programme. The EU contribution for these projects topped EUR 82

million. An additional 17 projects related to food waste were identified in other parts of FP7,

including notably Research for the Benefit of SMEs (7 projects), Environment (3 projects). The

full list of projects that worked on food waste prevention and reduction are presented in the table

below.

113 More information on the EC proposed actions against the food waste:

http://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/food_waste/eu_actions/index_en.htm 114 More information: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/04/french-law-forbids-food-waste-by-supermarkets


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/04/french-law-forbids-food-waste-by-supermarkets

148

Table 22 Key projects related to the area of Food waste


FP7 Energy 1 3.48

FP7 Environment 3 9.62

FP7 KBBE 23 82.06

FP7 NMP 1 7.208

FP7 Regions 1 0.88

FP7 Science in Society 1 0.40

FP7 SME 7 8.62

ICT 3 19.27

Total 40 131.53


Programmes (FP7, Horizon 2020)”, forthcoming , based on CORDA data

F.5.2. Key findings


Reduction of commercial/research risk

Interviewed coordinators and project members confirmed that European level projects enabled

sharing and reduction of commercial and research risks. Respondents named three main

factors that helped reduce commercial and research risks: (1) substantial financial support

from the European Commission, (2) the Commission’s reputation and the prestige of FP7

projects and (3) the high quality of consortia in terms of expertise and commitment. In the

area of food waste, both reduction of commercial and research risks are important factors in

pursuing EU projects. According to the participants, the effect of added value in this area is

much more expressed and clear in European than in national projects.

Most of the respondents supported a claim that research risks were reduced (for all types of

projects). Significant funding from the European Commission provided recipients with necessary

cash flows and allowed stable implementation of the projects.

In addition, the trust and certainty in the future returns of research that came with the

Commission’s “brand” facilitated access to funds essential for project realisation (for example,

negotiating and securing bank loans). Finally, organisations and researchers shared certain tasks

and activities that were best fit for their implementation, or in some cases, other partner

organisations took over tasks when assigned researchers or organisations failed to successfully

complete them. Similarly, beneficiaries supported the claim that by pooling together a number of

different organisations, FP7 projects helped to share potential financial risks related to the

withdrawal of one or several partners.

The European level intervention reduced commercial risks for projects that produced

technologies and prototypes. Respondents from such projects confirmed that in many cases they

could not attract equivalent funding from private sources to develop prototypes and innovative

technologies.

149

According to the beneficiaries EU projects provided them with additional funding to implement

technologies and worked as a leverage effect to attract funding before and after the

implementation of the project. As a result, participants significantly reduced commercial risks.


Interviews with project participants and other stakeholders revealed that FP7 funds helped to

leverage additional research funding from both private and public sources. The vast

majority of respondents agree that the leverage effect from European projects is higher than

from national Programmes. Moreover, with the exception of large European countries, such as

France and Germany, as well as Scandinavian countries, there are almost no equivalent

national/regional programmes in the area of food waste. Given limited national/regional

funding, European funds are essential in supporting food waste research.

It was observed that FP7 funds had two types (before-and-after the project) of leverage

effects, which materialised at different stages of the project. First, the prestige of FP7 funding

allows coordinators to form highly competent and motivated research teams. The international

profile of the consortia and potential European funding attracts industrial partners, both

nationally and internationally, and investments into the project as a result. Second, winning of

grants and the successful implementation of EU projects at the European level not only make

research teams more visible in international arena, but also send positive signals to potential

investors. The European funding aspect and the prestige of winning Framework

Programmes’ grants helped participating institutions to stand-out in the national context and therefore to indirectly attract funds for research. Research teams that participated in

European projects became more visible in the industry, strengthened their image and

demonstrated their portfolios to a wider, international audience. These factors, in particular,

international reputation, image and better exposure to the industry, helped participants to

leverage additional funding. For SMEs, EU-level projects guaranteed contacts (and in some

cases contracts) with other companies, such as innovative SMEs and leading industrial

corporations prominent in the field.

Among above mentioned reasons for increased funding from other sources, participants cited

specific skills and experiences they acquired that helped them attract additional financing for

their projects: management skills, conflict-management (between partners), studying of the new

areas of research via collaboration with the different and complementary partners/experts,

learning the rules and evaluation schemes of EU projects.

According to most of the respondents, participation in a European project increased funding

from national programmes, charities and non-governmental organisations, and the industry, not

only for the particular project, but also for projects that followed. In some cases, project

participants gained significant amounts of additional funding for their current and future

research.


A key added value for project participants in the area of food waste, according to the project

participants, was the pooling resources and building critical mass. European level projects

opened opportunities for cooperation with international partners that possess necessary

and unique skills and knowledge, data sources, laboratories and other infrastructures.

150

Most of the interviewed project participants supported the claim that the implementation of

their project at the EU-level helped to access and share region-specific knowledge and data,

equipment, testing facilities etc. crucial for the projects’ success. European collaborative

projects were extremely important for participants from smaller countries, who would not have

had opportunities to access and use the knowledge and infrastructures unavailable in their own

countries. European level projects allowed respondents to choose the best, most experienced

partners from across the EU (and beyond) and to access infrastructure and data needed to

successfully implement the project.

Food waste research is a relatively new area with little funding at national level. The current

patterns of multidisciplinary approach in food waste research and the adoption of innovations

from other industries than food require various types of skills, equipment and data sources. Thus,

European level funding, and especially the international aspect that comes with it, becomes

superior to other forms of funding.

Some respondents suggested, that these additional benefits of European projects, networking and

learning from each other in particular, offset the co-funding requirement - which is not required

by national programmes in their countries - and makes EU funding more desirable than funding

from national sources.

Virtually all interviewed coordinators and project participants (with the exception of very few

participants from Germany, France and the United Kingdom who could have implemented the

project at full or nearly full scale and scope) confirmed that without European funding the

projects could not be implemented, either because they required sharing of certain

infrastructures, access to international expertise in food waste research or the funding itself was

quite limited at the national/regional levels. Only a few respondents substantiated that their

projects could have been implemented without EU funds, but at a much lower scale and scope.

International expertise and infrastructure encouraged the sharing of tasks between partners.

Many respondents emphasised that EU-level cooperation and sharing of infrastructure

established strong networks, exposed to new markets and encouraged learning from each other.

These connections continued even after the end of the project, thereby contributing to the

establishment of long lasting partnerships. These partnerships allowed research teams to grow,

ensured effective cooperation and helped attract additional funding from other than European

sources.


Interviewed coordinators and project participants emphasised several aspects of increased

international and/or inter-sectoral mobility of researchers that bring added value in the area of

food waste research. However, the European aspect is not an exclusive advantage over national

programmes in this case. Although international mobility is higher for European projects, inter-

sectoral cooperation is common among national projects as well.

According to the participants mobility occurred between universities, research institutions,

large corporations and SMEs in some cases. All levels of specialists participated in this

mobility – from PhD students to experts and academia. As some participants from SMEs and big

companies acknowledged, industry partners were less likely to send their staff to other

institutions, because they have assigned tasks and responsibilities beyond the project.

151

For those who participated in international or inter-sectoral mobilities, this was a good learning

experience: gaining knowledge in the field of food waste research, learning new competences

and skills.

Most participants agree that young researchers and PhD students benefited the most from these

exchanges – they developed new crucial research skills, broadened their perspectives by working

in an international environment, defended PhD theses on this topic and some even received job

offers from the institutions with whom they interned.


Improved research capabilities / excellence (also involves access to skills, data, infrastructures

and research capacities)

The European aspect of FP7/Horizon 2020 enabled project participants to build strong

international research teams, attract top experts, innovative SMEs and leading industrial partners.

Interviewed beneficiaries confirmed that European projects brought higher added value in

terms of research excellence and capabilities than projects funded only under national

programmes.

According to a significant share of project participants, there are a number of reasons that make

EU-level programmes stand out in terms of research excellence. The selection mechanism of

Framework Programmes ensures a high quality of research proposals selected. The large scale of

the projects encourages top experts in the field to participate. The international nature of these

projects allows consortia to form the most capable teams with expertise from different countries

and access necessary infrastructure and databases. A large number of interviewed project

participants emphasised efficient coordination and sharing of tasks as an important aspect in

ensuring successful project implementation. All these factors lead to improved research

capabilities and excellence.

In addition, some of the project participants noted that the funding selection procedures in

European Framework Programmes are more objective and transparent compared to national level

programmes. This finding contrasts the often perceived “bureaucracy” of EU research

programmes.


A number of respondents stressed that EU funding, together with international cooperation

ability to pool resources and increased visibility across Europe, are necessary for the wider

European level adoption of food waste research and technologies. In general, respondents agreed

that European level food waste projects achieve economies of scale and scope much more

often than projects funded under national research programmes.

From the interviews with project participants it appears that economies of scale and scope are

most prevalent in those food waste projects that focus on development of databases,

software tools and methodologies. European aspect allows project participants to bring project

outcomes accessible and applicable across Europe at relatively low cost. In many cases national

level project could not be widely applied due to lack of experts, experience from other countries

and infrastructure.

The main factors that contribute to the effectiveness of EU projects, according to the

participants, are:

152

Outcomes of similar projects at national level can often only be applied at tackling food

waste in the country where research is performed. Slightly larger project budget, access

to top experts and infrastructure make results applicable more widely;

Comparable national projects are implemented slower due to a lack of experts,

infrastructure and funding opportunities;

Limited access to institutes and infrastructure nationally makes national projects less

efficient and more complicated.

Increased access to European infrastructures and top experts as well as guaranteed EU funding

allowed focusing on research activities, saved time and resources. Instead of working at

national level, researchers aimed to make the outputs of the project applicable across

Europe. The European dimension and larger scale reduced unit cost of outputs.


Virtually all respondents agreed that a larger number of dissemination activities is an

important added value of European projects, which make them superior to national level

programmes. In addition, international recognition and reputation that comes with the EU brand

enable project participants to attract top experts and cooperate with European and international

partners. As a result such projects produce high quality research, publish in top peer-reviewed

journals and attract attention from non-European countries (e.g. the USA). In addition, most of

the interviewed participants viewed positively the Commission’s efforts to promote open access

and data sharing, and believed that it helps to draw attention from academia and the public.

These aspects make the outcomes of European projects more visible internationally compared to

national programmes.

Interviewed coordinators and project participants supported the claim that European projects

lead to and open opportunities for considerable dissemination activities that would not be

available at national level. For project participants, these dissemination activities included

publications in peer-reviewed journals, patents and other protection of intellectual property

rights, tests at laboratory scale and participation in conferences, seminars and workshops. In

general, according to interviewees, FP7 funding had a clear effect on improving access to

research outputs. Project participants support European efforts to promote open access and

stressed the importance of open access to publications and data. According to them, making

knowledge more widely available helps them reach wider audiences and advance research.

However, speaking about the open access as such, some of the respondents were wary of and

pessimistic about the impact it produces – publishing in open access journals, which are often

lower ranked, is costly and not always an effective way of reaching wider audiences.

Better coordination of national research policies and practices:

Most of the researchers separated national and European projects as serving different purposes.

European projects are larger scale projects and usually make bigger impact than national

programmes. Moreover, a large number of European countries do not have national funding

dedicated to food waste research. Interviews revealed that only Germany, France, the

Netherlands and some Scandinavian countries have comparable programmes with sufficient

funding. In other countries food waste research usually fits under broader categories in national

programmes, but competition for grants is very high and the funding is relatively small.

153

According to the participants, in a perfect scenario, both European and national programmes in

food waste research would complement each other. Currently, however, in many European

countries there is a lack of national programmes that could complement EU programmes.

Despite the EU’s efforts many respondents mentioned the still existing research bottlenecks at

national level.


Addressing societal/ pan-European challenges

Researchers believe that European collaborative projects address food waste research,

specifically food waste reduction, prevention and valorisation, make bigger impact at a shorter

time period than national projects. Pan-European projects have bigger impacts, because these

projects are more visible across Europe, enable collaboration with top experts and allow

consortia share region-specific knowledge and data, equipment and testing facilities.

However, participants agree that national level projects complement European projects.

It is difficult to distinguish the main trends of food waste projects, since they cover a wide

range of topics and aim to solve various problems related to food waste reduction,

prevention and valorisation. Analysed food waste projects built tools (software, apps, and

databases) that promote healthier lifestyle, sustainable food consumption, encourage food waste

reduction and promote waste valorisation. Also, EU-level projects developed technologies that

reduce food waste at both food processing and consumer levels. In addition, food waste projects

proposed new policies and directives to policymakers that could help prevent or significantly

reduce food wastage. Overall, there is a wide pallet of issues these projects dealt with at different

stages of production and throughout the supply chain.

From the interviews with project respondents, two main advantages of EU-level projects

compared to national programmes emerged. First, European projects save time, especially

when commercialising the products, according to most of the participants. Respondents estimate

that European level allows project outcomes to reach the market 3-5 years and in some cases up

to 10 years faster than national projects. Second, European projects in the area of Food Waste

reach much larger population than national projects. According to the respondents, EU-level

brings a connection to the European market, and as a result, such projects make an impact on

several hundreds of thousands of people at European level. According to the participants, some

of the European projects have a potential to reach up to 100 million people (e.g. the NanoBarrier

project) across Europe. Under the national programme such level of impact would not have been

possible. EU-level project outputs reach the market quicker and have a positive impact on a

larger customer base compare to national projects.

Virtually all interviewed participants agreed that their research in the area of food waste

achieved broader impact with European level projects than they would have achieved at

national level programme. All food waste projects tackle the following societal challenge

directly: ‘Food security, sustainable agriculture and forestry, marine and maritime and inland

water research, and the Bioeconomy’. A large portion of European projects related to Food

waste, although indirectly, also contribute to solving challenges, such as:

Health, demographic change and wellbeing (e.g. the ECsafeSEAFOOD project, which

helps consumers detect contaminants in seafood and get dietary recommendations,

whereas for processing facilities and aquaculture proposes innovative solutions how to

reduce contaminants and toxins in the environment and in seafood);

154

Secure, clean and efficient energy (e.g. the Muse-tech project introduced innovative

energy-efficient sensors that could be used in food production and the FRISBEE that

provided new refrigeration tools and concepts for energy optimisation along the cold

chain in Europe);

Climate action, environment, resource efficiency and raw materials (e.g. the PicknPack,

NOSHAN and Susfood projects that aimed to ensure efficient food processing, packaging

processes and introduce innovative solutions to re-use the food waste; The Veg-I-Trade

project sought to assess the impact of anticipated climate change and globalisation on the

safety issues concerning fresh produce and derived food products).

Most of the participants agreed that European research on food waste is on the right track. The

EC funding is sufficient, and these EU-level programmes connect top experts in their fields

all across Europe. Together they make break-through discoveries. Although respondents

emphasize the effectiveness of European projects, they realise the importance of national

programmes too. However, they are not equipped to produce as significant impacts especially in

the technological food waste projects that require heavy investments, top experts (usually

available in different countries), infrastructure and leverage to attract additional private sources

of funding (the prestige of European level project increases visibility and reputation, and trust

from potential private investors as a result). France, Germany and Scandinavian Countries are

few exceptions that have strong national programmes in the areas of food security and food

waste. For other participants, European projects allow producing high quality research, an

opportunity they would not be able to realize at national level.

To tackle societal challenges European leadership is necessary. When large investments are

needed but the industry is not getting involved because of the risks involved, European

programmes can play a significant role. EU funding allows science to produce high quality

research, attract top experts, encourage sharing of infrastructure and as a result help

tackling societal challenges. Key sources of European added value are the leverage effect of EU

projects that helped attract additional funding from other public and private sources, as well as

the international aspect – project participants reached wider audiences, i.e. European scientific

community and European consumer base. National programmes are not enough, although they

are important in complementing EU research. Compared to other continents Europe is

leading in the food waste research.


Several areas and projects were identified that are examples of successful initiatives of FP7

funding in the area of food waste. These successful projects tackle the food waste challenge at

three levels: reduction, prevention and valorisation. The majority of projects focused on building

new software tools, databases, methodologies and technologies as well as proposed new policies

and directives. Projects covered various stages of the food industry value chain. The results of

these initiatives are expected to contribute to reducing food losses across the entire food

production and supply chains, re-using existing food waste (e.g. feed production) and achieving

the European Commission targets to reduce per capita food waste by 50% at the retail and

consumer level by 2030.

One category of projects – databases and software tools – aimed at raising awareness of food

waste issue, developing tools that improve health of consumers and increase effectiveness of

food processing, optimizing food distribution, and pushing for new policies regarding food waste

among other impacts. Notable examples of such projects are ECsafeSEAFOOD, Hightech

155

Europe, FoodIntegrity and FOODMETRES. One key project ECsafeSEAFOOD assessed food

safety issues related to contaminants present in seafood and evaluated their impact on public

health. Based on their findings project members developed an online tool for different

stakeholders and guidelines, a result of which, consumers can assess nutrition and contaminants

of their seafood consumption as well as get dietary recommendations. By using project outcomes

food processing facilities will be able to ensure the quality of food, measure contaminants and

process the food more effectively, and as a result, reduce food waste. One small part of the

project is expected to have a significant impact on the public health and food waste. Although

the success of the ECsafeSeafood project depends on the capacity of private businesses to

integrate the outcomes of the project in their daily activities, project participants estimate that

several hundreds of thousands of people at European level will benefit from the results of this

project.

Technological food waste projects increased effectiveness in food processing and production,

reduced energy use, and introduced sustainable eco-friendly solutions to packaging. One of the

success stories in this category, the NanoBarrier project searched for innovative and safe

multifunctional packaging solutions. The project developed a renewable sustainable

nanotechnology-based platform. The characteristics of packaging developed throughout the

project include better oxygen barrier and sensor features (PH, temperature), which not only

increase the shelf life of the product, but also allow real-time monitoring of food freshness and

quality (any changes in the quality are detected by sensors). The nanosensors make it possible to

provide information of the condition of food, packaging and environment (e.g. freshness,

whether packaging is damaged or product is kept in required conditions). According to the

interviewed members of the project, the application of intelligent packaging solutions is an

emerging market that will see an accelerated growth in the coming years. Since project

participants estimate a potential reach of 100 million consumers across Europe, the project

outcomes are very likely to significantly reduce food waste.

The food industry lags behind other industries in terms of automation and use of technologies in

food production. One of the success stories in this area, PicknPack, a technological food waste

project aimed to revolutionise food production and packaging processes. The concept developed

throughout the project offers a flexible solution for food industry that helps cope with variability

of food products (types and sizes of products). The project achieved progress in three areas of

food production: food quality inspection (a sensing module assesses the quality of products

before and after the packaging), food handling (a robotic solution separates the product from a

harvest bin/transport system and places it in the right position in a package) and adaptive

packaging (accommodates various types of packaging with flexibility in terms of package shape,

size, product environment, sealing and printing). According to the participants of the project,

intelligent solutions developed throughout the project will lead to maximum performance in

quality, reducing change over time, reducing time for reprogramming, adaption to operators,

reducing waste of food and packaging material and stock. Moreover, flexible food picking,

processing and packaging, allow early and self-learning quality assessment of food and more

accurate prediction of the shelf life. The project was technologically challenging, but according

to the participants the process was rewarding – some of the project outcomes are already

commercialised. Project outcomes provide the industry with the benefits of automation:

reduction in costs, greater hygiene and more efficient use of resources.

Another project that aimed to modernise the food industry, the Hightech Europe project, is a

network of excellence. The project focused on the introduction of already existing modern

technologies to the food industry and making the industry more efficient by connecting relevant

companies from all over Europe. With the help of this tool, European companies shared their

156

knowledge with each other and as a result adopted new technologies. For example, the food

industry in Spain has adopted technological solutions for food handling using experience from

other industries than food. After a publication in the project‘s website, these solutions were

adopted by food companies from other European countries (Scandinavia in particular). As a

result, more efficient food handling allowed European countries to reduce food waste in the food

processing stage. Project participants believe that the Hightech Europe project will help the

European food industry to embrace new technologies from other industries towards more

efficient use of resources and reduced food waste.

Projects concerned about food waste valorisation, for example the NOSHAN project,

investigated the processes and technologies that could be used to convert food waste to feed

production. The low energy consumption and positive environmental impact are features that

make the NOSHAN project stand out. In addition, project participants made knowledge available

through open access to the wider audience. By processing the food waste and converting it into

animal feed, the project not only tackled the societal challenge of food security, but also other

challenges, such as climate action, environment, resource efficiency and raw materials.

Other successful food waste projects, such as FoodIntegrity were concerned about the EU brand

and food quality. Modeextreme, aimed to improve yield monitoring and forecasting systems, and

as a result to help European Agriculture to face extreme weather events by simulations and

analysis of plant responses to weather extremes (heat waves, cold shocks, droughts, frost). The

project also developed softwares that could be used by the general public. The Food Metres

project aimed to improve the sustainability of the urban food production chain. The project‘s

goal was circular economy. It assessed the demand and supply of different types of food, which

is expected to lead to better strategic planning by local governments and businesses, and as a

result to reduction in food wastage and increased food security. These projects although very

different in nature all helped to reduce food waste at different food supply and production stages.

F.6. European added value case study 6: Climate Change evidence



Small changes in the average temperature of the planet can translate to large and potentially

dangerous shifts in climate and weather. Land and ocean surface data shows a warming of 0,85

°C over the period 1880 to 2012115

(for more indicators see table 32 below). Rising global

temperatures have been accompanied by changes in weather and climate. Many places have seen

changes in rainfall, resulting in more floods, droughts, or intense rain, as well as more frequent

and severe heat waves. The planet's oceans and glaciers have also experienced some big changes

– oceans are warming and becoming more acidic, ice caps are melting, and sea levels are rising.

As these and other changes become more pronounced in the coming decades, they will likely

present challenges to the environment and society.

Therefore, climate change is a global problem to be addressed by combining global efforts. This

case study concerns less environment policy and climate change in general, but more a specific

part which relates to providing scientific evidence/data/knowledge for policymakers and

115 IPCC Climate change 2014 synthesis report, p. 8;

157

society on environmental and climate change issues. The case study deals with this type of

projects financed under European Union FP7 programmes and, largely, with FP7 Environment.

Many adaptation and mitigation options can help address climate change, but no single option is

sufficient by itself. Effective implementation depends on policies and cooperation at all scales

and can be enhanced through integrated responses that link mitigation and adaptation with other

societal objectives. Adaptation and mitigation responses are underpinned by common enabling

factors. These include effective institutions and governance, innovation and investments and

environmentally sound technologies and infrastructure, sustainable livelihoods and behavioural

and lifestyle choices116

.

The ex-post evaluation of FP7 Environment documented the European added value of

environmental research projects from different perspectives including capacity building and

development of a critical mass, as well as harmonising databases, procedures, measurements,

models, etc. However, it was noted that the added value of a project heavily depended on the

uptake of research results, including the adoption of harmonised measurement procedures or

tools, or the integration of recommendations into relevant policies.

Some intervention areas of FP7-Environment are exemplary of European added value, because

research is to be coordinated at European and/or international level. This is clearly the case of

Earth Observation. The FP7- Environment programme played an active role in implementing the

Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) while the European Commission is

one of the four co-chairs of the Group on Earth Observation (GEO). GEO is an

intergovernmental organisation of 89 governments and around 80 international organisations,

which develop together projects and coordinate their strategies on earth observation. GEOSS is

critical to tackle global challenges such as a climate change, energy and food security, or health.

FP7-Environment also played a key role in the development and aggregation of climate change

models, with a strong impact at the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). FP7-

Environment was unique because of its coordination role. FP7-Environment allowed an

international co-development of climate change models, creating a process of mutual learning

and an efficient knowledge creation. With its funding activities in the field, the Commission

contributed to the creation of international standards that avoid fragmentation of research

and funding. Something similar happened in other areas, like greenhouse gases (GHG)

measurement or carbon in the sea, where the EU is leader thanks to its coordination and

standardisation role.

Interest of the EU and society, with a view to preserving and improving human life and lifestyle,

were addressed through the design of strategically oriented research programmes in the different

fields within the theme. The FP7-Environment work programme was specifically designed to

support the refinement of the EU’s environmental policies, thus further contributing to the

development of said policies in a research-informed manner. The FP7-Environment calls for

proposals were also designed to provide impetus to enhance the coordination of European

research efforts, both trans-boundary and trans-disciplinary.

116 IPCC Climate change 2014 synthesis report, p. 62;

158

The majority of projects funded via FP7-Environment were collaborative research projects

involving large consortia (some over 30 partners) and large-scale EU funding investment

(several over EUR 10 million)117

. Areas of action of FP7-Enviroment include118

:

Climate change, pollution and risks;

Sustainable management of resources;

Environmental technologies;

Earth observation and assessment tools for sustainable development.

The Council Decision 2006/971/EC119

underlined the European added-value of cooperation in

the field of environment research, and defined the main orientations or functions of future

actions as:

Coordination and integration of research outputs: developing common methodologies,

databases, large-scale observations and forecasting systems;

Policy support to the EU and Member states;

Contribution to global and EU commitments;

Technology development: supporting innovative environmental technologies for a more

sustainable use of resources, contributing to the improvement of the competitive position

of European enterprises.

From the review of 90 projects in the framework of the FP7 Environment ex-post evaluation, it

was evident that activities funded through FP7-Environment contributed strongly to addressing

increasingly global-scale environmental challenges, supporting the improvement of the policy

making process through the provision and improvement of scientific evidence for policy

assessment. Examples of such contribution include120

:

Strong contribution to the EU’s Climate Action and Renewable Energy Package, the

Floods Directive, the Droughts and Water Scarcity Communication, the Communication

and Action Plan on Disaster Prevention and Early Warning, the Environmental and

Health Action Plan, the Environmental Technologies Action Plan, etc.

Strong contribution to international initiatives, including International Panel on Climate

Change (IPCC), Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS), the Biological

Diversity Convention (BDC).

The relevant programmes may not be directly linked with the decision-making as their main

policy role was more in creating knowledge that would subsequently be used through

intermediaries, such as the Joint Research Centre, the European Environment Agency, think-

117 Ibidem, p. 18; 118 FP7 Cooperation Work Programme 2010: Environment (including climate change), p. 2; 119 Council Decision 2006/971/EC of 2006 concerning the specific programme ‘Cooperation‘ implementing the FP7 of the

European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities; 120 Ex-post evaluation of FP-7 Cooperation Programme Theme: Environment (including Climate Change), p. 57;

159

tanks and consultancies. However, some major provision and improvement of scientific evidence

for policy making could be observed.

Table 23. Key indicators related to the area of this European added value case study


Atmosphere and ocean

warming

Land and ocean surface data shows a warming of 0,85 °C over the period

1880 to 2012121

;

Ice mass loss The annual mean Arctic sea ice decreased over the period 1979 to 2012.

The rate of decrease was very likely in the range 3.5 to 4.1 percent per

decade122

.

Sea level rise Over the period 1901-2010 global mean sea level rose by 0.19 m123

;

Natural and anthropogenic

radiative forcing

Concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have all

shown large increases since 1750 (40%, 150%and 20% respectively)124

.


Programmes (FP7, Horizon 2020)”, forthcoming , based on IPCC Climate change 2014 synthesis report

(b) Defining the scope of the European added value case study

The majority of climate change projects were funded under FP7-Environment. However, a

considerable part was also funded by other FP7 programmes, such as FP7-Infrastructures, FP7-

ICT and FP7-Social Sciences and Humanities.

According to the Work Programme on Environment 2010125

, in FP7 Environment the emphasis

was put on the prediction of climate, ecological, earth and ocean system changes, on tools and

technologies for monitoring, prevention and mitigation of environmental pressures and risks.

Examples of FP7-Environment projects related to the area of climate change are I-REDD,

EUROCHAR and GEOWOW126

. FP7 Environment was primarily designed to support and

coordinate cooperation in environmental and climate change research. Innovation and

technological development was a secondary objective of FP7-Environment, until the global

economic crisis127

. The re-orientation of research towards innovation and impact became a major

tool in addressing the financial crisis and tackle societal challenges. Thus, the global economic

crisis of 2007 required that the FP7 focus adapted and evolved within a changing global context.

FP7 Infrastructures refer to facilities, resources and related services used by the scientific

community to conduct top-level research in their respective fields. Examples of FP7

Infrastructures projects related to the area of climate change are ICOS, IAGOS-ERI and

INCREASE.

Within FP7 ICT the research funding is focused on seven key research challenges to ensure

Europe becomes a world leader in ICT. Three challenges aim at industrial leadership in key ICT

sectors, while four are driven by socio-economic targets. Examples of FP7 ICT projects related

to the area of climate change are AEOLUS, E-AGRI and TELEIOS.

121 IPCC Climate change 2014 synthesis report, p. 8; 122 Ibidem, page 10; 123 Ibidem; 124 Ibidem, page 12; 125 Work Programme 2010 on Environment (including climate change), 2009; 126 Please find examples of climate change projects in www.cordis.europa.eu; 127 Ex-post evaluation of FP-7 Cooperation Programme Theme: Environment, p. 3;

http://www.cordis.europa.eu/

160

FP7 Social Sciences and Humanities contribute to an in-depth, shared understanding of the

complex and interrelated socio-economic challenges facing Europe and the rest of the world.

Examples of FP7 Social Sciences and Humanities projects related to the area of climate change

are CREATING and TRANSIT.

Table 24 Key projects related to the area of Climate change


FP7 Environment 60 259

FP7 Infrastructures 30 145

FP7 ICT 27 21

FP7 Social Sciences and Humanities 10 75

Total 127 500



F.6.2. Key findings

Thirty interviews with coordinators of different climate change projects have been carried out

(including FP7 Environment, FP7 Infrastructures, FP7 ICT and FP7 Social Sciences and

Humanities) in the framework of this case study. The key findings from these interviews are are

structured according to different categories of European Added Value. All interviews were semi-

structured and performed by telephone.



As climate change research projects usually have a considerable number of partners, they

allowed sharing of project risks among them. In case one partner was unavailable, another one

could undertake its tasks to achieve the planned result of a project. Moreover, the large budgets

of projects allow shifting resources among activities and adapting to new circumstances and thus

addressing unanticipated risks.

In a considerable number of climate change projects, SMEs and other private companies were

engaged to carry on certain tasks, like maintenance of equipment, delivery of software,

supercomputing services, etc. However, because the climate change projects usually had many

partners and considerable budgets, researchers belonging to large networks and having long

track records of relevant research were better placed to enter such projects. Smaller

research teams and young researchers experienced certain difficulties to be invited to participate

in such projects.


EU funds helped to attract additional funds (national/ regional/ from other EU funding

bodies/ private funding) to the same research area or other stages of the same research.

This was confirmed by almost all interview respondents. Moreover, interviewees indicated that

the amount of resources they received from the Framework Programme would be hardly possible

to assemble through national and/or regional financing.

161

In some instances the EU funding covered only a certain part of research costs; the remaining

part was covered by national governments (i.e. in the DACCIWA project the national

governments of France, Germany and the UK made available their research aircraft for data

collection on climate change in West Africa). One more example is the PREFACE project that

utilised the ship time of German, French, and Norwegian vessels.

Moreover, in some of the projects national financing made up quite a considerable share. For

example, in the ICOS project the Framework Programme funded only the preparatory phase of

the project. Thus, the running of operational systems, the acquisition of equipment (such as

atmospheric stations, ecosystems stations, or ships that continuously measure the transfer of

greenhouse gases in the surface of earth and in the atmosphere) were financed by national

governments.

A successful commercial application in the private sector usually helps to attract private

funding to a particular research area. Moreover, in some instances private companies showed

interest in climate change research because they wanted to know their own impact on climate

change and be more socially responsible (i.e. different aircraft companies in the IAGOS-ERI).

As research projects financed by the Framework Programme usually last a couple of years, a

successful project often helps to secure a follow-up project. The majority of project coordinators

mentioned that they have successfully applied or intended to apply for a follow-up within

Horizon 2020 and other sources of EU financing.


EU funds made it possible to acquire research equipment (in some instances

sophisticated/expensive equipment) that could be shared by project partners and even by

researchers outside the project. This was also supported by the majority of the interviewees.

For example in the MESOAQUA project the equipment was unique in the world and can be run

in the open ocean. Other countries (Japan, the USA) have tried to design similar equipment, but

they failed. Researchers from all over the world could come and work with this equipment. To

analyse the results of the data obtained, the best groups of scientists in the world were invited.

In some projects supercomputing, sophisticated sensors or similar equipment were used (i.e.

in the IS-ENES). In some instances (for example in the SEMANCO project) the equipment and

different software products used by the researchers were developed by private companies. The

software license was usually paid for with the project’s funding.

In some instances the research equipment used in the projects created the possibility to take

samples inside and outside the EU was essential for the success of a project. The climate

change research area is rather unique in the sense that it is often very important to take regular

samples across many countries (in different meteorological and climatic regions) in order to

produce reliable climate models and to predict future climate change. For example, the IAGOS-

ERI project achieved that the necessary equipment was placed on airplanes for conducting

atmospheric observations on a global scale. The JERICO project offered a pan-European

approach for European coastal marine observatory network. The PREFACE project has helped to

extend and maintain the ocean observing system in the Tropical Atlantic.

In a majority of climate change projects large sets of data were produced, which were shared

not only by project partners, but also for a wider scientific community and even the general

public. Moreover, in some instances sophisticated ICT tools were used. For example, the main

162

purpose of the SEMANCO project was to develop an ICT platform to support the decision

making of different stakeholders, who are involved in energy related urban planning, particularly

in urban areas.

Increased international mobility of researchers

EU funds contributed to the enhancement of researchers’ skills through international/cross-

sectorial mobility, networking activities, workshops and other similar events. This was

confirmed by almost all interview respondents. Networking activities, workshops and other

similar events organised by different projects were very important in enhancing capacities of

researchers and in exchanging their knowledge.

As research projects usually had a considerable number of partners, quite many mobility

instances could be observed among them. However, a considerable share of projects attracted

researchers outside of the project. It was quite a usual case in many projects for a PhD or

postdoctoral student outside of the project to use the project infrastructure to collect data for

his/her dissertation or other research activity. Moreover, a considerable share of mobility took

place for taking different samples in different EU and non-EU countries. In some cases, it was

necessary to take samples in as many countries as possible to build reliable climate models.


Improved research excellence/capabilities

EU funded climate change research allowed the EU to be at the forefront of this research

area and/or ahead of other countries. This statement was supported by the majority of

interviewees. The EU was well placed to reach scientific excellence in this research area, as

efforts of different EU Member States could be pooled. This has been a significant value added

of the climate change projects and allowed joining forces and even being ahead of such countries

as the USA, China, Canada and others.

Moreover, in many instances EU funded climate change projects were carried out outside

the EU: in different African countries (i.e. building research capacity of local researchers in the

CREATING), Southeast Asia (i.e. fighting deforestation in the I-REDD) or Middle East (i.e.

building climate data depository in the DARECLIMED), as climate change is a global challenge

where global efforts are necessary. Frequently the countries being the most affected by climate

change are the least well placed to understand the issues. Therefore, they need help to develop

appropriate adaptation plans and to implement them. Some of the projects were only partially

related to climate change. For example, the SEMANCO project developed an innovative

platform to assess energy performance in buildings of urban areas, the TRANSIT project focused

on social innovations.

Climate change science is usually basic research and it is quite difficult to use its findings

for commercial application. Nevertheless, in some instances such applications were discovered

(i.e. in agricultural or tourism sectors). For example, the ACTRIS project had strong

collaboration with the private sector, in particular with SMEs. The cooperation took place

because the project participants had to offer expertise that the private sector needed. This

cooperation evolved into developing prototypes together. Private companies also came to the

project sites to test their instruments. In some cases they produced a prototype and the project

tested it.

163

EU funded climate change science projects produced a considerable number of publications,

which might be openly accessed by the public/other researchers. Climate change projects

usually produced publications not only in prominent scientific journals, but different kinds of

reports and newsletters for wider public were also delivered. Different conferences, symposiums

and seminars were also organised for dissemination of project findings and results. Interaction

with policy bodies and ministries outside the EU is also a very important means of dissemination

(i.e. PREFACE interacted with the Ministry for Fisheries in several African countries and

communicated with sub regional fishery commissions).

The EU funding facilitated engaging in interdisciplinary research in the area of climate

change, which enabled comparing different approaches. For example, in the I-REDD project

geographers, biologists, economists received a possibility of working together to find necessary

solutions. With national funding, it would not have been possible to have a project of this scale.


The majority of EU funded climate change science projects were large-scale projects with a

considerable number of partners and work packages. As the deliverables of such projects were

quite many and diverse, this could entail some economies of scope.

Economies of scale are not very much relevant to the research area of climate change.

However, in a considerable share of climate change projects a large number of samples were

taken in different EU and non-EU countries, which allowed researchers to improve their skills

and to do the job better after a certain amount of samples. For example, in the ACTRIS project it

was important to have the equipment located in different meteorological and climatic regions and

researchers moved from one location to the other and studied different processes that are related

to different climatic areas.

Moreover, advanced equipment purchased in a considerable number of projects, allowed the

sample collection job to be easier and cheaper to handle. For example, in the ACTRIS and

MESOAQUA projects some of the research stations or experimental installations were equipped

with very advanced instrumentation.


In a majority of climate change projects large sets of data were produced, which were usually

made available not only for project partners, but also for a wider scientific community. For

example, in the case of the ACTRIS some private services were based on its data. The data could

be used for agriculture, tourism and other applications with economic impact. For example,

during the volcano eruption in Iceland in 2010, the aircraft industry was interested in receiving

information about real level of risk for flying in specific areas. According to the International Air

Transport Association, the total loss for the airline industry was around EUR 1.3 billion due to

the volcano eruption. The atmospheric data helped to somehow alleviate this loss. In many cases

special portals were created for the data. Alternatively, the data was placed in already existing

data portals.


Climate change research usually needs to be carried out in different EU and even non-EU

countries (i.e. for atmosphere/sea/ocean data collection in different countries). Therefore, efforts

of different countries may be easily combined and national research policies coordinated.

164

In this regard the EU has an advantage against other large economies (i.e. USA and Canada),

which enables pooling its resources to solve pan-European challenges.

In many instances the EU funded research in the area of climate change started/initiated research

and then national/regional authorities decided to get involved, thus contributing to the

achievement of the projects’ objectives of fighting climate change.

A few interviewees indicated that much more coordination is necessary between European

and national funding in terms of different evaluations, methodologies, etc. in order to avoid

unnecessary overlaps and duplications. This would allow a more efficient use of project

resources. In some instances, access to different research infrastructures should be more

coordinated as well to achieve a better use.


Better addressing societal pan-European challenges

One of the strengths of EU funding lies in the possibility to join efforts of different EU

Member States to tackle wider societal challenges, such as climate change; secure, clean and

efficient energy; smart green and integrated transport; food security. For example, the ACTRIS

data can be used for improvement of weather forecasts and serve as solid input data for future

climate scenarios. This allows also dealing with natural and anthropogenic disasters like

eruptions of volcanos, forest fires, and nuclear accidents. Climate modelling is very important in

this regard, as it is essential to understand how the climate will evolve and to be prepared for

extreme events and to mitigate them.

When available data or models do not permit forecasting effects of climate shift on ecosystems,

full ecosystem-scale empirical studies, such as done in the MESOAQUA, delivered critical data

from many sites from the Mediterranean to the Arctic. Data from the MESOAQUA thus

significantly contributed to increase our present understanding of future risks. It is critical to

conduct such investigations over a wide and representative range of climate zones, and over

extended time to gain adequate understanding of these complex systems. Thus, such coordinated

transnational studies are only possible through strong international funding schemes, such as

from the Framework Programmes.

As addressing wider societal challenges does not pay off immediately and requires

continuous efforts, it is quite difficult to gather necessary resources to tackle them. Moreover,

certain climate change projects undertake such tasks as fighting climate change in West Africa

(such as the DACCIWA and PREFACE projects), which are expensive to be undertaken by a

Member State alone. In this regard the Framework Programmes are well placed to deal with pan-

European challenges.

In some instances FP7 climate change projects contributed to the development and

implementation of EC directives and action plans in the area of climate change. For

example, the HYDROLAB project strongly supported the development and implementation of

the European Floods Directive firstly adopted in 2007. The European Floods Directive stipulated

how to act facing the danger of flooding in different EU Member States. Another similar

example is the SEMANCO project, which contributed to the implementation of the Energy

Performance Directive.

165


Climate change research played an active role in implementing the Global Earth Observation

System of Systems (GEOSS). The EOS conducted long-term global observations of the land

surface, biosphere, atmosphere and oceans of the Earth, by producing large quantities of

data, which is critical to tackle global challenges such as a climate change, energy and food

security or health. Some of the research stations were equipped with very advanced equipment

and infrastructure and employed researchers from different countries and sectors. Projects of this

kind engaged in research on air quality by placing sensors on commercial aircraft (i.e. IAGOS-

ERI), in water related research (i.e. HYDRALAB IV) by focusing on marine ecology and in full

scale ecosystems regional experiments in a global manner (i.e. MESOAQUA).

MESOAQUA critically contributed to the international joint activity that generated a

comprehensive data set which allowed to study the complex responses of pelagic communities to

climate change, in a way that was not previously possible. In particular, the project increased our

understanding of how the lower part of the pelagic food web works, how it responds to climate

change, pollution and environmental toxins, and what role it plays in producing food for

larger species of fish. Thus, the project strongly contributed to tackling food security issue

on a global scale. During four years MESOAQUA offered to more than 150 European and not-

European marine scientists access to research facilities where they were leading or contributing

to a total of 23 different cooperative international experiments, thereby advancing studies of

aquatic ecosystems from the Arctic to the Mediterranean.

The data obtained from the HYDRALAB IV project tests is crucial to reduction of the cost of

energy from wave energy systems. Commercial exploitation of wave energy will require

installation of large numbers of Wave Energy Converters (WECs), arranged in an array (or a

farm or park). Given their geographical distribution and the wealth of resources available in

Europe, tidal and wave energy is poised to provide the most significant contribution to the

European energy system128

. To illustrate this, as much as 45 % of wave energy developers are

located in the EU. Moreover, the majority of ocean energy infrastructure, such as ocean energy

test centres, is also hosted in the EU129

.

Climate change research played a key role in the development and aggregation of climate change

models, which are essential to understand how the climate will evolve and to be prepared for

extreme weather events and to mitigate them. For example, floods are a serious problem in

the EU and world-wide. In May-June 2016, flooding killed 20 people in different EU Member

States (in Germany, France, Belgium and Romania). HYDRALAB IV research findings allowed

the quantitative assessment of flood risk reduction by salt marshes under extreme

conditions and thus provided input into the future engineering of such biophysical buffers in the

face of global environmental change. The project also improved ice load measurements, which

improved the understanding of loading on structures and icebreakers. Moreover, GEOWOW

provided solutions that contributed to further improvements in high impact weather

forecasting. In particular, GEOWOW provided a get around the 2-day delay in the data

accessibility and helped weather forecasters to improve warnings of hazardous weather, and so

avoid some of the associated impacts, especially in developing countries.

128 2014 JRC Ocean energy status report, page 14; 129 Ibidem;

166

The ACTRIS project was an essential pillar of the EU ground-based observing system that

provides the long-term observations information required to understand current variability of

the atmospheric aerosol components and better predict their impact on climate and air

quality in a changing climate. ACTRIS aimed at integrating European ground-based stations

equipped with advanced atmospheric probing instrumentation for aerosols, clouds, and short-

lived gas-phase species. ACTRIS supported and complemented aircraft and satellite observations

and had an important role in the validation, integration, full exploitation of remote sensing data.

The strategic focus of ACTRIS was to ensure the long-term continuation of advanced

measurements on aerosols, clouds and reactive gases in Europe in a coordinated and cost-

efficient way.

Climate change research is unique because of its strong coordination role, as it allows an

international co-development of climate change models, creating a process of mutual learning

and an efficient knowledge creation. In many instances EU funded research initiated climate

change research and then national/regional authorities topped up the efforts with additional

financial resources, thus creating synergies and added value. In some of the projects national

financing made up quite a considerable share. For example, in the ICOS project the Framework

Programme funded only the preparatory phase of the project. Thus, the running of operational

systems, acquisition of equipment (such as atmospheric stations, ecosystems stations, or ships

that continuously measure the transfer of greenhouse gases in the surface of earth and in the

atmosphere) were financed by national governments, thereby strongly complementing the EU

funding and creating additional value.

EU-funded climate change research is very valuable, as the obtained data can be used for

multiple purposes in different sectors ranging from climate change, energy to food security

and health. Therefore, good accessibility to this data is crucial. The GEOSS portal provides

scientists, policymakers and citizens with improved discovery and access to cross-discipline

Earth observation data and services that meet their individual needs (i.e. GEOWOW project).

Via the GEOSS portal users may discover and access different earth observation resources which

have been registered. It connects data providers with users by having implemented different apps

and interfaces in a way that users can easily find data without being expert in different protocols

used by data providers.

EU climate change research is unique of its global character. A considerable share of EU

climate change projects were carried out in non-EU countries: in different African countries (i.e.

building research capacity of local researchers in the CREATING), Southeast Asia (i.e. fighting

deforestation in the I-REDD) or the Middle East (i.e. building climate data depository in the

DARECLIMED). This was an important contribution in fighting climate change, because the

countries most affected by climate change are often the least well placed to understand the

issues and provide financing.

F.7. European added value case study 7: Contributions to the Digital Single Market

through innovative online public services in an inclusive and reflective society



This case study focuses on the research supported by FP7 in the area of innovative online public

services and the contribution (the European added value) it has made to the Digital Single

Market as well as to building a more inclusive and reflective European society. The subject of

167

this case study draws its rationale from one of the societal challenges that Horizon 2020

programme aims to address, namely Societal Challenge 6 (SC6): Europe in a changing world -

inclusive, innovative and reflective societies. Among other research areas falling under this

Societal Challenge, Horizon 2020 will finance research on how Information and Communication

Technologies (ICT) could contribute to the inclusiveness, innovativeness and reflectivity of the

European societies. As clarified by the Societal Challenge 6 Work Programmes 2014-2015 and

2016-2017, issues researched in this area can be quite diverse, ranging from eGovernance (the

way governments are using ICT for providing public services) and eParticipation (providing

citizens with a way to engage in policy-making with the help of ICT) to the digitisation of

resources with societal relevance (e.g. digitising historical books and other resources, 3D

modelling for accessing EU cultural assets).

This case study aims to assess the European added value and impacts of the research on

innovative online public services funded under the predecessor FP7 programme. In broad terms,

projects analysed fall into one of the following research topics:

eGovernment/ eGovernance – the use of ICT to improve the activities of public sector

organisations. The following sub-topics will be covered under this research area;

o Improving government process. Initiatives within this domain are concerned

particularly with improving the internal workings of the public sector;

o Connecting citizens and government. Such initiatives deal particularly with the

relationship between the government and the citizens: either as

voters/stakeholders from whom the public sector should derive its legitimacy, or

as customers who consume public services;

o Building external interactions (eSociety). This area covers initiatives aimed at

developing citizens-to-citizens interactions (building communities), as well as

creating links between citizens and other organisations (NGOs, businesses).

Digitisation and digital preservation of culturally relevant resources. Research in this

area aims to analyse, among other things, (1) how cultural and historical resources can be

digitised and preserved, (2) how these resources can be made accessible to citizens as

well as researchers, and (3) how cultural digital resources can be innovatively re-used to

offer economic opportunities to the cultural and creative industries.

The Digital Agenda for Europe130

adopted in 2010 indicated eGovernment services as a cost-

effective route towards better public services for every citizen and business, as well as towards a

participatory, open and transparent government. eGovernment services can reduce costs and save

time for public administrations, citizens and businesses. They can also help mitigate the risks of

climate change, natural and man-made hazards, for example by sharing of environmental data

and environment-related information.

The main impact expected from research funded in the area of eGovernment is to contribute to

developing new and improved processes, products, services and methods of delivery in the

public sector. Using ICT to innovate in the public services provision is also expected to make the

130 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social

Committee and the Committee of the Regions A Digital Agenda for Europe: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52010DC0245

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52010DC0245


168

public administrations more effective and efficient (e.g. through better responding to society’s

needs) as well as to improve the quality of services they provide.

The Digital Agenda for Europe has also indicated the need131

to digitise Europe’s cultural

heritage and make it available to this and future generations as well as to create a legal

framework to facilitate the digitisation and dissemination of cultural works in Europe.

In the area of digitisation and digital preservation, the key expected impacts of the EU-funded

research are:132

Improving access to and use of digitised cultural material that is in the public domain;

Improving conditions for the digitisation and online accessibility of digitised material;

Reinforcing strategies and legislation for the long-term preservation of digital material;

Making the necessary arrangements for the deposit of material created in digital format in

order to guarantee its long-term preservation.


indicators

There is an unquestionable rationale for the public intervention in the area of innovative online

public services. The output of research in this area itself is first and foremost used by the public

institutions. Even in such cases when research leads to marketable innovations (e.g. applications,

websites) developed by the private sector organisations, they usually have a social purpose and

therefore contribute to the objectives of public institutions. Furthermore, research funded by the

FP7 in the area of digitisation and digital preservation often has not only national, but also EU-

level rationale, since it is related to protecting the European cultural and historical heritage.

Research in the area of eGovernment mostly responded to a challenge on how to make public

administrations in Europe more effective and efficient in providing public services. A recent

study on eGovernment services in Europe133

showed that there remain many issues to be

addressed in this area: for example, in many cases users of public services in different countries

are still asked to fill forms with information already available to the administration. Only 57% of

the public services are available to trans-national businesses and only 41% to other EU citizens

across the border. As many as 73% of the public services websites do not have a mobile-friendly

version. These are just a few indicators underlining the importance of funding research (and

especially EU-level research) in this area.

The orientation paper published in 2013 as a result of the public consultation on directions for

EU-level research on ICT-driven public sector innovation134

listed a number of measures how

research supported at the EU level is expected to foster ICT-driven public sector innovations.



content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52010DC0245 132 Commission’s Recommendation on the digitisation and online accessibility of cultural material and digital preservation:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:283:0039:0045:EN:PDF 133 Capgemini, IDC, Sogeti, and Politecnico di Milano, “Future-proofing eGovernment for the Digital Single Market: An

assessment of digital public service delivery in Europe.” Background report, June 2015. 134 Orientation paper: research and innovation at EU level under Horizon 2020 in support of ICT-driven public sector innovation,

10 May 2013, p. 2.



http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:283:0039:0045:EN:PDF

169

These measures were summarised into two categories related to (1) the key drivers and trends in

the eGovernance area and (1) the basic technology tools and other enablers.

Regarding key eGovernance drivers and trends, it was recommended that researchers in the ICT

area to focus on:

Promoting open data, open services and open participation through developing

frameworks and models linking many parts and levels of the public sector as well as

linking the public sector to other appropriate actors outside government;

Promoting approaches focusing on the user/client: user empowerment, co-creation,

service personalisation, simplicity and needs fulfilment. To achieve this, the researchers

were invited to learn from the best in the private sector and to ensure that that all users

are served by employing appropriate channels and that their privacy and integrity are

protected. This also includes supporting the development of local and location-based

services, based on open data and mobile devices using GPS and web-based services (e.g.

smart city approaches);

Fostering participation and engagement of citizens/users. Researchers are expected to

focus more on enabling widespread collaboration in service strategy development,

making design decisions, managing public assets and other work process arrangements.

Undertaking bottom-up societal experimentations on a small scale where failure is

small and thus survivable, while success can be supported and up-scaled.

The following key aspects to be addressed by EU-funded research were highlighted in the area of

basic technology tools and other enablers:

There is a need to adopt and develop new types of infrastructures and processes (both

hardware and software) as well as to use and adjust the technological elements already

developed elsewhere. Among other things, research should focus on building

infrastructures needed to support ‘big processes’ (such as decentralised innovative

operations, big data analysis) and the use/development of reference models and standards

for ICT. Regarding infrastructure, the following trends should be especially noted:

o Increasing the focus on web 2.0, social media, gamification, mobile solutions and

Bring Your Own Device (BYOD;

o Developing and deploying privacy-enhancing-technologies which ensure data

protection, cyber security, identity management and authentication;

o Deploying advanced cloud solutions, semantic interoperability, web 3.0

approaches and the Internet of Things.

EU-funded research must use and focus on obtaining good quality data available in

machine readable linked datasets which can be easily searched and merged. In addition,

future research is expected to focus on ways how to enhance standards for data quality,

structuring, linking and searching, as well as on the development of standard tool

modules for compilation, analysis and visualisation of data. Safeguards for ensuring the

provenance, integrity, auditability, authenticity and transparency of data should also be

taken into account.

170

EU funded research is expected to investigate ICT-based policy modelling and making

by developing common public sector toolboxes for data analytics to address complex

societal problems, investigating the potential of policy simulation, massive multiplayer

policy gaming and model-based decision-support systems.

Researchers should also assess how the most recent ICT can contribute to measuring

and monitoring government performance in particular through providing new

measurement tools and methods;

EU-funded research is also expected to look at how ICT can be used to empower public

sector staff as well as how the public sector employees can be assisted in acquiring

necessary skills to use the ICTs.

However, researchers and practitioners in the area should also note certain concerns that

changing and adapting the roles of government based on the ICT-driven innovation might

bring135

:

Loss of control and blurred accountability of services (by whom to whom?);

Service quality standards are more difficult to determine and maintain with many

designers and suppliers;

Privacy and data security;

Danger of data and content misuse;

Information and data overload.

The rationale for the EU to invest in digitising cultural resources was already underlined in the

Commission’s Communication “i2010: Digital libraries” published in 2005.136

The key objective

of the initiative was to make Europe’s cultural and scientific record accessible for all and to

create a virtual European library. The initiative indicated three main strands of action to be

followed that are still valid:

Digitisation of resources for their wider use in the information society;

Preservation and storage of digital resources to ensure that future generations can

access the digital material and to prevent precious content being lost;

Fostering online accessibility of digital resources to maximise the benefits that

citizens, researchers and companies can draw from the information.

135 Orientation paper: research and innovation at EU level under Horizon 2020 in support of ICT-driven public sector innovation,

10 May 2013, p. 3. 136 Communication from the Commission of 30 September 2005 to the European Parliament, the Council, the European

Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – i2010: digital libraries, COM(2005) 465 final: http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52005DC0465&from=EN



171

The Digital Agenda for Europe indicated137

that the fragmentation and complexity in the current

licensing system hinders the digitisation of a large part of Europe's recent cultural heritage.

Rights clearance must be improved, and Europeana – the EU public digital library – should be

strengthened. Increased public funding is needed to finance large-scale digitisation, alongside

initiatives with private partners provided that they allow a general accessibility of Europe's

common cultural heritage online. Europe’s cultural heritage should also be made better

accessible to all Europeans by advancing and using modern translation technologies.

The table below provides a list of quantitative indicators most commonly employed to measure

the impacts of innovative online public services.



content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52010DC0245



172

Table 25 Key indicators related to the area of innovative online public services

Indicator More detailed description Indicator values/examples

E-GOVERNMENT

UN E–Government

Development Index

(EGDI)

The EGDI is based on a comprehensive survey

of the online presence of all 193 United Nations

Member States, which assesses national

websites and how e-government policies and

strategies are applied in general and in specific

sectors for delivery of essential services. The

assessment rates the e-government performance

of countries relative to one another as opposed

to being an absolute measurement. The results

are tabulated and combined with a set of

indicators embodying a country’s capacity to

participate in the information society, without

which e-government development efforts are of

limited immediate use.

EGDI is a weighted average of normalised

scores on the three most important dimensions

of e-government, namely:

Scope and quality of online services (Online

Service Index, OSI);

Status of the development of

telecommunication infrastructure

(Telecommunication Infrastructure Index,

TII);

Inherent human capital (Human Capital

Index, HCI).

The indicator takes values from 0 to

1. Where 1 indicates the maximum

development level of E-Government.

For example:

The UK: EGDI was 0.9193 in

2016;

Germany: EGDI was 0.8210 in

2016.

UN

Telecommunication

Infrastructure Index

(TII)

The TII is an arithmetic average composite of

five indicators:

Estimated internet users per 100 inhabitants;

Number of main fixed telephone lines per

100 inhabitants;

Number of mobile subscribers per 100

inhabitants;

Number of wireless broadband subscriptions

per 100 inhabitants;

Number of fixed broadband subscriptions

per 100 inhabitants.


1. Where 1 indicates the maximum

development level

telecommunication infrastructure. For

example:

San Marino: TII was 0.61276 in

2016;

Serbia: TII was 0.54344 in 2016.

UN Online Service

Index (OSI)

The OSI assesses each country’s national

websites in the native language, including the

national portal, e-services portal and e-

participation portal, as well as the websites of

the related ministries of education, labour,

social services, health, finance and environment

as applicable.

The assessment includes the accessibility and

usability of online tools provided by the national

institution website.


1. For example:

San Marino: OSI was 0.23913 in

2016;

Serbia: OSI was 0.81884 in 2016.

Individuals using the

internet for interaction

with public authorities

(Eurostat)

Individuals using the internet for interaction

with public authorities within the last 9 months

before the survey: % of individuals aged 16 to

74.

Netherlands: 61 % of individuals

were using the internet for interaction

with public authorities in 2009.

Austria: 49 % of individuals were

173

Indicator More detailed description Indicator values/examples

using the internet for interaction with

public authorities in 2009.

Note: Indicator covers period from

2008 – 2015.

Individuals using the

internet for taking part

in online consultations

or voting (Eurostat)

Individuals using the internet for taking part in

online consultations or voting within the last 3

months before the survey: % of individuals aged

16 to 74.

Denmark: 12 % of individuals were

using the internet for taking part in

online consultations or voting in

2011.

Ireland: 4 % of individuals were

using the internet for taking part in

online consultations or voting in

2011.

Note: Indicator covers period from

2011-2015.

DIGITISATION AND DIGITAL PRESERVATION

Institutions with digital

collections per country

(Enumerate)

Actual number of institutions (incl. national

libraries, museums, archives, etc.) possessing

digitised material.

Sweden has around 107 national

institutions with digital collections;

Spain has more than 146 national

institutions with digital collections.

Presence of a written

digitisation strategy

per country

(Enumerate)

Actual number of institutions (incl. national

libraries, museums, archives, etc.) possessing

written digitisation strategy.

Sweden has around 39 national

institutions with written digitisation

strategy;

Spain has more than 60 national

institutions with possessing written

digitisation strategy.

Existence of embedded

policies related to the

sustainability of digital

collections

(Enumerate)

This indicator is a measure of the

internal/managerial support for activities related

to the preservation of an institution’s digital

collections.

-

Online access to digital

heritage (Enumerate)

Percentage of metadata that is available online

for general use.

There is ~46% of digitised material

which could be accessed through

online platform in Spain;

There is ~45% of digitised material

which could be accessed through

online platform in Sweden.


Programmes (FP7, Horizon 2020)”, forthcoming ).


The FP7 ICT programme (FP7 ICT)was the single largest and most important FP7 programme

part supporting research in the area of innovative online public services. As many as 62 projects

were funded by FP7 ICT in this area with around EUR 169 million of EU contribution. A few

relevant projects were also funded by other FP7 programme parts, which are listed in the order of

significance in the table below.

174

Table 26 Projects related to the area of innovative online public services and their allocated

EU contribution


FP7 ICT 62 169.14

FP7 Environment 5 26.02

FP7 Infrastructures 2 4.95

FP7 Research for the benefit of

SMEs 2 2.32

FP7 Social sciences and humanities 2 5.10

FP7 Regions of knowledge 1 2.60

FP7 Transport 1 2.82

Total 75 212.95



F.7.2. Key findings



When it comes to the research risks, such as addressing an innovative research topic that is

uncertain to lead to relevant results, most of the interviewees had a general feeling that the EU

funding provided a major contribution to mitigate such risks. Although the participants of the

FP7-funded projects could not provide many specific examples, one of the area where risk-

reducing effect of the EU funding was rather clear was research on digital preservation of the

European cultural resources. The main argument for this was that national or private funders

would not be interested in this issue with specific European relevance. Therefore FP7 funding for

research in this area was of key importance to make it happen.

The interviewees also mentioned that FP7 funding ensured a certain level of trust that research

will go on without interruption at least for a few years, which made mainly the private actors

become more interested in participating in such projects. This way businesses could be ensured

that for a certain amount of time they will have a reduced risk to analyse the specific and

sometimes riskier-than-usual topics.

In addition to this, the interview programme indicated the potential of FP7 to contribute to

reducing commercial risks: there were a number of business participants in the research area of

innovative online public services (especially companies developing potentially marketable

applications), who claimed that participation in FP7 allowed them to look at specific innovative

issues, which later resulted in commercialisation through the development of a mobile

application or some specific process/part of the application necessary for the operationalisation.

However, interviewees from businesses said that in many cases it takes a lot of time (4-6 years)

to commercialise research outputs, which means that the EU funding often helps to avoid risks

only for some time and later on these risks still have to be taken by companies.

175

For example, in the case of the project Instant Mobility it took around 6 years - adding both the

time were FP7 support was received (2011-2013) and the time where research was funded by the

company itself (2010-2011 and 2013-2016) - to arrive at a situation where customers were ready

to buy the application to improve the multimodal mobility systems.


Interviews with participants of EU-funded projects did not allow to come to a straightforward

conclusion on whether funding from FP7 tends to attract additional private or public investment

in the area of innovative online public services. Although there are a number of specific

examples when (1) the fact that an organisation was applying to FP7 helped to find public or

private co-funding for a specific project or (2) additional funding was leveraged as a result of the

project success, interviewees were reluctant to claim that this is a general trend in the research

area focusing on innovative online public services.

However, evidence from interviews showed that a significant share of participants of EU-funded

research projects have successfully attracted additional follow-up funding from FP7 and

Horizon 2020 to continue their research and development of technologies in follow-up projects.

The analysis also revealed that there are significant differences among EU countries in terms

of funding opportunities available at the national level in the area of innovative online public

services. A consensus among the interviewees emerged that, on average, the smaller a Member

State is, the less national opportunities it has. A similar statement can be made related to the

economic development level of a country. Therefore EU research funding opportunities would

be especially important for smaller and less economically advanced countries. The funding from

FP7 has certainly helped such EU Member States to catch up or to get closer to the leading

Member States both in terms of research capacities and level of excellence. On the other hand,

many of the interviewees mentioned Germany, the UK, France and the Netherlands as those

countries where it would be possible to find similar funding opportunities in the absence of the

EU framework programmes.

The case study also showed that some large private organisations (including, for example,

Google) are very active in the area of digitisation of cultural resources (especially, books). Some

of the interviewees mentioned that they have cooperated with Google, who was providing co-

funding in digitisation projects. Interviewees also noted that, however, it is very difficult to

attract any private funding for digital preservation (in contrast to digitisation) projects, since it is

much more difficult to translate research on digital preservation of cultural resources into

marketable products. Therefore public funding is necessary in this area.

Pooling of resources and building critical mass

When it comes to pooling of resources, the key concern of the participants in research

projects implemented in the area of innovative online public services was receiving good

and sufficiently large datasets. Many interviewees mentioned that collaborating with partners

in different countries helped them gather richer data as well as different types of data. Examples

in this area are provided by five projects under the FP7-funded initiative called “Citizens’

Observatories”, which aimed at developing novel technologies and applications in the domain of

Earth observation. These projects have exploited the capabilities offered by portable devices

(smartphones, tablets, etc.), to enable an effective participation by citizens in environmental data

collection. For example, under one of the projects – COBWEB – the visitors of four Biosphere

176

Reserves (Dyfi in Wales; Wadden Sea and Hallig Islands in Germany; Gorge of Samaria and Mt

Olympus in Greece) were involved to collect environmental data using their mobile devices.

The mere size of the European research projects was also mentioned as an advantage. There

was a consensus among the interviewed participants that large projects such as the ones funded

in FP7 are very rare at the national level. Most interviewees were of the opinion that their

projects would not have taken place at all without European funding. According to the projects

participants, they would still research the same issues even without receiving funding from FP7,

however, the objectives of their research and most likely the results would have changed

significantly.

FP7-funded projects have frequently involved a large number of partners from different

countries and different disciplines, thus enabling the consortia to expand their research depth

and scale. For some of the digitisation projects focusing on preservation of the European cultural

resources, cooperation between partners in different countries and large-scale funding was

absolutely necessary due to the specific European-level relevance of their research. In addition,

many interviewees mentioned that their partners sometimes possessed additional skills, which

were lacking in their own organisations, for example, on the application of specific research

methods or use of specific softwares.

Interviews revealed that pooling infrastructure was not a vitally important issue in the area

of innovative online public services. The necessary softwares and hardwares (mostly

computers) were usually relatively cheap and available in all partner organisations.


The interview programme did not indicate any relevant instances of international or inter-

sectoral mobility. In most of the analysed projects, partners were working specifically on their

own work packages while exchanging the insights from their research in the regularly organised

meetings or online calls with their partners. In some cases, researchers from one partner moved

to the premises of other international partners for no more than 1-2 weeks in order to do

research, which is specifically related to their own work packages.

The case study did not indicate any instances of inter-sectoral mobility. Nevertheless, taking into

account the fact that many of the analysed projects involved both academic and business

partners, the involved researchers did get exposed to some extent to operations/research in a

different sector (academia to business and vice versa).

As mentioned by some interviewees from the private sector, businesses are often not willing to

send their researchers to work or do internship in other research institutions, e.g. academia. This

is related to the unwillingness of private companies to use their human resources in a way, which

is not directly related to the key business operations and is not directly leading to revenue/profit.



One of the main ways through which FP7 funding contributed to improving research capabilities

of organisations doing analysis in the area of innovative online public services, was by helping

to build new research partnerships/ consortia or to sustain those that already existed. The

interview programme has indicated that the impact of FP7 on building new international research

177

teams and networks was especially significant. Many interviewees reported that they have found

new partners. when applying to FP7 funding. Furthermore, most of them said that they have

continued cooperating with the newly established partners even after the EU funding has ended.

In a number of cases the research consortia that were established as a result of FP7 funding

succeeded in securing further funding from FP7 or Horizon 2020. This evidence suggests a clear

and very significant impact of EU research funding on building lasting research consortia.

In addition to this, there is a clear impact not only on the cooperation as such, but also on

inter-sectoral collaboration. The interview programme indicated a number of instances where

FP7 funding led to long-term cooperation between academia or public research institutes and

businesses.

FP7-induced long-term cooperation also helped smaller actors to up-scale, enter and establish

themselves in specific research areas or even markets through cooperating with larger

organisations in the area. This is relevant both for academic and business sectors. First, the case

study indicated instances where SMEs established themselves in specific markets by cooperating

in FP7 projects with larger and very well-established companies. A similar trend was indicated in

academia. Through participating in FP7, less established universities, especially from the new

EU Member States, have successfully built links with the best universities in Europe and the

world.

FP7 also had a significant effect on the size of the research teams – this was indicated by

many interviewees. However, it is not entirely clear to what extent this effect was direct (i.e.

hiring researchers from the project funding) compared to the leverage effect (hiring additional

researchers as a result of project results, which would not be funded from FP7 funding). The

collected evidence shows only that the new researchers were certainly hired from the project

funding. The analysis done for the case study even indicated a number of research institutes,

where the employees are mainly remunerated through funding from the Framework Programme.

This means that such teams would likely disappear if the EU funding was to end. Interviewees

did not mention any specific examples where the employment of new researchers would have

been the result of the success of a project and the attraction of funding from other sources than

EU.

The interview programme also revealed that in the area of research on online services there is

some tension between the development of excellent research (measured in the number of

scientific articles published in top journals) and the development of specific ICT applications.

For example, the POSEIDON project has developed an application for users with Down’s

syndrome, which supports daily planning of activities such as shopping, money handling,

traveling and similar. Although FP7 was a programme focusing in particular on support for

research activities, the researchers in the area of ICT saw the development of very concrete

innovative tools and applications as no less important. Some interviewees even indicated that

they would like the Commission to focus less on the quality of research itself and more on the

applicability of the developed tools. A number of interviewees also noted that follow-up funding

for making the developed innovations operational or marketable would be welcome.

The interview programme indicated a low effect (if any) of FP7 funding on

training/improving the skills of researchers. Interviewees reported that training for the

researchers working in the projects was not usually provided as part of the project funding.

Nevertheless, other training opportunities were offered for researchers in the organisations, both

academia and businesses, as part of usual operations of the involved participants.

178


There was little evidence demonstrating the impact of EU research funding on economies of

scale and scope. An example coming closest to such effect was research in the area of

digitisation of cultural resources. A number of interviewees in this area indicated that without the

EU funding and involvement of partners from different countries it would have been impossible

to digitise as many resources at the national level in separate countries as the FP7 funding

allowed to at the European level. Access to different types of data available in different countries

(e.g. historical fonts, paintings) also allowed improving the digital recognition tools so that the

digitisation of each specific cultural unit is relatively easier and also cheaper. This shows that

cooperation in digitisation projects at the European level allowed to improve the efficiency of the

relevant ICT tools and therefore to save resources.


According to interviewees, FP7 funding had a clear effect on improving access to research

outputs. However, this is mostly the result of projects where the European Commission required

that all data and research outputs should be published in open source repositories. When it was

not directly required, participating organisations were less willing to do this on their own. A

number of interviewees from businesses indicated that a requirement to publish data or the

developed prototypes in openly accessible websites has harmed commercialisation opportunities

related to the potentially marketable outputs developed.

Interviewees also agreed that, compared to the nationally-funded projects, research done under

the EU-funded projects is generally much better communicated to the practitioners in the

area as well as to the wider public, since the Commission often directly asks to allocate a certain

amount of resources for communication (which is not always the case in nationally-funded

projects or even less so in projects funded with own resources). A number of conferences and

other communication events were organised as part of projects funded by the EU in the area of

innovative online public services.

Finally, a clear result of the FP7 funding is a better international visibility of research results.

Not only it is the case that FP7 projects allow research organisations to cooperate with EU and

international partners, but they also attract more attention from third countries and especially the

USA.

Some of the EU-funded projects also led to the establishment of competence centres or similar

institutions, which, among other things, seek to share knowledge about specific research topics

with the scientific community. Examples of such centres are PrestoCentre (a result of the project

PrestoPRIME) and the Impact Centre of Competence (project IMPACT). However, interviewees

noted that in many cases it is difficult to keep the websites of these competence centres up-to-

date without additional funding from the EU.


A clear positive effect that the EU funding had on the coordination of national research policies

and practices in the area of innovative online public services was through establishing research

standards in this area, for example through building centres of excellence/competence. An

example of this phenomenon is the Impact Centre of Competence established as a result of the

FP7 project “Improving Access to Text (IMPACT).” The centre was a direct planned outcome of

the project. It provides tools, services and facilities to further advance the state-of-the-art in the

179

field of document imaging, language technology and the processing of historical text. It is one of

many examples how FP7 projects contributed to establishing research standards in the ICT area.

As already mentioned above, a similar centre of competences – PrestoCentre – resulted from

another project called PrestoPRIME. The PrestoCentre is a membership-driven organisation that

brings together a global community of stakeholders in audio-visual digitisation and digital

preservation to share, work and learn. PrestoCentre works with experts, researchers, advocates,

businesses, public services, educational organisations and professional associations to enhance

the audiovisual sector's ability to provide long-term access to cultural heritage.

There was also a consensus among the interviewees that EU-funded projects tend to be of more

interdisciplinary nature than those funded at the national level. Many of the interviewed

participants claimed that they have felt a certain push from the Commission to involve partners

representing a wide variety of disciplines, not only ICT, which was certainly beneficial

especially in the area of eGovernment.


Better addressing societal / pan-European challenges:

Research funded by FP7 in the area of digitisation and digital preservation had a clear

positive impact on making European historical and cultural resources better accessible to

the general public, the researchers (e.g. historians) and to audio-visual industries.

FP7 funding in the area of innovative online public services also had a structuring effect in

the area of environmental monitoring and especially in involving citizens as important sources

of information about the environment they are interacting with. Five FP7 funded projects (CITI-

SENSE; OmniScientis; Citclops; COBWEB and WeSenseIt) developed and implemented a

highly innovative approach of “Citizen Observatories”, involving citizens in information

capturing, evaluation and communication, mostly in the area of environmental research. A

number of novel technologies and applications were developed in the domain of Earth

Observation as a result of FP7 funding. These projects contributed to finding new ways how to

exploit portable devices (smartphones, tablets, etc.) and enable effective participation by citizens

in environmental monitoring based on broad stakeholder and user involvement in support of both

community and policy priorities. This approach was later taken up in 2015 with a specific topic

in Horizon 2020 called “Growing a Low Carbon, Resource Efficient Economy with a

Sustainable Supply of Raw Materials” aiming at strengthening environmental monitoring

capabilities by using Citizen Observatories.

EU research funding in the area of innovative online public services has also contributed to

a better inclusion of disadvantaged persons into the European society. Such projects as

Prosperity4All and POSEIDON can be mentioned as examples and good practices in the field.

The Prosperity4All project, which is still ongoing, is a response towards a societal challenge that

over 2 billion people worldwide have different types, degrees, or combinations of disability,

literacy, digital literacy or aging related barriers that impede or prevent the use of ICT. The

researchers involved in the project believe that the EU cannot afford (socially, politically and

economically) having this large percentage of society offline in the time when access to ICT is

required for most education, employment, and commerce, and is increasingly required for travel,

health, safety, daily living and participation in society. By building on the success of another

EU-funded project Cloud4All (2011-2015), which has developed preference management tools

for people with special needs to auto-configure their computers, tablets and smartphones, making

180

them easier to use, the Prosperity4All project further develops the infrastructure and ecosystem

that is necessary for a sustainable Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure (GPII)138

– a software

and service enhancement to our broadband infrastructure. The two mentioned projects have

attracted more than EUR 25 million (of which, more than EUR 15 million from FP7) to improve

the accessibility of people with disabilities to Internet and key related technologies.

Another good practice project in the same area, “Personalized Smart Environments to increase

Inclusion of people with Down’s syndrome (POSEIDON),” researched on the ways to use ICT to

help people with Down’s syndrome to achieve a greater level of independence in their lives, a

greater autonomy at home, at work, education and leisure, as well as to improve their

opportunities for socialising. The project resulted in a number of prototypes for apps to support

the daily lives of people with Down syndrome and their carers. The developed apps support

independence in different areas of living such as daily plans, travel, shopping and money

handling.139


The EU-funded Citizens’ Observatories initiative, covering five FP7-supported projects

(Citclops, CITI-SENSE, COBWEB, Omniscientis and WeSenseIt) has a clear potential to foster

a major break-through in the way that personal portable devices (smartphones, tablets or micro-

sensors) are used to enable an effective participation by citizens in environmental monitoring.

The goal of the above-mentioned five projects was to develop novel technologies and

applications in the domain of Earth Observation, which is defined as the gathering of information

about the planet Earth’s physical, chemical and biological systems via remote sensing

technologies supplemented by earth surveying techniques, encompassing the collection, analysis

and presentation of data. Earth Observation is usually carried out through complicated

technologies available for the governmental agencies or private corporations. The Citizens’

Observatories initiative succeeded in fostering active participation of lay citizens in

environmental monitoring and policy making through using their personal portable devices. In

addition to this, the five projects enabled sharing of data and information through advanced data

management strategies based on open e-collaboration, addressing questions of privacy, data

standards, quality and reliability.

For example, WeSenseIt project140

(2012-2016) enabled citizens to become active stakeholders

in information capturing, evaluation and communication for the water environment including

flood risk. The project brought together the expertise of 14 European partners across academic

institutions, research centres and industry. The project has already delivered new smartphone

crowdsourcing apps, innovative low cost rain gauges, and autonomous soil-moisture sensors. It

encouraged citizen communities to upload, share, discuss and rate data and information on their

water environment with a focus on minimising the effects of pluvial flooding and poor water

quality. The developed technology was tested in three case studies: Doncaster, UK; Delftland,

the Netherlands; and Vicenza, Italy.

138 Global Public Investment Infrastructure, http://gpii.net/index.html 139 For examples of the developed apps, visit: http://www.poseidon-project.org/product/ 140 Project website: http://www.wesenseit.com/

http://gpii.net/index.html

http://www.poseidon-project.org/product/

181

G. TOP 50 HORIZON 2020 PARTICIPANTS PER TYPE OF ORGANISATION

G.1. Organisations

Table 27 Top-50 (all) organisations in terms of EU funding

Rank Participant legal name Type of

organisation Country EU

contribution (EUR million)

Number of participations

1 MAX-PLANCK-GESELLSCHAFT ZUR FORDERUNG DER WISSENSCHAFTEN EV REC Germany 443.5 213

2 CENTRE NATIONAL DE LA Research Organisations (REC)HERCHE SCIENTIFIQUE CNRS REC France 361.4 505

3 FRAUNHOFER GESELLSCHAFT ZUR FOERDERUNG DER ANGEWANDTEN FORSCHUNG E.V. REC Germany 223.9 407

4 COMMISSARIAT A L ENERGIE ATOMIQUE ET AUX ENERGIES ALTERNATIVES REC France 218.7 246

5 THE CHANCELLOR, MASTERS AND SCHOLARS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD HES United Kingdom 174.5 251

6 THE CHANCELLOR, MASTERS AND SCHOLARS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE HES United Kingdom 172.1 267

7 UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON HES United Kingdom 159.1 239

8 IMPERIAL COLLEGE OF SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY AND MEDICINE HES United Kingdom 120.0 192

9 CONSIGLIO NAZIONALE DELLE RICERCHE REC Italy 114.2 250

10 AGENCIA ESTATAL CONSEJO SUPERIOR DEINVESTIGACIONES CIENTIFICAS REC Spain 110.1 237

11 ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE FEDERALE DE LAUSANNE HES Switzerland 106.6 142

12 TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITEIT DELFT HES Netherlands 104.7 155

13 KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN HES Belgium 104.2 170

14 KOBENHAVNS UNIVERSITET HES Denmark 101.8 196

15 THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH HES United Kingdom 100.7 142

16 INTERUNIVERSITAIR MICRO-ELECTRONICACENTRUM REC Belgium 93.0 86

17 COST ASSOCIATION OTH Belgium 89.6 1

18 DEUTSCUniversities (HES) ZENTRUM FUER LUFT - UND RAUMFAHRT EV REC Germany 86.1 163

19 INSTITUT NATIONAL DE LA SANTE ET DE LA Research Organisations (REC)HERCHE

MEDICALE REC France 85.3 113

20 EIDGENOESSISCHE TECHNISCHE HOCHSCHULE ZUERICH HES Switzerland 74.7 145

21 DANMARKS TEKNISKE UNIVERSITET HES Denmark 72.8 136

22 THE UNIVERSITY OF Manchester HES United Kingdom 71.7 119

23 UNIVERSITEIT VAN AMSTERDAM HES Netherlands 68.7 96

24 KAROLINSKA INSTITUTET HES Sweden 68.6 99

25 KARLSRUHER INSTITUT FUER TECHNOLOGIE HES Germany 67.2 106

26 TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITAET MUENCHEN HES Germany 66.9 105

27 GEANT LIMITED OTH United Kingdom 64.6 8

28 Teknologian tutkimuskeskus VTT Oy REC Finland 64.3 127

29 POLITECNICO DI MILANO HES Italy 63.9 133

30 FORSCHUNGSZENTRUM JULICH GMBH REC Germany 62.0 82

31 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON HES United Kingdom 60.8 83

32 LUNDS UNIVERSITET HES Sweden 60.4 84

33 UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL HES United Kingdom 60.1 98

34 UNIVERSITEIT GENT HES Belgium 60.0 109

35 STICHTING KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT HES Netherlands 59.4 90

36 UNIVERSITEIT UTRECHT HES Netherlands 59.1 109

37 TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY HES Israel 58.6 60

38

THE PROVOST, FELLOWS, FOUNDATION SCHOLARS & THE Other (OTH)ER MEMBERS OF BOARD OF THE COLLEGE OF THE HOLY & UNDIVIDED TRINITY OF QUEEN ELIZABETH

NEAR DUBLIN HES Ireland 57.9 81

39 FUNDACION TECNALIA RESEARCH & INNOVATION REC Spain 57.6 122

40 NEDERLANDSE ORGANISATIE VOOR TOEGEPAST NATUURWETENSCHAPPELIJK

ONDERZOEK TNO REC Netherlands 55.7 109

41 LUDWIG-MAXIMILIANS-UNIVERSITAET MUENCHEN HES Germany 55.5 84

42 STICHTING VU HES Netherlands 54.7 100

43 TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITEIT EINDHOVEN HES Netherlands 54.6 100

44 RHEINISCH-WESTFAELISCHE TECHNISCHE HOCHSCHULE AACHEN HES Germany 53.2 91

45 EUROPEAN MOLECULAR BIOLOGY LABORATORY REC Germany 52.9 60

46 THE UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM HES United Kingdom 52.8 116

47 KUNGLIGA TEKNISKA HOEGSKOLAN HES Sweden 52.2 104

48 THE HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM HES Israel 51.9 57

49 AGENZIA NAZIONALE PER LE NUOVE TECNOLOGIE, L'ENERGIA E LO SVILUPPO

ECONOMICO SOSTENIBILE REC Italy 51.6 53

50 AARHUS UNIVERSITET HES Denmark 51.6 104

Corda, Signed Grants cut-off date by 1/1/2017; Higher and Secondary Education Institutions (HES); Research

Organisations (REC); Other (OTH).

182

G.2. Higher and secondary education institutions (HES)

Table 28 Top-50 higher and secondary education institutions in terms of EU funding

Rank Participant legal name Country EU

contribution (EUR million)


1 THE CHANCELLOR, MASTERS AND SCHOLARS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD United Kingdom 174.5 251

2 THE CHANCELLOR, MASTERS AND SCHOLARS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE United Kingdom 172.1 267

3 UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON United Kingdom 159.1 239

4 IMPERIAL COLLEGE OF SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY AND MEDICINE United Kingdom 120.0 192

5 ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE FEDERALE DE LAUSANNE Switzerland 106.6 142

6 TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITEIT DELFT Netherlands 104.7 155

7 KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN Belgium 104.2 170

8 KOBENHAVNS UNIVERSITET Denmark 101.8 196

9 THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH United Kingdom 100.7 142

10 EIDGENOESSISCHE TECHNISCHE HOCHSCHULE ZUERICH Switzerland 74.7 145

11 DANMARKS TEKNISKE UNIVERSITET Denmark 72.8 136

12 THE UNIVERSITY OF MANCUniversities (HES)TER United Kingdom 71.7 119

13 UNIVERSITEIT VAN AMSTERDAM Netherlands 68.7 96

14 KAROLINSKA INSTITUTET Sweden 68.6 99

15 KARLSRUHER INSTITUT FUER TECHNOLOGIE Germany 67.2 106

16 TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITAET MUENCHEN Germany 66.9 105

17 POLITECNICO DI MILANO Italy 63.9 133

18 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON United Kingdom 60.8 83

19 LUNDS UNIVERSITET Sweden 60.4 84

20 UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL United Kingdom 60.1 98

21 UNIVERSITEIT GENT Belgium 60.0 109

22 STICHTING KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT Netherlands 59.4 90

23 UNIVERSITEIT UTResearch Organisations (REC)HT Netherlands 59.1 109

24 TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY Israel 58.6 60

25

THE PROVOST, FELLOWS, FOUNDATION SCHOLARS & THE Other (OTH)ER MEMBERS OF BOARD OF THE COLLEGE OF THE HOLY & UNDIVIDED TRINITY OF QUEEN

ELIZABETH NEAR DUBLIN Ireland 57.9 81

26 LUDWIG-MAXIMILIANS-UNIVERSITAET MUENCHEN Germany 55.5 84

27 STICHTING VU Netherlands 54.7 100

28 TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITEIT EINDHOVEN Netherlands 54.6 100

29 RHEINISCH-WESTFAELISCHE TECHNISCHE HOCHSCHULE AACHEN Germany 53.2 91

30 THE UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM United Kingdom 52.8 116

31 KUNGLIGA TEKNISKA HOEGSKOLAN Sweden 52.2 104

32 THE HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM Israel 51.9 57

33 AARHUS UNIVERSITET Denmark 51.6 104

34 THE UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK United Kingdom 51.6 85

35 HELSINGIN YLIOPISTO Finland 49.8 92

36 WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE Israel 49.7 61

37 THE UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD United Kingdom 48.2 104

38 TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITAET DRESDEN Germany 47.4 82

39 UPPSALA UNIVERSITET Sweden 46.7 79

40 UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW United Kingdom 46.0 86

41 CHALMERS TEKNISKA HOEGSKOLA AB Sweden 45.3 80

42 RIJKSUNIVERSITEIT GRONINGEN Netherlands 44.8 67

43 UNIVERSITEIT LEIDEN Netherlands 43.9 60

44 TECHNION - ISRAEL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Israel 41.5 56

45 KING'S COLLEGE LONDON United Kingdom 40.2 75

46 THE UNIVERSITY OF EXETER United Kingdom 39.6 61

47 UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS United Kingdom 38.6 83

48 UNIVERSITY COLLEGE CORK - NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND, CORK Ireland 37.5 70

49 NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND, GALWAY Ireland 36.9 77

50 UNIVERSITETET I OSLO Norway 36.5 50

Corda, Signed Grants cut-off date by 1/1/2017.

183

G.3. Other organisations (OTH)

Table 29: Top-50 other organisations in terms of EU funding

Rank Participant legal name Country EU contribution (EUR million)

Number of

participations

1 COST ASSOCIATION Belgium 89.6 1

2 GEANT LIMITED United Kingdom 64.6 8

3 CSC-TIETEEN TIETOTEKNIIKAN KESKUS OY Finland 8.2 14

4 ICLEI EUROPEAN SECRETARIAT GMBH (ICLEI EUROPASEKRETARIAT GMBH)* Germany 7.9 22

5 BIO BASE EUROPE PILOT PLANT VZW Belgium 7.1 10

6 Stichting EGI Netherlands 5.9 14

7 FUNDACION BANCARIA CAIXA D ESTALVIS I PENSIONS DE BARCELONA LA CAIXA Spain 5.0 3

8 EUN PARTNERSHIP AISBL Belgium 4.7 5

9 OSTERREICHISCHE ENERGIEAGENTUR AUSTRIAN ENERGY AGENCY Austria 4.5 14

10 FUNDINGBOX ACCELERATOR SP ZOO Poland 4.4 1

11 OSLO MEDTECH FORENING Norway 4.4 2

12 NORDUNET A/S Denmark 4.4 4

13 ISTITUTO DI STUDI PER L'INTEGRAZIONE DEI SISTEMI SC Italy 4.3 13

14 PARTNERSHIP FOR ADVANCED COMPUTINGIN EUROPE AISBL Belgium 4.1 6

15 FORUM VIRIUM HELSINKI OY Finland 4.0 7

16 UNION INTERNATIONALE DES TRANSPORTS PUBLICS Belgium 3.9 10

17 YOURIS.COM Belgium 3.9 14

18 GRAND EQUIPEMENT NATIONAL DE CALCUL INTENSIF France 3.7 2

19 UMWELTBUNDESAMT GMBH Austria 3.6 9

20 GESELLSCHAFT FUR ANGEWANDTE MIKRO UND OPTOELEKTRONIK MIT BESCHRANKTERHAFTUNG AMO GMBH

Germany 3.5 6

21 FONDATION EUROPEENNE DE LA SCIENCE France 3.5 9

22 European Business and Innovation Centre Network Belgium 3.4 14

23 CYBERFORUM EV Germany 3.3 1

24 SYNESIS-SOCIETA CONSORTILE A RESPONSABILITA LIMITATA Italy 3.3 8

25 POLIS - PROMOTION OF OPERATIONAL LINKS WITH INTEGRATED SERVICES, ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONALE

Belgium 3.3 15

26 ASSOCIATION EUROPEENNE DES EXPOSITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES TECHNIQUES ET INDUSTRIELLES

Belgium 3.2 8

27 SONDERBORG FORSYNINGSSERVICE AS Denmark 3.1 1

28 Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e.V. Germany 2.9 13

29 EUROCITIES ASBL Belgium 2.9 8

30 INFRAFRONTIER GMBH Germany 2.9 5

31 ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONALE EXTREME-LIGHT-INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY CONSORTIUM

Belgium 2.8 4

32 IDRYMA PROOther (OTH)ISIS EREVNAS Cyprus 2.7 28

33 STICHTING PROSAFE (THE PRODUCT SAFETY ENFORCEMENT FORUM OF EUROPE)

Netherlands 2.7 2

34 BIOPRAXIS RESEARCH AIE Spain 2.6 3

35 EIT DIGITAL Belgium 2.6 2

36 FOMENTO DE SAN SEBASTIAN SA Spain 2.6 3

37 STICHTING OPEN TICKETING Netherlands 2.6 1

38 VEREIN ZUR FOERDERUNG EINES DEUTSCHEN FORSCHUNGSNETZES DFN VEREIN E.V.

Germany 2.6 4

39 UNION INTERNATIONALE DES CHEMINS DE FER France 2.6 9

40 STICHTING TUBERCULOSIS VACCINE INITIATIVE Netherlands 2.5 1

41 IMP'ROVE - EUROPEAN INNOVATION MANAGEMENT ACADEMY EWIV Germany 2.5 2

42 ASSOCIATION 2 INVESTING INITIATIVE France 2.2 3

43 AquaTT UETP Ltd Ireland 2.2 7

44 AEROSPACE VALLEY France 2.1 8

45 ASSOCIACAO UNIVERSIDADE EMPRESA PARA DESENVOLVIMENTO TECMINHO Portugal 2.1 3

46 FEDERATION EUROPEENNE DES GEOLOGUES France 2.1 8

47 OPEN DATA INSTITUTE LBG United Kingdom 2.1 4

48 ASSOCIATION DES CITES ET DES REGIONS POUR LE Research Organisations (REC)YCLAGE ET LA GESTION DURABLE DES RESSOURCES

Belgium 2.0 7

49 INSTRUCT ACADEMIC SERVICES LIMITED United Kingdom 2.0 6

50 EUROPEAN MARINE ENERGY CENTRE LTD United Kingdom 2.0 6


184

G.4. Private for profit companies (PRC)

Table 30 Top-50 private for profit companies in terms of EU funding



1 SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT Germany 48.7 43

2 ATOS SPAIN SA Spain 31.9 74

3 BORREGAARD AS Norway 26.7 3

4 ROBERT BOSCH GMBH Germany 23.6 39

5 AVL LIST GMBH Austria 22.4 34

6 ENGINEERING - INGEGNERIA INFORMATICA SPA Italy 18.9 35

7 ACCIONA INFRAESTRUCTURAS S.A. Spain 18.7 37

8 ASML NETHERLANDS B.V. Netherlands 18.0 3

9 IBM ISRAEL - SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY LTD Israel 15.5 19

10 INDRA SISTEMAS SA Spain 14.4 37

11 DAIMLER AG Germany 14.4 12

12 GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals Belgium 14.1 2

13 ENERGOCHEMICA TRADING AS Slovakia 13.4 1

14 ALSTOM TRANSPORT S.A. France 12.7 9

15 SOLIDPOWER SPA Italy 12.7 5

16 ITM POWER (TRADING) LIMITED United Kingdom 12.6 8

17 D'APPOLONIA SPA Italy 11.8 39

18 RENAULT SAS France 11.7 18

19 TELEFONICA INVESTIGACION Y DESARROLLO SA Spain 11.3 33

20 THALES COMMUNICATIONS & SECURITY SAS France 11.2 20

21 IBM IRELAND LIMITED Ireland 10.9 18

22 IBM RESEARCH GMBH Switzerland 10.2 38

23 PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NEDERLAND B.V. Netherlands 9.9 20

24 INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES AG Germany 9.7 10

25 THALES ALENIA SPACE FRANCE France 9.5 24

26 WELLO OY Finland 9.4 1

27 MATRICA SPA Italy 9.3 1

28 INNOVACIO I Research Organisations (REC)ERCA INDUSTRIAL I SOSTENIBLE SL Spain 9.2 13

29 NEC EUROPE LTD United Kingdom 9.2 19

30 JOHNSON MATTHEY PLC United Kingdom 9.2 18

31 BOSCH THERMOTECHNIK GMBH Germany 9.0 2

32 LEONARDO - FINMECCANICA SPA Italy 9.0 30

33 ESTEYCO SAP Spain 8.9 3

34 VAILLANT GMBH Germany 8.7 3

35 STMICROELECTRONICS SRL Italy 8.7 21

36 VOLKSWAGEN AG Germany 8.4 11

37 FONROCHE GEOther (OTH)ERMIE SAS France 8.4 1

38 ARTTIC France 8.3 22

39 GEO@SEA NV Belgium 8.3 1

40 NOVAMONT SPA Italy 8.0 5

41 SOITEC SA France 7.9 5

42 DNV GL NETHERLANDS B.V. Netherlands 7.9 6

43 ANSALDO STS S.p.A. Italy 7.8 13

44 AIR LIQUIDE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES SA France 7.8 2

45 AIRBUS DEFENCE AND SPACE GMBH Germany 7.8 20

46 PHILIPS MEDICAL SYSTEMS NEDERLAND BV Netherlands 7.7 13

47 SIEMENS PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY United Kingdom 7.7 7

48 THALES AIR SYSTEMS SAS France 7.7 23

49 RICARDO UK LIMITED United Kingdom 7.7 12

50 BULL SAS France 7.6 10


185

G.5. Public sector organisations (PUB)

Table 31 Top-50 public sector organisations in terms of EU funding


Number of

participations

1 REGION HOVEDSTADEN Denmark 19.5 31

2 AGENCE NATIONALE DE LA Research Organisations (REC)HERCHE France 19.4 36

3 NORGES FORSKNINGSRAD Norway 17.4 42

4 BUNDESAMT FUER STRAHLENSCHUTZ Germany 14.8 2

5 BUNDESMINISTERIUM FUER BILDUNG UND FORSCHUNG Germany 12.9 17

6 CENTRO PARA EL DESARROLLO TECNOLOGICO INDUSTRIAL. Spain 12.6 30

7 MINISTERIE VAN ECONOMISCHE ZAKEN Netherlands 11.6 31

8 OESTERREICHISCHE FORSCHUNGSFOERDERUNGSGESELLSCHAFT MBH Austria 10.5 29

9 The Department Of Energy and Climate Change United Kingdom 9.6 4

10 WELSH ASSEMBLY GOVERNMENT United Kingdom 9.6 2

11 FUNDACAO PARA A CIENCIA E A TECNOLOGIA Portugal 8.8 63

12 ENERGISTYRELSEN Denmark 8.6 8

13 VETENSKAPSRADET - SWEDISH RESEARCH COUNCIL Sweden 8.1 10

14 MINISTERIO DE ECONOMIA Y COMPETITIVIDAD Spain 8.0 29

15 THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS United Kingdom 7.6 22

16 NARODOWE CENTRUM NAUKI Poland 7.6 10

17 FORSKNINGSRÅDET FÖR MILJÖ, AREELLA NÄRINGAR OCH SAMHÄLLSBYGGANDE Sweden 7.5 14

18 NARODOWE CENTRUM BADAN I ROZWOJU Poland 7.5 26

19 MET OFFICE United Kingdom 7.4 14

20 STOCKHOLMS LANS LANDSTING Sweden 7.1 5

21 LANDESHAUPTSTADT MUENCHEN Germany 6.9 3

22 ENTERPRISE IRELAND Ireland 6.5 9

23 MINISTERIE VAN INFRASTRUCTUUR EN MILIEU Netherlands 6.5 20

24 STOCKHOLMS STAD Sweden 6.2 4

25 MINISTERO DELL'ISTRUZIONE, DELL'UNIVERSITA' E DELLA RICERCA Italy 6.1 28

26 AGENCIA PER A LA COMPETITIVITAT DE LA EMPRESA Spain 6.0 6

27 SERVICIO MADRILENO DE SALUD Spain 5.9 17

28 STATENS ENERGIMYNDIGHET Sweden 5.9 12

29 INNOVATIONSFONDEN Denmark 5.7 17

30 TARTU LINNAVALITSUS Estonia 5.4 1

31 SERVICIO ANDALUZ DE SALUD Spain 5.4 12

32 CAMARA MUNICIPAL DE LISBOA Portugal 5.4 11

33 COMUNE DI FIRENZE Italy 5.3 5

34 SVERIGES METEOROLOGISKA OCH HYDROLOGISKA INSTITUT Sweden 5.1 14

35 MINISTERO DELLA SALUTE Italy 5.0 13

36 AN TUDARAS UM ARD OIDEACHAS Ireland 5.0 4

37 SERVIZO GALEGO DE SAUDE Spain 4.6 9

38 Nottingham City Council United Kingdom 4.5 2

39 TRAFIKVERKET - TRV Sweden 4.2 11

40 Vivienda y Suelo de Euskadi, S.A. Spain 4.2 2

41 AGENCE DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DE LA MAITRISE DE L'ENERGIE France 4.2 9

42 AYUNTAMIENTO DE VALLADOLID Spain 4.2 3

43 MATIMOP - THE ISRAELI CENTER FOR R&D Israel 4.1 18

44 KOBENHAVNS KOMMUNE Denmark 4.1 10

45 BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL United Kingdom 3.9 5

46 CENTRE HOSPITALIER UNIVERSITAIRE VAUDOIS Switzerland 3.9 11

47 BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION United Kingdom 3.8 5

48 TEPEBASI MUNICIPALITY Turkey 3.8 1


186

G.6. Research Organisations (REC)

Table 32 Top-50 public sector organisations in terms of EU funding



1 MAX-PLANCK-GESELLSCHAFT ZUR FORDERUNG DER WISSENSCHAFTEN EV Germany 443,5 213

2 CENTRE NATIONAL DE LA RECHERCHE SCIENTIFIQUE CNRS France 361,4 505

3 FRAUNHOFER GESELLSCHAFT ZUR FOERDERUNG DER ANGEWANDTEN FORSCHUNG E.V. Germany 223,9 407

4 COMMISSARIAT A L ENERGIE ATOMIQUE ET AUX ENERGIES ALTERNATIVES France 218,7 246

5 CONSIGLIO NAZIONALE DELLE RICERCHE Italy 114,2 250

6 AGENCIA ESTATAL CONSEJO SUPERIOR DEINVESTIGACIONES CIENTIFICAS Spain 110,1 237

7 INTERUNIVERSITAIR MICRO-ELECTRONICACENTRUM Belgium 93,0 86

8 DEUTSCHES ZENTRUM FUER LUFT - UND RAUMFAHRT EV Germany 86,1 163

9 INSTITUT NATIONAL DE LA SANTE ET DE LA RECHERCHE MEDICALE France 85,3 113

10 Teknologian tutkimuskeskus VTT Oy Finland 64,3 127

11 FORSCHUNGSZENTRUM JULICH GMBH Germany 62,0 82

12 FUNDACION TECNALIA RESEARCH & INNOVATION Spain 57,6 122

13 NEDERLANDSE ORGANISATIE VOOR TOEGEPAST NATUURWETENSCHAPPELIJK ONDERZOEK TNO Netherlands 55,7 109

14 EUROPEAN MOLECULAR BIOLOGY LABORATORY Germany 52,9 60

15 AGENZIA NAZIONALE PER LE NUOVE TECNOLOGIE, L'ENERGIA E LO SVILUPPO ECONOMICO SOSTENIBILE Italy 51,6 53

16 STICHTING WAGENINGEN RESEARCH Netherlands 44,4 75

17 ETHNIKO KENTRO EREVNAS KAI TECHNOLOGIKIS ANAPTYXIS Greece 44,1 100

18 INSTITUT NATIONAL DE RECHERCHE ENINFORMATIQUE ET AUTOMATIQUE France 40,1 63

19 STIFTELSEN SINTEF Norway 39,0 76

20 FOUNDATION FOR RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY HELLAS Greece 38,1 96

21 EUROPEAN ORGANIZATION FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH Switzerland 36,1 46

22 AIT AUSTRIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY GMBH Austria 29,8 55

23 INSTITUT NATIONAL DE LA RECHERCHE AGRONOMIQUE United Kingdom 29,3 58

24 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH COUNCIL France 29,3 75

25 INSTITUT PASTEUR France 28,5 46

26 VLAAMSE INSTELLING VOOR TECHNOLOGISCH ONDERZOEK N.V. Belgium 28,0 46

27 UNITED KINGDOM ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY United Kingdom 27,8 3

28 FONDAZIONE ISTITUTO ITALIANO DI TECNOLOGIA Italy 25,9 36

29 KONINKLIJKE NEDERLANDSE AKADEMIE VAN WETENSCHAPPEN - KNAW Netherlands 25,3 35

30 HELMHOLTZ ZENTRUM MUENCHEN DEUTSCHES FORSCHUNGSZENTRUM FUER GESUNDHEIT UND UMWELT GMBH Germany 24,7 29

31 VIB Belgium 24,3 34

32 INSTITUTE OF COMMUNICATION AND COMPUTER SYSTEMS Greece 24,0 54

33 CENTRO RICERCHE FIAT SCPA Italy 23,9 47

34 FUNDACIO INSTITUT DE CIENCIES FOTONIQUES Spain 23,7 37

35 BARCELONA SUPERCOMPUTING CENTER - CENTRO NACIONAL DE SUPERCOMPUTACION Spain 22,5 49

36 ISTITUTO NAZIONALE DI FISICA NUCLEARE Italy 21,3 39

37 FUNDACIO CENTRE DE REGULACIO GENOMICA Spain 19,8 27

38 SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FACILITIES COUNCIL United Kingdom 19,8 45

39 FRIEDRICH MIESCHER INSTITUTE FOR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH Switzerland 19,7 13

40 TWI LIMITED United Kingdom 19,0 30

41 HELMHOLTZ ZENTRUM POTSDAM DEUTSCHESGEOFORSCHUNGSZENTRUM GFZ Germany 18,9 24

42 INSTITUTO DE MEDICINA MOLECULAR Portugal 18,5 19

43 INSTITUT JOZEF STEFAN Slovenia 18,3 60

44 UMWELTBUNDESAMT Germany 18,3 7

45 MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL United Kingdom 17,6 36

46 INSTITUT CURIE France 17,0 25

47 CENTRO DE INVESTIGACIONES ENERGETICAS, MEDIOAMBIENTALES Y TECNOLOGICAS-CIEMAT Spain 16,8 31

48 FORSCHUNGSVERBUND BERLIN EV Germany 16,4 28

49 STICHTING NATIONAAL LUCHT- EN RUIMTEVAARTLABORATORIUM Netherlands 16,1 39

50 TURKIYE BILIMSEL VE TEKNOLOJIK ARASTIRMA KURUMU Turkey 15,8 44


187

G.7. SMEs

Table 33 Top-50 SMEs in terms of EU funding



1 GEANT LIMITED United Kingdom 64.6 8

2 SOLIDPOWER SPA Italy 12.7 5

3 SWEREA MEFOS AB Sweden 12.6 5

4 ITM POWER (TRADING) LIMITED United Kingdom 12.6 8

5 WELLO OY Finland 9.4 1

6 INNOVACIO I Research Organisations (REC)ERCA INDUSTRIAL I SOSTENIBLE SL Spain 9.2 13

7 ESTEYCO SAP Spain 8.9 3

8 ARTTIC France 8.3 22

9 ICLEI EUROPEAN SECRETARIAT GMBH (ICLEI EUROPASEKRETARIAT GMBH)* Germany 7.9 22

10 Centre for Process Innovation Limited United Kingdom 7.7 8

11 Kompetenzzentrum - Das Virtuelle Fahrzeug, Forschungsgesellschaft mbH Austria 7.4 23

12 BIO BASE EUROPE PILOT PLANT VZW Belgium 7.1 10

13 H2 Logic A/S Denmark 6.8 5

14 HS ORKA HF Iceland 6.6 2

15 SYMBIOFCELL SA France 6.3 3

16 EURICE EUROPEAN RESEARCH AND PROJECT OFFICE GMBH Germany 6.3 15

17 FUNDACION CENER-CIEMAT Spain 6.3 13

18 GEANT VERENIGING Netherlands 6.1 8

19 SPACE APPLICATIONS SERVICES NV Belgium 5.9 6

20 AVANTIUM CHEMICALS BV Netherlands 5.3 8

21 AMONETA DIAGNOSTICS France 5.0 1

22 TC LAND EXPRESSION SA France 5.0 1

23 Agendia NV Netherlands 5.0 2

24 ALACRIS THERANOSTICS GMBH Germany 4.9 4

25 NOVA INNOVATION LTD United Kingdom 4.8 3

26 INTELLIGENT ENERGY LIMITED United Kingdom 4.8 4

27 METGEN OY Finland 4.7 6

28 META Group S.R.L Italy 4.7 8

29 GREEN MARINE(UK)LTD United Kingdom 4.6 1

30 LATERIZI GAMBETTOLA SRL Italy 4.5 5

31 TRUST-IT SERVICES LIMITED United Kingdom 4.5 15

32 RADISENS DIAGNOSTICS LIMITED Ireland 4.5 1

33 GENERAL EQUIPMENT FOR MEDICAL IMAGING SA Spain 4.4 2

34 FUNDINGBOX ACCELERATOR SP ZOO Poland 4.4 1

35 OSLO MEDTECH FORENING Norway 4.4 2

36 NORDUNET A/S Denmark 4.4 4

37 TECHNIKON FORSCHUNGS- UND PLANUNGSGESELLSCHAFT MBH Austria 4.4 12

38 EryDel S.p.A. Italy 4.3 1

39 ECOLOGIC INSTITUT gemeinnützige GmbH Germany 4.3 9

40 PMD DEVICE SOLUTIONS LIMITED Ireland 4.3 1

41 ISTITUTO DI STUDI PER L'INTEGRAZIONE DEI SISTEMI SC Italy 4.3 13

42 IMMUNOVIA AB Sweden 4.2 1

43 P1VITAL LIMITED United Kingdom 4.1 2

44 NEMO HEALTHCARE BV Netherlands 4.1 2

45 HOLONIX SRL-SPIN OFF DEL POLITECNICO DI MILANO Italy 4.1 13

46 THE SCOTTISH ASSOCIATION FOR MARINESCIENCE LBG United Kingdom 4.1 9

47 EXUS SOFTWARE LTD United Kingdom 4.0 7

48 XLAB RAZVOJ PROGRAMSKE OPREME IN SVETOVANJE DOO Slovenia 4.0 13

49 UNION INTERNATIONALE DES TRANSPORTS PUBLICS Belgium 3.9 10

50 YOURIS.COM Belgium 3.9 14

Corda, Signed Grants cut-off date by 1/1/2017

188

H. THE COVERAGE OF CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES IN HORIZON 2020

H.1. Introduction

Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013 Annex 1 highlights that cross-cutting issues will be promoted

between specific objectives of the three priorities of Horizon 2020 as necessary to develop new

knowledge, key competences and major technological breakthroughs as well as translating

knowledge into economic and societal value. Furthermore, in many cases, interdisciplinary

solutions will have to be developed which cut across the multiple specific objectives of Horizon

2020. Horizon 2020 will provide incentives for actions dealing with such cross-cutting issues,

including by the efficient bundling of budgets.

According to Article 32 the interim evaluation shall assess the progress of the different parts of

Horizon 2020 against {…} the efficiency and use of resources, with particular attention to cross-

cutting issues and other elements referred to in Article 14(1). Article 14(1) provides an indicative

list of cross-cutting issues:

The development and application of key enabling and industrial technologies as well as future

and emerging technologies;

Areas relating to bridging from discovery to market application;

Interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral research and innovation;

Social and economic sciences and humanities;

Climate change and sustainable development;

Fostering the functioning and achievement of the ERA and of the flagship initiative

'Innovation Union';

Framework conditions in support of the flagship initiative "Innovation Union";

Contributing to all relevant Europe 2020 flagship initiatives (including the Digital Agenda for

Europe);

Widening participation across the Union in research and innovation and helping to close the

research and innovation divide in Europe;

International networks for excellent researchers and innovators such as European Cooperation

in Science and Technology (COST);

Cooperation with third countries;

Responsible research and innovation including gender;

SME involvement in research and innovation and broader private sector participation;

Enhancing the attractiveness of the research profession; and

Facilitating trans-national and cross-sector mobility of researchers.

189

Article 31 further states that the Commission monitoring activities as regards the implementation

of Horizon 2020, its specific programme and the activities of the EIT shall include information

on cross-cutting topics such as social and economic sciences and humanities, sustainability and

climate change, including information on the amount of climate related expenditure, SME

participation, private sector participation, gender equality, widening participation and progress

against performance indicators.

The following sections provide an in-depth analysis of each cross-cutting issue; including the

rationale, implementation, main achievements so far and lessons learnt. The table below provides

an overview of the indicators to monitor progress on the cross-cutting issues.

Figure 47 Overview of progress on coverage of cross-cutting issues in Horizon 2020

Cross cutting

issue

Indicator Progress

Contribution

to the

realisation of

the European

Research

Area

Annual number of research positions advertised

on EURAXESS Jobs

The number of research positions

advertised on EURAXESS Jobs

between 1 January and 31 December

2015 comprised 286,525 job

vacancies and 62,088 fellowships.

Number of national research infrastructures

networked (in the sense of being made

accessible to all researchers in Europe and

beyond through Union support)

National research infrastructures

networked thanks to Horizon 2020

support by the end of 2015 were 363.

The target by the end of Horizon

2020 is 900.

Number and share of Open Access articles

published in peer-reviewed journals

65% (CORDA)

Number of projects that make scientific data

accessible and re-usable and number of

scientific datasets made accessible and re-usable

So far, 65% of the projects covered

by the scope of the pilot (2014-2015

figures) participate in the pilot and

34.6% opt-out. Furthermore, outside

the areas covered by the pilot, a

further 11.9% of projects participate

on a voluntary (opt-in) basis.

Number of Multiannual Implementation Plans

adopted by Joint Programming Initiatives

In 2015 all 10 Joint Programming

Initiatives have adopted their

Multiannual Implementation Plan.

Widening

participation

Share of participations to EU-13 Member States 8.5%

Share of financial contribution to EU-13

Member States

4.4%

SME

participation

Percentage of EU financial contribution going

to SMEs (LEIT and SC)

TARGET: 20% of allocation

In LEIT and Societal Challenges, the

SMEs received 23.9% of the funding

and had 26.9% of the participation

fulfilling the 20% target of funding to

SMEs in LEIT and SC.141

SMEs had 16.0% of the total funding

of Horizon 2020 and had 20.7 % of

the participations

Percentage of EU financial contribution

committed through the SME instrument (LEIT

and SC)

5.6%142

141 Results based on data extracted from CORDA; compilation of budgets allocated to SMEs in the framework of Horizon 2020

grant agreements signed in 2014, 2015 and 2016 142 Results based on financial commitments under the different parts of the Horizon 2020 Work Programmes 2014-2015 and

2016-2017 contributing to the budget for the SME instrument call.

190

Social Science

and

Humanities

Percentage of SSH partners in selected projects

in all Horizon 2020 priorities and percentage of

EU financial contribution allocated to them

SSH partners comprised 26% of

partners in selected projects under

SSH-flagged topics, receiving 22% of

the budget within these projects.

Science and

Society

(Responsible

Research and

Innovation)

Percentage of projects where citizens, Civil

Society Organisation (CSOs) and other societal

actors contribute to the co-creation of scientific

agendas and scientific contents

In 11.0% of the projects.

Gender Percentage of women participants in Horizon

2020 projects.

40.3%

Percentage of women coordinators in Horizon

2020.

31% of the coordinators of the

projects are women

Percentage of women in EC advisory groups

expert groups, evaluation panels, individual

experts, etc.

53% of the members of Advisory

Groups in 2016 were women

36.7% of the evaluators were women.

Percentage of projects taking into account the

gender dimension in research and innovation

content.

NA

International

Cooperation

Share of Third Country participations in

collaborative projects143

.

Third countries had 2.5% of the

participations (for all Horizon 2020

projects third countries had 1.9% of

the participations)

Share of EU financial contribution attributed to

Third Country participants of collaborative

projects.

Third countries received 0.8% of the

funding in collaborative projects

(0.6% of the funding of all Horizon

2020 projects)

Share of budget of topics in the Work

Programme 2014-15 mentioning at least one

Third Country or region.

23.3%

Sustainable

development

Share of EU financial contribution that is

climate related in Horizon 2020 (EUR)

Target: 35%

27.0%


sustainability related in Horizon 2020 (EUR)

Target: 60%

53.3%


biodiversity related in Horizon 2020 (EUR) (no

target):

4.0%

Bridging

from

discovery to

market

application

Share of projects and EU financial contribution

allocated to innovation actions in Horizon 2020.

17.2%

Within the innovation actions, share of EU

financial contribution focussed on

demonstration and first-of-a-kind activities.

86.5% was focussed on

demonstration and 7.7% of first of a

kind activity.

Digital

Agenda

Share of EU financial contribution that is ICT

Research & Innovation related in Horizon 2020

(EUR)

30.0%

Private sector

participation

Percentage of Horizon 2020 beneficiaries from

the private for profit sector

62.2% of the beneficiaries came from

the private sector and represented

33.2% of the participations.

Share of EU financial contribution going to

private for profit entities (LEIT and Societal

Challenges).

Private sector entities received 42.8%

LEIT and SC and 27.7% in all of

Horizon 2020.

Source: CORDA, 01/01/2017 cut-off date

143 "Collaborative" projects refer to all Horizon 2020 projects apart from ERC, SME Instrument, MSCA, projects under "Access

to Risk Finance", JRC and EIT.

191

H.2. The development and application of key enabling and industrial technologies as

well as future and emerging technologies

An in-depth analysis of the development and application of key enabling and industrial

technologies as well as future and emerging technologies is provided under the Annexes 2.E, 2.F

2.G and 2.B related to the specific objectives Leadership in Enabling and Industrial Technologies

(LEIT-ICT, LEIT-NMBP, LEIT-Space) and Future and Emerging Technologies (FET).

H.3. Bridging from discovery to market application

H.3.1. Overview

The Europe 2020 strategy focusses on smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, highlighting the

role of research and innovation as key drivers. Horizon 2020 puts a specific focus on innovation

under its second and third pillars (Industrial Leadership and Societal Challenges).

According to Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013 linkages and interfaces shall be implemented

across and within the priorities of Horizon 2020. Particular attention shall be paid in this

respect to {…} areas relating to bridging from discovery to market application. {…} Bridging

actions throughout Horizon 2020 are aimed at bringing discovery to market application, leading

to exploitation and commercialisation of ideas whenever appropriate. The actions should be

based on a broad innovation concept and stimulate cross-sectoral innovation.

H.3.1. Rationale

Previous framework programmes were effective in strengthening scientific excellence, in

involving leading international scientific and technological talent, and in fostering increased

Europe-wide research and innovation collaboration, but less effective in taking innovative

products to market. Horizon 2020 also supports innovation to help discoveries make it into

applications. The term "innovation" means the introduction to the market of new or improved

products, services, processes, and solutions. These activities support the market uptake and

should lead to job creation, economic growth and social benefits.

H.3.2. Implementation

The programme is based on a broad innovation concept which is not limited to the development

of new products and services on the basis of scientific and technological results, but which also

incorporates the use of existing technologies in novel applications, continuous improvement,

non-technological and social innovation. It includes activities closer to the market and to end-

users (e.g. prototyping, testing, demonstrating, piloting, product validation and market

replication) and demand-side approaches (such as pre-commercial procurement and procurement

of innovative solutions). It deploys new instruments for this: innovation actions, innovation

procurement and inducement prizes.

Innovation actions: these actions focus on demonstrations, tests and other activities close to

applications. These innovation actions can build on the results of previous projects. They can

also complement research and innovation actions that contain more research. These innovation

actions are used for areas where the scientific and technology insights are available and the focus

shifts to turning these into applications.

Innovative procurement: the pace of adoption of innovations in the public sector is slow

despite the potential of innovation procurement to modernize the public sector (public

192

procurement accounts for approximately 14% of EU GDP144

). Companies – in particular SMEs -

identify the lack of first buyers as the number one barrier for company growth. Innovative

procurement has the ability to improve the quality and efficiency of public services whilst also

opening up market opportunities for innovative companies.

Inducement prizes: R&I funding often follows the path of technological innovation through

incremental steps. Horizon 2020 introduced Prizes to support open innovation. Prizes are a 'test-

validate-scale' approach that brings together new-to-industry players and small players that may

pursue more radically new concepts than large, institutionalized contestants. Inducement prizes

offer an incentive by mobilising new talents and engaging new solver communities around a

specific challenge. Smart prize designs can activate this huge potential and leverage private

investment into R&I, often manifold of the prize offering. Prizes are a prime example of 'value

for money' as inducement prizes are only awarded based on the achievement of the target set,

solving the challenge defined.

Other modalities are also expected to improve the uptake of results:

The Innovation Radar: external monitoring experts with innovation and market

knowledge assess the innovations and innovators coming out of Horizon 2020. They

register their assessment in structured data which allows for early identification of high

potential innovations and innovators in projects. This also may provide insights on

support needs of individual innovators to get their innovations to the market.

Additional tailored support for projects145

through a consultancy service. It assists

projects by analysing their key exploitable results and by developing strategies for their

exploitation. The services are tailored to the projects' needs and levels of maturity (such

as an exploitation strategy seminar or the development of a business plan).

The InnovFin instruments to provide investment for taking results to the market,

implemented by EIF and by private investors. Companies taking part in the SME

instrument are informed about these opportunities, can get coaching and are offered

sessions to pitch for investors.

These support measures are expected to help Horizon 2020 deliver economic impact by bridging

the gap between scientific discoveries and their market application.

H.3.3. Achievements so far

Innovation Actions (IA): at the beginning of Horizon 2020, no targets were set for the share of

Innovation Actions close to the market. At the end of 2016, 6.2% of the signed grants and 17.2%

of the funding is allocated to these (Excellent Science does not have IAs; within the other two

pillars Industrial leadership and Societal Challenges, 10.2% of the projects are IAs with 23.6% of

the EU contribution). Especially in the programme parts related to Energy, Security, the Fast

Track to Innovation and the SME instrument, innovation actions are often used. Under the

Societal Challenges of Health and ‘Europe in a changing world’ which are more research-

oriented, their share is much lower..

144 Public procurement for Innovation – Good Practices and Strategies, OECD, 2016:

http://www.oecd.org/gov/ethics/Procurement-Innovation-Practices-Strategies.pdf 145 Applied for projects in nano- and material technologies, energy, and in one action that covers in potential all parts of FP7 and

Horizon 2020. A private consultancy provides the support.

193

Currently, 87% of the funding within innovation actions is allocated to demonstration actions

and 8% to first-of-a-kind activities146

. This shows that Horizon 2020 is moving towards higher

Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs).

Table 34 Percentage of projects and EU financial contribution allocated to Innovation

Actions (IA) per Horizon 2020 programme part

Source: CORDA data, extraction 1 January 2017

Looking into the proposal texts of 227 innovation actions that started in 2015, a study147

identified three categories of projects:

'Pioneering' projects: scoring high on technological novelty, market scope and

innovation readiness, but low on ecosystem embeddedness (64 projects out of the 227

projects). They focus on breakthrough technological results that may create markets.

Pioneering projects involve relatively more private companies, esp. SMEs, and research

institutions.

'Diffusing' projects: emphasising ecosystem embeddedness and scoring lower on the

other three aspects (58 projects). They aim at the diffusion and exploitation of the

innovative solution in the ecosystem. The diffusing projects involve less companies and

more public bodies.

146 The remaining 5% of the projects are not classified. 147 Grimpe, C. et al., Study on innovation in Horizon 2020 Innovation Actions, EC, 2017. For this study, 227 Innovation Actions

were selected that started in 2015, most of them in the PPPs such as Ecsel (LEIT-ICT), Clean Sky (Societal Challenge 4),

Factories of the Future (LEIT-NMBP), Energy Efficient Buildings (LEIT-NMBP), Clean Vehicle (Societal Challenge 4), but also

in other calls. The texts of the granted projects were analysed using content analysis methodology, based on keywords that

indicate four innovation aspects: technological novelty, market scope, ecosystem embeddedness and innovation readiness.

194

'Sustaining' projects: the remaining 105 projects pay only modest attention to each of the

four aspects. They are dominated by higher education institutions.

Whereas it is still too early to characterise these innovation actions and their impacts, these

initial findings indicate that a quarter of innovation actions have a disruptive, market-creating

potential, and that companies and research institutions play a leading role in these initiatives.

Looking closer at Horizon 2020 initiatives in the field of pre-commercial public procurement

(PCP) and public procurement for innovation (PPI), both in 2014 and 2015, some topics

supporting the implementation of innovation procurement did not receive eligible proposals.

However, in 2015, six projects were signed that are implemented through PCP or PPI with a total

EC contribution of EUR 18.5 million. Three additional projects submitted under a deadline in

2015 were signed in the first semester of 2016 with an overall EC contribution of EUR 7.9

million.

As regards inducement and recognition prizes, the first ones were launched in 2015: five

inducement prizes with a budget of EUR 6 million148

together with three recognition prizes with

an overall budget of EUR 1.33 million149

were selected. Up to the end of 2016, 12 Horizon

inducement prizes have been launched and six more will follow in 2017. All prizes are 'best-in-

class prizes' which reward contestants that best meet the predefined objective. They target

challenges such as Sharing of Spectrum, Breaking the Optical Barrier, Aging population, Mother

and child health, CO2 reuse, Clean car engines, Cyber security etc.150

The Fast Track to Innovation (FTI) was launched as a pilot action in 2015, aiming at bringing

close-to-market innovation by consortia to the market. It supports innovation actions under

Industrial Leadership and the Societal Challenges, relating to any technology field, on the basis

of a continuously open call (bottom-up). The pilot action had seen a high number of submitted

proposals (887) that requested an EU contribution mounting to EUR 1.7 billion while the budget

was EUR 100 million. After evaluation, 181 proposals scored above threshold and 46 proposals

were finally retained (average amount of EC budget allocated per grant: EUR 2.1 million).

Participation in 2015 in the FTI shows that participation from the private sector (76.7%

budgetwise) and SMEs (48.0%) is high. Close to 60% of the FTI project coordinators are SMEs.

Other indicators signalling the bridging efforts from discovery to market:

93% of all projects in Horizon 2020 pillars 2 (Industrial Leadership) and 3 (Societal

Challenges) has one or more participating businesses, which indicates a market interest;

Innovation Radar: at the end of 2016, 800 FP7 and over 150 Horizon 2020 collaborative

projects in the ICT area were monitored and assessed, with a pilot going on to extend this

further to non-ICT themes of Horizon 2020. The 150 Horizon 2020 projects are expected

to deliver over 300 distinct innovations;

The additional support for recognising exploitable results and developing measures for

their exploitation has been applied to 355 projects in the nano- and material technologies.

A second round that would cover all sorts of projects is being prepared for ca. 250

projects by April 2018;

148 There has been no budget executed yet. 149 EUR 0.15 million of the budget has been executed so far. 150 http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizonprize/index.cfm?lg=en&pg=prizes

http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizonprize/index.cfm?lg=en&pg=prizes

195

Out of the 10,000 companies taking part in Horizon 2020, in the first three years 225

benefitted from the financial instruments in InnovFin for investments in scaling up151

.

Out of the 1,640 SMEs taking part in the SME instrument, 134 companies secured

venture capital recently, out of which 31 during or after the project152

. These numbers are

expected to increase in the years to come when more projects start delivering results.

Also in the ‘Excellent Science’ pillar of Horizon 2020 innovation is targeted. The

European Research Council (ERC) has funded around 400 'proof of concept' projects that

bring an invention towards application. The first 140 were analysed which showed that

42% use a spin-off company (existing, new or planned) to take the results to the market.

Out of 2 460 distinct beneficiaries of the Marie Skłodowska Curie Actions (MSCA),

more than 40% are private for profit organisations. Although they tend to participate in

fewer projects than universities they account for 16% of all participations, i.e. the number

of projects in which they are beneficiaries. Furthermore, around 45% of all MSCA

fellows benefit from some form of cross-sectoral mobility out of or into an academic

setting.

H.3.4. Lessons learnt/Areas for improvement

In the first years of Horizon 2020, experience was gained with how to evoke innovation-oriented

projects (innovation actions, procurement projects, prizes) and how to link best to follow-up

investment. An area for improvement is monitoring the results of these projects. Quantitative

indicators like science publications and patents have to be complemented by other indicators

such as the number of spin-off companies, the realised or expected additional employment and

turnover, venture capital raised for scaling up, and examples of realised impacts on policies,

markets, environment and society.

H.4. Interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral research and innovation

H.4.1. Overview

According to Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013 linkages and interfaces shall be implemented

across and within the priorities of Horizon 2020. Particular attention shall be paid in this

respect to {…} interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral research and innovation. {…} In many

cases, interdisciplinary solutions will have to be developed which cut across the multiple specific

objectives of Horizon 2020.

The general objective of Framework programmes is to contribute to building a society and an

economy based on knowledge and innovation across the EU and the world, by leveraging

additional research, development and innovation funding. Interdisciplinarity research and cross-

sectoral collaboration push fields forward and accelerate scientific innovation and discovery

through research breakthroughs that address societal problems and foster innovation.

H.4.2. Rationale

Interdisciplinarity research integrates information, data, techniques and perspectives from two or

more disciplines of specialised knowledge to solve problems whose solutions are beyond the

scope of a single discipline or area of research practice.

151 Source : European Investment Bank, data per January 2017. 152 Source: www.ventureradar.com

http://www.ventureradar.com/

196

Higher or secondary

education (HES)

Private for profit

(excluding education) (PRC)

Public body

(excluding research &

education) (PUB)

Research organisations

(REC)

Other (OTH)

Part of the FP7 ex post evaluation stated that FP7 "was effective in fostering inter-disciplinary

research and increased Europe-wide research and innovation collaboration and networking….

FP7 reinforced a new mode of collaboration and an open innovation framework". This was

achieved through a more decentralised approach to the design, structure and direction of projects

across the ERC, JTIs and the EIT.


H.4.3.1. Collaboration between types of institutions

When comparing the collaborations of different types of institutions in Horizon 2020 and FP7,

the private for profit sector (PRC) appears as the main collaborative partner of academia (HES)

as opposed to research organisations (RECs) in FP7. As can be seen from the figure below the

main collaborations in Horizon 2020 occur between the higher education sector and private firms

(2355 collaborative projects), the higher education sector and research organisations (2289

collaborative projects) and between the private-for-profit sector and research organisations (2169

collaborative projects). Participants classified in the category ‘Other’, which include Civil

Society Organisations, collaborate more with the private sector (1021 collaborative projects)

than with research organisations (1019 collaborative projects) and with the higher or secondary

education sector (966 collaborative projects), while the public bodies are the least preferred hub

(604 collaborative projects).

Figure 48 Number of collaborative projects between different types of institutions in FP7

and Horizon 2020

FP7

Horizon 2020

Source: JRC Technology Innovation Monitoring. Cut-off date: 01/01/2017, Graph: European Commission – DG

RTD

H.4.3.1. Collaboration between industry sectors

The NACE sector classification of the companies participating in Horizon 2020 is used to

examine the collaborations between companies from different industry sectors. As detailed in

Part O of this annex, most of the Horizon 2020 companies are from the Professional, Scientific

and Technical activities sector (33 %), the Manufacturing sector (27 %) and the Information and

communication sector (17 %). However while the overall sector of Wholesale trade and retail

trade represent 5% of the companies in Horizon 2020, the sub-sector of wholesale trade is the

main sector when looking at collaborative projects only (749 collaborative projects), which

197

illustrates the interconnected nature of the sector (i.e. connections with producers, industrial

demand and retail trade from various sectors). The digital sector is strongly represented in

collaborative networks, with computer programming, consultancy and related activities (467

collaborative projects) and the manufacture of computer, electronic and optical products (385

collaborative projects) being respectively the second and third sectors in terms of collaborative

projects.

Collaborations between the wholesale trade sector and the digital sector are also the most

recurrent type of inter-industry collaborations in Horizon 2020.

Figure 49 Horizon 2020 Top 10 industry sectors by number of collaborative projects

Source: JRC Technology Innovation Monitoring. Cut-off date: 01/01/2017, Graph: European Commission, DG RTD

Figure 50 Industrial inter-sector collaboration networks in Horizon 2020


749

467

385

382

308

263

258

247

186

177

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Wholesale trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles

Computer programming, consultancy and related activities

Manufacture of computer, electronic and optical products

Architectural and engineering activities; technical testing and analysis

Scientific research and development

Retail trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles

Activities of head offices; management consultancy activities

Manufacture of machinery and equipment n.e.c.

Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and…

Other professional, scientific and technical activities

198

H.4.3.2. Collaborations between academic fields based on projects’ participations

Taking a closer look at how knowledge circulates between academic fields in Horizon 2020, an

analysis of the projects’ focus was carried out. Projects were classified according to the Scopus

bibliographic database which includes scientific, technical, medical, and social sciences

(including arts and humanities). The classification was done based on text mining of the projects'

description and machine learning performed by the Joint Research Centre, the science and

knowledge service of the European Commission.

Social sciences lead the field in terms of collaborative projects that involve at least one

representative of the field, with business, management and accounting scoring very high as well.

They are followed close behind by the STEM field with Computer Science, Medicine,

Engineering and Physics and Astronomy all containing at least 1000 collaborative projects in

Horizon 2020. Of note is the fact that sciences related to the medical field such as Immunology

and Microbiology, Chemical Engineering, Dentistry, Veterinary, Nursing and other Health

Professions occupy 6 of the last 7 positions in the ranking of fields in terms of number of

collaborative projects.

Noticeably, the disciplines of Computer Science and Engineering are the most connected within

Horizon 2020 projects.

Figure 51 Main academic fields represented in Horizon 2020 collaborative projects, based

on projects’ keywords, by number of projects


0 500 1000 1500 2000

33 | Social Sciences

17 | Computer Science

14 | Business, Management and Accounting

27 | Medicine

22 | Engineering

31 | Physics and Astronomy

21 | Energy

13 | Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology

23 | Environmental Science

19 | Earth and Planetary Sciences

25 | Materials Science

11 | Agricultural and Biological Sciences

20 | Economics, Econometrics and Finance

28 | Neuroscience

30 | Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics(all)

32 | Psychology

16 | Chemistry

12 | Arts and Humanities

26 | Mathematics

24 | Immunology and Microbiology

15 | Chemical Engineering

18 | Decision Sciences

29 | Nursing

36 | Health Professions

34 | Veterinary

35 | Dentistry

199

Figure 52 Collaboration networks in Horizon 2020 projects between different academic

fields, based on projects’ keywords, by number of projects


H.4.3.3. Collaborations between academic fields based on publications

Interdisciplinary publications accounted for 7.45% of total EU-28 publications in FP7 while they

represent 7.55% of publications in Horizon 2020 (based on publications during the first three

years of both Programmes). EU-15 and EU-13 shares were respectively 7.53% and 5.87% in FP7

and 7.29% and 10.19% in Horizon 2020. In both Programmes the share of interdisciplinary

publications was the lowest for third countries (approximately 6%). Overall, interdisciplinarity is

noticeably reinforced in Horizon 2020, especially for EU-13 and Associated countries. In

comparison with publications that were not funded by the Framework Programmes, the

proportion of interdisciplinary publications is similar for EU countries.

For both framework programmes, the field weighted citation impact of interdisciplinary

publications is high, and higher than for non-FP publications.

H.4.3.4. Examples of interdisciplinary projects

A case study of DG Connect153

analyses the implementation and experiences of interdisciplinary

collaborative research in Horizon 2020, and exemplifies the lessons learnt so far based on the

achievements of selected FET projects. Overall, major scientific advances in research have come

from the interstices and synergies among different disciplines (e.g. molecular biology,

153 CARSA-Annex XII on Interdisciplinarity Research- Support study for the Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020- DG

CONNECT Activities.

200

psychology, nanotechnology)154

and this was possible thanks to the complementarities of

interdisciplinary research collaboration. The results achieved with the contribution of

interdisciplinary research clearly show that the complementarity of the different disciplines can

lead to innovative and novel solutions beyond traditional research paradigms. FET has always

been welcomed interdisciplinary research. In this sense, recent Horizon 2020 FET projects

(including both FET-open and FET-proactive) are significant examples of how complementarity

plays a key role and what kind of achievements have been made through the contribution of

interdisciplinary research.

IBSEN155

(Bridging the gap: from Individual Behaviour to the Socio-tEchnical Man) is a FET-

open research project that intends to provide a real breakthrough by creating a repertoire of

human behaviours in large (more than 1000 people) structured groups using controlled

experiments. In particular, the project builds on a novel experimental protocol, software and

analytical tools to allow large scale experimentations. To achieve these results, IBSEN requires a

high-degree of interdisciplinary which is reflected in its team composition, consisting of

physicists, economists, social psychologists, and computer scientists. This variety will allow to

create a technology providing a basis for socio-economic simulations that are expected to

radically change many fields, from robotics to economics, with technological and societal

impacts, including policy-making in socially pressing issues.

CONQUER156

(Contrast by Quadrupole Enhanced Relaxation) is a highly interdisciplinary

project combining expertise in quantum physics, chemical and biomedical engineering, material

characterisation as well as nano-toxicology. In particular, the combination of quantum-

mechanics and cutting-edge imaging technologies has the potential to create Molecular Imaging

solutions with significant impact: the radically new diagnostic and therapeutic treatments

developed in the project are key elements to achieve the healthy well-being of European citizens.

The purpose of 2D-INK157

(Redesigning 2D Materials for the Formulation of Semiconducting

Inks) is to develop inks of novel 2D semiconducting materials for low-cost large-area fabrication

processes on insulating substrates through a new methodology, which will exceed the properties

of state-of-the-art graphene- and graphene oxide based inks. The inherent high-risk of 2D-INK is

countered by a strongly interdisciplinary research team composed of 9 partners with experience

in their corresponding fields and with different highly complementary backgrounds: only this

synergy can address the challenges of the multiple research and innovation aspects of 2D-INK.

Thanks to this interdisciplinary, the project shows the potential to revolutionize research on 2D

semiconducting materials, since it enables the applications of these materials over different

scientific and technological disciplines, such as electronics, sensing, photonics, energy storage

and conversion and spintronic.

NuClock158

(Towards a nuclear clock with Thorium-229) is developing a novel type of clock,

based on a unique nuclear transition in Thorium-229, which will be largely inert to perturbations

and holds the potential to outperform existing atomic clocks in terms of precision. The next-

generation satellite-based navigation technology and other precision timing applications will

greatly benefit from more precise and robust clocks. Research related to this specific topic

154 Nigel Gilbert, University of Surrey, Thrills and spills in interdisciplinary research: the case of Future and Emerging

Technologies in Horizon 2020; https://www.ukro.ac.uk/aboutukro/Documents/150618_fet.pdf. 155 http://ibsen-h2020.eu/. 156 http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/196966_en.html 157 http://www.2d-ink.eu/ 158 http://www.nuclock.eu/

https://www.ukro.ac.uk/aboutukro/Documents/150618_fet.pdf

http://ibsen-h2020.eu/


http://www.2d-ink.eu/

http://www.nuclock.eu/

201

demands supreme expertise in a variety of fields, encompassing nuclear and atomic physics,

quantum optics, metrology, as well as detector- and laser-technology: in NuClock, the

interdisciplinary consortium precisely matches all these requirements.

GOAL-Robots159

(Goal-based Open-ended Autonomous Learning Robots) intends to develop a

new paradigm to build open-ended learning robots, addressing pressing societal needs. The

interdisciplinary project consortium consists of leading international roboticists, computational

modellers and developmental psychologists, working with complementary methods. This

interdisciplinary approach will allow to greatly advance the understanding of the fundamental

principles of open-ended learning and to produce a breakthrough in the field of autonomous

robotics, by creating robots that can autonomously accumulate complex skills and knowledge in

a real open-ended way.

The aim of Lumiblast160

(A paradigm shift in cancer therapy – using mitochondria-powered

chemiluminescence to non-invasively treat inaccessible tumours) is to establish a breakthrough

technology by providing proof-of-concept in extracellular systems, particular cancer cell cultures

and animal models, with the vision to advance to a different treatment for cancers of various

origins in the next years. To this end, the project relies on a concerted interdisciplinary action

involving expertise in various fields: photo-medicine, synthetic chemistry, photo-chemistry,

pharmaceutical formulation, ROS-activated luminescence.

LiRichFCC161

(A new class of powerful materials for electrochemical energy storage: Lithium-

rich oxyfluorides with cubic dense packing) is based on a long-term vision to develop a novel

class of materials into practical use, involving foundational aspects in S&T with breakthrough

character, high novelty and risk. Indeed, the project intends to explore and optimise possible

compositions, synthesis methods, structural properties and dynamics of Li-rich FCC materials

through a broad interdisciplinary approach, involving predictive computational work, advanced

chemical synthesis and high-end characterisation. This will lead to a paradigm change in the

design of battery materials and unexpected effective mechanisms: it could revolutionise the use

of batteries in applications involving a need for supplying large amounts of energy and power

from small spaces.

The FET-Proactive project ESCAPE162

(Energy-efficient SCalable Algorithms for weather

Prediction at Exascale) aims to develop world-class, extreme-scale computing capabilities for

European operational numerical weather prediction (NWP) and future climate models, based on

a holistic understanding of energy-efficiency for extreme-scale applications using heterogeneous

architectures, accelerators and special compute units. In this way, the project will provide the

necessary means to take a huge step forward in weather and climate modelling, through

interdisciplinary research on energy-efficient high-performance computing and the combination

of complementary skills of all project partners, including global NWP and high-performance

computing centres.

Based on the evidence collected, the main success factor of interdisciplinary collaboration seems

to lie in the fact that it involves interactions between disciplines with focus on major real-life

problems and practical solutions. Such an approach implies new forms of knowledge and

159 http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/203543_en.html 160 http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/203541_en.html 161 http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/203539_en.html 162 http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/197542_en.html





202

research that go beyond the bounds of validity of existing disciplines and are more suitable for

specific inherently complex problems.


Horizon 2020 projects illustrate how the knowledge triangle of research, education and

innovation is deeply embedded in the programme, with significant numbers of collaborations

being observed between the academic sector, private companies and research organisations but

also with the public sector. The private for profit sector appears as the main collaborative partner

of academia as opposed to research organisations in FP7.

In terms of inter-industry collaborations of companies, the wholesale trade sector and the digital

sector appear to collaborate more with other sectors. Computer sciences and engineering are at

the core of the interdisciplinary collaborations within projects.

Interdisciplinarity seems to be slightly reinforced in Horizon 2020 compared to FP7, especially

for EU-13 and Associated countries. Furthermore, the research quality of these publications, as

proxied by the Field Weighted Citation Index, is particularly high in the Framework

Programmes.

H.5. Social and economic sciences and humanities

H.5.1. Overview

Social sciences and humanities research is integrated into each of the priorities of Horizon 2020

and each of the specific objectives and shall contribute to the evidence base for policy making at

international, Union, national, regional and local level. In relation to societal challenges, social

sciences and humanities (SSH) are mainstreamed as an essential element of the activities needed

to tackle each of the societal challenges to enhance their impact.

H.5.2. Rationale

The approach of integrating the SSH as a cross-cutting issue has meant that inter-disciplinary

cooperation is dealt with in a different way as compared with FP7. A strong network of SSH

liaison officers has thus been established across all Societal Challenges and LEIT parts of the

programme to facilitate this task. It also requires applicants to submit proposals and build

consortia that transcend disciplinary and sectorial boundaries, bringing together scholars from

SSH and from life and physical sciences, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) as

well as researchers and practitioners across these fields.

This way of cooperating across sectors and disciplines is fairly new to many researchers in

Europe while others have worked in such a way for a long time already. It is clear that both

inside the European Commission and amongst stakeholders and potential applicants such as

universities, research institutes and companies it will take some time before everyone is fully

aware of the principle of interdisciplinarity and willing to somewhat change their practice.

The challenge approach with the principle of integrating SSH aspects wherever relevant has

gradually gained more support since the start of Horizon 2020. Inputs from all the different

Expert Advisory Groups across Horizon 2020 on which direction the programme parts should

take certainly confirm that SSH aspects, and perhaps especially economic, are essential for the

programme to deliver concrete societal impact. Amongst many of these experts there seems to be

203

an agreement that the need of interdisciplinary solutions to current challenges faced by society

has never been more obvious.


Every year a monitoring report of the SSH Integration in Horizon 2020 is carried out by the

European Commission (DG RTD). The table below shows the key findings of the reports based

on SSH flagged topics in 2014 and 2015, including comparisons between the two. There are

quite large differences between the programme parts both in quantitative and qualitative terms. It

is to be noted however that due to the focus areas which combine funding from several Societal

Challenges and the LEITs these numbers do not present the entire picture.

The second monitoring report assesses to what extent the 2015 calls for proposals under the

Societal Challenges and the Industrial Leadership priorities have delivered on the integration of

SSH as a cross-cutting issue. It provides data on the budget dedicated to SSH activities, the share

of SSH partners as well as their country affiliation and type of activity, the prevalence of various

disciplines and the overall quality of integration.

As data collection for the report progressed, the lessons learnt have been gradually fed into the

preparation of the 2016-17 Work Programme. In particular, corrective measures have been

identified that could improve the qualitative integration of SSH in upcoming and future Horizon

2020 calls. The report also provides a baseline against which performance in terms of

quantitative integration of SSH can be benchmarked in the upcoming years of Horizon 2020.

Table 35 Budget allocated to SSH flagged topics and to SSH partners (EUR million) 2014 -

2015

Programme part Number of SSH

flagged topics and

other actions (2014-

2017)

Share of SSH partners in

the SSH flagged

topics (2014 and 2015

projects)

Share of budget going to

SSH partners from the SSH

flagged topics (2014 and

2015 projects)

Societal Challenge 1 37 19% 14%







LEIT-ICT 22 20% 14%

LEIT-NMBP 24 22% 10%

LEIT-SPACE 4 8% 6%

Total 441 26% 22%

Source: European Commission, DG RTD analysis


Societal Challenge 6 and its calls and topics attract many of the SSH disciplines. The 2015 calls

focused on social cohesion, the young generation, the EU crisis, social innovation and cultural

heritage, all fields being relevant for and demanding contributions from SSH disciplines. Other

Societal Challenges have also flagged many SSH topics. In the 2014-15 Work Programme 37%

204

of the topics have been flagged for SSH in the Societal Challenges pillar and the Industrial

Leadership pillar. For WP 2016-17 this increased to 41%.

Regarding the variety of SSH disciplines in the funded projects, contributions from economics,

sociology, political science and public administration are well integrated while many other SSH

disciplines are underrepresented. This is especially the case for geography/demography and

philosophy/anthropology. The low participation of the humanities and the arts remains a

challenge which has to be addressed.

According to the two SSH reports on SSH integration, EUR 433 million went to SSH partners in

SSH flagged topics. Overall, the share of budget going to SSH partners amounted to 22% of the

estimated total budget for the SSH flagged topics. While in projects funded under SSH flagged

topics exclusively SSH partners account for 32% of the total number of consortia partners. In

terms of countries represented, the SSH partners and coordinators in projects flagged as SSH

relevant come predominantly from a group of 5-6 Member States. This concentration is not

surprising that due to, for example, the size of the country and number of researchers in the field

some countries do have comparative advantages. However more efforts should be done to see

how this situation compares to for example programme parts such as the societal challenges.

The quality of SSH integration in 2014-15 – according to the methodology used in the reports –

is highly uneven across projects. Almost half of the projects funded under SSH flagged topics

show good or fair integration of SSH in terms of share of partners, budget allocated to them, and

variety of disciplines involved. In terms of financial contributions to signed grants, most funding

to SSH relevant projects are to be found in SC1 "Health, demographic change and well-being"

(EUR 308 million to 72 projects) followed by SC5 "Climate action, environment, resource

efficiency and raw materials" (EUR 304 million allocated to 54 projects) and SC6 "Europe in a

changing world - Inclusive, innovative and reflecting societies" (EUR 228 million to 92

projects).163


Important work has already been done since the launch of Horizon 2020. Almost half of the

projects selected for funding under SSH flagged topics show a good or fair integration of SSH in

terms of participation and budget. Call drafters in the different services of the Commission have

become more familiar with social sciences and humanities and what researchers and innovators

from these disciplines can contribute with. Many SSH scholars in Europe say that there were

more interesting interdisciplinary topics in 2016-17 than was the case in 2014-15. However,

there is still room for improvement, notably when it comes to the qualitative integration of the

SSH.

A weakness of the two first reports has been that the comparison between different programme

parts when it comes to for example the number of SSH partners - and budget going to SSH - has

not fully taken into account focus areas cutting across different societal challenges and LEITs.

As the reports show some disciplines are well represented but others are not. This is particularly

the case for the humanities and the arts. This may have different explanations. Partly it may be

163 One issue with the monitoring report to track the progress of the SSH integration across societal challenges and the LEITs is

the existence of Focus areas (FA). Topics in the FA are attributed to the WP part where the FA call is located, rather than to the

WP part funding the individual topics. This partly explains the differences between the programme parts. In the case of SC5 for

example 11% of partners and budget within SSH flagged topics go to the SSH community is quite low, but also a bit misleading

as SC5 contributed with funding to other topics for example in SC2 and SC3.

205

because the relevant research community is not fully aware of the opportunities Horizon 2020

present for these disciplines.

Box 1 Examples of SSH relevant Horizon 2020 projects

Project NANORESTART: NANOmaterials

for the REStoration of works of ART

Budget: EUR 7.9 Million ; Type of action:

IA; WP Part: LEIT; Call: Nanotechnologies

& Advanced Materials

http://www.nanorestart.eu

In BBC Science in Action:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03zzgnj

NANORESTART will develop nanomaterials to ensure long

term protection and security of modern and contemporary

cultural heritage, taking into account environmental and human

risks, feasibility and materials costs. NANORESTART brings

together specialists in chemistry, materials science, art

conservation, art restoration as well as museum curators and

cultural heritage educators. They will priorities and assess the

new materials on modern and contemporary artefacts in urgent

need of conservation, then disseminate the knowledge among

conservators on a worldwide perspective.

Project LIFEPATH: Life course pathways underlying social

differences in healthy ageing

Budget: EUR 6 Million; Type of action: RIA;

WP Part: SC1 Health; Call: Personalised

Healthcare

http://www.lifepathproject.eu/

There are significant differences in the biological pathways to

aging among individuals. In particular, healthy ageing, quality

of life and life expectancy differ significantly between

individuals of different socioeconomic groups.

To understand what determines this variation, LIFEPATH

integrates biology, biostatistics, epidemiology and epigenomic

approaches with social science approaches (sociology,

economics and public health policies).

H.6. Sustainable development, climate change and biodiversity

H.6.1. Overview

The EU has committed to collect and publish the Horizon 2020 expenditure on sustainable

development and climate change. The whole programme is accordingly indeed expected to

invest 60% of its overall budget in sustainable development and 35% in climate action.

H.6.2. Rationale

Regulation 1291/2013 establishing Horizon 2020164

requires the tracking of and reporting on

sustainability and climate-related expenditure. That regulation specifies that:

(…) it is expected that at least 60 % of the overall Horizon 2020 budget should be related to

sustainable development. It is also expected that climate-related expenditure should exceed 35 %

of the overall Horizon 2020 budget, including mutually compatible measures improving resource

efficiency. The Commission should provide information on the scale and results of support to

climate change objectives. Climate-related expenditure under Horizon 2020 should be tracked in

accordance with the methodology stated in that Communication

This is linked with the Communication of 29 June 2011 entitled 'A Budget for Europe 2020',

where the Commission committed to mainstream climate change into Union spending

programmes and to direct at least 20 % of the general budget of the Union to climate-related

objectives. The policy expectations of the co-legislator led to the mainstreaming of sustainability

and climate action in EU’s spending programmes, including Horizon 2020.

164 Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing Horizon

2020 – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) and repealing Decision No 1982/2006/EC, recital

(10).

http://www.nanorestart.eu/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03zzgnj

http://www.lifepathproject.eu/

206

It should be noted that, in addition, biodiversity-related expenditure is tracked as a result of the

Aichi Biodiversity Target 20, as adopted by the Conference of Parties to the Convention at its

12th meeting to the Convention on Biological Diversity, held on 6-17 October 2014 in the

Republic of Korea. There are no targets for biodiversity and biodiversity is not covered in this

section165

.

Politically, the tracking of sustainable development and climate change expenditure has become

even more important in the framework of implementing the UN’s Sustainable Development

Goals (SDGs)166

and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change167

.


The methodology, which builds on the so-called "Rio Markers" developed by the OECD168

, is

similar for tracking climate-related expenditure across all the EU’s expending programmes and

has been adapted for applying to sustainable development. Overall consistency of approach at

across all EU funding programmes is monitored by DG CLIMA (for climate action). The

approach for assessing sustainable development (and biodiversity) has been developed in close

collaboration with DG ENV.

The contribution of Horizon 2020 to these objectives is assessed:

For those parts of Horizon 2020 with a thematic focus (“programmable actions”), at the

level of the Work Programme's topics. Each topic is assigned a 0%, 40% or 100%

coefficient, corresponding to the relevant qualitative “Rio Marker” category, which is

then applied to the EU budget contribution to the individual projects that derive from

such topics in order to achieve a quantitative result;

For bottom-up actions (e.g. European Research Council , Marie Sklodowska-Curie), the

coefficients were assigned individually at the level of individual projects for 2014

actions. For subsequent years, proxies based on the 2014 results of the thematic

evaluation panels have been used;

For some parts of the programme (e.g. Financial Instruments, EIT, Article 185 initiatives)

reporting is done on an ad hoc basis.

The Commission services in charge of this cross-cutting issue (DG RTD, Directorate “Climate

action and resource efficiency”) prepare an annual forecast based on the indicative budgets

published in the Work Programme. Then, when all evaluations related to a Work Programme

year are concluded, the total expenditure in support of climate action and sustainable

development respectively is calculated on the basis of the actual EC budget contribution to the

projects selected. Final data for the whole of Horizon 2020 per year are therefore only available

with a considerable time lag after the publication of the calls.

The Commission organises training sessions for project officers and policy officers within the

Commission services and Executive Agencies and has drafted guidelines to facilitate the

165 The estimated funding proportion, based on the same methodology, is 4.04% between 2014 and 2016. 166 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/sustainable-development/SDGs/implementation/index_en.htm 167 http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/international/negotiations/paris_en 168 The “Rio Markers” are based on a scoring system with three values (See: OECD (2011) Handbook on the OECD-DAC

Climate Markers. Paris: OECD):

principal objective (score 100%),

significant objective (score 40%), and

not targeted (score 0).

207

assessment of both projects and Work Programme topics. Moreover, information has also been

provided to evaluators, applicants and Horizon 2020 National Contact Points (NCPs) on the

cross-cutting objectives of climate action and sustainable development.

It is worth mentioning that the data collected measure only the EU expenditure in support of

sustainable development and climate action, not the results and actual impacts of such

investments.


The table below presents the ongoing results of Horizon 2020 expenditure for sustainable

development and climate change, for 2014, 2015 and 2016. It shows that Horizon 2020 still falls

behind the expected expenditure for these objectives. However, the programme seems to have

considerably increased its financial effort in this field as regards FP7. The “Cooperation” part of

FP7 is estimated to have contributed EUR 2.4 billion to projects related to climate action,

whereas for only the first three years (2014-2016) of Horizon 2020 the equivalent figure (i.e.

LEIT and Societal challenges together) is EUR 4.2 billion.

208

Table 36 Horizon 2020 expenditure relating to sustainable development and climate change, 2014-2015

Topic Unique

Programme Part Code

Topic Unique Programme Part Description Total Max GA CC in € CC in % SD in € SD in %

EU.1.1. European Research Council (ERC) €3.892.415.850 €350.317.427 9,00% €1.206.648.914 31,00%

EU.1.2. Future and Emerging Technologies (FET) €655.431.712 €96.405.365 14,71% €103.044.580 15,72%

EU.1.3. Marie-Sklodowska-Curie Actions €2.140.167.785 €492.238.591 23,00% €1.326.904.027 62,00%

EU.1.4. Research Infrastructures €870.924.665 €112.229.571 12,89% €159.618.398 18,33%

Sum Pillar 1 €7.558.940.012 €1.051.190.954 13,91% €2.796.215.918 36,99%

EU.2.1.1. Information and Communication

Technologies

€2.600.625.571 €169.750.563 6,53% €782.674.517 30,10%

EU.2.1.2. LEIT- Nanotechnologies €364.913.028 €14.413.667 3,95% €209.014.778 57,28%

EU.2.1.3. LEIT- Advanced materials €355.548.010 €142.271.539 40,01% €248.521.298 69,90%

EU.2.1.4. LEIT- Biotechnology €145.591.736 €30.809.110 21,16% €136.064.144 93,46%

EU.2.1.5. LEIT- Advanced manufacturing and

processing

€642.456.139 €304.039.088 47,32% €498.846.983 77,65%

EU.2.1.6. LEIT- Space €344.897.303 €59.355.382 17,21% €145.797.628 42,27%

EU.2.2. Access to risk finance €7.471.875 €48.000 0,64% €1.871.430 25,05%

EU.2.3. Innovation in SMEs €63.698.824 €10.686.098 16,78% €29.436.265 46,21%

Sum Pillar 2 €4.525.202.485 €731.373.447 16,16% €2.052.227.041 45,35%

EU.3.1. Societal Challenge 1 - Health, demographic

change and wellbeing

€1.731.996.562 €51.738.591 2,99% €679.826.875 39,25%

EU.3.2. Societal Challenge 2 - Food security,

sustainable agriculture and forestry, marine

and maritime and inland water research and

the bioeconomy

€841.635.074 €421.322.698 50,06% €785.349.303 93,31%

EU.3.3. Societal Challenge 3 - Secure, clean and

efficient energy

€1.773.811.033 €1.761.420.873 99,30% €1.753.218.498 98,84%

EU.3.4. Societal Challenge 4 - Smart, green and

integrated transport

€1.380.622.074 €776.660.946 56,25% €1.125.279.867 81,51%

EU.3.5. Societal Challenge 5 - Climate action,

environment, resource efficiency and raw

materials

€912.498.191 €443.694.709 48,62% €875.308.822 95,92%

EU.3.6. Societal Challenge 6 - Europe in a changing €339.547.784 €5.737.295 1,69% €107.754.721 31,73%

209

world - inclusive, innovative and reflective

societies

EU.3.7. Societal Challenge 7 - Secure societies -

protecting freedom and security of Europe

and its citizens

€446.884.784 €43.385.004 9,71% €183.869.324 41,14%

Sum Pillar 3 €7.426.995.502

€3.503.960.116 47,18% €5.510.607.411 74,20%

EU.4.0. Spreading Excellence and Widening

Participation - Cross-theme

€1.749.999 €600.000 34,29% €1.499.999 85,71%

EU.4.a. Teaming of excellent research institutions and

low performing RDI regions

€15.841.868 €3.705.210 23,39% €5.636.748 35,58%

EU.4.b. Twinning of research institutions €67.263.941 €7.632.541 11,35% €26.905.577 40,00%

EU.4.c. ERA chairs €34.024.659 €6.836.140 20,09% €13.609.864 40,00%

EU.4.e. Supporting access to international networks

for excellent researchers and innovators who

lack sufficient involvement in European and

international networks

€89.619.171

€0 0,00% €35.847.668 40,00%

EU.5.0. Science with and for Society - Cross-theme €800.000

€0 0,00% €0 0,00%

EU.5.a. Science with and for Society - Make scientific

and technological careers attractive to young

students, and foster sustainable interaction

between schools, research institutions,

industry and civil society organisations

€30.151.169 €0 0,00% €22.806.208 75,64%

EU.5.b. Science with and for Society - Promote

gender equality in particular by supporting

structural change in the organisation of

research institutions and in the content and

design of research activities

€18.634.809 €0 0,00% €11.119.623 59,67%

EU.5.c. Science with and for Society - Integrate

society in science and innovation issues,

policies and activities in order to integrate

citizens' interests and values and to increase

€34.107.173 €0 0,00% €29.973.807 87,88%

210

the quality, relevance, social acceptability and

sustainability of research and innovation

outcomes in various fields of activity from

social innovation to areas such as

biotechnology and nanotechnology

EU.5.f. Science with and for Society - Develop the

governance for the advancement of

responsible research and innovation by all

stakeholders, which is sensitive to society

needs and demands and promote an ethics

framework for research and innovation

€21.852.379 €0 0,00% €15.814.398 72,37%

Sum Pillar 4+5 €314.045.168 €18.773.891 5,98% €163.213.891 51,97%

Sum Pillars 1 to 5: €19.825.183.167 €5.305.298.407 26,76% €10.522.264.261 53,08%

Ad-hoc part:

EMPIR €24.948.914,00 €5.377.490,60 21,55% €16.738.152,00 67,09%

art.185+187 (adhoc) € 27.800.000,00 € 0,00 0,00% € 11.120.000,00 40,00%

JRC €150.500.000,00 € 48.800.000,00 32,43% € 95.000.000,00 63,12%

EIT € 218.500.000,00 € 103.280.000,00 47,27% € 174.460.000,00 79,84%

Financial Instr. € 50.320.000,00 € 15.808.000,00 31,41% € 7.200.000,00 14,31%

Sum ad-hoc part €472.068.914,00 €173.265.490,60 36,70% €304.518.152,00 64,51%

TOTAL €20.297.252.081,11

€5.478.563.898,06 26,99% €10.826.782.412,96 53,34%

NB: Data extraction from CORDA: January 2017. Actions EU.4.a. and 5.0. are not included for 2014 and 2015; actions EU.4.b. are not included for 2014 and 2016; actions

EU.4.c. are not included for 2015 and 2016; and actions 5.b., 5.c. and 5.f. are not included for 2014 and 2015. “Ad-hoc” parts not available for 2016, and Art.185 not available

for 2015 either.

211


As shown in the previous section, the main difficulty to reach the expected investment in

sustainable development and climate change comes from the bottom-up parts of

Horizon 2020. The content of bottom-up actions is unpredictable by nature. The Commission

has no means to steer the orientation of the projects that are funded, while they represent a

very substantial part of the budget. On the contrary, figures for the Societal Challenges pillar

are well beyond the targets: 47.2% on Climate Change and 74.2% on Sustainable

Development. In addition, experience shows that the “Rio Markers” methodology is not

always suitable for assessing the contribution of fundamental research to policy objectives.

Monitoring the Horizon 2020 expenditure on sustainable development and climate action was

particularly difficult during the two first years of the programme due to IT-related issues.

These problems are still in the process of being resolved.

The alignment of the sustainable development tracking methodology with SDGs in 2015 has

facilitated implementation, because this has clarified the scope of sustainable development in

relation to globally-recognised goals. There is indeed a substantial increase of the share of the

budget devoted to sustainable development between 2014 (51.6%) and 2015 (58.4%), but this

trend is not confirmed in 2016.

One major positive aspect of tracking expenditure for sustainable development and climate

action is the mainstreaming effect. The level of awareness about this cross-cutting issue

amongst the Commission services and Executive Agencies has substantially increased since

the beginning of Horizon 2020. This not only facilitates data collection but – more

importantly – has increased the attention paid to sustainable development and climate change

objectives in drafting Horizon 2020 Work Programmes.

In November 2015 the Commission services devised an internal action plan169

in order to

remedy Horizon 2020’s sub-optimal progress towards the expected funding objectives. The

plan included the following measures:

a) Priority setting and programme phase:

Ensure that all Horizon 2020 Advisory Groups are aware of cross-cutting objectives

and expenditure targets, so that climate change and sustainable development

challenges are taken into account in their advice, where relevant.

Ensure that all Horizon 2020 Programme Committee (PC) configurations are aware of

these objectives and expenditure targets, with a view to future programming (strategic

programming and Work Programme drafting).

b) Work Programme drafting phase:

Ensure that actions which are 'horizontal' or address up-stream/enabling technologies

consistently reference embedded cross-cutting objectives, where relevant.

In the Societal Challenges/LEIT-NMBP, ensure that the expected impact on climate

change and/or the dimensions of sustainable development are more explicitly taken

169The Strategic Research and Innovation Group of Directors-General endorsed on 12 November 2015 the measures included

in the Action Plan for increasing mainstreaming of sustainable development and climate action in Horizon 2020.

212

into account by moving from a technology focus to a more systemic approach in

topics.

c) Proposal and evaluation phase:

Ensure that potential climate action/sustainable development impacts are mentioned

by applicants and can therefore be taken into account by evaluators, by adjusting

proposals templates where relevant and providing information to applicants and

evaluators.

d) Bottom-up actions:

Ensure that potential climate action/sustainable development impacts are mentioned

by applicants and can therefore be taken into account by evaluators, by adjusting

proposals templates where relevant and providing information to applicants and

evaluators

Ensure that sectors and communities particularly relevant for climate-

change/sustainable development-related R&I are aware of opportunities in bottom-up

parts of Horizon 2020.

e) Improving the tracking methodology:

Ensure consistency by adapting guidance to specific needs of services.

For ERC/MSCA bottom-up actions, reduce the burden of assessing all projects

selected for funding by focusing on those where contribution to climate action and / or

sustainable development can be expected (e.g. panel approach).

Improve the reporting on Horizon 2020 Financial Instruments' contribution to climate

action and sustainable development.

Improve technical/IT issues to ensure completeness and consistency of data.

Treat more parts of the programme as 'bottom-up' (project-level assessment) to better

quantify their contribution to climate action and sustainable development.

f) Aligning the method for sustainable development with the Sustainable Development

Goals (SDGs)

Demonstrate the contribution of Horizon 2020 to the implementation of the SDGs by

referencing them in the Work Programme.

Alignment of definition used for guidance on sustainable development with the

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), for use from 2015 calls;

g) Communicating on climate action and sustainable development in Horizon 2020

Develop an overall 'story' on climate action and sustainable development goals to

supplement the tracking results for communication purposes.

Most of these measures have already been implemented or are ongoing. The R&I Directors-

General also noted that the critical moment is the preparation of the Work Programme 2018-

2020, when Horizon 2020 would need to make up the shortfall acquired in the initial years of

Horizon 2020. The preparation of the Work Programme 2018-2020 is on-going and identifies

climate action as a strong priority.

213

H.7. Fostering the functioning and achievement of the ERA

H.7.1. Overview

It is the European Union's objective to strengthen its scientific and technological bases by

achieving a European Research Area ('ERA') in which researchers, scientific knowledge and

technology circulate freely, and by encouraging the Union to advance towards a knowledge

society and to become a more competitive and sustainable economy in respect of its industry.

Horizon 2020 should contribute to achieving the ERA, encouraging the development of

framework conditions to help European researchers to remain in or to return to Europe, attract

researchers from around the world and make Europe a more attractive destination for the best

researchers.

H.7.2. Rationale

As the earlier Framework Programmes, Horizon 2020 is the financial pillar of the Union's

actions and the key instrument to support ERA development. Funding measures are crucial to

the realisation of ERA and have important effects on coordination and governance, common

agenda setting, researcher's mobility and pooling of resources. As a leverage, Horizon 2020

should also be crucial in driving ERA reforms at national level.


Horizon 2020 provides support to Member States and the main stakeholders in implementing

the ERA reform agenda across the following key priorities:

1. More effective national research systems: using Horizon 2020's new tool 'Policy

Support Facility’ (PSF), providing tailor-made services at the request of Member

States and Associated Countries. Its support is either topic-specific (mutual learning

exercises) or country-specific (peer reviews of national R&I systems, or specific

support to a policy reform). Four Member States and one associated country have

already been reviewed, while many other requests are arising. The recurrent feedback

received on the PSF work has shown that the operational recommendations formulated

by leading experts and policy practitioners prove valuable as catalysers and to support

countries in implementing national R&I reforms. For example, the renewed Science

Agenda of Bulgaria pays particular attention to the recommendations formulated by

the dedicated PSF Peer Review.

2. Optimal transnational co-operation and competition on common research

agendas, grand challenges and infrastructures: Public to Public Partnerships P2P's

(funded through the various Societal Challenges of Horizon 2020's third pillar), the

European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures ESFRI 170

objectives, supported

by the Research Infrastructures Programme (funded by Horizon 2020's 'Excellent

Science' first pillar, € 2.488 M in regulation (EU) No 1291/2013), and the ERIC

Regulation (EU legal status for Research Infrastructures)171

;

170 http://ec.europa.eu/research/infrastructures/index_en.cfm?pg=esfri 171 ESFRI: European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures; ERIC: European Research Infrastructure Consortium.

214

3. An open labour market for researchers facilitating mobility, supporting training

and ensuring attractive careers: Euraxess network172

and Resaver173

, both funded

through Horizon 2020's 'Science with and for society' programme.

4. Gender equality and gender mainstreaming in research: it encompasses three

objectives: remove barriers and biases to women's careers in science, gender balance

in decision-making and the integration of the gender dimension in research content.

These objectives are implemented through institutional change. Horizon 2020 supports

the implementation of the ERA objectives in two ways: by integrating gender as a

cross-cutting issue and by funding institutional change in research organisations

through the 'Science with and for society' programme.

5. Optimal circulation and transfer of scientific knowledge to guarantee access to

and uptake of knowledge by all: communication and dissemination of programme

results, demonstration and pilot projects, Open Access, including to data, to become

the default regime in Horizon 2020.

6. International cooperation to ensure that Europe as a whole is able to take

maximum advantage of the best R&I opportunities in a global setting.

In order to measure the contribution of Horizon 2020 to the realisation of the ERA, the

following indicators have been identified:

Annual number of research positions advertised on EURAXESS Jobs;

Number of national research infrastructures networked (in the sense of being made

accessible to all researchers in Europe and beyond through Union support);

Number and share of Open access articles published in peer-reviewed journals;

Number of projects that make scientific data accessible and re-usable and number of

scientific datasets made accessible and re-usable174

;

Number of Multiannual Implementation Plans adopted by Joint Programming

Initiatives.


The implementation of ERA Priority 1 ("More effective national research systems") relies

much more on national reforms than on the Framework Programme. The analysis carried out

in the context of the 2016 ERA Progress Report shows that "most countries have made

progress in the field of research excellence and almost all of them have adopted national

strategies for research and innovation. Several Member States are redefining their National

R&I strategies further based on a broad concept of innovation, encompassing education,

research and innovation to achieve greater efficiencies". A first inventory of the ERA NAPs

shows a more holistic strategic approach to R&I will be strengthened in the future. A

necessary condition, however, is to ensure more stable funding mechanisms of government

investment."

172 Pan-European initiative providing access to a complete range of information and support services to researchers wishing

to pursue their research careers in Europe or stay connected to it. 173 Retirement Savings Vehicle for European Research Institutions, state of the art retirement savings product that will enable

mobile and non-mobile employees to remain affiliated to the same pension vehicle when moving between different countries

and changing jobs. 174 The data on number of scientific datasets made accessible is collected in the reporting template of Horizon 2020 projects.

No data on this is yet available

215

Regarding ERA Priority 2A, the Joint Programming Initiatives (JPIs) stem from the Joint

Programming Process, one of the building blocks of the European Research Area (ERA)

launched in December 2008. In this structured and strategic process, Member States agree, on

a voluntary basis and in a partnership approach, on common visions and they implement

Strategic Research Agendas (SRA) together. Ten Joint Programming Initiatives (JPIs) have

been launched to date and all have adopted Multiannual Implementation Plans. In addition, in

the period 2014-2016, 48 ERA-NET Cofund actions were selected under Horizon 2020 for a

total budget in excess of EUR 1300 million. The total EU contribution to the ERA-NET

Cofunds will be around of EUR 380 million.

Preliminary results indicate that the number of national research infrastructures (ERA Priority

2B) networked thanks to Horizon 2020 support was 363 by the end of 2015. The target by the

end of Horizon 2020 is 900.

As a good example of achievement obtained in the context of ERA priority 3, 289.981 job

vacancies have been advertised on EURAXESS until February 2017.

Horizon 2020 supports the implementation of the ERA priory 4's objectives in two ways: by

integrating gender as a cross-cutting issue and by funding institutional change in research

organisations through the 'Science with and for society' programme.

Regarding the ERA priority 5, aiming at "Optimal circulation, access to and transfer of

scientific knowledge" a major challenge is to broadly implement Open Access - i.e. free

online access to and use of publicly-funded scientific publications and data - given the uneven

state of advancement of Member State policies in this area. The Commission is leading by

example by making open access to peer-reviewed scientific publications resulting from

Horizon 2020 mandatory and by running a aflexible pilot in Horizon 2020 ('ORD pilot'). In

the Work Programmes 2014-2016, this ORD pilot concerned selected areas of Horizon 2020.

However, in the Communication 'a European Cloud Initiative – Building a competitive data

and knowledge economy in Europe' the Commission committed itself to "make open research

data the default option, while ensuring opt-outs, for all projects of the Horizon 2020

programme" as of 2017. As of the revised version of the Work Programme 2017, the ORD

pilot has therefore been extended to all thematic areas of the Horizon 2020 Research and

Innovation Programme. While open access to research data thereby becomes applicable by

default in Horizon 2020, the Commission also recognises that there are good reasons to keep

some or even all research data generated in a project closed. It has, therefore, provided robust

opt-out possibilities at any stage..A further new element in Horizon 2020 is the use of Data

Management Plans (DMPs) detailing what data the project will generate, whether and how it

will be exploited or made accessible for verification and re-use, and how it will be curated and

preserved.

For the uptake of the pilot from 2014 to 2016 (when its scope was more restricted), figures

show an opt-out rate of 35% in the core areas of the pilot. In other words 65% of projects in

the core areas participate in the ORD pilot. The most important reasons for opt-outs were (i)

IPR concerns (ii) projects which do not expect to generate data or (iii) over privacy concerns.

Outside the core areas, 14% of projects make use of the voluntary opt-in possibility. Since

Horizon 2020 projects have yet to produce a significant number of scientific publications or

datasets, no specific quantitative data on the indicators related to scientific publications can

yet be provided.

216


Horizon 2020's instruments that directly support some of the ERA priorities (especially PSF,

P2Ps and the 'Science with and for society' programme) provide satisfactory results. Other

parts of the Framework Programme provide more diffuse results, with an impact difficult to

assess.

The article 32 of grant agreement contracts within Horizon 2020 (Recruitment and working

conditions for researchers) is also a strong catalyst regarding the implementation of the

principles set out in the Commission Recommendation on the European Charter for

Researchers and the Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers, in particular

regarding working conditions, transparent recruitment processes based on merit, and career

development.

H.8. Framework conditions in support of the flagship initiative "Innovation

Union"

H.8.1. Overview

The Innovation Union was launched in 2010 as a flagship initiative of the Europe 2020

strategy to build on Europe's strengths and address its weaknesses with respect to innovation.

It aimed to tackle both the supply and demand side elements of the innovation eco-system: the

public sector, businesses, academia and finance. The activity was evaluated in 2015 (State of

the Innovation Union 2015)175

to take stock of the progress and set out next steps under six

building blocks:

Strengthening the knowledge base and reducing fragmentation;

Getting good ideas to market;

Maximising social and territorial cohesion;

Pooling forces to achieve breakthroughs: European Innovation Partnerships;

Leveraging our policies externally; and

Making it happen.

The overall conclusion was: 'Six years after the Innovation Union was launched as one of the

pillars of the Europe 2020 growth strategy, the evaluation shows that impressive progress has

been made in numerous fields. Great progress has been achieved in making Europe a more

innovative continent since the launch of the Innovation Union in 2010. Nevertheless, the

world has evolved since then and new elements need to be taken into account so as to better

tackle the challenge of innovation in Europe'. Innovation has been embedded in initiatives as

the Digital Single Market, the Energy Union, the Capital Markets Union, the work on ERA,

the European Social Fund, European Structural and Investments Funds and Horizon 2020.

H.8.1. Rationale

In 2010, innovation was recognised as essential to make Europe more competitive in times of

budgetary restraints and increased global competition. It marked a step forward. Since then,

innovation has been regarded as a mainstream policy to be embedded in policy areas

wherever relevant.

175http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/state-of-the-union/2015/state_of_the_innovation_union_report_2015.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/state-of-the-union/2015/state_of_the_innovation_union_report_2015.pdf

217


Horizon 2020 contributes to the framework conditions for innovation by its focus on both

research and innovation. Some specific elements are the innovation actions, innovation

through public procurement, inducement prizes for innovative solutions for societal

challenges, the access for innovation projects to risk finance.


The Innovation Union initiative succeeded in building momentum around innovation,

mobilising stakeholders and mainstreaming innovation in key European, national and regional

policies. The evaluation in 2015 provided an overview. There is still uncertainty about some

of the legislative actions mentioned in the Innovation Union, regarding the Unitary Patent.

Twelve Member States have ratified the Agreement on the Unified Patent Court. When

ratified by the United Kingdom and Germany the Unitary Patent package will enter into force.

The commitments that require greater involvement of Member States appear to have

progressed to a lesser extent, either because of the long legislative processes (e.g. directives

ratification), or because they are less binding in nature. The European Innovation Scoreboard

(latest issue 2016)176

keeps track of indicators for innovation.


The European Innovation Scoreboard 2016 shows that since 2008, the EU continues to be less

innovative than South Korea, the United States and Japan, but performance differences with

the last two countries have become smaller. However, South Korea has managed to improve

its performance at a much faster pace than the EU over the last eight years. The EU still has a

considerable performance lead over many other countries, including China. However, China

is catching up, with a performance growth rate five times that of the EU. It is necessary to

continue paying attention to Europe's innovation performance. Attention is also needed for

innovation at sectorial level. Fit-for-purpose regulatory frameworks are essential for EU

industry; they allow specific sectors to benefit from opportunities in the internal and global

markets. Moreover, a pro-innovation regulatory climate attracts international investment. A

Commission Staff Working Document177

evaluated how supportive to innovation the EU

regulatory framework is at sectorial-level. It highlighted the need for forward-looking

regulatory approaches, innovation-friendly and innovation targeting regulatory policies.

H.9. Contributing to the Digital Agenda for Europe

H.9.1. Overview

The Digital Agenda for Europe, one of seven EU2020 flagship initiatives, has established

'digital' as a policy brand in its own right, by aspiring to make every European digital. The

EU’s Digital Single Market Strategy, launched in May 2015, builds on these foundations,

aiming to remove regulatory barriers and move from 28 national markets to a single one, to

unlock online opportunities and make the EU's single market fit for the digital age.

176 http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/18062 177 (SWD 2015) Better regulations for innovation driven investment at EU level

218

H.9.2. Rationale

ICT R&I is key to the realisation of the Digital Single Market. ICT R&I has dedicated topics

in all Horizon 2020 pillars. EU investments in ICT R&I are expected to contribute to the

Digital Single Market in various aspects, addressed in 2014 and 2015 calls:

A multidisciplinary approach to lay the foundations for radically new technological

possibilities. EU support allows exploring novel and visionary ideas (FET Open), fostering

transformative research in most promising thematic domains (FET Proactive) and tackling

grand scientific and technological challenges by large-scale, science driven research

initiatives (FET Flagships).

e-Infrastructures to make every European researcher digital, increasing creativity and

efficiency of research and bridging the divide between developed and less developed

regions.

Investments in several domains to support the digital transformation of industry and enable

progress and growth of many other sectors. These include for example Photonics,

Robotics, Internet of Things (IoT), Future Internet, micro- and nano-electronic

technologies, electronic components and systems, Big Data, 5G, HPC technologies.

Actions in these areas also support Public Private Partnerships which link up European

industry (large players and SMEs), researchers, academia and the European Commission to

cooperate in research and innovation and define strategic roadmaps in key sectors.

Investments in investigating ICT contribution to the industrial-scale roll-out of multi-

disciplinary solutions to address societal challenges. For example ICT Research and

innovation helps build a digital society caring about individuals by supporting active and

healthy ageing, assistive robotics, eHealth for personalised care, security and privacy, and

services for inclusiveness.

ICTs have an enabling and pervasive nature, which permeates countless aspects of the

economy and personal lives, impacting areas as varied as banking, retail, energy,

transportation, education, publishing, media, health or social interactions. Given its enabling

and pervasive nature, the presence of ICT goes beyond the above dedicated topics, and is

expected to span into the activities of the ERC, MSCA grant-holders and JTIs.


The cross-cutting indicator aims at tracking the ICT-related activities and the related spending

at the EU level. This should provide a more accurate estimate of how Horizon 2020

contributes to the realisation of a Digital Europe. This indicator relates to the expenditure in

ICT related research and innovation activities, meaning ICT and ICT-enabled new products,

services or processes (within and outside the ICT sector). This is computed as the share of EU

financial contribution that is ICT Research & Innovation related in Horizon 2020 (EUR),

based on the "RIO markers" methodology178

.

178 Projects for which ICT R&I is the principal (primary) objective are marked with 100%, indicating that 100% of the

project budget contributes to ICT R&I. Projects for which ICT R&I is a significant, but not predominant objective are

marked with 40%, indicating that 40% of the project budget contributes to ICT R&I.

219


The Digital Agenda indicator allows tracking spending related to digital R&I throughout the

Programme. Preliminary estimates for the calls up to January 2017 show that about 30% of

the EC financial contribution under Horizon 2020 (about EUR 5.3 billion) went to actions

promoting to some extent research and innovation in information and communication

technologies179

, thus showing the enabling nature of such technologies, e.g. in helping address

the Societal Challenges..

Table 37 EC Contribution through Horizon 2020 projects to the Digital Agenda

Programme Part EC contribution to Digital

Agenda (overall) (EUR million)

Share of EC contribution to Digital

Agenda (only flagged projects)

LEIT-ICT 2 594.6 99.8%

FET 447.6 68.4%

RI 492.0 56.5%

SC6 119.3 34.9%

ARF 1.0 34.2%

SC7 152.9 34.2%

Total 5 330.0 30.0%

SC1 303.3 18.4%

SEWP 21.3 18.2%

SC4 228.3 16.7%

LEIT-NMBP 225.5 16.2%

SC5 122.6 13.4%

FTI 20.1 12.5%

MSCA 202.4 10.4%

ERC 172.7 7.7%

SC3 133.9 7.7%

LEIT-SPACE 26.6 7.5%

SC2 57.2 6.9%

SWAFS 7.3 6.7%

Innovation in SMEs 1.4 3.6%

Source: CORDA data, extraction 1 January 2017. Data provided by Work Programme Drafters during WP

preparation (topic level) and by Project Officers during Grant Agreement Preparation (bottom-up), calculated

on the basis of the RIO methodology

This figure shows the presence of ICT R&I throughout the programme: by design, all the

projects within LEIT ICT contribute to the indicator, and about 68% of FET projects.

Research Infrastructures contribute to ICT R&I with 57% of the budget. In the Societal

Challenges, contribution to ICT R&I is at 35% of the total budget of SC6 and 34% of SC7,

although the highest number of projects and EC contribution to ICT are found in SC1 (EUR

303 million, representing 18% of the total budget of SC1). In terms of budget, projects in SC4

also contribute significantly to ICT (EUR 228 million, representing 17% of the total budget of

SC4). These figures reflect budget allocation to ICT topics within the SC1, SC6, SC7, but go

beyond it, in particular for SC4, 2 and 3: they show contributions from individual projects that

have ICT as primary objective, or as significant objective thus indicating the enabling nature

of ICT. Concerning LEIT, the contributions from NMBP are at 17%, whereas they are very

179 This excludes the 1,271 signed grants where information is missing, and which represent 11% of the total signed grants,

out of which 77% are supported under the Excellent Science priority, otherwise – if included - the share would be 26%.

220

low for LEIT Space (at 7% only). A high number of projects contributing to ICT is also found

within MSCA grants: 603 (19% of total signed grants), representing 10% of the total budget.

Figure 53 Projects for which ICT R&I is a primary or a significant objective, by

programme part

Source; CORDA data, extraction 1 January 2017


The Digital Agenda indicator allows tracking spending related to digital R&I throughout the

Programme. The preliminary data up to January 2017 show that about EUR 5.3 billion or

slightly less than one third of the overall EC funding are contributing to ICT R&I, thus

providing an important input to the progress towards the Digital Single Market objectives.

This budget goes beyond what allocated through dedicated topics to ICT and signals the

cross-cutting nature of digital technologies and their societal relevance.

Estimates from the Digital Agenda indicator should be treated with caution. The application

of the OECD 'Rio Markers' methodology to bottom-up and thematic research funding still

requires further optimisation and fine-tuning. In addition, due to the reporting issues in the

first year of Horizon 2020, it is not possible to draw comparisons on the evolution of the

indicator. This needs to be monitored in the years to come.

H.10. Widening participation across the Union in research and innovation and

helping to close the research and innovation divide in Europe

H.10.1. Overview

Despite efforts at national and European level, disparities in terms of research and innovation

performance persist among EU Member States. Especially in advanced economies like

Europe's, scaling up and improving investment in research and innovation is an essential

221

pathway to economic growth and competitiveness. Increasing the R&I performance of low

performing Member States and integrating their unexploited potential into the European

Research Area and single market will maximise the impact of R&I investment, for Europe as

a whole and for each Member State concerned.

Widening Participation is therefore a cross-cutting issue in Horizon 2020 mentioned under

Article 14 of the Framework Programme regulation180

: 'Widening participation across the

Union in research and innovation and helping to close the research and innovation divide in

Europe'.

H.10.2. Rationale

According to an analysis by the European Commission181

, some of the main causes of low

participation to past EU Framework Programmes of certain countries were:

Insufficient R&D investments in those countries;

Lack of synergies between certain countries’ national research systems and EU

research;

Lagging system learning effects and access to existing networks;

Differential wage levels between countries;

Insufficient and ineffective information, communication advice and training.

Additionally, the High Level Expert Group on the Ex-post evaluation of FP7 concurred that

"some of most important reasons for the comparably lower share and lower success rates of

the EU‐13 organisations are information and language barriers; lack of professional contacts

and research networks; lack of leading Universities and Research organisations leaders in

proposal matters; limited understanding of FP7; weak training in preparing successful

proposals; insufficient motivation to participate in FP7; lack of practice in project

management; little experience in cross‐country cooperation; generally low focus on R&D in

policy and in business; few options for exploitation of research results at the national level."

As it can be seen in Table 39 the need/problem to address was the low participation of certain

countries in Framework Programmes with EU-13 participation in FP7 being only 4.2% of the

total EU contribution. Despite a small increase to 4.4% in Horizon 2020 the situation of low

participation is still valid today, although participation is in line with the share of the EU-

13 in total EU R&D expenditure (GERD), as is shown in table 40.

Table 38 EU-13- EU-15 budget share in overall programme (FP7 & Horizon 2020)

FP7 Horizon 2020

EU-13 EU-15 EU-13 EU-15

EU Funding (% of total contribution) 4.2% 85.2% 4.4% 88.6%

Source: For FP7: Data from SWD FP7 Ex-Post Evaluation, for Horizon 2020: European Commission, CORDA data, cut-off

date 1 January 2017

180 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:347:0104:0173:EN:PDF 181 Commission analysis of September 2011, at the request of the Polish Presidency, see

http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST%2014728%202011%20INIT This has been confirmed by other

studies, analysis and public discussions, for instance the FP7 MIRRIS project http://www.mirris.eu/.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:347:0104:0173:EN:PDF

http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST%2014728%202011%20INIT

http://www.mirris.eu/

222

Looking at the weight of the science and innovation systems of the EU-13 and EU-15 (table

40) within the overall European R&I system across a number of dimensions, leads to the

conclusion that the role of the EU-13 in the EU's R&I system is in 2015 still limited, and

overall slightly below its weight in total GDP. The exceptions to this are the number of

scientific publications and the number of researchers, where the weight of the EU-13 is above

its GDP share. A second conclusion that can be drawn is that the EU-13's role has developed

considerably over the past 10 years. The weight of the EU-13 has been growing most

considerably for the expenditure indicators and somewhat less for the patenting and

publication indicators. As regards the number of researchers, the weight has been more or less

stagnant, yet it continues to be well above the investment and outcome shares, which may

point to remaining inefficiencies in the research and innovation systems of these countries.

Table 39 Share of the EU-13 and EU-15 in the overall EU-28 performance for key

science and innovation indicators

Indicator % share of EU-13 % share of EU-15

2005 2015 2005 2015

Distribution of R&D expenditure

Gross domestic expenditure on R&D (GERD) 2.6 4.5 97.4 95.5

Business enterprise expenditure on R&D (BERD) 1.9 3.6 98.1 96.4

Public expenditure on R&D (GOVERD plus HERD) 3.9 6.1 96.1 93.9

Distribution of scientific publications

Total number of scientific publications 8.8 11.9 91.2 88.1

Top 10% highly cited publications 4.2 5.8 95.8 94.2*

Distribution of Researchers

Total number of researchers 12.5 13.1 87.5 86.9

Distribution of PCT patent applications

PCT patent applications 1.7 2.7 98.3 97.3

Distribution of GDP (in current euro)

GDP 6.2 8.0 93.8 92.0

*2014 Note: *The latest year available is 2014.

Source: European Commission, DG RTD.Data: Eurostat, OECD, CWTS based on Web of Science database


In order to increase the excellence of the scientific output, the international connectivity,

capacity to attract funding, as well as the reform process of EU-13, a different range of

measures have been put in place within Horizon 2020 to help spread excellence and widen

participation.

Horizon 2020's Specific Programme 'Spreading Excellence and Widening Participation'

(SEWP), with its specific and targeted measures, aims to 'fully exploit the potential of

Europe's talent pool and to ensure that the benefits of an innovation-led economy are both

maximised and widely distributed across the Union in accordance with the principle of

excellence'. It has a total budget of EUR 816 million (proposed by the Commission to be

223

increased by EUR 110 million following the mid-term review/revision of the Multiannual

Financial Framework (MFF) of September 2016182

).

Teaming, Twinning and ERA Chairs are the key measures falling under SEWP. In addition,

other initiatives falling under the SEWP pillar of Horizon 2020 that provide indirect support

to low performing countries are COST183

(promoting networking and connecting pockets of

excellence) the Policy Support Facility184

(PSF) (providing on-demand advice to policy

makers on national R&I systems) and the Widening National Contact Points (NCPs)185

through the NCP WIDE_NET186

project that provides support to SEWP calls applicants. The

rationale and achievement of this part of Horizon 2020 are detailed in the relevant part of the

Thematic annex.

Furthermore, during the negotiations of Horizon 2020, Member States paid special attention

to low participation. The emphasis was put on the differences in remuneration of

participants in the same FP projects. A special provision was therefore introduced to allow

FP projects to pay researchers a "bonus" (i.e. an additional salary of up to EUR 8000 per

year). However, following concerns of some Member States (e.g. Romania) that this

provision was not helping to address the issue, the Commission very recently agreed to revise

the model grant agreement (formal adoption in February). According to the new approach, all

elements that are paid under national programmes are considered basic salary, while only

additional bonuses for working in international programmes are considered as additional

remuneration (with the 8000 Euro capping).

In addition, widening participation is also recognised and addressed as a cross-cutting issue

by other parts of Horizon 2020 (Societal Challenges/LEIT/ERC/EIT). This takes different

forms, going from an in-depth analysis of the situation, to specific actions such as

Coordination and Support Actions to establishing Memoranda of Understanding with relevant

stakeholders and multipliers or again through targeted awareness raising events. This is done

without putting into question the objective and principle of excellence that is at the heart of

the Framework Programme.

Box 2 Examples of initiatives to widen participation across Horizon 2020

The European Research Council (ERC) set up in 2013, in preparation to Horizon 2020, a Working

Group on Widening European Participation187

with a mission to capitalize on the full potential for

frontier research in Europe without departing from the ERC's principle of excellence. Its main task

was to facilitate an all European dialogue, exchange of experiences, networking and learning about

good practices in supporting the very best researchers to successfully apply to the ERC.

In 2015 the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) took targeted action to widen

the geographical coverage of its Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) and further integrate

the knowledge triangle outside the KIC framework. To this end, the EIT decided to mainstream the

EIT Regional Innovation Scheme (RIS) actions into KICs activities and earmarked a dedicated budget

for 2016 activities. Activities undertaken as part of the EIT RIS aim at ensuring the flow of both

knowledge and people between KICs and selected partnerships with a view to enhancing the regional

182 http://ec.europa.eu/budget/mff/lib/COM-2016-603/COM-2016-603_en.pdf 183 http://www.cost.eu/ 184 https://rio.jrc.ec.europa.eu/en 185 National Contact Points are national structures established and financed by governments of the 28 EU MS and the states

associated to the framework programme. NCPs give personalised support on the spot and in applicants' own languages. 186 http://www.ncpwidenet.eu/ 187 https://erc.europa.eu/about-erc/organisation-and-working-groups/working-groups/working-group-widening-participation

http://www.cost.eu/

https://rio.jrc.ec.europa.eu/en

http://www.ncpwidenet.eu/

224

innovation capacity by fostering the integration of the Knowledge Triangle. The RIS initiative is

targeted at countries which have no participating organisations into the existing KICs and belong to

the ‘moderate and modest innovators’ groups identified in the 2015 Innovation Union Scoreboard.

In the area of Health the RegHealth-RI project188

was completed in 2016 that aimed at analysing,

discussing and improving the performance of health research & innovation across the different low

performing EU regions and countries.

In Research Infrastructures, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed on 25 October 2016

between CERIC-ERIC (Central European ERIC) and SHARE-ERIC that aims to both boost regional

cooperation and collaboration between these infrastructures in different fields (active ageing, transport

and connectivity, education, research and innovation) and will support scientists from low R&I

performing countries to access different research infrastructures.

In the area of Transport a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) has been signed in June 2016 by

the Transport NCPs network and the Enterprise Europe Network transport sector groups; Under the

MoU, an action plan is currently in preparation – among other issues, one of the key aspects is

organising targeted support activities for EU-13 SMEs for the last Horizon 2020 Transport calls,

including the SME instrument. The action plan covers information sharing, trainings, joint activities

that aim to raise awareness of the available opportunities and support EU13 SMEs participation to

Horizon 2020 programme – increased access to consortia, for instance networking researchers and

SMEs, support for proposal building, including high quality business plans and improving business

readiness of ideas.

In the Bioeconomy field a Letter of Intent (LoI) was signed189

in 2016 between the Bio-based

Industries Joint Undertaking, its private member, Bio-based Industries Consortium, and 8 Polish

regions for cooperation and awareness raising in the regions (in synergies with Regional Operational

programmes, Smart Specialisation Strategies and to related and available EU structural funds managed

at regional level). Also, a Lodz Bioregions Declaration190

was signed with the aim to establish a

Central and Eastern European Bioregions Forum for the further development of the bioeconomy at

local and regional levels, and to help establish synergies in the implementation of ESIF, including

research, education and training, transfer of knowledge and other activities.- Following a call in

Societal Challenge 2 in 2016 on the regional dimension of bio-based industries, BioREG CSA

project was selected titled "Absorbing the Potential of Wood Waste in EU Regions and Industrial Bio-

based Ecosystems". The project will create a Stakeholder platform of regional and local organisations

(regional authorities or mandated agencies or clusters) interested to develop ambitious strategies in

support of bio-based products/industries. Building on the "model demonstrator regions", successful

case studies shall be shared and transposed to other interested European regions, among which also

EU13 with the aim to widen the participation of countries developing regional bio-based strategies.

In Industrial technologies191

, a series of targeted awareness raising events started in 2016 and will

continue on a more systematic basis in 2017. A first event was organised in Romania in June 2016 on

the topic of smart specialisation in nanotechnology and advanced materials.

Complementing the above actions under Horizon 2020, also strengthened synergies of

Horizon 2020 with the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) and with the

Instrument of Pre-Accession (IPA II) for Associated Countries are a way to increase the

impact of investments in low R&I performing countries.

188 http://rhing-net.eu/reghealth-ri/ 189 European Bioeconomy conference, Lodz/Poland, 6-7/10/2016; http://www.bbi-europe.eu/news/bbi-ju-signs-letter-intent-

develop-bioeconomy-partnerships-central-and-eastern-regions-0 190 http://bioeconomy.lodzkie.pl/wp-content/uploads/dekl_en.pdf 191 Nanotechnologies, Advanced Materials, Biotechnology and Advanced Manufacturing and Processing

http://rhing-net.eu/reghealth-ri/

225

The European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) include in fact support for

research infrastructures and research centres; promoting business R&I, technological and

applied research and key enabling technologies, as well as networking and development of

clusters. An important example of synergies between ESIF and Horizon 2020 is the ELI -

Extreme Light Infrastructure (distributed), located in Czech Republic, Hungary and Romania.

ELI192

will be the first and the world's biggest international laser infrastructure fully dedicated

to external users with an investment volume exceeding EUR 850 million. It is the first ESFRI

project to be fully implemented in the newer EU Member States and pioneers an innovative

funding model, pooling FP7 – Horizon 2020 funds for the preparatory phase, EU Structural

Funds (ERDF) and EIB loans for the construction phase.

The Seal of Excellence is another practical manifestation of the development of synergies

between Horizon 2020 and ESIF. It is a quality label granted to proposals submitted under

Horizon 2020, which succeeded in the highly competitive evaluation but could not be funded

under the available budget. The Seal allows regions, Member States or any other funding

sources (including ESIF) to identify and support these high quality proposals.

While both Horizon 2020 and ESIF aim to maximizing synergies, and there are good

examples as demonstrated above, challenges remain in order to achieve such synergies easily

and systematically on the ground. Overcoming these difficulties would enable especially

Widening countries to better enhance their R&I capacities and enter successfully in the

competitive funding arena.

A dedicated service of the European Commission in DG RTD has an overall coordinating role

regarding widening participation in general, being responsible for the synergies between

Horizon 2020 and ESIF as well as for the implementation of the SEWP specific objective.

Furthermore, since 2014, it chairs the RTD-ESIF contact group that is responsible to follow

the implementation of synergies between Horizon 2020 and ESIF across the different DG

RTD Directorates. In late 2016 it was decided that the mandate of the group will be extended

to cover the issue of widening participation in Horizon 2020.

One of the new tasks of the RTD-ESIF contact group would be to put in place a more

structured monitoring system (both quantitative and qualitative) across the thematic

directorates of DG RTD and other DGs and to keep track of the different widening-related

measures being adopted and their effectiveness.


Achievements in SEWP

Widening actions led to a high level of participation in all calls under SEWP so far.193

Especially the Teaming action has attracted a lot of attention at political level, with submitted

proposals either coordinated or supported financially by national or regional authorities. In

several countries (e.g. Poland), national competitions were held by relevant Ministries in

order to identify the best proposals for facing the intense competition at the European level –

a first in the history of Framework Programmes. Equally, because of the link (Teaming in

particular) with Smart Specialisation Strategies for Research and Innovation, countries took

192 https://eli-laser.eu/ 193 169, 88 and 553 proposals submitted respectively under the 2014-15 Teaming, ERA Chairs and Twinning calls.

https://eli-laser.eu/

226

the initiative to link the actions with their Operational Programmes in ESIF (e.g. Poland,

Czech Republic).

Under Horizon 2020 so far, 31 Teaming Phase 1, 10 Teaming Phase 2, 67 Twinning and 14

ERA Chairs projects have been funded. Out of a total of EUR 254 million allocated, 73% of

the funding went to partners from low R&I performing countries. In terms of the

achievements of the individual projects of Teaming, Twinning and ERA Chairs, these are not

yet measurable as all projects have started at the earliest in mid-2015 and are still running.

More details can be found under the SEWP thematic annex of the Staff Working Document to

the Horizon 2020 interim evaluation.

Achievements in other parts of Horizon 2020

For the different initiatives undertaken to widen participation across Horizon 2020 mentioned

in Box 2 above, the actions have successfully managed to raise awareness and bring EU-13

stakeholders closer to Horizon 2020, through networking, information sharing and exchange

of best practices. The table below presents the relevant data per country group for FP7 and

Horizon 2020.

Table 41 Key data on participation per country group, FP7 and Horizon 2020

Horizon 2020

FP7, EU-13 EU-13 EU-15 EU-28 Overall

Share of EC contribution 4.2% 4.4% 88.5% 92.9% 100%

Average EC Contribution per year (EUR million) 272 302 6,015 6,318 6,800

Annual EC contribution per inhabitant (in EUR) 3 3 15 12 n.a

Annual EC Contribution per researcher FTE (in EUR) 1,321 1,271 3,808 3,475 n.a

EC Contribution per EUR million spent on R&D (public and private, GERD) N/A 67,524 63,277 63,429 n.a

Share of participations 7.9% 8.5% 82.6% 91.1% 100%

Share of SME participation 9.3% 21.8% 21.2% 21.3% 20.7%

Share of newcomers participations N/A 31.2% 19.7% 20.8% 21.1%

Share of private sector participation 28.7% 31.1% 34.2% 33.9% 33.2%

Share of unique participants 10.9% 11.7% 76.9% 88.6% 100%

Success rate of applications 18.0% 11.1% 14.4% 14.0% 14.1%

Share of Projects Coordinators in Signed Grants 9.7% 5.1% 87.6% 92.7% 100%

Source: European Commission, cut-off data 1 January 2017, and HLEG report on FP7 ex-post evaluation

In spite of the bulk of the newcomers having origin in EU-15, EU-13 has a significantly

larger (31.2%) share of participations of newcomers compared to EU-15 (19.7%).

Some programme parts register however a better EU-13 participation than others, and

better than in FP7, but still quite low. The picture is therefore diversified and a causality link

between measures in place and participation/success rates cannot be defined. Participants

from EU-13 Member States represent 8.5% of the participations in Horizon 2020 and

receive 4.4% of the overall funding, which is slightly more than under FP7 (respectively

7.9% and 4.2%). Overall the EC contribution to participants from EU-13 countries increased

from approximately EUR 270 million per year in FP7 to EUR 300 million per year under

Horizon 2020.

Again, presenting the Member States in terms of EU-13 and EU-15 hides the fact that within

each group performance is far from homogenous. The analysis at country level performed in

227

the table 42 clearly shows that some EU-13 countries are in spite of overall lower Horizon

2020 contribution outperforming the EU-15 average. E.g. Slovenia, Cyprus and Estonia

outperform the EU-15 averages, taking into account the size of the population, the number of

researchers and national investments in R&D.

Furthermore taking national investments in R&D into account, EU-13 Member States on

average outperform EU-15 Member States by 6.7%. The variations in Horizon 2020

funding to a large extent can thus be explained by differences in national investments in R&I.

Overall applications from EU-15 Member States (14.4%) have a higher success rate than

applications from EU-13 (11.6%). Noticeably, EU-13 countries record a higher share of

SME participation that under FP7 (from 18.2% to 21.8%) which is above the performance

of EU-15 countries. The private sector participation also increased compared to FP7 (from

28.7% to 31.1%). There are however big differences between countries as regards the

shares of SME participation - with Hungary, Estonia and Cyprus having the largest share of

around 30% of SME participation.

Table 42 Horizon 2020 contribution normalised by inhabitant, researcher and R&I

investment nationally

H2020

contribution

(EUR million)

CountryPer inhabitant

Per

researcher

FTE

Per EUR

million spend

on R&D

Malta 16 36 19,094 230,759

Lithuania 21 7 2,585 54,264

Latvia 22 11 5,978 141,825

Bulgaria 30 4 2,095 68,791

Croatia 32 8 5,042 85,644

Slovakia 50 9 3,492 54,245

Luxembourg 54 94 18,892 80,767

Cyprus 62 73 71,860 768,657

Estonia 66 50 15,767 217,990

Romania 77 4 4,422 98,703

Hungary 109 11 4,298 72,008

Slovenia 109 53 13,848 128,243

Czech Republic 129 12 3,393 39,751

Poland 185 5 1,908 42,743

Portugal 343 33 8,663 149,794

Ireland 356 75 16,610 121,962

Finland 430 78 11,470 70,879

Greece 435 40 12,396 258,158

Denmark 497 87 11,887 61,706

Austria 576 66 13,609 55,170

Sweden 704 71 10,249 48,267

Belgium 965 85 17,518 95,806

Netherlands 1,566 92 20,337 114,857

Italy 1,664 27 13,786 75,991

Spain 1,813 39 14,806 137,627

France 2,097 31 7,812 43,110

United Kingdom 3,083 47 10,654 70,251

Germany 3,464 42 9,690 39,735

EU-28 18,953 37 10,426 63,429

EU-13 907 9 3,812 67,524

EU-15 18,046 44 11,423 63,277

Source: European Commission, CORDA data, cut-off date 1 January 2017

Horizon 2020 contribution

228


The EU funding from Horizon 2020 to EU-13 countries has a slow increasing trend (4.2% in

FP7 to 4.4% in Horizon 2020)194

. It is to be noted that some programme parts register

however a better EU-13 participation that others, and better than in FP7, but still quite low.

The picture is therefore diversified and a causality link between measures in place and

participation/success rates cannot be defined. Presenting the Member States in terms of

EU-13 and EU-15 hides the fact that within each group performance is far from

homogenous. The analysis at country level clearly shows that some EU-13 countries are in

spite of overall lower Horizon 2020 contribution outperforming the EU-15 average. E.g.

Slovenia, Cyprus and Estonia outperform the EU-15 averages, taking into account the size of

the population, the number of researchers and national investments in R&D.

Raising participation of low performing countries in Horizon 2020 is a complex and multi-

faceted issue. The measures currently in place have a long term impact and do not result in an

immediate increase of the participation rates of low performing countries.

Widening participation is a shared responsibility, which needs to be addressed both nationally

and at EU level in a complementary way whilst respecting the principles and role of each

level and instrument used. Horizon 2020 can stimulate reforms and leverage higher and better

R&I investments across Europe, but always maintaining R&I excellence as the cornerstone

objective and evaluation criterion, if Europe wants to be able to compete worldwide and

deploy measures that mutually benefit all parties involved.

H.11. International networks for excellent researchers and innovators such as

European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST)

H.11.1. Overview

COST (Cooperation in Science and Technology) is a European intergovernmental framework

to support the networking of nationally funded research activities. It provides means to jointly

develop ideas and new initiatives across all fields in science and technology, including social

sciences and humanities, through pan-European networking of nationally funded research.

COST receives funding from Horizon 2020 and complements the activities of the programme

itself, in particular by serving as a bridge to the less connected and less supported research

communities of the COST Member States195

.

COST is an integral part of European Research Area (ERA) and contributes to the delivery of

the Europe 2020 agenda and the Innovation Union goals. It aims to increase participation of

researchers from Widening countries196

in European networks, to support the involvement of

early stage researchers and to ensure a gender balance in research. By involving institutions

from Near Neighbour Countries (i.e. the non-COST members Albania, Algeria, Armenia,

Azerbaijan, Belarus, Egypt, Georgia, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Moldova, Morocco, the

Palestinian Authority, Russia, Syria, Tunisia and Ukraine) and International Partner

194 Source: European Commission, CORDA data, cut-off date 1 January 2017 195 COST has currently 36 Member Countries (28 EU Member States, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Former Yugoslav

Republic of Macedonia, Iceland, Montenegro, Norway, Serbia, Switzerland and Turkey) and one Cooperating State (Israel). 196Countries eligible for funding under SEWP (EU-15 + Luxembourg + Portugal, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,

Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey)

229

Countries, COST supports European neighbourhood policy and contributes to the "Open to

the World" objective of Commissioner Moedas197

.

H.11.1. Rationale

COST was set up as the first intergovernmental framework to promote cooperation among

researchers across Europe in 1971, at a time when there was no such research collaboration at

the European level. Since then, COST has become one of the widest frameworks for research

and technology cooperation. For this reason, COST is one of the cross-cutting issues in

Horizon 2020 as specified in Regulation 1291/2013:

“{…} linkages and interfaces shall be implemented across and within the priorities of

Horizon 2020. Particular attention shall be paid in this respect to {…} international

networks for excellent researchers and innovators such as European Cooperation in

Science and Technology (COST). {…} The cross-cutting issues will be supported by a

number of horizontal support measures, including support to {…} administration and

coordination of international networks for excellent researchers and innovators, such as

COST.”

COST is an independent organisation. Its objective is not to fund research itself, but to fund

research networks among R&I stakeholders (academia, public institutions, SME/industry,

NGOs, European/International organisations) through a set of tools such as short term

scientific missions, workshops, conferences, training schools, dissemination activities. These

networks, i.e. COST Actions, are financed via cascade funding based on a competitive

evaluation and selection of proposals. COST organises open calls for the submission of

proposals with collection dates every 6 to 9 months. COST Actions are open to researchers

from universities, public private institutions, NGOs, industry and SMEs regardless of their

scientific disciplines. The average size of a COST action is 50 participants with an annual

budget of EUR 130 000 and a total duration of 4 years.

As the very nature of research environment has become more international and challenge-

oriented over the years, today such networks which facilitate trans-disciplinary collaboration

among researchers and different stakeholders are crucial. Furthermore, COST is facing a large

degree of oversubscription, e.g. 516 proposals were received for the last proposal deadline

date with less than 40 to be funded. Even though oversubscription is considered usual for

programmes with a bottom-up profile, these numbers show the high interest which COST has

created among researchers.

As set out in the Horizon 2020 Work Programme 2016-2017 'Spreading Excellence and

Widening Participation'198

, COST is an integral part of the Innovation Union and the

European Research Area (ERA) and contributes to the delivery of the Europe 2020 agenda

and the Innovation Union commitments199

, notably on business academia collaboration

(commitment 2), mobility and trans-national collaboration (commitment 4), SME

involvement (commitment 7) and knowledge transfer (commitment 21) through efficient

implementation of the COST networking. COST strategic objectives (see table below) are

197https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/open-innovation-open-science-open-world-vision-europe 198 Horizon 2020 Work Programme 2016-2017 'Spreading Excellence and Widening Participation'

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/wp/2016_2017/main/h2020-wp1617-sewp_en.pdf 199 Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation Union, SEC(2010) 1161

https://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/innovation-union-communication_en.pdf

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/open-innovation-open-science-open-world-vision-europe

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/wp/2016_2017/main/h2020-wp1617-sewp_en.pdf

https://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/innovation-union-communication_en.pdf

230

closely aligned with the priorities of ERA and the objectives of the Widening pillar under

Horizon 2020. Through its "Excellence and Inclusiveness Policy", COST aims to increase

participation of researchers from Widening countries, to support the involvement of early

stage researchers and to ensure a gender-balance.

By their very nature, a large proportion of COST actions are multidisciplinary and focus on

cutting-edge research problems. There are currently about 300 ongoing COST networking

actions covering a wide range of scientific fields. Furthermore, in its recently published

strategy paper, COST has made clear that it aims to respond to future 'megatrends' in the

science system such as digitisation, cross disciplinary research, pooling of resources,

changing relations between science and society.200

Table 40 Objectives of COST

1. Joining research efforts and developing common S&T programmes through coordination of

nationally funded research activities led by pan-European, high quality, collaborative S&T networks

2. Capacity building by providing networking and leadership opportunities for new talents and

thereby contributing to strengthen and build up excellent S&T communities

3. Addressing Societal Questions by promoting trans-disciplinary, new approaches and topics and

identifying early warning signals of unforeseen societal problems aiming at contributing to Societal

Challenges

4. Strengthening COST Inclusiveness Policy by fostering better access and integration of less

research intensive countries’ researchers to the knowledge hubs of the European Research Area with

the aim of contributing to the Widening Pillar of Horizon 2020


The implementation of COST as a programme in support of the networking of nationally

funded research activities is under the direct governance of the Committee of Senior Officials

(CSO), the supreme governance body of COST. Each of the 36 Member States is represented

by a delegate in the CSO. The CSO is chaired by a President and a Vice-President, and is

supported by Executive Body (EB), various sub-committees and ad-hoc working groups.

Furthermore, the day-to-day programme implementation falls under the immediate

responsibility of the COST Association which is an international non-profit organisation

under Belgian law.

COST Actions are funded by the European Commission, mainly DG RTD with a total of

EUR 300 million provided equally by two different programme lines (Societal Challenge 6

'Europe in a changing world - inclusive, innovative and reflective Societies'; and 'Spreading

Excellence and Widening Participation'). This financial support is based on Specific Grant

Agreements (SGAs) between the Commission and the COST Association. Even though

COST receives EU funding from two different work programmes under Horizon 2020, the

overall budget is used in an integrated manner. In line with Horizon 2020 Spreading

Excellence and Widening Participation's objectives, COST has developed an inclusiveness

policy, which commits the programme to spend at least 50% of its budget on actions which

benefit research communities in Widening countries.

200 COST, Inspiring researchers, strengthening Europe - Vision and strategic goals for COST, COST 094/16, 1

July 2016, Brussels.

231

The Commission has only observer status in the Committee of Senior Officials as well as in

the Executive Board. DG Research and Innovation Unit B5 'Spreading Excellence and

Widening Participation' is in charge of the policy and operational management of the Grant

Agreement of COST. In order to explore potential synergies and complementarities between

COST and research and innovation projects under Horizon 2020, a network of correspondents

in 8 thematic directorates including DG CONNECT was established in early 2016. This also

shows in practice how COST functions as a cross-cutting issue in Horizon 2020.

In order to track the progress in implementation, two kinds of internal assessments are done

by the European Commission. The first one is the assessment of periodic and final reports of

SGAs. Secondly, the European Commission carries out midterm and final review of the

COST activities with the help of independent experts. The midterm review will take place in

2017. The COST Association also monitors COST activities via Impact Analysis Studies and

Customer Satisfaction Survey201

. In this way, the COST Association evaluates COST

activities in terms of the overall outcome and impact achieved and assesses stakeholders’

satisfaction with COST activities. The Scientific Committee (SC), composed of independent,

high level scientists from all COST Member States, is responsible for the overall supervision

and quality control of procedures related to the submission, evaluation and selection of

proposals, and the monitoring and final assessment of COST actions. In addition, for each

individual COST networking action, an action rapporteur – i.e. external expert - is assigned in

order to assess the outputs and impacts of the Action. Last but not least, every five years, the

COST CSO President reports to the COST Ministerial Conference on progress achieved by

COST.


At the start of Horizon 2020 in 2014, the COST Association, as an independent, non-profit

organisation, took over the implementation of the COST actions from the European Science

Foundation (ESF). The COST Scientific Committee was renewed. Three open calls were

already published and evaluated and 66 excellent proposals were selected and approved. In

December 2016, according to the information received from the COST Association, there are

about 300 networking actions run by more than 45000 researchers.

International Cooperation continued to be implemented on the basis of mutual benefit, as

defined by COST and confirmed by the candidate international cooperation partner on the

participation of researchers, engineers and scholars from outside Europe. Montenegro

formally became a COST Member in May 2015. There are currently 276 Near Neighbour

Countries participations in COST Actions from 16 countries and 546 International Partner

Countries participations in COST Actions from 38 countries.

The expected impacts of COST are grouped into four objectives: “Joining research efforts and

developing common S&T programmes”, “Capacity building”, “Addressing Societal

Questions” and “Strengthening COST Inclusiveness Policy”. Key Performance Indicators,

KPIs, developed in order to monitor the progress towards achieving the objectives and their

progress are given in the table below.

201 See: http://www.cost.eu/media/newsroom/2014_IA_CSS

http://www.cost.eu/media/newsroom/2014_IA_CSS

232

Table 41 Status of the Key Performance Indicators of COST (Status by April 2016202

)

Objective KPI Target Current

result

Remarks

1. Joining research efforts

and developing common

S&T programmes through

coordination of nationally

funded research activities

led by pan-European, high

quality, collaborative S&T

networks

a) Average increase in size of

the COST Action network

(Openness indicator)

on average 30%

increase at the

end of the Action

50% Above the

target

b) Average number of

reimbursed participants per

Action per year

around 100

reimbursed

participants per

Action per year

80 Slightly

below

target

2. Capacity building by

providing networking and

leadership opportunities for

new talents and thereby

contributing to strengthen

and build up excellent S&T

communities

a) Share of Early Career

Investigators (ECI) among

reimbursed participants in

COST Actions

20% to 50% 36% Within the

target

b) Share of Early Career

Investigators acting as Action

Chairs or Vice-Chairs

10% to 30% Chair: 13%

Vice-

Chair: 10%

Within the

target

3. Addressing Societal

Questions by promoting

trans-disciplinary, new

approaches and topics and

identifying early warning

signals of unforeseen

societal problems aiming at

contributing to Societal

Challenges

a) Number of trans-

disciplinary Actions

Increasing trend 83% Within the

target

b) Share of Actions in the area

of different societal challenges

Between 20%

and 50%

56% Above the

target

c) Share of Actions involving

business enterprises

10 to 50 % of all

Actions

59% Above the

target

d) Share of Actions involving

government organisations

5% to 20 % of all

Actions

23% Above the

target

4. Strengthening COST

Inclusiveness Policy by

fostering better access and

integration of less research

intensive countries’

researchers to the knowledge

hubs of the European

Research Area with the aim

of contributing to the

Widening Pillar of Horizon

2020

a) Share of Actions’ S&T

budget benefiting

Inclusiveness Target

Countries203

50% 32% Below the

target

b) Share of reimbursed

researchers204

from


Countries

between 35% to

50%

32% Slightly

below

target

c) Average share of


Countries per Action205

between 40% and

50%

43% Within the

target

Source: COST (status 30/4/2016, periodic report SGA 68146)

With reference to the inclusiveness policy, COST has adopted a list of Inclusiveness Target

Countries (ITC), which corresponds to the Horizon 2020 Widening countries, and has

committed to spend 50% of its budget at the benefit of the research communities in those

countries. Such objective however has not been fully attained. By the end of 2016, the

fulfilment of the target was 40%. A specific task force was launched in July 2016 with

participation of European Commission DG RTD Unit B5 to boost participation and fully fulfil

the KPI. The Task Force came up with a package of measures for Widening countries

including: 1) minimum condition for the inclusion of those countries already at proposal stage

202 This table is established once a year with periodical report due end of April. 203 It was the most conservative calculation used when providing the data. The conservative way meant exclusively the direct

reimbursement to ITC participants at COST Actions' activities. It does not consider strategic, communication efforts and

indirect capacity building effects. 204 Researchers here cover all participants receiving a reimbursement. 205 The KPI looks into the proportion of COST Member Countries within the MC members of an Action.

233

(based on a fixed ratio); 2) the obligation to fill at least one key position of the management

committee (chair, vice chair, working group leaders); 3) a new conference grant for young

researchers, 4) the development of a mentoring scheme for improving payment modalities.

This package of measures was adopted by the CSO in November 2016 for implementation in

2017. Regarding the participation of early career investigators in COST actions, the KPI was

fully attained (36% versus minimum requirement of 20%).

Societal impacts are mainly achieved indirectly at the level of the individual networking

actions. 83% of these actions are trans-disciplinary. 56% of these actions are addressing all

societal challenges tackled by Horizon 2020 and 59% include business entities and %23

government organisations. Further to that, there is an active participation of SMEs in 59% of

all networking actions.

H.11.4. Lessons learnt/Areas for Improvement

When evaluating the potential of COST to contribute to the Innovation Union there is still

some potential for improvement. As a generic broad KPI the participation of business

enterprises has already attained the level of 59 % but could still be strengthened. In addition

COST could elaborate more on its contribution to some concrete commitments of the

Innovation Union.

With reference to the overall Widening expenditure indicator, the 50% spending target has not

yet been fully attained. In order to boost participation, the set of measures proposed by the

task force on Widening and inclusiveness need to be further implemented.

COST networking actions are in general relatively specialized which might impact the

visibility and policy impact of COST actions. Finally, as stated in the COST new strategy

paper, which looks at some 'megatrends' in the science system, innovative networking tools

incorporating new digital technologies need to be developed.

H.12. International cooperation - Cooperation with third countries

H.12.1. Overview

The Horizon 2020 Regulation states that international cooperation shall be promoted and

integrated into the programme to achieve, in particular, the objectives of strengthening the

Union's excellence and attractiveness in research and innovation as well as its economic and

industrial competitiveness, effectively tackling common societal challenges, and supporting

the Union's external and development policy objectives. Targeted international cooperation

actions shall be implemented on the basis of common priorities and mutual benefits, taking

account of scientific and technological capabilities, market opportunities and expected impact.

H.12.2. Rationale

Although certain fields of research have been broadly international since several decades, in

recent years the worldwide landscape of research and innovation (R&I) has undergone

substantial transformations, shifting towards an increasingly globalised and multipolar

network of science and technology actors. In this context, the European Union's political

priority to remain a major global actor through an R&I system that is open to the world

requires cooperating more closely with international partner countries.

234

International cooperation strengthens the Union's R&I excellence, attractiveness and

competitiveness by enabling European R&I access to the global state of the art knowledge,

research test beds and innovation advances in fields where Europe is less specialised. It is

attracting the best minds to perform R&I in Europe, facilitating European researchers to

pursue an international career and giving access to European researchers to systems and

resources that are not found in Europe. Indeed, bibliographic studies indicate a relatively

higher scientific impact of researchers with international experience while international co-

publications tend to be more often cited206

.

The need for international cooperation in order to strengthen the Union's competitiveness in

R&I is more pressing now than ever as more R&I is performed outside Europe207

. There has

been a significant drop in the EU's share of the world's gross expenditures in R&D, from

around one fourth in 2000 to around one fifth in 2013, in the output of scientific publications,

from around one third in 2000 to slightly more than one fourth in 2013 and in patent

applications, from more than one third in 2000 to less than one fourth in 2013208

.

Global challenges call for global mobilisation of resources and coordination of activities. For

example, international cooperation allows research on treatments for infectious diseases or on

climate change to be performed more efficiently and to maximize impact. Furthermore, an

increasing number of research fields require infrastructures which are so sophisticated or

costly that they exceed the capabilities of a single country, thereby leading to major

multinational collaborations.

The objectives of international cooperation under Horizon 2020 apply in different ways

depending on the international partner country or region, while areas for cooperation are

identified on the basis of R&I capacities, market access opportunities, the contribution to

international commitments, and the R&I framework conditions in place. For EEA, EFTA and

EU enlargement countries, the focus is on fostering integration into the European Research

Area. For European Neighbourhood Policy countries, the objective is to support a Common

Knowledge and Innovation Space, including mobility for academics and capacity building.

For industrialised countries and emerging economies, the focus is on increasing

competitiveness, joint tackling of global challenges and increasing participation in

international value chains. For developing countries, the emphasis is on promoting their

sustainable development and addressing global societal challenges.


The objectives for international cooperation are implemented by opening up Horizon 2020 to

researchers and innovators from across the world and supporting targeted activities on the

basis of priority areas for cooperation with international partner countries and regions. The

political ambition in Horizon 2020 is to maintain international cooperation activities at least at

the level of FP7.

Participation of third-country entities in Horizon 2020 can lead to different types and levels of

cooperation. Entities from associated countries (AC) enjoy the highest level of cooperation as

206 See Fig. I-2-37 and I-2-44 of "Science, Research and Innovation Performance of the EU", European Commission (2016). 207 See e.g. "Science, Research and Innovation Performance of the EU", European Commission (2016), or "Study on EU

positioning: An analysis of the international positioning of the EU using revealed comparative advantages and the control of

key technologies", Fraunhofer, IDEA Consult, DG RTD A.6 (2016). 208 See Fig. I-2-5, I-3-1 and I-3-15 of "Science, Research and Innovation Performance of the EU", European Commission

(2016).

235

they can participate and be funded under the same rules that apply for EU Member States.

International cooperation with third-country209

entities is primarily achieved through their

participation in grant agreements of collaborative210

projects of Horizon 2020, where entities

from EU or associated countries and third-countries submit together a proposal under a

Horizon 2020 call. Depending on the eligibility for funding of the third-country participants,

they can either receive funds from Horizon 2020 or not211

.

Furthermore, in projects of “joint” and “coordinated” calls, Horizon 2020 and third-country

R&I programmes coordinate calls under which EU and/or AC participants collaborate with

third-country participants, each side being funded by the respective programme. In projects

under “twinning” calls, cooperation is achieved mainly through the co-organisation of

activities such as workshops, exchange of results etc.

Several calls of the Horizon 2020 work programmes contribute to the objectives of various

multilateral initiatives tackling societal challenges with the participation of the EC, national

and regional funding agencies. Even if participants of projects under these calls do not

necessarily directly collaborate with third-country entities, they contribute to the shared scope

and priorities of the multilateral initiative.

International cooperation through promoting R&I staff mobility at an international level is

achieved by participation of third-countries in projects under the Marie Skłodowska Curie

actions (MSCA).

Funding bodies of EU or AC and third-countries can also join to issue calls under joint

programming such as the ERA-NETs and the Article 185 initiatives. Depending on the

specific rules for participation, third-country participants can then collaborate in projects

funded under these calls.

The international dimension of Horizon 2020 is also reflected by the number of ERC grant

holders and researchers funded under MSCA grants that are non EU nationals, since Horizon

2020 is open to participation and funding of people of any nationality.

While Horizon 2020 is generally open to third-countries, certain topics of the Horizon 2020

Work Programmes (WP) have been flagged as particularly relevant for international

cooperation. This helps identify the extent of WP topics that have a strong international

dimension and encourage international cooperation, but also as a service provided in the

Horizon 2020 participant portal in order to better guide potential applicants.

A set of key indicators have been identified to measure achievements towards international

cooperation within Horizon 2020. They relate to the share of third-country participations in

Horizon 2020 and the EU financial contribution attributed to them, as well as the share of

budget of topics in the WPs that are flagged as particularly relevant for international

cooperation. Further indicators that are more connected to research results and the

international impact of Horizon 2020 (such as Horizon 2020-funded international co-

209 Here referring to all countries that are neither EU Member States nor associated to Horizon 2020. 210 As "collaborative" we refer to projects under non bottom-up, internationally open calls of Horizon 2020, i.e. all parts

except for the ERC, Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions, the SME instrument and the "Access to Risk Finance". 211 The list of countries that are automatically eligible of funding from Horizon 2020 can be found in Appendix A of the

Horizon 2020 Main Work Programmes.

236

publications and co-patents) will become more trustworthy in the coming years, as more

projects deliver results.

The EU international cooperation policy also includes improving the framework conditions

that underpin international cooperation. Such conditions may refer to reciprocity in accessing

public funding, research data or infrastructures, to standards for research integrity, or to the

ability to fund a single Horizon 2020 project from third country sources in addition to the EU

funding. Today, nine industrialised countries and emerging economies provide support for

funding the participation of their researchers in Horizon 2020212

.

Another area of action under the EU international cooperation policy deals with exploiting

synergies between Horizon 2020 actions and activities of other EU programmes and policies.

For instance, synergies are exploited with the 'EU Macro-regional Strategy for the Danube

Region' and the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance, aiming to increase the effectiveness

of investments into R&I, enhance the regional research and education capacity and develop

smart specialisation strategies for R&I. Complementarities have also been developed with the

programme for S&T Innovation and capacity building in African, Caribbean and Pacific

countries of the European Development Fund, the European Neighbourhood Instrument, the

R&I pillar of the Cross Border Cooperation Programme for the southern Mediterranean

countries, and the African Union Research Grants.

H.12.4. Achievements

Key indicators

The main indicators for monitoring the implementation of international participation in

Horizon 2020 are i) the share of third-country participations213

in collaborative projects; ii) the

share of EU contribution to participants from third-countries and iii) the share of budget of

topics in the WP that are flagged as particularly relevant for international cooperation. Since

the rules for participation are different for countries that are either associated or non-

associated (third countries) to Horizon 2020, different figures are computed for each of these

cases214

.

As of January 2017, the share of third-country participation in collaborative projects is 2.5%

in Horizon 2020215

as compared to 4.3% in FP7216

(see Table below). The same share is 6.7%

for associated countries including Switzerland and 4.3% excluding Switzerland.

212 Australia, China, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Korea and regions of Brazil and Canada. 213 For sake of brevity, in the following we will occasionally refer to “entities from third countries” as “third countries” (e.g.

“participation of South Africa in Horizon 2020” is meant to abridge “participation of entities from South Africa in Horizon

2020”). 214 Following the International Agreement of 5 December 2014 associating Switzerland to parts of Horizon 2020,

Switzerland has an associated country status for actions under these parts, while it remains a non-associated country for the

rest. For this reason, the values of the indicators for associated countries are presented both with and without Switzerland. 215 2.5% (2.6%) including (excluding) projects under Joint Technology Initiatives. 216 4.3% (4.6%) for the same countries as in Horizon 2020 and including (excluding) projects under Joint Technology

Initiatives (JTI). 4.9% for third countries non-associated to FP7, excluding JTIs.

237

Table 42 Share of non-EU participations in the number of total participations to

Horizon 2020, for signed contracts in collaborative projects

Indicators Horizon 2020 FP7 Baseline* Target

Third countries (excluding Switzerland) 2.5% 4.3% 4.3%

Associated countries (including Switzerland) 6.7% N/A N/A

Associated countries (excluding Switzerland) 4.3% N/A N/A

Source: CORDA; Signed grants cut-off date by 1/1/2017 *FP7 figures are presented for the same countries as for Horizon 2020.

Regarding the EU contribution to third-country participants in collaborative projects, as

shown in the table below, it has dropped from 1.8% in FP7 to 0.8% in Horizon 2020.

Table 43 Share of EU financial contribution to non-EU participants in total Horizon

2020 EU contribution, for signed contracts in collaborative projects

Indicators Horizon 2020 FP7 Baseline*

Third countries (excluding Switzerland) 0.8% 1.8%

Associated countries (including Switzerland) 4.8% N/A

Associated countries (excluding Switzerland) 4.1% N/A

Source: CORDA; Signed grants cut-off date by 1/1/2017 *FP7 figures are presented for the same countries as for Horizon 2020.

Four significant reasons can be identified behind the drop of third-country participations and

EU contribution217

: 1) the change in the eligibility conditions for funding of BRICM218

countries in Horizon 2020 with respect to FP7, 2) the effects of mainstreaming international

cooperation in Horizon 2020 as opposed to the dedicated “Activities of International

Cooperation” theme of FP7, 3) the absence of a funding scheme that mandates international

participation in Horizon 2020 as opposed to the 'Specific International Cooperation Actions'

(SICA) scheme of FP7 and 4) to a lesser extent, because of a significant drop in the EU

neighbourhood, supposedly due to recent conflicts and socio-political developments in the

region.

On the other hand, the share of budget allocated to topics of the WPs that are flagged as

particularly relevant for international cooperation219

has increased, from 12% in FP7 to

around 23% in Horizon 2020. As shown in the table below, a total of EUR 3 175.8 million are

allocated by the EC to international cooperation topics, with the biggest share coming from

LEIT-ICT, Research Infrastructures, SC4 "Smart, green and integrated transport", SC1

"Health, demographic change and well-being" and SC2 "Food security, sustainable

agriculture and forestry, marine, maritime and inland water research and the bioeconomy" and

SC4 "Smart, green and integrated transport".

217 For more details, see "Performance Analysis of International Participation in Horizon 2020", October 2016, European

Commission, DG RTD-C. 218 Brazil, Russia, India, China and Mexico 219 These are topics that mention at least one third country or region or encourage third-country entities to apply.

238

Table 44 Percentage of budget of topics in the Horizon 2020 Work Programme 2014-

2015 that are particularly relevant for international cooperation

Programme part* Allocated EU

budget to

International

Cooperation topics

(EUR million)

Share of EC

contribution to

International

Cooperation

topics

FET - Future and Emerging Technologies 94.5 19.8%

RI - Research Infrastructures 551.0 63.3%

LEIT-ICT 585.0 23.8%

LEIT-NMBP 267.6 18.8%

LEIT-SPACE 31.2 9.3%

SC1 - Health, demographic change and well-being 364.5 23.4%

SC2 - Food security, sustainable agriculture and forestry,

marine, maritime and inland water research and the bioeconomy

287.0 37.6%

SC3 - Secure, clean and efficient energy 179.8 11.0%

SC4 - Smart, green and integrated transports 365.5 29.0%

SC5 - Climate action, environment, resource efficiency and raw

materials

223.3 26.0%

SC6 - Europe in a changing world - Inclusive, innovative and

reflecting societies

69.2 21.6%

SC7 - Secure societies - Protecting freedom and security of

Europe and its citizens

77.0 18.3%

SEWP - Spreading excellence and widening participation 0.1 0.1%

SWAFS - Science with and for society 14.1 13.0%

Euratom 63.9 12.4%

Total Horizon 2020 3 175.8 23.3%

Source: CORDA data; extraction on 1/1/2017 *Bottom-up/not internationally open parts (FTI, ERC, MSCA, "Access to Risk Finance" and "Innovation in SMEs") not shown.

In the following, a more detailed analysis of the participation of the third and associated

countries as well as international participation in the different programme parts, types of

action and how they compare to FP7220

is provided.

Performance of entities from associated or third countries

Regarding countries that are not automatically eligible for funding from Horizon 2020, the

most active up to January 2017 in terms of participations are the USA, China, Canada, Brazil

and Australia as compared to USA, Russia, China, Brazil and Australia in FP7. The change in

the eligibility conditions for automatic funding in Horizon 2020 has affected the BRICM

countries apart from China and to a lesser extent, Brazil. In particular, the participation share

of the non-BRICM third countries has dropped by around 40% from FP7 to Horizon 2020. A

drop is also registered for China (around 25%) Brazil (30%), Mexico (40%), Russia (75%)

and India with a drop of close to 85%.

The participation share of third countries that are automatically eligible for funding from

Horizon 2020 has dropped by around 30% with respect to FP7. The most active country in

Horizon 2020 is South Africa, followed by Argentina, Chile, Kenya and Egypt, as compared

to FP7, where the most active countries were South Africa, Argentina, Morocco, Egypt and

Chile. The overall drop is partly attributed to the absence in Horizon 2020 of the FP7 SICA

220 Results not emanating from the tables included are taken from "Performance Analysis of International Participation in

Horizon 2020", October 2016, RTD-C.

239

scheme and the "Activities of International Cooperation" theme. The first accounted for

around 25% and the second for around 11% of the participations from developing counties in

FP7, more than three times the corresponding 7% and 3% share for industrialised countries.

Therefore, their absence in Horizon 2020 affected more the developing than the industrialised

countries. Also, the participation share of developing countries from the Southern

Neighbourhood region has fallen by almost 55% in Horizon 2020 with respect to FP7 while

for countries outside this region the fall is around 25%. It is reasonable to conclude that the

recent socio-political turmoil in some of these countries has affected their participation in the

Framework Programme.

Table 45 Participations and EU financial contribution to signed grants of collaborative

projects of the 10 most active third countries

Third countries Number of participations in signed grants

EU contribution to participants of signed grants (EUR million)

Horizon 2020 (up

to Jan '17)

FP7 Horizon 2020 (up to

Jan '17)

FP7

United States 116 509 19.2 79.0

China 81 334 2.2 32.8

South Africa 75 233 16.5 33.1

Canada 50 198 3.1 11.2

Brazil 50 217 7.6 31.3

Australia 45 199 3.7 12.0

Russian Federation

43 520 1.7 69.5

Kenya 27 72 4.7 12.1

South Korea 26 67 0.2 1.94

Mexico 24 118 0.0 17.4

Third countries* 897 4 721 108.4 575.8

All countries 36 149 111 316 13 621 32 833

Source: CORDA, extraction date 1/1/2017 Note: Data for Beneficiaries only (third-parties are not included). *FP7 figures are presented for the same countries as for Horizon 2020.

The participation of third countries in MSCA and ERC grants is presented in the following

table221

. Participations in MSCA account for more than half of all participations of third

countries in Horizon 2020. The drop in the share of participations from FP7 to Horizon 2020

(10.4% in Horizon 2020 compared to 11.8% in FP7) is not as significant as that among

projects in the rest of the programme. As for participations in the SME instrument, there are

two exceptional participations with EU contribution of EUR 0.37 million.

221 For MSCA actions, both beneficiaries and "partner organisation" participants are included.

240

Table 46 Participations and EU financial contribution to MSCA and ERC signed grants

of the 10 most active third countries

Third countries MSCA Third countries

ERC

Participations* EU contribution

(MEUR)

Participations EU contribution

(MEUR)

United States 468 0.25 United States 8 1.51

China 96 0.00 Brazil 2 1.07

Australia 78 0.26 New Zealand 2 0.33

Canada 75 0.00 Chile 1 0.51

Argentina 57 0.20 South Korea 1 0.49

Brazil 47 0.00 Colombia 1 0.42

Japan 45 0.05 Australia 1 0.16

Chile 40 0.21 Singapore 1 0.15

South Africa 31 0.00 Guatemala 1 0.09

Russian Federation

27 0.00 Canada 1 0.06

Third countries 1241 0.98 Third countries 22 4.90

All countries 11 892 2 097 All countries 2 711 3 871

Source: CORDA, extraction date 1/1/2017 *Participations include beneficiaries and partner-organizations

Including collaborative, MSCA, ERC and SME instrument actions, the EU contribution to

participants from third countries is EUR 114.65 million, which amounts to 0.56% of the EUR

20 400 million total EU contribution.

Regarding associated countries, the most active in terms of participations are Switzerland,

Norway and Israel, followed by Turkey and Serbia. There is a slight drop in participation

shares from FP7 to Horizon 2020 for the most active countries, with the exception of Serbia

whose share has increased by around 50%. If Switzerland - that was not associated to all parts

of Horizon 2020 until 2017 - is excluded, the share of EU financial contribution to

beneficiaries has remained stable: 4.1% in Horizon 2020 compared to 4.0% in FP7. The

biggest recipient of EU contribution for collaborative projects is Norway while more than half

of the EU contribution to Israel is given via ERC grants. The change from 2014 to 2015 is

generally positive both for participations and EU contribution shares.

Table 47 Participations and EU financial contribution to signed grants of collaborative

projects of associated countries

Associated countries Participations from Associated Countries

EU contribution to participants in signed grants (EUR million)

Horizon 2020 (up

to Jan '17)


Jan '17)

FP7

Switzerland 889 3 327 91.2 1 140.2

Norway 632 1 980 299.4 608.2

Israel 288 1 093 126.1 381.7

Turkey 249 888 58.1 148.0

Serbia 125 264 24.0 59.5

Iceland 73 224 31.7 53.0

241

Associated countries Participations from Associated Countries

EU contribution to participants in signed grants (EUR million)

Horizon 2020 (up

to Jan '17)


Jan '17)

FP7

Ukraine 52 201 5.7 23.0

FYROM 28 83 2.0 10.9

Moldova 21 41 1.7 3.1

Tunisia 15 39 1.9 2.7

Bosnia & Herzegovina 14 103 1.6 12.1

Georgia 14 60 0.7 4.6

Montenegro 10 37 0.2 3.8

Armenia 9 40 0.3 3.1

Faroe Islands 8 37 1.4 2.1

Albania 7 14 2.2 2.4

Associated countries* 2434 8431 648.3 2 458.2

All countries 36 149 111 316 13 621 32 833

Source: Corda, extraction date 1/1/2017 Note: Data for Beneficiaries only (third-parties are not included). *FP7 figures are presented for the same countries as for Horizon 2020.

Entities from associated countries enjoy the same level of participation in Horizon 2020 as

Member States. Therefore, they are eligible to participate in mono-beneficiary calls such as

the ERC and those under the SME instrument, as well as in calls that are not open to third

countries such as the "Access to Risk Finance" part. The table below shows the participations

and EU contribution to associated countries for ERC, MSCA and the SME Instrument actions.

Almost half of participations to MSCA are from Switzerland, while Israel is first in ERC

grants and grants under the SME Instrument. Also, there is one (Swiss) participation in a

signed grant under "Access to Risk Finance", with no EU contribution.

Table 48 Participations of and EU financial contribution to associated countries for

signed grants of MSCA, ERC and the SME Instrument

Countries MSCA ERC SME Instrument

Partici-

pations*

EU contribu-

tion (MEUR)

Partici-

pations

EU contribu-

tion (MEUR)

Partici-

pations

EU contribu-

tion (MEUR)

Switzerland 327 61.6 162 264.6 0 0.00

Israel 110 16.2 145 187.9 66 28.0

Norway 105 25.2 22 38.3 47 13.6

Turkey 67 6.8 14 14.3 15 4.6

Serbia 38 1.7 1 1.7 5 1.8

Ukraine 36 2.9 0 0.00 2 1.3

Iceland 20 3.7 2 0.00 13 2.6

Tunisia 10 0.41 0 0.00 0 0.00

Bos. & Herz. 8 0.35 0 0.00 0 0.00

Armenia 6 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

Moldova 5 0.46 0 0.00 0 0.00

Georgia 4 0.52 0 0.00 0 0.00

242

Countries MSCA ERC SME Instrument

Partici-

pations*

EU contribu-

tion (MEUR)

Partici-

pations

EU contribu-

tion (MEUR)

Partici-

pations

EU contribu-

tion (MEUR)

Albania 3 0.08 0 0.00 0 0.00

Montenegro 3 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

FYROM 2 0.13 0 0.00 0 0.00

Faroe Islands 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.05

Associated countries*

687 120.1 346 509.0 149 51.9

All countries 11 892 2 097 2 711 3 871 2333 781.7

Source: CORDA, extraction date 1/1/2017 *Participations include beneficiaries and partner-organizations

Including collaborative, MSCA, ERC and SME instrument actions, the EU contribution to

participants from associated countries is EUR 1329.3 million, which is 6.5% of the EUR 20

400 million total EU contribution.

Performance of the different programme parts and types of action

MSCA have the highest number and share of third-country participations. The other parts that

perform above average are Societal Challenges 6 – "Europe in a changing World – Inclusive,

innovative and reflecting societies", 5 – "Climate action, environment, resource efficiency and

raw materials" and 2 – "Food security, sustainable agriculture and forestry, marine, maritime

and inland water research and the bioeconomy". The parts with the least international

participation are the Future and Emerging Technologies, LEIT-ICT, LEIT-NMBP

(Nanotechnology – Materials – Biotechnology – Primary metals) as well as Societal

Challenges 3 – "Secure, clean and efficient energy", 4 – "Smart, green and integrated

transports" and 7 – "Secure societies – Protecting freedom and security of Europe and its

citizens" . In terms of EU contribution to third-country participants, the highest and lowest

performing parts are the same as before, except for Research Infrastructures and the Societal

Challenge 1 – "Health, demographic change and well-being", with a relatively high EU

contribution to third country participants, but also the MSCA, where the EU contribution is

relatively low as there are only exceptional third-country beneficiaries222

.

Apart from the MSCA mentioned above, other types of action with significant international

participation are the Coordination and Support Actions (CSA) and the Research and

Innovation Actions (RIA). In terms of EU contribution, third-country beneficiaries receive EU

funds mostly under the RIA, followed by the CSA (although with a higher share among

recipients).

The strong international performance of the MSCA is expected since all its four main actions

support the international mobility of researchers, in particular MSCA-RISE and the Global

Fellowships of the MSCA-IF schemes. On the other hand, the SME instrument has only two

and the ERC eighteen exceptional participations since these mono-beneficiary types of action

are, up to exceptions, restricted to entities from EU or associated countries.

222 In the MSCA-RISE program, third-country partner-organisation participants from countries that are eligible for automatic

funding can receive indirect EU contribution.

243

Innovation actions (IA) include significantly less international participation than RIA. Indeed,

more than 35% of all participations of Horizon 2020 are of private for-profit entities (PRC),

while the same number among third-country participations is only 22%. This is even more

manifest within IA, where the figures are 52% of PRC against only 29% within non-AC

participations.

Projects of Public-Private Partnerships (the contractual PPP and the JTIs) have either no or

very few international participants, except for the JTI “Innovative Medicines Initiative”

(IMI2). Regarding Public-Public Partnerships, the ERA-NET-Cofund actions are among the

most international types of action with a third-country participation share at around 5%. Also,

three out of the four Horizon 2020 Article 185 Initiatives cooperate with non-Associated

Countries (which are not participating states in the sense of the basic act): the EDCTP2

programme has a very strong international dimension via participation of 14 sub-Saharan

countries, while Canada cooperates in AAL2 and South Korea in Eurostars2223

. On the other

hand, 'European Joint Programme' (EJP) projects have no international participants.

Regarding the EU's investment in topics directly related to the objectives of multilateral

initiatives:

In health-related initiatives (IRDiRC, IHEC, IHMC, IKMC, ICGC, InTBIR, GACD,

GloPID-R, GTBVP) during 2014-2015 the EU's investment has been around EUR 114

million, leveraging around EUR 532 million, while the EU investment for 2016-2017 is

expected to be higher than EUR 120 million, leveraging around three times more non-EU

funding.

In activities related to climate action and the environment such as the 'Belmont Forum', the

Group on Earth Observation (GEO) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(IPCC), the total Horizon 2020 budget for these topics is close to EUR 200 million, while

the total investment by all partners is estimated to be around three to four times this

amount.

The key indicators presented above do not capture cooperation through projects under joint or

coordinated calls, where the third-country partners are not beneficiaries of an EU grant. The

Work Programmes of Horizon 2020 for 2014-15 and 2016-17 contain 21 joint/coordinated

calls that have so far led to more than 30 projects of around 220 participations from EU or

associated countries, receiving EUR 55 million from the EU. With a roughly equal number of

third-country participants, this corresponds to around 25% of the total third-country

participations to collaborative projects.

In FP7 there were 31 coordinated calls, leading to 91 projects of around 790 participations

that received close to EUR 153 million from the EU, which is roughly three times more than

the current Horizon 2020 figures. Assuming that there will not be a large change in the

number of signed projects under joint/coordinated calls in the rest two thirds of Horizon 2020,

it can be concluded that joint/coordinated projects of Horizon 2020 and FP7 have similar

participations and EU contribution.

223 For more details, see the dedicated Staff Working Documents for the art. 185 and 187 initiatives.

244


The discontinuation in Horizon 2020 of the dedicated international cooperation theme and

specific international cooperation actions of FP7 has not been accompanied by a transversal

increase of international participation across the different parts of Horizon 2020, while the

change in the funding eligibility conditions for certain third countries has negatively affected

their participation to the programme.

Furthermore, Horizon 2020 attracts third-country research organisations more than private

for-profit entities, with Innovation Actions being among the least international of the

programme. The programme's increased focus on closer-to-market activities has required

finding an appropriate balance between engaging in international cooperation and

safeguarding the interests of the EU's companies.

Corrective actions have been taken to improve international participation in Horizon 2020,

including increasing the number of work programme topics that are specifically relevant for

international cooperation, improving the framework conditions for international collaboration,

and refining the communication strategy to ensure global awareness of EU's strengths and of

the international openness of Horizon 2020.

In particular, the budget allocated to Horizon 2020 WP topics flagged as particularly relevant

for international cooperation has increased, from 12% in FP7 to over 22%. It should be noted

though that there are only very few topics for which international participation is mandatory.

Regarding framework conditions, a priority has been to stimulate and assist industrialised

countries and emerging economies in setting up mechanisms to fund the participation of their

researchers in Horizon 2020 actions. So far, mechanisms exist in several countries – including

Australia, China, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Korea and regions of Brazil and

Canada, and efforts are continuing to broaden their scope of application. Furthermore, global

multilateral fora in different thematic fields have addressed framework conditions such as

open access to research data and infrastructures in their respective fields.

Regarding collaboration with developing countries, the priority has been to enhance the

synergies with the external instruments and ensure that science, technology and innovation are

taken on board in the planning of the national and regional programmes. This is in line with

the Sustainable Development Goals' strategy which encompasses science, technology and

innovation as an effective engine for sustainable development.

Regarding the communication strategy, the EC has continued its 'Horizon 2020 – Open to the

World' communication campaign to ensure that the programme is known worldwide. It has

also improved visibility and guidance on the Participant Portal and the international

cooperation website. The EU delegations have contributed to promote the EU strategy, and

Horizon 2020 National Contact Points have continued to provide guidance and advice to

researchers and assisting in partner search. Furthermore, a series of bilateral policy support

projects with partner countries and regions have carried on with awareness raising, while the

EC is setting up a facility to provide services in support of further policy development,

priority-setting and implementation of international cooperation.

Moreover, the updating of the roadmaps for international cooperation has been synchronised

with the Horizon 2020 strategic programming cycle such that science and technology policy

245

dialogues and cooperation roadmaps can effectively serve as a basis for priority setting in

programming.

H.13. Science and Society: Responsible Research and Innovation

H.13.1. Overview

Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is a cross-cutting issue in Horizon 2020 that

encourages societal actors (researchers, citizens, policy makers, businesses, third sector

organisations, etc.) to work together during the whole research and innovation (R&I) process

to better align R&I and its outcomes with the values, needs and expectations of society. In

practice, it means taking action in the five following dimensions: public engagement, science

education, gender equality, ethics, and open access/data. Where relevant, it also involves

institutional changes to governance frameworks224

.

H.13.1. Rationale

Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013 refers to Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) on

several instances, outlining the rationale for this cross-cutting issue (CCI). For instance,

Recital 22 states that "Horizon 2020 should foster the informed engagement of citizens and

civil society in research and innovation matters by promoting science education, by making

scientific knowledge more accessible, by developing responsible research and innovation

agendas that meet citizens' and civil society's concerns and expectations and by facilitating

their participation in Horizon 2020 activities. The engagement of citizens and civil society

should be coupled with public outreach activities to generate and sustain public support for

Horizon 2020". These activities are to be carried out with the aim of ensuring that R&I deliver

smart, inclusive and sustainable solutions to societal challenges by engaging new

perspectives, new innovators and new talent225

.

In the 'real world' these aspirations are leading to the emergence of different kinds of R&I

infrastructures and modes of R&I, such as citizen science, open innovation platforms226

,

Living Labs227

and programmes dedicated to RRI launched by research institutes. These

engage and open up R&I to stakeholders including SMEs, third sector organisations, policy

makers, citizens, end-users and students. In this way, the beneficiaries of R&I contribute to

research (e.g. agenda setting, scientific research, analysis of results and policy development)

and innovation (e.g. ideation, concept design, rapid prototyping and verification of results).

The accelerating pace of the co-evolution of science and society makes new ways of

conducting R&I ever more important at all levels of governance, as exemplified by

Commission Moedas' 3Os Strategy. As underlined by Commissioner Moedas, "an invention

becomes an innovation only if users become a part of the value creation process. Notions

such as 'user innovation'… emphasize the role of citizens and users in the innovation

processes as 'distributed' sources of knowledge. This kind of public engagement is one of the

aims of the Responsible Research and Innovation programme in Horizon 2020"228

. Citizen

224 http://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/index.cfm?pg=about. 225 http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/legal_basis/fp/h2020-eu-establact_en.pdf. 226 See for instance https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/regional-innovation-monitor/support-measure/manner-

suomi/six-city-programme-6aika-open-innovation-platforms-spearhead-project. 227 See for instance, http://www.enoll.org/ and http://www.iemed.org/llista_activitats-en/the-mediterranean-as-an-open-

living-lab?set_language=en. 228 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/open-innovation-open-science-open-world-vision-europe

http://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/index.cfm?pg=about

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/legal_basis/fp/h2020-eu-establact_en.pdf

https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/regional-innovation-monitor/support-measure/manner-suomi/six-city-programme-6aika-open-innovation-platforms-spearhead-project

https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/regional-innovation-monitor/support-measure/manner-suomi/six-city-programme-6aika-open-innovation-platforms-spearhead-project

http://www.enoll.org/

http://www.iemed.org/llista_activitats-en/the-mediterranean-as-an-open-living-lab?set_language=en

http://www.iemed.org/llista_activitats-en/the-mediterranean-as-an-open-living-lab?set_language=en

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/open-innovation-open-science-open-world-vision-europe

246

science aims to encourage citizens to become involved in the science itself: "Citizen Science

can contribute to the Commission’s goal of Responsible Research and Innovation, as it

reinforces public engagement and can re-direct research agendas towards issues of concern

to citizens"229

.

The 2014 Rome Declaration on RRI in Europe230

argued that good marketing cannot be relied

upon for R&I acceptability, that diversity in R&I is "vital for enhancing creativity and

improving scientific quality", and that "early and continuous engagement of all stakeholders

is essential for sustainable, desirable and acceptable innovation". Building on the Lund

Declaration of 2009 (which called for an emphasis on tackling societal challenges) and the

Vilnius Declaration of 2013 (which underlined the need for resilient partnerships with all

relevant actors for research to serve society)231

, the Rome Declaration called on "European

Institutions, EU Member States and their R&I Funding and Performing Organisations,

business and civil society to make Responsible Research and Innovation a central objective

across all relevant policies and activities, including in shaping the European Research Area

and the Innovation Union". The R&I Commissioners' meeting on 25 May 2016 re-iterated the

need to promote RRI throughout the Horizon 2020 Work Programme; all parts of Horizon

2020 are therefore expected to make efforts to embed RRI to bring science closer to society

and vice versa. As part of interim evaluation activities of Horizon 2020, the European

Economic and Social Committee found very strong support for the involvement of civil

society organisations in Horizon 2020 project consortia (81% of those who responded to a

targeted survey)232

. In addition, the open public online consultation on the Science with and

for Society (SWAFS) Work Programme 2018-2020 received 104 contributions representing

more than 6,500 organisations from a wide range of stakeholder groups (e.g. industry,

academia, civil society) and found a very high degree of support for integrating RRI across

Horizon 2020233

.


The Key Performance Indicator (KPI) for RRI in Horizon 2020 is "instances where citizens,

Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) and other societal actors contribute to the co-creation of

scientific agendas and scientific contents"234

. It is a proxy for actions across the five

dimensions of RRI, though like most KPIs it imperfectly captures the concept.

Mainstreaming/embedding RRI across Horizon 2020 is the responsibility of a dedicated

service with the European Commission, DG RTD which is also responsible for the Science

with and for Society (SWAFS) programme part. This service regularly screens Scoping

Papers and Work Programmes to monitor how RRI is being embedded in Horizon 2020.

Meetings are held with EC services responsible for other parts of Horizon 2020 on an ad hoc

basis, and briefings are written to support other EC services to embed RRI. Recently, a

229 Ibid. 230 Made under the Italian Presidency of the Council of the European Union. See

https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/rome_declaration_RRI_final_21_November.pdf. 231 See The Lund Declaration (2009), http://www.vr.se/download/18.7dac901212646d84fd38000336/ made under the

Swedish Presidency of the Council of the European Union, and The Lund Declaration (2015),

http://www.vr.se/download/18.43a2830b15168a067b9dac74/1454326776513/The+Lund+Declaration+2015.pdf made as part

of the high-level conference "Lund Revisited: Next steps in tackling societal challenges" and organised by the European

University Association. 232 Draft Information Report – Section for the Single Market, Production, and Consumption: Interim evaluation of Horizon

2020); European Economic and Social Committee. INT/807. 233 http://ec.europa.eu/research/consultations/swafs-wp2018-2020/consultation_en.htm. 234 https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/news/horizon-2020-indicators-assessing-results-and-impact-horizon.

https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/rome_declaration_RRI_final_21_November.pdf

http://www.vr.se/download/18.7dac901212646d84fd38000336/

http://www.vr.se/download/18.43a2830b15168a067b9dac74/1454326776513/The+Lund+Declaration+2015.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/research/consultations/swafs-wp2018-2020/consultation_en.htm

https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/news/horizon-2020-indicators-assessing-results-and-impact-horizon

247

training package developed by the RRI Tools project235

was used to train RRI stakeholders

across Europe, including EC civil servants.

The Common Research Datawarehouse (CORDA) allows identification of RRI-relevant

funded projects through a system called 'flagging'. Flagging is the process by which projects

that fit the criteria for being RRI-relevant are attributed a 'flag'; these flags are attributed by

project officers from the EC and executive agencies responsible for managing different parts

of Horizon 2020. In this way CORDA allows quick identification of projects that are flagged

as RRI relevant, those that are not relevant, and also those that are missing flags (for whatever

reason that may be). The flagging system does not hold any other data – such as information

about why projects are attributed a flag.

A potential additional source of information on the prevalence of RRI in Horizon 2020 is the

participation of civil society organisations (CSO). The "Study on network analysis of civil

society organisations’ participation in research framework programmes" examined this using

CORDA data. It had to clean the data carefully and developed a four-fold typology of CSO

participants in Framework Programmes to analyse CSO participation: 1) Core CSOs (e.g.

individuals and non-profits), 2) organisations that are publicly financed and oriented to

society, 3) organisations that are financed by business and oriented to society, 4) organisations

that are financed by and oriented towards business. It found (using data up to April 2015) that

in Horizon 2020 CSO types 1 and 2 made up 2.7% of project participants receiving just 0.7%

of total funding; by contrast, 5.3% of participants receiving 1.6% of funding were CSO types

3 & 4236

. Overall, this study suggested that CORDA cannot currently be used to assess CSO

involvement in consortia, and that the level of involvement of 'true' CSO in consortia is very

low, of peripheral importance, and of a potentially poor quality given the low funding.


As of 1 January 2017, CORDA data show that 11.0% of Horizon 2020 projects, for which

data are available (i.e. not missing), are RRI relevant. The EC contribution to these flagged

projects is EUR 2.7 billion this equates to 13.95% of the Horizon 2020 budget237

. Excluding

ad hoc calls and joint undertakings, more than two-thirds of the RRI-flagged EC contribution

goes to MSCA (30.4%), SC1 – Health (14.8%), Industrial Leadership – LEIT (13.7%), and

SC5 – Climate (12.4%).

235 http://www.rri-tools.eu/. 236 Study on network analysis of civil society organisations’ participation in research framework programmes (CONTRACT

NO. RTD-B6-2014-SI2.687781) - D5: Draft final report. 237 Where EUR 19,361,213,441 EU contribution (eCorda data extraction 19/01/2017) are allocated to Horizon 2020 projects

and 784 projects have an RRI flag (eCorda data extraction 19/01/2017).

http://www.rri-tools.eu/

248

Figure 54 EC contribution (EUR million) to RRI-flagged projects in Horizon 2020

programme parts

Source: CORDA data, 1 January 2017

238

These figures do not take into account the 33.8% of Horizon 2020 projects that current lack

RRI flags altogether. Indeed, RRI flags are almost completely missing from some lines of

Horizon 2020, for instance ERC (99.9%), Euratom (83.3%), and Innovation in SMEs

(82.3%). This suggests that the EC contribution to RRI-flagged projects could be considerably

higher than indicated above.

The patterns suggested by CORDA data are backed up to some extent by text screening

exercises. In the 2014-2015 Work Programme, RRI was explicitly addressed in six

programme parts and the translation of RRI into topics was not extensive. Nevertheless, some

parts of Horizon 2020 did demonstrate a good level of appropriation, for instance, Industrial

Leadership – LEIT (which has 7.6% of projects flagged as RRI relevant in CORDA for which

data are available). Progress was made in the Work Programme 2016-2017, where RRI was

addressed in almost all parts, either by mentioning RRI explicitly or by demonstrating a

greater understanding of it. The increased emphasis on RRI suggests that a higher proportion

of projects should be attributed an RRI flag as increasing numbers of grants from the Work

Programme 2016-2017 are signed.

Screening of the draft 2018-2020 Work Programme scoping papers239

provides preliminary

cause for concern: just two mentioned RRI explicitly (Excellent Science – MSCA & SC2 –

Food) and in some lines no keywords associated with RRI were mentioned at all (Industrial

Leadership – Innovation in SMEs, Industrial Leadership – Access to Risk Finance).

Nevertheless, some dimensions of RRI were mentioned more frequently than others (e.g.

public engagement and gender) and in some scoping papers keywords were mentioned several

times across the context and strategic orientations, pointing to a fuller treatment and

embedding of the concept; these include SC5 – Climate (which currently has 22.5% of

238 Where EUR 2,586,774,344 are allocated to 751 RRI-flagged projects excluding joint actions and grants to identified

beneficiaries (eCorda data extraction 19/01/2017). 239 RTD B7 - Screening of "Responsible Research & Innovation" in Horizon 2020 Work Programme 2018-2020 Scoping

Papers.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Mill

ion

s

249

projects flagged as RRI relevant in CORDA for which data are available) and SC6 – Inclusive

Societies (which currently has 41.5% of projects flagged as RRI relevant in CORDA for

which data are available).

Unfortunately, the figures suggested by CORDA data and text screening exercises do not

make it possible to conclude that RRI is well embedded in Horizon 2020, as this would

require in-depth analysis of what the attribution, non-attribution or even omission of the RRI

flag represents in practice.


RRI is a cross-cutting issue that is relatively new to Horizon 2020. CORDA data suggest it is

now integrated in around 11% of total Horizon 2020 projects, and this has a significant budget

associated with it. The prevalence and distribution of RRI across Horizon 2020 varies greatly

between programme parts; this pattern of distribution is backed by the RRI text screenings of

Work Programmes. RRI is highly policy relevant and there is widespread support for

involving citizens and CSOs in Horizon 2020. However, CSO involvement in Horizon 2020

is very low, and CSOs are generally “hangers on” in projects and rarely co-ordinate them240

.

It is therefore important to understand what RRI flags in CORDA represent and whether and

how RRI-flagged projects are really "instances where citizens, Civil Society Organisations

(CSOs) and other societal actors contribute to the co-creation of scientific agendas and

scientific contents". It is also important to increase the involvement of CSOs in Horizon 2020.

RRI cannot be well implemented without involving representatives of citizens and civil

society in the programme itself. This would likely involve improving the collection of data

about CSO participation.

240 "Study on network analysis of civil society organisations’ participation in research framework programmes"

(CONTRACT NO. RTD-B6-2014-SI2.687781) - D5: Draft final report.

250

H.14. Gender equality

H.14.1. Overview

Gender equality is implemented as a cross-cutting issue in Horizon 2020 with three objectives

and according to the following intervention logic.

Figure 55 Gender equality in Horizon 2020 - Intervention logic

Source: European Commission, DG RTD

H.14.2. Rationale

The EU has developed over the years a well-established regulatory framework on gender

equality, with binding directives, which apply across the labour market including the research

sector. The European Commission has defined for the period 2016-2019 a Strategic

engagement for gender equality241

in all EU policies. Gender equality in research and

innovation is part of this strategic engagement. The EC gender equality policy is also in line

with international priorities such as the Beijing Platform of Action242

, the UN Sustainable

Development Goals243

, and the G7 Guiding Principles for Capacity Building of Women &

Girls244

, included in the Ise-Shima Declaration

Gender equality is one of the priorities of a “Reinforced European Research Area Partnership

for Excellence and Growth245

” (ERA). In its 2015 Conclusions on Advancing Gender

241 http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/files/documents/160111_strategic_engagement_en.pdf 242 http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/beijing/platform/ 243 http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/gender-equality/ 244 http://www.mofa.go.jp/files/000160274.pdf 245 http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/era_communication_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/files/documents/160111_strategic_engagement_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/era_communication_en.htm

251

Equality in the ERA246

, the Council invites the Commission to continue to strengthen the

implementation, monitoring and evaluation of all Horizon 2020 objectives related to gender

equality.

Achieving gender equality is not only a matter of social justice but also of economic growth

and research performance. Including sex and gender analysis247

enhances research quality and

the societal relevance of the produced knowledge, technologies and innovations. It also

contributes to the production of goods and services better suited to potential markets. Gender

equality calls for more transparency and a wider access of women scientists to research,

thereby enlarging the pool of talents and the innovation potential. It therefore contributes to

Commissioner Moedas Three O’s priorities248

and to President Juncker's priorities249

for the

European Union.

The FP7 ex-post evaluation250

showed that gender equality in R&I is advancing very slowly.

In FP7, women represented 38%251

of the total reported workforce of the projects, but only

28.5 % of projects coordinators252

, 35% of the experienced researchers253

and 29% of Work

Packages leaders254

. This vertical segregation is also combined with a horizontal one,

depending on the scientific fields. Similar gaps are reflected across the EU as shown by the

latest She Figures255

.

Given the challenges to address, the original three objectives set for gender equality in

Horizon 2020 continue to be highly relevant, and aligned with international and EU policies.


Major changes were introduced in Horizon 2020 compared to FP7 in the way gender equality

is mainstreamed as a cross-cutting issue. The objectives stated in Article 16 of Horizon 2020

Framework Regulation are implemented at several levels in the funding process, starting with

the work programmes and topic description, through the application and proposal evaluation,

the granting phase to the projects monitoring and reporting. More specifically:

Gender balance in research teams: The relative gender balance in teams is one of the

factors used to rank proposals with the same evaluation scores256

. By signing their

grant agreement, beneficiaries commit to promote equal opportunities and gender

balance at all levels of personnel assigned to the action including at supervisory and

managerial level257

.

246 http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-14846-2015-INIT/en/pdf 247 taking into account both men and women biological characteristics and social / cultural features 248 https://ec.europa.eu/research/openvision/index.cfm 249 https://ec.europa.eu/priorities/index_en 250 https://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/index_en.cfm?pg=fp7 251 Table 45, FP7 Monitoring Report 2013 252 Computed from data of Table 9, FP7 Monitoring Report 2013 253 Table 46 – FP7 Monitoring Report 2013 254 CORDA / RESPIR- 04-02-2016 255 https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_gender_equality/she_figures_2015-final.pdf 256 Applicants are asked to indicate in their proposal the gender of the persons primarily responsible for carrying out the

project's activities. Annexe H - WP General Annexes - Horizon 2020 Participant Portal 257 Art. 33.1 of the mono and multi-beneficiaries Model Grant Agreement.

http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-14846-2015-INIT/en/pdf

252

Gender balance in decision-making: the EC set two targets: one of 40% of the

underrepresented sex in expert groups and evaluation panels258

and one of 50% of the

underrepresented sex in advisory groups.

Gender dimension in the content of research and innovation: gender issues are

explicitly mentioned in a number of topics of Horizon 2020 work programme. Topics

with a gender dimension are flagged259

on the Participant Portal. When drafting their

proposal, under the chapter “Excellence”, applicants are invited to describe, “where

relevant, to which extent and how their planned research takes into account sex and/or

gender analysis”. In the evaluation process, the gender dimension is mentioned in the

briefing given to evaluators.

An Advisory Group "gender" formulated recommendations to better integrate the gender

dimension in work programmes260

and to identify gender expertise. Training sessions were

organised for Commission and Agency staff and for National Contact Points (NCPs).

Awareness raising on gender as a cross-cutting issues was done in NCPs meetings and

brokerage events.

The implementation of gender equality as a cross-cutting issue is monitored through four Key

Performance Indicators (KPI)261

:

KPI 1: % women participants in Horizon 2020 projects (total workforce)

KPI 2: % women project coordinators in Horizon 2020 projects, i.e. Marie

Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) fellows, European Research Council (ERC)

principal investigators and scientific coordinators in other Horizon 2020 activities262

KPI 3: % women in EC advisory groups, evaluation panels, expert groups, individual

experts, etc;

KPI 4: % projects taking into account the gender dimension in R&I content.


An expert group263

helped the EC assess gender equality as a cross-cutting issue using the

following quantitative and qualitative methods:

A quantitative analysis based on a set of data extracted from CORDA (cut-off date 01-

01-2017)

An analysis, both qualitative and quantitative, of a sub-set of 111 projects out of the

263 funded projects that correspond to 35 gender-flagged topics264

,from the seven

Societal Challenges, LEIT-ICT, LEIT-NMBP and SWAFS.

A qualitative analysis of various key documents and information, such as parts of

work programmes, topic descriptions, etc.

258 P.4, 2013 call for interest to independent experts to assist the Commission in implementing Horizon 2020

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/support/h2020_call-individual_experts_oj_c342_03.pdf Art 10.6 - EC Decision

C(2016) 3301 final http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/PDF/C_2016_3301_F1_COMMISSION_DECISION_EN.pdf 259 Topics are flagged when they include one or more of the following words: gender, sex, woman /women, man/men, boy(s),

girl(s) 260http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetailDoc&id=18892&no=1 261https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/news/horizon-2020-indicators-assessing-results-and-impact-horizon 262 corresponding to the Principal Contact Person in the organisation having the role of Coordinator 263http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=3470&NewSearch=1&NewS

earch=1 264 as indicated on the Participant Portal; only RIA and IA funding schemes; Work Programme 2014-2015

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/support/h2020_call-individual_experts_oj_c342_03.pdf%20Art%2010.6

http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/PDF/C_2016_3301_F1_COMMISSION_DECISION_EN.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetailDoc&id=18892&no=1

253

Objective 1: Gender balance and equal opportunities in research teams

Concerning the first Key Performance Indicator, the proportion of women in projects

workforce is 40.3%. This proportion falls down to 33.6 % if the projects relating to ERC,

MSCA and ICT are excluded. The latter represents a decrease compared with FP7 where this

proportion reached 38%265

. Only preliminary figures are however available as this indicator is

collected from projects periodic reports. When looking at the subset of 111 projects, the

expert group found that women represented 36 % of the key staff named in the Description of

Activities.266

It should be noted that the detailed workforce data gathered in FP7 is not collected under

Horizon 2020. This does not allow to monitor the gender balance at different levels (vertical

segregation). Data on researchers will however be included in the projects periodic reporting

from 2017.

Figure 56 Share of women in total workforce by Horizon 2020 programme parts

Source: Corda – Projects’ periodic reports– cut-off date 01-01-2017

Concerning the second Key Performance Indicator, women represent 31% of projects’

coordinators, including 24.5% of ERC Principal Investigators, 42.2% of MSCA Fellows and

26.9% of scientific coordinators267

in other Horizon 2020 activities.268

This represents an

increase compared to FP7, where women represented overall 28.5% of projects coordinators,

including 20% of ERC Principal Investigators, 36.5% of MSCA Fellows and 20% of contact

persons for scientific Aspects in other F7 activities269

. In the subset of 111 projects, the expert

group found that 25% of projects coordinators are women, a result close to the proportion of

women among scientific coordinators in other Horizon 2020 activities.

It should be noted that data on the gender of scientific coordinators in other Horizon 2020

activities was not collected in case of grants’ amendments, which represents a quite high

proportion of the signed grants (47.3%). It will be corrected in 2017 and all grants will be

taken into account.

265 Table 45: Cooperation – Projects’ Workforce by gender (excluding PEOPLE), FP7 Monitoring Report 2013 266 2398 men and 1409 women and 28 names for which is was not possible to retrieve the gender. The expert group noted

that a significant proportion of projects did not indicate the gender of the consortium members, even though it is requested in

the proposal template. 267 Principal contact person in the organisation having the role of Coordinator 268 These data refer to the ongoing grant agreements where the gender of projects coordinators is known. 269 Table 9 , FP7 Monitoring Report 2013-

http://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/archive/fp7_monitoring_reports/7th_fp7_monitoring_report.pdf

36% 33% 28%

51%

31% 24%

31% 28%

59%

45% 51%

41% 32% 31%

39% 46%

34% 42%

59%

20%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%

254

Figure 57 Share of women coordinators by Horizon 2020 parts – LEIT

Source: Corda – projects at grant agreement level. – cut-off date 01-01-2017

Figure 58 Share of women coordinators by Horizon 2020 Societal Challenges

Source: Corda – projects at grant agreement level. – cut-off date 01-01-2017

Objective 2: Gender balance in decision-making

This objective is close to being achieved. 53% of advisory groups members are women, while

the target was set at 50 % of the under-represented sex. It is higher than in FP7 where 33%

of the members of the advisory groups were women270

. 36.7% of contracts were signed

with women experts participating in evaluation panels271

, while the target was set at 40%.

270 Table 10- FP7 Monitoring Report 2013 271 Horizon 2020 monitoring report 2015

255

Figure 59 Gender distribution per thematic Advisory Group 272

Source: European Commissio,n latest update: December 2016

In the EC expert database, 29,9 % of experts registered with a full profile in December 2015

were women and 30,5% in December 2016. In December 2016, among them 6,022 experts,

3,904 women and 2,118 men declared having a gender expertise, which represented an

increase of 27 % for women and 28 % for men compared with December 2015.

Objective 3: Integration of the gender dimension in research content

The assessment was done by the expert group, at the levels of topics and funded projects, with

a qualitative analysis of the subset of 111 projects from 35 gender-flagged topics.

The number of topics in which gender issues were explicitly mentioned, increased from 99

out of 610 topics in WP 2014-2015 to 108 out of 568 in WP 2016-2017273

. The wording

relating to gender was often vague. However, the expert group noted improvement in the

wording in some parts of the WP 2016-2017.

Figure 60 Topics with and without an explicit gender dimension- Industrial Leadership

Source: European Commission, DG RTD- 2015

272 Latest update December 2016 273 At the level of the adoption of the work programmes – not taking into account the possible amendments

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

M %

F %

256

Figure 61 Comparison of topics with and without an explicit gender dimension - Societal

Challenges

Source: European Commission, DG RTD- 2015

The expert group noted that in their subset of 35 topics from the WP 2014-2015, gender-

flagged on the Participant Portal, 20% of the topics did not have an explicit gender

dimension274

: in other words, the WP scribes overstated the number of topics with a gender

dimension as presented to the potential applicants. The additional topics referred to people in

general without mentioning gender, women or sex.

Concerning the fourth Key Performance Indicator, 32.4 % of the projects275

were “ticked”

as having a gender dimension by projects officers when preparing the grant agreement, 31.4%

in LEIT and 30.0% in Societal Challenges. The identification of a gender dimension in

projects was done at the level of the Description of Activities annexed to the grant agreement.

Project officers answered a "yes/no" question276

in SyGMA277

when preparing the grant

agreement. In comparison with Societal Challenges, in FP7 17% of the projects278

under

Cooperation, Science in Society and Regions of Knowledge declared having a gender

dimension in their content.

274 They did not include the words gender or women or sex 275 The indicator do not include MSCA and ERC 276 The question was not compulsory. Its status is currently being modified to ensure data completeness. 277 System Grant Management 278 Table 12 FP7 Monitoring report 2013- Self-declaration of beneficiaries at the end of their projects

257

Figure 62 Integration of the Gender Dimension in funded projects – Industrial

Leadership

Source: Corda - * computed on signed grants – cut-off date 01-01-2017

Figure 63 Integration of the Gender Dimension in funded projects – Societal Challenges,

SEWP and SWAFS

Source: Corda - * computed on signed grants – cut off date 01-01-2017

The expert group compared the identification done in SyGMA with their own assessment for

the subset of 111 projects. Among the 61 projects considered with a gender dimension in

SyGMA, only 35 projects actually included it and 12 out of the 17 projects considered by the

expert group as having a gender dimension were retained as such in SyGMA. The gaps cast

doubt on the reliability of the data obtained from this database.

The expert group also assessed the degree of integration of the gender dimension in the 111

projects from gender-flagged topics. It, found that 53% of the projects included a gender

dimension, 14 % well and 39 % in part. The notion did not seem to be well understood yet

and was often confused with gender balance in research teams. Furthermore it was not always

well evaluated. Some ESRs279

were inconsistent with the expert group assessment of the

projects.

279 Evaluation Summary Report

27.6% 34.3% 43.5%

83.3%

16.7%

0%

50%

100%

LEIT-ICT LEIT-NMBP LEIT-SPACE Ac. Risk Fin. SMEs

% of Signed Grants* taking into account the Gender Dimension

70.8%

10.8% 19.6% 15.7%

23.5%

51.4%

21.9%

59.3%

85.4%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

% of Signed Grants* taking into account the Gender Dimension

258

Figure 64 Degree of integration of the gender dimension in the sub-set of 111 funded

projects

Projects ranked A: Projects take the gender perspective seriously into account and integrate the gender

dimension into a significant part of their activities, at various levels, such as in theoretical background,

methodology, the impact and dissemination sections. The result is a clear vision of how gender will be integrated

into the research content, with a good internal coherence within the project.

Projects ranked B: Projects discuss gender dimension in a few lines, with no further development.

Projects ranked C: Projects only mention (generally rapidly) gender balance in the team and completely miss

any gender dimension in their research.

Source: EC Expert Group on the interim evaluation of gender as a cross-cutting issue in Horizon 2020

The expert group checked the presence of researchers with gender expertise in the consortium

as presented in the Description of Activities. It found a high frequency of researchers with

gender expertise in projects ranked A. However none of the 111 projects included gender

training (eligible for funding in Horizon 2020).

Figure 65 Researchers with gender expertise in the consortium


The expert group also evaluated whether the projects were likely to increase gender

knowledge and found that it was the case for most of the projects ranked A.

1

1

1

1

2

9

1

2

3

4

3

7

8

8

4

4

7

13

1

5

2

5

10

5

4

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

LEIT-NMBP

LEIT-ICT

SC1 Health

SC2 Food

SC3 Energy

SC4 Transport

SC5 Climate

SC6 Societies

SC7 Secure

SwafS

Projects ranked "A" Projects ranked "B" Projects ranked "C"

259

Figure 66 Gender knowledge produced


Examples of ranked A projects are presented below:

Pan-European web entrepreneurship and start-up ecosystem (WELCOME)

LEIT - Topic ICT-13-2014

The project aims to connect four major EU entrepreneur ecosystems, identifying and

engaging through local partners their most relevant players (investors, corporates, media,

and web entrepreneurs) with prospective, emerging and successful start-ups. The final

goal is to create a Pan-European startup ecosystem in which every entrepreneur in each of

the local ecosystems feels at home and interconnected. The project deals with gender

issues by promoting affirmative action at institutional level and developing an action plan

with activities to promote gender equality in all forms within the project.

Ageing Trajectories of Health: Longitudinal Opportunities and Synergies

(ATHLOS) – Societal Challenge 1- Topic PHC-2014-two-stage

The objective of ATHLOS is to achieve a better understanding of ageing by identifying

patterns of healthy ageing, the determinants of those patterns and the critical points when

changes in trajectories are produced, and to propose timely clinical and public health

interventions to optimize healthy ageing. One of the aims is to understand differentials in

ageing trajectories between men and women. Although gender is not the main focus of the

project, gender considerations are well included in the methodology, work packages and

policy recommendations.

Energy System Transition Through Stakeholder Activation, Education and Skills

Development (ENTRUST) Societal Challenge 3 -Topic LCE-20-2014

The project aims to analyse Europe’s energy system and understand how human

behaviour around energy is shaped by both technological systems and socio-demographic

factors (especially gender, age and socio-economic status). Gender appears in the

theoretical framework, the methodology, the impact and in the dissemination planning. It

is part of a socio-economic WP and has a specific deliverable.

Congestion Reduction in Europe: Advancing Transport Efficiency (CREATE) Societal Challenge 4- Topic MG-5.3-2014

CREATE examines the full range of urban passenger and freight/servicing movements in

urban, suburban and peri-urban areas, and the evolving ways in which urban streets are

used. It identifies and quantifies the main impacts (economic, social and environmental)

of policy measures introduced at different stages in the Transport Policy Evolution Cycle.

15

5

1

12

2

26

50

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Projects ranked "A"

Projects ranked "B"

Projects ranked "C"

yes maybe no

260

It assesses the effectiveness of different measures, their distributional consequences by

gender and for residents and mobility disadvantaged groups of travellers. It identifies

gender-specific travel behaviour and transport requirements, and the gender implications

of different technologies and transport policy measures. It monitors quality control and

adherence to the gender dimension of the work.

Development of water supply & sanitation technology, systems & tools, and/or

methodologies-Waterspoutt- Societal Challenge 5-Topic WATER-5-2014c

The project aims to design and field-test solar disinfection technologies to provide

affordable access to safe water to remote and vulnerable communities in Africa. Gender is

presented as a basis issue for the project. It has a Social Science work package (the rest is

more technical) where gender appears at all levels (theory, methodology, impact,

dissemination, in a deliverable). There is good gender expertise in the project and in

particular with the Social Science work package leader.

Revisioning the ‘Fiscal EU’: Fair, Sustainable, and Coordinated Tax and Social

Policies (FairTax) Societal Challenge 6 – Topic EURO-1-2014

The project aims to research ways of harmonizing of EU Member States tax and social

policies to produce fairer, more stable, and more sustainable tax and social policy regimes.

The topic was well worded and the project covers gender very extensively, including it in

its objectives, its theoretical framework, its methodology and impact. It has a specific

gender Work Package and refers to gender in several other parts. The coordinator has

good gender expertise.

Innovative Social Investment: Strengthening communities in Europe (InnoSI)

Societal Challenge 6 - Topic Euro-3-2014

One of the main objectives of InnoSI is to understand better, from the perspective of

recipients, the social and psychological impact of innovative and strategic approaches to

social welfare reform with a particular focus on gender and generational issues. Gender

analysis is a key dimension in the project and runs through all the work packages. The

project is likely to provide new knowledge on how the gender dimension is and could be

integrated in welfare reforms.

Mapping mobility – pathways, institutions and structural effects of youth

mobility in Europe (MOVE) – Societal Challenge 6 - Topic YOUNG-2-2014

MOVE aims to provide a research-informed contribution to improving the conditions of

young people mobility in Europe and a reduction of its negative impacts through the

identification of good practice thus fostering sustainable development and wellbeing. It is

based on a multilevel research design, including case studies on six types of mobility

(higher education, voluntary work, employment, vocational training, pupil's exchange and

entrepreneurship), a survey and secondary data analysis, taking into consideration social

inequality. Gender is a central category within a broader perspective on social inequality

and young people disadvantages.

Finally, to help implement the gender equality objectives at each stage of the research cycle

and across Horizon 2020, awareness raising and specific training are a valuable support to

improve the understanding and take up. Gender equality was included in 12 awareness raising

sessions organised by NCPs at EU level for potential applicants in the period 2014-2016.

Seven training sessions were organised for the EC staff and two for the NCPs academy. The

attendance was limited and largely female with 102 participants for the EC and around 40

participants for the NCP Academy.

261

Figure 67 Participants in DG RTD gender trainings 2014-2016

Source: European Commission, DG RTD - 2017


The comprehensive approach developed to implement gender equality as a cross-cutting issue

in Horizon 2020 is wider in its coverage and more specific than in FP7. Compared with FP7,

the interim evaluation showed that:

Some progress was made on gender balance in research teams involved in funded

projects, although, considering the current weaknesses in the monitoring system, these

results remain to be confirmed;

The targets are closed to be achieved for the advisory groups and, to a lesser extent for

the evaluation panels, but the involvement of experts with gender expertise is still low;

The gender dimension in R&I content carries a great potential to improve R&I quality

and relevance to society, but it requires more investment to be achieved. The actors

involved should acquire a better knowledge of what the gender dimension entails in

the various fields of R&I and the monitoring system needs to be substantially

improved.

Areas of improvements should therefore be of two main types:

Enhancing the culture of gender equality in R&I through awareness raising and

training. Evaluators and moderators should acquire a better knowledge of the gender

dimension in R&I content and of implicit biases in assessing men and women

applicants.

Adapting the mainstreaming of the gender equality inputs in the Horizon 2020

implementation system to improve efficiency.

H.15. SME involvement in research and innovation and broader private sector

participation

H.15.1. Overview

Economic enterprises strongly participate in all the Horizon 2020 Programme's parts, in

particular when addressing challenges in society by helping to bridge the gap between

research and the market, and through the support of innovative enterprises to develop their

DG AGRI , 1 CAB 28, 1 DG CNECT, 1 DG EAC , 2

EASME, 8

DG ENER, 1

ERCEA , 12 DG HOME, 3

IMI, 1

JRC, 1

DG JUST , 3

REA, 39

DG RTD, 29

262

technological breakthroughs into a viable commercial potential. The market-driven approach

of the innovation part of Horizon 2020 proposes a variety of actions/instruments to the

enterprises, notably the SME Instrument and the financial instruments, with the aim of a

better uptake by companies, in particular SMEs.

H.15.1. Rationale

SMEs play a key role in fostering innovation and have the ability to market new products

quickly. FP7 strengthened the innovation capacity of European SMEs and their contribution

to the development of new technology based products and markets by helping them outsource

research and acquire technological know-how, increase their research efforts and extend their

networks. This with around EUR 1.3 billion for the 'Research for the Benefit of SMEs' under

the FP7 Capacity programme and also, with the target budget of more than 15% under the

FP7 Cooperation programme.

In line with the recommendation of the High level group of the FP7 ex-post evaluation 280

considering that SMEs have an important and needed role in the "innovation

pipeline/innovation value chain", specific rules were established under Horizon 2020 to better

engage SMEs in all sectors and activities. Also, Horizon 2020 focuses on durable benefits by

providing more favourable conditions to SMEs carrying business innovation and bringing it to

the markets. The competitive grants as the ones put in place through the SME Instrument are

therefore shaped to the needs of innovative firms to get successfully into the market with a

targeted objective to impact European society in terms of growth and sustainable employment

on the widest range of thematic sectors.

Also, in order to support SMEs to invest more in innovation, the European Commission

proposed on one hand a dedicated instrument providing grants for R&D projects driven

specifically by SMEs whereas - on the other hand - it gives access to debt facilities (e.g. loans

and guarantees) and to equity (finance for early and growth-stage investment). On debt

finance, Horizon 2020 InnovFin – EU Finance for Innovators, with support of the European

Fund for Strategic Investments (ESFI), provides guarantees to banks and other lenders

providing loans to innovative companies. On equity finance, together with the European

Investment Fund (EIF), the Commission is setting up a Fund-of-Funds to invest in venture

capital funds, with most funding coming from the private sector and with independent fund

management.

The overall idea is to seize innovation’s potential, actually turning it into growth and jobs, by

addressing the issue of insufficient financial availability, in particular of SMEs, aiming at

fostering more innovative, productive and prosperous enterprises in Europe.


In Horizon 2020, access to grants for SMEs - either as a single beneficiary as for SME

Instrument, or as a member of consortium as for the Fast Track to Innovation (FTI) or

collaborative grants - is encouraged by a simplification of conditions to apply281

and by a

280 "Commitment and Coherence – Ex‐Post Evaluation of the 7th EU Framework Programme" (p65).

http://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/fp7_final_evaluation_expert_group_report.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none 281 For e.g. no provision of financial capacity documents for SME applying to SME Instrument Phase 1, less administrative

burden during the application phase.

263

shorter time-to-grant. In addition, under the SME Instrument, proposals can be submitted by

single SMEs (mono-partner grants).

Around EUR 9 billion of the Horizon 2020 budget shall support SME innovation through

grants. Its bulk is allocated to SMEs participating as partners in consortia conducting

collaborative research and innovation projects. The SME Instrument, in parallel, encourages

early-stage for-profit SMEs to put forward their innovative ideas with an EU dimension into

the market. The Better regulation package282

has also influenced the level of attractiveness of

such tools, by ensuring an easy access with simple rules and procedures in all three stages283

of the innovation cycle.

The co-legislators established that within the target of ensuring a minimum of 20% of SMEs’

participation, a minimum of 5% of those combined Societal Challenges and LEIT's budgets

will be initially allocated to the dedicated SME instrument for the transitional two-first years

of the Programme (2014-2015). This target is set to 7% averaged over the duration of Horizon

2020.

The Fast Track to Innovation (FTI) pilot supports innovation actions under LEITs and

Societal Challenges, conducted by industry-intensive consortia with a minimum of 3 and a

maximum of 5 participants. The EU contribution is EUR 2.5 million per project with a Time-

to-Contract of 6 months.

The Second Eurostars Joint Programme (2014-2020)284

promotes market-oriented

transnational research of research performing SMEs in any field. It is undertaken by at least

two Member States and/or Associated countries, with the financial contribution of the EU

(EUR 287 million). By pooling together national resources, Eurostars also aims at

strengthening integration and synchronisation of national research programmes contributing

to the achievement of the European Research Area.

In addition, the new generation of debt and equity Financial Instruments – InnovFin - EU

Finance for Innovators – shall generate direct investments of more than EUR 24 billion and

total final investment of more than EUR 50 billion into research and innovation activities. Of

that amount, at least a third is likely to be absorbed by SMEs and small midcaps below 500

employees285

.


Through all its actions, Horizon 2020 is contributing significantly to increase private firms'

participation in research and innovation. The trend established under FP7, where private for

profit organisations accounted for a quarter of the total number of applicants and a third of the

total amount of requested EU contribution in retained proposals286

, is confirmed. Private-for-

Profit entities (PRC) represent 33.2% (16,298 participations) of the total (49,090).

Under Societal Challenges and Leadership in Enabling and Industrial Technologies, 8,637

SMEs have already participated to Horizon 2020, for an overall EU financial contribution of

EUR 2,828.4 million. This participation represents 23.9% of budget allocation, which exceeds

282 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/toc_guide_en.htm 283 Innovation cycle phases are: creation/start-up phase, early stage and expansion. 284 https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/eurostars-programme 285 See eligibility conditions – InnovFin - http://www.eib.org/products/blending/innovfin/ 286 7th FP7 Annual Monitoring Report 2013.

264

by 3.9 percentage points, the 20% budgetary target set by EU Council and Parliament. At the

end of Horizon 2020, direct support to SMEs would reach EUR 8.33 billion (post-EFSI) of

which about EUR 3 billion devoted to innovative projects through the SME instrument287

.

Industry participation – both in terms of involvement in submitted proposals and in selected

projects – has taken a very encouraging trend over the past two years. Already, 5,399 grants

with at least one participant from the private sector have been signed288

representing an EU

financial contribution of EUR 5,653 million.

Under the Fast Track to Innovation pilot, five cut-off dates in 2015 and 2016 have received a

positive response from the industry, with 75 projects and 342 entities selected for funding

with an EU contribution of EUR 161.2 million. 73% of the entities selected were from the

industrial sector, among which 63.2% were SMEs.

The share of EC funding allocated through the SME instrument between 2014 and 2016 is

5.6% of the total budgets of the specific objectives LEIT and the priority Societal Challenges

and it represents EUR 881.7 million. This share is increasing from 5% in 2014 and 5.1% in

2015 to 5.6% in 2016: the favourable trend is in line with the minimum target of 7%.289

Spain,

Italy and the UK have the largest share of participation funding from the SME Instrument.

Table 49 Number of Member States participation in the SME Instrument

Source: Corda. Cut-off date: 1 January 2017.

Finally, the role of financial instruments has already grown due to their leverage effect on

public investment resources, their capacity to combine different forms of public and private

resources, and their longer-term financial sustainability.

287 For the overall period of Horizon 2020. 288 Source: Corda. Cut-off date: 1 January 2017. 289 Source: Horizon 2020 Work Programmes. These data are not based on Corda, but consider the budget earmarked to the

SME instrument in the Work Programmes. The 7% target is set in Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013 of the European

Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing Horizon 2020, Annex II.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

ES IT UK DE FR NL SE DK FI IE PT PL HU AT SI EE BE EL LT LV CZ SK BG HR CY LU MT RO

265

Figure 68: Financial instruments per targeted beneficiaries

Source: European Commission

Financial support to SMEs and to private sector as a whole through the financial instruments

of for the entire implementation period of Horizon 2020, InnovFin – EU Finance for

Innovators' will make available more than EUR 24 billion of financing for investments in

research and innovation by companies, small to large, young to well-established. The suite of

tailored-made financial instruments, whatever the size and stage of projects, provides specific

support to SMEs and mid-caps with on one hand equity investments, and debt financing of

EUR 25,000 to EUR 7.5 million via local financial intermediaries through the InnovFin SME

Guarantee on the other hand.

In the first three years of Horizon 2020290

, already more than 5700 SMEs have been funded

thanks to InnovFin which exceed the provisional target of 5,000. This 3-years achievement

covers 29 countries, for a total guarantee amount of EUR 4 billion of which EUR 0.32 billion

issued as counter-guarantees. It enables up to EUR 8.65 billion of loans/leases to innovative

SMEs and Small Mid-caps, mobilising up to EUR 12,53 billion of investments.

Also, 30 InnovFin SIUGI agreements have been signed in Spain, 10 in Bulgaria and 2 in

Malta with financial intermediaries for a maximum portfolio volume of EUR 279 million. The

main aim of this initiative is to facilitate access to finance for SMEs by lowering the interest

rates charged by banks on their loans. At the same time, intermediary banks will considerably

reduce the risk on each SME loan, and the relevant cost of capital, by benefiting from a

financial guarantee issued by the EIB Group.

In terms of estimated mobilised investments, EUR 73.77 billion out of the EUR 82.5 billion

target for the EFSI SME Window are expected to be supported through the transactions

signed by the end of May 2017. This total includes 73 transactions signed with funds for

the Risk Capital Resources (RCR) EIF mandate for EUR 3.2 billion.

290 Source: European Investment Fund. A full assessment of the performance of the Financial Instruments of Horizon 2020

can be found in Annex 2 Part H.

266

With regards to InnovFin Debt – EIB, 40 loans have been granted to Mid-Caps for EUR

1651 million, and 22 loans to SMEs for EUR 330 million.

InnovFin Equity– EIF – IFE aims at providing equity investments and co-investments to

support companies in their pre-seed, seed, and start-up phases operating in innovative sectors

covered by Horizon 2020, including life sciences, clean energy and high-tech. As of

31/12/2016, 10 IFE Operations have been signed in 6 Member States including 7 early stage

and 3 multi stage for an amount of EUR 164.5 million. Also, 5 investments made into Eligible

IFE Final Recipients for EUR 15 million in 4 Member States.

Finally, this overview of this 3-years implementation is also positive with regards to private

sector as a whole. Large companies benefited from specific funding; with in particular 28

loans granted for EUR 2515 million and 5 loans to R&I infrastructures for EUR 527 million

under InnovFin Debt – EIB.


This state of play of Horizon 2020 so far shows that the objective to increase participation of

innovative SMEs is confirming its positive trajectory. The budget allocated to innovative and

research-performing SMEs is above the target objective of 20% of the combined budgets for

LEITs and the Societal Challenges. These Instruments combined with complementary support

schemes, such as the SME Instrument, adequately respond to the specific financing needs of

SMEs, covering all stages of the innovation cycle of SMEs' projects. Such global approach

shows that Horizon 2020 respond well to innovative SMEs desiring to succeed their market

positioning.

Objectives set under Horizon 2020 as far as financial instruments and their use are concerned

and agreed with the European Investment Bank Group have been achieved in 2016[2]

. This is

a clear demonstration of the attractiveness of such products on the market.

The combination of financial instruments and grants (including the SME Instrument) provides

benefits to reinforce the participation of SMEs and the broader private sector acting as a

driving force of innovation in Europe. This overall combination of instruments offers better

structural conditions to drive their high-risk projects into the market.

[2] SME Guarantee product.

267

I. FURTHER INFORMATION ON THE IN-DEPTH ASSESSMENT OF PUBLIC-TO-PUBLIC

PARTNERSHIPS

I.1. Introduction

Article 181 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) calls for the EU

and Member States to coordinate their research and technological development activities and

invites the Commission, in close collaboration with Member States, to take any useful

initiatives to promote this coordination. As a consequence, the current Framework

Programme, Horizon 2020, specifically aims to establish synergies with national programmes

and Joint Programming Initiatives (JPIs) by providing support to Public-to-Public

Partnerships (P2Ps). These are now increasingly used to support the coordination of national

programmes requiring collaboration on common challenges and currently form an integral

part of Horizon 2020, in particular the pillar addressing societal challenges.

P2Ps support a wide range of activities, including research, coordination and networking,

capacity-building and demonstration and dissemination activities. They are now core

components of the European Research Area (ERA) Roadmap and national ERA action plans,

notably for priority 2a of the ERA Roadmap (jointly addressing societal challenges).

This section is constructed as follows: Firstly, the available evidence and data concerning the

three P2P approaches will be presented. Secondly, the results of recent evaluations of the

Joint Programming291

and ERA-NET Cofund instrument of Horizon 2020 will be presented.

Lastly, the related analysis from the ERA Progress Report 2016292

will be presented.

I.2. Overview P2Ps

The policy approach to foster alignment between Member States by supporting the

networking of national programmes was introduced under FP6 in 2002 as a core component

of the ERA policy framework293

. In 2004 the first joint calls of national programmes were

implemented. When looking at the overall picture of P2Ps since 2004, a clear upward trend

and growing commitment from Member States can be observed – in total more than 480 joint

calls have been implemented.

A summary of the calls that closed each year, since 2004, is shown in the following figure294

.

291 http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/evaluation-of-joint-programming-to-address-grand-societal-challenges-pbKI0416204/ 292 http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/eraprogress_en.htm 293 https://www.era-learn.eu/publications/ec-publications/the-era-net-scheme-from-fp6-to-horizon-2020 294 https://www.era-learn.eu/publications/other-publications/2nd-annual-report-on-p2p-partnerships-2016

http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/evaluation-of-joint-programming-to-address-grand-societal-challenges-pbKI0416204/

http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/eraprogress_en.htm

https://www.era-learn.eu/publications/ec-publications/the-era-net-scheme-from-fp6-to-horizon-2020

https://www.era-learn.eu/publications/other-publications/2nd-annual-report-on-p2p-partnerships-2016

268

Figure 69 Calls published by Public-Public-Partnerships, by year and network type

Source: ERA LEARN, 2nd Annual report on p2P partnerships, 2016

The annual national financial contributions for P2Ps shows a clear upward trend since its

inception in 2004 (see the following figure) as well. The additional EU funding (yellow line)

displays an upward trend, underlining the joint efforts towards greater coherence between EU

and MS R&D programmes.

Figure 70 National Joint Call Budget (with EU Contribution for cofounding of calls

overlaid in yellow) for all Calls closed 2004-2016, by network type


Accordingly, the number of projects funded by joint calls shows a clear upward trend. 2015

saw the highest number so far, with nearly 800 projects. In total, more than 5 500 projects

have been funded through P2Ps since 2004.

269

Figure 71 Number of projects funded by P2Ps for all Calls closed 2004-2016, by

Network Type


The following table presents the main features of an ERA-Net Cofund network. Compared to

the ERA-Net + instrument of FP7, the number of countries per call increased by 50% (from

10 to 15 countries) and the EU13 participation rate nearly doubled, while the share of EU

funding to partners in EU13 countries (budget) remained stable at around 5%.

Table 50 Main characteristics of an ERA-Net Cofund network (based on data from

Horizon 2020 WP 2014/2015); data from ERA-LEARN 2020

Number of

countries per

call /partners

Average call

budget (M€)

Average

project size

(M€)

EU13 share Third country

share

ERA-Net

CoFund

15 29 < 1 -participation:

20%

- budget: 5%

- participation:

11%

- budget: 4%

Source: https://www.era-learn.eu

The use of P2Ps within a variety of thematic fields is presented in the following table (2004 –

2015). It has to be noted, that the number of actions within the described fields is not an

indication of impact with respect to mobilised funding and/or other policy objectives on

national/EU level.

https://www.era-learn.eu/

270

Table 51 Relevance for Horizon 2020 priorities and challenges: Active networks (2016)

and research area addressed

Research area Art.169/

Art.185s

ERA-NETs

ERA-NET Cofund

ERA-NET Plus

JPIs Other Total

Biotechnology 1 4 0 1 5 1 12

Energy 3 6 9 5 3 5 31

Environment 3 7 9 3 6 9 37

Food, agriculture and fisheries 2 6 6 3 4 5 26

Government and social relations

2 0 0 1 2 0 5

Health 3 6 9 2 5 2 27

Industrial production 1 2 1 2 1 1 8

Information and communication technologies

3 3 0 2 2 2 12

Materials 1 4 2 2 1 1 11

Nanosciences and nanotechnologies

1 3 1 2 0 1 8

No specific thematic focus 0 1 0 0 0 2 3

Other 1 1 1 2 0 4 9

Security and defence 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

Services 2 0 0 0 1 1 4

Socio-economics sciences and humanities

2 1 3 2 3 2 13

Space 1 0 1 0 0 0 2

Transport 2 0 0 1 2 0 5

Source: https://www.era-learn.eu

I.3. ERA-NET Cofund under Horizon 2020

The ERA-NET Cofund instrument is a merger of the former ERA-NET and ERA-NET Plus

instruments under FP7. ERA-NET Cofund actions should build lasting collaborations

between Member States and their research funding organisations, also drawing on existing,

long-standing partnerships that have been established over the past ten years.

The Horizon 2020 Work Programme 2014/2015 resulted in a total of 27 proposals selected for

funding. The 27 networks from 2014/2015 bring together a total of EUR 728.5 million for the

https://www.era-learn.eu/

271

cofunded calls. The leverage effect of the 27 actions is 2.31, i.e. for each euro invested by the

EU, the participating countries invest an additional amount of EUR 2.31295

.

The following figure presents the respective financial contributions from P2P participants

(WP 2014/2015 only).

Figure 72 Budget distribution (contribution to the co-funded calls) for the first 27 ERA-

NET Cofund actions resulting from the WP 2014/5, by participant; source: ERA-

LEARN 2020


Several Cofund networks have been initiated by JPIs. Nearly 50% of all calls in

2015/2016 (12 in total) stem from JPI-initiated ERA-Nets.

In addition, over 30 topics are included in the 2016/2017 Horizon 2020 Work Programmes.

Funding from Horizon 2020 is expected to reach about EUR 280 million as pre-commited

budgets from national sources rose to about EUR 700 million. Based on the planning of the

current ERA-NET Cofunds and past experience, an overall leverage effect of 3-5 can be

expected, as many additional calls without EU cofunding are planned.

Beyond the minimum obligation to launch and implement a co-funded joint call, ERA-NET

Cofund actions engage in a variety of additional activities. These include implementing

additional calls without EU co-funding, dissemination activities, strategy building,

networking and expansion, or monitoring and evaluation activities296

. The following table

summarizes the budgets funded so far under Horizon 2020 and the relation to the Horizon

2020 priorities.

295 A detailed overview on the ERA-Nets from WP 2014-2015 is presented in the Annual Report on P2Ps from ERA-LEARN

2020. See in particular Figure 11.5.4 296 https://www.era-learn.eu/publications/ec-publications/analysis-of-era-net-cofund-actions-under-horizon-2020

272

Figure 73 Foreseen budgets from Horizon 2020 for ERA-NET Cofund actions published

in the WPs 2014-2017

Source: European Commission, Analysis of ERA-NET Co-Fund under Horizon 2020297

I.4. Art.185 initiatives

On Art.185 initiatives there is the legal obligation to carry out individual interim and final

evaluations. These will be summarized in a dedicated Staff Working Document on Art.185

initiatives, to be adopted October 2017. The following section will therefore only provide

basic data on Art.185 initiatives.

Art.185 initiatives are jointly implemented multiannual programmes between Member States,

including Associated Countries (AC) for the funding of research activities, in which the

Union participates by providing funding. They were promoted by the Commission in 2001 as

a way to implement the joint programming of research activities. The legal basis for their

creation is Art.185 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

As stated in Article 26 of the Horizon 2020 Regulation298

, Art.185 initiatives are proposed

only in cases 'where there is a need for a dedicated implementation structure and where there

is a high level of commitment of the participating countries to integration at scientific,

management and financial levels'. In addition, under Horizon 2020, Art 185 initiatives have to

apply the Rules of participation of Horizon 2020, unless derogations are introduced in their

basic acts.

Five Art.185 initiatives have been established since 2003. The actions supported may cover

subjects not directly linked to the themes of Horizon 2020, as far as they have a sufficient EU

added value. The Art.185 initiatives currently active are:

(1) Active and Assisted Living Research and Development Programme (AAL2):

innovative ICT-based solutions for active and healthy ageing.

297 https://bookshop.europa.eu/en/analysis-of-era-net-cofund-actions-under-horizon-2020-pbKI0116995/ 298 http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/legal_basis/fp/h2020-eu-establact_en.pdf

€M no €M no €M no €M no

Excellent Science

Future and Emerging Technologies 18,0 2 5,0 1

Industrial Leadership

ICT 6,0 1

Nano, Materials, Biotech and Manufacturing 12,5 1 30,0 3

Societal challenges

Health, demographic change and wellbeing 27,4 4 15,0 3 5,0 1

Food security, agriculture, marine,

bioeconomy

5,0 1 15,0 3 35,0 5 15,1 3

Secure, clean and efficient energy 36,8 3 36,3 4 45,8 5 33,5 4

Smart, green and integrated transport 10,0 1

Climate action, environment, resource

efficiency and raw materials

18,2 2 51,0 3 13,0 3 30,0 3

Europe in a changing world – inclusive,

innovative and reflective Societies

5,0 1 5,0 1 5,0 1 5,0 1

Science with and for society 5,0 1

Total 92,4 11 140,8 16 161,8 21 93,6 13

2014 2015 2016 2017

https://bookshop.europa.eu/en/analysis-of-era-net-cofund-actions-under-horizon-2020-pbKI0116995/

273

(2) European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership 2 (EDCTP2): new or

improved treatments for poverty-related diseases in sub-Saharan Africa; with

(3) The European Metrology Programme for Research and Innovation (EMPIR): new

measurement solutions for industrial competitiveness and societal challenges;

(4) Eurostars 2: support to the transnational collaboration of R&D performing SMEs;

(5) BONUS: Joint Baltic Sea Research Programme

The following table summarises participation and financial contributions.

Figure 74 Participation and Financial contribution of the Union and the Participating

States to the Art.185 initiatives under Horizon 2020 (in italic: contributions for the

programmes under FP6/FP7

Art.185 initiatives adopted under Horizon

2020

Participating

countries

EU (max)

[Euro million]

Participating States (min)

[Euro million]

Active and Assisted Living R&D

Programme (AAL2)

AAL (FP7)

17 MS + 3 AC 175

150

175

200

European and Developing Countries Clinical

Trials Partnership 2 (EDCTP2)

EDCTP (FP6)

15 MS + 2AC 683

200

683

200

European Metrology Research Programme

(EMPIR)

EMRP, FP7

23 MS + 5 AC 300

200

300

200

Eurostars2 (for SMEs)

Eurostars1 (FP7)

28 MS + 5 AC 287

100

861

300

BONUS (FP7) 8 MS 50 50

Source: European Commission

Following a request made by nine Member States in December 2014, the European

Commission adopted on 18 October 2016 a proposal to establish a new public-public

Partnership for Research and Innovation in the Mediterranean Area (PRIMA) under Art.185

TFEU. PRIMA would focus on two key socioeconomic issues that are important for the

region: food systems and water resources. The proposed decision would establish the

partnership for a period of 10 years and would provide PRIMA with EUR 200 million in EU

funds from Horizon 2020, to match the commitments of the participating states.

All currently active Art. 185 initiatives have been initiated under FP6 (EDCTP) or FP7.

Consequently, these initiatives already comprise several years of activities, where results and

impacts can be described. The five active Art. 185 initiatives display a variety of key

characteristics – BONUS and EDCTP focus on specific regional issues (environmental quality

of the Baltic sea and clinical trials for tropical diseases in Sub-Sahara Africa) – EUROSTARS

has target group orientation (R&D intensive SME) while EMPIR and AAL focus on specific

technologies with a, however, very different scope – AAL targets ICT solutions for active

ageing with a strong end-user perspective while EMPIR focus on metrology technologies in

diverse application areas.

274

Consequently, the desired impacts of the individual initiatives differ substantially – while for

AAL and EUROSTARS the market share/additional turn-over of induced technological

innovations are key impacts, the main objective of BONUS is an improved environmental

management of the Baltic Sea. EDCTP, on the other hand, has desired impacts in the capacity

building in Sub-Sahara Africa for the treatment of tropical diseases and a broad uptake of

good practices i.e. by means of WHO guidelines for the treatment of HIV, Malaria or

Tuberculosis. EMPIR has a clear industrial orientation, with its main impacts in the

contribution/shaping of standards and norms and in the strengthening the uptake of industrial

innovations to societal challenges, notably in the fields of energy, environmental protection

and health.

Despite their variety, however, Art. 185 contribute to EU-policy objectives, it being

competitiveness in the cases of AAL, EMPIR and EUROSTARS or global health in the case

of EDCTP or sustainable development in the case of BONUS.

I.5. Joint Programming Initiatives

In July 2008, the Commission presented joint programming as a Member State-led process,

designed to coordinate research in Europe and to address major societal challenges. The Joint

Programming Process (JPP) aimed at restructuring the European research landscape through

EU-level reorientation and joint programming of research activities in key areas.

The following section provides a short summary of the ten JPIs adopted by the Council. The

Commission acts as an observer in all JPIs.

JPND (Neurodegenerative Diseases)

This JPI was the first to be launched in 2009. Its Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) was

adopted in 2011 and the first implementation plan in 2012. It has the largest number of

member countries (30). The EU FPs (FP7 and Horizon 2020) have supported JPND with two

CSAs and one ERA-NET Cofund299

.

FACCE (Agriculture, Food Security and Climate Change) The JPI on ‘agriculture, food security and climate change’ (FACCE) was launched in 2010.

Its SRA was adopted in 2012 and the first implementation plan in 2013. The updated SRA

was published in January 2016 as well as the Implementation Plan 2016-2018. It has 21 full

members and a significant number of additional third countries are participating through Joint

Calls. The EU FPs (FP7 and Horizon 2020) have supported FACCE with two CSAs and also

ERA-NET contracts (FP7 ERA-NET Plus, two Horizon 2020 ERA-NET Cofunds)300

.

JPI HDHL (Healthy Diet for Healthy Life) The JPI on ‘a healthy diet for a healthy life’ (HDHL) was launched in 2010. It has 19 member

countries (including Canada) and six observers. New Zealand became the most recent full

member. A second edition of the SRA has been produced and the current implementation plan

(2014-2015) will be superseded by another for the 2016-2018 period. The EU FPs (FP7 and

Horizon 2020) have supported JPI HDHL with two CSAs and one ERA-NET Cofund301

.

JPI CH (Cultural Heritage)

299 http://www.neurodegenerationresearch.eu/ 300 https://www.faccejpi.com/ 301 http://www.healthydietforhealthylife.eu/

275

The JPI on ‘cultural heritage and global change’ was launched in 2010. It adopted its SRA in

2013 and implementation plan in 2014. It has 19 members and seven observers. The EU FPs

(FP7 and Horizon 2020) have supported JPI CH with two CSAs and one FP7 ERA-NET

Plus302

.

JPI-MYBL (More Years Better Lives) The JPI for ‘more years better lives’ was launched in 2011 and adopted its SRA in 2014. The

implementation plan is under development and there is a short term work programme for

2015-2016. There are now 17 full members (Israel and Slovenia recently joined) and one

observer. The EU FPs (FP7 and Horizon 2020) have supported JPI-MYBL with two CSAs303

.

JPIAMR (Antimicrobial Resistance) The JPI on ‘anti-microbial resistance’ was launched in 2011 and adopted its SRA at the end of

2013. The 1st implementation plan was adopted in 2014 with the second version adopted in

2016. It has 22 member countries. The EU FPs (FP7 and Horizon 2020) have supported JPI

AMR through two CSAs and one ERA-NET Cofund304

.

Water JPI (Water Challenges for a Changing World) The JPI on ‘water challenges for a changing world’ was launched in 2011 and adopted its first

Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda (SRIA) in 2013 with the implementation plan

adopted in 2014. It has 21 member countries and four observers. Another six third countries

are participating in Joint Calls. The EU FPs (FP7 and Horizon 2020) have supported JPI

Water through two CSAs and two ERA-NET Cofund actions305

.

JPI Oceans (Healthy and Productive Oceans) The JPI on ‘healthy and productive seas and oceans’ was launched in 2011. Its SRIA was

adopted in 2014 and the implementation plan in 2015. There are 21 members and one

observer. The EU FPs (FP7 and Horizon 2020 have supported JPI Oceans through two CSAs

and one ERA-NET Cofund306

.

JPI Climate (Connecting Climate Knowledge for Europe) The JPI on ‘connecting climate knowledge for Europe’ was launched in May 2011 with the

adoption of the SRA. An implementation plan was adopted in 2013. JPI Climate has 17 full

members and four observer institutions. Additional countries participate in individual

activities. The EU FPs (FP7 and Horizon 2020) have supported JPI Climate activities through

one CSA and one ERA-NET Cofund307

.

JPI UE (Urban Europe) JPI Urban Europe was launched in 2011 and adopted its first SRIA at the end of 2015. It has

13 member countries, six observer countries and some dissemination partner countries. The

EU FPs (FP7 and Horizon 2020) have supported JPI UE with two CSAs and two ERA-NET

Cofunds308

.

302 http://www.jpi-culturalheritage.eu/ 303 http://www.jp-demographic.eu/ 304 http://www.jpiamr.eu/ 305 http://www.waterjpi.eu/ 306 http://www.jpi-oceans.eu/ 307 http://www.jpi-climate.eu/home 308 http://jpi-urbaneurope.eu/

276

While the implementation of joint calls is only one typical activity of JPIs, it remains

currently the only activity where, at least to a limited extent, the alignment of national

programmes to the JPIs can be quantitatively described309

. The following figure shows the

level of committed national budgets to the individual JPIs over the period 2011-2015,

highlighting the clear upward trend in national commitments to JPIs joint calls.

Figure 75 National Budgets committed to calls launched by Joint Programming

Initiatives

Source: ERA LEARN, Evaluation of Joint Programming to address grand societal challenges

A breakdown of the national contributions to the joint calls between 2011 and 2015 is

presented in the following figure.

309 As no data are available on total national competitive funding in the targeted fields, the ratio between national funding and

contributions to JPIs can’t be measured.

277

Figure 76 National budgets committed to calls launched by Joint Programming

Initiatives between 2011-2015


I.6. Evaluation Results on Public-Public Partnershipss

From the P2P portfolio, the Joint Programming Process (JPP/JPIs) and the ERA-Net CoFund

instrument under Horizon 2020 have already been subject to evaluations, carried out with the

support of independent experts.310

In addition, the ERA Progress Report 2016 analyses the progress of Member States with

respect to the Top Action Priorities identified in the ERA Roadmap that was adopted by the

Council in June 2015311

. For the priority 2a (jointly addressing societal challenges) the Top

Action Priority is “Improving alignment within and across the Joint Programming Process

and the resulting initiatives (e.g. Joint Programming Initiatives (JPIs)) and speeding up their

implementation”.

310 For the Art 185 initiatives, a number of evaluations are underway, notably two final evaluations of the FP7 initiatives

BONUS and EMPR and four interim evaluations of the Horizon 2020 initiatives AAL2, EDCTP2, EMPIR and

EUROSTARS2. These will be accompanied by a meta-evaluation. Results will be presented in a separate Staff Working

Document (SWD) by the end of 2017, accompanying the Commission Communication on the Horizon 2020 interim

evaluation. 311 https://era.gv.at/object/document/1817/attach/0_pdf.pdf

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Qatar

Moldova

Greece

Czech Republic

China

Bulgaria

Argentina

United States

South Africa

New Zealand

Japan

India

Brazil

Australia

Slovenia

Lithuania

Slovakia

Estonia

Luxembourg

Israel

Canada

Turkey

Switzerland

Romania

Cyprus

Portugal

Finland

Austria

Poland

Ireland

United Kingdom

Sweden

Denmark

Spain

Italy

Norway

Germany

Belgium

France

Netherlands

l Member State l Associated Country l Third Country

https://era.gv.at/object/document/1817/attach/0_pdf.pdf

278

I.6.1. Evaluation of Joint Programming to Address Grand Societal Challenges

The Joint Programming evaluation developed a framework with eight indicators to enable a

qualitative assessment of the JPIs with respect to their progress towards impact on the societal

challenge and mobilisation of co-investment and alignment actions. The following diagram

presents the overall qualitative "scores" for the ten JPIs.

Figure 77 Indicators and average scores of JPIs for a qualitative assessment of the JPIs

with respect to their progress towards impact on the societal challenge and mobilisation

of co-investment and alignment actions


All JPIs were qualitatively assessed using this framework. This revealed some different

patterns and the relative nascent nature of some JPIs. The key message from evaluation is that

the Joint Programming Process does not yet have sufficient ‘commitment’ from national

stakeholders to achieve its potential. Important considerations arising from this evaluation for

national and EU policy stakeholders include:

The Joint Programming Process offers the opportunity to create scale and scope in

R&D in Europe but this will only become a reality if national, transnational and EU

policies and priorities are developed in a more collaborative way;

The deliberations for the next Framework Programme offers the option to design and

implement a multi-level approach to joint programming leading to a critical mass of

coordinated societal challenge R&D across Europe and at the EU/international level.

The overarching recommendation of the Expert Group is, therefore, that: “Each of the JPIs

(and any other prospective ones) should be invited to consider their longer term strategy in

terms of socio-economic impact objectives/deliverables and what support instruments they

would need from the next Framework Programme. Any such proposals should, of course,

include firm commitments from national stakeholders (including how they will integrate the

JPI within national programming) and, where appropriate, other societal challenge

stakeholders such as industry”312

.

312

0

1

2

3

4

5

Societal challengepositioning

International leadership

Driving innovation

Variety of instruments

Investment in joint R&I

Share of nationalinvestment

Degree of nationalalignment

Self-sustainability

JPI Average

279

I.6.2. Analysis of ERA-NET Cofund actions under Horizon 2020

An evaluation313

of the ERA-Net Cofund instrument was carried out with the support of an

independent expert group in 2016. The expert group analysed the ERA-Net Cofunds within

the Horizon 2020 WP 2014/2015.

While the relevance of the ERA-NET Cofund instrument has been confirmed by the

evaluation, coherence among ERA-NETs but also between the ERA-NETs and other joint

initiatives is clearly underdeveloped. Consequently, coordination needs to be improved

among different ERA-NET Cofund actions in similar areas, and between ERA-NET Cofund

actions and other instruments and initiatives supporting public-public or public-private

partnerships in research and innovation (such as Joint Programming Initiatives, Art. 185

initiatives, Public-Private Partnerships, Knowledge and Innovation Communities). ERA-NET

Cofund actions are not deeply embedded in national policy portfolios and/or national

strategies possibly reflecting Member States’ lack of ambition to fully realise the instrument’s

potential. These remarks point to the urgent need to define a strategy for the ERA-NET

instrument that is shared both by the different EC Directorates and among Member States.

According to the findings of the evaluation, the ERA-NET Cofund contributes significantly to

strengthening transnational cooperation by establishing lasting cooperation among countries

and creating a critical mass of resources to tackle EU societal challenges. It has contributed to

the coordination of national programmes and to a lesser extent to the alignment of national

policies. The instrument has facilitated widening participation of lower performing countries

although more can be done in this area.

The overall recommendation of the expert group is that the “ERA-NET Cofund actions need

to be underpinned by a comprehensive strategy in the challenge/thematic area addressed and

synergies with other instruments and initiatives should be explored in order to achieve ERA

objectives more efficiently”.

The expert group strongly requested that strategies for challenges/thematic areas should be

supported by an exercise — to be carried out by the interested Member States and Associated

Countries assisted by the Commission — to determine complementarity and synergies with

other existing P2Ps and PPPs as well as the Framework Programme Work Programmes. This

also needs to address the request expressed by Member States for a balance of investments

between P2Ps / PPPs initiatives and instruments and the ‘regular’ Horizon 2020 research and

innovation actions.

The lack of a coherent overall strategy for implementing national / EU R&I policies on

thematic priorities is shown in the following figure; While ERA-Net Cofund stakeholders

acknowledge the EU added-value and the creation of critical mass, coherence within the

ERA-Nets and with other P2Ps is not sufficiently developed.

313 https://bookshop.europa.eu/en/analysis-of-era-net-cofund-actions-under-horizon-2020-pbKI0116995/

https://bookshop.europa.eu/en/analysis-of-era-net-cofund-actions-under-horizon-2020-pbKI0116995/

280

Figure 78 Relevance of ERA-NET Cofund actions to national / European policies

Source: Analysis of ERA-NET Cofund actions under Horizon 2020314

I.6.3. ERA Progress Report 2016: Priority 2a – jointly addressing societal

challenges

The ERA Progress Report 2016 concentrates on the headline indicators that have been

identified by ERAC315

to measure progress at Member State level in the eight ERA priorities

identified in the ERA Roadmap of 2015. The findings show that priority 2a, together with the

headline indicator for priority 3, has the highest growth rates among all eight ERA headline

indicators with an annual growth rate of 7.8% between 2010-2014. While this result is an

indication of the increasing internationalization of science in general, it also underlines the

increasing importance that national governments in Europe attribute to the stronger policy-

driven joint programming.

The following table presents the results of the ERA Progress Report 2016 for priority 2a

(Technical Report by Science Metrix 316

):

314 https://bookshop.europa.eu/en/analysis-of-era-net-cofund-actions-under-horizon-2020-pbKI0116995 315 http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-1208-2015-INIT/en/pdf 316 http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/pdf/era_progress_report2016/era_progress_report_2016_technical_report.pdf

281

Figure 79 GBARD (EUR) allocated to Europe-wide transnational, as well as bilateral or

multilateral, public R&D programmes per FTE researcher in the public sector (2010-

2014); the explanation for the Swiss data outlier can be found in the Technical Report

Source: ERA Progress Report 2016, Technical Report317

This interpretation is reinforced by the additional EMM indicators, notably the Member States

financial contributions to P2Ps within the EU R&D policy framework per FTE researcher in

the public sector.. This additional ERA indicator showed the highest growth rate of all ERA

indicators with an annual growth rate of 42.1 % in the years 2012-2014. Clearly, the provision

of a common policy framework at EU level as well as the provision of additional financial

resources (for Art 185 initiatives and ERA-NET Cofunds) acted as a catalyst for joint action

317 http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/pdf/era_progress_report2016/era_progress_report_2016_technical_report.pdf

CountryWeight in

GDPScore

(2014)CAGR

(2010-14)Lead/Gap

to EU-28 CAGRTrendline

(2007-14)

EU-28 2 507 7.8% N/A

Cluster 1 25.9% 10 923 5.0% -2.8

Cluster 2 36.6% 3 642 5.4% -2.4

Cluster 3 36.2% 1 140 15.0% 7.2

Cluster 4 1.2% 63 -22.8% -30.6

Cluster 1

CH 4.1% 27 941 :

BE 3.1% 9 251 1.0% -6.8

IT 12.6% 8 395 18.1% 10.3

AT 2.6% 6 958 3.4% -4.3

IS 0.1% 6 927 :

SE 3.4% 6 067 -2.5% -10.3

Cluster 2

DE 22.8% 4 686 -1.1% -8.9

NO 3.0% 4 414 -3.9% -11.7

NL 5.2% 4 101 10.4% 2.6

FI 1.6% 3 795 -0.2% -8.0

LU 0.4% 3 387 35.2% 27.4

CY 0.1% 3 018 0.7% -7.1

IE 1.5% 2 951 5.7% -2.0

DK 2.0% 2 787 -3.7% -11.4

Cluster 3

UK 17.6% 2 561 11.0% 3.3

ES 8.1% 2 385 6.2% -1.6

HR 0.3% 1 569 22.5% 14.8

CZ 1.2% 1 245 -3.4% -11.1

RO 1.2% 1 191 9.5% 1.7

EL 1.4% 1 098 -12.6% -20.4

LV 0.2% 1 030 47.1% 39.4

SI 0.3% 955 -18.4% -26.2

EE 0.2% 939 25.7% 18.0

PT 1.4% 749 1.4% -6.4

PL 3.2% 678 76.8% 69.0

LT 0.3% 220 24.8% 17.1

HU 0.8% 194 3.8% -4.0

Cluster 4

RS 0.3% 101 :

BG 0.3% 97 16.0% 8.2

SK 0.6% 52 15.7% 7.9

MT 0.1% 0 -100.0% -107.8

282

among Member States, and underlines the importance of EU policies and respective EU

action for the implementation of ERA.

Figure 80 Member State participation (EUR) in Public-to-Public collaborations

(ERA_Net Cofunds, Art. 185 initiatives and JPIs) per FTE researcher in the public

sector (2012-2014)

Source: ERA Progress Report 2016, Data from ERA-LEARN 2020 – calculations by Science Metrix.

As this additional ERA-indicator is statistically one fraction of the headline indicator for this

priority, it can be argued that the common EU policy framework and the additional resources

provided by the EU R&D framework programmes led to a significant leverage effect at

national level for participating in Joint Programming – notably as the growth rate for the

additional indicator is about four times as high as for the headline indicator.

On average, the national P2P contributions account for 20% of the overall national GBARD

to transnational programmes. The comparison between the two tables highlights some

relevant strategies of Member States:

CountryWeight in

GDPScore

(2014)CAGR

(2012-14)Lead/Gap to EU-28 CAGR

Trendline (2012-14)

EU-28 512 42.1% N/A

Cluster 1 3.6% 2 836 123.8% 81.8

Cluster 2 14.6% 1 176 94.7% 52.6

Cluster 3 81.8% 302 66.9% 24.8

Cluster 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Cluster 1

CY 0.1% 3 625 235.0% 192.9

LU 0.4% 2 836 29.4% -12.7

SE 3.1% 2 046 107.2% 65.1

Cluster 2

AT 2.4% 1 610 49.9% 7.8

DK 1.9% 1 358 99.1% 57.0

LV 0.2% 1 334 232.2% 190.1

NL 4.7% 1 087 90.3% 48.2

BE 2.9% 1 064 55.5% 13.4

MT 0.1% 1 047 :

FI 1.5% 983 66.4% 24.3

RO 1.1% 927 69.4% 27.3

Cluster 3

SI 0.3% 769 20.6% -21.4

IE 1.4% 739 33.7% -8.4

DE 20.9% 571 21.4% -20.7

FR 15.3% 439 33.0% -9.1

EE 0.1% 367 196.1% 154.0

UK 16.2% 345 38.3% -3.8

ES 7.5% 312 34.7% -7.4

IT 11.5% 255 3.7% -38.4

PL 2.9% 253 23.1% -19.0

PT 1.2% 224 58.3% 16.2

HU 0.7% 199 234.0% 191.9

LT 0.3% 163 104.9% 62.9

SK 0.5% 142 14.6% -27.5

HR 0.3% 133 249.5% 207.4

CZ 1.1% 104 37.3% -4.8

BG 0.3% 103 93.1% 51.0

EL 1.3% 18 -59.5% -101.6

283

Some Member States such as CY or HU invest nearly all available resources for

transnational cooperation in P2Ps;

For the large EU Member States such as DE or the UK, the national contributions to

P2Ps are usually smaller than the EU average of 20%318

;

A substantive group of Member States such as AT, BE, SE, FI or DK display

declining overall funding for transnational cooperation while increasing their

contributions to P2Ps, suggesting clear policy choices in favor of transnational

programmes embedded in the overall EU policy framework of P2Ps.

The ERA Progress Report 2016 includes some analysis on the National ERA Action Plans

(NAPs), which have been developed following the Council Conclusions on the European

ERA Roadmap in 2015. So far, 24 Member States and four Associated Countries adopted a

national ERA action plan.

The NAPs present a broad range of measures and activities of Member States and Associated

countries to strengthen their participation in Joint Programming and to better align national

and Europe-wide R&D programming. These include:

Communication and information measures including better information of R&D actors

concerning the opportunities and added-value from participating in Joint

Programming;

Governance and coordination measures are introduced by a number of Member States.

Dedicated funding measures are introduced by a number of Member States for the

participation in Joint Programming.

Harmonisation of funding rules has been introduced by several Member States aiming

at facilitating the national participation in the JPI’s.

Outreach measures towards smart specialization strategies and sectoral policies,

especially focusing on better articulation between the European Structural and

Investment Funds, notably the regional smart specialization strategies, and the SRIA’s

of the JPI’s.

I.7. Lessons learnt

Based on the evidence accumulated to date, the strengths and weaknesses of P2Ps can be

summarised as follows:

Strengths

There is the potential for high European and national added value due to the more

efficient and effective use of public resources;

There has been a clear contribution to the better design and implementation of sectoral

policies aligned towards societal challenges;

318 Data for FR is not available.

284

Participating countries invest significant amounts in P2Ps and consider that they offer

effective ways of supporting trans-national collaboration;

There have been significant streamlining, leverage and alignment effects as a

consequence of the exchange of good practice, notably in terms of mobilising and

aligning national resources with initiatives with similar objectives in other countries

and with EU level objectives;

The potential for cooperation with international partners both within and outside of

Europe has been enhanced.

Weaknesses

Despite their potential benefits, the long-term commitment of national funds to P2Ps is

limited by budgetary and legal constraints;

Although there have been alignment effects, the strategic positioning of P2Ps between

national initiatives and EU initiatives is not always clear;

The focus of P2Ps to date has been on competitive funding, which is in short supply in

many countries, and the potential for aligning and integrating institutional support

mechanisms remains relatively untapped (apart from the Art.185 on metrology);

Many potential national partners in Joint Programming P2Ps lack the institutional,

organisational and strategic management capacities to participate effectively;

Weak interactions in some countries between national research communities and other

actors located within national innovation systems (e.g. public authorities, industry and

other end users) limit the potential for downstream impacts.

Some key issues are instrumental for an overall performance improvement of P2Ps:

rationale, aims and objectives, scope and focus, governance, finance and impact.

(1) Rationale

The continued existence of Joint Programming depends on the articulation and acceptance at

the highest levels of convincing arguments in its favour.

The case for Joint Programming was established in the last decade and financial support for

initiatives to be undertaken has grown appreciably since. Nevertheless, it still accounts for

only 3% of the Framework Programme budget and for an even smaller percentage of national

expenditure on R&D. It suffers, therefore, from a lack of visibility when overarching

strategies for research and innovation at national and EU levels are discussed at the highest

policy levels. It seems that the arguments elaborated in the early days of Joint Programming319

were still valid, but that they needed to be revisited and reiterated, with the criteria for

establishing P2Ps clearly articulated and widely discussed in policy circles.

319 See, for example, ‘Towards Joint Programming in Research’, SEC(2008)2282, Brussels, 17.07.2008 at

http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST%2011935%202008%20ADD%202

http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST%2011935%202008%20ADD%202

285

(2) Aims and Objectives

There is a clear need for mutually agreed aims and objectives if performance is to be

improved.

The evaluations of Joint Programming and of the ERA-Net CoFund noted that there had been

mixed success to date in terms of ensuring that the wishes of all partners are respected when

formulating the aims and objectives of individual P2Ps, and that this situation needed to be

remedied in future. There is an even greater need for clarity concerning the specific aims and

objectives of the Joint Programming process as a whole and the role of Joint Programming

within national and EU contexts. Many individual initiatives coexist within a universe of

multiple other initiatives at EU and national levels, with all the attendant potential for

negative interactions and unrealised synergies in the absence of an overview of how

everything fits together.

(3) Scope and Focus

A greater focus on the scope of initiatives is needed to make the best use of resources and

avoid obvious barriers, traps and pitfalls.

Looking across all P2Ps, there is a tension, on the one hand, between the flexibility and

multiplicity of choice offered by a wide range of joint initiatives and, on the other hand, the

competing need to concentrate on a narrower range of initiatives and topics in order to make

the best use of scarce resources. Finding ways of ensuring that strategic choices can be

implemented in flexible ways is, thus, another key task for the future.

(4) Governance

Clear leadership, lines of responsibility and rules of procedure are essential to sound

governance.

The evaluations expressed some concern about governance arrangements for P2Ps as a whole,

and especially for the relative roles played by, for example, Framework Programme

Committees and the governing bodies of JPIs in the formulation and implementation of

research and innovation-related agendas in Europe. Both evaluations stress the administrative

burden associated with the higher transaction costs of P2Ps is a particular problem that needed

to be resolved. They also point to the continued existence of regulatory and legislative barriers

to the full integration of joint activities at national level.

(5) Finance

Better mechanisms are needed to ensure more stable, longer-term financial arrangements.

The JPI evaluation highlighted that the current rather unstable financing mechanism at

national level for P2Ps constitutes a major barrier for more impacts. Securing long-term

financing while respecting the budgetary constraints and policy cycles of Member States

undoubtedly remains an essential task for the future.

(6) Impact

The need to demonstrate the impact of P2Ps is vital if they are to realise their full potential

within European research and innovation-related policy portfolios.

286

Both evaluations agreed about the need to realise the potential of Joint Programming by

ensuring the attainment of expected impacts. Demonstrating impact is important if the value

of P2Ps is to be recognised at ministerial levels and taken into account when formulating

future strategies at both national and EU levels.

287

J. FURTHER INFORMATION ON THE IN-DEPTH ASSESSMENT OF PUBLIC-PRIVATE

PARTNERSHIPS

J.1. Introduction

Public-private partnerships under Horizon 2020 represent the joining of forces between the

EU and industry and provide funding for large-scale, longer-term and high risk/reward

research. They set out financial commitments, over a seven year period from both the EU and

from the industry partners. They each have clear objectives which need to be achieved by the

Partnerships. They bring together companies, universities, research laboratories, innovative

SMEs and other groups and organisations around major research and innovation challenges.

They establish their own strategic research and innovation agendas and fund projects selected

through open and competitive calls for project proposals.

The Joint Undertakings (JUs)320

are public-private partnerships (PPP)321

in industrial research

at European level. They were set up in 2007-2008 under the Seventh Framework Programme

(FP7) in five strategic areas — aeronautics and air transport, health, fuel cell and hydrogen

technologies, embedded computing systems and nano-electronics. Bringing together industry,

the research community, Member States322

, regulators and the EU to define and implement

common research agendas and invest in large-scale multinational research activities, the Joint

Undertakings are concrete examples of the European Union's efforts towards strengthening its

competitiveness through scientific excellence, industry led research, openness and innovation.

Based on the experience acquired under FP7, a new generation of public and private

partnerships was set up323

by the European Commission, aiming to collectively pool more

than EUR 22 billion of research and innovation investments. This led to the establishment of

the following seven Joint Undertakings that organise their own research and innovation

agenda324

and award Horizon 2020 funding for projects on the basis of competitive calls:

Clean Sky 2 (CS2), Fuel Cells and Hydrogen 2 (FCH2), Innovative Medicines Initiative 2

(IMI2), Electronic Components and Systems for European Leadership (ECSEL replacing

ARTEMIS and ENIAC), Bio-based Industries (BBI), Single European Sky Air Traffic

Management Research (SESAR) and Shift2Rail.

As Article 32 (3) of the Horizon 2020 Regulation requires the Commission to provide an in-

depth assessment on the openness, transparency and effectiveness of Joint Undertakings, this

analysis is organised around these three evaluation topics. Finally, it should be noted that the

report reflects an aggregated assessment of all seven Joint Undertakings together, highlighting

relevant individual examples, exceptions and deviations where needed. A more in-depth

evaluation of Joint Undertakings will be available in Autumn 2017.

320 Article 187 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) states that ‘the Union may set up Joint Undertakings or

any other structure necessary for the efficient execution of Union research, technological development and demonstration

programmes’. 321 In addition to the institutionalised PPPs, also the contractual Public-Private Partnerships (cPPPs) have a legal basis in

Article 25 of the regulation establishing Horizon 2020. Please note that the assessment of cPPPs is not included in this

document but will be part of the overall SWD, planned for 2017. 322 Only ECSEL include Member States as part of the JU. All other JUs do not include Member States as such but

nevertheless do consult them through the State Representative Group which is an advisory body. 323 An exception is the SESAR JU for which the existing JU Regulation was extended. 324 Exception is the SESAR JU agenda of which is set by the Member States, various Air Traffic Management. (ATM)

stakeholders and the members of the PPP in the framework of the European ATM Master Plan.

288

Complementing the Joint Undertakings, the Commission in FP7 also engaged in structured

partnerships with the private sector to seek direct input into the preparation of the work

programmes in areas which were defined upfront and which are of great industrial relevance.

Three such partnerships were launched under the European Economic Recovery Plan325

, and

implemented through call topics under FP7 rules of participation with a total Union

contribution of EUR 1.6 billion. The calls have been highly relevant to industry with about

half of the project funding allocated to industry, and about 30% to SMEs.

Building on this experience, under Horizon 2020 ten contractual public-private partnerships326

have been established: Factories of the Future; Energy-efficient Buildings; European Green

Vehicles Initiative; 5G Infrastructure; Sustainable Process Industry; Robotics; Photonics;

High Performance Computing; Big Data Value and Cybersecurity. These partnerships are

implemented through calls with a total Union contribution of EUR 6.6 billion327

, are based on

a contractual arrangement between the Commission and the industry partners, setting out the

objectives, commitments, key performance indicators and outputs to be delivered.

An evaluation on contractual public-private partnerships (except Cybersecurity established in

the second half of 2016), implemented within Horizon 2020 (cPPPs), will be prepared

together with a Group of Experts between April and September 2017.

J.2. Openness

J.2.1. Openness to newcomers

In order to assess the openness of Joint Undertakings, especially towards newcomers, a

distinction is made between the openness of its membership policy and the openness of its

participation policy and procedures for the respective research activities.

J.2.1.1. Openness of the Joint Undertakings Membership policy

In most Joint Undertakings different levels of membership can be distinguished according to a

"hierarchical" logic with different rights (e.g. decision making power within the JU, access to

the JU research programme(s), share of EU contribution) and obligations (e.g. size of the fees

and contributions to be paid to the JU, duration of the commitment). Although not the same

for all Joint Undertakings, overall the following types of members can be distinguished:

Full members (e.g. " BIC328

" in BBI, the "Industrial members" in SESAR329

, the

"Leaders" in CS2, the eight founding members in S2R, the Industry Grouping

members and the Research Grouping members in FCH2, the Private Members Board

in ECSEL)

Associated members (e.g. "Associated Partners" of IMI2, the "Core" partners in

CS2);

325 COM(2008) 800. 326 The first four take forward public-private partnerships established under FP7. 327 Excluding budget for the Cybersecurity cPPP 328 BIC: Bio-based Industries Consortium Asbl, a non-profit organisation established under Belgian law with its permanent

office in Brussels, Belgium. 329 Full members include public and private single entities, legal consortia and consortia established for the purpose of

Membership of the SESAR JU (renewed and extended with the extension of the founding regulation) and in addition to the

two founding members (EU and EUROCONTROL).

289

Partners ("third parties" linked to the industrial partners in SESAR).

Overall, all Joint Undertakings have an open access policy towards membership and describe

their procedure for membership on their respective websites. Depending on the level of the

membership, some eligibility conditions and entry or annual fees apply. Besides the general

condition that candidate members should have knowledge and expertise in the respective

sectors of the Joint Undertakings, the membership criteria per Joint Undertaking can be

summarised as follows:

BBI: any legal entity that directly or indirectly supports R&I in a Member State or in

an Associated Country;

CS2: any legal entity established in a Member State or in an Horizon 2020 Associated

Country may become a core partner;

FCH2: any legal entity in a Member State or Horizon 2020 Associated Country,

which is or plans to be active in the FCH sector and is sharing and supporting the

objectives of the FCH 2 JU can apply to become member of the Industry or Research

Grouping ;

IMI2: any legal entity that directly or indirectly supports R&I in a Member State or in

an Horizon 2020 Associated Country. Legal entities can also apply to become

Associated Partners;

ECSEL: Member States or Horizon 2020 Associated Countries; any country pursuing

R&I policies in electronic components and systems; any legal entity that directly or

indirectly supports R&I in a Member State or in an Horizon 2020 Associated Country;

S2R: any legal entity, grouping or consortium of legal entities established in a

Member State or in an Horizon 2020 Associated Country.

SESAR: beyond the two founding members, any other public or private undertaking

or body including those from third countries that have concluded at least one

agreement with the European Union in the field of air transport330

with the

participation ensuring a proper balance between airspace users, air navigation service

providers, airports, military, professional staff associations and manufacturers and

offer opportunities to SMEs, academia and research organisations331

.

The openness of membership towards newcomers is highly impacted by the entry ticket

system. As already mentioned, this is a system where candidate members are asked to make a

substantial financial contribution and/or in-kind contributions to the Joint Undertaking in

return for their membership. Although it has many advantages, it may also include some

disadvantages that can impact the “openness” of the Joint Undertakings towards new

members.

330 Council Regulation (EC) No 219/2007 of 27 February 2007 on the establishment of a Joint Undertaking to develop the

new generation European air traffic management system (SESAR), Statutes of the Joint Undertaking, Article 1. 331 Council Regulation (EC) No 721/2014.

290

Table 52 Advantages and disadvantages of the entry ticket system

Possible advantages Possible disadvantages

In return for the entry ticket, members are directly

involved in the governance of the JU.

Members can contribute to the definitions and

development of the multi annual action plans,

annual work documents, call topics.

Members have access to the research programmes

and activities of the JU and therefore also to the EU

co-financing budget.

Organisations that make a significant (financial)

contribution to the JU bring stability and tend to be

strongly committed to the success of the

programme.

As was mentioned by S2R, the entry ticket system

results in lower overall co-financing rates for

members and consequently in higher direct

leverage effects as the members are required to

make the majority of their in-kind contributions

towards the indirect actions (projects) co-funded by

the JU.

Smaller entities like SMEs, smaller universities and

research centres and small organisations coming

from EU-13 countries may face difficulties to pay

for the required entry tickets which represent

significant contributions, unless forming consortia.

Entry tickets imply a long term commitment to the

JU, often for the whole duration of the JU. Not all

stakeholders (typically smaller entities) are able to

make this long term commitment

Source: Information provided by the thematic units responsible for the seven respective Joint Undertakings

Another factor which influences the "openness" towards new members is the application

procedure used for membership. While most Joint Undertakings apply a system where a

request for membership can be submitted at any given time and is evaluated on a case by case

basis, other Joint Undertakings organise competitive calls for (associated) membership on a

periodic basis (e.g. S2R). In the latter case, although open to all, candidates have fewer

opportunities to become members as they need to wait until a call is launched. The

membership procedure can also include negotiations between the Joint Undertaking and the

candidate as it is the case of SESAR.

J.2.1.2. Openness of the Joint Undertakings Participation policy

Concerning the openness of Joint Undertakings towards participation in their respective

research activities and programme(s), we can distinguish two types of Joint Undertakings.

Joint Undertakings that publish only calls that are open to both members and non-members

(BBI, IMI2, FCH2, ECSEL) and Joint Undertakings that prescribe restricted research

activities reserved to members only and, also, publish calls on other research activities open to

non-members (SESAR, S2R, CS2).

In addition to the mechanism of open calls, several Joint Undertakings set aside part of the EU

budget that is dedicated to non-members (S2R, CS2, SESAR, ECSEL) in order to

demonstrate their openness to all potential beneficiaries regardless of type or size.

Some quantitative figures on the number of newcomers in the second generation and extended

Joint Undertakings are:

Overall for all Joint Undertakings, 27% of the beneficiaries are new;

291

BBI: among the top 25 beneficiaries that receive the highest BBI JU contribution, 8

have never participated in any of the FP7 or Horizon 2020 calls before, which equals

to 32% newcomers;

IMI2: 50% new participants in signed grants;

FCH2: 24% new participants in signed grants.

To conclude, although the criteria for membership to the Joint Undertakings can be

considered straightforward and open, the size of the financial "entry ticket" or (annual) fees

influences substantially the type, size or composition of the entities that can actually become a

member and hence have access to the full package of benefits that a JU offers to its members.

Due to the substantial financial commitments that members have to make, SMEs, small

universities and research organisations may face financial barriers in becoming a JU member.

The openness to membership may also impact the participation in the research programmes

and the respective EU budget. For some Joint Undertakings certain research activities or

topics are only open to members (CS2, SESAR, S2R) and/or a fixed percentage of the EU

budget is reserved for the non-members (S2R, ECSEL).

In order to overcome some of the entry barriers and to demonstrate openness towards

newcomers and players like SMEs, universities and research organisations the Joint

Undertakings introduced a number of mechanisms and tools:

Applying different levels of membership, implying different levels of commitment as

described above (IMI2);

Applying different minimum contributions and fees or other in kind contributions for

different types of players (e.g. lower fees for SMEs) (SESAR, FCH2);

Organising calls which are reserved only for non-members (SESAR, S2R) or calls

which are open to both members and non-members (BBI, IMI2);

Reserving a minimum volume or percentage of the EU budget for non-members (e.g

S2R, CS2, ECSEL, SESAR).

When assessing the openness towards membership, it has to be noted that not all stakeholders

and, in particular SMEs, are interested in or willing to become a member of the JU.

Membership brings along a long term commitment and some degree of additional

bureaucracy. They are only interested in participating in the research activities as a

beneficiary through the open calls.

J.2.1.3. Openness of the contractual Public-Private Partnerships

In the case of the contractual Public-Private Partnerships, their calls are included in the

Horizon 2020 Work Programme and applicants are then subject to the same rules of

participation as in other parts of the research programme.

a) In addition, the associations constituting the private side are open to new members. In

many industrial sectors and contractual Public-Private Partnerships, the associations

work closely with related European Technology Platforms to develop their strategies

292

and roadmaps. These platforms are also open to new members and do not require a

financial commitment, thus opening up participation in particular to SMEs.

b) The SME participation varies across contractual Public-Private Partnerships and

ranges from 11% to above 35%. The SME participation is based on optional self-

declaration and Commission validation. As such, the numbers may be underestimated.

c) The strong participation of non-members, as well as highly innovative and research

intensive industrial players, shows that the priorities of the contractual Public-Private

Partnerships are highly attractive to a vast range of stakeholders.

All contractual Public-Private Partnerships display an adequate and satisfactory level of

participation in terms of the targeted stakeholders within each field. Furthermore, the number

of members of contractual Public-Private Partnerships is growing, highlighting the positive

trend in terms of the level of engagement of the stakeholder community within the contractual

Public-Private Partnerships. Each contractual Public-Private Partnership aims to engage the

full technological value chain comprising of researchers, academia, manufacturers and users.

Table 53 Participation in calls of the contractual Public-Private Partnerships

Contractual

Public-Private

Partnerships332

FoF EeB EGVI SPIRE 5G HPC333

Photonics334

Robotics335

Big

data336

% of Non-members

in the

participations

77 75 67 73 71 62 80 58 78

% of Non-members

in the EC funding

77 70 53 71 60 60 71 46 71

% of Industry in

the participations

61 57 60 59 64 22 51 37 55

% of SMEs in the

participations

>35 >33 >15 >27 >17 >11 >28 18 >25

Source: European Commission,based on inputs from contractual Public-Private Partnerships

J.2.2. Attracting the "best players"

Judging from the Joint Undertakings memberships and their top ranking beneficiaries, one can

conclude that the Joint Undertakings are able to attract prominent players in their respective

fields of activity not only in terms of size and position in the market but also in terms of R&D

intensity and innovation potential. The table below presents some of the "best" players by

Joint Undertaking and sector of activity.

332 Data referring to the 2014 calls unless otherwise stated. The Big Data cPPP contractual arrangement only entered into

force on 1 January 2015, that for Cybersecurity on 5 July 2016. 333 Approximate figures coming from 29 projects that started in 2015. 334 Calculated for all funded projects in 2014-2016. The non-membership participation and funding is based on the 100

members of the board of stakeholders of the PPP. 335 Relating to 2014 - 2016 calls. 336 Calculated over all projects selected in the Big Data call of 2016. Both 'full members' and ''associate members' of the Big

Data Value Association (BDVA) are counted as 'members', the rest as "non-members".

293

Table 54 Overview of "best" Players by Joint Undertaking and sector of activity

Joint

Undertaking

Sectors/subsectors Presence of "best" players? Examples of attracted

members/participants

SESAR Air Traffic Management (ATM) industry, including air

navigation service providers, ATM systems

manufacturers, aircraft manufacturers, airports,

research institutes

The members of SESAR are indeed prominent players, for some

subsectors even the only players in the market

11 manufacturing industries including

AIRBUS, Dassault Aviation, Leonardo

Finmeccanica, ENAV, DFS, Indra,

Honeywell Aerospace, THALES,...

16 Air Navigation Service providers

7 airports including Paris, Heathrow,

München, Fraport, Schiphol and Zürich

3 Research Institutes: DLR, NLR, SINTEF

BBI BBI covers a wide range of distinct and broadly

defined economic sectors, dedicated to the sustainable

utilisation of Europe’s renewable biological resources

for industrial processing into a wide array of bio-based

products such as Chemicals, Materials, Food

ingredients and feed, and potentially Energy.

All sectors covered by the BBI JU are also active participants in the

calls of the JU.

The top 25 BBI JU participants in calls 2014-2015 in terms of

requested EU contribution include 16 organisations that have already

participated in FP7/Horizon 2020 projects, indicating their scientific

and technological excellence.

Borregaard, Clariant Produkte GmbH,

Novamont SPA, COSUN, UPM-

KYMMENE, METABOLIC EXPLORER,

AVANTIUM CHEMICALS,...

S2R The entire rail value chain: railway manufacturing and

supply industries, railway operating community and

the railway research community

The members of S2R (excl EU) include the leading railway system

integrators, manufacturers, infrastructure managers and passenger and

freight rail operators of Europe. The members show a balanced

representation of actors of the entire value chain, including SMEs and

academia. The same objective of balanced representation has also

been achieved in the first calls launched in December 2015

Alstom SA, AERFITEC, AMADEUS SA,

AZD Praha, Bombardier, Deutsche Bahn

AG, INDRA, Siemens, SNCF, Talgo, …

IMI2 Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology industries The best and main players are being attracted to IMI2 JU projects,

both Universities benefiting from EU funding as well as Industries

contributing in-kind (members).

The participants of the 15 first signed grants include 50% top 200

worldwide universities ("Multirank 2016"), 3 top 10 universities

("Shanghai Academic Ranking of World Universities 2016"), 9 out of

the top 10 EU Pharmaceutical & Biotechnology companies for R&D

investments (2015 EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard) and all

top 15 world pharmaceutical & biotechnology companies for R&D

investments. Additionally all industries contributing in-kind are

amongst the top 500 R&D investors worldwide (all sectors)

5 major EFPIA members which are leading

the 7 strategic Governing Groups advising

IMI2 are: Novartis, Johnson&Johnson -

Janssen, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, GSK

3 top 10 universities ("Shanghai Academic

Ranking of World Universities 2016") are

participants in the 15 first signed grants:

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

(USA), University of Oxford (UK and

University of Cambridge (UK)

CS2 European Aeronautics and aviation industry (including

the research centres)

The Cleansky membership includes the main European aeronautics

companies and the main European Aviation research centres.

AIRBUS, Dassault, Fraunhofer Gesellshaft,

Alenia, Rolls-Royce, SAAB, Thales,...

294

Joint

Undertaking

Sectors/subsectors Presence of "best" players? Examples of attracted

members/participants

FCH2 Fuel cell and hydrogen energy technologies in fields of

transport (cars, buses and refuelling infrastructure) and

energy (hydrogen production and distribution, energy

storage and stationary power generation).

FCH2 succeeded so far to attract some of the biggest players in the

field:

top-ranking car manufacturers

top energy and utility companies

High innovators both for transport as for energy are well presented.

Car manufacturers: VW, Daimler, Honda,

BMW, Nissan, Renault, Toyota, Hyundai,

…

Energy and utility companies: Bosch,

Siemens, GE, Engie, Solvay,…

ECSEL Electronic components and systems industry

Semiconductor and smart system manufacturing

Looking at the top 30 ECSEL participants and their position in the top

R&D in Europe and worldwide, we can conclude ECSEL attracts the

major players, counting among its participants many of the top-

ranking semiconductor and top multinational engineering and

electronics companies

ASML, Infineon, Fujitsu, Applied Materials,

STMicroelectronics, NXP Semiconductors,

ON Semi, KLA-Tencor, FEI, THALES,

SOITEC, Carl Zeiss, Daimler, Robert

Bosch, Philips and LAM Research


295

J.2.3. Participation of SMEs

As already mentioned, the entry ticket system can hamper the participation of SMEs in the JU

activities. However, depending on their respective industrial specificities and characteristics,

the Joint Undertakings take particular measures to increase the presence of SMEs in their

activities. These measures include, among others:

Giving SMEs a representation in the Governing Board so they can contribute to the

definition of the Work programme (FCH);

Applying lower entry fees in order to facilitate SME membership;

Simplifying the rules for participation;

Reserving access to funding only to SMEs and familiar research organisations, in

certain type of actions (BBI);

Defining call topics that appeal to SMEs;

Explaining the Intellectual Property (IP) issues;

Communicating better the opportunities and the benefits involved in SME

participation.

The SME shares in Horizon 2020 proposals as well as in the already signed Horizon 2020

grants are summarised in the table below. A distinction is made between their shares in terms

of number of applications/ participations and their shares in terms of EU contribution.

Additionally, the success rates for SMEs participating in JU proposals are presented. The

figures presented in the table refer to the (open) calls launched by the Joint Undertakings.

They do not include the shares of SMEs in research activities which are reserved for members

only.

Overall, 23,3% of all JU applicants are SMEs with 34,62% success rate among all applicants

and requesting 19,3% of the total requested EU contribution.

In signed grants, SMEs represent 19,5% of all JU beneficiaries. In terms of EU contribution,

SMEs received 18,4% of the funding. This also implies that Joint Undertakings almost but not

completely meet the overall target of 20% of the Horizon 2020 budget being earmarked for

SMEs.

The SME participation rates in Joint Undertakings operating under Horizon 2020, especially

in terms of EU funding, are above the overall Horizon 2020 average so far: 18,4% against

15,9% in terms of EU contribution granted to SMEs. In terms of participations however, The

share of SMEs in the JU's (19,5%) is slightly lower than the overall Horizon 2020 share of

19,8%.

It is important to mention that significant disparities in SME shares between the Joint

Undertakings can be observed. One important explanation for these disparities is the

differences in the structure of the respective industries of the different Joint Undertakings and

consequently the type, size and number of players active in them.

296

Another explanation is the barriers that still exist in some sectors that prevent SMEs to

participate. Examples of existing barriers mentioned amongst others by IMI2 are:

Competition with other programmes at national level and EU level, sometimes more

attractive to SMEs such as the SME instrument and Eurostars;

The rather short deadlines in calls in combination with a rather long time to grant from

an SME perspective;

SMEs lack awareness about opportunities under IMI2 JU;

SMEs have relatively weak links with the rest of the innovation ecosystem (academia,

pharmaceutical industries) thus facing problems to join the right consortia;

SME participation is harder for health research projects to attract SMEs because it is a

capital intensive sector compared with other Horizon 2020 funded sectors.

SMEs feel weak in consortia negotiations, especially on IP issues: SMEs come in late

to the (large) consortia, have limited financial and personnel means to allocate time

consuming and hard negotiation;

Topics which are too narrow defined for SMEs; they need more flexibility.

Table 55 SME shares in Horizon 2020 proposals and signed Horizon 2020 grants for

Joint Undertakings

Horizon

2020 JU

Proposals Signed Grants

% of SME

applications

% of

requested

EU funding

SME

Success rate

in terms of

application

SME Success

rate in terms

of EU

contribution

% of SME

participations

% of EU

funding

granted to

SMEs

SESAR 11,3% 8,4% 34,6% 55,6% 6,6% 8,3%

BBI 30,2% 29,6% 31,2% 25,4% 35,6% 29,2%

S2R 24,3% 16,2% 49,1% 37,4% 18,9% 9,6%

IMI 14,8% 11,8% 17,5% 18,7% 8,2% 10,1%

CS2 25,% 14,7% 24,4% 26,0% 27,4% 24,9%

FCH 22,4% 24,9% 29,8% 30,6% 26,5% 27,6%

ECSEL 27,4% 15,8% 55,12% 28,5% 19,2% 9,3%

TOTAL JU 23,3% 19,3% 34,6% 29,6% 19,6% 18,4%

Source: CORDA data as of 2 February 2017, Source for IMI2 data: JU Programme Office, IMI

Concerning the cPPPs, the participation of industrial organisations in the calls is around 60%

with the exception of HPC, and the SME participation ranges from 11% to 35%.

297

Table 56 Share of industry and SMEs in the participations in contractual Public-Private

Partnerships

Contractual

Public-Private

Partnerships 337

FoF EeB EGVI SPIRE 5G HPC338

Photonics339

Robotics340

Big

data341

% of Industry in

the participations

61 57 60 59 64 22 51 37 55

% of SMEs in the

participations

>35 >33 >15 >27 >17 >11 >28 18 >25

Source: European Commission, based on inputs from contractual Public-Private Partnerships

J.3. Transparency

By assessing the transparency of a JU and its research programmes and activities we want to

assess to which extend the Joint Undertakings have an open and non-discriminatory attitude

towards the wider community of stakeholders. All interested stakeholders should be aware of

the existence of the JU and its activities, that they should know where to get the information

needed, whether they have free and easy access to this information and whether rules and

procedures such as, for example, on how to participate in the JU's activities are clear to all. It

also measures to what extend the Joint Undertakings guarantee Open Access to information

and project results including publications and Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) which is

obligatory under Horizon 2020 and which dissemination activities the Joint Undertakings

have put in place in order to communicate project results and facilitate further exploitation

opportunities. A more recent element of open access is "the open access to data", i.e., to the

underlying research data produced during the lifecycle of the EU funded projects.

J.3.1. Inclusiveness of a wide community of stakeholders and easy and effective

access to information

All Joint Undertakings have put in place a wide range of mechanisms in order to enhance an

open and non-discriminatory attitude towards the wider stakeholder community, including the

general public. These mechanisms include typically a wide range of communication tools

(electronic vs non electronic; interactive vs non-interactive) and other mechanisms like

collaboration, coordination, consultation and advisory mechanisms.

The table below summarizes the most common communication channels used by the Joint

Undertakings for communicating and distribution of information to the relevant stakeholders:

337 Data referring to the 2014 calls (unless otherwise stated). The Big Data cPPP contractual arrangement only entered into

force on 1 January 2015, that for Cybersecurity on 5 July 2016. 338 Approximate figures coming from 29 projects that started in 2015. 339 Calculated for all funded projects in 2014-2016. The non-membership participation and funding is based on the 100

members of the board of stakeholders of the PPP. 340 Relating to 2014 - 2016 calls. 341 Calculated over all projects selected in the Big Data call of 2016. Both 'full members' and ''associate members' of the Big

Data Value Association (BDVA) are counted as 'members', the rest as "non-members".

298

Table 57: Overview of communication channels used by the Joint Undertakings for

communicating and distribution of information

Communication

tools used by Joint

Undertakings

Electronic Non-electronic

Interactive Dedicated interactive space on the official

website of the Joint Undertakings: e.g.

project ideas box, partnering platform

Use of the participant portal of the European

Commission for the launch of the calls

Social media: Twitter, YouTube video's,

LinkedIn, Facebook page

Webinars to provide information on calls

Organisation of or participation in

events on International or

national level: e.g. big

conferences, participation in

events organised by individual JU

members at national level,

organisation of annual

stakeholder meeting/event

reaching out a broad range of

categories of stakeholders

Non-interactive Periodical newsletters

Official JU website including all public

documents like Annual Work Programmes,

Annual Activity Reports, tender

notifications, …

Articles, publications in

specialised or non-specialised

written press, interviews

Distribution of information

leaflets, brochures, flyers


Overall, the approach of the Joint Undertakings towards their respective stakeholders is open

and inclusive as they consider them as partners rather than competitors. The Joint

Undertakings are employing not only the more "classic" range of communication tools but

also other mechanisms that aim at enhancing this inclusiveness and transparency such as:

Close cooperation and coordination with other Joint Undertakings (e.g. SESAR and

CS2);

Advisory bodies which represent all interested stakeholders (e.g. Open advisory

bodies of S2R, the 7 Strategic Governing Groups at IMI2);

Separate Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) between the JU and European regions

seeking synergies with other programmes (e.g. ESIF) (BBI);

Distributing "seals of excellence" labels to proposals which were above threshold but

could not be funded. Doing so, the proposal can maybe be picked up more easily by

other support programmes (CS2).

The process involving industrial stakeholders within cPPPs is mainly based on publicly

available strategic research agendas and roadmaps. There are also Partnership Boards between

Commission services (DG RTD or DG CNECT) and the industrial association to ensure

relevant needs and innovation trends are reflected in the programme. In addition, the

Programme Committee configurations with Member State representatives for the various

parts of Horizon 2020 give direct technical input on work programmes and are formally

invited to support the work programme on the basis of a vote. Thus, national administrations

have a major say on the contents of the work programme.

299

J.3.2. Open Access and Dissemination of project results

In order to communicate on and distribute project results to an as large as possible

community, the Joint Undertakings use a variety of tools, very similar to the above mentioned

communication tools:

A dedicated section on the JU's website for dissemination of project results and

publishable project summaries (SESAR, BBI, CS2). FCH2 for example has a fully

searchable project database, accessible to all;

Scientific Publications and Articles related to project results;

Publication of a book summarizing important project results (ECSEL, CS1, FCH2

Annual Programme Review Report);

Social Media such as Twitter, Facebook, YouTube to communicate and demonstrate

project results;

Organisation of and participation in events aiming at the distribution of project results

(conferences, project demonstrations).

However, in order to achieve full Open Access, not only the Joint Undertakings but all

beneficiaries should be aware and convinced of the benefits of an open access policy and take

initiatives in order to make project results available to a wider public. Several Joint

Undertakings therefore actively seek to promote the Open Access philosophy to their

beneficiaries by regularly informing beneficiaries on open access and the common support

services provided or by giving support and advice to beneficiaries on their dissemination

activities through for example validating their project dissemination products.

A step beyond the Open access to project results including publications and Intellectual

Property Rights (IPRs), is the Open Access to Data. During the reference period, the open

access to research data was not yet an obligation and was done on a voluntary basis by the

project beneficiaries. In general Joint Undertakings try to inform and raise the awareness of

their beneficiaries on the issue and on the existing common support services and existing IT

tools provided to facilitate this access to produced data sets. However, few beneficiaries so far

seem to be convinced to take the step towards open access to data, and some beneficiaries

face difficulties in sustaining important resources (including data) generated by the project

and of the added value for the broader community. IMI2 JU plans to launch a special call for

proposals at the end of July 2017 in order to ensure optimal exploitation of the key results

from IMI JU projects that have finished or are near to finish. This call will also aim at

facilitating access to and sustainability of key data sets, biological samples, cohorts, tools and

models produced during the implementation of the projects.

All the cPPPs are fully integrated in the Horizon 2020 dissemination platforms. Moreover, the

associations organise public events, forums, publications and announcements to further the

added value and impact of individual projects. Open access to data has been introduced in the

cPPPs: all new projects are by default in the programme, unless they opt-out with a

justification.

300

J.4. Effectiveness

Due to the late adoption of the Council Regulations establishing the Joint Undertakings only

few calls were launched in 2014. 2015 was the first year of actual implementation of the JU

calls launched under Horizon 2020. More specifically, as of February 2017, 35 JU calls were

launched and concluded. A total of 1677 eligible proposals involving 11719 applicants were

submitted in response to these calls. Following evaluation and selection, 473 proposals (28%)

were retained for funding with a total EU financial contribution amounting EUR 2.162,1

million. 351 grants totalling EUR 1.384,8 million of EU funding were already signed.

Among the successful applicants, 15,4% were HES, 59,8% PRC and 18,7% REC. SME

participation in selected proposals is 19,5 %.

The assessments on the progress made towards meeting the objectives (section 4.2) and the

leverage effects (section 4.3), are based on partial data coming from a limited number of

ongoing projects and/or on estimates based on forecasted project outputs.

J.4.1. Progress made towards meeting the objectives

All Joint Undertakings have included in their legal base a set of JU-specific objectives which

they have to meet by the end of the programme period in addition to a set of common Horizon

2020 objectives. The progress towards achieving these objectives is measured by a set of Key

Performance Indicators (KPIs) common to all Joint Undertakings342

and a set of JU-specific

KPIs343

. These sets of KPIs are regularly monitored and reported on in the Annual Activity

Reports of the Joint Undertakings.

Overall, on the basis of early and partial data available and on the basis of expected results of

the already funded projects (no project reports are yet available), the Joint Undertakings are

on track in terms of carrying out their planned activities, achieving their specific objectives

and ultimately contributing to the overall Horizon 2020 objectives.

The table below gives an overview of the JU-specific KPIs per JU with a qualitative

indication of their progress made so far based on the limited quantitative data available. A

detailed quantitative overview of the KPI's can be found in the annex.

342 Based on Annex II (PERFORMANCE INDICATORS) to Council Decision 2013/743/EU). 343 With the exception of SESAR JU that is not subjected to a predefined set of KPIs.

301

Table 58 Overview of the JU specific KPIs

Objective Key Performance Indicator Qualitative

assessment

IMI2

IMI2’s new calls for proposals

support the implementation of the

research priorities as set out in the

Strategic Research Agenda and

updated by the Governing Board

IMI2 KPI 1: Target number of priority areas defined in

IMI2 JU’s Annual Scientific

Priorities for year n that are addressed by IMI’s calls for

proposals launched in year n

IMI projects effectively deliver and

disseminate high quality outputs344

KPI 3: Target estimated average number of IMI

publications3 per EUR10 million of total IMI funding

requested by the projects

KPI 4: Target to measure extent to which IMI’s average

impact factor of journals in which IMI publications have

been published is higher than the EU average

KPI 5: Target to measure extent to which the citation

impact of IMI publications is higher than the EU average

KPI 6: Target to measure the extent to which IMIs

bibliometric indicators compare with those of other

international funding bodies.

KPI 6.1: Target to compare the citation impact of

IMI publications with the one of other international

funding bodies

KPI 6.2: Target to compare the percentage of highly

cited papers of IMI programme with the one of other

international funding bodies

IMI projects translate key scientific

discoveries into clinical practice and

regulatory framework

KPI 7: Target to measure the number of scientific advice

and qualified opinions initiated by the IMI projects at the

EMA and FDA

IMI projects increase EU

competitiveness and foster

innovation

KPI 10: Target to measure, on average, the number of

patent applications filed and/or awarded to those IMI

projects which have been reimbursed at least for the third

year of implementation

KPI 12: Target to measure the number of spin-off

companies or foundations created as a result of IMI

projects

BBI

Private funding balancing public

funding in all types of projects

KPI 1: in cash contribution committed345

346

Appropriate balance between

research, innovation and

deployment

KPI 2: Balance (%) of R&D, demonstration and

supporting projects

New cross-sector interconnections in

biobased economy

KPI 3: Number of cross-sector-interconnections in BBI

projects

New bio-based value chains KPI 4: New bio-based value chains realised

344 The listed KPIs belong to IMI2. However the underlying figures currently provided in AAR2015 and soon 2016, relate to

the outcomes of IMI JU projects (as outputs from IMI2 projects are still very limited). 345 The term "in cash contribution" refers to the financial contribution mentioned in Article 12(3)(b) corroborated with Article

12(4) of the BBI JU Statutes annexed to the BBI Regulation. 346 The seemingly little progress with regard to the in cash contribution is related to the matter of legal interpretation of the

Council Regulation establishing the BBI JU. The search for a solution is currently ongoing including a possible amendment

of the Council Regulation.

302

Objective Key Performance Indicator Qualitative

assessment

New building blocks based on

biomass of European origin

KPI 5: Number of new bio-based building blocks

New bio-based materials KPI 6:Number of new bio-based materials

New "consumer" products based on

bio-based chemicals and materials

KPI 7: Number of new bio-based consumer products

Flagship bio refinery projects KPI 8:Number of flagship biorefinery plants started

based on BBI demonstration projects

Shift2Rail

No data available yet347

CS2

Reducing at the global fleet level,

CO2 emission by 26%, NOx by 60%

and noise area by 50% to 75%.

Reduction of CO2

Reduction of NOx

Reduction of Noise area

FCH2

KPI 1: Share of the fund allocated to the following

research activities:

- renewable energy

- end-user energy efficiency

- smart grids

- storage

KPI 2: Demonstrator projects hosted in MSs and regions

benefiting from European Structural and Investment

Funds

ECSEL

Programme Magnitude KPI 1: RD&I effort in EUR (eligible costs)

Funding Magnitude KPI 2: Public contributions assigned to ECSEL projects

Extending the Community with

regards to country participation

KPI 5: Number of additional countries on top of the

supporting countries

SESAR348

Cost Efficiency Gate-to-Gate direct ANS cost per flight

Operational efficiency Fuel burn per flight

Flight time per flight

Capacity Departure delay

Additional flights at congested airports

Network throughout additional flights

Environment CO2 Emissions

Safety Accidents with ATM contribution

: Little progress; : On track; : Exceeding targets

Source: based on data provided by thematic units responsible for the seven Joint Undertakings

347 S2R is new and autonomous only as from May 2016, hence the lack of data on the KPIs. 348Please note that the KPIs listed in the table are not the KPIs included in the legal base of SESAR. The main performance

criterion for the SESAR JU is how effective it has been in defining, producing and deploying in a coordinated way new

innovative and harmonised ATM solutions that will improve the performance of European ATM system. This can only be

measured once the solutions have been deployed and are operating (towards 2015). In the context of the objectives of the

European ATM Master plan, SESAR developed a set of KPIs, as listed in the table, which measure the contribution of all

SESAR solutions developed and validated by SESAR until 2015 compared to a baseline "no-SESAR" year (2005).

303

The contractual arrangements with the cPPPs build on industrial roadmaps with ambitious

goals and KPIs related to technological achievements as well as market needs or e.g. in the

manufacturing and processing industries the impact on energy or water consumption, or waste

reduction. On track to achieve their objectives, the projects typically address industrially

relevant demonstrators and pilots to validate technology developments and integration at

higher technology readiness levels. Among the industrial commitments established for the

cPPPs, they have to report on the development of new types of high-skilled jobs and of new

curricula. The projects within the NMBP cPPPs have reported a wide range of results

regarding new types of new high-skilled jobs, the highest average being in FoF (Factories of

the Future), with 3.5 new jobs profiles per project. EeB (Energy-efficient Buildings) projects

currently report 0.8 jobs per project, with 1.6 in FP7. Positive impacts on job creation and

skills have also resulted from EGVI. EGVI also contributed to save time in performing

research activities while structuring the whole value chain and avoiding duplication of efforts.

Several similar initiatives have been implemented at national level, testifying to the benefit of

this specific funding scheme.

J.4.2. European added value and leverage effects

The significance of the EU cooperation with industry in the context of a public-partnership in

strategic areas is recognised in all seven Joint Undertakings operating under Horizon 2020.

The Joint Undertakings are concrete examples of the European Union's efforts towards

strengthening its competitiveness through scientific excellence, industry led research,

openness and innovation. As an illustration of the significance of the Joint Undertakings it is

worth mentioning the White Paper on the "21st Century Cures initiative"349

, issued in January

2015 by the US House of Representatives. Launched by the House’s Energy and Commerce

Committee, it studied what steps can be taken to accelerate the discovery, development and

delivery of cures. It recognises that what is missing in the USA is a public-private partnership

that would bring together the various stakeholders and would need to be “modelled after the

Innovative Medicines Initiative”.

A tangible metric for assessing the EU added value is the "leverage effect", defined as the

total amount of funds leveraged through an Art. 187 initiative, including additional activities,

divided by the respective EU contribution to this initiative. The Table below summarizes the

leverage effect for the Joint Undertakings operating under FP7 and Horizon 2020.

For the Joint Undertakings operating under FP7 the target for the leverage effect was to

achieve parity, i.e. that the contributions from the private side matched the ones of the EU. As

the table shows, this target has been largely achieved. In the case of the FCH in particular, the

target was slightly exceeded which can be considered as a success in a nascent sector.

For the data referring to Horizon 2020 the following clarifications should be noted:

The Council Regulation establishing each JU sets out the total minimum contributions

which members other than the EU (including members' constituent entities and

349https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/files/files/114/FINAL%20Cures%20Disc

ussion%20Document%20White%20Paper.pdf .

https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/files/files/114/FINAL%20Cures%20Discussion%20Document%20White%20Paper.pdf

https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/files/files/114/FINAL%20Cures%20Discussion%20Document%20White%20Paper.pdf

304

affiliated entities and Associated Partners and their constituent entities and affiliated

entities) have to provide to the JU throughout its lifespan350

.

The Council Regulations make a distinction between the required level of financial

contribution (aiming to cover mainly the administrative costs of the JU) and the

minimum amount of in-kind contribution. The in-kind contribution (IK) is calculated

on the basis of costs incurred by members other than the EU in implementing

additional activities and, also, in implementing indirect actions. Declared costs in

implementing additional activities not included in the workplan but contributing to the

objectives of the Joint Undertakings, can be considered as IKAA. The costs incurred

in implementing indirect actions can be considered as IK after deduction of the

contribution of the JU and any other Union contribution to those costs. They constitute

IK to the operational costs of the JU (IKOP).

Theoretically, only certified "in-kind contributions" should be taken into account in

the calculation of the leverage, as requested by the Council regulation. As a

consequence, while the figures provided for the whole period of Horizon 2020 are the

legally foreseen ones, the figures provided for the calls launched so far take into

account the "committed" IKOP as only few amounts of IKOP are certified so far.

In order to have a common approach for the 7 Joint Undertakings for the calculation of

the leverage effect achieved so far and taking into account the above points, the

following formula was applied:

Total leverage = Operational leverage + Additional leverage

Where:

∑ [IKOP of private partners in signed GA (+Private FC)] Operational leverage = --------------------------------------------------------------------------

∑ [EU contribution committed in the signed GA]

And for CS2, S2R, FCH and BBI:

∑ [IKAA of members ] Additional leverage = -------------------------------------------------------------------------

∑ [EU contribution committed in the signed GA]

Definitions:

GA = Grant Agreement of an indirect action receiving an EC contribution

IKOP = In-kind contributions for operational costs in an indirect action (see above).

Private FC = Private Financial Contribution (when allowed in the Regulation).

IKAA = Certified In-kind contributions of members for Additional activities.

The first calculations, based on the above formula and using the figures (committed amounts)

reported in the Annual Activity Reports 2016 of the Joint Undertakings351

, demonstrate that

the Joint Undertakings are well on track in achieving and, in some cases, exceeding the

350 In the case of SESAR JU, the Council Regulation ((EU) No 721/2014 of 16 June 2014) does not set out the total minimum

contributions which members other than the EU have to provide to the JU. 351 Except for FCH, CORDA data (for calls 2014-2016) were used.

305

legally minimum foreseen leverage effect. As the number of signed grant agreements

increases, a more detailed reporting on the leverage effect will be possible. It has to be

stressed, however, that the overall leverage effect can only be assessed at the end of the

programme.

A more in-depth evaluation of Joint Undertakings will be available October 2017.

The added value of cPPPs at the EU level derives from trans-national cooperation, supporting

bridging the valley of death and, most significantly, creating a critical mass of excellence that

can compete globally. Considering the large investments needed, Europe needs to build on

complementary strengths. Intervention at EU level allows getting the major stakeholders and

industrial players along the whole R&I value chain into the process of actively defining the

roadmap and commit to the implementation. In this sense, there is significant added value of

implementing Horizon 2020 funding through the use of contractual cPPPs.

In the case of the cPPPs under the NMBP thematic area, the leverage factors range between

1.5 and 3.5, on the basis of a methodology accounting only for current investments and

discounting future investments. In EGVI projects, on the basis of 2014 estimates, the

additional private investments are expected to lead to a leverage factor of 3. In the Photonics

PPP, the industrial investment has been estimated as being 4.3. This is based on information

received from 80 companies for their investment in 2014-2015. For the other cPPPs, given

their recent start, it is too early to give figures based on project results. However, there are no

indications that the leverage factor are deviating from the commitment laid out in the

contractual arrangements. As with the Joint Undertakings, the overall leverage effect of each

cPPP can only be assessed beyond the end of the programme.

306

Table 59 Leverage effects by Joint Undertakings under FP7 and Horizon 2020

Data on leverage effect for the Joint Undertakings under FP7 and Horizon 2020

Ho

rizo

n 2

02

0

(ov

er t

he

wh

ole

per

iod

201

4-2

02

0, a

cco

rdin

g

to t

he

leg

al

act

) FCH2 CS2 IMI2 BBI ECSEL S2R SESAR

Minimum in-kind contribution

(in EUR million)

285 2 193.75 1 425 1 755 none 457 783.75352

Total minimum contribution

from members other than the

EU Art.4(1) (in EUR million)

380 2 193.75 1 425 2 730 1 170.0353

1 657.5

(Art.4(2))

470 (of which

financial: 13)

825 (of which

financial: 41.25)

Maximum EU contribution

Art. 3(1) (in EUR million)

665 1 755 1 425354

975 1 184.874 450 585

Target Leverage effect

(Targeted partial leverage in

the Council Regulation (only

considering the contributions

of Members other than the EU

and not those of other project

0.67 1.25 1 2.8 2.4355

1,4356

1.04357

2

Ho

rizo

n

20

20

–

Est

ima

ted

Lev

era

ge

effe

ct

for

the

call

s

con

clu

ded

EU contribution (in EUR

million) (as committed,

source: AAR 2016)

285,99 214,01 275,8 414,1 463,4 88 235,8

IKOP (H2020 project costs –

EU funding; in EUR million)

279,28 131,58 263,5 180,39 1030 79,4 241,4

352 This is the amount to which the members committed in the Membership Agreement signed in the context of Horizon 2020. 353 The ECSEL Participating States shall make a financial contribution to the operational costs of the ECSEL Joint Undertaking that is commensurate with the Union’s financial

contribution of at least EUR 1 170 000 000. 354 An additional amount of EUR 213 million will be contributed by the EU in order to match additional contributions from other Members, Associated Partners, or from their

constituent entities or their affiliated entities, if there are any. 355 COUNCIL REGULATION No 561/2014 (21) - In assessing the overall impact of ECSEL, investments from all legal entities other than the Union and the states participating in

ECSEL are expected to amount to at least EUR 2 340 000 000 – this results in a leverage effect of 3. 356 Targeted leverage on EU funding only (excluding other public funding, i.e. national funding). 357 It is important to note that this figure is based on the ratio between the entire EU contribution to the S2R JU and the contribution of the JU private members. However, only a

maximum of 70% of the EU contribution is to be targeted to the JU private members in accordance with the S2R Regulation. This means that in practice, the effective leverage

effect of the EU budget spent with the JU members reaches 1.49.

307

(source: AAR 2016)

IKAA certified (in EUR

million) 186,42 199,16 / 294,8 / / /

Leverage effect (based on

committed amounts as

reported in AARs 2016)

1,63 1,55 0,96 1,15 2,17 (on EU

funding

only)

0,90 1,02

FP

7

Contribution from members

other than the EU (in EUR

million)

488.9 550.9 954.4358

Not

applicable

Not

applicable

Not applicable 1 300 (from FP7

and TEN-T)

EU contribution (in EUR

million)

450 550.9 965.7 700

Leverage effect 1.09 (target was

slightly

exceeded)

1 (as

foreseen in

FP7)

0.99 1.85 (for

SESAR 1)

Source: Data provided by the Thematic Units responsible for the seven Joint Undertakings

358 Commitments

308

J.5. Overview Joint Undertakings Key Performance Indicators

J.5.1. BBI

Little information is available on the concrete outcome of the on-going projects in terms of

achieving the specific BBI JU KPIs as the majority of the data will be provided by BBI JU

beneficiaries through project reporting later on.

Table 60: Key Performance Indicators for BBI

Key

Performance

Indicator

Objective Target at the

End of Horizon

2020

Outcome

(available info

calls 2014 and

20151.2 and

AWP 2016)

AAR2015

Estimated

contributio

n of 10

projects

call 2014

AWP201

5

Contrib

ution to

2020

targets

AWP20

16

Contrib

ution to

2020

targets

PPP leverage:

- in cash

contribution

committed

Private

funding

balancing

public funding

in in all types

of projects

At least EUR

182.5 million

financial

contribution to

the operational

costs

EUR 0.75 million

in cash at

programme level in

2016. EUR 2.94

million in projects

of the 2014 and

2015.2 calls

- - -

Balance (%) of

R&D,

demonstration

and supporting

projects

Reach an

appropriate

balance

between

research,

innovation and

deployment

On programme

level reach a

distribution of

30%, 30%,

34,75%, 3,25%

for RIAs, IA-

Demo, IA-

Flagship, CSAs

The distribution so

far, considering the

projects of the

2014 and 2015

calls and the topics

of the 2016 call, is:

24,2%, 35,8%,

36,5%, 1,5%.

- - -

N° of new cross-

sector

interconnections

in BBI projects

New cross-sector

interconnections

in bio-based

economy

36 by 2020 21-22 > 8 2-3 11

New bio-based

value chains

realised

New bio-based

value chains

10 by 2020 21 10 3 8

Number of new

bio-based

building blocks

New building

blocks based

on biomass of

European

origin

5 by 2020

further

increasing to 10

in 2030

17-18 6-7 3 8

Number of new

bio-based materials

New bio-based

materials

50 by 2020 29-30 5-6 8 16

Number of new

bio-based

'consumer'

products

New 'consumer'

products based

on bio-based

chemicals and

materials

30 by 2020 14 4 7 3

Number of flagship

biorefinery plants

started based on

BBI demonstration

projects

Flagship

biorefinery

projects

5 by 2020 7 1 3-5 3

Source: AAR BBI 2015, AWP BBI 2015 and 2016

309

J.5.2. Shift2Rail

The S2R JU was formally established in July 2014 and its first projects started summer

2016. Hence, we cannot report on progress towards meeting the KPIs at this moment.

J.5.3. IMI2

Figures on the IMI2 KPIs refer to the outcomes of IMI projects. Based on these outcomes,

IMI is on track in achieving its objectives.

Table 61 Key Performance Indicators for IMI2

Key Performance Indicator Objective Qualitative assessment

IMI2 KPI 1: Target number of

priority areas defined in IMI2 JU’s

Annual Scientific

Priorities for year n that are

addressed by IMI’s calls for proposals

launched in year n

IMI2’s new calls for

proposals support the

implementation of the

research priorities as set out

in the Strategic Research

Agenda and updated by the

Governing Board

all scientific priorities identified in

the Annual Work Plans are covered

KPI 3: Target estimated average

number of IMI publications 3 per

EUR10 million of total IMI funding

requested by the projects

IMI projects effectively

deliver and disseminate high

quality outputs359

62 publications per €10 Million of

EU contribution reported and

accepted

KPI 4: Target to measure extent to

which IMI’s average impact factor of

journals in which IMI publications

have been published is higher than the

EU average

large share of the publications is

made of highly cited articles,

KPI 5: Target to measure extent to

which the citation impact of IMI

publications is higher than the EU

average

the citation impact is significantly

above the EU and worldwide

average

KPI 6: Target to measure the extent to

which IMIs bibliometric indicators

compare with those of other

international funding bodies.

KPI 6.1: Target to compare the

citation impact of IMI

publications with the one of other

international funding bodies

KPI 6.2: Target to compare the

percentage of highly cited papers

of IMI programme with the one of

other international funding bodies

Above target

Above target

KPI 7: Target to measure the number

of scientific advice and qualified

opinions initiated by the IMI projects

IMI projects translate key

scientific discoveries into

clinical practice and

10 in 2014 and 8 in 2015 = 18

(above target)

359 The listed KPIs belong to IMI2. However the underlying figures currently provided in AAR2015 and soon in AAR

2016, relate to the outcomes of IMI JU projects, as outputs from IMI2 projects are still very limited.

310

Key Performance Indicator Objective Qualitative assessment

at the EMA and FDA regulatory framework

KPI 10: Target to measure, on

average, the number of patent

applications filed and/or awarded to

those IMI projects which have been

reimbursed at least for the third year

of implementation

IMI projects increase EU

competitiveness and foster

innovation

21 patent applications have been

filed until 31 December 2015,

mostly by public participants in IMI

consortia, such as academia, SMEs,

and research organizations

KPI 12: Target to measure the

number of spin-off companies or

foundations created as a result of IMI

projects

33% of finalized projects had

created spin-off companies or

foundations as a result of IMI JU

projects

Source: AAR IMI2 - 2015

J.5.4. CS2

In order to assess the environmental impact of the Clean Sky technologies once integrated

into a conceptual aircraft, a Technology Evaluator body is set up. Figures in this table refer

to the outcomes of CS as evaluated by the Technology Evaluator (TE). The Horizon 2020

Clean Sky 2 programme also contains a technology evaluator. However, no projects have

yet been finalised.

Table 62 Key Performance Indicators for Clean Sky 2

Clean Sky

objectives at

global feet

level

CO2 Δ -26%

NOx Δ -60%

Noise Δ -50% to -75%

Assessment Metric Mainliners and Regional fleet Business fleet Rotorcraft fleet

Results

from the TE

airport level

assessment

CO2 Δ -30% to -40% Not available -10% to -20%

NOx Δ -35% to -45% Not available -30% to -64%

Noise area Δ -45% to -70% Not available Up to -75%

Results from

the TE global

fleet level

assessment

CO2 Δ -32% 20% -15%

NOx Δ -41% 28%

Vehicle Metric Long

range

Short

Medium

range

Regional Business

aircraft

Rotorcraft

Results

from the TE

mission

level

assessment

CO2 Δ -19% -41% Up to -27% Up to -32% Up to -58%

NOx Δ -39% -42% Up to -46% Up to -32% Up to -64%

Noise area Δ -67% -68% Up to -86% Up to -50% over -50%

Noise Δ -5.7

dB

-5.1 dB Up to -15.7

dB

-5.5 dB Not available

Source: Technology Evaluator (TE) results, 2015

J.5.5. FCH

Regulation 559/2014 lists 5 specific objectives for the FCH 2 JU, all of which have been

addressed during the first 3 calls under Horizon 2020:

Table 63: 5 Specific Objectives of FCH

311

Specific objective Share of the funds from calls 2014-16

allocated to the following research activities

Reduction of the production costs of FC for transport

applications, while increasing their lifespan

51,73%

Increase the efficiency and durability of FC for power

production while reducing cost

25,59%

Increase the energy efficiency of H2 production from

water electrolysis and renewable sources

7,30%

H2 as storage medium for electricity from renewable

energy sources

13,55%

Reduction of critical raw materials 0,17%

Cross-support actions (awareness, education, regulatory

issues etc)

1,65%

Source: FCH Calls information 2014-2016

As regards the specific KPI's for FCH, the amount of data available from Horizon 2020 is

currently limited to the projects resulting from the Call 2014 which have now started work:

Table 64: FCH' specific Key Performance Indicators

Specific KPI's Reference (FP7 estimated

average distribution)

Share of the funds from calls 2014-

16 allocated to the following

research activities

Renewable energy: 10% 8%

End user energy-efficiency: 37% 30%

Smart grids: 1% 11%

Storage: 3% 1%

Specific KPI Qualitative assessment

KPI 2: Demonstrator

projects hosted in MSs and

regions benefiting from

European Structural and

Investment Funds

The FCH 2 JU is making good progress towards the KPI of having

demonstrator projects hosted in MS and regions benefiting from European

Structural and Investment Funds: the project HyBalance is benefiting from

Danish co-funding, and the project JIVE on fuel cell bus deployment

(currently under GA negotiation) will use 5 additional funding schemes in

parallel with that of the FCH 2 JU.

Source: Estimated data based on call information for calls 2014-2016

J.5.6. ECSEL

Results on the KPIs are based on projects resulting from the 2014-15 calls (25 projects)

Table 65 ECSEL specific key performance indicators

Objective Specific KPI % of 2020

target reached

Programme Magnitude KPI 1: RD&I Effort in € (eligible costs) 28%

Funding Magnitude KPI 2: Public Contributions Assigned to ECSEL

Projects

23%

312

Extending the Community with

regards to country participation

KPI 5: Number of additional countries on top of

the supporting countries

87%

Source: ECSEL Project data (25 projects) selected in 2014-2015 calls

It is too early to comment on the outcome of ECSEL. As a proxy, outputs cumulated under

the preceding Joint Undertakings, ARTEMIS and ENIAC, give a good indication as to what

can be expected. The 76 ARTEMIS or ENIAC projects that came to completion by the end

of 2015 generated 237 patents, 20 trade secrets, 13 trademarks, 1382 exploitable foreground

intellectual property items and 3841 scientific publications.

J.5.7. SESAR

The KPIs listed in the table are not the KPIs included in the legal basis of SESAR. The main

performance criterion for the SESAR JU is how effective it has been in defining, producing

and deploying in a coordinated way new innovative and harmonised ATM solutions that will

improve the performance of European ATM system. This can only be measured once the

solutions have been deployed and are operating (towards 2015). In the context of the

objectives of the European ATM Master plan, SESAR developed a set of KPIs, as listed in

the table, which measure the contribution of all SESAR solutions developed and validated

by SESAR until 2015 compared to a baseline "no-SESAR" year (2005).

Table 66 SESAR key performance indicators in the context of the objectives of the

ATM Master Plan

REF Key

Performance

Area in

SESAR2020 (A)

Key Performance

Indicator in

SESAR2020(B)

2014

Performance v

2005 Baseline

(C)

2015

Performance v

2005 Baseline

(D)

Performance

2015 v 2014

43 Cost efficiency:

ANS productivity

Gate-to-gate direct

ANS cost per flight

-3.56% -3.82%

44 Operational

efficiency

Fuel Burn per flight -1.45% -2.26%

Flight time per flight -1.26% -1.48%

45 Capacity Departure delay -16.5% -19.1% n/a

Additional flights at

congested airports

12.10% 11.02%

Network throughput

additional flights

24.22% 33.41%

46 Environment CO2 emissions -1.45% -2.26%

47 Safety Accidents with ATM

contribution

-40% -40% n/a

Source: SESAR AAR, 2015

K. FURTHER INFORMATION ON THE EUROPEAN INSTITUTE OF INNOVATION AND

TECHNOLOGY (EIT)

K.1. Overview

The European Institute of Innovation and Technology’s (EIT) overall mission is to

contribute to sustainable European economic growth and competitiveness by reinforcing the

313

innovation capacity of the Member States and the Union. As part of Horizon 2020, the EIT’s

specific objective is to integrate the knowledge triangle of higher education, research and

innovation and thus to reinforce the Union's innovation capacity and address societal

challenges. The EIT is designed to achieve these goals primarily through its Knowledge and

Innovation Communities (KICs), which operate in specific societal challenges. In the period

covered by the Horizon 2020 interim evaluation, KICs operated in the fields of climate

change, health, energy, raw materials and the digital field.

K.2. Rationale

The long-term strategy of the EIT has been set up in the Strategic Innovation Agenda (SIA)

2014-2020, adopted by the European Parliament and the Council, on the basis of a

Commission proposal. The SIA is a policy document outlining the priority fields of the EIT

for future, including an overview of the planned activities for a period of seven years, in

particular the priority fields for the EIT Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) and

their selection and designation.

The Horizon 2020 Regulation identified specific structural weaknesses in the EU’s

innovation capacity on which the EIT would focus its contributions. The EU has not been

using a sufficient globally competitive scale of resources, including human resources, in

poles of excellence, and has had, more widely, a relatively poor record in talent attraction

and retention. The levels of entrepreneurial activity and mind-set across the EU have been

low, which contributed to the under-utilisation of existing research strengths for creating

economic or social value and the lack of research results brought to the market. Finally, there

has been an excessive number of barriers to collaboration within the knowledge triangle of

higher education, research and innovation on a European level, which contributed to low

leverage of private investment in research and development.

K.3. Implementation

The EIT seeks to achieve its mission through a distributed network of thematically focussed

Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs), which bring together higher education

institutions, research organisations, industry and other stakeholders to create critical mass

needed to stimulate innovation.

The KICs are thematically aligned with the Horizon 2020 societal challenges. There are

currently five KICs, as presented in the table below.

Table 67 Knowledge and Innovation Communities of the European Institute of

Innovation and Technology

Wave 1 KICs – established in 2010 Wave 2 KICs – established in 2015

1 Climate-KIC: addressing climate change mitigation

and adaptation

2 EIT Digital: addressing Information and

Communication Technologies

3 KIC InnoEnergy: addressing sustainable energy

4 EIT Health: addressing healthy living and active

ageing; and

5 EIT Raw Materials: addressing sustainable

exploration, extraction, processing, recycling and

substitution

Another KIC has been recently been set-up (EIT Food in the field of sustainable supply

chain i.e. from resources to consumers) and one is in the pipeline in 2018 (EIT Urban

Mobility in improved mobility solutions), pending a positive outcome from the EIT review

314

exercise. The call on a KIC on added-value manufacturing (launched in 2016) did not award

any proposals.

The KICs are independent legal entities, structured around a partnership of core partners

representing all sides of the “knowledge triangle”. Each KIC also includes a large number of

affiliated, associated or network partners that contribute to the KIC’s activities, but do not

participate directly in its governance. KICs apply an ‘open’ entry and exit approach with

regard to the affiliated partners and so the wider KIC community is a ‘living’ network with

evolving membership.

Each KIC is also organised around a small number of co-location centres (CLCs) which are

intended to act as geographical hubs for the practical integration of the knowledge triangle.

The CLCs have substantial autonomy and as such, are organised and structured according to

their respective national and regional innovation context to include partners from research,

education, business and at times, from local authorities. The CLCs build on the existing labs,

offices or campuses of some of a KICs’ core partners. They bring together, at a local or

regional level, the education, research and industry partnerships of the KIC, thus permitting

face-to-face contact and geographical proximity.

Each KIC (in conjunction with its CLCs) has to develop and deliver a portfolio of activities

in three areas:

Research/ Innovation projects: the KICs link universities/ research institutes and

business through their innovation project portfolios. Innovation projects comprise

demonstrators, pilots, proofs of concept etc. All innovation projects are required to

develop clearly identified products that address a specific business opportunity that is

supported by a market study.

Education: a set of post-graduate (MSc/ PhD) programmes and executive/

professional development courses characterised by a multidisciplinary approach,

significant business involvement in the development of learning outcomes and often,

trans-national mobility.

Business Creation and support activities: a range of business support services, often

badged as a start-up accelerator scheme, to help entrepreneurs translate their ideas

into successful businesses. These services focus on areas such as support for

technology, market assessment, access to human resources and, last but not least,

seed and venture capital through specific KIC innovation funds.

Additionally, the KICs/ CLCs engage in a range of outreach, communication and

dissemination activities such as organisation of events, publication of material (e.g. success

stories, newsletters etc.), networking etc.

More recently, the EIT has developed the EIT Regional Innovation Scheme (EIT RIS) which

is a structured outreach scheme to support the integration of the Knowledge Triangle and

increase the innovation capacity in areas and regions in Europe not directly benefitting from

the KICs and their CLCs.

The Performance Measurement System (PMS) is a comprehensive system for continuous

monitoring used by the EIT to keep track of the results achieved at all governance levels.

This system encompasses all related EIT activities ranging from annual Key Performance

Indicators (KPIs) data collection, continuous monitoring, the contribution of EIT to Horizon

315

2020, its methodologies to assess impact and the EIT's monitoring of its own operational

performance in terms of effectiveness, efficiency and impact. In particular, the performance

measurement is carried out at the following four levels:

KIC level: monitoring of a KIC on the basis of its individual targets and Key

Performance Indicators (KPIs) stipulated in a KIC business plan. These KIC-specific

indicators are defined by the KICs based on their internal strategies and organisation

as well as to define their activities and mobilise the resources needed.

Cross-KIC level: The EIT monitoring of all KICs, which will focus on a series of

EIT’s strategic objectives, as identified in the EIT Scoreboard, covering a common

set of indicators across all KICs. The indicators cover the attractiveness of education

programmes, number of new graduates, number of business ideas incubated, number

of start-ups created, knowledge transfer and adoption, and new or improved products,

services and process launched.

EIT level: The monitoring of the EIT’s own activities that add value to the KICs and

their stakeholders, combining quantitative and qualitative indicators in a medium-

term perspective. It monitors on the one hand operational excellence and on the other

its positioning, using indicators, inter alia, due dates for Grant Agreement

completion, reporting acceptance and payment execution, percentage of processes

formalised, talent on the job and level of satisfaction on EIT services.

Horizon 2020: Monitoring and evaluation of the EIT as an EU innovation institute

under Horizon 2020. The indicators for assessing the performance of the EIT are:

organisations from universities, business and research integrated in the KICs; and

collaboration inside the Knowledge Triangle leading to the development of

innovative products, services and processes.

K.4. Achievements so far

The independent external evaluation of the EIT360

has found that, even though the EIT has

contributed to progress in the areas mentioned above, strong need still exists to pursue the

EIT’s mission361

. In the open public consultation in the context of the evaluation, almost

90% of respondents said that Europe’s innovation capacity depended on bringing together

education, research, business and other innovation actors (knowledge triangle integration).

Further, over 80% of stakeholders think that EIT’s focus on specific societal challenges in

the Horizon 2020 context is important. Overall, stakeholders have recognised the EIT’s

progress in bringing together education, research and business organisation to create pan-

European networks in specific fields.

Two main indicators are indicated in the Horizon 2020 Regulation for assessing the

performance of the EIT. In the following tables target and achieved results are reported (all

the figures are cumulative).

360 The independent external evaluation of the EIT is a mandatory requirement from the Regulation (EC) No 294/2008 as

amended by the Regulation (EU) No 1292/2013 establishing the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT

Regulation). 361 ICF, Technopolis Group, Evaluation of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT), forthcoming

316

Table 68 Organisations from universities, business and research integrated in the

Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs)

2014 2015 2016

Indicator 1: Organisations from universities,

business and research integrated in the

Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs)

Target 240 450 500

Actual results 550 800 1015*

* Expected results, based on the indications in the KICs´ business plans. Source: EIT

Figure 81 Breakdown of the organisations participating in the KICs (2015)

Source: EIT

It is worth noticing that around 43% of the participants are business (either big companies or

SMEs); SMEs represent around 20% of the total participants.

Table 69 Collaboration inside the knowledge triangle leading to the development of

innovative products, services and processes

Indicator 2: Collaboration inside the knowledge

triangle leading to the development of innovative

products, services and processes

2014 2015 2016

Number of start-ups and

spin-offs set-up

Target 30 280 400


Number of innovations Target 300 800 1500


* Expected results, based on the indications in the KICs´ business plans. Source: EIT

As it is possible to infer from the two tables, results achieved with respect to Indicator n.1

are well beyond the target. Same reasoning applies to the "Innovations" sub-indicator within

Indicator n.2. The number of start-ups and spin-offs set-up by the KICs is slightly behind the

target, even though KICs keep on generating new ventures at a faster pace; results for 2016

are still to be confirmed.

The table below shows target and achieved values for the cross-KIC level indicators (core

KPIs) monitored by the EIT. The figures concern the outputs and results of the three first

wave KICs (which comprises EIT Digital, EIT Climate and KIC InnoEnergy), over the

317

period 2013-2015. As already mentioned, each KIC has also a set of KIC-specific KPIs that

– as the core KPIs- are annually tracked, reported and audited.

Table 70 Innovation KPI performance of the KICs (2013-2015) (unmet targets in bold)

# Code Indicators 2013-2015

Actual

2013-2015

Target

1 EIT01.01 Number of eligible applicants for EIT labelled PhD and Master

programmes

12,783 11,577

2 EIT01.02 Number of available seats for EIT labelled PhD and Master

programmes

3,168 1,864

3 EIT02 Number of new graduates 776 842

4 EIT03 Number of business ideas incubated 1,249 1,076

5 EIT04 Number of start-ups/spin-offs created 216 310

6 EIT05.01 Number of knowledge adoptions (by KIC partners) that are

direct output of a KIC Activity

429 326

7 EIT05.02 Number of knowledge transfers (from one KIC partner to

another KIC partner or to third parties) that are direct output of

a KIC Activity

308 260

8 EIT06 New or improved products/services/processes launched 212 290

Source: EIT

Those indicators reflect the portfolio of activities run by the KICs (education; business

creation and support activities; support to innovation).

The indicators concerning the attractiveness of Education Programmes (n.1 and 2) show that

the courses offered by the KICs attract an interest from students which is line what was

expected at Business Plan level. Nevertheless, the number of new graduates is a bit below

the target. Such indicator is expected to catch up in the coming years, thanks to the maturity

those activities are achieving within the KICs portfolios.

As regards the support to entrepreneurship (indicators n.3 and n.4), despite the number of

ideas incubated, the number of new ventures created is below the target. Business ideas are

screened by the KICs, only the most promising ones are then passed to the following support

stages (and encouraged to be transformed into new ventures); this aspect might partially

explain the gap between target and actual results. Furthermore, some ideas might need a

longer incubation period before being translated into a marketable proposal.

Finally, as regards the support to innovation, figures show that those activities are producing

outcomes beyond the initial expectations, as evidenced by the adoption and the transfer of

knowledge within the KICs and towards external partners. The only indicator that falls

behind is the one related to new products/services/processes launched; 73% of the target has

been achieved.

Overall, most of the objectives/actions defined in the 2013-2015 business plans have been

achieved.

318

In order to provide some qualitative information complementing the abovementioned

figures, some examples of achievements pursued in the different pillars of activities by the

KICs can be highlighted, in particular:

In 2017, Forbes has chosen 18 EIT Community members for their annual Forbes 30

under 30 list.362

The list features the best young innovators, entrepreneurs and game

changers from Europe. In 2016, five EIT KICs' alumni have been selected for the

Forbes' Magazine 30 under 30 list of Social Entrepreneurs. They were coming from

KIC InnoEnergy (1) and Climate-KIC (4);

A quarter of the 175 start-ups supported by KIC Digital raised private funding and

attracted over EUR 20 million of external funds.

KIC InnoEnergy has a portfolio of 68 companies in which the KIC retains an equity

share; those companies have benefited from KIC´s support, and in return, the KIC

received an equity share by each company supported. The portfolio is expected to

start to deliver income for the KIC (from the sale of the equity participation) from

2017 - the KIC´s equity portfolio management is a very notable pillar of its Financial

Sustainability Strategy;

Success stories (support to scale-ups) in terms of leveraged funds:

o Minesto, a Swedish scale-up working in marine hydrokinetic (wave) energy

and supported by KIC InnoEnergy, raised about EUR 18 million in 2015 in

its Initial Public Offering in the Stockholm stock market;

o Tado sells smart thermostats that regulate the heating in the household

according to the location data of inhabitants. Supported by Climate-KIC, the

company has so far raised EUR 32 million investments. It has successfully

launched its product internationally and is a competitor to Google‘s start-up

Nest.

Given this track record, the report of the High-Level Group on the EIT appointed by

Commissioner Navracsics363

argues that the EIT should strive to remain the leading

European performer of goal-driven innovation to address societal challenges through the

integration of education, business and research. Furthermore, the HLG group thinks that

EIT’s expertise and experience can play an important role in the future European innovation

landscape, in particular with respect to the need for the EU to create ‘unicorns’ and

breakthrough (disruptive) innovations. For this, the EIT can develop its own capacity for

comparative innovation analysis and for communicating lessons learnt in various contexts.

The following figures show the evolution of achieved KPI values per each of the KIC

launched in 2010, over the period 2013-2015 (it also includes the expected results for 2016).

362 http://eit.europa.eu/newsroom/eit-innovators-named-forbes-list-2017 363 The Future of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) - Strategic Issues and Perspectives, 2016:

https://ec.europa.eu/education/sites/education/files/eit-hlg-final-report_en.pdf

http://eit.europa.eu/newsroom/eit-innovators-named-forbes-list-2017


319

Figure 82 KPIs for Climate KIC

Source: EIT

Figure 83 KPIs for EIT Digital

Source: EIT

Figure 84 KPIs for KIC Innoenergy

Source: EIT

320

From those graphs, it appears that, in general, all the KICs are improving their performance

with respect to the core indicators. It is also possible to infer which are the strongest and

weakest areas of activities of each KIC: for instance, KIC Digital is well positioned in all

areas, except for the creation of new ventures; on the other hand, KIC Innoenergy scores

well in terms of new graduates, but is weaker in terms of innovations being generated by its

activities.

EIT interim evaluation

Further evidence on the KICs´ results is provided by the results of the evaluation exercise

commissioned by DG EAC to external independent experts, in particular by the open

consultation (open to all stakeholders in the course of the last quarter of 2016) and the

survey carried out by the contractor hired by DG EAC to run an evaluation study364

.

Effectiveness

One of the aspects scrutinised through the evaluation exercise concerns the focus of the EIT

on both societal challenges and knowledge triangle integration. According to the survey,

70% of KICs´ partners believe that the KICs have been ‘effective’ or ‘very effective’ in

supporting knowledge transfer between businesses and universities/ research organisations.

Figure 85 Effectiveness of KICs in supporting knowledge transfer between businesses

and universities/ research organisations

Source: ICF survey (n=204). Question: Q How effectively do you think that the KIC is delivering activities in

the following areas:… Supporting knowledge transfer between businesses and universities / research

organisations

Furthermore, as part of the KIC partner survey, respondents were asked what impact they

believed ‘their’ KIC had had on addressing societal challenges (Figure 87). As the data

show, around two thirds of KIC partners believed the KIC had had either a ‘moderate’ or

‘large’ impact. The exception was in EIT Digital, where exactly 50% of respondents saw

either a ‘moderate’ or ‘large’ impact on societal challenges, and a similar proportion (47%)

364 ICF, Technopolis Group, Evaluation of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT), forthcoming

321

saw ‘no’ or ‘small’ impact. This could at least in part relate to the point made previously:

that EIT Digital’s role within societal challenges tends to be indirect – a piece of technology

that forms part of a wider solution.

Figure 86 The impact that KIC partners believed KICs has had on addressing societal

challenges

Base = all respondents (Climate-KIC: 128; EIT Digital: 34; KIC InnoEnergy: 52; EIT Health: 31; EIT Raw

Materials: 31) Question: Q25. What impacts has the KIC had, or you expect it will have, in the following

areas: addressing societal challenges?

Finally, survey participants were asked to rate the importance of a number of aspects

(characterising the KICs) for the EIT to achieve its mission of enhancing Europe’s

innovation capacity.

Table 71 How important are the following characteristics of the KICs in order for the

EIT to achieve its mission of enhancing Europe’s innovation capacity?

Not important

Moderately Important

Very important

No opinion

No response

Involved with KIC/EIT 6% 35% 49% 10%

Not Involved with KIC/EIT 15% 35% 37% 2% 12%

Base (all respondents) = Involved with KIC/EIT (51); not Involved with KIC/EIT (52)

Those findings are strengthened by the HLG report: the HLG advised maintaining this

double focus and developing the EIT as the leading European performer in goal-driven

innovation to address societal challenges.

As regards the specific aspects of KICs activities, it is interesting to notice the results of the

graduate survey on skills developed with EIT-labelled courses, as well as of the accelerator

survey on the participation in a KIC accelerator programme.

5%

6%

2%

13%

6%

23%

41%

38%

16%

26%

38%

32%

46%

35%

39%

30%

18%

8%

32%

26%

4%

3%

6%

3%

3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Climate-KIC

EIT Digital

KIC InnoEnergy

EIT Health

EIT Raw Materials

No impact Small impact Moderate impact Large impact No response

322

Figure 87 Graduate survey: Skills developed by graduates of EIT-label programmes

Base: all respondents; note: excludes ‘to a moderate extent’ and no response so does not sum to 100%. Question: Q12. To what extent have you developed the following skills as a consequence of the EIT labelled programme?

72%

61%

64%

75%

61%

59%

66%

43%

61%

56%

43%

48%

EIT Climate-KIC (n=97)

EIT InnoEnergy (n=160)

EIT Digital (n=85)



EIT Digital (n=85)



EIT Digital (n=85)



EIT Digital (n=85)

6%

6%

7%

3%

6%

12%

7%

18%

7%

8%

15%

8%



EIT Digital (n=85)



EIT Digital (n=85)



EIT Digital (n=85)



EIT Digital (n=85)

Not at all / to a small extentTo a large extent / very large extent

To a large extent / very large extentNot at all / to a small extent

Ability to transform ideas into businesses

Ability to inspire others

in ideasgeneration

Ability to think beyond

boundaries & generate ideas

Ability to use knowledge,

ideas or technologies to innovate

323

Figure 88 Accelerator survey: Results of participation in a KIC accelerator programme

Base: all respondents; note: excludes no response so does not sum to 100%. Question: Q16. To what extent do you agree or disagree that your participation in the accelerator programme produced the following benefits or results?

Added-value

As regards the EIT added value, it is worth highlighting the response, within the graduate

survey, about the key distinguishing features of EIT labelled programmes, as well as the

response by companies to the Accelerator survey.

60%

63%

56%

50%

65%

32%

76%

78%

49%

58%

67%

46%

35%

41%

17%

62%

63%

80%

51%

74%

54%

37%

59%

39%



EIT Digital (n=41)



EIT Digital (n=41)



EIT Digital (n=41)



EIT Digital (n=41)



EIT Digital (n=41)



EIT Digital (n=41)



EIT Digital (n=41)



EIT Digital (n=41)

21%

26%

34%

36%

20%

56%

12%

7%

37%

29%

20%

41%

52%

46%

71%

26%

24%

10%

35%

11%

34%

8%

26%

49%



EIT Digital (n=41)



EIT Digital (n=41)



EIT Digital (n=41)



EIT Digital (n=41)



EIT Digital (n=41)



EIT Digital (n=41)



EIT Digital (n=41)



EIT Digital (n=41)

Disagree / Strongly disagree Agree / Strongly agree

Agree / Strongly agreeDisagree / Strongly disagree

Access to seed / growth funding

Access to a pool of EIT graduates

Access to potential partners

Better IPR under-

standing

Better under-standing of the market

Access to our first

customer

Reduced time to market

Help to convert idea

into business

324

Figure 89 Graduate survey: the added value of the EIT-label education courses

Base: all respondents: note excludes ‘no comment’ and no response, so does not sum to 100%. Question: Q17. In your view, what are the key distinguishing features of the EIT labelled postgraduate programmes as compared to other similar programmes?

Figure 90 Accelerator survey: Whether businesses believed they could have received

their support from another source

Source: Survey GHK, Q11. Do you think that you could have received this support from another source?

78%

74%

72%

73%

65%

72%

75%

68%

66%

52%

46%

34%

41%

43%

33%

71%

66%

69%



EIT Digital (n=85)



EIT Digital (n=85)



EIT Digital (n=85)



EIT Digital (n=85)



EIT Digital (n=85)



EIT Digital (n=85)

5%

17%

15%

10%

24%

12%

10%

21%

20%

30%

43%

40%

40%

47%

51%

14%

26%

18%



EIT Digital (n=85)



EIT Digital (n=85)



EIT Digital (n=85)



EIT Digital (n=85)



EIT Digital (n=85)



EIT Digital (n=85)

Not as good / as good as other programmes Better / significantly better than other programmes

Engageleading

researchers &businesses

Access to networks of

alumni, businesses

Multi-disciplinaryprogramme

Entrepreneur& innovation

focus

Focus on societal

challenges

Enables international

mobility

Not as good / as good as other programmes Better / significantly better than other programmes

22%

31%

29%

70%

61%

61%

EIT InnoEnergy

EIT Climate-KIC

EIT Digital

Yes No

325

Finally, an aspect raised by the ECA report concerns the need to provide evidence on the

leverage effect, in order to demonstrate the EIT’s success in attracting additional funding for

innovation, as well as the impact of EIT´s activities. On the matter, the EIT has recently

issued a new set of EIT Core KPIs (which started to be tracked from January 2017),

including one conceived to monitor the investments attracted by start-ups supported by

KICs. The set of 11 indicators will help the EIT to provide evidence on the results and

impact achieved.

K.5. Lessons learnt/Areas for improvement

The first three KICs, Climate-KIC, EIT Digital and KIC InnoEnergy, set up in 2010, are now

running at full speed having reached the stage of maturity. They operate in a dynamic

environment which might require sudden shift in strategy and in resource allocation in order

to seize new market and societal opportunities and achieve the best possible results. This can

be done thanks to the flexibility KICs have in shaping and selecting the activities to be

carried out (which are then part of the business plan).

The two KICs launched in 2015 in the areas of Healthy Living and Active Ageing (EIT

Health) and Raw Materials (EIT Raw Materials) are progressively consolidating their

strategies and their portfolio of activities, creating the eco-systems that will deliver the first

tangible results fostered by the integration of higher education, innovative research and

business.

The KICs are also implementing strategies with concrete measures to ensure their long-term

financial sustainability and comprehensive outreach to regions not yet involved in their

activities. The EIT monitoring system keeps track of the results achieved to set incentives for

KICs and, as appropriate, takes on board lessons learnt at individual KIC level and across

KICs.

The ECA performance audit issued in April 2016365

contained a set of four formal

recommendations to which the EIT and Commission responded via an action plan. One of

the 4 recommendations is already accomplished; the other outstanding 3 are in an advanced

stage of implementation. In particular, an amended EIT legal basis, revising the EIT's

funding model, is expected to be tabled to the European Parliament and Council in the first

half of 2018.

Further recommendations have been given through the report of the High-Level Group

appointed by Commissioner Navracsics366

. It provided recommendations on strategic aspects

of EIT and KICs´ operations, like on the need for the KICs to get more embedded into the

local innovation systems, or the need to better communicate their unique selling points in

order to improve the participation of businesses. Those contributions will be part of the

reference documentation for the preparation of the next SIA 2021-2017 and the revision of

the EIT legal basis.

365 Special Report n.04, 2016 "The European Institute of Innovation and Technology must modify its delivery mechanisms

and elements of its design to achieve the expected impact". 366 The Future of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) - Strategic Issues and Perspectives, 2016:



326

L. FURTHER INFORMATION ON THE FAST TRACK TO INNOVATION PILOT 2015-2016

The rationale for the FTI Pilot was the need for bottom-up, commercially driven, easily

accessible grant support for RDI (Research, Development, Innovation, in particular support

for scaling up successfully tested innovations) by high-potential growth businesses. The

Pilot was designed to address:

The sub-optimal performance of European industry and SMEs in the level of

investment in innovation and production of new products and services;

The relatively limited innovation outputs of industry that participated in FP7, and the

need to attract new industry participants to EU Framework Programmes supporting

Research, Technological Development and Innovation; and

The problems in accessing innovation finance which are consequential of the high

level of risk that innovation projects are exposed to.

The FTI Pilot was introduced in conformance with the Horizon 2020 legal basis. The Pilot

Work Programme runs for 2015 and 2016, with an allocated budget of EUR 200 million for

the two years. The FTI Pilot was introduced to offer a ‘bottom-up’ approach targeting

business directly to help address the issues as outlined above, to attract high commercial and

social potential participants, with a quicker appraisal and grant award for those with tested

innovations but not yet fully scaled and launched on the market.

In line with article 32 of Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013, the FTI was subject to an in-depth

assessment, as part of the interim evaluation, commissioned through public procurement.

The summary of this assessment, presenting the main findings against the five criteria for

evaluation defined by the EU Better Regulation Guidelines367

, is described below.

L.1. Relevance

The FTI is clearly highly relevant to the broad policy goals of Horizon 2020 to promote

innovation and its application. As a Pilot testing a new approach, especially in the context of

the proposal for an EU Innovation Council and associated ideas, the lessons are of particular

value both for the remainder of the current programme period, but also for FP9 in the post-

2020 period.

The interest in the FTI from businesses, relative to the allocated budget of EUR 200 million,

is very high, with over 900 project applications over the first three cut-off dates of the call;

with funding only available for 46 projects. Any continuation of the FTI would need to

overcome this challenge of oversubscription; otherwise the very low chance of funding will

deter potentially attractive projects.

L.2. Effectiveness

The legal basis of FTI is that set out for Horizon 2020 more generally, and that for Horizon

2020 innovation actions more specifically. FTI is therefore delivered through a standard

Horizon 2020 project call, using a variation of the standard proposal template and required to

367 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/tool_42_en.htm.

http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/tool_42_en.htm

327

apply the legal framework that establishes the size of project (limited to EUR 3 million of

funding) and intervention rate, at a de facto rate of maximum 70% for private sector

organisations, and 100% for public sector entities. It also requires the same partnership

requirements (a minimum of three partners from three different Member States) as other

innovation actions funded through Horizon 2020. Project applications are assessed using

experts selected from the general pool of Horizon 2020 experts managed by the Research

Executive Agency (REA), but selected by the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-

sized Enterprises (EASME).

There is evidence that these requirements provide some limitation on the effectiveness of the

FTI, especially in the partner requirements (which for near market ready projects are less

relevant since they would have already been established).

There are also potential weaknesses in the appraisal process especially the potential lack of

commercial investment experience. The project appraisal process, although carried out

diligently, has not yet fully established the definition and interpretation of criteria that ensure

the highest quality of project. Consequently there is some evidence that:

Projects are at relatively early stages in developing innovations which is likely to

limit the ability to demonstrate the acceleration of innovation to market;

Some projects might be offering limited ‘breakthrough’ innovation, with limited

commercial risk and low levels of additionality associated with funding; and

Inadequate levels of business planning of some projects.

There is also some anecdotal evidence of the heavy use of bid writing contractors by project

sponsors, which also has the potential to undermine confidence in the commercial ‘buy-in’

of projects to the commercialisation process. In this context due diligence is especially

critical.

The real test of effectiveness in terms of the commercial results achieved cannot be known

yet. The maximum duration of projects is 36 months. However, against a target to reach full

commercialisation within 3 years of project start, only 25 per cent of projects responding

considered that they would achieve this target. This raises the concern that projects are

selected which have relatively immature innovation development and/or which lack adequate

preparation and planning for the commercialisation process. The strength of this concern

should be tested in the planned ex post evaluation of the FTI pilot.

The objective of attracting first time applicants to the FTI pilot has so far not been fully

translated into the selection process – it is not a distinct selection criterion, and only a few

national contact points advertise the programme specifically to new applicants.

L.3. Efficiency

A primary goal of the FTI was to reduce the time it takes to award grant decisions within six

months of the application. After some learning and adjustments to the appraisal and award

process for the first cut-off date, time to grant has been subsequently reduced throughout

2015 cut-off dates, even if clear challenges remain and the average time to grant for 2015

was at around eight calendar months (237 days).

328

The process of programme management is that used for all Horizon 2020 programmes. As

noted the main concern in this process is the reliance on the standard proposal template and

use of experts appointed from a general pool of Horizon 2020 experts, the question being

whether sufficient competent expert evaluators in the domain of risk finance or investment

are at hand to assess the 'bankability' of FTI proposals. As a result there must be potential to

improve the quality of awarded projects.

In terms of the additionality associated with the funded projects, the majority of projects

considered when asked what would have happened in the absence said that they would have

continued with the project, albeit at a smaller and/or slower scale. In 25 per cent of cases the

project would not have gone ahead.

L.4. Coherence

There is a small number of applicants for Horizon 2020 funding – especially concentrated

with those who have applied under the SME Instrument – who find it difficult to understand

the differentiating features of the FTI. In practice, given the focus on piloting a bottom-up

approach through FTI, in contrast to the fragmented approach of the SME instrument, the

risk of overlap and policy incoherence is small.

The focus of FTI on accelerating the commercial uptake of a number of innovations and the

ability of larger firms to access the FTI pilot subject to confirming the additionality of

funding provides a distinguishing character within Horizon 2020.

Were the FTI to expand to attract substantially larger projects (say over €5 million), these

might be potentially better suited to funding through a financial instrument. The FTI, by

focusing on smaller projects up to €3 million, could complement financial instruments

directed at the same objectives.

L.5. EU added value

EU added value derives principally from bringing to market innovations that would

otherwise remain in the development phase for longer periods of time, and in some potential

cases being overtaken by innovations by competitor regions. In this context the instrument is

highly supportive of the agenda being discussed by the proposed European Innovation

Council (EIC).

The FTI as a Pilot has an intrinsic value from having successfully demonstrated the

feasibility of, and demand for, a bottom-up approach to promoting innovation across a wide

spectrum of technologies.

329

M. IMPACT OF THE NEW MANAGEMENT MODES ON THE PERFORMANCE OF HORIZON 2020

– FOCUS ON EXECUTIVE AGENCIES

M.1. Background

New Management Modes are a new way to manage implementation activities in the field of

EU research and innovation. Their first major use was in the Seventh Framework

Programme (FP7) when two Executive Agencies368

and five Joint Undertakings were

established369

with the aim to support Commission activities with a more focused and

efficient toolset tailored specifically to the implementation of FP7. As the political

importance and budgetary weight of research programmes increased, the Commission began

looking into alternative methods of accomplishing these goals.

With the substantial increase in budget allocated to Horizon 2020 (EUR 74,8 billion

compared to EUR 55 billion for FP7) and with the available human resources becoming

more and more scarce over its duration (5% staff reduction over 2014-2020 period), the

Commission has to make the best use of reduced human resources by focusing on its core

institutional tasks, such as policy-making, implementation and monitoring of the application

of EU law, and strategic management, whilst guaranteeing the most effective and efficient

implementation of spending programmes for which it remains ultimately responsible.

These principles pursued by the Commission are fully reflected in the implementation of

Horizon 2020 where much greater recourse to management modes (i.e. Executive Agencies

and other external bodies), different from direct in-house management is made. Capitalizing

on the positive experience370

from FP7 when the two Executive Agencies (REA and

ERCEA) implemented almost 30% of FP7 budget, the New Management Modes are

expected to implement 65% of the Horizon 2020 budget (Executive Agencies 55% and Joint

Undertakings 10%) between 2014 and 2020.

Figure 91 Total Horizon 2020 budget: EUR 74,8 billion for the period 2014-2020

Source: Calculation by the Commission

368 Research Executive Agency (REA) and European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA) 369 Clean Sky, Fuel Cells and Hydrogen (FCH), Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI), ARTEMIS, ENIAC and Single

European Sky Air Traffic Management Research (SESAR) 370 Evaluations of REA and ERCEA (2009-2012) and interim evaluations of the first generation Joint Undertakings under

FP7

EAs: 55%

JUs: 10%

EC: 25%

P2P; 2%

EIB;4% EIT; 4% Executive Agencies (EAs)

Joint Undertakings (JUs)

European Commission (EC)

Public - Public Partnerships (P2P)

European Investment bank (EIB)

European Institute of Technology (EIT)

https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/wikis/display/NMM/History+of+New+Management+Modes+in+the+Commission

330

New Management Modes are translated into a number of distinct structures created by the

Commission (Executive Agencies) or in cooperation with industry (Joint Undertakings).

Though separate legal entities, they are bound to the common objectives through legal

means (Council Regulations or Establishment and Delegation Acts), political and budgetary

arrangements (they implement parts of the Union budget and are accountable to the College

or to the Parliament) and internal management arrangements put in place to monitor and

supervise their activities.

Currently, there are six Executive Agencies of which four are part of the Research family

and implement delegated Horizon 2020 tasks, namely: the Executive Agency for Small and

Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME), the European Research Council Executive Agency

(ERCEA), the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) and the Research

Executive Agency (REA). They all have a different mission, from supporting small and

medium-sized enterprises, to assisting with the construction of large trans-European

infrastructure networks, to managing big project portfolios of high visibility in Horizon

2020, to supporting the cutting edge research no matter where it comes from or in which

form (see table below).

Table 72 Four Executive Agencies and their role in Horizon 2020

ERCEA REA INEA EASME Horizon

2020

Horizon 2020 delegated tasks (number) 1 8 2 4 22

Delegated budget 2014-2020 (€ billion) 12,7 13,9 6,4 6,9 74,8

% of total Horizon 2020 budget 16.9% 18.1% 8.3% 8.9% 100%

Source: Delegation Acts

M.2. Setting up Executive Agencies under Horizon 2020

M.2.1. General framework

Since the very beginning of FP7, the Commission has been committed to ensuring good

coordination between the different Commission services implementing the programme. For

this purpose, the Commission has set up a range of mechanism (e.g. Research Enquiry

Service) for identifying and resolving instances of incoherent treatment by different

Commission services.

With the launch of Horizon 2020, the Commission decided to make more extensive use of

the existing Executive Agencies and entrusted the execution of 55% of the Horizon 2020

budget by delegating implementation tasks to them. The Commission has been conscious of

the potential risks associated with the more extensive recourse to Executive Agencies such

as, for example, increased fragmentation of Horizon 2020 implementation efforts and

ensuring a high level of transparency and effective coordination processes, clarity of roles

and responsibilities between the Commission and agencies as well as increased demand for

monitoring, governance and control arrangements. For these reasons, it introduced a number

of concrete rules and measures to ensure a coherent and harmonised implementation

process.

331

Under Horizon 2020, a single set of rules on reimbursement rates, evaluation and

grant management applies across the board, regardless of which implementing body

is managing the delegated parts of the programme. Simpler guidance and advisory

services to applicants and participants are provided through a unique IT portal, i.e.,

the Participant Portal.

Multi-annual Horizon 2020 work programmes are drafted with the participation of all

Horizon 2020 services designed to maximize the potential for synergies between

research and innovation programmes and minimize the risk for duplication of

research activities.

A Common Research Datawarehouse was set up, maintaining the complete Horizon

2020 historical data on submitted proposals and signed grant agreements, available to

and used by all Commission services.

Common rules have been developed relating to the feedback of results into policy

making as part of the 'Strategy for an Effective Dissemination and Exploitation of

Research Results in Horizon 2020'.

The Horizon 2020 Common Support Centre (CSC), hosted by DG RTD, is providing

services on legal support, business processes, IT systems and operations, programme

information and data, and ex-post audits. These services are provided to all DGs of

the Research and Innovation family and all Executive Agencies and Joint

Undertakings involved in the implementation of Horizon 2020.

Beside the CSC, the REA is providing common administrative and logistical support

services to the programme implementing actors, in particular support for the

evaluation of proposals, management of expert evaluators (contracting and paying)

and the validation of beneficiaries' legal status and financial data.

Both the CSC and REA's administrative and logistical support department are the

two facets of a centralised support aiming to provide a consistent application of the

single set of rules underpinning the implementation of Horizon 2020. Some of the

REA tasks have even been extended beyond Horizon 2020 to other programmes,

such as COSME, ERASMUS+, etc. as regards the validation of the legal entities and

verification of the financial capacity of participants.

M.2.2. Governance and division of responsibilities

The delimitation of responsibilities between the Executive Agencies and various parent DGs,

and the ERC Scientific Council (in the case of ERCEA371

) is clear. Governance of each of the

Agencies is based on a well-developed framework providing detailed guidance on its

operation372

, as explained below.

371 ERCEA is unique with respect to the rest of the other EAs in terms of mandate and the dual leadership under which the

Agency operates as the Dedicated Implementation Structure of the ERC. ERCEA is entrusted to handle the administrative

implementation and programme execution of the ERC actions and support the ERC Scientific Council in the conduct of all

its tasks.

372 The recent evaluations of REA and ERCEA concluded that no evidence regarding ‘micro-management’ was found. The

legal basis clearly distinguished the different roles of the Commission, the ERC Scientific Council in case of ERCEA and

332

Firstly, the political responsibility for the implementation of all parts of Horizon 2020

rests with the Commission which monitors the activities of the Executive Agencies on the

basis of the detailed legal provisions set inter alia in Council Regulation No 58/2003 and in

the respective Instruments of Delegation. More specifically, it is the Commission's

responsibility to strike the right balance between making sure that the Executive Agencies

are efficient and follow the instructions and objectives assigned to them as part of their

mandate while respecting the fact that they are separate legal entities with their own

leadership and management structures. Any attempt by the Commission to micro-manage by

interfering in the operation of an EA would be counter-productive, effectively leading to

duplication of roles and to a waste of resources and opportunities.

The Agencies are set up only to perform the tasks delegated by the Commission. The

division of tasks between the Commission services and the Agencies is clearly defined and

documented in the respective delegation acts;

The Commission’s departments perform tasks implying policy choices, in particular:

setting objectives and priorities, adopting work programmes (including financing

decisions), representing the Commission in the Programme Committees and adopting

award decisions subject to comitology.

The Agencies are responsible for implementing tasks, such as organising and carrying out

proposal evaluations, launching and concluding grant procedures, adopting, project

monitoring, financial control and accounting, and contributing to programme evaluation

and various support tasks.

The continuous coordination between the Commission and Executive Agencies on

procedures, tools and working arrangements ensures coherence and complementarities

and helps avoiding gaps in responsibilities or duplication of efforts. In addition, regular

contacts take place between the Executive Agencies and the parent DGs' services responsible

for the programmes that are implemented by the Executive Agencies These contacts take the

form of coordination meetings at Directors level, Head of Department/Head of Unit level

and contacts at working level. The Executive Agencies participate to the weekly Directors

meetings of their parent DGs. In addition, the Executive Agencies are involved in the

structures governing Horizon 2020 – challenge groups, cross-cutting issues groups, steering

committees and thematic working groups as well as in the governance of the Common

Support Centre (Executive Committee, Business Process steering committees and user

groups).

M.3. Assessment of implementation of Horizon 2020 activities delegated to the

Executive Agencies

M.3.1. Calls management

Since the start of Horizon 2020 in 2014, 148 calls launched by the Executive Agencies were

concluded by September 2016. The legal provisions along with the common rules,

procedures and IT tools catered by the CSC contributed significantly towards an increased

the agencies. The Steering Committees were efficiently used by the Commission as the key instrument for day-to-day

management of the Agencies.

333

harmonisation of project implementation practices and effective coordination among

Horizon 2020 implementing services, be them in Executive Agencies or in the Commission.

Table 73 Main statistics related to the main overall implementation of Horizon 2020

calls launched by the Executive Agencies in 2014-2016

Calls management ERCEA REA INEA EASME All calls in

Horizon

2020

Calls concluded 10 73 22 43 274

Eligible proposals 15,782 28,905 1,495 29,047 86,995

Retained proposals 2,080 3,970 306 2,304 10,460

Success rate (%) 13,2% 13,7% 20,5% 7.9% 12%

Grants signed373

2,091 3,733 261 2,323 9,913

EU contribution to grants

(millions)

3,355.1 3,472.5 1,754.7 1,709.8 17,246.8

Average EU contribution

(millions)

1.60 0.93 6.72 0.74 1.74

Total ongoing projects

(31/12/2016)

5.459 6.658 290 (1.220

total for EA)

1.644 (2.469

total for EA)

n.a.

Source: eCORDA release September 2016

The low number of redress procedures upheld provides an indication of the robustness of the

grant award process and assurance on the effectiveness of the internal control system.

The analysis of the Agencies' performance is based on analysis and interpretation of the Key

Performance Indicators (KPIs) related to:

Timely execution of the delegated functions;

Cost-efficiency of the management of delegated activities;

Budget execution of commitment and payment appropriations.

M.3.2. Timely execution of the delegated functions

The summary table below shows that the Agencies were effective in producing the planned

outputs (issuing calls, evaluation proposals and administering grants) and achieving good

results in terms of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). The results achieved in terms of

'Time-To-Grant' and 'Time-To-Pay' are considered good as they remained below the defined

targets in most of the cases. In 2014 - 2015 all calls for proposals were published and closed

according to the plans of in the respective work programmes. The KPIs achieved in 2016

demonstrated an improvement compared to the results achieved in 2014 and 2015.

373 Most of the granting activity in 2015 related to the preparation of grant agreements from the 2014 calls and their

budgetary commitments. As regards INEA and EASME, the Commission handed over to the agencies the calls launched by

its services, therefore the number of grants signed are higher that resulting from the calls fully launched by these agencies.

334

Table 74 Summary tables for 2014, 2015 and 2016 on key indicators related to the

timely execution of the delegated functions – Executive Agencies

Call management (2016) ERCEA REA INEA EASME

Average Time to Inform (target -153 days) From 77 to

207 days

132 120 117

Average Time to Grant (target 245, ERCEA -

400)

399 193 226 224

Average Time to Pay (% on time within legal

deadlines)

98,8% 95,4% 100% 96%

Average evaluation cost per proposal - external

experts paid/ total number of proposals evaluated

€1.335 1.471 n.a. n.a.


Average Time to Inform (target -153 days) From 94 to

164 days

142 139 131


390)

357,7 203 224 239


deadlines)

89,2% 96% 100% 94%

Average evaluation cost per proposal - external

experts paid/ total number of proposals evaluated

(% of the amount recommended for funding)

0,07% <2% 0,05% n.a.


Average Time to Inform (target -153 days) From 118

to 133

141 152 n.a.


390)

173 217 238 240


deadlines)

91.4% 97% 100% 98%

Source : Annual Activity Reports 2014-2016, calculation by the Commission. Data refers to Horizon 2020

activities only

M.3.3. Cost-efficiency of the management of delegated activities

According to the financial regulation (Article 30), the principle of economy requires that the

resources used by the institution in pursuit of its activities shall be made available in due

time, in appropriate quantity and quality and the best price. The principle of efficiency

concerns the best relationship between resources employed and results achieved.

Efficiency for this analysis is defined as the ratio between inputs (staff) and outputs (the

budget managed by the Agency). The indicators for measuring efficiency are the ratio

between the administrative and operational budget (%) and the budget "per staff head" (€

million). The estimated average budget managed by 'head' for all Executive Agencies in the

Commission Communication374

was expected to increase from € 3,47 million in 2013 to

€4,6 million per staff member in 2020.

374 Communication to the Commission on the delegation of the management of the 2014-2020 programmes to executive

agencies (SEC(2013)493).

335

Table 75 – Overview of administrative efficiency in Executive Agencies

Administrative efficiency 2016 ERCEA REA INEA EASME

Programme management cost ratio

(administrative/ operational budget)

2.75 % 2,6% (3,6%

with CSS)

0.77% 2,7 %

Research project - budget 'per head' (EUR

million)

4,42 3,2375

11,4 5,2 (all EA

projects -3,8)

Average number of running research projects

per staff member (operational activities)

17 36 6,7 9 (all EA

projects -7,2)

Source: Annual Activity Reports 2016, calculation by the Commission.

The differences in the cost ratios, the overall number of running projects and the average

number of projects per staff can be explained by the different portfolios as well as nature of

projects of each agency which vary in terms of grant size, number of participants, duration

and number of transactions involved.

In order to allocate and mobilise human resources in a timely manner, REA developed a tool

for staff allocation based on workload measurement on the basis of the Cost Benefit

Analysis (CBA) model used at the time of the extension of REA's mandate in 2013. REA

runs the workload simulation every year at the time of establishing the Annual Work

Programme of the next year and allocates the resources accordingly.

In the same manner, ERCEA has developed workload indicators which are used on a yearly

basis for the purposes of establishing the staff allocation of the following year. The workload

estimations are revised annually taking into account the volume of transactions reported at

the end of the year.

As regards INEA, a workload analysis was prepared and revised each time the estimated

figures on the number of projects managed are updated. When necessary, the recruitment

and staffing plans are revised in order to balance the workload and temporary support can be

given from one unit to another.

Finally, based on the methodology of the recent common Cost Benefits Analyses, EASME

developed a pragmatic and cost-effective approach for a workload assessment that was first

performed in 2016. The assessment will serve as an input to the Agency staffing plans for

2017.

M.3.4. Budget execution of commitment and payment appropriations in 2014-

2015

All Agencies managed to execute their available budget almost at 100%, with the exception

of payments out of the administrative budget.

Table 76 Budget execution in Executive Agencies

Budget execution 2014-2016 ERCEA REA INEA EASME

Operational budget

Budget execution (% to Commitments) 99,90% 100% 100% 100%

375 This does not include the REA staff providing the administrative and logistical central support services

336

Budget execution (% to Payments) 100% 100% 100% 100%

Administrative budget

Budget execution (% to Commitments) 99,42% 99,40% 98.86% 99%

Budget execution (% to Payments) 93,45% 91,79% 96.14% 89,7%

Source: Annual Activity Reports 2014-2016, calculation by the Commission

M.3.5. Monitoring, dissemination and exploitation of research results

The existing monitoring arrangements and reporting obligations allow for an effective

provision of evidence for policy making. Specifically, supervision and monitoring of the

Executive Agencies is ensured by the drafting and submitting to the Commission of detailed

activity reports on a bi-annual basis. In order to harmonise the periodic reporting as much as

possible among the different Executive Agencies and Joint Undertakings, a set of common

KPIs and reporting templates have been designed.

The Strategy for an Effective Dissemination and Exploitation of Research Results in

Horizon 2020 was adopted in September 2015 and applies to all Horizon 2020 implementing

services including the Executive Agencies. The objective of the strategy is to increase the

availability of outputs stemming from EU funded research and innovation projects and thus,

increase their use in different contexts, such as having an impact on commercial markets,

helping create jobs and growth and supporting policies in tackling societal challenges.

Against this background, the strategy aims at outlining how the European Commission will

support and enhance the dissemination and exploitation activities of the project consortia,

and how it will benefit from the Horizon 2020 project results as input into its policy making

and programming activities.

Taking into account that the implementation of Horizon 2020 has been delegated to a large

extent to Executive Agencies, it is essential to ensure that there is no interruption in the flow

of research results from projects and programme implementation into policy making and

programming. The roles and competences of everyone involved have been defined in the

revised Memoranda of Understanding between parent DGs and the respective Executive

Agencies (signed in 2015).

M.3.6. Proximity to beneficiaries

The delegation of certain parts of Horizon 2020 has enabled the agencies to focus their

existing communication and outreach channels, which have developed over time to keep

them close to beneficiaries and to improve the EU's visibility as the promoter of the

programmes. In particular, the agencies provide an increased level of direct exchanges with

beneficiaries through info days, kick off meetings for larger and multi-annual projects, and

monitoring visits. At the same time, all potential beneficiaries have a single entry point.

In 2015 ERCEA continued its tailor-made services for ERC beneficiaries. Four training

conferences for Principal Investigators (PIs) have been organised (in Brussels, Sweden,

Spain and Austria). The aim of these conferences is primarily training PIs on procedures and

rules and facilitation of a dialogue amongst ERC grantees. Almost 200 PIs attended these

events and like in previous years, these training events were very well received.

337

The REA cooperates closely with the parent DGs on communication throughout its project

portfolio. It organise regular information days for proposers in Brussels and abroad,

coordinators' days for running projects and various other events related to the projects and

actions, in close collaboration with the parent DGs.

INEA mainly focused on two aspects. The first one is consolidating the stakeholders and

facilitating and preparing the communication aspects of project management relationships

with its key Horizon 2020 stakeholders – potential applicants and beneficiaries – to promote

funding opportunities. A total of 6.189 participants registered in Horizon 2020 events (e.g.

info days) organised by INEA in 2015 and 2016, and another 11.544 followed the events and

presentations online via web-streaming. 89,2% of the participants expressed their

satisfaction with these events. The events attracted 54,5% new participants in transport and

62% in energy sectors. The second is organising workshops with the representatives of the

ongoing projects on selected themes, such as geothermal energy, carbon capture and storage,

smart cities and communities, intelligent transport systems and urban mobility, in order to

encourage the projects to work together, to avoid duplication and promote synergies,

particularly in the dissemination and communication aspects of projects.

Three info days for Horizon 2020 beneficiaries were organised by EASME in 2015 and were

attended by close to 2.000 participants on site and several hundred on line, learning more

about upcoming calls for proposals. These events were very successful and had a very high

satisfaction rate. In addition, the Agency promoted the delegated programmes via

newsletters, on social media and during major events (such as, for example, the EU

Sustainable Energy week, Green Week, SME – instrument Innovation Summit).

M.4. Main findings and conclusions from the recent evaluations of ERCEA and

REA operations

The recently completed evaluations of the operations of ERCEA and REA cover the period

from July 2012 to July 2015, encompassing two different Framework Programmes (Seventh

Framework programme and Horizon 2020). The compulsory 3 year evaluations of the other

two Agencies that implement Horizon 2020 (INEA and EASME) will be carried out in 2017

and will cover the operations of these Agencies during the period 2014-2016. The main

conclusions drawn from the two parallel evaluation exercises are as follows.

The establishment of the two Executive Agencies resulted in significant savings to the EU

budget in comparison to the alternative options as shown by the retrospective CBAs (Cost-

Benefit Analyses) for 2012-2015. Overall, the results indicated that the Executive Agency

scenario remained considerably more cost-effective than the in-house scenario, generating

substantial savings to the EU budget.

As regards ERCEA, the analysis revealed that the actual costs of the Agency in 2012-2015

were by EUR 20.6 million (12%) lower than the initial estimation due to cost savings in

overheads. On the other hand, actual staff related expenditure exceeded estimations for the

period 2014-2015 because of higher than expected actual average staff costs. The actual

cost savings of the ERCEA scenario amounted to 23% in comparison to the in-house

Commission scenario. In real terms, the actual savings from the programme delegation to

the ERCEA in 2013 were very close to the initial CBA estimations, EUR 46.5 million

compared to EUR 44.6 million.

338

Similarly, the retrospective CBA analysis for REA revealed that the actual costs of the REA

in 2012-2015 were by EUR 34.8 million (15%) lower than the initial estimation due to cost

savings in the staff and infrastructure expenditure. The actual cost savings of the Executive

Agency scenario amounted to 21% in comparison to the in-house Commission scenario.

The actual savings from the programme delegation to the REA in 2013 were 24% higher

than the initial estimations, EUR 53.4 million compared to EUR 43.1 million.

The last evaluation of INEA (ex. TEN-EA) confirmed that the programme implementation

(TEN-T Programme) by the Agency during the period 2011-2013 proved to be better 'value

for money' in comparison to the DG MOVE in house scenario. The cost savings were

estimated to EUR 8.8 million.

The results of the CBA from the last evaluation of EASME (ex EACI) covering the 2011-

2013 period revealed considerable cost savings due to the Agency scenario, estimated

between EUR 27 million and EUR 36 million, depending on the extent to which the

Commission would use Contract Agents staff to carry out the delegated activities. The

evaluation concluded that the Agency effectively and efficiently implemented the

programmes entrusted to it.

The initial identification of tasks entrusted to the Executive Agencies and the produced

savings are still valid for justifying the outsourcing.

The mandates of ERCEA and REA remain highly relevant to the needs of the Commission

and the Agencies' applicants/beneficiaries for the remaining part of the programming period

(from mid-2015 to 2020).

The ERCEA and REA performed in an efficient and cost-effective way in implementing

the delegated programmes during the period 2012-2015.

The recent evaluations concluded that the process of grant management was judged to be

very efficient in ERCEA and efficient in REA. Both Executive Agencies were effective in

achieving objectives and producing planned outputs during the reference period (2012-

2015). Despite increases in the operational budget and the number of proposals, the ERCEA

and REA achieved good results in terms of main KPIs. The results achieved in terms of

'Time-To-Grant' and 'Time-To-Pay' are good and remained below the defined targets in most

cases.

The two Executive Agencies not only improved management of the programme, but also

rendered better services to the various stakeholders.

More specifically, the ERCEA beneficiaries' survey reported 93% of the respondents being

very satisfied or satisfied with the services provided by the ERCEA. The overall satisfaction

rate demonstrated an increasing trend during the 2011-2014 period (from 89% in 2011 to

93% in 2014). Moreover, an impressive 95% of independent experts were satisfied with the

services provided by the ERCEA. The REA beneficiaries' survey indicated 82% satisfaction

rate with regard to performance, up from 78% in 2011. In the area of support services (the

REA contracts and pays all expert evaluators), 98% of the independent experts were satisfied

with the service of the REA and expressed their willingness to work with REA as an

independent expert again in the future.

339

Externalisation of the research and development activities to the Executive Agencies allowed

the Commission services to better focus on policy-making by freeing up resources for

policy-related tasks and enabling a greater emphasis on their exercise. The benefits of

outsourcing that have been actually realised would not have occurred had Commission staff

worked on both policy-related issues and programme and project management at the same

time.

In conclusion, the ERC has become a recognised success of the FP7, having established

itself as an indispensable component of the European Research Area highly regarded for the

quality and efficiency of its operations. The level of competition in Horizon 2020 guarantees

excellence (success rate barely superior to 10%) and ERC grant is synonymous of Scientific

Excellence for the worldwide scientific community.

As regards REA, the largest Executive Agency in terms of staff, it delivered a high quality

and effective service to FP7 and Horizon 2020 participants and other stakeholders through

its central support services, contributing significantly to a more consistent application of the

Horizon 2020 rules.

As regards the other two agencies, INEA and EASME, during 2014-2015 the agencies grew

considerably in size and were heading towards cruising speed. In 2015 the Executive

Agency demonstrated their readiness to perform and implement the delegated activities and

have in place the necessary arrangements to accommodate the new programmes. The main

success would be the launch of Horizon 2020 calls in areas where no pre-existing research

expertise or base existed and full project cycle management of the delegated programmes

following the end of transitional arrangements when certain phases of the project life cycle

were managed in house by parent DGs.

340

N. THE IMPACT OF SIMPLIFICATION AND THE NEW FUNDING MODEL

N.1. Context and legal requirements – Horizon 2020 new funding model

The funding model of Horizon 2020 comprises major simplification compared to the model

used in the predecessor programme. In FP7, the reimbursement to which a project is entitled

is determined via a complex matrix of organisation categories and activity types, making the

financial management of the grant difficult and restricting the flexibility of the consortium in

the implementation of the project. Moreover, for the calculation of indirect costs (overheads)

in FP7, four different methods exist (two flat rate models, depending on the organisation

categories; real indirect costs and a simplified method of determining real indirect costs). In

particular, the real indirect cost options are a considerable source of financial errors.

The policy rationale for the Commission's proposal for the Horizon 2020 funding model was

the following:

To put the focus on the costs that are directly related to the project

To simplify the financial management of projects, by a reduced complexity of the

financial rules

To reduce the financial error rate detected in ex-post audits

To increase legal certainty for beneficiaries

To increase the attractiveness and ease of access to the programme, in particular for

newcomers, smaller actors, SMEs and industry

To contribute to the acceleration of the granting processes

Consequently, the funding model of Horizon 2020 is based on two main features:

A single reimbursement rate in a given project, without differentiation between

organisation categories or types of activities. The reimbursement rate is up to 100%

of the eligible costs for Research and Innovation Actions and up to 70% for

Innovation Actions (with one exception: non-profit organisations are reimbursed

100% also in Innovation Actions).

A single flat rate for contributing to the indirect costs. This flat rate of 25% is

applied to the direct costs376

.

The results of a survey, addressed to all participants of signed Horizon 2020 grants in

September 2015, show that an overwhelming majority of the respondents having experience

with FP7 appreciate the new simplified funding model of Horizon 2020.

376 Except costs for subcontracting, costs of financial support to third parties and in-kind contributions not used on the

beneficiary's premises

341

Figure 92 How beneficial is the introduction of a single reimbursement rate for the

project?

Figure 93 How beneficial is the introduction of a single flat rate for indirect costs?

More than 77% of the respondents consider the single reimbursement rate in a project as a

beneficial simplification. More than 74% welcome the single flat rate for indirect costs.

Another feature of the Horizon 2020 funding model is the additional remuneration scheme

(Article 27.2 of the Rules for Participation) introduced during the legislative process by the

legislator. The feedback received from Member States' representatives and stakeholders

indicates that its implementation is complex. Besides, it has a negative financial effect on

those beneficiaries whose usual remuneration practices are based on very variable levels of

remuneration.

In some Member States the salaries of researchers in the public sector are strongly dependent

on availability of external funding. Under those remuneration schemes, project-triggered

remuneration may count, for example, for as much as two third thirds of the total salary of

the employee. That leads to situations where the cap of EUR 8 000 results in the ineligibility

of a substantial part of the personnel costs. For certain groups of beneficiaries the provisions

on additional remuneration imply that the eligible personnel costs for the same person for the

same work are lower in a Horizon 2020 action than in a FP7 project.

342

N.2. The impacts of the new model on attractiveness, accessibility and

participation in Horizon 2020

While a direct causal relationship between the funding model and the observed participation

figures cannot be established, the statistics on participation show clearly that Horizon 2020

is highly attractive. About 120,000 proposals were submitted so far. The oversubscription

rate (in terms of requested EU budget) is more than 8:1.

The programme attracts many newcomers (see Section R.3. Analysis of newcomers to

Framework Programme). Similarly, the programme attracts SMEs (see Section O. Analysis

of the companies participating in Horizon 2020). This shows the attractiveness of Horizon

2020 (including its funding model) for SMEs and newcomers.

Responding to the concerns of some large research organisations on the single flat rate for

indirect costs, the Horizon 2020 Rules for Participation provide for the "Large Research

Infrastructure" (LRI) scheme. To date, 13 entities (nine research organisations, three higher

education establishments, and one enterprise) have lodged a request for an ex-ante

assessment of the methodology for LRI.

Four entities (research organisations) have received a positive ex-ante assessment while 2

(research organisation) have been found not compliant. For five entities, the work is

ongoing. Two entities have voluntarily withdrawn their application.

In conclusion, the number of applicants for the LRI scheme remains modest – reflecting the

fact that overall only a few potential candidates comply with the set thresholds (minimum

value of the infrastructure of 20 M€; at least 75% of the asset value in the balance sheet is

research infrastructure).

This confirms that the thresholds as initially designed (i.e. targeting "large" infrastructure)

have achieved their objective: targeting large research organisations with expensive research

infrastructure and doing research as their core business.

N.3. The impacts of the new model on funding levels

The effective funding levels (EU contribution versus real project costs) in Horizon 2020 are

determined by the nominal reimbursement rates (100% or 70%) and the flat rate for indirect

costs (covering, on average, only a part of the real indirect costs). In FP7, the funding level is

a function of the organisation categories, the mix of types of activities in a project and the

choice by beneficiaries of the method for charging indirect cost (among the four existing

options).

In FP7, around 90% of participating universities and more than half of research

organisations use the 60% flat rate method for indirect costs and their reimbursement rate is

75%. For such organisations, the funding model of Horizon 2020 represents no major

change. Their funding levels, compared to FP7, are slightly increased (by about 4%). The

same applies to participations in projects under the European Research Council, for which

the only change from FP7 to Horizon 2020 is the increase of the flat rate for indirect costs

from 20% to 25%.

For industry and other organisations using in FP7 the real indirect cost option, the Horizon

2020 funding model represents a major change. A direct comparison of funding levels is not

343

possible. The average nominal funding level (EU contribution/ (direct costs + 25%) +

subcontracting)) for non-SME industry in Horizon 2020 is 64% (compared to 54% in FP7).

But this nominal funding level does not represent the effective funding level, as for these

entities the real indirect costs on average are higher than 25%.

An estimation of the effective funding level was made, based on the known real indirect

costs of the most frequent FP7 industry participants (non-SMEs) using the real indirect cost

option. This results in an estimated average real funding level for (non-SME) industry in

Horizon 2020 in the area of 58%, i.e. an increase of 4 percentage points compared to FP7

for this population of beneficiaries.

This moderate increase of the average effective funding level for non-SME industry did not

lead to a higher share of the total funding going to big industry. While overall industry

participation (including SMEs) has increased, the share in number of participations of non-

SME industry has decreased by 12% compared to FP7. The respective share in EU

contribution decreased even stronger by 28% compared to FP7. This is clear evidence that

the nominal increase of the reimbursement rate for (non-SME) industry, from 50% (35% for

demonstration activities) in FP7 to 100% (70% for Innovation Actions) in Horizon 2020, has

not lead to an increase of the share of EU funding going to this category of participants.

An overall direct comparison of funding levels on a programme level between FP7 and

Horizon 2020 is not possible, however estimations show that the average real funding level

in Horizon 2020 remains at the 70%, the same as in FP7.

N.4. Lessons learnt and areas for improvement

The expected benefits of the new funding model have largely materialised. A big majority of

the stakeholders appreciate the related simplification effects. The funding model is attractive

for newcomers and SMEs. Its reduced complexity contributes to the acceleration of the

granting process (88% of the grants in Pillars 2 and 3 are signed within 8 months from the

call deadline). The effects on the simplification of financial management in the projects and

on the error rate cannot yet be assessed, as very few financial reports were yet submitted and

no ex-post audits were yet finished.

During the inter-institutional negotiations on the Horizon 2020 Rules for Participation some

stakeholders raised concerns on potential detrimental effects of the proposed funding model

on certain categories of organisations:

The single 25% flat rate for indirect costs would deter organisations running big and

expensive research infrastructures, because their real costs would not be adequately

covered;

The 100% reimbursement rate would massively increase the share of EU contribution

going to big (non-SME) industry.

Concluding from the analysis of the data on the Horizon 2020 grants signed so far, these

effects have not materialised.

One area for improvement is the broader acceptance of beneficiaries' usual accounting

practice. Stakeholders indicate that there are still too many instances where they have to

collect data and information specifically for obligations in their Horizon 2020 grants, in

344

parallel to their usual accounting system. This concerns in particular the obligations on staff

time recording, the accounting for depreciation of equipment and for internally provided

consumables and services, the handling of personnel costs outside closed financial years and

some accounting detail for beneficiaries outside the Euro zone. The Commission has already

reacted to these concerns and adapted the Horizon 2020 model grant agreements accordingly

Another area for improvement concerns the unintended effects of the additional

remuneration scheme (Article 27.2 of the Rules for Participation) with the eur 8000 capping.

A change to the Horizon 2020 model grant agreement, providing that personnel costs for

researchers taking part in Horizon 2020 will be eligible at least at the level accepted in

national projects, is under preparation for providing a quick intermediate solution. For the

longer term, one could also consider a change to the Horizon 2020 rules for participation,

requiring a legislative procedure involving Parliament and Council.

As concerns more substantial changes, the European Court of Auditors has suggested that

the Commission should lean towards a trust-based approach in research funding and in this

respect should consider moving away from its current system of reimbursing beneficiaries

for proven costs, towards lump sum financing based on performance/results. The wider use

of output-based funding with lump sums has the potential to reduce drastically the financial

error rate and is also in line with the Commission's priority on Budget Focused on Results.

Such forms of funding aim to shift the focus from checking inputs (i.e. costs incurred) to

monitoring performance and outcome, covering the entire project life cycle, including new

ways of ex-post audits. The revised Financial Regulation provides a fresh opportunity for an

extended use of such simplified forms of funding (flat rates, unit costs, lump sums) and in

particular for funding based on results/output/performance/fulfilment of conditions. In

Horizon 2020 output-based funding with a lump sum is currently used only for the SME

instrument phase 1 and there are only very few R&I funding programmes worldwide with

similar schemes that could serve as an example. The challenge with funding based on

output/results/performance in the field of research is to define the conditions for the payment

of the lump sum. These conditions must take into account the intrinsically risky nature of

research and innovation projects (i.e. unexpected scientific results or no results despite

honest effort or the falsification of a scientific hypothesis must not be a reason for not paying

the lump sum).

On this basis, the Commission is reflecting on some pilot actions on output-based lump sum

funding within the last Horizon 2020 work programme (2018-2020), in view of the

preparation of the next R&I Framework Programme.

345

O. ANALYSIS OF THE COMPANIES PARTICIPATING IN HORIZON 2020

A summary of the main findings on companies participating in Horizon 2020 is as follows:

12,324 private for profit companies (PRC) take part in Horizon 2020, making up 62.5

% of all participants (02/2017).

EUR 6.841 billion or 28 % of the total Horizon 2020 granted budget was awarded

to companies (02/2017).

An average Horizon 2020 company has 1,715 employees and EUR 708 million

revenue a year (2014). However, most of the companies have revenue around EUR

4.5 million.

The most frequent Horizon 2020 company was created in 2012 and the average

company in 1997.

The average EC contribution to a unique Horizon 2020 company amounts EUR

555,125. The most frequent grant amounts EUR 50,000.

Bigger companies (in terms of revenues and number of employees) receive larger

grants.

Most of the Horizon 2020 companies are from the Professional, Scientific and

Technical activities sector (33 %), the Manufacturing sector (27 %) and the

Information and communication sector (17 %).

Start-ups: 23 % of Horizon 2020 companies are less than 5 years old.

SMEs: 77 % of Horizon 2020 companies have less than 250 employees and 74 %

have revenues up to EUR 50 million.

More than half of the Horizon 2020 companies come from Germany, Spain, the

United Kingdom, Italy, and France, while Czech Republic, Romania, Estonia,

Slovakia, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Luxemburg, Lithuania, Croatia, Latvia, and Malta

each contribute less than1 %of Horizon 2020 companies.

83 % of companies are from EU15 (89 % of grants), 9 % from EU13 (6 % of

grants) and 8 % from outside EU (5 % of grants).

Horizon 2020 private for profit companies (further referred to as Horizon 2020 companies)

were analysed on their country, age, employment, revenue, and economic sector. For this,

companies from the CORDA database were matched with their data in ORBIS, a database of

company data377

. The analysis is based on 10,128 successful matches for companies in the

28 EU Member States. Since the data on the country of origin and grants originates from

CORDA, non-Member States' participation is included.

As of mid-February 2017, 12,324 unique companies take part in Horizon 2020, making up

62.5 % of all distinct Horizon 2020 participants. 1,848 companies participated in more than

one project. Overall, EUR 6.841 billion or 28 % of total so far granted Horizon 2020 budget

377 Cut-off 16 January 2017. OrbisEurope was used, covering 38 countries: the EU-28 plus countries in Europe that are

associated to Horizon 2020 (such as Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, Turkey). Countries outside Europe, such as Israel, are

not covered in OrbisEurope. For the matching, companies' names were used as an identifier, using the batch search option

of OrbisEurope. Out of the 12,324 companies in Horizon 2020, 10,128 companies were successfully matched to their Orbis

data.

346

went to companies.378

An average grant per company amounts EUR 555,125 and most

frequent amount granted is EUR 50,000, what indicates that the companies frequently obtain

the SME Instrument phase I support.

Figure 94 Horizon 2020 distinct participants by type and EC contributions (N = 19,796)

Source: European Commission, based on Corda data 15/02/2017

O.1. Company sectors by age and grants

Horizon 2020 companies were sorted on their sector, using the main NACE code379

. This

classification comes with a caveat: companies can operate in more than one sector,

especially big companies but also new companies that combine e.g. finance and ICT.

However, it is the only classification available.

Younger Horizon 2020 companies come from more sectors than older ones. Companies set

up since 1990 are active mainly in Professional, scientific and technical activities and

Information and communication, next to Manufacturing sector. Additionally, slowly rising

are Construction, wholesale and retail trade and Administrative sectors. Older companies are

mainly active in Manufacturing. In the last decade, their share has decreased compared to

2000s, while the share of Professional, scientific and technical activities sector and

Information and communication sector stayed relatively unchanged Figure 95.

378 Taking into regard total number of participations rather than distinct participants, companies (PRC) and higher and

secondary education (HES) each represents 33 % of participations, research organisation (REC) 22 %, public bodies (PUB)

6 % and others (OTH) 5 % of participations. 379 NACE 2.0 main sections: the single letter code, as registered in the national registrations used by Orbis.

347

Figure 95 Companies by sector and decade (N = 9,763 companies)

Source: OrbisEurope, Corda16/01/2017.

More than two-thirds of Horizon 2020 companies come from only three sectors – 33 % are

in Professional, scientific and technical activities (e.g. Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Wiener

Stadtwerke Holding, The Vision Belgium, Sol Voltaics, Solar Polar), 27 % are in

Manufacturing (e.g. Daimler, Basf, BMW, Safran, Lithoz GmbH, Adidas, Nokia) and 17 %

in Information and communication (e.g. Deutsche Telekom, Telefonica Sa, Alten

Netherland, Global Robots). The remaining one-third comes from 17 other sectors.

Figure 96 Horizon 2020 companies by sector (N = 9,908 companies)


348

Figure 97 Professional, scientific and technical activities sector by subsectors(N = 3,020)

Source: OrbisEurope, Corda 11/01/2017.

Figure 98 Manufacturing activities sector by subsectors (N = 1,251)

Source: OrbisEurope, Corda, 11/01/2017.

More than three quarters of the biggest Horizon 2020 sector in terms of number of

companies - Professional, scientific and research activities - consist of scientific research

development, architectural engineering activities and activities of head offices. Veterinary,

legal accounting and advertising present relatively small share of the sector (Figure 97). Out

of the biggest ten grant recipients from the sector, 5 are specialized in technological

innovation, focused on R&D and transformation of industry to 4.0 (Telefonica Investigacion

Y Desarrollo, Philips Electronics Nederland, Innovacio I Recerca Industrial I Sostenible,

Fonroche Geothermie, Marine Current Turbines), while the other five offer consulting,

project management & control services and of special studies (D'appolonia S, Esteyco,

GeoSea, Arttic, Amec Foster Wheeler Energy). Arttic's main activity in preparation of

349

customers' Horizon 2020 roadmaps and has been so far participating in 19 Horizon 2020

projects and received more than EUR 7 million.

The second biggest sector - Manufacturing, is more diverse, although more than half of it

consists of only three subcategories, manufacture of computer, electronic and optical

products, manufacture of machinery and equipment and manufacture of chemicals (Figure

98). The smallest share represents companies producing furniture, petroleum products,

textile and basic metal.

In contrast to manufacturing, the third biggest Horizon 2020 sector - Information and

communication - is less diverse. More than three quarters of companies are in computer

programming consultancy. Since there is no data on subsectors for all Horizon 2020

companies, the three analysed sectors are smaller than their respective shares.

80% of total grants to Horizon 2020 companies go to the three biggest sectors; 30 % to

Professional, Scientific and Technical Activities, 35% to Manufacturing and 16% to

Information and communication sector. The amount of grants awarded to each sector

roughly follows the number of companies: money seems to be not sector-specific (Figure

99). The only slight exceptions are Manufacturing (relatively more money) and Professional,

scientific and technical activities (less). This may be because of equipment costs in

manufacturing and relatively smaller grants to consultancy companies.

Figure 99 Company grants by sector (N = 9,748 companies)

Source: OrbisEurope, Corda, 16/01/2017.

O.2. Company age and grants

The majority (60 %) of companies taking part in Horizon 2020 companies were created after

2000, 27 % after 2010, and 23 % since 2012 (‘start-ups’). The oldest companies were created

well before 1900 (Figure 100). The most frequent Horizon 2020 company was created in

2012. The share of grants roughly corresponds to the share of companies created in each

decade, though the oldest and most established companies get the highest grants, while the

350

average amount decreases for the younger companies. They probably have smaller shares in

the projects.

Figure 100 Companies by decade of incorporation and grants (N = 9,959 companies)


Figure 101 zooms into the 8,128 companies that were set up in 1990 or later. It shows that

the share of Horizon 2020 companies was more or less increasing since 1990, with the

largest cohort starting in 2010. The cohorts 2015 and 2016 are smaller, since they could not

take part in the first calls of Horizon 2020, but these numbers are expected to go up in the

years to come when more grants are awarded.

Figure 101 Companies by year of incorporation and grants since 1990 (N = 8,128

companies)

Source: OrbisEurope,Corda 16/01/2017.

351

O.3. Company employment and grants

Based on 2014 data, most of Horizon 2020 companies are small in terms of number of

employees: 31 % have 10 or less employees (micro-enterprises), 57 % have 50 or less (small

enterprises) and 67 % have 100 or less employees (Figure 102). This is in line with the

majority of Horizon 2020 companies being young (see section 2 on age). According to the

micro, small and medium size-sized enterprises (SMEs)380

employment criterion of

maximum 250 employees, almost 80 % of Horizon 2020 companies are SMEs. Average

number of employees per Horizon 2020 company is 1,715, most frequent number of

employees being only 1 and median at 31.

Figure 102 Companies by number of employees (N = 6,607 companies)


Companies with 250 or less employees represent 77 % of all companies and receive 59 % of

grants. Bigger companies represent 23 % of all Horizon 2020 companies and get more than

41 % of grants. Bigger companies get bigger grants on average (Figure 103).

380 SMEs are identified as having less than 250 employees, a turnover not exceeding € 50 million and/or a balance sheet not

exceeding € 43 million. In addition, in order to assure SMEs' autonomy, not more than 25 % of their capital or voting rights

could be given to partner entities (Council Regulation (EC) No 859/2003 of 14 May 2003).

352

Figure 103 Companies by number of employees and grants (N = 6,738 companies)


O.4. Company revenues and grants

Based on 2014 data, 30% of the Horizon 2020 companies have revenues up to EUR 1

million, 58% have revenues up to EUR 10 million and 73% have revenues up to EUR 50

million, the maximum amount for SMEs in the EC definition (the balance sheet and

ownership criteria were not taken into account). Almost a quarter of the Horizon 2020

companies (23%) have revenues higher than EUR 50 million. 4% of the Horizon 2020

companies have revenues higher than EUR 1 billion (Figure 104). The latter is the reason for

the relatively high average revenue of Horizon 2020 companies at EUR 708 million, with

the most companies have revenues of around € 4 million (median at EUR 4.77 million and

mode at € 4.16 million).

74 % of Horizon 2020 SMEs in terms of revenues receive 54% of all grants. 46% of grants

go to larger companies. The participation is the highest among companies with revenues up

to EUR 1 million (30 % of all Horizon 2020 companies that receive 18% of all grants) on

one side and the biggest companies with revenues above EUR 150 million (17% of Horizon

2020 companies that receive 37% of all grants) (Figure 105

Bigger companies

SMEs

353

Figure 104 Companies by revenue (N = 6,222 companies)


Figure 105 Companies by revenue and grants (N = 6,222 companies)


Many of the Horizon 2020 companies are young. On average, they have a smaller turnover

than older companies (Figure 106).

bigger

companies

SMEs

bigge

354

Figure 106 Companies by decade of incorporation and turnover (N = 6,108 companies)


Figure 107 EC contributions to SMEs and bigger companies (N = 5,276 companies)

Source: OrbisEurope, Corda 16/01/2017.

Taking into account both considered SME criteria, revenue and employment, 68% of all

Horizon 2020 companies are SMEs based on 2014 data and receive 49% of all granted EC

contributions to Horizon 2020 companies. Larger companies represent 32% of all Horizon

2020 companies and receive 51% of company contributions. However, if it was possible to

355

apply the rest of the SME criteria, the SME proportion would likely decrease. The average

grant for larger companies is over EUR 1 million and more than twice of an average SME

grant, which is below EUR 0.5 million.

O.5. Companies by Member State

More than half of the Horizon 2020 companies are based in five large countries: DE, ES, IT,

GB and FR. Those countries have each more participant Horizon 2020 companies and

receive greater shares of EC contributions than companies of new Member States put

together. The shares of companies from 10 countries (CZ, RO, EE, SK, CY, BG, LU, LT,

HR, LV and MT) are all lower than 1%. 83% of the Horizon 2020 companies come from

EU15. They receive 89% of the total grant amounts. 9% of the Horizon 2020 companies

come from the new Member States (EU13) and they receive 6% of the grants. 8 % of

Horizon 2020 companies come from outside the EU and receive 5% of total grant amount.

The average grant of the EU15 companies is higher than the average grant of the EU13

companies and companies from outside EU.

Per capita performance could be categorized in four groups (see circles in Figure 108).

Although most Horizon 2020 companies come from EU15 countries, their per capita

performance is rather low. Front-runners from DE, ES, IT, GB, FR and GR are followed by

better per capita performance fast followers from the rest of the EU15 countries (NL, BE,

SE, AT, GR, FI, DK, IE). The best per capita performers are High Fliers: LU (78 Horizon

2020 companies per million citizens) and SI (64), followed by CY (61) and EE (55). The

lowest company participation per capita is in the group of Slow Followers: RO (5), PL (6),

BG (7) and HR (8).

Figure 108 Companies and their grants by Member State (N = 12,410 companies)

Source: European Commission, based on Corda 10/02/2017, Eurostat 03/01/2017.

EU-15 -IE EU-13+

IE

High-Fliers

Former Front-

runners Slow Followers

Fast Followers

356

P. POSITION IN INTERNATIONAL RANKINGS

P.1. Companies

An analysis of 10 international rankings of top performing or innovating companies was

undertaken in order to assess the percentage of those funded by Horizon 2020. The

distinction between those which have headquarters in the EU and those with headquarters

outside the EU was also considered.

The analysis revealed that the majority of the top companies have headquarters outside the

EU, with those participating in Horizon 2020 usually doing so through their subsidiary units

located in the EU.

Figure 109 Best performing companies according to different international rankings,

according to the location of their with headquarters (HQ) within or outside the EU

Source: European Commission services compilation based on published rankings

Concentrating on top companies that benefited from Horizon 2020 reveals a diverse picture

as presented in the following figure.

Figure 110 Best performing companies according to different international rankings,

according to whether they received Horizon 2020 support or not

Source: European Commission services compilation based on published rankings

18

100 91 80

21 30 17 21 16 3

158 9 20

79 70 83 29 34 47

0

50

100

150

200

CB InsightUnicorns

EU R&DScoreboard

DELOITTE 100European fastgrowing techcompanies

WIRED 100Europe'shotteststartups

FORBES 100most

innovativecompanies

IndustrialR&D

InvestmentworldwideScoreboard

THOMSONREUTERS 100

top globalinnovators

EPO top 50European

PatentApplicants

FORTUNE 50most

innovativecompanies

MIT SmartestCompanies

HQ in EU HQ in not in EU

0

64 52 39 3 2 2

38 17 6

176 36 48 61 97 98 98 12 33 44

0

50

100

150

200

CB InsightUnicorns

EU R&DScoreboard

IndustrialR&D

InvestmentworldwideScoreboard

THOMSONREUTERS 100

top globalinnovators

FORBES 100most

innovativecompanies

DELOITTE 100European fastgrowing techcompanies

WIRED 100Europe'shotteststartups

EPO top 50European

PatentApplicants

FORTUNE 50most

innovativecompanies

MIT SmartestCompanies

Horizon 2020 funded Not Horizon 2020 funded

357

Bigger companies and established innovators included in the European Patent Organisation

(EPO), the R&D Scoreboards, and Thomson Reuters top global innovators rankings are

greater beneficiaries of Horizon 2020 funds than younger innovators from the Wired

Europe's hottest start-ups, Deloitte's fastest growing European tech companies, Forbes' most

innovative companies, and CB Insights' Unicorns list.

The top-50 applicants for the European Patent Office often take part in Horizon 2020, with a

large majority of those participating through their divisions inside the EU. For example, the

Japanese Honda Motor participates in Horizon 2020 with its subsidiaries Honda Research

Institute Europe and Honda R&D Europe, both based in Germany. This again shows that

Horizon 2020 attracts frequent participation of non-EU based companies and organisations

often through their EU based subsidiaries and evinces the open innovation nature of the

programme.

As expected, most of the companies in the EU R&D Scoreboard take part in Horizon 2020,

such as Volkswagen, Daimler, Bosch, Sanofi, BMW, Siemens or Philips. Out of those which

are not participating in Horizon 2020, the banking and financial sector is the most

significant.

Wired Europe's hottest start-ups and Deloitte's fastest growing European tech companies

rankings reveal that these companies hardly take part in Horizon 2020. Out of the first

ranking, only two benefited from Horizon 2020 funding thus far: Portugal's Beta-i and

Unbabel. This is underlying the gap in reaching out to these young companies. Additionally,

CB Insight's list of unicorns or young fast growing companies reaching a capitalisation of $1

billion indicates that 18 out of the 176 are EU-based, including names such as Spotify or

Delivery Hero. Yet, no company in this list is currently benefiting from Horizon 2020.

In similar lines, only 12% of the MIT smartest companies and 3% of the Forbes most

innovative companies rankings participate in Horizon 2020, with notable examples such as

Huawei, Toyota, Oxford Nanopore, Movidius, Bosch, IBM, and Intel.

Several of the well-known companies are newcomers to Horizon 2020 and did not

participate in FP7, including: Panasonic, Cisco, Mitsubishi Electric or Caterpillar. Attracting

top performing companies (e.g. 3M Deutschland, Sumitomo, Unbabel, AlphaSense Oy,

Bluelinea, Syngenta, Interdigital or Johnson Controls) demonstrates that Horizon 2020

manages to attract newcomers even from the top companies.

P.2. Universities and research institutions

An analysis of nine international rankings of the best universities and research institutions

was undertaken in order to assess the percentage of those funded by Horizon 2020. The

distinction between those that have headquarters in the EU and those outside was made.

The Shanghai, Leiden International Rankings, QS Top World's Universities and the Times

Higher Education World University rankings show that around a quarter of the worlds' top

universities are based in the EU.

358

Figure 111 Best performing universities according to different international rankings,

according to the location of their with headquarters (HQ) within or outside the EU

Source: European Commission services compilation based on published rankings, Cut-off date: 01/11/2016.

All rankings represent their latest version by this date

As shown in the figure below, almost all of EU-based top universities participate in Horizon

2020. Among the top performing non-EU universities, more than half of them are also

participating in Horizon 2020. Even though Horizon 2020 already includes a significant base

of excellent universities worldwide, there are also newcomers to Horizon 2020, which did

not participate in FP7, the most notable example being the New York University or the

University of Utah.

Looking specifically at the participation in Horizon 2020 of the World's Most Innovative

Research Institutions, 8 out of the 25 top research institutions (32%) are based in the EU,

including the world's top 2: the Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission in

France and the Fraunhofer Society in Germany. Almost all European institutions ranked here

take part in Horizon 2020, as do a third of the world's best research institutions which are not

based in the EU, such as Korea's Institute of Science & Technology, RIKEN - Japan's largest

comprehensive research institution and the Russian Academy of Science.

Figure 112 Best performing universities according to different international rankings,

according to whether they received Horizon 2020 support or not

Source: European Commission services compilation based on published rankings; Cut-off date: 01/11/2016.

All rankings represent their latest version by this date

95 91 93 90

35 30 24 22 8

5 9 7 8

65 70 76 78

17

0

20

40

60

80

100

REUTERSEurope's Most

InnovativeUniversities

Times HigherEducationEuropeanUniversityRankings

LEIDENEuropeanRankings

QS TopEuropean

UniversitiesRankings

Times HigherEducation

WorldUniversityRankings

QS Top World'sUniversities

Rankings

Shanghairankings

LEIDENInternational

Rankings

World's 25most

InnovativeResearch

Institutions

HQ in EU HQ in not in EU

100 99 97 92 73 72 68 63

13

1 3 8 27 28 32 37

12

0

20

40

60

80

100

REUTERSEurope's Most

InnovativeUniversities

Times HigherEducationEuropeanUniversityRankings

QS TopEuropean

UniversitiesRankings

LEIDENEuropeanRankings

Times HigherEducation

WorldUniversityRankings

QS Top World'sUniversities

Rankings

LEIDENInternational

Rankings

Shanghairankings

World's 25most

InnovativeResearch

Institutions

Horizon 2020 funded Not Horizon 2020 funded

359

Q. PARTICIPATION PATTERNS AND BALANCE BETWEEN LARGE AND SMALL PROJECTS

Q.1. Introduction and background

This Annex provides an overview of two methods developed by the Commission (DG RTD)

to assess participation patterns in large versus small projects in Horizon 2020 and their

findings.

This analysis is conducted as a result of the Regulation establishing Horizon 2020 (Recital

23) and the Council Decision establishing the Specific Programme implementing Horizon

2020 (Recital 13) stating that there should be an appropriate balance between small and large

projects, notably within the priority "Societal challenges" and the specific objective "LEIT".

However, the definitions of ‘project size’ as well as definition of ‘appropriate balance’ were

not spelled out.

A previous study looking into the optimal project size conducted under FP7381

concluded

there is no optimal size for collaborative research projects to maximise their impact and

"finding an ideal number of participants, disciplines, sectors, NUTS 3 regions or countries is

elusive". The appropriate balance between large and small projects is also a continuous

priority of the European Parliament382

. Yet, based on their analysis383

, there are currently no

bottlenecks in terms of programme implementation in relation to project size (a EUR 5

million threshold was used for the assessment).

However, based on results of the stakeholder consultation carried out for the interim

evaluation of Horizon 2020, stakeholders seem to support the concept of the need for an

appropriate balance within the programme. Respondents noted that the balance between

small and large projects in calls for proposals is “good” or “very good” (57%), whereas 24%

foundnd it poor or very poor. In their open comments, some respondents asked for more

opportunities for small projects. Others commented in their position papers that a better

balance between small, medium and large projects should be achieved. In particular it was

mentioned that the effectiveness of very large size consortia should be reviewed while at the

same time smaller projects were argued to allow for higher participation of SMEs and

newcomers.

Given the complexity of the issue, two separate analysis were undertaken by Commission

services (DG RTD) in the framework of the interim evaluation of Horizon 2020. The

methods and results are presented in the sections below.

Q.2. Analysis 1 – Descriptive overview of participation in different-size projects

based on budget data

Key finding: Entities from EU-13 countries participate more in larger projects (i.e. projects

above EUR 5 million), but coordinate very small projects (i.e. project below EUR 200,000).

381 European Commission, DG-RTD, Study on Network Analysis of the 7th Framework Programme Participation, 2015,

p.118

https://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/archive/other_reports_studies_and_documents/network_analysis_of_fp7_parti

cipation_-_final_report.pdf 382 European Parliament, Scrutiny in Horizon 2020 focusing on the European Parliament's priorities, 2016, 383 Ibid, p. 17

https://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/archive/other_reports_studies_and_documents/network_analysis_of_fp7_participation_-_final_report.pdf

https://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/archive/other_reports_studies_and_documents/network_analysis_of_fp7_participation_-_final_report.pdf

360

The current funding going towards entities from EU-13 countries is spread between very

large projects (i.e. above EUR 5 million) and very small projects (i.e. below EUR 200,000).

Scope of the analysis: The analysis was carried out on all actions related to "Societal

challenges" and "LEIT". The analysis does not make a comparison with FP7.

Identification of threshold for large and small projects: A threshold was not identified.

Instead, the project size was analysed based on six budget categories (from EUR 1 – 0.2

million to EUR 10+ million).

Analysis: In terms of budget, a disproportionate share of funding went to projects larger than

EUR 5 million (92% of the total budget). The budget and grant allocation to projects below

EUR 5 million is relatively low.

The highest share of entities from EU-13 countries participate and receive EC contribution

from larger projects (projects above EUR 5 million). However, when looking at the

participation of entities from EU-13 countries within different project sizes, these seem to

coordinate and lead more if projects are smaller (but the current sample size is too low to

draw conclusions). At the same time, EU-13 entities seem to participate best in the EUR 1 –

5 million bracket. The share of EU-13 participants is significantly higher than in other

brackets and there is no significant differences between the share of participation in very

small projects under EUR 1 million or very big projects above EUR 5 million.

Figure 113 Project size (budget) and participation of EU13 (%)

Source: European Commission, DG RTD/A5 based on CORDA data extracted on 1.1.17

361

Figure 114 Share of total EU13 coordinators, grants, participants and EC Contribution

by project size


Q.3. Analysis 2 – Composite threshold and comparison Horizon 2020 - FP7

Key finding: The share of participants from EU-13 countries and of newcomers is higher in

large than in small projects. There is a more balanced situation between large and small

projects in Horizon 2020 if compared to FP7 in terms of number of proposals, EC

contribution and number of participants.

Scope of analysis: The analysis was carried out only on 'Research and Innovation Actions'

and 'Innovation Actions' in LEIT and in three Societal Challenges of Horizon 2020. For FP7,

only collaborative projects in any priority where included in the analysis.

Identification of threshold: The identification of small or large projects was based on the

number of participants. The number of participants in each project was normalised by EUR

million of EC contribution to allow for comparisons between types of action and with FP7.

For each type of action or instrument, the average was estimated on the normalised number

of participants. If the number in a project was below or equal to the average, the project was

considered "small", if it was above the average, the project was considered "large".

Table 77 Ratio between large and small projects (1= perfect balance)

Average number of participants by EUR million

Horizon 2020 - Innovation actions 3.1

Horizon 2020 - Research and Innovation actions 2.93

FP7 - Collaborative Projects 3.6


362

Identification of an appropriate balance: Based on the definition of the thresholds, the

method identified the appropriate balance both in terms of ratio between large and small

projects384

and in terms of ratio between the normalised number of participations in large

and small projects385

. A value that is close to 1 indicates that there is approximately the same

number of projects or participations between large and small projects. The same reasoning

was applied in other variables, such as a differentiation between different Societal

Challenges and LEIT areas, differences among country groups, newcomer participations, etc.

Analysis: The situation in Horizon 2020 both at aggregated and disaggregated level per

programme part takes into account that the overall average size of projects is 2.5 participants

per EUR million. At aggregated level, the balance between large and small projects tends

slightly towards a higher number of large projects compared to small projects: as a result, the

number of participations in large projects is 40% higher than in small projects.


Programme

Part

Nr

Large

Projects

Nr of

Small

Projects

Ratio

Large vs

Small

Projects

Nr of

Participations

in Large

Projects

Nr of

Participations

in Small

Projects

Ratio

Participations

in Large vs

Small

Projects

LEIT-ICT 280 261 1,1 3.087 2.689 1,1

LEIT-NMBP 86 142 0,6 1.393 1.673 0,8

LEI-SPACE 101 20 5,1 822 140 5,9

SC1 88 150 0,6 1.368 1.633 0,8

SC2 81 28 2,9 1.600 369 4,3

SC3 93 109 0,9 1.132 1.531 0,7

SC4 200 126 1,6 2.116 1.279 1,7

SC5 66 40 1,7 1.326 556 2,4

SC6 84 4 21,0 955 26 36,7

SC7 50 24 2,1 760 276 2,8

Total 1.129 904 1,2 14.559 10.172 1,4


Nonetheless, it can be observed that certain programme parts have ratio values that deviate

significantly from a perfect balance (value of 1). In LEIT-Space, for instance, large projects

account for more than five times the number of small projects and for six times in terms of

number of participations. In Societal Challenge 2, the number of large projects is almost

three times as big as the number of small projects and the number of participations in large

projects is more than four times higher than those in small projects.

In LEIT-Space, this deviation from the balance is explained by the fact that projects under

this programme part tend to be carried out in relatively small consortia in term of

participants (numerator) with high project costs (denominator). Despite the relative low

number of small projects, these account for 60% of the LEIT-Space budget.

384 A ratio above 1 implies that more large than small projects were financed; conversely a ratio below 1 indicate that more

small projects than large were financed. 385 If the ratio between the weighted number of participants is above 1, this implies that there is a predominance of

participants in large projects; whilst the opposite (a ratio below 1) implies a predominance of participants in small projects.

363

Results show a more balanced situation between large and small projects in Horizon 2020 in

case of Research and Innovation actions than in FP7 collaborative projects in terms of

number of proposals, EC contribution and number of participants. The share of participants

from EU-13 and newcomers is higher in large than in small projects. The following tables

summarize the results in more details.


Number

of

proposals

EC

contribution

Number of

participants

Share of

participants

from EU-13

Share of

participants which

are newcomers

Horizon 2020 -

Innovation actions

0.54 0.22 0.50 1.21 1.13

Horizon 2020 -

Research and

Innovation actions

0.59 0.38 0.77 1.73 1.20

FP7 - Collaborative

Projects

0.58 0.31 0.68 1.46 N/A

Source: RTD/A5 based on CORDA data extracted on 11.8.16

Type of

project

Catego

ry

Number

of

projects

Total EC

contribution in

EUR

Particip

ants

EU

13

Share

EU13

New

comers

Share

Newcom

ers

FP7 -

Collaborative

Projects

Large 2204 5,880,664,597 29056 2281 7.9% N/A

Small 3794 18,776,147,693 42808 2295 5.4% N/A

Horizon 2020

- Research

and

Innovation

actions

Large 527 1,943,476,742 7894 751 9.5% 1561 19.8%

Small 899 5,120,568,745 10207 561.

0

5.5% 1676 16.4%

Horizon 2020

- Innovation

actions

Large 201 542,737,120 2290 181 7.9% 797 34.8%

Small 371 2,420,000,653 4618 302 6.5% 1424 30.8%


364

R. HORIZON 2020 NETWORKS - COUNTRIES AND GATEWAYS FOR NEWCOMERS

R.1. Trans-national collaboration in projects

The figure below showcases Horizon 2020 cooperation networks between countries based on

the number of collaborative projects they participate in. The size of each node represents the

collaborative projects of a country with each link, or edge, indicating that partners from the

two countries have collaborated on one or more projects.

This figure shows a centralisation around larger and older Member States such as the United

Kingdom, Germany, Spain, Italy and France, with Third Countries and newer Member

States in the periphery of the network. The figure includes countries with over 20 projects

and over 20 collaborations.

Figure 115 Collaborative Horizon 2020 networks between countries based on projects’

participations

Source: JRC Technology Innovation Monitoring. Cut-off date: 01/01/2017

This is consistent with the measures of centrality386

by country group, as can be seen from

the below figures, where EU-15 countries are overall more central than other countries in the

network of FP7 and Horizon 2020 projects. EU-13 countries and associated countries are

386 Eigencentrality measures the extent to which a node is connected to important nodes in the network. Closeness centrality

provides an average closeness measure to other nodes based on minimum path length between nodes.

365

more or less equivalent in terms of centrality, with very large difference in the group of

associated countries, in which Switzerland is as central as most EU-15 countries for

example.

Figure 116 Average eigencentrality by country group in FP7 and Horizon 2020, based

on projects’ participations

Source: European Commission – DG RTD

Figure 117 Average closeness centrality by country group in FP7 and Horizon 2020,

based on projects’ participations


There is no significant change from FP7 to Horizon 2020 in terms of average centrality of

the country groups.

The rate of collaboration with EU-13 countries is similar for all EU-15 countries, with an

average of 9% of international collaborations of EU-15 countries performed with EU-13

LU

LU

MT EE

BA

AL BN GT

FR,DE UK,IT

HU PL

CH CH

IN US

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

FP7 H2020 FP7 H2020 FP7 H2020 FP7 H2020

EU15 EU13 Ass.coun. Third coun.

Min to Max range Average centrality of countries

LU LU

MT EE BA AL

BN LS

FR UK

HU PL CH CH

IN US

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

FP7 H2020 FP7 H2020 FP7 H2020 FP7 H2020

EU15 EU13 Ass.coun. Third coun.

Min to Max range Average centrality of countries

366

countries. On the other hand, 74% of the total collaborations of EU-13 countries is

performed with EU-15.

Table 80 Share of co-participations in Horizon 2020 projects

EU-15 EU-13 Associated countries Third countries Total

EU-15 77% 9% 11% 4% 100%

EU-13 74% 11% 12% 3% 100%

Associated countries 77% 10% 9% 5% 100%

Third countries 65% 6% 12% 18% 100%

All 76% 9% 11% 4% 100%


R.2. Geographic collaboration networks in publications from the Framework

Programmes

Co-publications in Horizon 2020 are strongly dominated by international collaborations.

Figure 118Error! Reference source not found. presents the shares of publications from

Horizon 2020 by collaboration type and by geographical group.

Shares of single-authored publications are low (just under 3%) for each group of countries.

Collaborations within the same institution range from 0.9% for Japan to 22% for EU-28.

Collaboration shares between EU-28 countries and between EU-13 countries are high.

For non-EU groups, third countries and associated countries, the share of collaborations with

partners outside their country group is very high with over 80% of all publications.

Figure 118 Horizon 2020 share of publications by collaboration type and by

geographical group

Source: Elsevier, based on Scopus

EU28 EU15 EU13 AC TC CHN KOR JPN USA

single author 2.5% 2.4% 2.8% 0.5% 0.5% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%

collaboration within same institution

only22.1% 21.2% 14.6% 12.8% 2.4% 6.9% 2.8% 0.9% 1.8%

collaboration with other institutions in

the same country group40.9% 36.5% 9.4% 5.4% 2.6% 4.0% 0.0% 3.7% 0.7%

collaboration with partners outside

country group34.4% 40.0% 73.3% 81.2% 94.5% 87.3% 97.2% 95.4% 97.4%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Sh

are

of

Hori

zon

20

20

pu

bli

cati

on

s

367

Collaborations between the EU-28 geographical group and countries around the world are

shown in the network map in Error! Reference source not found.. To draw attention to

ntities that collaborate frequently and repeatedly with the same partners, nodes are coloured

to represent these clusters. Clusters are designated algorithmically. The degree of the nodes,

that is to say the number of links from or to a node, and the volume of these links, generally

indicated by the thickness of the links, are used to calculate which nodes show historically

strong grouping characteristics.387

The EU 28 group is very central with its core

collaborators in close proximity. Many countries appear to collaborate in publications with

only authors in the same country and in EU-28 countries. These countries are shown as the

single-linked nodes in the top left of the figure. The most frequent collaborations occur

between the EU-28, the US, Japan, Canada, China, Russia and Switzerland.

Figure 119 FP7-funded collaborations between EU-28 geographical group and non-EU-

28 countries, 2007-2016

Source: Scopus. Node colour is determined algorithmically to designate clusters. Nodes that have similar

collaboration patterns and volume of collaborations have the same colour. Node size is number of FP7

publications. Edge thickness is number of collaboration publications between entities. Collaborations with less

than 100 publications have been removed to improve readability

Collaboration patterns for Horizon 2020-funded research occurs in a different pattern to

FP7-funded research. This, however, is likely due to the lower number of publications in

general so far from Horizon 2020. The network map of Horizon 2020-funded collaborations

between the EU-28 group and non-EU-28 countries is presented in Error! Reference source

ot found.. As with FP7-funded collaborations, the most frequent collaborations occur

387 The mechanics and process of the clustering algorithm can be found in ‘Fast unfolding of communities in large

networks’, Vincent D Blondel, Jean-Loup Guillaume, Renaud Lambiotte, Etienne Lefebvre, Journal of Statistical

Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2008 (10), P10008 (12pp).

368

between the EU-28, the US, Japan, Canada, China, Russia and Switzerland. More noticeable

in this network map is the prominent role that the US has in collaborations with the EU-28.

Figure 120 Horizon 2020-funded collaborations between EU-28 geographical group

and non-EU-28 countries, 2015-2016


collaborations and volume of collaborations have the same colour. Node size is number of Horizon 2020

publications. Edge thickness is number of collaboration publications between entities. Edge labels are number

of collaborations

The intra-EU-28 collaborations for FP7-funded publications are shown in Error! Reference

ource not found.Error! Reference source not found.. For clarity, only collaborations with

more than 100 publications are shown. The most frequent collaborations occur between the

larger and more R&D-intensive countries. Collaboration frequencies are highest between

these countries, but the smaller research nations do collaborate often with each other and

with at least one of the R&D-intensive nations. The UK, Netherlands and Germany form one

cluster of countries, and Spain, Italy and France form another cluster. Two smaller clusters

can be identified: a first one with the Nordic countries, Belgium and Ireland, and a second

one with eastern European countries.

369

Figure 121 FP7-funded intra-EU-28 collaboration, 2007-2016


collaborations and volume of collaborations have the same colour. Node size is number of FP7 publications.

Edge thickness is number of collaboration publications between entities. Collaborations with less than 100

publications have been removed to improve readability. LV, MT and LU have less than 100 collaboration

publications with any one partner

Error! Reference source not found.Error! Reference source not found. presents the

rizon 2020-funded intra-collaboration map of EU-28 countries. For this figure,

collaborations with less than 100 publications are also shown. The position of the nodes is

the same as in Error! Reference source not found. to facilitate the comparison between the

wo Framework Programmes. However, the clusters identified in both figures are different.

Belgium and France are now part of the same cluster as Germany, the Netherlands and the

UK. Spain and Italy remain together in a cluster that now also includes smaller countries.

While the Nordics and Ireland formed their own distinct cluster in FP7, they are now joined

by several eastern European countries.

370

Figure 122 Horizon 2020 intra-EU-28 collaboration, 2015-2016


collaborations and volume of collaborations have the same colour. Node size is number of Horizon 2020

publications. Edge thickness is number of collaboration publications between entities. Node position has been

preserved between this figure and Figure 4.2 to compare FP7 and Horizon 2020 collaborations. MT has no

Horizon 2020 collaborations with any other EU-28 member.

R.3. Analysis of newcomers to the Framework Programme

The purpose of this analysis is to examine how newcomers (defined as participants in

Horizon 2020 that did not participate in FP7) are integrated in Horizon 2020 and which are

the main knowledge brokers they use in order to enter the network.

R.3.1. Main groups of newcomers

Given the increased accent on open innovation in Horizon 2020, almost three quarters (73%)

of the newcomers are private firms according to Corda data. Other institutions represent

12%, while Public bodies account for 8%. With respect to Research Organisations and the

Higher and Secondary Education Sector, these represent barely 7% of participations

altogether.

Out of all the groups of newcomers (defined by the type of institution and country)

registering more than 100 collaborative projects, all of them are companies. Spanish

newcomer companies collaborate the most (662 projects), followed by German (621

projects) and British ones (612 projects). There is one EU-13 representative in this top 100,

namely Polish newcomer companies (113 projects). Swiss newcomer companies are outside

the top (85 collaborative projects).

371

The EU-13 Members States account for a much higher share of participations in

collaborative projects (11%) in terms of newcomers than in terms of returning participants

(3%). This suggests that the Framework Programme is opening up the "clubs", with EU-13

entities recording a significant increase in terms of new participants. To a lesser degree, the

same applies for Associated and Third Countries.

Figure 123 Geographical distribution of participations in collaborative projects


R.3.2. Main collaborations of newcomers

The majority of collaborations involving newcomers occur between companies and different

types of institutions. Most of the collaborations involving the largest categories of

newcomers (based on institutional and geographic distribution) occur between the

newcomers and returning participants from the same country.

Only few of the most frequent types of collaborations involving newcomers in Horizon 2020

are trans-national and 4 of them involve German newcomer companies which collaborate

with British (174 projects) and Italian (127 projects) universities, Spanish research

organisations (131 projects) and French companies (124 projects). Other frequent trans-

national collaborations involving newcomers are between Spanish newcomer companies and

British universities (133 projects), between British newcomer companies and German

companies (123 projects) and between British newcomer companies and German research

centers (120 projects).

92%

80%

3%

11%

3%

5%

1%

3%

Returningparticipants

Newcomers

EU-15 EU-13 Associated countries Third countries

372

Figure 124 Most frequent types of collaborations involving newcomers in Horizon 2020

Source: JRC Technology Innovation Monitoring. Cut-off date: 01/01/2017, Graph: European Commission –

DG RTD, Note: PRC stands for Private for profit, HES for Higher and secondary education and REC for

Research organisations. Categories of returning participants and newcomers are shown respectively in violet

and green

Though British universities typically act as the main knowledge brokers, the situation is very

different when looking at EU-13 newcomer patterns. We observe that the main collaborators

for EU-13 newcomers are companies (in 9 out of 13 countries), without any clear gateway

(albeit a slight propensity for collaborating with Spanish companies).

Figure 125 Top Horizon 2020 collaborators for EU-13 Newcomers




0

10

20

30

40

50

IT -PRC

ES -PRC

DE -REC

DE -PRC

ES -PRC

ES -PRC

FR -PRC

ES -REC

PT -PRC

BE -REC

GB -PRC

EL -HES

RO

BG HR

PL

HU CZ

SK SI

LV

LT

MT

CY

Nu

mb

er

of

colla

bo

rati

ve

pro

ject

s

Main collaborator

373

In order to study the gateways used by new Member States to enter in Horizon 2020, EU-13

newcomers were analysed separately by type of institution to determine the dependency of

participants from EU-13 countries on established players.

Firstly, the relationship between academia in EU-13 countries and different institution types

was investigated. Universities from EU-13 countries collaborate the most with British

universities, with 10 countries out of 13 Member States having as their main academic

collaborator the British academic sector. On the other hand, universities from EU-13

countries have a slight propensity for collaborating with both German research organisations

as well as private firms, with universities from 7 out of 13 countries preferring Germany as

their main research organisation partner or company partner

Figure 126 Main collaborators in Horizon 2020 for each EU-13 higher education sector

by types of institutions




Secondly, the relationship between the research sector (excluding education) in EU-13

countries and different institution types was investigated. Research organisations from EU13

countries exhibit a systematic pattern of collaborating mainly with British universities (9 out

of 13 countries), German research organisations (10 out of 13 countries) and with French

companies (6 out of 13 countries).

DE

GB IT

GB

GB

GB

GB

GB

GB DE

GB GB

GB

DE ES ES

FR

DE

DE

DE ES

DE DE

DE IT

IT NL

DE

DE

DE

ES

DE

DE DE

FR DE IT FR

CY

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

RO BG HR PL HU CZ SK SI LV LT ET MT CY

Nu

mb

er

of

colla

bo

rati

ve p

roje

ctS

Higher education sector of EU-13 countries

HES

REC

PRC

374

Figure 127 Main collaborators in Horizon 2020 for each EU-13 research organisation

sector by types of institutions




Thirdly, the relationship between the private-for-profit sector in EU-13 countries and

different institution types was examined. British universities are the first academic partner of

private firms from EU-13 countries, with the private firms sector of 9 countries out of 13

having as their main academic collaborator British universities.

Private firms from EU-13 countries present a more heterogeneous pattern of collaborations

with other companies without a clear hub of partner countries.

Figure 128 Main collaborators in Horizon 2020 for each EU-13 private-for-profit sector

by types of institutions




GB

GB

GB

GB

GB

GB

GB

GB

IT DE

IT LT

DE

DE

DE

DE

DE

DE

ES

DE

DE DE

MT

FR

FR

DE

FR

FR

DE

SK

DE

DE FR

IT FR

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

RO BG HR PL HU CZ SK SI LV LT MT CY

Nu

mb

er

of

colla

bo

rati

ve p

roje

ctS

Research organisations of EU-13 countries

HES

REC

PRC

GB

GB

GB

GB

GB

GB

DE

GB

IT DE

IT GB

GB DE, ES

DE, ES

ES

DE

DE DE

DE, ES

ES

FR DE DE,

ES

DE

IT, DE

ES

GB

DE

IT

DE

IT

ES

DE DE

IT/ES

IT, FR

ES

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

RO BG HR PL HU CZ SK SI LV LT ET MT CY

Nu

mb

er

of

colla

bo

rati

ve p

roje

ctS

Private-for-profit sector of EU-13 countries

HES

REC

PRC

ANNEX 1 {SWD(2017)220 final} {SWD(2017)222 final} - TAIPI

Documents

Transcript of ANNEX 1 {SWD(2017)220 final} {SWD(2017)222 final} - TAIPI