COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposals for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing Horizon Europe – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, laying down its rules for participation and dissemination DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on establishing the specific programme implementing Horizon Europe – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation COUNCIL REGULATION establishing the Research and Training Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community for the period 2021-2025 complementing Horizon Europe – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation

EN EN
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Brussels, 7.6.2018
SWD(2018) 307 final
PART 1/3
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Accompanying the document
Proposals for a
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
establishing Horizon Europe – the Framework Programme for Research and
Innovation, laying down its rules for participation and dissemination
DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on
establishing the specific programme implementing Horizon Europe – the Framework
Programme for Research and Innovation
COUNCIL REGULATION establishing the Research and Training Programme of the
European Atomic Energy Community for the period 2021-2025 complementing Horizon
Europe – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation
{COM(2018) 435 final} - {COM(2018) 436 final} - {COM(2018) 437 final} -
{SEC(2018) 291 final} - {SWD(2018) 308 final} - {SWD(2018) 309 final}
Europaudvalget 2018
KOM (2018) 0436
Offentligt
1
Table of contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................3
1 INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT.....................................7
1.1 Scope .................................................................................................................7
1.1.1 Political context............................................................................................ 8
1.1.2 Legal context ................................................................................................ 9
1.2 Lessons learnt from previous programmes........................................................9
2 CHALLENGES AND OBJECTIVES.......................................................................12
2.1 Key features of Horizon 2020 and expected impacts of its continuation........12
2.2 Main R&I challenges and problems to be addressed ......................................14
2.3 Objectives of the future Programme................................................................16
3 PROGRAMME STRUCTURE AND PRIORITIES.................................................17
3.1 Scope and structure of the new Framework Programme.................................17
3.2 Improvements and their expected implications...............................................24
3.2.1 The European Innovation Council (EIC) ................................................... 25
3.2.2 Research and Innovation Missions............................................................. 30
3.2.3 International cooperation............................................................................ 33
3.2.4 Open Science policy................................................................................... 36
3.2.5 European Partnerships................................................................................ 38
3.3 Overall impact on the new Framework Programme........................................40
3.4 Critical mass....................................................................................................44
4 DELIVERY FOR IMPACT ......................................................................................45
4.1 The strategic planning process ........................................................................50
4.2 The single set of rules......................................................................................51
4.3 The funding model ..........................................................................................52
4.4 Forms of funding, including simplified cost options.......................................53
4.5 Grants, financial instruments and blended finance..........................................54
4.6 Proposal evaluation and selection ...................................................................55
4.7 Ex-ante and ex-post audits...............................................................................57
4.8 Policy and rules regarding Dissemination and Exploitation ...........................58
4.9 Delegation to Executive Agencies...................................................................59
4.10 Overall impact on the objectives of the MFF..................................................60
5 HOW WILL PERFORMANCE BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? ............65
Glossary
Term or acronym Meaning or definition
COSME
EU programme for the Competitiveness of Enterprises and Small and
Medium-sized Enterprises
EIC European Innovation Council
EIT European Institute for Innovation and Technology
ERAC European Research Area and Innovation Committee
ERC European Research Council
ERCEA European Research Council Executive Agency
ERDF European Regional Development Fund
EU European Union
FET Future and Emerging Technologies
FP7
Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological
Development
GDP Gross Domestic Product
JRC Joint Research Centre
KICs Knowledge and Innovation Communities
MFF Multiannual Financial Framework
MSCA Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions
R&I Research and Innovation
REA Research Executive Agency
SMEs Small and Medium Enterprises
TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This impact assessment accompanies the Commission proposal for Horizon Europe, the
2021-2027 Framework Programme for EU Research and Innovation, which will succeed the
current Programme, Horizon 2020 (active between 2014-2020), and the proposal for the
2021-2025 Research and Training Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community
(Euratom Programme).
Research and innovation help Europe deliver on citizens' priorities, as embodied in the
Sustainable Development Goals and in the Paris Agreement on fighting climate change, to
bring about sustainable growth and high-quality jobs, and to solve present and unforeseen
global challenges. However, Europe overall currently underinvests in research and innovation
compared to its main trading partners, and so risks being irreversibly outpaced.
EU-level investment, through successive Framework Programmes, has supported the
provision of public goods with a high European added value. This added value comes
from the Programmes’ focus on excellence through EU-wide competition and cooperation.
Framework Programmes support training and mobility for scientists, create transnational,
cross-sectoral and multidisciplinary collaborations, leverage additional public and private
investment, build the scientific evidence necessary for EU policies, and have structuring
effects on national research and innovation systems. The significant and long-lasting impact
of the Framework Programmes, in particular the current Programme, is acknowledged by the
EU institutions, Member States and stakeholders alike.
Horizon Europe is built on the evidence and lessons learnt from the Horizon 2020
interim evaluation, and the recommendations of the independent High-Level Group on
maximising the impact of EU research and innovation. The new Programme will be an
evolution, not a revolution, focusing on a few design improvements to further increase
openness and impact.
Horizon Europe’s general objectives stem from the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union. These will be: to strengthen the scientific and technological bases of the
Union and foster its competitiveness, including for its industry; to deliver on the EU's
strategic policy priorities and contribute to tackling global challenges, including the
Sustainable Development Goals. To address particular research and innovation challenges
faced by the EU, Horizon Europe also has specific objectives. All objectives apply across the
Programme, and all individual Programme parts will contribute to their achievement.
The evolution from Horizon 2020 is reflected in the revamped structure. The three-pillar
structure will be continued, but redesigned for more coherence, both between and within
pillars, in support of the Programme objectives.
Pillar 1 - Open Science will continue to focus on excellent science and high-quality
knowledge to strengthen EU’s science base through the European Research Council, Marie-
Skłodowska Curie Actions and Research Infrastructures. As a "bottom-up", investigator-
driven pillar, it will continue to give the scientific community a strong role.
Pillar 2 - Global Challenges and Industrial Competitiveness will better address EU policy
priorities and support industrial competitiveness by integrating the Horizon 2020 Societal
Challenges and Leadership in Enabling Industrial Technologies into five clusters (i.e. Health;
Resilience and Security; Digital and Industry; Climate, Energy and Mobility; and Food and
natural resources). The clusters will better support the full spectrum of the Sustainable
Development Goals, and increase collaborative research and innovation across sectors,
disciplines and policy fields – boosting flexibility, focus, and impact. Due to its policy focus,
the pillar will be implemented "top-down", through a strategic planning process ensuring the
4
involvement of stakeholders and society, and alignment with Member States' activities. The
pillar will give appropriate visibility to industry’s essential role in achieving all the
Programme’s objectives, not least in tackling global challenges, including by developing key
enabling technologies for the future.
Pillar 3 – Open Innovation will offer a one-stop shop for high-potential innovators with the
European Innovation Council and increase cooperation with innovation ecosystems and
actors. This pillar will integrate and reorganise Horizon 2020 activities, such as Innovation in
SMEs (notably the SME instrument), Fast-track to Innovation, as well as Future and
Emerging Technologies. Innovation will continue to be supported throughout the whole
Programme, not just in this innovation-focussed pillar.
Horizon Europe will reinforce the European Research Area through: Sharing excellence
(extending the Horizon 2020 actions that help tackle low research and innovation
performance i.e. Teaming, Twinning, ERA chairs, and COST); research and innovation
reforms and policy, covering the Policy Support Facility; foresight activities; and Framework
Programme monitoring, evaluation, dissemination and exploitation of results
The new Programme will also have some new features and enhancements of existing
elements. With Horizon 2020 well on track to deliver excellence, impact and openness, these
changes will make the successor Programme achieve even more impact (through the
European Innovation Council and mission-orientation) and more openness (through
strengthened international cooperation, a reinforced Open Science policy, and a new policy
approach to European Partnerships).
The European Innovation Council will help place the EU in the lead for breakthrough
market-creating innovation. It will support high-risk, market-creating innovation projects that
do not (yet) generate revenues, to bridge the “valley of death” between research and
commercialisation and help companies scale up. The tailor-made support to innovators will
be channelled through two main funding instruments. The Pathfinder for Advanced Research
will provide grants from the early technology stage (proof of concept, technology validation)
to the early commercial stage (early demonstration, development of business case and
development of strategy). The Accelerator will support the further development and market
deployment of breakthrough and market-creating innovations, to a stage where they can be
financed on usual commercial terms by investors (from demonstration, user testing, pre-
commercial production and beyond, including scale-up). It will place a particular emphasis
on innovation generated within the Pathfinder, although it will also fund projects from other
parts of the Programme, such as the European Research Council or the Knowledge and
Innovation Communities. The expected implications of the role played by the European
Innovation Council include more innovation that creates the new markets of the future, more
companies that scale up in Europe, higher growth among SMEs, and more entrepreneurship
and risk-taking.
Horizon Europe will see the introduction of a limited set of highly visible research and
innovation ‘missions’ under Pillar 2 (but potentially also providing direction to the other
pillars). Missions will prioritise investment and set directions to achieve objectives with
societal relevance, thereby creating more impact and outreach, encouraging a systemic
approach (moving from a view of narrow sectors to entire systems), and aligning instruments
and agendas for research and innovation across Europe. Missions will either accelerate
progress towards a set scientific, technical or societal solution, by focusing large investment
on a specific target; or transform an entire social or industrial system within an established
timeframe. They will be selected after the Programme launch, according to strict selection
criteria, and co-designed with Member States, stakeholders and citizens. The expected
implications of this new mission approach include more cross-sectoral and cross-disciplinary
5
cooperation, higher impact on global challenges and EU priorities, and a reduced gap
between science and innovation, and society.
Strengthened international cooperation is vital for ensuring access to talent, knowledge,
facilities and markets worldwide, for effectively tackling global challenges and for
implementing global commitments. The Framework Programme will intensify cooperation
and extend openness for association to all countries with proven science, technology and
innovation capacities, to make cooperation and funding of joint projects as smooth as
possible. The programme will continue to fund entities from low/middle income countries.
Entities from industrialised and emerging economies will be funded only if they possess
essential competences or facilities. The expected implications include higher excellence in
the Programme, more influence for the EU in shaping global research and innovation
systems, and higher impact.
Open Science will become the modus operandi of the new Programme, going beyond
Horizon 2020’s open access policy to require immediate open access for publications and
data (with opt-out possibilities for the latter), and research data management plans. The
Programme will encourage the proliferation of FAIR data (findable, accessible, interoperable,
and re-usable) and support a sustainable and innovative scholarly communications
ecosystem. It will foster activities to improve researcher skills in Open Science and the
reward systems that promote this. Research integrity and citizen science will play a central
role, as will the development of a new generation of research assessment indicators.
The new approach to European Partnerships will be more impact-focussed. The need to
establish future European Partnerships or renew existing ones will be identified as part of the
strategic programming process for the Framework Programme. European Partnerships will be
open to all types of stakeholders (e.g. industry, Member States and philanthropic foundations)
and will be limited in time, with clear conditions for the phasing out of the Framework
Programme funding. They will be based on the principles of Union added value,
transparency, openness, impact, leverage effect, long-term financial commitment from all
parties, flexibility, coherence and complementarity with Union, local, regional national and
international initiatives. The future partnership landscape will ensure optimal coherence
between Framework Programme activities and partnerships. There will be only three types: i)
co-programmed European Partnerships, based on memoranda of understanding or contractual
arrangements; ii) co-funded European Partnerships, based on a single, flexible co-fund
action; iii) institutionalised European Partnerships (based on Article 185 or 187 of the Treaty
on the Functioning of the European Union). Following a life-cycle approach, the Framework
Programme will set out the criteria for selecting, implementing, monitoring, evaluation and
phasing out all European Partnerships.
The changes to the Programme's structure and the improvements to it will facilitate the
achievement of the Programme's objectives, making it more effective and helping it
generate even more economic benefits and value for money. These effects will be amplified
by strengthened synergies and complementarities with other EU programmes, for example
through the Seal of Excellence.
Efficient delivery is essential for meeting all the objectives. It is also key to achieving
higher impact and further simplification. Building on the achievements of Horizon 2020,
simplification remains a continuing endeavour also in the new Programme. Several
improvements have been made to streamline delivery for impact. The Programme will aim at
further simplification within the present real cost reimbursement system with its simplified
funding model. Increased use will be made of project funding against fulfilment of activities
(i.e. lump sum) and other simplified forms of funding allowed by the new Financial
Regulation. Cross-reliance on audits across EU programmes and acceptance of usual cost
6
accounting practices will be developed. To increase flexibility, the Programme will support
the intersection of disciplines and sectors and allow allocation of funds between and within
pillars to react swiftly to emerging issues or challenges. Further improvements to the proposal
submission and evaluation process will be envisaged by continuously trying to reduce the
'time to grant' and by improving feedback to applicants. The evaluation criteria, process and
involvement of independent experts will underscore the Programme's excellence and impact.
Innovation support schemes will be streamlined under the European Innovation Council,
while the complementarity between grants and financial instruments could be reinforced
through blended finance.
Impact depends ultimately on the dissemination and exploitation of research and
innovation data and results, and it needs to be effectively captured and communicated. An
ambitious and comprehensive strategy will increase the availability of such data and results
and accelerate their uptake to boost the overall impact of the Programme. Portfolios of
mature results will be exploited in synergy with other EU programmes to ensure their uptake
at national and regional level, maximising European innovation potential. This will be
complemented by effective communication and outreach campaigns that build trust and
engage citizens.
Progress towards the Programme’s objectives will be tracked along 'impact pathways'
(on scientific, societal, and economic impact). The impact pathways will be time-sensitive,
distinguishing between the short, medium and long term. The impact pathway indicators will
contain both qualitative and quantitative information, the availability of which will depend on
the Programme's stage of implementation. Individual programme parts will contribute to
these indicators to varying degrees and through various mechanisms. The data behind the key
impact pathway indicators will be collected in a centrally managed and harmonised way that
imposes minimum reporting burden on beneficiaries, including using unique identifiers for
applicants and sourcing data automatically from existing external public and private
databases. Baselines, targets and benchmarks will be established before the Programme’s
launch. Management and implementation data from the Programme will continue to be
collected in near real-time. An analysis of progress on key dimensions of management and
implementation will be carried out every year. Interim and ex-post evaluations will ensure
that methodologies are consistent and coverage is comprehensive.
7
1 INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT
1.1 Scope
This impact assessment accompanies the Commission proposals for Horizon Europe, the
2021-2027 Framework Programme for EU Research and Innovation (R&I), which will
succeed Horizon 2020 (2014-2020): proposals for the Framework Programme and Rules for
Participation1
, the Specific Programme2
, as well as the 2021-2025 Research and Training
Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom Programme)3
. An impact
assessment for the defence research has been carried out separately and is accompanying the
proposal for the European Defence Fund Regulation.
R&I are crucial for providing solutions to the challenges of our time. They deliver on
citizens' priorities, as embodied in the Sustainable Development Goals and in the Paris
Agreement on fighting climate change4
, on growth and jobs, and to solve the global
challenges we face today and will face tomorrow5
. In areas like health, digital technologies,
industrial transformation, resilient societies, natural resources, energy, mobility, environment,
food, low-carbon economy and security, R&I are critical to the success of EU priorities, in
particular jobs and growth, Digital Single Market, Energy Union and climate action. R&I are
at the core of the productivity and competitiveness of our economy. About two-thirds of
Europe's economic growth over the last decades has been driven by R&I. R&I support the
creation of new and better jobs and the development of knowledge-intensive activities, which
account for more than 33% of total employment in Europe. Moreover, to ensure sustainable
growth and the capacity to address the societal challenges ahead, Europe must reinforce and
maintain its technology and industrial capacities in the key areas that underpin the
transformation of our economy and society.
"Fostering R&I across the EU" is the most important policy challenge for 97% of
respondents to the cluster-based public consultation on EU funds in the area of
investment, research & innovation, SMEs and single market6
.
R&I determine the productivity and competitiveness of our economy: about two-thirds of
Europe's economic growth over the last decades was driven by innovation. They support the
creation of new and better jobs, and the development of knowledge-intensive activities,
which account for more than 33% of total employment in Europe7
. Europe must maintain and
1
The Treaty requires that rules for participation and dissemination are adopted by the European Parliament and the Council
in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure.
2
The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) requires that a multiannual Framework Programme is
adopted by the European Parliament and Council in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, and implemented
through Specific Programmes adopted in accordance with the special legislative procedure.
3
The Euratom Treaty provides the legal basis for promoting and facilitating nuclear research.
4
European Commission (2017), 2017 Special Eurobarometer on Climate change. According to the 2017 Special
Eurobarometer on Climate change, 92% of EU citizens see climate change as a serious problem, and 79 % of Europeans
believe fighting climate change can boost the economy and create jobs.
5
This initiative contributes in particular to the following Commission priorities: Jobs, Growth and Investment; Digital Single
Market; Energy Union; Deeper and Fairer Internal Market; An Area of Justice and Fundamental Rights; Towards a New
Policy on Migration; EU as Stronger Global Actor; and EU of Democratic Change. It contributes as well to the
implementation of the 2030 Agenda on sustainable development, the EU Global Strategy, and new EU priorities, notably
security, defence and migration, in line with the Rome declaration.
6
See Annex 2 on Stakeholder consultation.
7
European Commission (2017), The economic rationale for public R&I funding and its impact, Policy Brief Series, p. 23.
8
even reinforce its technological, industrial and innovation capacities in a sustainable way, in
the strategic areas that underpin our society, economy and international commitments.
Currently, Europe underinvests in R&I compared to its main trading partners. If this
continues, Europe risks being outpaced irreversibly. The EU's overall R&I intensity is just
above 2% of GDP (failing to meet the 3% target8
). In particular, private investment in
research and development in the EU has remained low in comparison to other advanced
economies, and the gap has grown again since 2013. This poor EU performance signals a
weak capacity to translate knowledge into market-creating innovations9
. Europe has to
anticipate and ride the new global wave of breakthrough innovation that is coming up, one
that will be more “deep-tech”10
and will affect sectors such as manufacturing, financial
services, transport or energy.
EU-level R&I investments support public goods11
with a high European added value12
:
through EU-wide competition for excellence, EU investments support the training and
mobility of scientists, create transnational and multidisciplinary collaboration, leverage
additional investment from the public and private sectors, build the scientific evidence
necessary for effective EU policies, and structure national R&I systems13
.
To stimulate innovation in Europe, more is needed. EU investments in R&I must be
enhanced and re-designed to better serve strategic areas for Europe and cover the full value
chain development from early and advanced research to innovation and market deployment.
They must be matched by national investments in R&I, and the market and regulatory
framework must create the right conditions for innovation to flourish14
. However, these issues
are outside the scope of this impact assessment.
1.1.1 Political context
The common view of the EU Institutions is that the Framework Programmes for R&I
have a high EU added value and that the implementation of the current Programme is
largely a success. In addition to the Communication on the Interim Evaluation of Horizon
202015
, the Commission’s reflection paper on the future of EU finances highlights R&I as a
key European priority16
, citing it as an example of a public good with clear EU added value.
Opinions and reports from the European Parliament 17
, the European Economic and Social
Committee 18
, the Committee of Regions 19
, the European Research Area and Innovation
Committee (ERAC, where Member States' public administrations are represented)20
, and
8
In contrast, China's intensity is now higher, and South Korea's is more than double. The EU will need to train and employ
at least one million new researchers, but the share of R&I personnel in the labour force increased marginally 2002-2015.
9
LAB-FAB-APP, Investing in the European future we want, Lamy High Level Group Report (2017), p. 11
10
“Deep tech” refers to companies founded around scientific discoveries or meaningful engineering innovations.
11
European Commission (2017), Reflection paper on the future of EU finances.
12
More evidence can be found in the Annex 4 on the EU added value of R&I.
13
The EU has been investing in R&I since 1984. Over time, the share of the EU budget dedicated to R&I has increased.
14
LAB-FAB-APP, Investing in the European future we want, Lamy High Level Group Report (2017), p. 11.
15
European Commission (2018), Communication on the Horizon 2020 Interim Evaluation, COM(2018)2 final.
16
European Commission (2017), Reflection paper on the future of EU finances.
17
European Parliament (2017), REPORT on the assessment of Horizon 2020 implementation in view of its interim
evaluation and the Framework Programme 9 proposal, EP T8-0253/2017.
18
European Economic and Social Committee (2016), EESC information report INT/807, Horizon 2020 (evaluation).
19
Committee of the Regions (2017), CoR Opinion SEDEC-VI/026, Local and Regional Dimension of the Horizon 2020
Programme and the New Framework Programme for Research and Innovation.
20
European Research Area and Innovation Committee (2017), ERAC Opinion on the Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020
and preparations for the next Framework Programme, ERAC 1207/17.
9
more recently, the Competitiveness Council (through Council Conclusions21
) support the
findings of the Interim Evaluation, in particular stressing that EU added value must be the
major driver for the design and implementation of the next Framework Programme.
Box 1 Overall budget envelope
On 2 May 2018, the European Commission adopted its proposals for a new Multiannual Financial Framework
(MFF) for 2021-202722
. Under these proposals, the Horizon Europe and the Euratom programmes will
have a combined budget of EUR 100 billion over this period. This impact assessment report reflects the
decisions of the MFF proposals and focuses on the changes and policy choices which are specific to these
instruments.
In response to the Horizon 2020 interim evaluation, the European Parliament, supported by
the Committee of Regions, similarly calls, among others, on the EU to avoid budget cuts to
Horizon 2020 and to endow the successor programme with at least EUR 120 billion23
. The
ERAC calls for proportionality between budget and ambitions. Similarly, Council
Conclusions emphasise the need to prioritise R&I across all relevant EU policies, and provide
significant funds for the future programme.
1.1.2 Legal context
The Framework Programme for R&I is based on Articles 173, 182, 183 and 188 of the
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union24
. This initiative is in an area of (shared)
parallel competence and the subsidiarity and proportionality principles apply. This impact
assessment satisfies the requirements of the Financial Regulation in respect of preparing an
ex-ante evaluation.
The EU Framework Programme for R&I respects the subsidiarity and proportionality
principles. Action at EU level is necessary: the underlying findings of a recent external
study are that more than four out of five Horizon 2020 projects would not have gone ahead
without Horizon 2020 funding25
. They produce undeniable added value in terms of scale,
speed and scope compared to national and regional-level support to R&I (without replacing
it26
) by boosting excellence through transnational competition, strengthening impact via
collaborative R&I, and providing critical mass to tackle global challenges (see Annex 4).
Moreover, it is proportionate, not going beyond what is required for Union objectives.
1.2 Lessons learnt from previous programmes
EU Framework Programmes have generated significant and long-lasting impacts27
, as
shown by successive evaluations since the EU started investing in R&I in 1984. More details
on the lessons learnt from evaluations of previous Programmes are in Annex 3.
21
Council of the European Union (2017), From the Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020 towards the ninth Framework
Programme - Council conclusions.
22
European Commission (2018), A Modern Budget for a Union that Protects, Empowers and Defends, The Multiannual
Financial Framework for 2021-2027, COM(2018) 321 final.
23
European Parliament (2017), REPORT on the assessment of Horizon 2020 implementation in view of its interim
evaluation and the Framework Programme 9 proposal, EP T8-0253/2017.
24
The Euratom proposal is based on Article 7 of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic and Energy Community.
25
PPMI (2017), Assessment of the Union Added Value and the Economic Impact of the EU Framework Programmes (FP7,
Horizon 2020).
26
Lab – Fab – App, Investing in the European future we want, Lamy High Level Group report, Annex 5, p. 32. Indeed, the
Lamy High Level Group report identified no direct evidence of overall crowding-out effect of national funding. While some
countries present simultaneously a decrease in national budget for R&D and an increase in EU contribution from the
Framework Programme, this result is not systematic for all countries.
27
European Commission (2018), A new, modern Multiannual Financial Framework for a European Union that delivers
efficiently on its priorities post-2020, COM(2018)98 final.
10
Box 2: Recommendations from the ex-post evaluation of the Seventh Framework Programme
The Ex Post Evaluation of the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) made the following recommendations28
,
which are also relevant for this impact assessment:
a. Ensure focus on critical challenges and opportunities in the global context.
b. Align research and innovation instruments and agendas in Europe.
c. Integrate the key components of the Framework Programmes more effectively.
d. Bring science closer to the citizens.
e. Establish strategic programme monitoring and evaluation.
The Communication on the interim evaluation of Horizon 202029
identified several areas for
improvement. In addition to in-depth analysis, this was based on extensive stakeholder
feedback30
and the strategic recommendations of the independent High Level Group on
maximising the impact of EU R&I Programmes (Lamy High Level Group):
 Continue simplification. Horizon 2020 has made great progress in terms of
simplification compared to FP7, but simplification is an ever continuing undertaking,
requiring constant improvements. Further simplification should be pursued to support
faster innovation cycles and lower administrative burden.
 Support breakthrough innovation. While some potential for supporting
breakthrough, market-creating innovation was identified in Horizon 2020, such
support should be considerably strengthened in order to identify, develop and deploy
breakthrough and market-creating innovations and support the scale-up of young and
quickly growing innovative companies to international and European levels.
 Create more impact through mission-orientation and citizen involvement. The
Framework Programme needs greater impact and more outreach to citizens. A
mission-oriented approach would increase the focus on impact, while involving
citizens, customers and end-users in agenda-setting (co-design) and implementation
(co-creation) leads to more innovation by stimulating user-driven innovation and the
demand for innovative solutions.
 Increase synergies with other EU funding programmes and EU Policies. While
synergies already exist between Horizon 2020 and other EU programmes, they should
be further strengthened. In particular, building on synergies with the European
Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) and smart specialisation strategies, R&I
capacities built over the past decade in lower performing regions could be better used
for Framework Programme-supported projects.
 Strengthen international cooperation. While Horizon 2020 has a broad
international outreach and openness to the world, third-country participations declined
when compared to FP731
. International cooperation in R&I is vital for ensuring access
to talent, knowledge, know-how, facilities and markets worldwide, for effectively
tackling global challenges, and for implementing global commitments. It needs to be
further intensified in order to strengthen Europe's R&I excellence and
competitiveness.
28
European Commission (2016) Response to the Report of the High Level Expert Group on the Ex Post Evaluation of the
Seventh Framework Programme, COM(2016) 5 final.
29
European Commission (2018), Horizon 2020 interim evaluation: maximising the impact of EU research and innovation,
COM(2018)2.
30
The open public stakeholder consultation on the Interim Evaluation received 3500 replies and 300 position papers.
31
The discontinuation in Horizon 2020 of the automatic funding to organisations from Brazil, Russia, India, China and
Mexico caused an important decrease of their participation.
11
 Reinforce openness. There is a need to build on the great progress made in terms of
making the scientific publications and data generated by Horizon 2020 openly
accessible to the wider scientific community and public. The next Framework
Programme should fully embrace Open Science policy as a way of strengthening
scientific excellence, benefiting from citizen participation, achieving better
reproducibility of results, and increasing the re-use of research data.
 Rationalise the funding landscape. A key area for improvement is the rationalisation
of the funding landscape, in particular with respect to partnership instruments and
initiatives. Reforming the current policy approach to European Partnerships should
make it possible to use the full potential of the new or renewed European Partnerships
in achieving ambitious policy objectives that cannot be achieved by the Union or
national action alone.
Following the Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020, the Lamy High Level Group report
(presented at the conference "Research & innovation – shaping our future" on 3 July 2017)32
and the open public stakeholder consultations for the preparation of the sectorial legislation
accompanying the proposal for the post-2020 MFF, more than 300 position papers were
received. Fostering R&I across the EU resulted as the most important policy challenge
according to the respondents to the public stakeholder consultation. Key messages and a
detailed analysis of this stakeholder input can be found in an Annex 2.
2 CHALLENGES AND OBJECTIVES
2.1 Key features of Horizon 2020 and expected impacts of its continuation
Having excellence as the core underlying principle, Horizon 2020 attracts participants from
the best institutions and companies in and outside Europe, covering a wide range of
disciplines. Stakeholders express strong satisfaction with the programme, as shown by the
sustained interest in its highly competitive calls and high oversubscription rates (which is
commonly quoted by stakeholders as being the biggest problem). The programme offers
unique collaboration and networking opportunities. Scientific publications of Horizon 2020
are cited already at twice the world average rate. Patents produced through the programme
are of higher quality and likely commercial value than similar patents produced elsewhere.
Horizon 2020 has shown flexibility in responding to evolving political priorities, such as
migration, and emergencies such as the Ebola and Zika outbreaks. Horizon 2020 is on track
to contribute significantly to the creation of jobs and growth. Moreover, it supports EU policy
objectives through its focus on excellent science, industrial leadership and societal challenges
Key features of Horizon 2020:
 significant budget (close to EUR 77 billion) for 7 years (2014-2020), with a target of 35% related to
climate action and 60% related to Sustainable Development;
 seamless integration of R&I into a single framework, from ‘blue-sky’, frontier research to close-to-
market innovation activities;
 direct R&I investments through an EU-wide competition based on excellence as guiding principle (and
main evaluation and selection criterion);
 central management by the European Commission, its executive agencies or other implementing bodies;
 a three-pillar structure focusing on excellent science, industrial leadership and societal challenges.
 major simplification measures implemented through the Common Support Centre, such as a single set of
rules, an easy to use cost reimbursement model, a single point of access for participants, fewer audits.
32
Conference proceedings available at https://publications.europa.eu/s/fC5N
12
The continuation of the ongoing Programme is expected to generate even more:
 new knowledge and technologies, promoting scientific excellence and significant
scientific impact. The Programme will continue to facilitate cross-border
collaboration between top scientists and innovators, allowing for trans-national and
cross-sector coordination between public and private R&I investment. Horizon 2020
has already attracted the world’s best research institutions and researchers, supported
~340,000 researchers, and developed Europe’s human capital. The first scientific
publications from Horizon 2020 are world-class (cited more than twice the world
average) and contributed to major discoveries like exoplanets, the Higgs boson, and
gravitational waves.33
.
 positive effects on growth, trade and investment flows34
, quality jobs and
international mobility for researchers in the European Research Area. The
continuation scenario is expected to bring an estimated average GDP increase of
0.08% to 0.19% over 25 years, which means that each euro invested can potentially
generate a return up to 11 euros of GDP gains over the same period3536
(see Annex
5). EU investments in R&I are expected to directly generate an estimated gain37
of up
to 100,000 jobs in R&I activities in the “Investment phase” (2021-2027) and to foster
an indirect gain of up to 200,000 jobs over 2027-2036, of which 40% are high-skilled
jobs, through the economic activity generated by the Programme.
 significant social and environmental impact. This will happen directly through the
dissemination, exploitation and uptake of scientific results translated into new
products, services and processes, which in turn contribute indirectly to the successful
delivery on political priorities.
These impacts mean that the potential cost of discontinuing the EU R&I Programme
(i.e. cost of non-Europe) is substantial. Discontinuation would result in a decline of
competitiveness and growth (up to EUR 720 billion of GDP loss over 25 years38
), sharp
reductions in the private and national investments that are currently leveraged by EU-level
co-investments, creating significant losses of social, environmental and economic impacts.
Box 3: Three phases of the economic impact of the Framework Programme
The expected economic impact of continuation is decomposed in three phases in the NEMESIS model39
:
 The investment phase. From the beginning to the end of the Programme (2021-2027). Assuming a
“maturation” lag of innovation between 3 and 5 years, economic impact is driven by the spending,
with comparatively moderate impact from the production of innovations at this stage.
 The innovation phase. During and after the investment phase, R&I investments produce economic
effects through the creation of new process and product innovations. Process innovation increases
efficiency, which leads to lower cost. Product innovation increases the quality of, and raises the
33
European Commission (2017), Key findings of the Interim Evaluation.
34
The economic impact of the Programme comes from the transformation of scientific excellence into innovations that
generate economic outcomes: employment, exports, competitiveness, value-added and higher GDP.
35
This multiplier is based on simulations done using the NEMESIS model and is consistent with figures provided in the
Interim evaluation of Horizon 2020 (calculated over a period of 17 years) and in the ex-post evaluation of the 7th
Framework
Programme.
36
The average GDP gain in RHOMOLO is 0.08%, the average gain in QUEST is up to 0.14% and the average gain in
NEMESIS is 0.19%. NEMESIS results are based on Seureco (forthcoming), Support for assessment of socio-economic and
environmental impacts (SEEI) of European R&I programme. QUEST and RHOMOLO results were produced, respectively,
by DG ECFIN and DG JRC.
37
ibid.
38
This figure is calculated for the EU-27 only and it is based on the NEMESIS model.
39
Seureco (forthcoming), Support for assessment of socio-economic and environmental impacts (SEEI) of European R&I
programmes.
13
demand for, products. The lower cost and enhanced quality increase competitiveness.
 The obsolescence phase. After the innovation phase, knowledge depreciation decreases gains.
Figure 1: GDP gains from the continuation of Horizon 2020 (percentage change compared to a situation
without Framework Programme)
*Note: Figures calculated for EU-27; different sets of results from QUEST are presented in Annex 5 based on
different funding assumptions. This graph presents the scenario with higher benefits.
2.2 Main R&I challenges and problems to be addressed
Based on the key findings and lessons learnt from the Horizon 2020 Interim Evaluation (see
section 1.2 above), the following key challenges in the area of R&I to be addressed by the
future Programme have been identified:
1) The creation and diffusion of high-quality new knowledge and innovation in Europe
should be improved. Europe is overall a global scientific powerhouse, but it is essentially a
"mass producer [of knowledge] with, relative to its size, comparatively few centres of
excellence that standout at the world level and with large differences between European
countries"40
. Moreover, the gap between high productivity firms and the rest has grown,
illustrating a serious issue in the circulation of knowledge and technologies. This corresponds
to the following findings of the Horizon 2020 Interim Evaluation:
 Sub-optimal creation41
of high-quality knowledge and lack of diffusion42
of
knowledge across borders, sectors, disciplines43
and along the value chain;
 Insufficient open science44
;
40
European Commission (2017), Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020, SWD(2017) 220, book, p. 46.
41
More than 14% of publications from the United States are in the top 10% most cited publications compared to 11% for EU
publications (see Research and Innovation Observatory). When looking at the top 1% most cited publications, the difference
is even larger (50% more in the US than in the EU) (see S. Thomson, V. Kanesarajah (2017), The European Research
Council – The first 10 years, Clarivate Analytics).
42
Knowledge diffusion between business and academia remains lower in the EU than in the US (public-private co-
publications per million-population stand at 50, over 35 points lower than in the US (see European Commission (2016),
Science, Research and Innovation Performance of the EU).
43
J. Allmendinger (2015), Quests for interdisciplinarity: a challenge for the ERA and Horizon 2020, RISE policy brief.
44
RISE Group (2017), Europe's future: Open innovation, open science, open to the world; reflections of the Research,
Innovation and Science Policy Experts (RISE) High Level Group, p. 65.
14
 Scattered pockets of scientific excellence and R&I infrastructures45
;
 Rapid increase of global competition for talent46
;
 Hampered global R&I cooperation47
.
2) There is a need to reinforce the impact of R&I in policy-making. R&I have to take a
more prominent place in shaping EU policy priorities and for delivering on policy
commitments and priorities of the Union. R&I are expected to make a crucial contribution to
achieving EU policy priorities, including the Sustainable Development Goals. The impact is
stronger when investments are prioritised in areas where the EU added value is greatest48
and
aligned with policy needs; when support provides incentives in a highly performing and
dynamic system with supportive framework conditions; and where R&I results have a strong
potential to feedback into the policy-making cycle. Investments in R&I have to better fit into
the full innovation cycle, from societal needs to market deployment, supporting the
implementation of EU, national and regional strategic policy priorities. Uptake of innovative
solutions has been low so far, and more needs to be done to increase end-user involvement,
for demonstrating and scaling up promising solutions and create favourable market and
framework conditions for innovation, including social innovation, while ensuring that
competition in the internal market which drives the innovative efforts of companies and
unlocks their innovative potential is not distorted. This corresponds to the following findings
of the Horizon 2020 Interim Evaluation:
 Variable focus on EU strategic challenges49
;
 Sub-optimal link between R&I and EU policy-making50
;
 Low awareness of innovative solutions and insufficient end-user/citizen involvement
in the R&I process51
.
3) EU is lacking rapid uptake of innovative solutions. Around two thirds of EU
manufacturing companies have not recently used any advanced technologies52
, and
competition from the USA and Asia has intensified. The EU's substantial knowledge assets,
notably in the field of key enabling technologies, need to be more effectively and quickly
turned into innovations, particularly as innovative solutions for global challenges are
increasingly research-intensive. Apart from aiming at high industrial participation in the
programme, a stronger focus is needed on innovators working on breakthrough market-
creating innovations - these are rare in Europe (fast-growing start-ups, so-called unicorns, are
45
Scientific quality is concentrated in a group of leading countries, predominantly in North-West Europe, but there are a
number of small universities with a small number of excellent fields in less developed regions (source: Interim Evaluation of
Horizon 2020).
46
Increasingly, expertise and resources are abroad: 75% of knowledge (see European Commission (2016), Science,
Research and Innovation performance of the EU) and 90% of market growth (see European Commission (2015), Trade for
all, Towards a more responsible trade and investment policy) will be outside the EU over the next decade (see also European
Commission (2017), Strengthening European Identity through Education and Culture, The European Commission's
contribution to the Leaders' meeting in Gothenburg, p.4).
47
European Commission (2017), Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020, SWD(2017) 220, book, p.100.
48
Lab – Fab – App, Investing in the European future we want, Lamy High Level Group report, p.8.
49
European Commission (2017), Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020, SWD(2017) 220, book, p. 59.
50
Ibid.
51
Social awareness is a constraining factor for the full-scale deployment of R&I-driven solutions required for societal
transformation, but new and rapidly evolving technologies like robots and artificial intelligence raise concerns amongst
citizens. In Europe, absence or uncertainty of demand for innovative goods and services are among the most cited obstacles
to innovation, see also JRC Science for Policy Report (2016), Modes of Innovation.
52
Flash Eurobarometer 433, Innobarometer 2016 – EU business innovation trends. This figure has increased by 14
percentage points between the last two releases of the Innobarometer (i.e. 2015 and 2016).
15
five times fewer than in the USA53
). This corresponds to the following findings of the
Horizon 2020 Interim Evaluation:
 Slow industrial transformation54
;
 Limited scale-up of innovative SMEs at EU level and lack of venture capital55
;
 Lack of entrepreneurial skills to translate ideas into innovations56
.
4) There is a need to strengthen the European Research Area (ERA). While strong
progress was made over the last years57
, knowledge flows, good working conditions,
effective career development of researchers and other ERA priorities, need to be more widely
spread. Within the EU, scientific excellence is rather concentrated, and EU funding from
Horizon 2020 to low performing R&I countries remains low58
. The delivery of the
Programme can only be optimised by unlocking the potential of all partners - this means there
is a need for strengthening the EU scientific and technological base and spreading the
benefits of excellence59
.
2.3 Objectives of the future Programme
The Framework Programme’s general objective is based on Article 179.1 TFEU:
to strengthen the scientific and technological bases of the Union and foster its
competitiveness, including for its industry, deliver on the EU's strategic policy
priorities and contribute to tackling global challenges, including the Sustainable
Development Goals.
As a lesson learnt from the Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020 supported by strong
stakeholder feedback, specific objectives are identified for the Programme as a whole (i.e. not
per part or instrument) to improve coherence and linkages among Programme parts. Based on
the challenges identified in section 2.1, the specific objectives are:
1) to support the creation and diffusion of high-quality new knowledge, skills,
technologies and solutions to global challenges;
2) to strengthen the impact of research and innovation in developing, supporting and
implementing Union policies, and support the uptake of innovative solutions in
industry and society to address global challenges;
3) to foster all forms of innovation, including breakthrough innovation, and strengthen
market deployment of innovative solutions;
4) to optimise the Programme's delivery for increased impact within a strengthened
European Research Area.
General and specific objectives will be pursued through an improved Programme structure
(Section 3). The implementation of the Programme will be optimised in terms of delivery
(Section 4) in line with the cross-cutting objectives of the MFF, notably simplification,
flexibility, coherence, synergies and focus on performance. The specific objectives are
53
Lab – Fab – App, Investing in the European future we want, Lamy High Level Group report, p.7.
54
High-Level Strategy Group on Industrial Technologies (2018), Conference Document.
55
Very few European start-ups survive beyond the critical phase of 2-3 years, and even fewer grow into larger mermaids.
Less than 5% of European SMEs grow internationally. Venture capital in the EU is one-fifth the level of the USA.
56
Less than half Europeans believe they have the skills to pursue entrepreneurial opportunities World Economic Forum,
Enhancing Europe’s Competitiveness Fostering Innovation-driven Entrepreneurship in Europe, p16.
57
European Commission (2017), ERA Progress Report 2016, Report from the Commission to the Council and the European
Parliament, COM(2017) 35.
58
European Commission (2017), Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020, SWD(2017) 220, book, p. 119.
59
Ibidem, p. 46.
16
operationalised in the Specific Programme implementing the Framework Programme. All
objectives articulate with each other coherently, so that all actions in each pillar can deliver
on the objectives without risking any inconsistencies or exclusions.
Figure 2: Link between the Framework Programme’s challenges and objectives.
3 PROGRAMME STRUCTURE AND PRIORITIES
3.1 Scope and structure of the new Framework Programme
“An evolution, not a revolution”60
- building on the positive findings of the Horizon 2020
Interim Evaluation, stakeholder feedback61
and the Lamy High Level Group report, only a
further refinement of the current Programme is necessary62
. Therefore, the vast majority of
the parts and features of Horizon 2020 will be continued, albeit with several optimisations
and minor redesigns. As all components of the Framework Programme are necessary to
achieve its objectives, a different level of ambition (including budgetary) would result in an
adjusted level of support across all areas. Moreover, compared to Horizon 2020, Horizon
Europe will invest less in sector-specific projects and partnerships, and focus instead on
systemic transformations.
The Programme’s scope will continue to cover research63
and innovation64
in an
integrated manner. Scientific knowledge, societal challenges and industrial technologies
60
LAB-FAB-APP, Investing in the European future we want, Lamy High Level Group Report (2017), p.14.
61
80-90% of stakeholders' position papers echo the Lamy High Level Group, recognise that Horizon 2020 is a success and
do not call for changes to the basic structure of the programme.
62
European Commission (2018), Communication on the Horizon 2020 Interim Evaluation, COM(2018)2 final, p.11.
63
Research and experimental development (R&D) comprise creative and systematic work undertaken in order to increase the
stock of knowledge – including knowledge of humankind, culture and society – and to devise new applications of available
knowledge. The activity must be: novel, creative, uncertain, systematic, transferable and/or reproducible. (Frascati Manual,
http://www.oecd.org/innovation/inno/frascati-manual.htm)
64
Innovation is the implementation of a new or significantly improved product (good or service), or process, a new
marketing method, or a new organisational method in business practices, workplace organisation or external relations.
Innovation activities are all scientific, technological, organisational, financial and commercial steps which actually, or are
17
should complement each other and be mutually reinforcing, bringing industry, academia,
public stakeholders, and citizens closer together, and thereby aligning the processes and the
outcomes of R&I with societal needs, expectations and values, including gender balance. In
close synergies with other EU Programmes, the Framework Programme will continue to
support the whole innovation ecosystem with seamless support from the lab to the market
uptake for high-risk activities that would not be performed without public support.
Box 4: The three-pillar structure of Horizon 2020
Pillar 1 - Excellent Science aims to raise the level of excellence in Europe's science base and ensure a steady
stream of world-class research to secure Europe's long-term competitiveness. Pillar 2 - Industrial
Leadership aims to speed up the development of the technologies and innovations that will underpin
tomorrow's business and help innovative European SMEs to grow into world-leading companies. Pillar 3 -
Societal Challenges responds directly to the policy priorities of the Europe 2020 strategy and aims to and
addresses major concerns shared by citizens in Europe and elsewhere.
In addition to the three pillars, Horizon 2020 has two specific objectives: (i) "Spreading Excellence and
Widening Participation" and (ii) "Science With and for Society". It also includes support for the European
Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) – with the objective of promoting the knowledge triangle –
and for the Joint Research Centre (JRC) – with the objective of providing robust evidence for EU policy
making. Furthermore, a number of cross-cutting issues are promoted, e.g. the realisation of the European
Research Area (ERA), Responsible Research and Innovation, SMEs and private sector participation, Social
Sciences and Humanities, gender, international cooperation, sustainable development and climate-related
expenditure.
Figure 3: The three-pillar structure of Horizon 2020
The three-pillar structure will be continued and optimised. It will be redesigned to better
address the challenges described in Section 2.2. With clearly defined and complementary
rationales for intervention, each part will contribute to all the specific objectives. The design
of the three pillars will ensure interconnections leading to mutual reinforcement of activities,
helping meet the Programme's objectives and ultimately boosting the overall impact (see
Figure 4). Support to basic research will remain a cornerstone of the Programme, pursued
primarily under the first pillar (but also in the other two pillars); applied research and
incremental innovation will be the centre of gravity in the second pillar, addressing both
intended to, lead to the implementation of innovations. Innovation activities also include R&D that is not directly related to
the development of a specific innovation. (Oslo manual, http://www.oecd.org/science/inno/2367580.pdf)
18
industrial and societal needs (Global Challenges and Industrial Competitiveness); innovation
is the focus of the third pillar (Open Innovation). The largest share of resources is needed for
Global Challenges and Industrial Competitiveness pillar, followed by Open Science and
Open Innovation, whereas Strengthening the European Research Area entails only limited
budget.
The majority of stakeholders commenting on the pillar structure are satisfied with the
current three-pillar structure of Horizon 2020 and wish to see either a complete
replication or some modifications to the exsisting architecture. The main suggestions
for improvements over the Horizon 2020 structure relate to increasing the links between pillars to
improve the coverage of the entire knowledge and innovation chain. Several position papers outline
the increasing importance of the ‘Societal Challenges’ and call for a more prominent pillar that takes
into account the current socio-economic issues65
.
The revised pillar structure reflects the nature of the R&I challenges, which has evolved
compared to Horizon 2020. As highlighted in previous sections, the Programme needs to be
equipped with an innovation-focussed pillar to support breakthrough market-creating
innovations that bring transformational changes. In addition, given the crucial role of Key
Enabling Technologies in the economy and society66
, the R&I agenda-setting has to integrate
industry’s contribution to societal needs with efforts to tackle global challenges and other EU
political priorities in order to improve the coherence and impact of the Programme.
The overarching mission-orientated approach will provide a sense of direction to all
activities supported by the Programme. For instance, future missions under pillar 2 (see
section 3.2.2) will be planned in the context of ongoing frontier research under the ERC.
While fully respecting the bottom-up nature of those programme parts, relevant ERC and
MSCA projects might be linked to ongoing missions. The scale and scope of missions can
also inspire new research and innovation proposals elsewhere in the Programme. Promising
projects from either of the first two pillars might produce spin-offs and be scaled-up with
support under the EIC Accelerator under pillar 3 (see section 3.2.1). Similarly, activities
supported through the EIT KICs may be picked up under the EIC Accelerator, or feed into
ongoing missions (see Annex 8).
65
Griniece, E. (forthcoming) Synthesis of stakeholder input for Horizon Europe and European Commission analysis
66
Rüttgers J., and al. (2018), Re-defining industry, Defining innovation, Report of the independent High Level Group on
industrial technologies. On industry’s contribution and value to society, see also https://industry-changemakers.ert.eu/
19
Figure 4 Main structure of the Framework Programme: "evolution, not revolution"
 Pillar 1 - Open Science: Building on its current successes, the first pillar will
continue to focus on excellent science and high-quality knowledge to strengthen EU’s
science base through the European Research Council (ERC), Marie-Skłodowska
Curie Actions (MSCA) and Research Infrastructures. A greater emphasis will be
placed on Open Science policy (open access to publications, accessibility and reuse of
scientific data), including in the Research Infrastructures part in support for the
European Open Science Cloud. In view of the largely "bottom-up", investigator-
driven nature of this pillar, the European scientific community will continue to play a
strong role. The Future and Emerging Technologies (FET) part (Pro-active, Open and
Flagships) has, and continues to have, a relevant impact on knowledge production, the
economy and society67
. The lessons learnt68
from these essential instruments will be
taken forward and streamlined with other instruments in the Framework Programme
67
Beckert B., et al. (2018), Visionary and Collaborative Research in Europe, Pathways to impact of use-inspired basic
research, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research, Austrian Institute of Technology.
68
European Commission (2017), Annex 2 of the Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020, SWD(2017) 221 final.
20
(see section 3.2.1). However, the “FET” label will be discontinued for increased
coherence and user-friendliness, in the interest of rationalising the support landscape.
 Pillar 2 - Global Challenges and Industrial Competitiveness: The second pillar will
integrate the Horizon 2020 parts Societal Challenges and Leadership in Enabling
Industrial Technologies to better address EU policy priorities and support industrial
competitiveness. Due to its policy focus, the pillar will be implemented "top-down"
through a strategic planning process ensuring societal and stakeholder involvement,
and alignment with Member States' R&I activities. The pillar will provide robust,
evidence-based support to Union policies, in particular through the Joint Research
Centre (JRC). While maintaining a strong degree of continuity with Horizon 2020, the
main changes will be:
- Societal Challenges and Leadership in Enabling Industrial Technologies of
Horizon 2020 integrated in five clusters to enable more flexibility and
interdisciplinarity, with a specific digital and industry cluster (see Box 5);
- reinforced mission-orientation, with a limited set of highly visible R&I missions
that engage citizens and civil society organisations to help reach ambitious goals69
(see Annex 8 on missions);
- higher visibility for industry’s role in solving global challenges (see Box 6),
including through Key Enabling Technologies.
- simplified forms of partnership initiatives that are open to all (e.g. private sector,
Member States, philanthropic foundations; see Annex 8).
Box 5: Clusters in the Global Challenges and Industrial Competitiveness pillar
The Global Challenges and Industrial Competitiveness pillar has five clusters that cover the activities of the
LEIT part of pillar 2 and the seven societal challenges of pillar 3 of Horizon 2020. The clusters are Health;
Inclusive and Secure Society; Digital and Industry; Climate, Energy and Mobility; and Food and Natural
resources. The clusters are derived from specifically commissioned foresight input, including from
stakeholders, and have the Sustainable Development Goals as main reference point. The clusters and their
intervention areas are expected to have more impact since they cut across classical boundaries between
disciplines and address different types of challenge. The integrated clusters of activities will form the basis for
support to collaborative research and innovation projects under the Global Challenges and Industrial
Competitiveness pillar in the implementation of the Framework Programme.
Table 1: Clusters and intervention areas
Health
Inclusive and
Secure Society
Digital and Industry
Climate, Energy and
Mobility
Food and Natural
Resources
- Health
throughout the
life course
- Environmental
and social health
determinants
- Non-
communicable
and rare diseases
- Infectious
diseases
- Tools,
technologies and
digital solutions
for health
- Health care
systems
- Democracy
- Cultural
heritage
- Social and
economic
transformatio
ns
- Disaster-
resilient
societies
- Protection
and Security
- Cybersecurity
- Manufacturing
technologies
- Key digital
technologies
- Advanced materials
- Artificial
intelligence and
robotics
- Next generation
internet
- Advanced
computing and Big
Data
- Circular industries
- Low-carbon and
clean industries
- Space
- Climate science and
solutions
- Energy supply
- Energy systems and
grids
- Buildings and
industrial facilities in
energy transition
- Communities and
cities
- Industrial
competitiveness in
transport
- Clean transport and
mobility
- Smart mobility
- Energy storage
- Environmental
observation
- Biodiversity and
natural capital
- Agriculture,
forestry and rural
areas
- Sea and oceans
- Food systems
- Bio-based
innovation
systems
- Circular systems
69
Three examples of missions for pedagogical use are described in Mazzucato M. (2018), Mission-Oriented
Research & Innovation in the European Union.
21
 Pillar 3 – Open Innovation: Whilst innovation will be supported throughout the
whole Programme, an innovation-focussed pillar will offer a one-stop shop for high
potential innovators with the European Innovation Council (EIC). The EIC will offer
a coherent, streamlined and simple set of support actions dedicated to the emergence
of breakthrough ideas, the development and deployment of market-creating
innovations and scaling-up of innovative enterprises. These activities will be largely
defined "bottom-up", being open to innovations from all fields of science, technology
and applications in any sector, while also enabling focused approaches on emerging
breakthrough or disruptive technologies of potential strategic significance. Additional
measures under this Pillar will boost support to the European innovation ecosystem,
notably through co-funding various joint national initiatives that boost innovation
(e.g. joint programme between agencies implementing national/local innovation
policies, joint public procurement actions). In addition to the EIC, financial
instruments implemented under the InvestEU programme will help bridge the “valley
of death” between research and commercialisation, and will support the scaling-up of
companies. The European Institute for Innovation and Technology (EIT) and its
Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) will have an important role in the
Open Innovation pillar, supporting the development of the European innovation
ecosystem through the integration of education, research and entrepreneurship.
Through their focus on key strategic priorities in line with the strategic programming
of the Framework Programme (see section 4.1), KICs will also contribute to the wider
programme objectives, including to deliver on global challenges and missions.
In addition to the three main pillars, the Horizon Europe will strengthen the European
Research Area through successful elements of Horizon 2020 that will be integrated: (i)
Sharing excellence (extending the Horizon 2020 Spreading Excellence and Widening
Participation actions Teaming, Twinning, ERA chairs, and COST) to continue supporting low
performing R&I Member States to increase their excellence; (ii) Reforming and enhancing
the European Research Area, covering the Policy Support Facility; foresight activities;
Framework Programme’s monitoring, evaluation, dissemination and exploitation of results;
the modernisation of European universities; and Science, society and citizens (building on the
Horizon 2020 Science with and for Society).
The redesigned pillar structure will improve internal coherence, in particular through:
- the integration of industrial technologies in Pillar 2, enhancing the contribution of
industry to tackling global challenges, and matching supply with demand for new
solutions70
;
- the rationalisation of the current Societal Challenges into five cross-theme clusters
that will cover the whole innovation chain and that will encourage transdisciplinary
activities, including social sciences and humanities (SSH);
- the streamlining of different innovation support instruments through the EIC;
- the link of the EIC to the other activities of Horizon Europe, in particular ERC,
MSCA and the EIT-KICs, to help researchers and innovators to deploy their
innovation to the market and scale up.
- emphasis on a strong horizontal role of education and training.
70
Key Enabling Technologies and digital technologies are instrumental in modernising Europe’s industrial base, to ensure
that industry reduces its carbon footprint and embrace a circular economy approach. Moreover, industry could mobilise
important industrial players and ensure participation of SMEs on social and political priorities.
22
Box 6: The reinforced role of industry in Horizon Europe – Industrial Competitiveness
Strengthening the Union's scientific and technological bases and encouraging it to become more competitive,
including in its industry, is an objective enshrined in Article 179 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union. The Union and its Member States support industrial competitiveness by speeding up the
adjustment of industry to structural changes, encouraging a favourable regulatory environment, encouraging
an environment favourable to cooperation and fostering better exploitation of the industrial potential of
policies of research and innovation (Article 173 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union).
Horizon 2020 supports industrial competitiveness, as highlighted by the following facts:
 A 20% target exists for the total combined budget to be awarded to SMEs under the "Leadership in
Enabling and Industrial Technologies" and "Societal Challenges" parts of Horizon 2020. By the end of
2017, this has been exceeded with almost 25% of the EU contribution awarded to SMEs71
.
 Private for-profit companies have been awarded 27% of the overall Horizon 2020 budget, amounting
to EUR 6.7 billion.
Building on the strong support to stimulating industrial leadership and competitiveness currently provided,
which will continue (e.g. the single funding rate for industry participants, partnerships with industry), the
following changes in the new Framework Programme will reinforce it:
 The whole Programme will contribute to industrial competitiveness. This reflects the overriding
aims of the Programme, in which industrial technologies reinforce scientific knowledge and tackle
global challenges; in which industry, academia, public stakeholders, citizens and their associations
(CSOs) are brought closer together; and which seamlessly supports the whole innovation ecosystem
from research to innovation and market deployment.
 Industry is a core enabler to solve Global Challenges. Integration of the Leadership in Enabling
Industrial Technologies programme parts, previously under the second pillar in Horizon 2020
('Industrial Leadership'), within the Global Challenges and Industrial Competitiveness pillar would
provide a higher visibility to the role of industry in solving Europe's major societal challenges, for
instance through Key Enabling Technologies.
 The "Digital and industry" cluster will be dedicated to support innovative, sustainable and digital
industries, including through Key Enabling Technologies for the future. This cluster is expected to
address directly the issue of slow industrial transformation and promote adjustment of industry to
structural changes.Partnerships with industry will continue. EU policy-driven R&I partnerships with
industry are important for pooling resources in order to tackle big policy and societal challenges, to
support competitiveness and jobs and to encourage greater private investment in research and
innovation, amongst other things. Public-private collaboration with industry will continue as part of a
simplified and more impact-focussed approach to European Partnerships (see section 3.2.5 below).
As a result, the expected implications for industry are:
 Europe’s global leadership in various industries, especially in high value added and technology-
intensive products and services, will hinge on its capacity to master the Key Enabling Technologies, in
which the Framework Programme will continue to invest.
 Investing in new technologies through the Programme will enhance EU's industrial competitiveness in
the global transition to circular and low-carbon economy, create new business opportunities including
in export markets, and protect businesses against scarcity of resources or volatile prices.
 A broader perspective involving users and society at large (and more generally the demand side) in the
design and development of innovative solutions to address global challenges will ensure ownership and
commitment from industry and other stakeholders, as well as the buy-in from civil society.
 Bringing together activities on digital, key enabling, clean and space technologies, the Programme will
allow for a more systemic approach, and a faster and more profound digital and industrial
transformation.
In terms of design structure, some stakeholders72
have identified the risk that merging the
stand-alone “industrial leadership” pillar would discourage industry participation. On the
other hand, a higher participation of industry in the Global Challenges and Industrial
71
European Commission (2018), Annual Report on Research and Technological Development Activities of the European
Union and Monitoring of Horizon 2020 in 2017.
72
See Annex 2 on the Stakeholder Consultation.
23
Competitiveness pillar could be seen as giving the private sector a disproportionate role in
setting the R&I agenda at the expense of other stakeholder groups. As a mitigation measure,
the strategic planning process (see section 4.1), building on the lessons learnt from the
inclusive programming process of Horizon 2020, will ensure a balanced approach by
involving all stakeholders, including citizens, customers and end-users in agenda-setting. The
Programme will also gain flexibility by a less prescriptive approach to defining R&I
activities. This brings about a higher capacity to adapt to evolving political priorities and to
respond to emerging, unforeseen challenges.
Box 7: Climate mainstreaming
Horizon 2020 legal basis provides a target of investing at least 35% of its budget for climate-related activities.
The EP has asked for a thorough climate mainstreaming and underlined that the EU should not finance
projects and investments that are contrary to the achievement of EU climate goals73
. The European Court of
Auditors recommends aligning EU spending and investment more closely with the Union's strategic
priorities74
. 14 Member States have signed a joint letter to the Commission on 5 March 2018 asking for a
climate-friendly EU-budget.75
Horizon 2020 is a major contributor to the EU’s target to mainstream climate action and sustainable
development. While the expenditure target for climate action has not been met, the overall success of the
mainstreaming approach has been confirmed by the Commission in the MFF Mid-Term Review76
, in the
European Court of Auditors Special report 31/201677
, in the related council conclusions78
, and by a targeted
external report79
.
The EU has signed up to the Paris Agreement on fighting climate change, and has already set itself a target to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40% by 2030. It also made wider energy transition commitments
as captured in the Energy Union and its implementation packages, such as the the European Strategy for Low-
Emission Mobility80
and the Clean Energy For All Europeans package81
.
In continuation with the provision set out in Horizon 2020 and line with the EU’s international commitments,
an ambitious goal for climate mainstreaming across all EU programmes has been set, with a target of 25% of
EU expenditure contributing to climate objectives. To ensure its essential contribution to these objectives,
Horizon Europe will continue contributing to climate action, including to clean energy transition in the EU.
The programme is expected to contribute with 35% of its budget spent to climate objectives.
3.2 Improvements and their expected implications
In addition to the structure optimisations described in section 3.1, the key areas for
improvement identified by the Horizon 2020 Interim Evaluation (see section 1.2) have been
translated into novel features and enhancements of existing features. These improvements
build on the foundations of the interim evaluations82
, findings of High Level Groups83
and the
work of scientific experts84
. They were developed on the basis of analysis detailed in the
73
European Parliament (2017), Resolution of 14 March 2018 on the next MFF: Preparing the Parliament’s position on the
MFF post-2020, ref. 2017/2052(INI).
74
European Court of Auditors (2018), Future of EU finances: reforming how the EU budget operates, Briefing Paper.
75
http://www.bmub.bund.de/en/service/details-europe-and-environment/artikel/statement-of-green-growth-group-2/
76
http://ec.europa.eu/budget/mff/lib/COM-2016-603/SWD-2016-299_en.pdf
77
https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=39853
78
Council conclusions 7495/17, adopted by ECOFIN on 21 March 2017, http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-
7495-2017-INIT/en/pdf
79
https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/1df19257-aef9-11e7-837e-01aa75ed71a1
80
European Commission (2016), A European strategy for low-emission mobility, COM(2016)0501 final.
81
European Commission (2016), Clean Energy for all Europeans, COM(2016)0860 final.
82
Among others, the Interim Evaluation of the Joint Undertakings,Interim evaluation of the European Institute of Innovation
and Technology, FET Flagships – Interim evaluation.
83
In particular, the High Level Group on maximising the impact of EU R&I programmes and the Research, Innovation and
Science Policy Experts (RISE) group.
84
For the evidence used in this impact assessment, please refer also to Annex 1.
24
Annex 8, from among identified alternative ways to address the key challenges identified in
section 2.2.
The significant improvements linked to the design of the programme (see Figure 5) will be
covered in this section, along with their expected implications. While Horizon 2020 is
already excellent, impactful and open, these changes will make the Framework Programme
achieve even more impact (EIC and missions) and more openness (through strengthened
international cooperation, reinforced Open Science policy, and a new policy approach to
European Partnerships). Neither of these changes goes beyond what is necessary at EU level
(proportionality test), and each one aims to increase the overall effectiveness, efficiency and
coherence of the Programme (see Section 3.3 for an overview of how this is achieved). More
details can be found in Annex 8, which also covers more gradual changes, e.g. linked to
Sharing excellence.
Moreover, the lessons learnt linked to simplification have been taken up in the section on
delivery for impact (Section 4 and Annex 9), while those related to synergies with other EU
programmes were included in the upstream design of those programmes (see Annex 7).
Figure 5: Design improvements and novelties in the new Framework Programme
3.2.1 The European Innovation Council (EIC)
Why do we need it? There is a growing lack of equity funding for risky companies dealing
especially with deep-tech products, in particular young, innovative firms and scale-ups in
Europe. According to a recent study85
, the total equity funding gap in Europe is estimated at
EUR 70 billion, of which 85% is represented by the so-called “first valley of death”86
. The
85
Deloitte (2016) Equity funding in the EU.
86
The “Valley of Death” is commonly known as a market failure. “First valley of death” is associated to pre-commercial
development of a product, with still high technical risks and unproven ability to generate revenue. Companies facing the
“second valley of death” are in a more advanced stage of their lifecycle, and they are mainly looking for growth finance.
25
European Investment Bank estimates87
that it would require around EUR 35 billion a year in
additional venture capital for financing start-ups and growth-stage firms in the EU to match
comparable US levels. Private investors are deterred by the lack of certainty, no cash flow
generation, and unproven ability to scale-up rapidly. Such ventures need a sophisticated
support ancillary to a grant, such as equity, guarantee, or other type of financing (tailor made
blended finance, see section 4.5) to better de-risk them and bring them to a stage where they
can be financed on usual commercial terms by investors.
What do we have now? Horizon 2020 provides some measures of targeted support to
disruptive technologies and to innovative companies for bringing discoveries close to the
market, with a quarter of Innovation Actions having breakthrough potential88
. On the one
hand, the FET instrument supports high-risk cutting-edge research projects aiming to bring
about transformational change by opposition to incremental innovation. However it lacks an
instrument to bring these disruptive innovations to the market. On the other hand, the SME
Instrument focusses especially on product, performance, business model innovations and
market uptake, but much less on service, network, and customer engagement innovations and
does not provide for market deployment and scale-up. In Horizon 2020, the SME Instrument
has provided EUR 1,332 million in grants to 3,239 SMEs supporting the technical and
commercial feasibility of a business idea and the development of innovation with
demonstration and scale-up purposes. Majority of the projects emerging from receiving SME
Instrument grants are however still exposed to the "first valley of death" for their subsequent
development, which is not covered by the SME Instrument. These projects still have
investment requirements to fully develop and commercialise their products89
. Overall,
Horizon 2020 does not provide enough support to innovators, and in particular SMEs, to
develop breakthrough technologies cutting across sectors to access market and scale up
rapidly at EU level.
What did the other EU institutions say? The European Parliament stresses the importance
of innovation support in general, and of disruptive innovation and scaling up in particular.
Council Conclusions emphasise the importance of supporting the whole innovation value
chain, including high-risk disruptive technologies, while the possible future EIC should
support breakthrough innovations and the scaling up of innovative companies90
.
The majority of stakeholders commenting on the EIC are supportive and provide
suggestions on its possible role, objectives and implementation. In general stakeholders
expect the EIC to simplify the current support to innovation and act as an European
accelerator. They note that the support to innovative SMEs and start-ups is essential to maximise
Europe’s potential for growth and socioeconomic transformation91
.
What changes? The Framework Programme will introduce the EIC under the Open
Innovation Pillar to place the EU in the lead for breakthrough market-creating innovation92
.
However, private investors are deterred by unproven ability to scale-up rapidly and generate cash flow. In both cases
technologies are seen too risky by private investors, and are, therefore, often not funded.
87
European Investment Bank (2016) Restoring EU competitiveness p.36.
88
European Commission (2017). Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020, SWD(2017) 220, p.34.
89
European Investment Bank (2018) Improving Access to Finance for Beneficiaries of the SME Instrument,.
90
Ibid.
91
Griniece, E. (forthcoming) Synthesis of stakeholder input for Horizon Europe and European Commission analysis .
26
The EIC will support innovators with breakthrough ideas and market creating innovations
that currently face high risks due to the fragmentation of the innovation eco-system, lack of
risk finance and risk aversion93
. The EIC will integrate, reorganise and expand activities
previously carried out in Horizon 2020, such as in Access to Risk Finance (in synergy with
the InvestEU programme), Innovation in SMEs (notably the SME instrument), Fast-track to
Innovation as well as Future and Emerging Technologies (FET-Open).
The EIC will mainly implement two complementary instruments, offering a seamless support
from research and innovation activities to market deployment and scaling-up of innovative
companies. The Pathfinder for advanced research will be a grant-based instrument for early
stage research on technological ideas that can bring about transformational change, to nurture
spin-offs and potential market creating innovations. The Accelerator will be a financial
instrument operating through tailor made blended finance (advances, reimbursable or not,
equity, guarantees; see also section 4.5) in support of the development and the deployment of
market-creating innovation and the scale-up of innovative companies, until they can obtain
support from the InvestEU programme or be financed on usual commercial terms by
private/commercial investors. The Accelerator will place a particular emphasis on
innovations / spin-offs / start-ups generated within the Pathfinder, as well as from any other
parts of the Programme such as the ERC, the EIT KICs and R&I missions. In de-risking the
operations it supports, the Accelerator will also stimulate private investments in R&I while
preserving competition in the internal market.
EIC business advisory services will complement these instruments in order to connect
innovators with industrial partners and investors and provide them with other support
services. A High-Level Advisory Board composed of entrepreneurs, corporate leaders,
investors and researchers, will assist the Commission in the governance and have an outreach
function with an ambassadorial role. For its launch, the EIC could be implemented with the
support of an executive agency for some tasks. Subsequent development may however lead to
establishment of a fully externalised solution, as one of the possible implementation scenarios
(see Annex 8).
What is the EU added value? As for the Horizon 2020 Future Emerging Technologies and
the SME Instrument, the continent-wide competition for ideas will ensure excellence and EU-
gains. Moreover, only EU-level action has the capacity to tackle the persistent lack of large-
scale venture capital. EU support will be more effective and more comprehensive (e.g.
common regulation, fostering synergies with other EU programmes) compared to national or
regional support. The EIC will focus on breakthrough innovations at European level, pooling
resources and unleashing the potential of European and global markets for EU innovators94
.
The EIC will not replace national and private initiatives fostering breakthrough innovation,
but instead it will increase the coherence of the overall innovation ecosystem by establishing
a one-stop shop for high potential innovators and partnerships with national, regional and
local innovation actors.
92
Breakthrough market-creating innovations are defined in Horizon 2020 as radically new, breakthrough products, services,
processes or business models that open up new markets with the potential for rapid growth at European (and global) levels,
in contrast to incremental innovation (improvements to existing products for existing markets).
93
Additional evidence provided in Annex 8 on the European Innovation Council.
94
To this end, a level playing field among competitors is key to unleashing the innovative potential of companies (especially
SMEs) for breakthrough or disruptive innovation to happen.
27
Figure 6 EU support to innovation (bottom-up and top-down)
Table 2 Comparing the EIC with the ERC, EIT, and InvestEU
European Innovation
Council (EIC)
European Research
Council (ERC)
European Institute for
Innovation and
Technology (EIT)
InvestEU
Key
principles
Focus on excellence
(attract best innovators)
based largely on
bottom-up approach,
but also high-risk,
breakthrough R&I
activities that create
markets and provide
solutions to global
challenges.
Focus on excellence
(attract best
researchers), based
on bottom-up
approach
Focus on knowledge
triangle integration
(education, research
and innovation) that
empowers innovators
and entrepreneurs to
solve global challenges
through KICs
Focus on
bankable
projects, and
expected return
on investment.
Implemented,
through financial
intermediaries
(Banks, Venture
Capital Funds,
and other private
investors)
Target
group
Focus on the individual
(the innovator), with
high-growth potential
(researchers,
entrepreneurs, start-ups,
SMEs and mid-caps),
from single
beneficiaries to multi-
disciplinary consortia,
but promote their
incorporation and
growth under late stage
activities
Focus on the
individual (the
researcher)
Focus both on
individual entities and
on cooperation of
businesses, education
institutions & research
organisations within
KICs
Focus on entities
that can borrow
money or can sell
shares.
Rationale Remove constraints
(field of innovation) for
growth and scale-up
Remove constraints
(field of science,
collaboration
partners)
Reinforce R&I
ecosystems in specific
areas (knowledge
exchange and
networks,
entrepreneurship,
skills); support
innovators to start and
accelerate new
businesses; provide
talent through
entrepreneurial
Leveraging
private sources of
finance.
Address market
gaps and sub-
optimal
investment
situations.
28
education
Evaluation
and
Selection
Selection by peers
(scientists and
innovators) and
investors based on
excellence, the impact
(marketability), and the
level of risk
Selection by
scientific peer review
Selection of KICs by
EIT Governing Board;
KICs business plans
(i.e., innovation and
education activities,
projects) assessed by
panel of experts
appointed by EIT
Selection by
financial
intermediaries
through due-
diligence process.
Types of
Action
Grants (Pathfinder) and
combination of grant-
type advances and
equity or financial
guarantees
(Accelerator).
Projects may be
amended or terminated
if milestones are not
met, seeking alignment
with private investors
Long-term grants
with guaranteed
funding
Grants to KICs
partnerships +
complementary
activities (incl.
education &
entrepreneurial progra
mmes)
Equity finance,
mainly focusing
on risk-capital
funds and debt
finance in the
form of loans and
guarantees.
What are the risks? Firstly, in giving priority to potential impact rather than return on
investment, the EIC will promote long-term operations too risky to attract private investors.
In recent years, these risks have increased due to the more multi-disciplinary nature of R&I
and the intrinsic complexity and systems nature of many emerging technologies. If the risk of
failure of projects under the EIC is more pronounced, even higher is the potential benefit of
generating new markets that are essential for the future of the Union and its citizens, e.g.
deep-tech based areas of future growth and jobs such as clean and efficient new energy
sources, block-chain, artificial intelligence, genomics and robotics. Secondly, there is a
potential risk of conflict of interest linked to the involvement of experts, which will also be
innovators and/or investors themselves. Safeguards will be put in place, for example by
preventing them to invest into EIC supported companies, or similar provisions.
Box 8: EU Added Value of mono-beneficiary instruments
The Horizon 2020 interim evaluation showed that the quality of R&I improves through EU-wide
competition. This is an important element of EU added value, notably in areas where mono-beneficiaries
are the norm, like the SME Instrument and the ERC. The EU added value of the ERC from its exclusive
focus on excellence through competition helped it become a global beacon of excellence. Similarly, an in-
depth evaluation study of the SME Instrument95
positively assessed its EU Added Value: it is unique
compared to similar support schemes at national/regional level (which are only focusing on certain priority
domains; do not have rolling submissions; have significantly smaller project volumes; require project
collaboration with other SMEs or universities).
What are the expected implications?
 More innovations that create the new markets of the future. Giving
more prominence and visibility to breakthrough innovation, the EIC will
attract the Europe’s best innovators. The selection process by peer-
95
Technopolis (2017), Evaluation of the SME instrument and the activities under Horizon 2020 Work Programme
"Innovation in SMEs".
29
scientists and innovators and investors will enable risk-taking, hence
providing support to radically new initiatives in uncharted territories. The
EU could become the home of up to a third of leading innovators in
major areas for breakthrough deep tech innovation96
such as Artificial
Intelligence, biotech, and augmented/virtual reality and to leading
innovators addressing global challenges.
 Scaled up companies and higher SME growth. The EIC will support
late stage innovation activities and market deployment for the most
promising ideas, resulting in an increase in the number of growing EU
start-ups and SMEs. The EIC will also target innovative companies with
a great potential for scaling up, offering them co-investment to become
larger and increase their markets. The support to innovative companies
and in particular SMEs will increase their market valuation, employment,
and turnover.
 Increased complementarities between grant-type funding, financial
instruments, and leverage from private investment. Under the
Accelerator, blended finance will allow the Union to bear the initial risk
of deploying market breakthrough innovations, with the aim of de-risking
these operations as they unfold, down to a stage where they can be
financed through private capital, hence incentivize private investors.
Combined with activities undertaken by the (InvestEU Programme) this
alignment of interests with private investors will provide improved
access to venture capital and risk finance, hence leveraging the overall
volume of finance available for innovation..
 More entrepreneurship and risk-taking. The EIC will provide
business acceleration services to innovators and will award EIC
Fellowships to the outstanding ones. The EIC will highlight innovators
who can inspire others to set up and grow their own enterprises.
 More accessible and user friendly support to innovation. The EIC
support and services will be provided through a one-stop shop enabling
easy and quick access for innovators to EU support.
3.2.2 Research and Innovation Missions
Why do we need it? As underlined by the Interim Evaluation of Horizon 202097
, the current
EU research and innovation programme does not fully prioritise investments with the highest
overall impact and added value for Europe, as expected impact is defined only at the level of
individual call topics. This leads to fragmentation and a dilution of impact. The consequent
lack of focus on societal impact also results in a low level of public awareness and
engagement in EU-funded R&I. This implies that current EU investments in R&I are not
sufficiently responsive to, or connected with, the needs of citizens.
96
Ibid.
97
European Commission (2018), Communication on the Horizon 2020 Interim Evaluation, COM(2018)2 final, p. 7. See also
the specific recommendation in the Lamy High Level Group report on "adopting an impact-focused, mission-oriented
approach" in future EU research and innovation programmes (LAB-FAB-APP, Investing in the European future we want,
Lamy High Level Group Report (2017), p. 15-16.
30
What do we have now? Horizon 2020 featured over 20 Focus Areas in key domains, where
priorities cut across different parts of the programme (e.g. blue growth, circular economy,
digital security), to concentrate resources and efforts. While focus areas reinforced the
programme's coherence and its capacity to provide interdisciplinary solutions to multiple
societal challenges, their multiplication also resulted in some confusion. Moreover, citizens
were not involved in the process, and limited coordination of the focus areas undermined
their impact. Nor did they set achievable and time-bound goals.
What did the other EU institutions say? All EU Institutions stress the importance of
involving citizens more profoundly in the co-design and co-creation of R&I contents to
maximise the impact generated by the Framework Programme98
. The European Parliament
recognises the importance of society playing a more active part in defining and addressing the
problems, and in jointly putting forward the solutions. The Committee of the Regions is
calling for the adoption of a new, complementary approach based on missions and for greater
importance of science-society actions. The European Economic and Social Committee calls
for increased involvement of Civil Society Organisations in the Framework Programme. The
Council Conclusions and the European Research Area and Innovation Committee (ERAC)
point to the need to deliver better and continued outreach to society, and call for exploring a
mission-oriented approach99
.
Almost all stakeholders referencing R&I missions clearly supported mission-orientation
of Horizon Europe or acknolwedged it as a possible future scenario. In general,
stakeholders consider that tangible missions that underpin the overall political
objectives could enhance visibility and create a more engaging narrative of the Framework
Programme. There is also a widespread acknowledgement on the need to engage wider society in
identifying the most relevant missions within broader societal challenges. 100
What changes? Horizon Europe will introduce a limited number of highly visible R&I
missions. Missions will replace and build on the Horizon 2020 Focus Areas. They will be
well-defined101
and self-standing programme parts, as opposed to the Focus Areas. This will
more clearly and directly incentivise cross-sectoral and cross-disciplinary cooperation. Clear
objectives and rationale will be established at the mission's inception (addressing a specific
weakness identified in the focus areas approach) in order to define targets, clear time-bound
goals and expected impact. Finally, missions will be more closely co-designed with end-users
and citizens, thus prioritising public engagement and involvement and "building upon
existing work and prior commitments to bring societal actors together to prioritise R&I
activity"102
.
Different types of missions can be envisaged, for example missions to accelerate progress
towards a set technical or societal solution, focusing large investments on a specific target
(e.g. accelerate market uptake of post Li-ion energy storage solutions) or missions for
transforming an entire social or industrial system within an established timeframe (e.g.
transformation of the entire energy system or mobility system in cities). Evidence indicates
98
Democratic Society (2018), "Citizen Participation in FP9: A model for mission and work programme engagement". See
p.18-19 for a more detailed overview.
99
Ibid.
100
Griniece, E. (2018), Synthesis of stakeholder input for Horizon Europe and European Commission analysis.
101
Over 20 Focus Areas were introduced in Horizon 2020, and the interim evaluation found that "their multiplication
resulted in some confusion" (p.149, In-Depth Staff Working Document on Horizon 2020 Interim Evaluation, SWD(2017)
220 final).
102
Democratic Society (2018), p.18.
31
that a combination of approaches would be most suited to the scale of EU-level missions and
the complex challenges which they will address103
.
Missions will be selected (after the launch of Horizon Europe) according to the following
selection criteria104
:
 Bold, inspirational, with wide societal relevance;
 A clear direction: targeted, measurable and time-bound;
 Ambitious but realistic research and innovation actions;
 Cross-disciplinary, cross-sectoral, and cross-actor innovation;
 Multiple bottom-up solutions;
 Strong EU added value.
At the implementation stage, Mission Boards for each mission will ensure proper
involvement of stakeholders and end-users. Mission Boards will be involved in co-designing
the missions involving stakeholders and the wider public, providing input to the content of
the call for proposals and the evaluation of project proposals and in monitoring missions. A
mission manager will be appointed for each mission with the task of ensuring that the mission
objectives are reached through a portfolio approach. By involving citizens and stakeholders
in the definition, selection and monitoring of missions, a sense of urgency and collective
commitment will be created105
while also ensuring societal ownership of the missions 106
.
What is the EU added value? Setting R&I missions at EU level gives them the critical mass
necessary to address global challenges. They will help the EU to better deliver on Sustainable
Development Goals and its strategic policy priorities. Setting R&I missions at EU level
would also facilitate ensuring that the EU regulatory framework fully supports the
achievement of such an EU mission, for instance through applying the innovation principle,
setting standards at EU level, or through joint public procurement at EU level. Missions can
involve end-users and citizens much more closely in EU R&I activities.
What are the risks? The success of missions hinges on the timely and due dialogue with
stakeholders, to avoid disengagement or weak interest. Moreover, in the implementation
phase, the evaluation and monitoring mechanisms will need to be sophisticated enough to
capture the long-term impacts of missions. Finally, the ultimate uptake and roll-out of
innovative solutions arising from missions will depend on wider framework conditions – this
kind of wider support to uptake can be supported through policy actions in the spirit of the
Inovation Principle, or through Innovation Deals107
.
What are the expected implications?
103
"There is much evidence that EU scale R&I missions would be best serves in a hybrid model (including or combining
accelerator and transformer elements), that is flexible in addressing different types of challenges and different levels of
complexity, while at the same coordinating and concentrating the effort and resources towards the commonly agreed
objectives". Joint Institute for Innovation Policy (2018), Mission-Oriented Research and Innovation: assessing the impact of
a mission-oriented research and innovation approach.
104
Mazzucato M. (2018), Mission-Oriented Research and Innovation in the European Union: A problem-solving approach to
fuel innovation-led growth.
105
This is identified as a key characteristic of the most successful mission-like initiatives across the world. See: Joint
Institute for Innovation Policy study.
106
"Missions require to set up specific governance structures with full-time professionals and to keep close contacts with all
stakeholders. A balanced system of separation of powers between steering, strategic and financial decision-making and the
day-to-day management is a must to establish from the outset". Joint Institute for Innovation Policy study.
107
https://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-deals/index.cfm
32
 Improved cross-sectoral and cross-disciplinary cooperation. Missions
will require expertise from different sectors and disciplines to come
together. For example, climate action requires meaningful collaboration
across sectors such as urban planning, construction, energy efficiency in
buildings, mobility, behavioural aspects, food, environmental capacity,
and in many other areas. The mission-oriented approach will work across
clusters to promote system-wide transformation.
 Increased impact on global challenges and EU policy priorities.
Missions will increase effectiveness in delivering societal impact for end-
users and citizens, by prioritising investments and set directions to
achieve objectives with societal relevance. Missions will set the direction
for the EU regulatory framework, and leverage further public and private
sector R&I investments in Europe.
 Reduced gap between science/innovation and society. R&I missions
will be easy to communicate, in order to mobilise citizens and end-users
in their co-design and co-creation (e.g. through citizen science and user-
led innovation). In turn, this increases the relevance of science and
innovation for the society and it would stimulate the societal uptake of
innovative solutions and leverage business investment.
3.2.3 International cooperation
Why do we need it? International cooperation in R&I is vital for ensuring access to talent,
knowledge, know-how, facilities and markets worldwide, for effectively tackling global
challenges and for implementing global commitments108
.
What do we have now? Association to the programme is limited to countries geographically
close to Europe. Organisations from non-associated third countries can participate in projects
in all parts of the programme, except for mono-beneficiary grants, specific close-to-market
innovation activities and actions for access to risk finance. Except for a few cases, only
participants from low- and middle-income countries are automatically eligible to receive EU
funding. EU funding can be exceptionally granted to third-country entities whose
participation is deemed essential for carrying out an action.
What did the other EU institutions say? The Council and the European Parliament have
called for strengthening international R&I cooperation in the Framework Programme,
including with associated countriesand emerging countries, as soon as possible through
concrete actions. The Parliament, in addition, has highlighted the value of science diplomacy.
Council Conclusions have also reaffirmed the importance of reciprocity.
A predominant view among stakeholders is that cooperation should be strengthened to
counter the drop in internationalisation activities and participation rates from third
countries that was experienced in Horizon 2020. Some stakeholders also advocate
science as a platform for international diplomacy. A few stakeholders noted that EU could adopt
legislation to encourage exploitation of research and innovation results in Europe first109
.
108
European Commission (2018), Communication on the Horizon 2020 Interim Evaluation, COM(2018)2 final, p. 8.
109
Griniece, E. (forthcoming) Synthesis of stakeholder input for Horizon Europe and European Commission analysis .
33
Figure 7: Approach to international cooperation in Horizon 2020 vs the new Framework Programme
What changes? The Framework Programme will intensify cooperation in line with the
strategy for EU international R&I cooperation and the "Open to the World" R&I priority110
.
The programme will extend openness for association, beyond EU enlargement, EEA
countries and ENP countries, to include all countries with proven science, technology and
innovation capacities to make cooperation and funding of joint projects as smooth as
possible. The programme should increasingly invite partners from the rest of the world to join
EU efforts as an integral part of initiatives in support of EU actions for sustainable
development; it should provide more support for activities that facilitate the collaboration of
European researchers with their counterparts worldwide, enable international mobility of
researchers and ensure access to research infrastructures globally; and it should extend
support to joint and coordinated funding of global industrial research and innovation
cooperation. The programme should continue to fund entities from low-mid income
countries, and to fund entities from industrialised and emerging economies only if they
possess essential competences or facilities. The programme will intensify support to
international flagships, partnerships, bilateral and multilateral initiatives and joint
programmes and calls, to increase access to researchers, knowledge and resources worldwide
and optimise benefits from cooperation.
Box 9: Third Countries associated to the Framework Programme
 The Framework Programme will define which countries will be able to apply for association, what
criteria should be used to assess their applications, and what principles should apply for the terms and
conditions regarding their participation.
 Each Association Agreement to the Framework Programme should define the scope, specific terms
and conditions of participation, as well as the rules governing the financial contribution of the
associated country. These rules should ensure a close approximation between payments and returns.
What is the EU added value? Openness of the Framework Programme to third countries
enhances the EU added value of the Programme itself, allowing EU participants to
110
See Annex 10 on the Implementation of the strategy for international cooperation in R&I.
34
collaborate with the best minds in the world. The EU can more effectively shape policy
agendas when represented as a single voice in multilateral fora and international
organisations. The EU has a comparative advantage as compared to single Member States
when negotiating bilateral agreements with third countries regarding framework conditions
such as mutual openness of funding programmes or issues related to Intellectual Property
Rights (IPR) protection. Thanks to the Framework Programme, Member States are enabled to
cooperate with several third countries, including countries with which they do not have
bilateral agreements. Increasing international cooperation does not go beyond what is
necessary to achieve the objectives of the programme.
What are the risks? The main risk is that the proposed specific objective, priorities for
actions and instruments to be used will not be sufficient for strengthening international
cooperation in the Programme compared to the current situation. Regarding the process, there
is also the risk that European objectives both in terms of global challenges and
competitiveness take less of a driving role in priority-setting when more international partners
are involved. International S&T cooperation policy dialogues and broad consultations should
ensure that international joint actions are strategically designed in line with EU interests and
agreed with international partners based on mutual interest and common benefit.
What are the expected implications?
 Improved excellence of the Programme. Attracting and collaborating
with the world's top researchers, innovators and knowledge-intensive
companies reinforces the EU’s science and technology base. Evidence
shows that international collaboration increases the impact of scientific
publications111
.
 Higher influence of the EU in shaping global R&I systems. This
approach will enhance the EU leading role in setting the policy agenda,
in particular for addressing common challenges and for achieving the
Sustainable Development Goals. The mutual benefits of international
cooperation strengthen EU leadership in the knowledge-intensive
economy. The Programme will be an effective instrument in Europe's
efforts to harness globalisation by removing barriers to innovation and by
establishing fairer framework conditions with international partners.
 More impact from the Programme. Increased international cooperation
will reinforce EU R&I excellence and the creation and diffusion of high-
quality knowledge in the EU. Cooperating internationally is
indispensable as the scope and interconnectivity of global societal
challenges increase and require more international joint action and
coordination of agendas International openness of the innovation eco-
systems will strengthen EU competitiveness by promoting a level playing
field and enhancing supply and demand of innovative solutions. The
association agreements with countries having proven R&I capacities will
facilitate mutual access to European and third-country know-how and
markets, as cooperation with top third country innovators facilitates
access to expertise that is increasingly developed outside the EU.
111
Within the Programme, peer-reviewed publications with at least one associated or third country have a higher impact than
other ones: European Commission (2017), Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020, SWD(2017) 220, book, p. 115.
35
3.2.4 Open Science policy
Why do we need it? The next Framework Programme should fully embrace Open Science as
a way of strengthening scientific excellence, benefiting from citizen participation, achieving
better reproducibility of results and increasing knowledge circulation and the re-use of
research data112
, hence accelerating the take-up of R&I knowledge and solutions and
increasing the EU policy and societal impact of the Framework Programme.
What do we have now? There is a shift towards a more open, collaborative, data-intensive
and networked way of doing research and sharing research results, enabled by developments
in ICT and related infrastructures and the increasing proliferation of data. Open access to
publications is mandatory, while open access publishing is encouraged, and relevant costs
eligible. Beneficiaries are encouraged by guidelines to keep enough (copy)right to self-
archive, but are not legally empowered to do so. Participation in the Open Research Data
Pilot is the default for Horizon 2020 projects, and it requires a Data Management Plan and
open access to research data, but there are solid conditions to opt-out from the Pilot at any
stage.
What did the other EU institutions say? The European Parliament opinion is in favour of
the general principle of Open Access, while the European Research Area and Innovation
Committee (ERAC) regards the 100% Open Access policy of Horizon 2020 as a clear
measure in favour of knowledge circulation. Importantly, the Council Conclusions on the
transition towards an Open Science System give valuable guidance for the future, while the
Council Conclusions on the Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020 highlight the role of Open
Science in boosting impact and transparency113
.
The majority of stakeholders who referred to Open Science note that data and
knowledge produced from EU funded projects should be shared openly. However, some
business representatives underlined the need for the opt-out option to be maintained to
secure confidentiality of market-oriented innovation outputs. Stakeholders also highlight that open
science, open data and open access calls for new principles in citation and academic reward system
and requires attention to the development of skills in research data management114
.
What changes? The Framework Programme will fully embrace and support Open Science
policy as the new research modus operandi through various requirements in the Work
Programmes. It will go beyond the open access policy of Horizon 2020, requiring immediate
open access for publications and data (with robust opt-outs for the latter), and research data
management plans to support sound data management; it will foster the proliferation of FAIR
data (findable, accessible, interoperable and re-usable). It will support activities that promote
a sustainable and innovative scholarly communications ecosystem; it will foster activities for
the enhancement of researcher skills in open science and support reward systems that
promote open science; it will integrate research integrity in the open science activities and
support citizen science. Lastly, it will also support the introduction of next generation
indicators for the assessment of research.
112
European Commission (2018), Communication on the Horizon 2020 Interim Evaluation, COM(2018)2 final, p.9.
113
Ibid.
114
Griniece, E. (forthcoming) Synthesis of stakeholder input for Horizon Europe and European Commission analysis .
36
What is the EU added value? Even while Member States are developing their own policies
for Open Science, the positive effect of EU action is substantial115
. Horizon Europe will
contribute towards policy alignment across the Member States and thus towards the
development of a better and more unified environment for research collaboration in ERA and
beyond it. Requirements of the Programme have structuring effects that accelerate the
propagation of Open Science policy via collaborative projects in the research community.
Horizon Europe will accelerate the transition towards Open Science by building a European
Open Science Cloud supported by world-class infrastructure that will gradually also benefit
industry and the public sector.
What are the risks? The main concern on Open Science in Horizon Europe relates primarily
to the requirement for open access to data from research projects. Without clearly explained
safeguards, this policy could be perceived as deterrent for industry and businesses to
participate. This is why, while open access to research data will be the standard, Horizon
Europe will be fortified with robust exceptions to this rule, where access to data needs to be
protected and Intellectual Property Rights protected. The principle that research data has to be
'as open as possible, as closed as necessary' will be emphasised every time it is necessary. A
concern shared also at the time of Horizon 2020 is that the development of open access in
Europe may offer content paid by European taxpayers for exploitation to the entire world,
and therefore advantages other countries for more severe competition in research and
innovation. The Commission is not the only funder with such open access and open science
policy requirements. Funders across the globe are aligned in mandating open access to
publications and data and relevant open science policies. It is not expected that Europe will
set itself into a comparative disadvantage in this way, vis-à-vis other countries across the
world.
What are the expected implications?
 Increased availability of scientific output in open access. A higher
percentage of projects will make their outputs (publications, data,
algorithms etc.) available in open access because of the simplification of
provisions, the stricter formulation of exceptions, and financial support
provided through the Programme.
 Higher levels of excellent research and innovation. Placing high
quality content in the open, and stimulating knowledge circulation and
the reuse of results, improves science communication and enables
interdisciplinary research.
 Increased accessibility to high quality digital content. Data are
increasingly becoming the starting point for innovation, with high
returns116
. With digitisation, it can be expected that SMEs and other
companies will base new business models on digital content, hence will
reap the benefits of a strengthened Open data environment in Europe and
maximise the exploitation of digital resources through reusability.
115
The effect of emulating or aligning Member States funding policies to match these of Horizon 2020 with respect to open
access is clearly reported by Member States in the National Point of Reference (NPR) report of 2015) and can be seen in
many instances, for example in aligning embargo periods (p. 16). Similar trends can be observed in the 2017 NPR report,
where 2/3 of Member States report that the 2012 Recommendation for Open Access to and Preservation of Scientific
Information has had significant impact on national policies.
116
https://ufm.dk/en/publications/2018/preliminary-analysis-introduction-of-fair-data-in-denmark
37
 Higher societal and policy impact. Open science policy allows citizens
to be part of the research process (for example through citizen science),
helping lifelong learning and developing an informed society for the 21st
century challenges. Accessible R&I data and results can be used for
evidence-based policy-making, therefore they contribute to strengthening
the policy role of R&I.
3.2.5 European Partnerships
Why do we need it? The European R&I partnership landscape grew significantly in size and
complexity over the last decade with an increasing risk of overlap and non-coherence with
the EU framework programme and between the partnerships themselves. In particular, there
is a large number of Public-Public Partnership initiatives (currently close to 100). Still,
Partnerships are key to achieving policy objectives that the Framework Programme alone
cannot achieve. Reforming the current partnership landscape and improving the design and
implementation of future European Partnerships, renewed or newly set-up, should make it
possible to use their full potential in achieving ambitious policy objectives.117
What do we have now? Horizon 2020 supports two broad categories of partnerships: those
mainly involving industry, i.e. Article 187 initiatives or Public-Private-Partnerships (PPPs)
and contractual PPPs (cPPPs); and those involving mainly Member States, i.e. Article 185
initiatives or Public-Public-Partnerships (P2Ps), ERA-NET Cofund, European Joint
Programming-Cofund and Joint Programming Initiatives. Moreover, there are other types of
mixed partnerships such as the Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) of the
European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) (integrating the knowledge triangle)
and the Future and Emerging Technologies Flagships.
What did the other EU institutions say? The Competitiveness Council Conclusions
stressed that the current R&I ecosystem has become too complex, and that all partnership
initiatives should have an exit strategy from EU funding. The European Research Area and
Innovation Committee (ERAC) considers it particularly urgent to rationalise the funding
schemes, while considering public-to-public partnerships essential for more coordinated
implementation of national and EU R&I. The European Parliament advocates
‘decomplexifying’ the EU funding landscape118
.
A large share of stakeholders submiting position papers is concerned by the complexity
of the EU R&I funding landscape. A dozen stakeholders explicitly emphasise the fact
that exsisting support schemes should be carefully evaluated, and the discontinuation of
funding should be an option (i.e. sunset clauses).119
What changes? An overall European Partnerships strategy based on an objective- and
impact-driven intervention logic will be developed and implemented in order to ensure that
partnerships are established or renewed120
only in cases where impacts need to be created that
cannot be achieved by other Framework Programme’s actions or national action alone. All
future European Partnerships will be designed based on the principles of Union added value,
117
European Commission (2018), Communication on the Horizon 2020 Interim Evaluation, COM(2018)2 final, p. 9.
118
Ibid.
119
Griniece, E. (forthcoming) Synthesis of stakeholder input for Horizon Europe and European Commission analysis .
120
Specific partnerships, whether new or renewed, are not included in the legal proposal of the Framework Programme.
38
transparency, openness, impact, leverage effect, long-term financial commitment of all the
involved parties, flexibility, coherence and complementarity with Union, local, regional
national and international initiatives.
The strategic planning process of the Framework Programme (see section 4.1) will frame the
establishment of European Partnerships. This will ensure that the next generation of
partnerships will support agreed EU priorities and will lead to a rationalised R&I landscape,
with fewer, but more targeted initiatives receiving co-funding/investment from the
Framework Programme.
The design and implementation of future European Partnerships will include an improved
coherence between Framework Programme’s actions and R&I partnerships, as well as among
initiatives. In addition, communication and outreach will be strengthened by a clear, easy-to-
communicate architecture under the umbrella term “European Partnerships”. This
encompasses all Partnerships with Member States, Associated or Third Countries and/or
other stakeholders such as civil society/foundations and/or with industry (including small and
medium sized enterprises), with greater openness to international cooperation. European
Partnerships will only be developed on agreed EU policy priorities in the context of the
Framework Programme, and subject to the criteria set out in the Framework Programme.
They will be limited in time with clear conditions for phasing out from the Framework
Programme funding. There will be only three types of intervention modes (i.e. several
Horizon 2020 labels like P2P, PPP, ERA-NET, FET Flagship and cPPP will be
discontinued): i) co-programmed European Partnerships between the EU, Member States,
and/or other stakeholders, based on Memoranda of Understanding or contractual
arrangements with partners; ii) co-funded European Partnerships, based on a single, flexible
programme co-fund action for R&I activities; iii) institutionalised European Partnerships
(based on Art. 185 or 187 TFEU, and EIT regulation for KICs). Following a life-cycle
approach121
the legal act will set out the criteria for the selection, implementation,
monitoring, evaluation and phasing out of all European Partnerships.
What is the EU added value? The main added value derives from the additional private and
public R&I investments on EU priorities (additionality and leverage), the alignment of these
investments towards common objectives (directionality) and the achievement of impacts that
cannot be created by other Framework Programme actions or national action alone. In
addition, the revised policy approach will substantially improve the coherence between
European Partnerships and the Framework Programme in general, based on clear criteria
identified together with Member States and other stakeholders. EU investments in R&I will
be simpler to communicate and understand for stakeholders. The approach will build on, and
bring together, all the on-going and future partnerships.
What are the risks? The major risk for the new policy approach is considered to be the
expectations from the current partnerships to continue on a business as usual approach and
expect more or less automatic renewal without being in line with the criteria set. It is crucial
to ensure early involvement of Member States and stakeholders, including currently active
initiatives, in the strategic programming process to build trust and ownership on the agreed
future priorities.
What are the expected implications?
121
As proposed by the ERAC ad-hoc working group on partnerships (2018)
39
 Improved coherence and simplification. The clear rationale for the use
of R&I partnerships, the elaboration of distinct and clear intervention
logics based on policy objectives and the application of an impact-based
criteria framework along the life cycle of R&I partnerships, including
their phasing-out will guide the establishment of the next generation of
partnerships. This will lead to a smaller number of more coherent
partnerships and improve the overall coherence of the European R&I
ecosystem.
 More openness and flexibility. Partnerships will be open to all types of
stakeholders (Member States, civil society/foundations, industry,
including small and medium sized enterprises) with no entrance barriers
for newcomers and smaller R&I players. Flexibility will be encouraged
with a simplified toolbox, and a lifecycle-based planning and
implementation approach.
 Enhanced impact of EU R&I funding. The new approach to
partnerships will ensure that partnerships will only be established in
cases where desired impacts cannot be created by other Framework
Programme’s actions. As EU co-funding will be limited to agreed EU
strategic priorities, including EU R&I missions, the overall impact of EU
R&I funding will be increased by leveraging additional investments on
EU policy priorities, by providing 'directionality' to these investments,
and by reaching out to a broader set of stakeholders.
3.3 Overall impact on the new Framework Programme
Impact is expected to be even higher than for the current Programme, because of
improved programme-design novelties, increased internal coherence between Programme
pillars, with more focus on cross-disciplinary, cross-sectoral and cross-policy activities,
increased synergies with the MFF programmes, rationalisation, more user-friendly
modalities, increased openness to all stakeholders, more flexibility and efficient delivery
mechanisms, including a more effective dissemination and exploitation of R&I results.
The EIC which aims to capitalize on EU science strengths and improve transition from
science to breakthrough innovation, (i.e. innovation with highest impact) is expected to be
particularly effective in assisting companies along their innovation journey by offering
innovators seamless support (from grants to blended finance, from early stage research to
market uptake). Missions which aim to set ambitious goals and channel EU R&I investment
to areas with highest added value (i.e. highest impact) would allow the Programme to deliver
better on EU strategic challenges; support the implementation of EU policy priorities;
improve the contribution to EU policy-making; increase cross-sector and cross-disciplinary
cooperation; and improve the societal uptake of innovative solutions based on better
communication with, and involvement of, citizens. Strengthening international cooperation
would foster R&I by attracting even more of the world's top innovators, knowledge-intensive
companies, scientific organisations and researchers. Strengthening open science policy
should create and diffuse better high-quality knowledge, while better involving and informing
citizens. The integrated approach for partnerships would improve leverage of, and alignment
to, Member State and private investments.
40
Table 3: Effectiveness of the changes to the Programme
Changes Objectives of the Framework Programme MFF cross-cutting objectives
Support
the
creation
and
diffusion
of
high-quality
knowledge
Strengthen
the
impact
of
R&I
in
developing,
supporting
and
implementation
EU
policies
Foster
innovation
Optimise
the
Programme's
delivery
for
impact
within
a
strengthened
ERA
Simplification
Flexibility
Coherence
Synergies
Focus
on
performance
Structure 0 0 0 + + + + 0 0
EIC + + +++ ++ + ++ + + ++
Missions + +++ + ++ +/- + ++ ++ ++
International
cooperation
++ + + + 0 0 0 0 +
Open Science
policy
++ + + + 0 0 + 0 0
Partnerships + ++ + ++ ++ + + + +
Note: +, ++, +++ correspond respectively to slight, moderate and significant improvement compared to a no-
policy change scenario. +/- correspond to a coexistence of positive and negative impacts. 0 means no
significant change.
Horizon Europe is expected to generate more substantial economic benefits. Compared
to the baseline (Section 2.1), the improvements will increase the overall impact, with
different possible scenarios depending on how R&I leverage, diffusion and economic
performance will react to these changes. Illustrative results from the NEMESIS model122
(see
Annex 5) show that the estimated GDP gains for the EU compared to the baseline can range
from +0.04% in a low scenario to +0.1% in a more optimistic scenario (direct and indirect
effect). The total impact of the Programme on EU GDP could range from EUR 30 billion to
EUR 40 billion per year over 25 years (EUR 800 billion to EUR 975 billion in total)123
.
122
The impacts of the changes were quantified based on the NEMESIS model only. As shown in Annex, 5, the QUEST and
RHOMOLO models provide lower results in terms of GDP gain for the baseline scenario.
123
Seureco (forthcoming) Support for assessment of socio-economic and environmental impacts (SEEI) of European R&I
programme,.
41
Figure 8: Impact of the changes compared to the baseline (GDP gain, compared to a situation without
Framework Programme)
Source: Seureco, Support for assessment of socio-economic and environmental impacts (SEEI) of European
R&I programme.
Horizon Europe will deliver more value for money. Figure 8 shows that the future
Programme is expected to generate even more economic benefits due to the improvements in
the programme structure and design, which together with more delivery for impact (see
section 4) will ensure that the Programme will be cost-effective.
Table 4 Economic costs and benefits of Horizon Europe
Economic Benefits124
Costs125
Leverage of
R&I
investment
EUR 6-7 billion over 2021-2027 Submitting
proposals
Cost for beneficiaries:
About EUR 650 million
per year126
GDP gain 720 to 975 billion over 25 years Administrative
burden (reporting
obligations)
Cost for beneficiaries:
EUR 0.9-2.3 million per
year127
Employment Direct benefit: Over 100 thousand jobs in
R&I activities around 2027
Indirect benefit: Over 200 thousand jobs
around 2035
Management of
projects and
proposal evaluation
Cost for administrations:
EUR 500-600 million per
year128
124
These benefits are estimated after 2021 based on the NEMESIS model. Source: Seureco (forthcoming) Support for
assessment of socio-economic and environmental impacts (SEEI) of European R&I programme,.
125
Costs are based on Horizon 2020 figures.
126
The Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020 shows that the estimated cost for applicants to write proposals is EUR 1908.9
million or EUR 636 million annually. Of these costs, it is estimated that EUR 1.7 billion would be spent on writing proposals
that do not get funded, including EUR 643.0 million for non-funded high quality proposals alone.
127
The administrative burden of reporting obligations were estimated based on the standard cost model. The total burden is
obtained by multiplying: (1) Average personnel cost per hour: based on data from the R&D surveys (Eurostat), the average
cost of R&D personnel per FTE R&D staff is EUR 4927 per month in the EU. Based on this, a gross salary range of EUR
4000-6000 per month is assumed for the calculations (20% around the EU average). This corresponds to an hourly wage of
EUR 25 to 37.5 per hour. In line with the better regulation guidelines, the hourly pay to be used in the standard cost model
corresponds to this gross salary plus overhead costs (25%). This gives a range of EUR 31.25 to 46.88 per hour. (2) Time
required per reporting obligation: the duration of the tasks required to fulfil a reporting obligation is estimated to range
between 4 and 8 hours. (3) Number of projects: about 11,100 projects were launched during the first three years of Horizon
2020. This corresponds to 25,900 over 7 years. (4) Number of reporting obligations: based on data from Horizon 2020
projects, an average of two reporting obligations per project is assumed.
128
The administrative expenditure related to the evaluation of proposals and the management of projects is below 5% of the
budget. More extensive use of executive agencies since 2014 (REA, ERCEA, INEA and EASME) promoted economies of
scale and increased synergies. As a result, administrative expenditure was drastically reduced (compared to 6% in FP7). At
the same time, the level of client satisfaction is very high. Therefore, a rate of 5% is a reasonable assumption for the next
Framework Programme. This corresponds to an estimated cost of EUR 500 to 600 million per year.
42
Lastly, these effects will be amplified by strengthened synergies and complementarities
with other EU Programmes (see Annex 7). This will entail for example stronger alignment
of priorities; clearer complementarities; more flexible co-funding schemes to pool resources
at EU level; common strategic planning processes to allocate funding; greater alignment
between applicable rules; and eligibility of R&I high-quality proposals for funding by other
EU programmes (e.g. Seal of Excellence, co-funded European Partnerships), stronger
involvement of existing networks at EU level (e.g., the Enterprise Europe Network).
Portfolios of R&I results will be made available for EU regions for potential uptake based on
their specific needs, thus maximising the benefits coming from synergies with EU initiatives,
for increasing regional competitiveness and innovation. This will maximise the impact of
investments, speed up market uptake and the development of a comprehensive R&I
ecosystem. Moreover, the Framework Programme will deepen links with EU policy priorities
by bringing R&I results into policy-making, with full involvement of sectoral policy-makers.
Box 10: Market uptake
Improving market uptake of innovative solutions is a broad concept encompassing various activities, which
help R&I-driven innovation to succeed on the market and create new value for market players and
consumers/citizens alike. However, market uptake goes beyond R&I. Therefore, activities under the
Framework Programme alone cannot suffice to incentivise broad market uptake and dissemination of
innovative solutions. Other EU programmes need to also play a key role (see Annex 7 on Synergies).
What does Horizon 2020 currently do for market uptake?
 Supports the development of innovative solutions until demonstrators and pilots (introduction of a first-
of-its-kind innovation in the EU).
 Speeds up the introduction of innovations on the market and supports coaching and mentoring of
companies.
 Provides support to closer-to-market activities, including the launch and scale-up of innovative
companies, without distorting competition within the EU.
 Supports public demand for innovative solutions, through Public Procurement for Innovation and Pre-
Commercial Procurement. This support is limited to the coordination costs between procurers.
 Develop standards for innovative products and services, but with limited progress so far.
What can the Framework Programme do more for market uptake?
 Ensure market uptake is considered at the phase of proposal development, fostering applicants to co-
create/experiment their research and solutions with users from the outset, to ensure improved fit to the
final needs, including within the KICs co-location centres;
 Support innovation actions and the demonstration of technological and non-technological innovative
solutions of a first-of-a-kind nature in Europe with potential for replication;
 Establish pipelines of innovative solutions (originated from R&I projects) targeted to public and private
investors, including the EIC’s Accelerator and other EU programmes;
 Support to roll out and replication of innovative solutions with cross-border and transnational dimension;
 Support to pre-commercial procurement and public procurement of innovation is maintained;
 Support with the EIC the deployment of market-creating innovations and the scale-up of start-ups,
innovative SMEs and mid-capital firms with breakthrough potential to create new markets by blended
finance of grants and financial instruments under the EIC;
 Improved monitoring and dissemination of R&I results including through initiatives such as the
Dissemination and Exploitation Boosters and the Innovation Radar – also directed to other EU
programmes for further implementation
 Support non-technological innovations (social innovation, business model innovation, public sector
innovation etc.) including innovative delivery mechanisms.
 Put in place a comprehensive go-to-market package to incentivise the exploitation of Framework
Programme’s results by helping beneficiaries to find the most appropriate instruments and channels for
the market uptake of their innovations.
 Provide holistic support throughout the dissemination and exploitation lifecycle to ensure a constant
stream of innovations stemming from the Framework Programme.
 Put in place an ambitious and comprehensive dissemination and exploitation strategy for increasing the
availability of R&I results and accelerating their uptake to boost the overall impact of the Framework
Programme and the European innovation potential.
43
3.4 Critical mass
Achieving critical mass is key for the efficiency and effectiveness of the Programme129
.
Horizon Europe cannot work effectively if it is not able to fund a sufficiently broad portfolio
of relevant technologies and a sufficiently large range of complementary R&I projects that
can build on each other and contribute to the objectives of the Programme. Reaching critical
mass means that the Programme should be able to fund projects large enough to bring
together across countries, sectors and disciplines, all partners and resources required to
achieve the targeted objectives. Critical mass is also needed to support large-scale initiatives,
preparing full market deployment of solutions in areas like batteries, infectious diseases,
smart and clean buildings and vehicles, low-emission technologies, circular economy,
solutions for plastic waste, and connected/automated cars. Ambitions will have to be scaled
back equally across the Programme if critical mass would not be available.
Over the first three years of Horizon 2020, only 11.6% of the proposals could be funded.
This low success rate can be explained by the high attractiveness of the Programme, which
has led to a sharp increase in the number of eligible proposals compared to FP7130
. Moreover,
in the first years of Horizon, only 1 in 4 high quality proposals could be funded - an
additional EUR 62 billion would have been needed to fund all proposals independently
evaluated above the stringent quality threshold.131
. This underfunding represents an
opportunity cost for Europe's promising R&I potential, since it undermines the critical mass
needed to tackle global challenge; constitutes a waste of resources for the applicants (who
spent an estimated EUR 636 million a year preparing proposals132
), deters excellent R&I
players from applying, and deprives the EU of the full potential of the Programme. Based on
the steady trend observed over the last decade, the number of proposals should be larger than
in Horizon 2020. If the resources allocated to the Programme would remain similar to those
of Horizon 2020 (in constant prices), the success rate would likely decline, or at best be
maintained at ~12%, with only 20% -25% of high-quality proposals funded. This success rate
is too low for the Programme to be efficient - a success rate of 15-20% (comparable to FP7),
and funding for at least 30% of high quality proposals would be ideal133
.
Alternative measures to increase the success rate are not expected to be fully effective.
Using financial instruments through the InvestEU programme and enhancing
complementarities with other MFF programmes, including the European Regional
Development Fund, would allow funding more R&I projects. More use of two-stage calls
would filter proposals at an early stage134
. However, financial instruments are not appropriate
for all projects135
, and two-stage calls will not solve the problem for unfunded high quality
proposals. Likewise, decreasing the size of projects would imply abandoning larger scale
projects, mainly affecting collaborative projects, which are an intrinsic part of the EU added
value of the Programme. More strict eligibility criteria can improve overall success rate136
,
however will not address the issue of low success rate for high-quality proposals. Lastly,
129
European Commission (2017), The Grand Challenge. The design and societal impact of Horizon 2020.
130
The success rate in Horizon 2020 is 11.6%, compared to 18.5% under the previous framework programme (FP7).
131
Proposals that passed all thresholds in the independent evaluation process (from Horizon 2020 Interim Evaluation).
132
European Commission (2017), Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020, SWD(2017) 220, book, p. 83.
133
LAB-FAB-APP, Investing in the European future we want, Lamy High Level Group Report (2017), p.10.
134
European Commission (2017), Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020, SWD(2017) 220, book, p. 87-88.
135
European Commission (2017), Reflection paper on the future of finance, p. 26.
136
In calls under the Horizon 2020 Societal Challenge 7 "Secure Societies", the success rate reached 20% by imposing strict
eligibility criteria.
44
decreasing the funding rate would lower effectiveness because applicants, including those
with high-quality proposals, would need to find complementary funding, and could be
discouraged from applying or taking risks.
Figure 9 EC contribution requested in proposals (EUR billion)
Source: DG Research and Innovation. NB: the "increase" scenario assumes an increase in proposals'
requested contribution from Horizon 2020 to the new Framework Programme that is similar to the increase
experienced from FP7 to Horizon 2020.
4 DELIVERY FOR IMPACT
Efficient delivery is essential for reaching all the Programme’s objectives. This section
will describe the improvements made in order to better reach the cross-cutting objectives of
the MFF: simplification, flexibility, coherence, synergies and focus on performance. These
improvements are based on recommendations for optimising delivery from the Horizon 2020
Interim Evaluation 137
and the Lamy High Level Group report138
. The changes are presented
in a structured way along the typical lifecycle of EU R&I support. When changes represent a
significant departure from Horizon 2020 (see Table 6 for lessons learnt from Horizon 2020),
they will be assessed qualitatively and, where possible, quantitatively. More details can be
found in the Annex 9 on the Rules for Participation.
137
European Commission (2018), Communication on the Horizon 2020 Interim Evaluation, COM(2018)2 final, p.5.
138
LAB-FAB-APP, Investing in the European future we want, Lamy High Level Group Report (2017), p.18.
45
Table 5: Mapping of continued, discontinued and new features in Horizon Europe
Continued without
changes
Continued with changes Discontinued New
Design – Priorities
 Excellent Science: becomes Open
Science pillar and does not include the
FET specific objective
 Societal Challenges: becomes Global
Challenges and Industrial
Competitiveness pillar and covers the
LEITs specific objective of the
Industrial Leadership pillar and the
EIT, which was a separate specific
objective
Industrial
Leadership as a
separate pillar
 Open Innovation
pillar
 Strengthening the
European Research
Area : covers Science
With and for Society,
and Spreading
Excellence and
Widening
Participation, which
are Horizon 2020
specific objectives
Design - Specific objectives
 European Research
Council
 Marie Skłodowska Curie
Actions
 Research Infrastructures
 Direct Actions (Joint
Research Centre)
 Support to the European
Institute of Innovation
and Technology
 Leadership in enabling and industrial
technologies (becomes cross-cluster,
though in particular in Digital and
Industry cluster)
 Innovation in SMEs, (included in
European Innovation Council)
 Societal Challenges 1-7 (becomes
Clusters in the Global Challenges
pillar)
 Science with and for Society (becomes
intervention areas within ERA
foundation
 Spreading Excellence and Widening
Participation (becomes Sharing
Excellence, within ERA foundation)
 Future and
Emerging
Technologies as
separate label,
but activities
included in other
parts
 Fast Track to
Innovation
 Access to Risk
Finance
(covered under
InvestEU
programme)
European Innovation
Council (building on EIC
pilot)
Implementation - instruments
 Research and Innovation
Actions
 Innovation Actions
 ERC frontier research
 Training and mobility
actions
 Programme co-fund
actions
 coordination and support
actions
 inducement prizes
 recognition prizes
 public procurements
 ERA Chairs
 Twinning
 Teaming
 Policy Support Facility
 Pre-commercial procurements (PCP)
and Public procurement of innovative
solutions (PPI) (becomes Coordinated
innovation procurement)
 SME Instrument (integrated into EIC
Accelerator and transition activities)
 Future and Emerging Technologies
(FET)Open (becomes EIC Pathfinder)
 Future and Emerging Technologies
(FET)Flagships (incorporated within
mission concept)
 Support to Joint Programming
Initiative, ERA-NET, Contractual
Public Private Partnerships,
Institutionalised public-private
partnerships (Art. 187) and
Institutionalised public-public
partnerships (Art. 185): incorporated
within European Partnerships, with
strong criteria
 Missions
 EIC pathfinder
 EIC accelerator
Implementation – concepts
 Key Enabling
Technologies
 Gender Equality
 Ethics standards
 International cooperation (new criteria)
 Strategic planning – widened to include
R&I activities from other funding
programmes
 Governance
46
Optimising delivery is also key to achieve higher impact and further simplification139
.
When properly designed, the Rules for Participation ensure legal certainty for participants
and contribute to overall coherence in terms of implementation. Simplification remains a
continuing endeavour in Horizon Europe, building on the achievements of Horizon 2020,
which reduced the administrative burden and costs for applicants, and made it more attractive
for newcomers and SMEs through new elements like its funding model (single
reimbursement rate and a flat rate for indirect costs), the Participant Portal, and e-signatures.
Beneficiaries and stakeholders have reacted very positively140
.
Impact depends ultimately on the dissemination and exploitation of R&I data and
results, and it needs to be effectively captured and communicated141
. An ambitious and
comprehensive dissemination and exploitation strategy will increase the availability of R&I
data and results and accelerate their uptake to boost the overall impact of the Programme. The
strategy will move from a focus on individual projects to analyses of portfolio of R&I results
in key policy areas and will further endorse Open Access policy to incentivise the
exploitation of R&I results. In particular, clusters of mature R&I results will be exploited in
synergy with other EU programmes to foster their uptake at national and regional level,
maximising the European innovation potential. This will be complemented by effective R&I
communication and outreach campaigns that build trust and engage citizens.
Table 6 Lessons learnt from the Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020 and from the Stakeholder Consultation
What do we have now? What did we learn?
Strategic
planning
The priority-setting process is defined in
multiannual Work Programmes142
(WP). The WPs
identify the priorities in calls for proposals. They
allow some flexibility to respond to new
developments143
. The strategic planning process
builds on: Scoping Papers developed by the
Commission; foresight; targeted consultations of
industry, academia and civil society; and input
from experts (Advisory Groups). The WPs are
adopted by Commission Decision, in consultation
with Member State representatives in the 14
configurations of the Programme Committee.
The strategic planning process improved the
intelligence base underpinning priority-setting,
and made the focus of the programme more in
line with stakeholders needs. Nonetheless, the
translation of high-level challenges and objectives
into specific calls and topics is not always clear,
while the transparency in the WP formulation
process and the participation of stakeholders/and
citizens/CSOs in agenda-setting were identified as
areas for improvement.
139
See also Annex 11 on the simplification checklist.
140
European Commission (2016), Report on the Horizon 2020 Simplification Survey.
141
LAB-FAB-APP, Investing in the European future we want, Lamy High Level Group Report (2017), p.22.
142
This is complemented by separate Work Programmes for the European Research Council, the Euratom, the Joint
Research Centre, and the Strategic Innovation Agenda for the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT).
143
For instance, an emergency procedure to swiftly allocate funds to a particular purpose can be activated through WP
updates, as happened in Horizon 2020 to tackle the outbreaks of Ebola and Zika.
47
What do we have now? What did we learn?
The
single
set
of
rules
The single set of rules (i.e. the Rules for
Participation and dissemination of results) implies
that the same rules are applied in all parts of the
programme, regardless of the implementing body
(Commission, Executive Agencies, Joint
Undertakings). Only a very limited number of
derogations from the Rules for Participation exist,
when duly justified, e.g. for specific operating
needs of public-to-public partnerships (Art. 185
TFEU) and public-private partnerships (Art. 187
TFEU)144
. The Common Support Centre (CSC)
harmonises implementation of the rules across all
implementing actors.
The single set of rules and its harmonised
implementation via the CSC are widely seen by
beneficiaries as advantageous, contributing to
increased legal certainty, coherence and
simplification of the rules, though some partners
perceived it as a loss of flexibility compared to
FP7145
. Moreover, Member States have repeatedly
expressed their wish to include Art. 185 TFEU
initiatives under the the Participant Guarantee
Fund146
, which does not currently cover them.
The
funding
model
The rules concerning the contribution of the EU to
eligible costs do not differentiate between
organisation categories or types of activities (in
contrast to the FP7 funding model, which used a
complex matrix of organisation categories and
activity types). Its main features are a single
reimbursement rate for direct costs (up to 100% of
eligible costs for Research and Innovation Actions,
and up to 70% for Innovation Actions147
) and a
single flat rate for indirect costs (25% is applied to
the direct eligible costs148
).
The funding model has not led to a significant
change in funding intensity149
. The funding model
is a simplification measure that allows for
flexibility and that has mobilised and largely
satisfied stakeholders150
. The overall funding rate
is on average 70% of total project eligible costs
(both direct and indirect). In a simplification
survey151
, 78% of respondents appreciated the
single reimbursement rate.
Simplified
forms
of
grants
Horizon 2020 features a simplified cost
reimbursement system with enhanced use of unit
costs152
, flat-rates and lump sums, while actual cost
reimbursement (i.e. costs actually incurred by
beneficiaries) is used still for the majority of the
budget. Unit costs are used for specific types of
personnel costs (i.e. for average personnel costs
and SME owners without a salary) and other direct
costs (i.e. internal invoices), while indirect costs
are covered by a single flat-rate. Lump sums, at the
start of Horizon 2020, were used for small-sized
projects (e.g. Phase 1 of the SME Instrument). In
the 2018-20 Work Programme, pilot actions were
launched for testing lump sum project funding for
"mainstream" collaborative R&I projects.
While beneficiaries express preference for
actually incurred costs, a number of financial
complexities are inherent to this model (e.g.
calculation of the monthly hourly rate, additional
remuneration). Moreover, reimbursement of
actual costs focuses attention on justification of
costs, and not on the expected impact as in the
case of lump-sum funding. Further simplification
of the actual cost reimbursement system is
necessary, in particular for personnel costs. The
European Court of Auditors153
also proposed that
the post 2020 Framework Programme assesses
the need for further use of simplified cost options
such as lump sum project funding and prizes.
144
At the request of the European Parliament during inter-institutional negotiations, the scope of derogations were set out in
the RfP for Art. 187 TFEU initiatives while for Art. 185 TFEU initiatives, these are laid down in the respective basic acts.
145
Interim Evaluation of the SESAR Joint Undertaking (2014-2016) operating under Horizon 2020, p. 53.
146
Since 2007, two Participant Guarantee Funds were created (EU and Euratom) to protect from non-recovery of sums due
to the Union and to allow ongoing projects to continue in case of default of one of the beneficiaries.
147
Non-profit organisations are reimbursed 100% also in Innovation Actions.
148
Except subcontracting financial support to third parties, and in-kind contributions not used on the beneficiary's premises.
149
The following types of actual costs can be declared as eligible: personnel costs, sub-contracting, purchase of goods,
services or works (incl. travel costs), financial support to third parties and costs incurred by third parties.
150
European Commission (2017), Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020, SWD(2017)
151
European Commission (2016), Report on Horizon 2020 simplification survey.
152
The Marie Skłodowska Curie Actions are fully funded by a set of unit costs.
153
The European Court of Auditors (2018) “A contribution to simplification of EU research programme beyond Horizon
2020”
48
What do we have now? What did we learn?
Grants
and
financial
instruments
More than 90% of the Horizon 2020 support is
grant based, while the rest is provided with
financial instruments (i.e. debt or equity) through
the European Investment Bank (InnovFin)154
. Pre-
commercial public procurement (PCP), public
procurement for innovation (PPI) and inducement
prizes represent only a limited share of the Horizon
2020 budget.
Only a small number of firms receiving Horizon
2020 grants benefitted from Horizon 2020
financial instruments. Extremely few companies
taking part in Horizon 2020 obtained investments
for scaling up from InnovFin. This points to a
potential lack of integration between the grant and
non-grant based instruments at different stages of
the innovation cycle but also to limitations of
intermediated risk-sharing mechanism where the
initial risk is to be fully borne by the Union due to
market risk-aversion155
.
Proposal
evaluation
and
selection
Major investment decisions are taken at the stage
of evaluation and selection of proposals. The
system, based on independent expert judgement
ensures that the selected projects are the best. The
approach ensures maximum coherence across the
different implementing bodies, based on three
award criteria against which proposals are
evaluated: Excellence; Impact; and Quality and
efficiency of the implementation156
.
The Horizon 2020 proposal evaluation and
selection process is generally highly regarded.
Still, some stakeholders asked for more
transparency, found the quality of evaluation
feedback received uneven, and considered that the
evaluation experts sometimes appeared to lack the
appropriate expertise157
. To increase efficiency in
relation to over-subscription, two-stage calls for
proposals were identified as good practice.
Ex-ante
and
ex-post
audits
The general rules related to the management and
implementation of projects are detailed in the
Model Grant Agreement. Beneficiaries are bound
by the grant agreement they sign with the
Commission. The audit and control system seeks
an appropriate balance between trust and control,
taking into account administrative burden for
participants. The Horizon 2020 audit strategy is
based on the financial audit of a representative
sample of expenditure, and is complemented by a
selection based on risk assessment
The Common Support Centre strengthened the
corporate approach in implementing the
programme and in auditing projects. However,
some Joint Undertakings expressed the need of
additional direct audit coverage and considered
the common representative sample as not
sufficient enough for their needs, leading to a
potential increase of audit burden towards the
Horizon 2020 beneficiaries.
Dissemination
and
exploitation
Throughout Horizon 2020, specific calls for
proposals, coordination and support actions and
public procurement provide targeted assistance to
projects in order to optimise the dissemination and
exploitation of their research results. To further
assist project consortia, the Commission provides
tailor-made support services, e.g. the Common
Exploitation Booster, the Common Dissemination
Booster and the Innovation Radar.
Beneficiaries develop activities for better
dissemination and exploitation but results are still
not fully accessible to all relevant stakeholders
and this represents a barrier to knowledge
circulation and to innovation uptake. The uneven
exploitation capacity among beneficiaries hinders
market uptake. Moreover, feedback from R&I
projects into policy-making must be
strengthened158
.
154
European Commission (2017), Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020, SWD(2017) 220, book, p. 140.
155
Ibid. p. 84.
156
For the ERC, only the Excellence criterion applies. Under Innovation Actions in Horizon 2020, Impact has a higher
weight.
157
European Commission (2017), Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020, SWD(2017) 220, book, p. 236.
158
Ibid., p.200
49
What do we have now? What did we learn?
Delegation
To ensure a more modern, effective and dynamic
implementation, while reducing staffing by 5%
over 5 years159
, 75% of Horizon 2020 budget is
delegated to other EU bodies: Executive Agencies
(55%), Public Private Partnerships (Art. 187 TFEU
initiatives, 10%), the European Investment Bank
(4%), the European Institute of Technology (EIT,
4%) and Public-Public Partnerships (Art. 185
TFEU initiatives, 2%). The remaining 25% is
managed "in house" by the Commission.
The delegation to implementing bodies allows
Commission services to focus on policy-making
and strategic planning, while maximizing the
effective and efficient use of EU funding.
Executive Agency evaluations confirmed their
effectiveness and high value for money, with
administrative costs well below 5%160
.
4.1 The strategic planning process
Towards a strategic, impact-oriented and collegial planning process. The strategic
planning process will provide multi-annual strategic orientations for the Framework
Programme. It will be co-created in synergy with other EU programmes and policies, with the
intention of giving coherence to the entire portfolio of actions supported by the EU under the
MFF. The process will be streamlined into a single Commission document161
, applying to all
Programme components162
, including missions163
, European Partnerships, and the EIT
Strategic Innovation Agenda164
. This draft Strategic R&I Plan will be open for public
consultation, providing more involvement of EU Institutions and citizens than previously.
The Work Programmes will then be developed on the basis of the finalised Strategic Plan.
In addition, a simpler governance structure with ad-hoc and flexible advisory mechanisms
and Programme Committee configurations will improve the rationalisation and simplification
of the planning process, hence delivering results more efficiently and transparently.
What are the expected implications?
 Increased co-creation with other EU Institutions and citizens. While
in Horizon 2020 the priority setting was defined mostly with targeted
consultations, the new Strategic R&I Plan will be more open for general
public consultation, involving citizens, customers and end-users in
agenda-setting (co-design) for the Programme. In particular, the public
will have a say in the definition of R&I missions.
 Higher coherence within the Programme and enhanced synergies
with other EU Programmes. By bringing together all Commission
services and implementing bodies, the Strategic R&I Plan will ensure a
159
Commission’s proposals for the 2014-2020 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF).
160
PPMI (2016), Evaluation of the operation of ERCEA (2012-2015), final report; and PPMI (2016), Evaluation of the
operation of REA (2012-2015), final report.
161
This could also become a formal Commission document such as a Communication or Staff Working Document.
162
While the focus would be on the programmable Global Challenges and Industrial Competitiveness pillar, the relationship
between this and the bottom-up parts such as the EIC, including the results from these, would feed into the planning process.
163
This will reflect the expected impact of missions of up to 15 years, as appropriate.
164
In the case of the ERC, the Scientific Council will continue to establish the overall strategy, the Work Programme and the
proposal evaluation and selection. The JRC will also continue to establish its own Work Programme and strategy and receive
opinions from Member States through its Board of Governors. The EIC will also develop its own Work Programme. As
regards the EIT, the specific priority fields, financial needs, time schedule, selection process and implementation of KICs
will be defined in the EIT Strategic Innovation Agenda (SIA) as a separate legal base arising from the EIT founding
regulation. Proposals for future EIT KICs indicated in the EIT Strategic Innovation Agenda (SIA) should take into account
the outcomes of the strategic planning process.
50
stronger and more inclusive agenda-setting process, whereby the linkages
between EU Programmes would be strengthened, promoting faster
dissemination and uptake of R&I results.
 Better alignment of national and EU policies. Involvement of Member
States at early stage in the discussion on the strategic planning and in
consequences in the work programme preparation will help to build
better alignment between national and EU R&I activities.
4.2 The single set of rules
The principle of a single set of rules will continue with further improvements. In line
with the corporate approach towards a single-rule book and the preparation of the MFF, the
new EU Financial Regulation165
will be used as a common reference under which the rules
applicable to all EU funding programmes will be aligned. Derogations to the Financial
Regulation are kept to the minimum, but maintained in order to strike the right balance
between full harmonisation and specific needs of individual initiatives. The new Rules for
Participation allow other funding bodies, in particular bodies implementing Article 185 or
187 TFEU initiatives, to establish limited derogations in their basic acts in cases duly
justified by their specific needs. Furthermore, the Participant Guarantee Fund (renamed
Mutual Insurance Mechanism) will be extended to article 185 TFEU institutionalised
European Partnerships.
What alternatives were considered? Keeping Horizon 2020 status quo was considered for
predictability, but this would have been a missed opportunity to streamline the approach
taken on derogations (e.g. by maintaining the scope of the derogations for Art. 187 TFEU
initiatives separate from other institutionalised European Partnership Initiatives) and for
further simplification. Returning to FP7 Rules would provide more flexibility (e.g. by
allowing different funding bodies to adopt rules as they see fit), but this would result in
diverging rules, undermining simplification, legal certainty and hampering participation.
What are the expected implications?
 More simplification and reduced costs. The single set of rules
contributes to the rationalisation of the new Framework Programme. It
further harmonises and streamlines implementation methods, hence
simplifying the burden e.g. for preparing and submitting proposals. It
increases the accessibility and attractiveness of the programme, in
particular for applicants with limited resources, such as SMEs.
 Improved synergies with other EU programmes. As the number of
derogations to the Financial Regulation is reduced, EU programmes are
more likely to share common rules. This increases the possibility for
more targeted multi-faceted EU support, for instance through missions.
 Increased flexibility while maintaining legal certainty. The
Framework Programme will further improve the balance between
flexibility and legal certainty e.g. by allowing funding bodies to establish
rules that depart from those laid down in the Financial Regulation or in
165
European Commission (2017), Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the Union and its rules of
application, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/budget/library/biblio/documents/regulations/financial_regulation_2017_en.pdf
51
the Rules for Participation, in order to accommodate their specific
operating needs of individual initiatives in duly justified cases.
4.3 The funding model
Rules on funding rates will be maintained. Given the largely positive assessment of the
Horizon 2020 funding model, Horizon Europe will maintain the single reimbursement rate
for direct costs (up to 100% of the total eligible costs for Research and Innovation Actions
and up to 70% for Innovation Actions) and the single flat rate for indirect costs (25% is
applied to the total direct eligible costs)166
. Similarly, the funding rate will be a maximum -
this ceiling can be reduced for implementing specific actions, where duly justified (e.g. for
Euratom, or specific close-to-market calls).
What alternatives were considered? Alternatives to the continuation were considered,
mainly to reduce oversubscription167
, but maintaining attractiveness (i.e. broad involvement
from all sectors and disciplines) is more important. A lower funding rate for all projects (e.g.
75%) would allow a larger number of beneficiaries to benefit from EU support. However,
such an approach would decrease the overall attractiveness of the programme, especially for
non-profit entities and SMEs, hence affecting the principle of excellence. Different levels of
funding for industry compared to other types of beneficiaries were also considered, but this
approach would have a negative impact on industry participation, on simplification and on
time-to-grant. Alternative ways to address oversubscription are also identified in section 3.4
on critical mass.
What are the expected implications?
 Maintained programme attractiveness. Continuity in the funding
model enhances predictability, legal certainty, attractiveness and ease of
access to the Programme. Administrative burden would not increase. On
the contrary, a significant departure from the Horizon 2020 model would
force beneficiaries to adapt once again to a new system.
 Further simplification and more flexibility. The benefits of the current
funding model have already largely materialised168
: simple financial
management of projects; reduced complexity of the financial rules;
reduced financial error rate; acceleration of the granting processes.
 Reduced oversubscription. Extending the use of flexibility to establish
lower funding rates in the Work Programme can contribute to reducing
oversubscription for targeted calls or topics. The level of co-investment
will increase or at least remain the same as in Horizon 2020.
166
Except for subcontracting, financial support to third parties and unit costs for internally invoiced goods and service are
calculated in accordance with the usual cost accounting practices of the beneficiaries. Such unit costs shall be determined on
the basis of actual eligible direct and indirect costs.
167
As shown in the Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020, too much oversubscription could cause disillusionment and
dissatisfaction, leaving good proposals unfunded and to be resubmitted.
168
European Commission (2017), Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020, SWD(2017) 220, book, p. 79.
52
4.4 Forms of funding, including simplified cost options
The cost reimbursement scheme will be further simplified. The two current unit costs
(average personnel costs and internally invoiced goods and services) calculated in accordance
with the beneficiary's practices169
will be maintained. In addition, in view of simplification,
the unit cost for internally invoiced goods and services will allow for a higher acceptance of
the usual cost accounting practices. Beneficiaries will be able, under certain conditions170
, to
calculate such unit cost based on ‘actual direct and indirect costs', provided those costs are
recorded in their accounts. The need to further align programme provisions with
beneficiaries’ accounting practices was also a recommendation from the European Court of
Auditors171
. In order to lower administrative burden, an increased use will be made of lump-
sum project funding against fulfilment of activities – building on the experience from the
lump-sum pilot in Horizon 2020 – as well as other simplified forms of funding provided by
the new Financial Regulation, including other incentives based on contributions not linked to
costs, where appropriate.
As regards actual costs, the calculation of personnel costs will be further simplified and
aligned to the Financial Regulation. The distinction between basic and additional
remuneration will be removed and the Horizon 2020 capping on the additional remuneration
abolished. For beneficiaries with project-based remuneration172
, costs of personnel will be
eligible up to the remuneration that the person would be paid for the time worked in projects
funded by national schemes.
The system of in-kind contributions provided by third parties to beneficiaries will be
further aligned to the Financial Regulation: in-kind contributions against payment will be
treated and reimbursed under other budget categories according to the eligibility criteria for
actual costs. In addition, the calculation of in-kind contribution free-of-charge will be further
simplified: no distinction will be made if these resources are used on the premises of
beneficiaries or third parties and beneficiaries will no longer need to declare them, under
specific conditions, as receipts.
What alternatives were considered? Alternative simplified costs options were assessed
regarding rules for personnel costs, such as optional unit cost (hourly rate) or contributions
not linked to costs but were not found feasible. Fully relying on the Financial Regulation was
also considered, but such an approach would imply a significant departure from current
practices (lack of continuity) and would be negatively perceived by beneficiaries.
What are the expected implications?
 Lower administrative burden. The broader acceptance of beneficiaries’
usual cost accounting practices, the abolition of the additional
remuneration scheme, and the extended use of lump sum and output-
based funding significantly contributes to simplification, as they improve
and simplify reimbursement of actual costs, while providing flexibility.
In particular, the use of lump sums reduces substantially the reporting
requirements from beneficiaries during the lifetime of the project,
169
The acceptance of other cost items will be further defined in the model grant agreement, as in the current system.
170
These conditions (e.g. beneficiaries must be able to identify their actual eligible indirect costs) will be further developed
in the model grant agreement.
171
The European Court of Auditors (2018) “A contribution to simplification of EU research programme beyond Horizon
2020”
172
Project-based remuneration means remuneration that is linked to the participation of a person in projects, is part of the
beneficiary’s usual remuneration practices and is paid in a consistent manner.
53
shifting the focus of project monitoring from financial checks to
performance and content.
 Lower error rate. The further acceptance of the beneficiaries’ usual cost
accounting practices will reduce the error rate on issues that have
generated recurrent and repetitive errors under FP7 and Horizon 2020.
For example, the abolition of the additional remuneration scheme will
allow the beneficiaries to report their personnel cost with respect to their
usual accounting practices, whilst the current experience on auditing
lump sums has confirmed the low error rate on such transactions.
 More coherence with the Financial Regulation. An alignment of the
rules with other EU funding programmes will also allow the beneficiaries
to apply even more widely their usual accounting practices, as this
reduces the need to amend reporting models to the various (and
sometimes diverging) needs of each EU programme. This harmonisation
and further acceptance of the beneficiaries’ usual accounting practices
will reduce the administrative burden of the beneficiaries.
4.5 Grants, financial instruments and blended finance
Blended finance will help companies to scale up. The supply of flexible and agile funding
schemes is essential for innovators. Grants will continue for projects that are far from the
market, for example for basic research173
. Yet, projects that are closer to market may still
present a too high-risk profile, preventing them access to risk finance. Through the European
Innovation Council (EIC), the new Framework Programme will offer large-scale blended
funding (grants or reimbursable advance with equity or guarantees) to companies undertaking
such projects, for late stage innovation activities, but also for market deployment activities
such as pilot manufacturing, large trials or ensuring regulatory compliance174
, tailored to their
risk level and technological maturity. The overall purpose of blended finance shall be to
support high-risk innovations beyond the usual limits of grant-based research, where the risks
– whether technological, market or regulatory – cannot be borne by the market alone. By
combining grant-type funding with equity or guarantees under the EIC, the Programme will
hence bridge the financing gap between late stages of R&I and market uptake and
deployment, and will encourage investors and lenders to support innovative high-risk
projects, with a greater propensity to co-invest or to offer lower interest-rates and less
onerous requirements for collateral.
What alternatives were considered? While innovation at large will be reinforced by the
InvestEU single fund - providing indirect financial instruments carried out through the
European Investment Bank Group or other implementing partners, with a dedicated window
for R&I investments and specific products for innovative companies - financial
intermediaries (banks and investors) may remain averse to the residual risk they bear when
investing in high-risk innovative projects. To date, available private and corporate financing
remains small175
for late stage of innovation activities and market take-up for high-risk
breakthrough innovations, as financial institutions must limit their risks to maintain their
173
European Commission (2017), Reflection paper on the future of EU finances, p.26.
174
High-Level Group of Innovators (2018), Europe is back: accelerating breakthrough innovation.
175
Europe's innovators struggle to access risk finance above the €10 million range. PwC/CB Insights, Money Tree Report Q4
2017, p. 93. Funding rounds of companies above $100 million are five times higher in the US and Asia than Europe (p. 92).
54
market rating. There is hence a necessity for direct Union intervention. Providing only for
grant allows to start de-risk operations and attract private or corporate finance, but partially,
as some activities too close to market, including deployment and scale-up, may not be
covered by grants. Furthermore, the classical alternative of awarding blended finance to a
project by allocating grant-type funding (through the Framework Programme) and financial
instruments (through InvestEU) might not be fully adapted to the needs of risky breakthrough
innovators, who need to proceed to the market quickly.
Box : Examples of blended finance
National innovation agencies such as Vinnova, BPI France, Innovate UK and CDTI operate blended
finance in the form of grants in combination with soft loans and venture investments:
 A loan combined with a grant: the proportion of grant to loan depends on an assessment of the
riskiness of the innovation whose development the funding will support: the higher the risk, the
greater the grant component. This approach can be combined with the whole or partial write-off of
the loan if the development of the innovation fails for technical or commercial reasons; or the
reimbursement of part of the grant if the innovation succeeds.
 A conditional grant combined with a loan or equity: the payment of all or part of the grant is
conditional on the grantee obtaining at least a matching amount as a loan or an equity investment
(such as venture capital) from a lender or investor.
What are the expected implications?
 Raise availability of large-scale risk finance in Europe by providing
large tailor-made investments that combine EU support through grants
and blended finance, in addition to investment through support to equity
or guarantees.
 Increase leverage through active measures put in place for EU R&I
funding to stimulate private finance. For instance, proposals may also
be submitted by investors including public innovation agencies looking
for co-investment. A set of actions to improve ‘investment-readiness’ and
‘bankability’ will continue from the Horizon 2020 EIC Pilot in term of
coaching (InvestHorizon), and the EIC events aimed at matching
investor/investee and awareness raising.
 Increase risk taking for breakthrough innovation by de-risking
technical or financial failure.
4.6 Proposal evaluation and selection
The key elements of the proposal evaluation and selection system will be maintained,
including the use of independent experts, and the use of three award criteria (based on
excellence, impact and quality and efficiency of the implementation) across the board, with
differentiation for the proposals for ERC frontier research actions, which will continue to
apply only the excellence criterion and for the EIC’s Accelerator whose evaluation will
include valuation of risk. Small improvements in order to address lessons learnt from the
Horizon 2020 Interim Evaluation (e.g. to improve quality of feedback to applicants,
differentiated expert panels, and multi-stage and multi-step procedures, gender balance in
evaluation panels and the integration of the gender dimension in R&I content) can be ensured
throughout the implementation of the Work Programmes. To increase the societal relevance
55
and applicability of proposals, greater use of civil society expertise should be encouraged in
appropriate evaluation panels176
. In particular for missions and the EIC, the Commission may
select proposals based not only on the merit of individual proposals, but also in relation to the
overall coherence of the portfolio of projects and other Union policy objectives. While the
main principles would be spelled out in advance in the Rules, the Work Programmes will
provide further details on the application of the award criteria depending on the objectives of
the calls and instruments (e.g. the aspects to be taken into account under the evaluation
procedures).
Box 11 Access conditions to the Framework Programme
For collaborative projects, the consortium must include at least three independent legal entities established in a
different Member State or associated country, and with at least one of them established in a Member State,
unless otherwise provided for in the work programme. For other specific activities (i.e. EIC, ERC, co-fund, or
MSCA training and mobility actions), different minimum conditions apply. Additional eligibility criteria may be
laid down in the work programme. In case of actions carried out outside the Union using and/or generating
classified information, a security agreement have to be concluded between the Union and the third country in
which the activity is conducted.
What alternatives were considered? A possible alternative was the exclusion from the
Rules for Participation of these provisions, relying instead on the full flexibility offered by
the Financial Regulation (leaving the criteria and other provisions for the Work
Programmes). Although this would maximise flexibility, it risks a divergence of rules in
practice, jeopardise smooth business processes, and lead to unpredictability for applicants.
Specifying in full detail the criteria for evaluation and selection of proposals in the Rules
would ensure a high degree of coherence across the programme and a measure of stability for
applicants but would represent a significant loss of flexibility.
What are the expected implications?
 Achieve a balance between flexibility and coherence. The current
system has been shown to work well, and there is no evidence for the
need for a fundamental change. However, missions and the EIC require a
proactive portfolio management to reach their objectives, calling for
flexibility to ensure overall consistence. Providing the main ground rules
in the legislation, while permitting adaptability via the Work Programme,
has proven in the current and previous programmes to ensure coherence
across the board, predictability for applicants, and smooth business
processes, while maintaining a strong degree of flexibility and the
possibility for experimentation.
 Maintain a strong focus on excellence and performance. Streamlined
but adaptable rules will help applicants design well-focussed proposals,
and will lead to processes in which the best proposals are identified and
selected as quickly as possible.
4.7 Ex-ante and ex-post audits
A wider cross-reliance on audits and assessments – including with other EU
programmes – is envisaged. The increased alignment to the Financial Regulation provide an
176
Martinuzzi, A. et al. (2016), Network Analysis of Civil Society Organisations’ participation in the EU Framework
Programmes, Vienna and Leicester.
56
opportunity for audit synergies via Systems and Processes Audit. Indeed Systems and
Processes Audit avoid duplication of audits, since there will be a common audit approach on
common financial rules and hence a more harmonised and simple audit approach. By cross
relying on audits of beneficiaries among the various EU programmes, the need for additional
auditing will gradually be reduced. In addition, cross-reliance has been explicitly considered
in other elements of assurance (e.g. Systems and Processes audits and audit on transactions)
resulting into a reduced need for financial audits on beneficiaries with positive results in their
Systems audits. Moreover, cross-reliance could be part of the conditions under which the
obligation for the beneficiary to submit a certificate on the financial statement can be waived.
Further efforts in the area of ex-ante controls through implementing additional automated
checks and tools for simpler entry of the data, will have a positive impact where beneficiaries
need to submit information to Commission. Integration of ex-post audit support into the
Participant Portal will enable better view on the progress of the audits to the beneficiaries,
allow completely electronic exchange of documents and notifications, all that can anticipate
additional reduction of burden and costs to beneficiaries.
What alternatives were considered? The concept of cross-reliance on other audits or
assessments with other EU programmes was considered, however its effectiveness depend on
the homogeneity of the rules between programmes. Identifying possible common benchmarks
/ principles or best practises for a broader acceptance of usual cost accounting practices of
beneficiaries from different sectors and different countries can be further explored as a
second alternative in view of moving a step forward from a ‘rule-based’ approach towards a
‘principle-based’ one. However, it should be noted that such a challenging alternative would
be possible only once having taken into account the eligibility criteria of the different
programmes, in the particular context of the absence of any international standard in that
matter.
What are the expected implications?
 Reduce administrative burden. Compared to Horizon 2020, the
Systems and Processes Audit (SPA) will lead to a reduction of the audit
burden of the beneficiary that has been positively assessed. A beneficiary
which is positively assessed via a Systems and Processes Audit, receives
a long term assurance that their usual accounting practices are compatible
with the Horizon Europe’s eligibility requirements, whilst the need for
further auditing ceases to exist. The introduction of Systems and
Processes Audit is a holistic audit approach, resulting into an overall
assurance which when achieved, results into a significant reduction of the
audit burden.
 Increase simplification for beneficiaries of EU funds. The Systems
and Processes Audit (SPA) allows for more synergies with the Audits
carried out under the shared management mode (e.g. especially those
performed under the European Regional Development Fund). With this
cross-reliance between audits, the Commission increases efficiency and
effectiveness, avoids duplication of audit efforts and initiates a process
where auditors within the Commission can exchange data and reviews.
57
4.8 Policy and rules regarding Dissemination and Exploitation
Horizon Europe will provide dedicated support to dissemination (including through open
access to scientific publications), exploitation and knowledge diffusion actions. Strong
emphasis will be placed on portfolios of research results for targeted diffusion to end-users,
citizens, public administrations, academia, civil society organisations, industry and policy-
makers, including through the use of data intelligence tools for harvesting knowledge and
providing innovative data uses and visualisation.
More emphasis is put on to promoting the exploitation of R&I results, in particular in
the EU. Horizon 2020 provides for a "best effort" to exploit results and, if indicated in the
Work Programme, for additional exploitation obligations. In Horizon Europe, the "best
effort" approach to exploit must have a particular focus on the EU. As in Horizon 2020, the
Work Programme can specify additional obligations if justified. The beneficiaries must
include in their proposals a dissemination and exploitation plan that must be updated during
and after the end of the project, to ensure a continued focus on the exploitation of results.
What alternatives were considered? Alternatives for better exploitation of R&I results that
were considered range from not having specific rules at all, to having more stringent rules
across the board. Having a more stringent general rule was considered unjustified, as there
may be valid reasons why exploitation occurs elsewhere (the EU often still benefits from
such exploitation). Moreover, such a broad approach would deter industrial and international
participants. Having no rules at all, and leaving the full choice of exploitation location to
market forces was considered insufficent to safeguard the appropriate exploitation of results
for the benefit of the Union.
What are the expected implications?
 More economic and societal impact. By fostering better exploitation of
R&I results, a more EU-focussed exploitation increases the accessibility
of high quality content, while ensuring that the benefits serve the EU.
They aim at better ensuring the right balance between the pursuit of EU
strategic interests in terms of competitiveness and job creation on one
hand, and attractiveness for industry and openness to international
participation on the other. This will assist market uptake, boost impact,
and increase the innovation potential of results supported by EU funding.
 Some additional reporting requirements. The possibility of additional
reporting specifically on exploitation or impact demonstration and related
administrative burden will be weighed against the need to have accurate
information regarding the exploitation of results beyond the lifetime of
the projects.
 Higher market uptake, impact and innovation potential. Union
support will ensure a constant stream of knowledge and innovations
towards the scientific community, industry, policy-makers, and the
public. Dedicated support services developed by the Commission,
combined with the strengthened exploitation plans of the beneficiaries,
will satisfy both the legitimate interest of beneficiaries and the interest of
the public.
58
4.9 Delegation to Executive Agencies
The Commission will increase the share of the budget delegated to Executive Agencies,
subject to positive outcome of the mandatory Cost Benefit Analysis. Given the new elements
in the scope of the new Framework Programme (e.g. missions and the EIC) and the increased
budget to be delegated, the reshaping of the portfolios of the existing Executive Agencies will
be needed along with exploring the possibility of establishing additional ones. Activities with
substantial policy content will be excluded from delegation to Executive Agencies while, in
parallel, the effective feedback of R&I data and results from Executive Agencies to the
Commission will be reinforced, in line with the dissemination and exploitation strategy, to
strengthen the inputs for policy-making.
What alternatives were considered? For the implementation of the new Framework
Programme, the following alternative options were considered: an 'in-house' scenario
(reintegration of part of the programme management in the Commission); maintaining the
current status as in Horizon 2020; and full delegation of all programme's activities. The in-
house scenario would imply returning to previous management modes that entailed
comparably higher administrative costs177
. Specific scenarios for the implementation of the
EIC activities through a dedicated Executive Agency are described in the Annex 8 on the
EIC.
What are the expected implications?
 Reduce administrative costs. Independent evaluations178
show that
delegation to Executive Agencies brings substantial savings in
administrative expenditure. The administrative costs of the programme
implementation by Executive Agencies in Horizon 2020 are around 2-3%
of the operational budget, which is well below the target of 5%.
 Improve synergies with other programmes. Executive agencies
manage parts of different programmes that complement each other179
:
rationalising their portfolio can help aligning and integrating objectives
of different programmes, for instance better linking R&I results to
market deployment.
 Enhance focus on performance. Executive Agencies have reached and
maintained very high levels of satisfaction among their beneficiaries180
,
while at the same time successfully managing a larger number of projects
than in FP7. This consistent high performance allows the Commission to
focus on strategic priorities.
177
The administrative expenditure in FP7 represented 5.16% of the total budget of the programme (indirect actions). The
Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020 shows that, over the first three years, its administrative expenditure is below the 5%
target and is particularly low for the executive agencies.
178
PPMI (2016), Evaluation of the operation of ERCEA (2012-2015), final report; and PPMI (2016), Evaluation of the
operation of REA (2012-2015), final report.
179
For example, INEA implements the Connecting Europe Facility Programme (large energy, transport, digital
infrastructures projects) as well as Horizon 2020 Societal Challenges.
180
Up to 82% for REA and up to 93% for ERCEA of the beneficiaries are satisfied with the performance of the agencies.
See PPMI (2016), Evaluation of the operation of ERCEA (2012-2015), final report; and PPMI (2016), Evaluation of the
operation of REA (2012-2015), final report.
59
4.10 Overall impact on the objectives of the MFF
The delivery tools of the Framework Programme will contribute to the cross-cutting
objectives of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), notably simplification, flexibility,
coherence, synergies and focus on performance. Overall, the Framework Programme is
expected to deliver large benefits that outweigh costs, in particular for the Programme's focus
on performance, its flexibility, as well as its internal coherence and its synergy with other
programmes (see Table 8).
Other MFF Programmes are closely linked to the new EU R&I Programme: synergies
and complementarities between them should be enhanced (see Table 7 and Annex 7). Current
Horizon 2020 beneficiaries also benefited from other EU programmes, e.g. the European
Structural and Investment funds, EU Health Programme, and COSME181
.
Table 7 Synergies and complementarities with other MFF proposals
MFF Programmes Links to new Framework Programme
Common
Agricultural Policy
(CAP)
A key priority for the ‘second pillar’ of the post-2020 CAP182
is an increased focus
on fostering innovation, in particular through wider diffusion of innovation, better
access to new technologies and investment support. This will involve strengthening
the links between agricultural and rural development policies and R&I in support to
the development of knowledge and innovation systems. The development of an
ambitious, integrated Strategic Research and Innovation Plan will define priorities of
the Framework Programme in the area of food, nutrition security and sustainable
management of natural resources with a view to develop synergies between the
Framework Programme and the CAP. The latter will promote the use,
implementation and deployment of innovative solutions, including those stemming
from R&I projects funded by Horizon Europe.
European Maritime
and Fisheries Fund
The post-2020 European Maritime and Fisheries Fund will provide important support
to the implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy and the Maritime Policy. This
programme will focus on creating the conditions for boosting competitiveness in the
blue economy, especially through close-to-market innovation, access to marine
knowledge and by ensuring a safe and secure maritime space. Strong and sustainable
blue growth requires enhanced synergies with wider EU intervention. The
Framework Programme is of particular relevance in this respect as it strengthens the
knowledge base from which new, innovative products, processes and services can
emerge in the maritime economy. The EMFF will support the rolling out of novel
technologies and innovative products, processes and services, in particular those
resulting from Horizon Europe in the fields of marine and maritime policy.
Connecting Europe
Facility (CEF)
The post-2020 CEF will prioritise the large-scale roll-out and deployment of
innovative new technologies and solutions which result from projects in transport,
energy and telecommunications funded by the Framework Programmes. Horizon
Europe will support all stages in the R&I chain, including non-technological and
social innovation, and closer-to-market activities with innovative financial
instruments. Through the Strategic Research and Innovation Plan, Horizon Europe
will support R&I on transport, energy and mobility, in particular through the Climate,
Energy and Mobility cluster, as well as digital technologies. The exchange of
information and data between Horizon Europe and CEF projects will be facilitated,
for example by highlighting technologies from the Framework Programme with a
181
A total of 86% respondents to the cluster-based public consultation on EU funds in the area of investment, research &
innovation, SMEs and single market reported having experience with the Horizon 2020 program. From this sample, the
respondents reported having experience also with European Structural and Investment funds (22%), EU Health Programme
(9%), COSME (8.%).
182
The ‘second pillar’ of the CAP focuses on rural development and complements the system of direct payments to farmers
and measures to manage agricultural markets (the so-called ‘first pillar’)
60
high market readiness that could be further deployed through CEF.
Digital Europe
Programme (DEP)
DEP focuses on large-scale digital capacity and infrastructure building in High
Performance Computing, Artificial Intelligence, Cybersecurity and advanced digital
skills aiming at wide uptake and deployment across Europe of critical existing or
tested innovative digital solutions. While several thematic areas addressed by both
programmes converge, DEP will mainly focus on roll-out and deployment activities
outside research and innovation, whereas the Framework Programme will focus on
investing in the entire spectrum from research to market. R&I needs related to digital
aspects are identified and established in Horizon Europe strategic R&I plan, while
DEP capacities and infrastructures are made available to the research and innovation
community, including for activities supported through Horizon Europe such as
testing, experimentation and demonstration across all sectors and disciplines.
Erasmus The post-2020 Erasmus will continue to support mobility, cooperation and policy
initiatives in the field of higher education. This includes support for integration of
education, research and innovation, development of competences and inter-
disciplinary, transferable, digital and entrepreneurial skills in forward-looking fields
or disciplines and support to higher education institutions, research centres,
businesses and civil society to contribute to innovation. The Framework Programme
will continue to invest in the people behind research and innovation, strengthening
their skills, training and career development and fostering the transfer of knowledge
and cooperation between research-performing organisations and providing incentives
for universities embracing open science policy. Horizon Europe will complement the
Erasmus programme's support for the European Universities initiative, in particular
its research dimension, as part of developing new, joint and integrated long-term and
sustainable strategies on education, research and innovation based on trans-
disciplinary and cross-sectoral approaches to make the knowledge triangle a reality.
European Defence
Fund
Complementarity and synergies with the European Defence Fund will be ensured, so
that results under civil R&I also benefit defence R&I and vice-versa.
European Regional
Development Fund
(ERDF)
The post-2020 European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) will provide an
important part of EU funds for R&I. The post-2020 ERDF may feature increased
funds dedicated to the take-up of results and the rolling out of novel technologies and
innovative solutions from past Framework Programme and Horizon Europe. It will
continue to invest in actions that build R&I capacities of actors aimed at participating
in the Framework Programme or other internationally competitive R&I programmes.
Holders of Seal of Excellence183
labels from the Framework Programme may be
funded by Member States and regions, where relevant to the local context and smart
specialisation strategies, including with resources from any Union shared-
management programme. The same applies for national funding of joint programmes
co-funded under the Framework Programme. In addition, budget from share
management could be voluntary transferred for implementation to central managed
programmes. Part of the Framework Programme will continue to support low-
performing countries in R&I, in the context of strengthening the European Research
Area. Smart specialisation strategies will continue to promote innovation based on
the strengths of each region and be a basis for ESI Funds investments in R&I and the
innovation eco-systems.
European Social
Fund+ (ESF)
The post-2020 European Social Fund will continue to invest in human capital and
skills development, as well as in social innovation. The ESF+ can mainstream and
scale up new and innovative curricula for education and training programmes
developed in R&I projects under the Framework Programme. Holders of the Seal of
Excellence may be funded by the ESF+ to support activities promoting human capital
development in research and innovation with the aim of strengthening the European
Research Area. The Health strand of the ESF+ will mainstream innovative
183
The Seal of Excellence scheme, launched in 2015, is a quality label recognising proposals submitted to Horizon 2020 calls
which were evaluated as high-quality but were not funded due to lack of available budget. The holder of a Seal of Excellence
can approach other sources of funding (regional, national, private, public) with this quality label.
61
technologies and new business models and solutions, in particular those resulting
from the Framework Programmes.
Neighbourhood,
Development and
International
Cooperation
Instrument
The future Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument
will merge several EU external instruments existing in the 2014-2020 period184
. The
broad instrument will include a prominent neighbourhood window, strong focus on
migration including a 20% unallocated envelope and provisioning for Macro-
Financial Assistance.
There are inherent complementarities between Horizon Europe and the future
Instrument, for example in so far as they both contribute towards the EU's
international commitments such as the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development185
,
the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, or the renewed EU-Africa Partnership
among others. The Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation
Instrument will continue to complement the Framework Programme by building
research and innovation capacity (at individual, organisational or institutional levels)
including through research infrastructures in third countries and regions. It will
support the diffusion and uptake of innovations, the development of human capital
and market access for technological solutions developed through collaborative
research and innovation.
Innovation Fund
under the EU
Emissions Trading
System
The Innovation Fund under the EU ETS will support low-carbon technology
demonstration projects in the EU. It has been established by the revised EU ETS
Directive and it will use the proceeds from the auctioning of at least 450 million
allowances under the EU ETS, as well as leftovers from the current NER 300
programme. It will specifically target innovative low-carbon technology
demonstration projects in industry, renewable energy, energy storage, carbon capture
and storage (CCS) or industrial carbon capture and use (CCU) to be developed via
the R&I window of the (InvestEU Programme) in addition to resources deployed
therein. Horizon Europe will fund the development and demonstration of
technologies that can deliver on the EU decarbonisation, energy and industrial
transformation objectives.
Internal Security
Fund and
Integrated Border
Management Fund
The future Security and Border programmes will contribute to ensuring a high level
of security in the Union, inter alia by tackling terrorism and radicalisation, organised
crime and cybercrime, and by supporting the effective implementation of the
European Integrated Border Management system. The programmes will support
Member States’ efforts in these areas, including by incentivising Member States to
take up and apply R&I results from the Framework Programme. The Framework
Programme will support R&I in the area of security, including border management,
in particular though the cluster on Resilience and Security. Potential complementary
actions can also be considered under Horizon Europe regarding research and
innovation for customs control equipment in view of the Union instrument for
financial support for customs control equipment (CCE).
InvestEU Fund The InvestEU Fund will include financial instruments in four separate policy
windows. An R&I thematic window will bundle financing activities that are closely
linked to the objectives of the R&I Framework Programme, and dedicated products
for innovative SMEs and mid-caps will be deployed through SME window. Blended
finance in the Framework Programme will be provided by the EIC to high-risk
market-creating innovations. Appropriate synergies with the new InvestEU
programme shall be established, in particular regarding budgetary guarantees and
leveraging Venture Capital funds supported by InvestEU.
Programme for
Environment and
The post-2020 LIFE programme will continue to act as a catalyst for implementing
EU environment and climate policy and legislation, including by taking up and
184
The future External Instrument will merge the following instruments: European Development Fund, Development
Cooperation Instrument; European Neighbourhood Instrument; Partnership Instrument for Cooperation with Third
Countries; European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights; Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace;
Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation, and the Common Implementing Rules post-2020.
185
See https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld
62
Climate Action
(LIFE)
applying R&I results from the Framework Programmes and help deploying them at
national and (inter-) regional scale. LIFE will continue to incentivise synergies with
Horizon Europe through the award of a bonus point during evaluation for proposals
which feature the uptake of Framework Programmes’ results. Horizon Europe will
contribute to tackling environmental challenges in particular through the clusters on
Health, Climate, Energy and Mobility and Food and Natural Resources by defining
relevant R&I activities in the Strategic Research and Innovation Plan.
Single Market
Programme,
including the
Competitiveness of
Enterprises and
SMEs Programme
(COSME)
The post-2020 COSME will address market failures that affect all SMEs and will
promote entrepreneurship and the creation of growth of companies. Under the
Framework Programme, the European Innovation Council (EIC) will directly support
the activities and scale-up of high-risk profile innovative start-ups, SMEs and mid-
cap firms, while the InvestEU programme will more broadly focus on R&I-driven
innovative companies. The Enterprise Europe Network as a corporate tool with its
Key Account Managers will continue to play a role in Business accelerator services
of the EIC aiming at providing beneficiaries with access to partners, investors, and
assistance (coaching, training, technical support).
63
Continued simplification will enhance user-friendliness. User-friendliness will mainly be
enhanced by maintaining the single set of rules, continuity of funding rates and new
simplifications such as the new simplified cost options, and the increased cross-reliance on
certified accounting systems. Moreover, the European Innovation Council will also act as a
one-stop-shop for innovators looking for funding, while also rationalising existing funding
schemes for innovation, and will be clearly and visibly branded as such. European
Partnerships will be opened up for all interested stakeholders. The Research Participant Portal
is already highly appreciated by stakeholders (as well as other Commission services,) and we
will further improve its design for the new Programme. Finally, a "toolbox" will be created to
provide a comprehensive overview of all available funding tools in the legal proposal.
Synergies will be enhanced through the revamped strategic planning process, which will
allow for identifying common objectives and common areas for activities (such a partnership
areas or mission areas) across different Multi-Annual Financial Framework programmes. It
will be open for public consultation, involving EU Institutions and citizens and end-users in
agenda-setting (co-design) for the Work Programme.
Internal coherence will be strengthened through a redesigned pillar structure. The
Framework Programme will not set objectives per pillar but at Programme-level. Each pillar
and programme part is expected to contribute to those objectives albeit to different degrees.
This will in turn ensure that each euro invested in one area will generate multiple impacts.
The Programme has the flexibility to easily adapt to emergencies or new priorities. The
strategic flexibility in the programming process will allow the Commission to react to urgent
needs and new priorities well beyond its start date in 2021. The Programme will be able to
shift budget allocations within and between pillars. Similarly, the strong cross-disciplinary,
cross-sector and cross-border nature of the Programme allow it to produce R&I results
relevant to changing circumstances.
Table 8 Contribution of Horizon Europe to the MFF cross-cutting objectives (compared to Horizon 2020)
Delivery for impact MFF cross-cutting objectives
Simplification
Flexibility
Coherence
Synergies
Focus
on
performance
Strategic planning 0 0 ++ + +
Single set of rules 0 + + + 0
Funding model 0 0 0 0 0
Forms of funding ++ + 0 0 0
Blended finance - ++ 0 + +
Proposal evaluation - + + 0 +
Ex-ante and ex-post audits + 0 + + 0
Dissemination & exploitation - 0 0 + ++
Delegation 0 0 0 + +
Note: +, ++, +++ correspond respectively to slight, moderate and significant improvement compared to a no-
policy change scenario. +/- correspond to a coexistence of positive and negative impacts. – indicates a slight
negative impact. 0 means no significant change.
64
5 HOW WILL PERFORMANCE BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED?
The monitoring and evaluation framework of the new Framework Programme186
will have
three main building blocks:
 Annual monitoring of the programme performance: tracking of performance
indicators in the short, medium and longer-term according to key impact pathways
towards Programme objectives, based on baselines and targets where possible;
 Continuous collection of programme management and implementation data;
 Two fully-fledged (meta)-evaluations of the programme at mid-term and ex-post
(upon completion).
Figure 10 Tracking performance of the programme along key impact pathways towards impact categories
translating the Programme's general objectives
Impact pathways, and related key impact pathway indicators, will structure the annual
monitoring of the programme performance (see Annex 6) towards its objectives. The
objectives translate into three complementary impact categories (each being tracked along
several pathways), which reflect the non-linear nature of R&I investments:
1. Scientific impact: related to supporting the creation and diffusion of high-quality
new knowledge, skills, technologies and solutions to global challenges;
2. Societal impact: related to strengthening the impact of research and innovation in
developing, supporting and implementing EU policies, and support the uptake of
innovative solutions in industry and society to address global challenges;
3. Economic impact: related to fostering all forms of innovation, including
breakthrough innovation, and strengthening market deployment of innovative
solutions
The impact pathways will be time-sensitive: they will distinguish between the short
(typically as of one year, when the first projects are completed), medium (typically as of three
years, and for the interim evaluation) and long term (typically as of five years, and for the ex-
post evaluation). The impact pathway indicators will contain both qualitative and quantitative
information, the availability of which will depend on the state of implementation of the
Programme. These indicators serve as proxies to report on the progress made towards each
type of impact at Programme level. Individual programme parts will contribute to these
indicators to a different degree and through different mechanisms. Additional indicators
186
Including Missions and European Partnership Initiatives
Strengthen the impact of research
and innovation in developing,
supporting and implementing EU
policies, and support the uptake of
innovative solutions in industry and
society to address global challenges
Create and diffuse high-quality new
knowledge, skills, technologies and
solutions to global challenges
Societal
Impact
Scientific
Impact
Economic
Impact
1. Creating high-quality new knowledge
2. Strengthening human capital in R&I
3. Fostering diffusion of knowledge and Open Science
7. Creating more and better jobs
8. Generating innovation-based growth
9. Leveraging investments in R&I
4. Addressing EU policy priorities through R&I
5. Delivering benefits and impact through R&I missions
6. Strengthening the uptake of innovation in society
Foster all forms of innovation,
including breakthrough
innovation, and strengthening
market deployment of
innovative solutions
65
might be used to monitor individual programme parts when relevant and commensurate.
These indicators proposed (see Annex 6) reflect the lessons learnt from the interim evaluation
of Horizon 2020: all Horizon 2020 indicators related to outputs, results and impacts are
maintained but streamlined and further specified to cover the whole programme. The
management and implementation data is still collected but is separated from the key
performance indicators, as illustrated in Table 9.
Table 9 Monitoring and Evaluation Frameworks
Horizon 2020 The new Framework Programme
3 headline indicators not directly attributable
to the programme187
55 Horizon 2020 Key performance and Cross-
Cutting issues indicators:
 27 are related to management and
implementation data (e.g. funding,
participation)
 28 are related to outputs, results or
impacts, out of which:
o none is related to the programme
as a whole (covering only
programme parts)
o 9 relate to publications
o 7 relate to intellectual property
rights and innovations
o 4 relate to leveraged funding
o 4 relate to researchers’ mobility
and access to infrastructures
 All Horizon 2020 indicators related to outputs,
results and impacts are maintained but streamlined and
further specified to cover the whole Programme
 Management and implementation data are still
collected and made available in close-to-real time through
Dashboard but are not part of “performance indicators”
 Key indicators are set at Programme level
according to the Programme objectives and are attributable
to the Programme
 Key indicators are classified according to 9 key
impact pathways, for tracking impact through short,
medium and long term indicators – for more accurate
reporting over time
 Higher reliance on external data sources, qualitative
data and automated data tracking to minimise burden on
beneficiaries
 Possibility for programme part or action specific
indicators (but not in the legal base)
The micro-data behind the key impact pathway indicators will be collected in a
centrally managed and harmonised way, with minimal reporting burden. This will be
achieved, for example, by collecting at proposal stage the unique identifiers of applicants, by
sourcing data automatically from existing external public and private databases also after
project’s end (e.g. data on publications, patents, employment and turnover), by adopting new
ICT tools (e.g. text mining) and by using alternative primary data sources (e.g. expert
reviews). Longer-term impact indicators may be estimated based on dedicated studies. The
data collected will allow tracking disaggregated indicators and be analysed per type of action,
type of organisation, type of collaboration, sectors, disciplines, calls, countries (including
associated and third countries).
Baselines, targets, and benchmarks will be established prior to the Programme’s
launch. External experts will help establish accurate and timely baselines, and propose
targets with appropriate benchmarks, where relevant. To the extent possible data will also be
collected for control groups to allow counterfactual evaluation designs:
 Propensity score matching- based on pairing with similar researchers/companies and
the development of panel data;
 Regression discontinuity design based on the comparison of the performance between
successful and unsuccessful applicants (pending their approval on data use);
 Difference-in difference based on the comparison of the performance of beneficiaries
before/after the Programme.
187
Share of GDP invested in research and development; evolution of the Innovation Output Indicator, share of researchers as
part of the active population.
66
Management and implementation data for all parts of the Programme and all delivery
mechanisms188
will continue to be collected in close to real-time. This data will be
collected in a centrally managed and harmonised way through the Common Support Centre.
It will also continue to be publicly available on a dedicated on-line portal in close to real-time
allowing extraction per programme parts, types of actions and types of organisations
(including specific data for SMEs). This will include inter alia proposals, applications,
participations and projects (number, quality, EU contribution etc.); success rates; profiles of
evaluators, applicants and participants (partly based on unique identifiers, and including
country, gender, turnover, role in project etc.); implementation (including time-to-grant, error
rate, satisfaction rate and the rate of risk taking etc.); and financial contribution to EU climate
and environmental objectives and other mainstreaming targets. A yearly analysis of progress
on key dimensions of the Framework Programme’s management and implementation will be
carried out.
The evaluations of the new Framework Programme will ensure coherence of
methodologies and comprehensiveness of coverage (i.e covering all programme parts
and all delivery mechanisms). Evaluation of individual programme parts can continue to
make use of specific indicators that complement relevant the Programme-level indicators.
The evaluation of the Framework Programme will build on the coordinated evaluations of
each programme part, type of actions and delivery mechanism according to common
evaluation criteria and standard methodologies (incl. counterfactual analysis and qualitative
approaches such as case studies). The comprehensive interim evaluation of the entire
Framework Programme is foreseen by 2024, to draw the first lessons from the changes
introduced in the new Framework Programme. A full-scale ex-post evaluation is planned by
2030 to provide a full assessment of the new Programme and report on the longer-term
impacts of previous ones.
Lastly, evaluations will better account for the coordinated impact of R&I support at EU,
national and regional level, building on existing work to better track the impact of EU R&I
Programmes at national level189
. The European RTD Evaluation Network190
will provide the
basis for a substantially increased cooperation with Member States and Associated States.
188
Including European Partnerships.
189
European Research Area and Innovation Committee (2017), Final Report of the ERAC Ad-hoc Working Group on
Measuring the Impact of EU Framework Programmes for Research and Innovation at National Level. Available at:
http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-1206-2017-INIT/en/pdf.
190
More information available at: https://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/index.cfm?pg=network.
67
Figure 11 Intervention logic of Horizon Europe
Source: European Commission, DG Research and Innovation
Deliver scientific,
societal and
economic impact
from the Union’s
investments in
research and
innovation:
strengthen the
scientific and
technological bases
of the Union, foster
its competitiveness,
including for its
industry;
deliver on the EU's
strategic priorities
and contribute to
tackling global
challenges, including
the Sustainable
Development Goals.
HORIZON EUROPE
GENERAL OBJECTIVE
Pillar 1 - Open Science
- European Research
Council
- Marie Skłodowska-Curie
actions
- Research Infrastructures
Pillar 2 - Global
Challenges and Industrial
Competitiveness
5 Clusters:
- Health
- Inclusive & secure
societies
- Digital & Industry
- Climate, Energy &
Mobility
- Food & natural resources
Non-nuclear direct actions of
the Joint Research Centre
-
Pillar 3 - Open
Innovation
- European Innovation
Council
- Support to innovation
ecosystems
- European Institute of
Innovation and
Technology
Strengthening the European
Research Area
- Sharing excellence
- Reforming and enhancing the
European R&I system
BROAD LINES OF
ACTIVITIES
Synergies and
complementarities with
other programmes at EU,
national and regional level
for maximised impacts
Scientific impact
Economic impact
Societal impact


EN EN
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Brussels, 7.6.2018
SWD(2018) 307 final
PART 3/3
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Accompanying the document
Proposals for a
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
establishing Horizon Europe – the Framework Programme for Research and
Innovation, laying down its rules for participation and dissemination
DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on
establishing the specific programme implementing Horizon Europe – the Framework
Programme for Research and Innovation
COUNCIL REGULATION establishing the Research and Training Programme of the
European Atomic Energy Community for the period 2021-2025 complementing Horizon
Europe – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation
{COM(2018) 435 final} - {COM(2018) 436 final} - {COM(2018) 437 final} -
{SEC(2018) 291 final} - {SWD(2018) 308 final} - {SWD(2018) 309 final}
Europaudvalget 2018
KOM (2018) 0436
Offentligt
1
Annex: Impact assessment of the Euratom Research and Training
Programme 2021-2025
Table of contents
1. Introduction: Political and legal context .....................................................................5
1.1. Context ..............................................................................................................5
1.2. Scope of Impact Assessment.............................................................................6
1.3. Lessons learned from previous programmes.....................................................7
1.4. Feedback from stakeholders..............................................................................9
2. Challenges and objectives .........................................................................................12
2.1. Key features of the ongoing Euratom programme ..........................................12
2.1.1. What will be the Euratom Programme’s expected impacts under the next
MFF (2021-2027) with an unchanged policy (the baseline)? .................................. 16
2.1.2. Main challenges and problems to be addressed by the Euratom Programme
2021-2025................................................................................................................. 18
2.2. Objectives of the Euratom Programmes for the next MFF .............................30
2.2.1. Main objective of the Euratom Programme ............................................... 30
2.2.2. Revision of specific objectives and overview of other changes introduced in
the future Euratom Programme ................................................................................ 30
2.2.3. Success criteria for the Euratom programme 2021-2025........................... 34
2.2.4. Implementation of specific objectives (should they be addressed at the level
of the programme structure and priorities, and/or through the delivery mechanisms,
or both?) ................................................................................................................... 35
2.2.5. Expected impacts of the changes proposed by the future Euratom
programme................................................................................................................ 36
3. Programme structure and priorities ...........................................................................37
3.1. Which actions should be broadly prioritised under Euratom
Programme 2021-25 for achieving its specific objectives?.............................37
3.1.1. Fission research .......................................................................................... 37
3.1.2. Fusion research........................................................................................... 39
3.2. Subsidiarity (EU added value/necessity for EU action) and
proportionality dimensions of the Euratom programme .................................42
4. Delivery mechanisms ................................................................................................44
4.1. Main mechanisms to deliver funding under Euratom programme 2021-
25.....................................................................................................................44
5. How will performance be monitored and evaluated?................................................48
5.1. Lessons learned from monitoring and evaluation of Euratom Research
and Training Programme 2014-2018...............................................................48
5.2. Future monitoring and evaluation arrangements.............................................48
5.3. Impact indicators .............................................................................................50
Annexes.............................................................................................................................54
2
Glossary
Term or
acronym
Meaning or definition
ALLIANCE Research platform to coordinate and promote European research on radioecology
(http://www.er-alliance.org/)
Applicant Legal entity submitting an application for a call for proposals
Application The act of a legal entity becoming involved in a proposal. A single applicant may submit
applications for one or more proposals
Associated
country
Non-EU country that is party to an association agreement with the Euratom research and
training programme. It participates in the programme under the same conditions as EU
Member States. Two countries are associated to Euratom programme: Switzerland (since
1979) and Ukraine (since 2016)
CBRN Chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear
CSA Coordination and Support Action
DEMO
DEMO CDA
DEMO EDA
Demonstration power plant that will generate fusion electricity
Conceptual design activity for DEMO
Engineering design activity for DEMO
DONES DEMO-oriented neutron source
Deuterium,
tritium
In nature, hydrogen comes in three forms, called isotopes. Deuterium (heavy hydrogen) is
twice and tritium (super heavy hydrogen) is three times heavier than common hydrogen.
First-generation fusion power plants burn the hydrogen isotopes deuterium and tritium as
fuel
DG RTD European Commission’s Directorate-General for Research and Innovation
Divertor Part of a tokamak where the power exhaust takes place
EAV European added value
ECVET The European Credit system for Vocational Education and Training
EESC European Economic and Social Committee
EFDA European Fusion Development Agreement
EFSI European Fund for Strategic Investments
EJP European Joint Programme
ENEN European Nuclear Education Network
ENSREG European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group
ERC European Research Council
ESIF European Structural Investment Funds
ESFRI European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures
ESNII European Sustainable Nuclear Industrial Initiative
EUROfusion The EUROfusion consortium, launched in 2014, carries out research funded jointly by
Euratom and the Member States. EUROfusion implements fusion research in line with the
European roadmap to fusion electricity
3
F4E Joint undertaking for the ITER research facility and the development of fusion energy in
Barcelona, Spain
FIIF Fusion Industry Innovation Forum
FLCM Full lifecycle cost management
FP Horizon Europe Framework Programme for Research and Innovation
Fusion energy Energy released by the fusion process, a process that merges together or ’fuses’ the cores
of atoms and that powers the sun and stars in our solar system
Generation-
II/-III
Current generations of nuclear power plants
High-power
deuterium-
tritium (D-T)
campaign
A type of fusion experiment in which the highest amount of fusion energy is released and
the best fusion performance obtained
High-quality
Proposal
A proposal that scores above set evaluation threshold, making it eligible for funding
HLW High-level (radioactive) waste
IA Impact assessment; innovation action
JRC Joint Research Centre, a Directorate-General of the European Commission
KPI Key performance indicator for measuring the performance and impacts of the Euratom
programme
Magnetic
confinement
fusion
A fusion technology in which an extremely hot hydrogen gas, a plasma, is held together or
‘confined’ with strong magnets
MELODI Multidisciplinary European Low Dose Initiative (http://www.melodi-online.eu/)
MFF Multiannual Financial Framework
MSCA Marie Skłodowska-Curie Action
NDAP Nuclear decommissioning assistance programme
Newcomer A participant in the Euratom programme who was not involved in Euratom FP7 Project
NMS New EU Member States (since 2004)
NPP Nuclear power plant
Participant Any legal entity carrying out an action activity or part of an action under the 2014-2018
Euratom programme
Participation A legal entity’s involvement of in a project. A single participant may be involved in
multiple projects
Plasma Plasma is a state of matter alongside solid, liquid and gas. Our sun and stars are made of
plasma. Plasma is produced in fusion experiments
Power
(energy)
exhaust
A technology to control the power (energy) outflow of a fusion plasma
Project Successful proposals for which a grant agreement is concluded
4
R&I Research and Innovation
RIA Research and Innovation Action
SME Small or medium-sized enterprise
SRA Strategic research agenda
STC Scientific and Technical Committee
Success rate The number of proposals that are retained for funding over the number of eligible
proposals
TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Third country A country that is not a Member State of the EU. For the purposes of this document, the
term ‘third country’ does not include associated countries (see above)
Time to grant The time that elapses between the closing date for the call and the signing of the grant
agreement, which marks the official start of the project
Tokamak A torus-shaped device which uses a strong magnetic field to confine a plasm. The main
device used by fusion researchers for fusion experiments
TRL Technology Readiness Level. These levels measure the maturity level of particular
technologies. The measurement system provides a common understanding of technology
status and covers the entire innovation chain: TRL 1 – basic principles observed; TRL 2 –
technology concept formulated; TRL 3 – experimental proof of concept provided; TRL 4
– technology validated in lab; TRL 5 – technology validated in relevant environment;
TRL 6 – technology demonstrated in relevant environment; TRL 7 – system prototype
demonstrated in operational environment; TRL 8 – system complete and qualified; TRL 9
– actual system proven in operational environment
5
1. INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT
This impact assessment accompanies the Commission’s proposal for the Euratom
research and training programme for 2021-2025 (Euratom programme). In turn, the
programme complements the Horizon Europe Framework Programme for Research and
Innovation (FP) in the area of nuclear research and training.
On 2 May 2018, the European Commission adopted its proposals for a new Multiannual
Financial Framework (MFF) for 2021-2027. Under these proposals, the Euratom
programmes will have a budget of EUR 2400 million over this period1
. This impact
assessment report reflects the decisions of the MFF proposals and focuses on the changes
and policy choices, which are specific to this instrument.
The Euratom programme is one of the spending programmes that will implement the
Commission’s vision for the period beyond 2020. Bearing in mind the lessons learned
and progress achieved so far, the impact assessment will look at whether the existing
programme should continue with its present form or undergo changes to its scope and
structure.
1.1. Context
Research and innovation (R&I) programmes are crucial for implementing the
Commission’s vision as set out in the proposal for the next MFF. The Commission’s
reflection paper on the EU’s finances2
and the its Communication on the future MFF3
both highlight the significant role and added value of research programmes supported
from the EU budget. R&I programmes are key in improving people’s well-being,
creating growth and jobs and finding solutions to a range of challenges.
Nuclear and radiation technologies continue to play an important role in the lives of all
Europeans, in that they influence energy and climate change policies, security of supply,
energy research and the use of radiation and radionuclides in non-power (medical,
industrial, etc.) applications. The secure and safe use of these technologies remains
paramount. R&I programmes play a key role in maintaining and using the highest
standards of safety, security, waste management and non-proliferation and in retaining
Europe’s leadership in the nuclear domain so as not to increase energy and technology
dependence — this being one aim of the Energy Union4
.
The Euratom programme is an EU-funded thematic research and training programme
operating in scientific and technical areas covered by the Euratom Treaty5
. The Council
adopts the programme by unanimous agreement based on Article 7 of the Euratom
Treaty.
The funded research focuses on nuclear safety, safeguards and security, radioactive waste
management, radiation protection and fusion energy. The promotion of nuclear research
remains a key provision of the Euratom Treaty (Article 4), which derogates from the
1
In line with Article 7 of Euratom Treaty the proposal covers 5 years (2021-25). Years 2026 and 2027 will be
covered by a separate proposal.
2
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/reflection-paper-eu-finances_en.pdf.
3
COM(2018) 98.
4
See Energy Union Package, COM(2015) 80.
5
Annex 1 to the Euratom Treaty.
6
general provisions for research under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union (TFUE).
As a result, EU R&I programmes (currently Horizon 2020) do not fund topics covered by
the Euratom Treaty; only the Euratom programme supports research at European level in
this field. Until today, nuclear researchers were not eligible for funding from bottom-up
EU programmes such as the European Research Council (ERC) or Marie Skłodowska-
Curie Actions (MSCAs).
The current Euratom programme will end on 31 December 20186
. On 1 December 2017
the Commission submitted to the Council a proposal7
to extend this programme until
2020 to bring it into line with the current seven-year MFF, running from 2014 to 2020.
Other MFF-related proposals are closely linked to the Euratom programme and more
should be done to exploit the synergies between them (see Table 1).
Table 1 — Synergies with other MFF-related proposals
Proposed
programmes for
the new MFF
Links to Euratom programme 2021-2025
Horizon Europe
Framework
Programme for
Research and
Innovation
The Euratom programme complements the Horizon Europe Framework
Programme’s research activities and shares the same rules for participation. The
main features of the delivery mechanism for the Euratom programme (calls,
funding model) will also be shared with the Framework Programme. Implementing
the specific objectives of the future Euratom programme will require cross-cutting
actions with the Framework Programme to tackle today’s societal challenges.
There will be access for nuclear researchers to horizontal programmes, such as
MSCAs (which will support the Euratom programme’s education and training
goals).
Union Funds
under shared
management
The future Union Funds under shared management (in particular the ERDF, ESF+
and EAFRD) will provide a large share of the EU funds for R&I. Holders of Seal
of Excellence awards from directly managed Union programme should be eligible
for this funding.
ITER
ITER will be a key research infrastructure for the Euratom programme’s
implementation of the European roadmap to fusion electricity, starting in 2025.
The Euratom research programme (implemented by DG RTD) will be carried out
in full complementarity and coordination with the activities of DG ENER
(responsible for ITER) in support to the construction of ITER and preparation of
operation and Broader Approach activities.
Nuclear
Decommissioning
Assistance
Programmes
(NDAP) and JRC
decommissioning
The NDAP and JRC programmes should provide feedback from decommissioning
activities as input for future research in this field. The Euratom programme will
fund research activities supporting the development and evaluation of technologies
for the decommissioning and environmental remediation of nuclear facilities. The
programme will also support the sharing of best practices and knowledge on
decommissioning.
1.2. Scope of impact assessment
This impact assessment focuses on the outcome of the Euratom programme’s interim
evaluation and stakeholder consultation. This will help determine any changes needed in
the programme’s scope, aims and delivery method, taking into account cross-cutting
objectives under the new MFF (flexibility, focus on performance, coherence and
6
Pursuant to Article 7 of the Euratom Treaty, Euratom research and training programmes can be adopted for five
years.
7
COM(2017) 698.
7
synergies, simplification). It also meets the requirements of the Financial Regulation as
regards preparing an ex-ante evaluation for the proposed Council Regulation establishing
the Euratom Research and Training Programme 2021-2025.
However, it does not cover the rules for participation. As is currently the case with
Horizon 2020 and the Euratom programme, these will be shared with the Horizon Europe
Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (see the IA for the Horizon Europe).
Neither does it cover ITER8
, which is an essential element of the European fusion
roadmap9
. The impact assessment concerning the financing and the activities of the
Fusion for Energy Joint Undertaking (F4E) – the EU’s implementing agency for the
ITER construction and Broader Approach activities, among others – is provided in a
separate document.
The impact assessment for the Horizon Europe Framework Programme provides details
of the related structural and policy issues affecting European R&I in general. Many of
these issues are equally relevant for the Euratom programme, though the particular
features of the nuclear research sector should be borne in mind. These include the need
for large and expensive research infrastructures and high levels of public funding in some
key areas (e.g. fission and fusion research or advanced materials).
The programme centres specifically on: safety at existing (fission) nuclear power plants;
the lower proportion of SMEs in some areas because of the cost of research and related
infrastructures; significant involvement from national public bodies/agencies; a sharper
focus on education and training; and, last but not least, the fundamental importance of
international cooperation. Where the impact assessment for the Horizon Europe is
considered inadequate or inapplicable for the specific case of Euratom research, the
issues are addressed in this document.
1.3. Lessons learned from previous programmes
Evaluations of successive Euratom programmes have shown how European support is
vital for nuclear research to continuously enhance the safety and security of nuclear
technologies.
The key findings from the interim evaluation of the 2014-2018 Euratom programme are
set out below10
.
a) Continue supporting nuclear research focused on nuclear safety, safeguards,
security, waste management, radiation protection and development of fusion
The interim evaluation concluded that the Euratom programme is highly relevant across
all activities, including nuclear safety, security and safeguards, radioactive waste
management, radiation protection and fusion energy. Actions at European level in
nuclear research continue to be instrumental in maintaining and using the highest
8
ITER, meaning ‘the way’ in Latin, is the fusion research facility under construction in southern France as part of a
worldwide collaboration.
9
Fusion electricity – a roadmap to the realisation of fusion energy (https://www.euro-fusion.org/eurofusion/the-
road-to-fusion-electricity/)
10
COM(2017) 697.
8
standards of safety, security, waste management and non-proliferation, and in retaining
Europe’s leadership in the nuclear domain11
.
b) Further improve, together with beneficiaries, the organisation and management of
the European Joint Programmes in the nuclear field.
The interim evaluation of the Euratom programme 2014-2018 found that the introduction
of the European Joint Programme (EJP) Cofund action had been a success. The EJP
instrument is designed to support coordinated national R&I programmes. It aims at
attracting and pooling a critical mass of national resources for the Euratom programme’s
objectives and at achieving significant economies of scale by gathering related Euratom
resources around a joint effort.
The independent group of experts running the evaluation made specific recommendations
to improve the organisation and management of the EJPs in the nuclear field. These
recommendations, while not questioning the basic structure or approach, require further
refinements and changes to the EJP for it to remain effective going into the next
programming period (2021-2025 and beyond). For more details on these
recommendations and how the Commission’s services addressed them, see section 4.1
(delivery methods for the funding under the future programme).
c) Continue and reinforce the Euratom education and training actions for developing
competencies in the nuclear field which underpin all aspects of nuclear safety,
security and radiation protection
The interim evaluation underlined the importance of developing comprehensive action
for maintaining and developing nuclear skills in Europe, while also finding synergies
with the Framework Programme’s actions supporting education and training.
Maintaining competencies in safety, radiation protection and safeguards in nuclear
regulatory authorities and the nuclear industry will be one of the critical challenges to
effective regulation of nuclear power, nuclear science and ionising radiation technology
applications in the coming decades. The challenge arises from the age profile of staff in
the regulatory bodies — natural wastage (mostly due to retirement) over the next decades
could see the present nuclear safety knowledge base disappear — and from a decline in
the numbers of nuclear science and engineering students.
In this context, the interim evaluation concluded that some specific changes should be
implemented to give the Euratom programme greater impact in this area. The Euratom
indirect actions in education and training should have more specific and measurable
objectives. On the other hand, the Joint Research Centre (JRC) should enhance access to
its research infrastructures and reinforce its education and training activities — in
particular, hands-on practical training and work experience. The independent expert
group proposed that students and researchers in the nuclear field should be eligible to
take part in MSCAs, which provide mobility grants, and foster career development. In
fusion research, the EUROfusion consortium should put more emphasis on training
nuclear engineers and technologists for the next phase — the design of a demonstration
fusion power plant.
d) Further exploit synergies between Euratom programme and other thematic areas of
the Framework Programme to address cross-cutting aspects such as the medical
11
See Energy Union Package, COM(2015) 80.
9
applications of radiation, climate change, security and emergency preparedness and
the contribution of nuclear science
The interim evaluation concluded that the Commission should aim at developing joint
research actions on the radiation protection aspects of medical practices, as well as
innovative nuclear medicines. Euratom should not develop such research alone, but do so
jointly with the health part of the Horizon Europe. The Commission should also seek
other synergies between nuclear and non-nuclear activities and nuclear science
applications such as security of energy supply, public involvement in decision-making,
security of supply of medical radioisotopes and nuclear sciences applications in support
of the sustainable development goals.
e) Further exploit synergies between direct and indirect actions of the Euratom
programme
The interim evaluation recommended that the Commission should implement coherent
programming of the direct and indirect actions of the Euratom programme, with well-
defined governance and decision-making processes. This will help achieve maximum
synergy between the indirect and direct actions, and enable the programme to operate
with maximum efficiency and the most effective results possible. One scenario could be
that JRC might cease to participate in Euratom calls for proposals if a mechanism on the
role and participation of JRC in the indirect actions funded by Euratom is established.
Instead, when proposing research topics a process should be established to allow the JRC
to contribute with its direct actions to the projects with its competences and expertise
including an open access to its research infrastructures to all interested consortia.
1.4. Feedback from stakeholders
To gather information on the programme’s performance and on the research challenges
to be addressed in the future, in 2017 and 2018 the Commission held two consultations, a
roundtable on decommissioning, and a workshop with stakeholders to explore their
specific needs. It also received an opinion from the Euratom Scientific and Technical
Committee (STC)12
.
The input given was consistent with the findings from the Euratom programme’s interim
evaluation and provides additional insights into issues of importance to nuclear research
in Europe. The Commission used this important feedback in drafting this impact
assessment and the proposal for the Euratom programme, in particular on the scope and
delivery mechanism.
The 2018 consultation, to which the Commission received 353 responses, was addressed
specifically to research stakeholders such as technology platforms, nuclear regulators,
public research bodies, universities and technical support organisations. The main
purpose of the consultation was to seek stakeholders’ views on the issues that the
Euratom programme 2021-2025 should address, the programme’s support for access to
infrastructures, education and training, and the integration of direct and indirect actions.
The 2017 consultation13
was an open public consultation to evaluate the Euratom
programme from 2014 to2018 and prepare for its extension to 2019 and 2020. The
12
STC opinion on future Euratom research and training programmes, February 2017.
13
For details on the 2017 public consultation see SWD(2017) 427.
10
Commission received 323 responses from individuals, research stakeholders and public
authorities.
Table 2 provides an overview of the key messages from both consultations. For an
overview of all replies from the 2018 consultation, including all position papers, see
Annex 2.
Table 2 — Key messages from 2017 and 2018 consultations
Scope of
programme
- The programme should continue to cover current research areas (nuclear safety,
security, radioactive waste management, radiation protection, fusion energy) but
funding should be more focused to maximise impacts.
- Research on ionising radiation and nuclear science (medical applications) should
be supported by joint initiatives funded by Euratom and other programmes (for
example, the health part of the Horizon Europe) or by research programmes other
than Euratom.
- The Euratom programme should play a larger role in decommissioning, although
stakeholders consider that Programme should be focused mainly on specific
issues in decommissioning, such as skills development and exchange of best
practices.
Instruments to
be used
The future programme should continue to use current instruments to support research
(research and innovation actions, innovation actions, coordination and support
actions, European Joint Programmes).
European
added value
European added value has come in the form of: funding for research, access to
knowledge and/or nuclear facilities not available or difficult to acquire at national
level, skills development, the establishment of research networks, and acquiring a
critical mass of resources.
Access to R&I
infrastructures
The Euratom programme should support access to relevant research infrastructures in
Europe, including the JRC infrastructures.
Role of direct
actions of the
Euratom
programme
(carried out by
the Joint
Research
Centre)
- The JRC should provide independent scientific advice in Europe and support for
EU policies.
- It should carry out research complementing national initiatives and develop a
knowledge management centre for Euratom research.
- Preferably, it should not compete in Euratom calls for proposals, but instead
provide in-kind contribution in research to Euratom indirect actions. It should
also play a coordinating role in knowledge management for the research results
obtained.
Support for
education,
training,
mobility
The programme should shift more resources towards addressing basic needs in
education and training and mobility. Researchers would benefit from individual
support when it comes to fellowships for PhD and postdoc researchers. The
programme should support networking and exchanges among researchers and access
to infrastructures, including the Commission’s research infrastructures.
Fusion energy
research
The creation of EUROfusion is an improvement (according to more than two-thirds
of stakeholders). Researchers should enjoy greater mobility.
In February 2018 the Commission organised a workshop for research stakeholders and
representatives of Member States on the following theme: ‘Euratom Nuclear Fission
Research and Training — What are the new specific needs?’ Table 3 below gives the key
messages from the workshop14
.
14
Workshop held on 21 February 2018 in Brussels.
11
Table 3 — Key messages from 2018 workshop
Research
infrastructures
in nuclear field
Euratom support for accessing research infrastructures, including the JRC, should be
developed taking into account the different needs of stakeholders (open access for
academia, commercial access for industry) and the range of access conditions (type
of infrastructure, duration of access, size of team, technical support needs, etc.).
Funding researchers’ travelling, lodging and living costs should be also considered.
Mapping research infrastructures and prioritising them for Euratom support should
follow once open access is guaranteed.
Nuclear
education and
training at EU
level
Education and training in nuclear issues is closely linked to research infrastructures
in this field. The issues are of a complexity that requires hands-on training to pass on
know-how efficiently. As both the infrastructures and the workforce are ageing, it is
important to maintain the European capabilities necessary for anticipating future
nuclear safety challenges in operating the current nuclear fleet. At the same time, it is
important to make nuclear education more attractive to a younger generation by
laying the foundations for research into forward-looking technologies, and also to be
open to countries where major development is ongoing. One of the key challenges is
trans-European knowledge-sharing and transfer across different fields and
generations.
Nuclear science
and ionising
radiation
technology
applications
Nuclear science and ionising radiation technology applications, which go beyond the
classical power sector, are increasingly important for medical, industrial and space
applications, for instance. Nuclear medicine depends on the development of new
pharmaceuticals and the transition from research to clinical practice, security of
supply of radioisotopes and is governed by radiation protection and pharmaceutical
legislation. The EU is a leader in this field and there is strong societal interest to
further develop it. For this reason, maintaining European nuclear infrastructures and
knowledge is critical for the development and sustainability of these applications,
and the regulatory framework and research funding should be properly coordinated
in the EU.
Innovation in
nuclear
research
In nuclear safety, it is vital to maintain know-how about the existing nuclear fleet
and anticipate future nuclear safety challenges needs to be ensured. A bridge
between research activities in the medical and non-medical sectors will be beneficial
for both. The early involvement of the regulators is needed to facilitate the
deployment of innovative technologies.
The 2017 opinion from the STC, the advisory committee appointed by the Council, on
future Euratom research and training programmes included the following remarks
(excerpt):
- the urgent need for a coordinated and coherent approach to infrastructure investment.
This will ensure that the EU gives value for money; that it provides for appropriate
leverage both between and within the ‘direct actions’ and ‘indirect actions’
components of the Euratom research and training programme; and that it delivers
enduring capacity and capability in facilities that underpin nuclear technology and
that are vital for Member States in all related fields, including those essential for
medicine and radiation protection, security and safeguards;
- The need for Europe to continue maintaining skills and knowledge in advanced
nuclear systems to be able to fulfil its potential and occupy its rightful position in the
evolving international initiatives in this field ensuring the highest standards of safety,
security, waste management and non-proliferation are achieved and maintained
globally;
- the need to continue the R&D efforts on waste management and geological disposal
in the existing reactor fleet;
12
- the significant cross-cutting benefits that can be realised between fission and fusion
energy research programmes as the latter evolves from one focused on basic plasma
physics to one focused more on technology and nuclear-related aspects;
- the need to pursue efforts on radiation protection research where the focus remains on
low-dose risk, which has important implications for EU citizens in view of the
growing exposure from medical diagnostic and therapeutic practices, and in which
research actions should therefore be co-funded by the Horizon 2020 health
programme. This would free up limited Euratom funding for nuclear technology
priorities, such as the efficient production of radioisotopes for medical purposes and
biological research;
- the need for the European programmes to include R&D in dismantling and
decommissioning activities, so as to maintain the capacity and capability to undertake
them in the future. The report recognises that there is presently no Euratom funding
for this type of research;
- the paramount importance of guaranteeing an adequate supply of experts and trained
workers — in view of the increasing demand across all disciplines, coupled with the
ageing and imminent retirement of a generation of experts — and the role that the
Euratom programme, as a research and training programme, can and should play in
ensuring that supply.
2. CHALLENGES AND OBJECTIVES
2.1. Key features of the ongoing Euratom programme
Key features of the current Euratom research and training programme 2014-2018 are:
 A five-year cycle (2014-2018) with a budget of EUR 1.6 billion. The Council
may extend the programme for two years to match the seven-year duration of the
Horizon 2020 Framework Programme and MFF.
 Support for nuclear research in Europe, with a focus on safety, waste
management and radiation protection, as well as nuclear security and safeguards.
 Allocation of research funding through an EU-wide competition based on
excellence as the guiding principle and main evaluation and selection criterion15
.
 Central management of the programme by the Commission.
The Euratom research and training programmes have been implemented by the
Commission since 1959. The 2014-2018 programme provides funding for nuclear
research in nuclear fission and fusion. Fission research covers nuclear safety, security,
safeguards, waste management and radiation protection. Fusion research deals with the
development of fusion energy. The Council Regulation establishing the current
programme sets out the broad lines of action and the budget envelope. The Euratom work
programmes for direct and indirect actions define the detailed priorities, budget and
instruments to be used, usually on a biennial basis.
15
Funding for indirect actions only. Funding for direct actions is decided in the basic act by the Council
13
The Commission implements the programme through direct and indirect actions. The
‘direct actions’ concern research carried out by the Commission through its JRC and are
focused only on fission research (nuclear safety, safeguards and security, radioactive
waste management and radiation protection, including support for the relevant EU
policies). The ‘indirect actions’ concern research carried out by trans-European project
consortia of private and public research groups. They address not only the safety of
nuclear systems, waste management and radiation protection, but also the feasibility of
fusion as a power source. Consequently, the indirect actions of the Euratom programme
concern both nuclear fission and fusion.
Table 4 illustrates the different types of instruments used by the programme and the
budget allocated to them.
Table 4 — Types of funding instruments in the Euratom Programme and % of budget allocated
Category of
funding
instrument
Sub-
categories
Purpose of instrument
% of total
budget
Grants
EJP
European Joint Programme Cofund actions designed to support
coordinated national research and innovation programmes
(31% of total Euratom budget)
48 %
RIA
Research and innovation actions to fund research projects tackling
clearly defined challenges, which can lead to the development of
new knowledge or a new technology
(17% of total Euratom budget)
IA
Innovation actions focused on closer-to-the-market activities
(prototyping, testing, demonstrating)
CSA
Coordination and support actions to fund the coordination and
networking of research and innovation projects and programmes
Direct JRC actions
Funding for research carried out by the Joint Research Centre of
the European Commission
35 %
Contracts based on
Article 10 of the
Euratom Treaty
Contracts between the Commission and research infrastructure
operators, providing researchers with access to the infrastructures
16 %
Loan-based
financial
instruments
InnovFin
Loans to support fission R&I projects for the construction or
refurbishing of research infrastructures
1 %
Prizes
Recognition
Prizes
Financial prize following a contest in order to recognise past
achievements and encourage future activities
<1%
Source: European Commission
The bulk of the budget (almost half in all) is used for different types of grants, including
EJP Cofund actions, collaborative research and innovation actions, coordination and
support actions and innovation actions. Direct research actions implemented by the JRC16
form the second most important category. The third is made up of contracts supporting
the use of research infrastructures in fusion research (based on Article 10 of the Euratom
Treaty). Other types of actions include recognition prizes and financial instruments.
16
Research is carried about by JRC institutes in Geel (BE), Karlsruhe (DE), Ispra (IT) and Petten (NL)
14
As for research priorities, 55 % of the programme’s budget is allocated to fission
research17
, in particular nuclear safety, security and safeguards (see Table 5). This
research is implemented through all instruments available to the programme, except
Article 10 contracts. The programme’s second priority, accounting for 45 % of the total
budget, is fusion research, implemented mainly via EJP Cofund and an Article 10
contract.
Table 5 — Fields of research funded, instruments used and budget allocated under
Euratom research and training programme 2014-2018
Field
Average
annual
budget
Funding
instruments
used
Annual average budgets per subfield of research
(in millions of euros and in %)
Nuclear
fission*
175
(55%)
Direct
actions,
EJP, RIA,
IA, CSA,
InnovFin
Fusion
energy
145
(45%)
EJP, Article
10 contracts,
prizes
Total
320
(100%)
_* Combined data for direct and indirect actions. Source: European Commission
The key feature of the programme is the way detailed priorities and assigned budgets are
established through work programmes in close consultation with Member States and
research stakeholders.
The Euratom direct actions consist of research activities managed and carried out by the
JRC on its different nuclear sites. The work programme for direct actions is a biennial
rolling programme revised every year. After a planning phase performed by the JRC, the
work programme is sent via inter-service consultation for comments from other
Commission departments, and to the JRC Board of Governors (composed of
representatives from Member States and associated countries) for their opinion. Once
17
Direct and indirect actions together.
67
29
18
14
13
11
11
8
3
nuclear safety (39%)
nuclear security and safeguards
(17%)
standardisation (10%)
waste management (8%)
education, trng, know.mgmt.
(8%)
support for EU policies (6%)
Infrastructures (6%)
radiation protection (4%)
other (2%)
94
51
EUROfusion consortium (65%)
operation of research
infrastructure (35%)
15
their feedback has been received and processed, the programme is formally adopted in a
Commission implementing decision18
, including the key orientations for the JRC work
programme19
.
The work programme for indirect actions defines details of the corresponding open calls
for proposals. After the Programme Committee (consisting of Member State
representatives) has given its view, the Commission formally adopts the Euratom work
programmes. Applicants from industry, academia, national nuclear research centres and
other stakeholders submit proposals in response to calls; these are then evaluated by
panels of independent experts. The list of proposals to be funded has to be approved by
the Programme Committee.
Research in fusion energy is implemented by a named beneficiary, the EUROfusion
consortium. This consortium, whose members are nominated by the Member States and
associated third countries, has a mandate to implement the European fusion roadmap
through the EJP with a rolling annual work plan.
2.1.1. What will be the Euratom programme’s expected impacts under the next
MFF (2021-2027) with an unchanged policy (baseline scenario)?
The continuation of the ongoing programme is expected to promote scientific excellence
in nuclear research in Europe, generate new knowledge in the nuclear field and maintain
nuclear skills for nuclear safety, safeguards, security, waste management and radiation
protection. The future programme with the present objectives (unmodified from its
predecessor) will keep delivering impacts in the key areas (see Table 6). Although the
specific objectives will remain unchanged, the detailed research priorities may shift in
line with evolving needs and be reflected in the biennial work programmes adopted for
direct and indirect actions.
Table 6 — Expected impacts of the Euratom programme 2021-25
with unchanged policy (baseline)
Field Expected impacts
Nuclear
safety
Reinforcement of nuclear safety thanks to the research support for the development of:
- accident management strategies mitigating accidents’ consequences
- updated knowledge on fuel properties under normal and accidental conditions and on the
ageing and safe long-term operation of nuclear power plants (NPPs).
- updated tools and models for safety assessments on operating NPPs, pre-normative
materials qualification
- safety and risk assessment of different innovative concepts of NPPs and minimisation of
long-lived waste
Research results will help Member States implement the 2014 Nuclear Safety Directive
Nuclear
security
Improved nuclear security due to:
- better knowledge of how to mitigate the risks associated with radioactive materials outside
regulatory control
- better detection and identification (forensics), closer cooperation and greater exchange of
knowledge
- optimised response to security threats through training activities and transfer of knowledge
18
C(2017) 1288 final, Commission Implementing Decision of 28 February 2017.
19
C(2017) 1288 final, ANNEX 1: Key Orientations for the Multi-Annual JRC Work Programme 2017-2018.
16
Nuclear
safeguards
Euratom and international safeguards systems rendered more effective by:
- enhancing the measurement capacity for nuclear materials
- testing and developing integrated solutions, techniques and models for safeguards
- developing further concepts and analysis of open source and trade information
Nuclear
standards
- Pre-normative research on nuclear structural materials, resulting in codes and standards,
novel test techniques and advanced inspection procedures
- Development of nuclear reference materials, standards and measurements for benchmarks
to control environmental radioactivity measurements and to check conformity assessments
Radioactive
waste
management
Safer management and disposal of radioactive waste thanks to:
- better knowledge of the safe start of operations of geological disposal facilities for high-
level radioactive waste/spent nuclear fuel
- research support to help Member States make progress with their national programmes for
waste management in line with requirements of Directive 2011/70/Euratom
- mitigation of the risks associated with the management of high-level radioactive waste by
developing models for safe disposal and improved design and technologies in support of the
facilities
- safe management of innovative spent fuels and waste (small modular reactors, accident-
tolerant fuels)
- improved standards and technology for the characterisation, management and disposal of
other radioactive waste categories
Radiation
protection
Higher health protection for individuals subject to occupational, medical and public exposure to
ionising radiation, thanks to:
- better knowledge of the long-term effects of low doses of radiation
- a higher level of emergency preparedness
- more effective monitoring of radioactivity in food and on the environment, and more
standardised measurement methods
- better knowledge of the effects of the exposure to ionising radiation used for medical
diagnosis and treatment and how to reduce it
Research results will help Member States implement the Basic Safety Standards Directive
Fusion
energy
- A significantly expanded knowledge base of ITER-relevant fusion science will increase
ITER’s chances of achieving its goals of proving the feasibility of fusion for power
generation.
- Developments in fusion technology will allow for the start of the conceptual design phase
for a demonstration fusion power plant
- The development of high-tech solutions in the field of fusion technology will, with an
appropriate technology transfer programme, generate spin-offs that benefit industry, the
economy and society in areas beyond fusion applications
Education
and
training
- Preservation of knowledge and improved transfer between generations and across national
programmes in nuclear fission
- Training scientists and engineers will secure the human resources needed to run ITER and
design future fusion power plants
- Knowledge management activities will guarantee that experience from the ITER project
will be retained and fed into work to design and construct a demonstration fusion power
plant
infrastructures
Support for the availability and accessibility of relevant fission and fusion research facilities
will bring all specific objectives of the programme closer. Examples of specific impacts:
- the scientific/technical basis for power handling components of a fusion power plant
- prototyping of technology for a fusion materials testing facility will provide the information
needed to start the construction of such a facility
- Sharing facilities will put them to full use, step up collaboration and allow for hands-on
training
Support
for
policy
- Nuclear and ionising policy formulation based on sound scientific advice
- Harmonisation of safety assessment methods, standards and tools and sharing of best
practice for better implementation of directives in nuclear safety, spent fuel and radioactive
waste management
- Monitoring of and support for policy implementation
- Trustworthy evaluation of policy effectiveness and impact
17
Negative impacts of the baseline scenario will be as follows:
- Limited (sub-optimal) impacts in education and training (no introduction of
MSCAs) would result in a shortage of skilled and experienced staff in the nuclear and
radiation field. At the international level, the EU might lose its position as world
leader in nuclear and radiation technologies and might not be able to play an active
role in spreading its high nuclear safety standards and safety culture. There would be
insufficient expertise to operate fission technologies and a lack of specialised skills
and knowledge transfer in both industry and science.
- Limited development of knowledge management would lead to loss of knowledge
needed for the safe operation of existing reactors, for the management of spent fuel
and radioactive waste (including repositories) and for the highest level of safeguards
and security, and could lead to a defective transfer of knowledge.
- Limited networking, infrastructure-sharing and open access programmes would
result in sub-optimal exploitation of existing and new infrastructures. The lack of new
investment and key research infrastructures in fission would be a major hindrance.
Hence the genuine need to pool resources at all levels (both private and public and at
EU, national and regional levels) to overcome such obstacles.
- Limited emphasis is given in the baseline scenario to nuclear science and ionising
radiation technology applications. The radiation protection aspects of the effects of
ionising radiation used for medical diagnosis and treatment on patients are included.
However, the safe use of nuclear science and ionising radiation technology
applications for medical, industrial, space and research applications is an important
area which is not sufficiently covered in the baseline scenario. This could mean
higher risks of population exposure to ionising radiation in medical treatments, or of
environmental exposure to natural or man-made forms of radiation.
- Unless the most is made of the synergies between direct and indirect actions in the
Euratom programme and between the Euratom programme and other thematic
areas of the Horizon Europe, future research programmes programmes will not
maximise their impact in areas such as nuclear safety, waste management, radiation
protection, medical applications of radiation, research infrastructures, etc.
- The success of ITER implies maintaining the level of support that is currently
provided from the coordinated operation of the various infrastructures in the
programme. In addition to this, a forward-thinking programme must make available
new research infrastructures of relevance to ITER and DEMO20
. These might include
a high magnetic field superconducting tokamak and a fusion neutron-relevant
materials testing facility. If the necessary resources for such facilities and the
accompanying research, training and education actions (including access to MSCAs)
are not forthcoming, the successful operation of ITER and the design of DEMO will
be significantly damaged, bringing delays to the programme and associated increases
in costs.
- No clear direction on decommissioning research may lead to delays in implementing
decommissioning strategies and modern techniques, and may give rise to
shortcomings in sharing best practice and knowledge on decommissioning.
20
Demonstration power plant that will generate fusion electricity, the next step after ITER in the Fusion Roadmap
18
2.1.2. Main challenges and problems to be addressed by the Euratom programme
2021-2025
The future Euratom research and training programme should address the following
research challenges:
a) Nuclear safety
The safety of nuclear energy production in the EU — and the safety of other nuclear
installations such as spent fuel storages and fuel enrichment and reprocessing plants —
are the primary responsibility of NPP operators supervised by independent national
regulators. An EU-wide approach to nuclear safety is important, since a nuclear accident
could badly affect countries across Europe and beyond. Following the Fukushima-
Daiichi accident in 2011, Council Directive 2009/71/Euratom establishing a Community
framework for the nuclear safety of nuclear installations was revised. The 2014
Directive21
introduces a high-level, EU-wide safety objective to prevent accidents and
avoid radioactive releases outside a nuclear installation. For plants already in operation,
this objective should lead to the implementation of practical safety improvements. For
future plants, significant safety enhancements are planned, based on the scientific and
technological state of play. The Directive highlights the need for Member States to use
research results in its implementation and creates a system of peer reviews.
The research priorities in nuclear safety are continuously evolving (see Figure 1) in line
with the state of the art, as witnessed from the feedback from ongoing Euratom projects,
updated strategic research agendas (SRAs) from technology platforms such as SNE-TP
(NUGENIA), and feedback from implementation of the 2014 Safety Directive. In this
regard, the results of the topical peer review on ageing management of nuclear power
plants organised by European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group (ENSREG), expected in
2018, will serve as important input for the research agenda. Other leading stakeholders
providing inputs are ETSON and WENRA (see Figure 1 below). On this basis, the
Commission can ensure that the work programmes containing future calls for proposals
funded by the Euratom programme are up-to-date and address current needs, including
safety assessments for any innovative concepts.
21
Council Directive 2014/87/Euratom of 8 July 2014 amending Directive 2009/71/Euratom establishing a
Community framework for the nuclear safety of nuclear installations, OJ L 219, 25.7.2014, p. 42–52
19
Figure 1 — Overview of inputs for establishing research priorities in nuclear safety
Nuclear Safety
Directive
Strategic research agenda
of SNE-TP
Outcome of
topical peer
reviews carried
out by
European Nuclear
Safety Regulators
Group
(ENSREG)
Research priorities on
nuclear safety to be
funded by Euratom
programme
European Technical
Safety Organisations
Network (ETSON)
Ongoing and completed
Euratom projects
Western European
Nuclear Regulators
Association (WENRA)
An example of detailed feedback on current research priorities is given in Table 7 below.
Table 7 — Stakeholder feedback on current research priorities in nuclear safety
Input from European Technical Safety Organisations Network
- Safety assessment methods (safety
margins methodology, deterministic
and probabilistic approaches)
- Multi-physics multi-scale safety
approach
- Ageing of materials for a long-term
operational perspective
- Fuel behaviour (loss of coolant
accident, RIA or reactivity insertion
accident, criticality)
- Human and organisational factors in
safety management
- Instrumentation and control (I&C)
systems
- Internal and external loads and malicious acts (integrity
of equipment and structures, fire propagation, etc.)
- Severe accidents phenomenology and management
- Emergency preparedness and management
- Extreme natural and unintended man-made hazards
- Preventing and controlling abnormal operation and
failures
- Defence in depth — prevention of (severe) accidents
through decay heat removal from the reactor core and
the spent fuel pool (SFP), and secondly the protection of
the containment integrity.
- Controlling severe conditions, including prevention of
accident progression and mitigation of severe accident
consequences
Source: ETSON views on R&D priorities for implementation of the 2014 Euratom Directive on safety of
nuclear installations, Kerntechnik 81(2016), Position paper of the technical safety Organisations:
Research needs in nuclear safety for GEN 2 and GEN 3 NPPs, October 2011
b) Radiation protection and ionising radiation applications
A growing number of different applications of ionising radiation requires protection of
the people and the environment from unnecessary exposure to radiation. Ionising
radiation technologies are used every day in Europe in a number of fields such as health,
industry and research, providing large benefits to European citizens and European
economy22
. Research plays key role, providing for better understanding of harmful
effects of radiation from natural and artificial sources, and expanding beneficial
applications of radiation technologies.
22
European Study on Medical, Industrial and Research Applications of Nuclear and Radiation Technology, 2018
20
Naturally occurring radioactive isotopes of uranium, thorium, potassium and carbon
constitute Europeans’ main source of exposure to radiation. Almost equally important are
X-rays, used in medical diagnostics or therapy, whose contribution is increasing as
medical procedures continue to rise (see Figure 2).
Source: ASN, 2010
Low dose research
At the European level, efforts have been under way since 2007 to establish and bring
together European platforms for radiation protection research in the five key areas of low
dose risks, dosimetry, emergency and preparedness, radioecology and medical
applications. The platforms concerned are MELODI, EURADOS, NERIS, ALLIANCE
and, more recently, EURAMED. Following the establishment in 2015 of the European
Joint Programme in radiation research (CONCERT), all of these platforms have entered
into close cooperation, including the development of SRAs, listing the general and
specific research priorities within their disciplines23
.
These SRAs indicate that a key priority for radiation protection research is to improve
health risk estimates for cases of exposure matching the dose limits for occupational
exposure and the reference levels for the exposure of the population in emergency
situations.
In addition, new challenges have emerged recently with the adoption of the Basic Safety
Standards Directive that regulates practices involving ionising radiation in fields such as
industry and medicine24
.
Recent tests carried out by the JRC in Member State laboratories highlighted major gaps
in monitoring radioactivity in drinking water and in air. These should be addressed
through support for measurement laboratories. For there to be comparable data between
Member State laboratories, further work will be needed on primary standards, reference
materials and measurement methods.
23
http://www.er-alliance.org/assets/files/attachments/ALLIANCE%20gap%20analysis_Feb%2020.
24
Council Directive (2013/59/Euratom) of 5 December 2013 laying down basic safety standards for protection
against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation, and repealing Directives 89/618/Euratom,
90/641/Euratom, 96/29/Euratom, 97/43/Euratom and 2003/122/Euratom.
Radon; 1,4
Medical
exposures; 1,3
Telluric current;
0,5
Cosmic radiation;
0,3
Water and food;
0,2
Other (NPPs,
waste); 0,01
FIGURE 2 - POPULATION’S EXPOSITION TO IONISING RADIATION
(in milisivierts, data from France)
21
The main uncertainties in radiation health risk evaluation are in the magnitude of cancer
risk at low and protracted doses below 100 mSv, the magnitude of non-cancer effects
below 500 mSv and the variation in disease risk between individuals in the population.
Therefore, the key research questions are: the dose and dose-rate relationship for cancer;
non-cancer effects; and individual radiation sensitivity (see Figure 3).
Figure 3 — Key research questions for low dose research
Source: MELODI
Research at low dose rates or low doses presents significant challenges in the
investigation of both radiation-related health effects and underlying biological
mechanisms because the magnitude of health risk and biological effects is expected to be
low. A multidisciplinary approach is therefore essential.
Medical applications of radiation
The health domain is by far the most important domain in Europe, where ionising
radiation is used in terms of the number of people affected and from an economic
perspective (employment, market and its growth rate). Radiation technologies are used in
the health sector, both for diagnostics (imaging) and treatment (therapy). There are about
100 different nuclear imaging procedures available today and over 10 000 hospitals
worldwide use radioisotopes; the vast majority of the medical procedures (about 90 %)
are for diagnosis25
.
25
Report to the European Commission (SWD(2015) 179) on activities following on from the Council conclusions of
15 December 2009 on the security of supply of radioisotopes for medical use and the Council conclusions of
22
Recent increases in medical imaging, particularly with respect to computed tomography
(CT) and other high-dose procedures, have led to a significant increase in individual
patient doses and in the collective dose for the population as a whole. Regular
assessments of the magnitude and distribution of this large and increasing source of
population exposure are therefore crucial. The overall per capita effective dose for all
medical imaging (X-rays and nuclear medicine procedures) is about 1.12 mSv. The
contribution to the total population dose of different procedures is as follows: CT (57 %),
plain radiography (17 %), fluoroscopy (12 %), interventional radiology (9 %), and
nuclear medicine (5 %)26
.
Development of imaging technologies has to be followed, in order to ensure the fast
deployment of dose limitation devices. The clinical applications of imaging techniques
using ionising radiation are very wide. On the other hand, the therapeutic clinical
applications of ionising radiation are essentially focused on cancer treatment. Such
therapies use high-energy particles or waves, such as X-rays, gamma rays, electron
beams or protons, to destroy or damage cancer cells.
In view of the above developments, research challenges for the next 5-10 years must
focus on:
- promoting the deployment of dose reduction functionalities in CT and supporting
research on evolutionary CT technologies to reduce the dose to patients during CT;
- developing new radioisotopes (other than Mo-99/Tc-99m) for cancer treatment;
- monitoring better the doses received by patients from medical applications; and
- reducing the high variability in radiation doses between hospitals.
Other applications of radiation
Beyond their extensive use in medicine, ionising radiation (IR) technologies are present
in a large variety of applications in industry, applied research, agriculture, environment
or security, and their beneficial use could be further extended by research, in particular in
dose reduction and provision of adequate standards and skilled personnel. The growth
potential of new innovative industrial applications based on these IR tools is very large.
For instance, nanoparticles (NPs) and nanostructures manufactured with IR tools may be
used in a number of areas. Recent advances in particle accelerator technology could be
beneficial for many energy and environmental applications, such as treating drinking
water, waste water, and sludge, removing pollutants from stack gases, treating medical
waste, conducting environmental remediation of hydrocarbon contaminated soil and
conversion of fossil fuels. They may also have synergetic effects in other strategic
domains (magnetic separation and superconducting technologies) like increasing the
capacity of wind generators, enhancing the magnetic separation of material streams, and
increasing the efficiency of electrical power transmission27
.
6 December 2010 and 7 December 2012 entitled ‘Towards the Secure Supply of Radioisotopes for Medical Use in
the European Union’.
26
RADIATION PROTECTION N° 180, Medical Radiation Exposure of the European Population, European
Commission, 2015.
27
European Study on Medical, Industrial and Research Applications of Nuclear and Radiation Technology, 2018
23
c) Waste management
Directive 2011/70/Euratom establishing a Community framework for the responsible and
safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste reaffirms that, ultimately, Member
States are responsible for managing the spent fuel and radioactive waste they generate.
This includes establishing national policies and implementing them under national
programmes. The Directive lays down requirements concerning research as an integral
part of their respective national programmes.
The key scientific and technical challenge in radioactive waste management remains the
implementation of the disposal options for spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste
over a very long time-scale (from hundreds to thousands of years). Research should
reduce uncertainties in the safety assessment and demonstration of disposal, and provide
analytical tools and methods to deepen understanding of ongoing processes and
mechanisms at disposal sites. One important issue around geological disposal is about
ensuring appropriate knowledge management and transfer between generations who will
be responsible for managing disposal sites.
Research should also address issues concerning the management and disposal of other
types of waste and streams, including legacy and pre-conditioned waste, waste from
experimental and fuel cycle developments and waste from reactor dismantling, for which
no appropriate management and disposal solutions are available. The traditional concepts
for research on waste management are also subject to evolution. Waste resulting from
accident-tolerant nuclear fuels, developed following the Fukushima accident, and from
innovative future reactors present new challenges for disposal which need to be
determined and assessed.
d) Decommissioning of nuclear installations
The decommissioning of nuclear power plants will become an increasingly important
activity for the European nuclear industry in the coming years, due to the ageing fleet.
However, experience in this field is rather limited28
. Ninety power reactors in the EU
have been shut down, but only three had been completely decommissioned (all in
Germany). The international view does not offer much broader experience: although
today 166 reactors are in permanent shutdown mode worldwide, only 13 have been
completely decommissioned: in addition to the aforementioned three in Europe, all of the
others are in the United States. By 2025, it is estimated29
that over a third of the EU’s
currently operational reactors will be at the end of their lifecycle and in need of
shutdown. This equates to 40 additional reactor shutdowns and a total fleet of 130
reactors across the EU undergoing or awaiting decommissioning.
Though various dismantling techniques are already industrially mature, there are still
specific challenges regarding achieving high safety levels for dismantling operations.
Public research has a potential role to play in supporting safe decommissioning and in
reducing the environmental impact of decommissioning.
The EU must be better prepared for the emerging decommissioning market, and for safe
dismantling and management of resulting radioactive waste. This requires the
development of standardised practices, innovative technologies for waste and site
28
PINC, SWD(2017) 237 final.
29
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/nuclear-energy/decommissioning-nuclear-facilities
24
characterisation, and the use of safeguards in nuclear decommissioning. In turn, all of
these rely on scientific and technical support. A roadmap for decommissioning research,
resulting from a project to be launched under the Euratom work programme for 2018,
will provide guidance to stakeholders and the Commission on the steps needed during the
next 10-15 years for the development of knowledge on decommissioning and its safety,
economic and environmental aspects. It should support future coordination of R&I
efforts, which currently tends to be sporadic and overlapping.
e) Nuclear security and safeguards
The main purpose of nuclear safeguards is to assure that nuclear materials are only used
for their declared civil use and are not diverted for non-peaceful applications. The
detection and the identification of illegally transported or stored nuclear material
constitute a major line of defence against illicit trafficking.
According to Chapter 7 of the Euratom Treaty, the European Commission must fulfil its
safeguarding obligations, in particular safeguarding existing radioactive materials in the
EU and the obligations relating to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
The role of research is to develop and improve analytical techniques and methodologies
for safeguarding nuclear materials and to provide operational support to safeguarding
authorities30
. Different innovative concepts for safeguards and non-proliferation such as
the analysis of nuclear energy systems (safeguards by design, proliferation resistance
evaluation, etc.), along with various sources of information, will need to be explored to
deal with non-proliferation and security issues in the coming years.
Further research is needed to support nuclear security technologies, above all detection
and nuclear forensics, to respond to a nuclear security event and provide substantial
training in the field. To prevent the worldwide proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction and other sub-national threats, scientific support for the harmonised
implementation of trade controls must also be provided.
f) Maintaining nuclear competences and knowledge management
Using of nuclear technologies in all areas of application as well as nuclear safety and
security require a highly specialised workforce and preservation of the present
knowledge base. Regardless of whether or not new nuclear power plants are built in EU
Member States, for several decades there will be an ongoing requirement in the
regulatory bodies and the industry to recruit qualified staff. Not only the nuclear power
sector, but also those industrial and medical applications making use of ionising
radiations, together with fusion energy research, will require highly educated staff with
very specific knowledge, skills and competences. The rapid advances in, and growing use
of, radiation-based medical imaging are also giving rise to particular concerns regarding
the education and training of medical professionals.
The overall workforce situation in the EU (and worldwide) is at risk as highlighted by
several reports and studies31
. The challenge arises partly from the age profile of staff in
nuclear fields (staff in the 45-65 age bracket account for more than half of the
workforce). Because of retirements over the next decade or so — and partly because of a
decline in the numbers of students graduating from courses in nuclear science and
30
JRC research and development in nuclear safeguards, https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/jrcsh/files/jrc-research-
development-nuclear-safeguards.pdf.
31
http://ehron.jrc.ec.europa.eu/.
25
engineering and filling the vacancies left by retirees — much of the current nuclear
knowledge base could be lost32
. This decline is possibly caused by the perceived lack of
professional career prospects. It is also becoming increasingly difficult to interest
graduates from technical and other studies in taking up a job in the nuclear sector.
Moreover, the European sector is rather unattractive for foreign talent, to the
development of professional opportunities in nuclear field in other regions.
Knowledge management and knowledge transfer between generations and Member
States is essential for maintaining the EU’s high safety standards in all nuclear activities.
g) Fusion energy
EU decarbonisation efforts are currently supported through the development of
renewables, improvements in energy efficiency, and use of nuclear fission. In this
context, all existing energy sources have their disadvantages and limitations. Use of
nuclear fission requires continuous safety improvements, development of radioactive
waste disposal and reduction of risks related to nuclear proliferation.
On a longer timescale, fusion energy is a possible new complementary option for low
carbon electricity production, which could help address climate change and a growing
energy demand. Fusion would be a continuous energy source that does not face the same
safety risks, limited waste and proliferation issues as fission, and does not require
disproportionate land use. To prepare Europe for fusion deployment, the research and
technology development must first demonstrate the scientific and technical feasibility of
fusion energy, and then demonstrate its commercial and economic viability. If found to
be a viable new energy source, it could contribute significantly to the well-being of future
generations. The main impacts of fusion energy deployment could be:
- Improvement of environmental performance of EU energy sector
- Contribution to the mitigation of climate change and to EU energy security
- Improvement of the EU innovation and competitiveness.
Fusion research is a long-term endeavour due to the need to master hot plasmas in large
facilities and to develop materials able to withstand very high temperatures and extreme
conditions. For this reason, potential deployment of fusion power plants and their
contribution to the decarbonisation of the energy mix in Europe cannot be realistically
foreseen until the latter part of the century. Fusion could come on line later in the
century, as electric power needs are predicted to double between 2050 and 2100. These
are all arguments for continuous efforts to demonstrate fusion’s feasibility at industrial
level, taking into account that all different energy sources will play a key role in
completing a coherent energy-mix for future societal development.
Organisation of fusion research
Fusion science and technology has now reached the next stage of development thanks to
the successful exploitation of research facilities and progress in the construction of ITER,
a research facility under construction in south of France with the aim of demonstrating
the scientific and technological feasibility of fusion on Earth as a sustainable energy
source. The European Joint Programme (EJP) for fusion research supported by the
current 2014-2018 Euratom Programme, which provides 55% of the total funding, plays
32
Number of students in nuclear fields in EU (2012 EHRON data): ~500 Masters, ~650 Bachelors, ~800 PhD (~100
in fission and ~700 in fusion (2017 data)).
26
a crucial role in this process. It is implemented by the EUROfusion consortium,
consisting of all national fusion labs and institutes in Europe (under the 2014-18
programme the Commission has a separate contract for the operation of the JET facility
which is exploited by EUROfusion). This comprehensive and goal-oriented project
covers all aspects needed to realise fusion energy. It includes joint research, use of shared
facilities, mobility of researchers, industrial involvement, education and training,
international cooperation, etc. The activities of the EUROfusion consortium are focussed
on the implementation of the fusion roadmap to fusion electricity33
, which was approved
in 2012 by all European labs as the long-term guiding strategy. After an adoption of the
new ITER baseline34
in 2016, EUROfusion proceeded in 2017 with an update of the
roadmap to ensure that it reflects the latest state of play in fusion R&D and that it
provides a strategic guidance for the organisation and execution of fusion R&D in
Europe.
The establishment of the EUROfusion consortium in 2014 was a key step in this major
reorganisation of the fusion research in Europe. The EJP allows considerable flexibility
within the consortium to organise and implement research and related activities. The
consortium has the complete freedom to allocate the Euratom funding to the beneficiaries
according to its own internal procedures. Compared to the fusion research before 2014,
the involvement of the Commission’s services is focussed on the broad strategy to
achieve fusion as laid out in the roadmap by ensuring that EUROfusion delivers as
planned. The Commission pays for the implementation of the roadmap in annual
instalments based on the achievement of specified goals in the annual work plans. This
should be continued in the next 2021-2025 Euratom progamme to all aspects of the
fusion research including the funding and use of all relevant infrastructures.
The fusion roadmap provides a list of 8 R&D missions addressing the main scientific and
technical challenges for the realisation of fusion energy. Of these 8 missions, 4 of them
require the use of highly specialised research infrastructures in addition to ITER (see
table below).
33
https://www.euro-fusion.org/eurofusion/the-road-to-fusion-electricity/
34
ITER baseline defines scope of the project with regard to performance capabilities, schedule and costs
27
Main fusion scientific and
technical challenges (research
missions)
What is needed to achieve mission?
Infrastructures
(existing and future
devices which fulfil
requirements of the
missions)
Mission 1 - Plasma regimes of
operation: demonstrate plasma
scenarios (i.e. ability to manage
hot plasma without disruptions)
that increase the success margin
of ITER and satisfy the
requirements of demonstration
power plant
Mission 1 will be achieved in ITER. Before
start of ITER exploitation, the research
programme needs to investigate operating
scenarios for ITER and optimise control
measures on the basis of similar fuel mix
(deuterium and tritium) and with the same
combination of plasma facing materials as
planned for ITER.
JET35
JT-60SA (available
from 202X, in Japan)
Different Medium-sized
tokamaks (available
now)
Mission 2 - Heat-exhaust
systems: demonstrate a system
that can handle the large power
leaving ITER and DEMO
plasmas.
ITER will test if the existing heat–exhaust
system (divertor) will provide a sufficient
performance needed for fusion power
plant. To address possible risks of lower
than expected performance there is a need
to develop alternative concepts that require
specific infrastructures.
Divertor Testing
Facility (planned in
Italy by 2023-25)
Mission 3 - Neutron tolerant
materials: develop materials that
withstand the large 14MeV
neutron flux for long periods
while retaining adequate physical
properties.
Currently available plasma facing materials
for ITER were developed on the basis of
fission neutron irradiation campaigns, not
covering fully the temperature and other
operational conditions of fusion power
plant. A powerful fusion material neutron
source with a fusion-like neutron spectrum
is mandatory for the validation and
qualification of materials for the
demonstration power plant, in particular for
licensing and regulatory authorities.
IFMIF-DONES
(planned in Spain by
2023-2025)
Mission 8 - Stellarator: bring
the stellarator concept to maturity
to determine the feasibility of a
stellarator
based power plant.
Further investigation is needed to check if
stellarator concept is able to deliver and
control high performance plasma.
W-7X stellator
(operating since 2016)
Source: Fusion roadmap
In addition to the missions described in the table above, all research activities are
underpinned by the need for a strong numerical modelling. It is therefore important to
ensure that the fusion programme embraces developments in computation, especially
towards exascale computing36
. This will not only require investment in High
Performance Computing hardware, but also a significant evolution in the implementation
of numerical models to ensure they work efficiently with exascale computer
architectures. The challenge is to adapt the current practises and provide much closer
integration of researchers and programming specialists. Furthermore, much greater
emphasis on validation of numerical modelling will be required for numerical models to
play a role in DEMO development.
35
In line with the Commission proposal for extension of the Euratom programme until 2020, the current contract for
JET operation will be extended until 2020 when the facility will be handed over to UK.
36
Exascale computing refers to computing systems capable of at least one exaFLOPS, or a 1018
calculations per second
28
The fusion roadmap specifies in detail what input is needed from different research
facilities in order to address all missions. In addition, the roadmap lists decisions
concerning the use of fusion research facilities according to their impacts on the
implementation of the roadmap, especially until ITER comes into operation37
. These
decisions are as follows:
- The decision on a possible exploitation of JET after 2020
- The decision on the test facility for alternative tokamak exhaust configurations;
- The decision on the future exploitation of the JT-60SA in Japan;
- The decision on the Early Neutron Source (IFMIF-DONES).
The nature of the involvement of the EUROfusion consortium in each of the above
facilities/projects after 2020 should be decided by the consortium on the basis of the
scientific and technical knowledge available in order to ensure a successful
implementation of the roadmap and the rate of construction of the different facilities
where necessary. The role of the Commission services is to provide strategic oversight
and ensure that the grant for EUROfusion is used effectively and that EUROfusion
reaches subsequent roadmap’s milestones.
Challenges for fusion research
During the 2021-2027 MFF fusion research will face two major research challenges:
- extending the physics/technology basis of ITER relevant fusion science to ensure that
future ITER operation will be effective and efficient;
- completing a conceptual design of a demonstration fusion reactor (a DEMO) that
generates electricity, and starting transitioning into an engineering design phase of
DEMO.
For future ITER operation to be successful and efficient, it is crucial that the science base
is well understood. In particular, the scenarios for operation of ITER should be tested to
ensure they are robust and will have a good performance. Potential problems must also
be identified and as much as possible addressed before ITER exploitation starts, because
it will be much costlier to resolve issues on ITER itself. This will require a broad
experimental programme on existing fusion devices, especially those with the greatest
ITER relevance, and complemented by an extensive analysis and simulation programme.
A potential problem in this respect could be access to devices that in terms of size and
components composition are highly ITER relevant.
In order to achieve the goal of completing a pre-conceptual DEMO design and starting
the transition to an engineering design phase in the next MFF, the focus of the fusion
programme must gradually shift from physics to technology. Consequently, a
continuation and even acceleration of the reorientation of the programme towards fusion
technology that started during the 2014-18 Euratom programme is necessary. However,
changing the composition of researchers in the fusion programme cannot happen
overnight, and it will take a sustained effort to redress the balance between physicists and
engineers. Furthermore, as the DEMO design becomes increasingly advanced, it will be
necessary to involve industry much more than is currently the case. In addition, it is also
important to ensure that the engagement of industry participation is at a sufficient level
already early on in the next MFF. If not, there is a clear risk that the knowledge of fusion
technology now residing within industry due to the ITER construction will be lost before
37
See section 10 of the fusion roadmap
29
it becomes indispensable for DEMO. Consequently, appropriate mechanisms for greater
industry involvement must be put in place for the next MFF.
2.2. Objectives of the Euratom programme for the next MFF
The Euratom programme is established via a Council Regulation setting out the overall
objective, overall budget and specific objectives. For each specific objective the
Regulation merely outlines the research and training measures eligible for support. The
Euratom work programmes for direct and indirect actions, to be adopted by the
Commission after consultation with Member States, define the more detailed priorities,
budget and instruments to be used. This approach will mean that the programme can be
implemented with the flexibility that the new MFF is seeking across the board.
2.2.1. Main objective of the Euratom programme
The programme’s overall objective remains unchanged and is based on the compromise
reached unanimously in Council in 2011 following the Fukushima nuclear accident and
confirmed recently by the Council’s political agreement on the regulation concerning
extension of the 2014-18 programme for 2019-2020. It seeks to ‘pursue nuclear research
and training activities to support continuous improvement of nuclear safety, security and
radiation protection, and potentially contribute to the long-term decarbonisation of the
energy system in a safe, efficient and secure way’. It is implemented through a number of
specific objectives setting out detailed research and training activities to be funded by the
programme.
2.2.2. Revision of specific objectives and overview of other changes introduced in
the future Euratom programme
The programme’s overall scope will remain unchanged, with a focus on:
- nuclear safety and security,
- radiation protection,
- radioactive waste management, and
- fusion energy.
To address issues raised by the interim evaluation and by stakeholders, the Commission
intends to introduce a number of modifications. The modifications proposed concern the
structure of specific objectives, their content, and some implementing provisions (for
example on EJPs). It is also important to remember that the Euratom programme
complements the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, sharing with it
the horizontal provisions and rules for participation. As a result, modifications introduced
to these provisions and rules will be also applicable to the Euratom programme 2021-25.
An overview of all modifications proposed is provided in Table 8.
30
Table 8 — Modifications from evaluations and stakeholders to address issues
Issues Modifications to Euratom programme
Continuation of nuclear research
focused on nuclear safety, safeguards,
security, radioactive waste
management, radiation protection and
development of fusion energy
Modification
of
specific
objectives
Introduction of a single list of specific
objectives for direct and indirect actions
Reduction in the number of specific
objectives
Revision of specific objectives for
decommissioning and nuclear science and
ionising radiation technologies
A revised specific objective for developing
expertise and excellence
More research on nuclear science
and ionising radiation technologies
Research to provide solutions for
decommissioning of nuclear
installations
Exploit synergies between direct and
indirect actions of the Euratom
programme
Reinforce education and training
actions for developing competencies in
nuclear field
Opening ‘Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions’ up to
nuclear researchers
Cross-cutting actions of Euratom
programme and Framework
Programme for Research and Innov.
Legal provisions facilitating cross-cutting actions in
the Euratom programme and Framework Programme
for Research and Innovation
Support access to and more effective
use of research infrastructures for
nuclear research
Development of legal and administrative mechanisms
for the optimal use of Commission research
infrastructure through open access
Development of initiatives for networking and sharing
of research infrastructures in Europe and for
supporting access
Knowledge management activities
Reinforced role of the JRC for the management of
knowledge produced in the nuclear field.
Improve organisation and management
of the European Joint Programmes
in nuclear research
Amendment of implementing provisions for EJPs
Detailed description of changes proposed:
- Structure of specific objectives: a single set of specific objectives for direct and
indirect actions is introduced in the basic act. This will allow the Commission, when
preparing work programmes, to propose combining instruments such as the
Commission’s research infrastructures and JRC’s knowledge base. This approach
addresses one of the MFF’s cross-cutting objectives concerning synergies and
simplification.
- Revision of specific objectives (see also Table 9):
o Reduction in the number of specific objectives from 13 in the 2014-18
programme for both direct and indirect actions to four.
o Introduction of a specific objective on supporting the policy of the Union
on nuclear safety, safeguards and security.
o Definition of the research support for decommissioning — the revised
objective for radioactive waste management covers decommissioning. The
scope of the eligible actions includes research activities supporting the
development and evaluation of technologies for decommissioning and
31
environmental remediation of nuclear facilities, and sharing best practices and
knowledge on decommissioning (current programme contains only a short
reference to decommissioning in the safety objective). The focus on
decommissioning reflects the early decommissioning demand based on the
public interest, the principle of environmental remediation, and the current
and future high number of permanently shutdown nuclear reactors.
o Revision of the scope of research for radiation protection — it also aims to
contribute to the safe use of the nuclear science and technology applications
of ionising radiation, including the secure and safe supply and use of
radioisotopes. Medical, industrial, space and research applications are some of
the options. Any applications of nuclear science and ionising radiation should
be performed based on the general principles of radiation protection as
defined in the Basic Safety Standards Directive (2013/56/Euratom).
o Single specific objective on fusion research to reflect the shift towards the
design of future fusion power plants. The new objective for fusion research
combines three specific objectives from the current 2014-2018 programme.
o Single specific objective for all actions necessary for maintaining and
further developing expertise and excellence in the EU. It includes
education and training actions, support for mobility, access to research
infrastructures, technology transfer and knowledge management and
dissemination (current programme has separate objectives for these actions).
o Specific objective on supporting the policy of the Union on nuclear safety,
safeguards and security.
- Opening of ‘Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions’ to nuclear researchers: new
provisions proposed for Horizon Europe and Euratom will make nuclear students and
researchers eligible for MSCAs. By using a well-established instrument for
supporting education and training in Europe the new programme addresses one of the
MFF’s cross-cutting objectives concerning synergies between funding instruments.
- Legal provisions facilitating cross-cutting actions in the Euratom programme and
in the Horizon Europe Framework Programme: both basic acts will provide for cross-
cutting actions, the details of which will be decided in the work programmes in
consultation with Member States (see also section 4.1(a)).
- Amendment of implementing provisions for European Joint Programmes in
fission and fusion research: improvements will address issues impairing mobility
and funding for third parties (see also section 4.1(b)).
32
Table 9 — Overview of changes in the Euratom programme’s specific objectives
from 2014-2020 to 2021-25
Specific objectives for 2014-2020 Specific objectives for 2021-2025 Explanation of changes
Supporting safe operation of nuclear
systems
Improving the safe and secure
use of nuclear energy and non-
power applications of ionising
radiation, including nuclear
safety, security, safeguards,
radiation protection, safe spent
fuel, radioactive waste
management and
decommissioning.
Broader definition of nuclear
safety.
Contributing to the development of safe,
longer-term solutions for the
management of ultimate nuclear waste,
including final geological disposal as
well as partitioning and transmutation
Revised objective covers a
broader scope of activities
incl. management and transfer
of knowledge and
decommissioning (covering
limited activities in well-
defined areas).
Supporting radiation protection and
development of medical applications of
radiation, including, inter alia, the
secure and safe supply and use of
radioisotopes
Revised objective covers
broader scope of research for
nuclear science and ionising
radiation technology
applications
Specific objectives for direct actions
Direct actions covered by
single set of specific objectives
Supporting the development and
sustainability of nuclear expertise and
excellence in the Union
Maintaining and further
developing expertise and
excellence in the Union
A single specific objective for
education and training
covering all actions necessary
for maintaining and further
developing expertise and
excellence in the EU. This
includes education and
training actions, support for
mobility, access to research
infrastructures, technology
transfer and knowledge
management and
dissemination
Promoting innovation and industry
competitiveness
Ensuring availability and use of research
infrastructures of pan-European and
international relevance
Moving towards demonstration of
feasibility of fusion as a power source
by exploiting existing and future fusion
facilities
Fostering the development of
fusion energy
Three 2014-2020 programme
objectives merged into one,
with a focus on future fusion
power plants
Laying the foundations for future fusion
power plants by developing materials,
technologies and conceptual design
European fusion programme
Policy support provided by direct
actions
Supporting the policy of the
Union on nuclear safety,
safeguards and security
Provision of policy support is
maintained as a separate
specific objective
33
- More effective use of research infrastructures, including European
Commission’s research infrastructures: the Commission will launch initiatives
facilitating mobility, networking and sharing of nuclear research infrastructures to
improve education and training impacts and to optimise their use. The JRC could
play an active role in enabling EU scientists interested in conducting nuclear safety
research to use both its own facilities and those in the Member States, and combine
these efforts with indirect actions, which allow for a consistent and sustainable
approach.
- Reinforcement of the JRC's role in knowledge management related to nuclear
science: Following its 2030 strategy and in order to cope with the specific needs in
the nuclear field already described, (paragraph 2.1.2.g) JRC will analyse and
communicate in a systematic manner, its own produced knowledge and also the one
produced by other sources when appropriate.
- Other changes: in fusion research there will be minor changes to the structure and
organisation of the programme. All those involved in fusion research are already
embedded in the EUROfusion consortium, and the consortium is an integral part of
the global European fusion community. Therefore, it will continue to be the main
R&I stakeholder for the implementation of the fusion roadmap’s research plan. It is
envisaged that this plan will be a continuation of the current programme. However, it
will also include new infrastructures of EU relevance, preparations for ITER
operation and the down selection of DEMO technologies for the start of detailed
engineering design activities at the end of the programme. However, the Euratom
programme 2021-25 should also be seen as a transition towards more industry-led
activity and during this period the structure and organisation may further evolve as
ITER construction comes to a conclusion and the Fusion for Energy joint undertaking
takes more responsibility for the DEMO preparation, in line with its statutes38
. It is
therefore proposed to ring-fence resources for the industrial effort, which will be
managed separately from the European joint programme, with the industrial services
being provided as an in-kind contribution to the EUROfusion consortium.
2.2.3. Success criteria for the Euratom programme 2021-2025
The future programme’s impacts could be measured as follows:
- Use and application of research results from the Euratom -programme by end-users
(nuclear regulators, NPP operators, nuclear industry, medical sector). Two yardsticks
to measure this could be: (1) the participation of end-users in the projects (for the
2014/15 call the figure was 45-50 % of participants, according to an Ernst & Young
38
See Article 1(2)(c) of the Council Decision of 27 March 2007 (2007/198/Euratom as amended by Council
Decision 2015/224/Euratom) establishing the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of
Fusion Energy and conferring advantages upon it: The tasks of f4E shall be as follows: […] to prepare and
coordinate a programme of activities in preparation for the construction of a demonstration fusion reactor and
related facilities. Article 3 of the f4E Statutes annexed to the above Council decision states that: In preparation
for the construction of a demonstration fusion reactor and related facilities, including the IFMIF, the Joint
Undertaking shall prepare and coordinate a programme of research, development and design activities other than
ITER and Broader Approach Activities.
34
study, and (2) a survey on the use of programme outcomes (scientific publications,
references materials and measurements, etc.) by end-users.
- Launch of an experimental campaign by ITER supported by the Euratom programme.
- Launch of geological disposal repositories supported by the EJP in radioactive waste
management.
- Percentage of EU students in the nuclear field (fission and fusion, all levels)
supported by different programme measures (fellowships, PhD funding, mobility
etc.).
2.2.4. Implementation of specific objectives
For fusion research, the specific objectives have to be addressed both via the programme
structure and priorities, and via the delivery mechanisms
In terms of programme structure it is important for fusion research in Europe that the
objectives are implemented through a joint programme to ensure that all the Member
States (the smaller ones included) are involved in implementing the European fusion
roadmap, with its ultimate aim of producing electricity from fusion energy. This also
makes for more broad-based coordination across the fusion community in the European
Union and associated countries, providing access to the available infrastructures and
enabling researchers to move around. Additionally, it allows for dynamic international
cooperation on fusion under the Commission’s strategic leadership of the.
The delivery mechanism for such research is equally important, as it has a leverage effect
for the Member States. By contributing 55 % of the total costs Euratom allows the
Member States to pool national resources in pursuit of the goals of the fusion roadmap
and to become more involved in a Community joint effort. Also, considering that fusion
is still in the research phase, it is important that the delivery mechanism is still a grant.
The important role of public funding programmes in this endeavour is a reflection of its
long-term objectives. Nonetheless, with the success of ITER and the demonstration of the
viability of fusion energy at reactor scale, industry will become more involved.
Therefore, it will be necessary to reflect on the possible use of other financial instruments
— such as loans or equity — that can complement the support offered through grants.
For fission research, the same applies.
In terms of programme structure it is important for fission research in Europe that the
objectives are implemented through research and innovation actions and joint
programmes to ensure that all the Member States (the smaller ones included) are
involved in consensus-building around the nuclear safety objectives in the relevant
Directive. This key aspect of fission research should remain a priority in a programme
structure defining milestones. This also makes for more broad-based coordination across
the fission community in the European Union and associated countries, providing access
to the available infrastructures and enabling researchers to move around. Additionally, it
allows for dynamic international cooperation on fission under the Commission’s strategic
leadership.
The delivery mechanism for such a programme is equally important, as it has a leverage
effect for the Member States. By contributing to research in fission Euratom takes
advantage of Member States’ experience in the field and helps build an EU safety
doctrine aligned with the best Member State know-how. Also, with EU safety objectives
being the highest in the world, their practical implementation using the best know-how is
of paramount importance.
35
The direct actions of the programme, implemented by JRC, include the provision of the
scientific basis for Union policies related to nuclear safety, security and safeguards, in
full alignment and complementarity with MS national research programme. In fields as
nuclear safeguards, the Euratom programme provides technical and scientific support to
the Euratom safeguards regime and in the nuclear security field an important part of the
activities performed will support the Member States with trainings and exercises. There
is also a strong international dimension in the JRC's implementation of the programme,
for example with IAEAto take into consideration the global dimension of the nuclear
safety, safeguards and security.
2.2.5. Expected impacts of the changes proposed by the future Euratom programme
Implementation of the Euratom programme 2021-25 with the proposed changes will
continue delivering impacts in the main research fields as indicated for the baseline
scenario (see Table 6). The modifications will bring additional impacts in specific fields
as indicated in Table 10 Some changes concerning horizontal aspects of the programme
such as education, training and infrastructures will further improve impacts in the main
research fields.
Table 10 — Expected impacts of the changes to the future programme
Field Expected impacts
Nuclear science
and ionising
radiation
applications
- Support implementation of the 2018 EU strategy for nuclear science and
radiation technology applications (under preparation by DG Energy)
- Support standardisation of health practices involving radiation (reduction of
doses for patients and healthcare workforce, etc.)
- Introduce innovative applications of radiation in medical sector
- Support the development of centres of excellence in medical isotopes research
- Use Euratom programme’s actions in nuclear infrastructures to support EU
efforts on the supply of medical isotopes (Mo-99, Tc-99)
- Further develop medical applications by resolving issues concerning radioactive
waste in the medical sector
- Support the sector via Euratom-funded actions in education and training
- Deliver up-to-date data on the research sector in the field (staff, students, etc.)
Education and
training
Knowledge
management
- Support PhD students working on subjects related to the fusion roadmap
- Increase the number of researchers and engineers receiving support from the 210
target for 2014-2020
- Support 10 MSCA fellows per year on fusion topics
- Evolve education and training support for the CDA/EDA of DEMO by targeting
engineering needs especially as regards nuclear skills
- Guarantee sources of new talent with support for internships, mobility access to
infrastructures, etc.
- Support all PhD students working on subjects related to the EJPs in radiation
protection and waste management
- Deliver different forms of support (mobility, MSCAs, access to infrastructures)
to most students of fission (BSc, PhD, Masters) in the nuclear field in the EU
(estimate)
The JRC will further develop knowledge management tools in several fields related
to nuclear safety, waste management, safeguards or nuclear security. These will
include communities of practice, users networks, etc.
Decom-
missioning
Implement the decommissioning roadmap established by Euratom project funded
under WP 2018
Provide programme support for sharing of best practices and new solutions applied
to all decommissioning projects launched by EC since early 90s
Contribute towards safety improvements, time shortening and cost reduction of
dismantling, decommissioning and environmental remediation activities
36
Fusion energy Provide fusion power plant relevant high-power component technology
Provide facilities for fusion-relevant materials testing.
Ensure science-technology and gender balance in human resources
Increase industry involvement in research activities with the subsequent completion
of the DEMO conceptual design
Engage in more productive international collaboration
Undertake a more proactive technology transfer programme with greater associated
benefits
Research
infrastructures
Implement strategy for networking of research reactors in EU
Open access to JRC infrastructures to improve the quality and impact of
collaborative projects and training
Waste
management
Improve management and transfer of knowledge and skills between generations and
across national programmes over next 10-15 years
3. PROGRAMME STRUCTURE AND PRIORITIES
3.1. Which actions should broadly be prioritised under Euratom programme
2021-25 to meet its specific objectives?
Based on experience from the 2014-2018 Euratom programme, the next research and
training programme should maintain the overall priorities of the current programme in
terms of support for fission and fusion research, as shown below (Table 11).
Table 11 — Overall priorities of Euratom Programme 2021-25
Fission research
55 % of the programme
Fusion research
45 % of the programme
Nuclear
safety,
safeguards
and security
Radioactive
waste
management
Radiation
protection
Research for implementing fusion roadmap
Such prioritisation is justified by the fact that nuclear research remains instrumental in
maintaining the highest standards of safety, security, waste management and non-
proliferation, one of the objectives of the Energy Union39
. This is followed by the priority
of retaining Europe’s leadership in the nuclear domain in order to reduce energy and
technology dependence.
3.1.1. Fission research
In 2021-25 research for nuclear safety will remain a top priority, with particular emphasis
on accident management, ageing and long-term operation strategies. Both the ageing of
the European nuclear fleet and the additional safety requirements introduced by the
Nuclear Safety Directive require increased efforts in developing an understanding of the
degradation mechanisms of the safety-relevant components and the impact on safety
overall. This would support a science-based assessment of the safety margins and allow
for timely implementation of safety improvements. The predictive tools and assessment
methods developed by the programme would benefit the periodic safety reviews of
39
See Energy Union Package, COM(2015)80.
37
existing nuclear installations. They would also help the regulators in assessing new
designs.
In line with the interim evaluation findings and stakeholder consultation, the programme
will increase emphasis on education and training (E&T), knowledge management, access
to infrastructures and nuclear science and radiation technology applications (see Table
12). Another aspect of the next programme that affects all fields is about guaranteeing
innovation and ensuring that commercially interesting research results get to market.
Table 12 — Priorities of Euratom fission research* in 2021-2025
Priority Field Description of priorities
1 Nuclear safety
Research on safety to accompany the safe long-term operation of the
ageing European nuclear fleet. Research supporting compatibility of
current and future systems with the requirements of the amended
Nuclear Safety Directive
2
Nuclear security
and safeguards
Development of modern nuclear safeguards based on different types of
information, trade analysis and multidisciplinary approach. Further
development of nuclear detection and forensics and capacity building
support
3 Nuclear standards
Provision of nuclear reference materials, standards and measurements
to obtain appropriate and comparable scientific results in every nuclear
field. Further development of codes and standards for nuclear safety
4
Radioactive waste
management
Implementation of European Joint Programme in research for
radioactive waste management in accordance with the SRA agreed by
stakeholders and national authorities
5
Education,
training,
knowledge
management
Support for: MSCA fellowships for PhD and postdoc researchers;
Mobility for students and researchers; Hands-on training via E&T
actions within Euratom projects; Implementation of ECVET,
accreditation and certification in nuclear professions; Pan-European
knowledge-sharing; Management of results of past Euratom projects;
More attractive education on ionising radiation and its different
applications
6
Research support
for EU policies in
nuclear field
Technical support for: monitoring the progress of implementation of
the Euratom directives for waste management, nuclear safety and
Basic Safety Standards; implementation of EU CBRN Action Plan
(COM(2017) 610); nuclear safety outside EU borders through the
implementation of the Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation;
EEAS on nuclear security and non-proliferation
7
Fission research
infrastructures
Support for: availability and accessibility of key fission research
infrastructures; mobility of researchers to access infrastructures; open
access to JRC infrastructures
8
Radiation
protection and
ionising radiation
applications
Implementation of European Joint Programme in radiation protection
research integrating low dose biology, epidemiology, dosimetry,
radiology, nuclear medicine, radioecology and preparedness to nuclear
emergencies. Research for ionising radiation applications in medical
field
9
Research for
decommissioning
of nuclear
installations
Support for the development and evaluation of technologies for
decommissioning and environmental remediation of nuclear facilities.
Sharing best practices and knowledge on decommissioning
*_direct and indirect actions combined
38
Should the Euratom funding during the Euratom programme 2021-25 fall below the
2014-2020 level in absolute terms, the key priority objectives would be affected. This
would come at a time when nuclear regulators are frequently called on to assess the
safety level of the European nuclear fleet, in the light of the new Nuclear Safety
Directive, before long-term operation decisions are taken.
Maintaining the level of innovation for safety improvements will depend on the level of
resources and stakeholder support, and on the increasing engagement of industry. With
strong support above the critical mass — i.e. with resources equal to or greater than those
provided in the 2014-18 programme — it is expected that key safety challenges for
fission electricity can be appropriately anticipated. The stakeholder consultation points
strongly to the need for an increased budget. The nuclear research community declares its
readiness to increase its contribution in co-funding of collaborative research and
innovation projects, convinced of the urgent need for a larger research portfolio at
European level.
With regard to direct actions, the JRC will need to maintain its competences to comply
with its mandate in nuclear safety, safeguards and security, and to support the
implementation of EU policies in these areas. These competences are currently under
high pressure due to staff and budget cuts under the current Programme. More than half
of the JRC budget is dedicated to staff costs; therefore a reduction in the budget for direct
actions below current levels will have an impact on the renewal of staff and, by
extension, on the transfer of skills and knowledge. Secondly, the running costs of the
JRC facilities will be also reduced, with the resulting impact on the competences and
achievement of objectives.
The JRC currently deals with several aspects of nuclear safety, waste management,
radiation protection, safeguards, nuclear security and nuclear standards, among other
things. It is in the best interest of Europe to sustain a facility such as the JRC, where a
large range of nuclear-related skills is present in-house; some of these competences will
even need to be reinforced as there will be an increase in their demand.
3.1.2. Fusion research
The European Joint Programme in fusion research carried out by the named beneficiary,
the EUROfusion consortium, should be continued in 2021-2025. The programme of
activities should address the priorities set out in the European fusion roadmap. There are
several elements in this roadmap, all of which need to be closely integrated, and are
outlined below. A pictorial overview is given in Figure 4.
39
Figure 4 — Overview of the fusion roadmap and role of Euratom programme 2021-2025
Source: EUROfusion, modified by European Commission
Since its inception, the fusion roadmap has been the go-to document for aligning the
research priorities of European laboratories and universities in the field of fusion research
and development towards the ultimate goal of achieving electricity from fusion energy.
Key facilities in the roadmap are: the international ITER tokamak, under construction in
France, that will demonstrate the scientific feasibility of fusion as an energy source; a
fusion neutron source facility for materials development and qualification (DONES); and
a DEMO demonstration reactor, which will deliver hundreds of megawatts of electricity
to the grid and operate with a closed fuel cycle.
This roadmap is currently being updated by the research stakeholders to take account of
the revised ITER baseline40
. However, the general strategy will remain unchanged. The
adoption by the European fusion stakeholders of this first update is expected by mid-
2018, following the STC review in February 2018. The objectives specified in this
update will become the priorities of the Euratom programme 2021-25 as defined in Table
13. As the EUROfusion grant agreement will be the main action for implementing the
fusion research activities, the programme must ensure that all the administrative and
financial elements are in place to enable EUROfusion to continue in 2021-25 in an
40
Commission Communication COM(2017) 319, EU contribution to a reformed ITER project.
40
efficient and effective manner. In this respect, the conditions for involving industry in the
work of EUROfusion are crucial. The participation of industry will be managed through
a Commission’s Framework Contract providing efficient and effective access of
European industry to the DEMO programme needs. Access to relevant infrastructures of
both pan-European and international interest are an essential element of the programme
and will be provided through operating contracts under Article 10 of the Euratom Treaty.
Table 13 — Priorities of Euratom fusion research in 2021-2025
(main priorities highlighted, not all fusion roadmap’s missions indicated)
Priority
Field Description of priorities
1
Conceptual
design of
demonstration
power plant
Preparation by 2025 of the conceptual design of a demonstration fusion power
plant (DEMO, next step after ITER) with emphasis on involvement of European
industry and use of its competencies. Closer collaboration with other
international DEMO programmes (e.g. the Chinese CFETR) to address common
issues identified in the European fusion roadmap.
2
Materials
research
Intensification of materials testing programme using available facilities.
Euratom programme will support preparations for the construction of a fusion
materials testing facility (IFMIF-DONES), including design, licensing, site
preparation, etc.
3 Heat exhaust
Conducting research (testing of different plasma and divertor configurations)
aimed at finding technically achievable solutions for the heat exhaust in a fusion
power plant with support for research infrastructures of EU relevance
4
Preparation
for ITER
exploitation
Comprehensive experimental programme in facilities of European and
international relevance. Continued experimental physics and technology
programmes meeting the needs of the ITER project
6
Stellarator
research
Support for research aimed at demonstrating that the stellarator could be a
possible option in addition to the tokamak for a future fusion power plant
(improving understanding of stellarator physics)
7
Education
and training
Enhance the education and training through further focusing on the human
resources’ needs in 2021-2030 (support for Masters, PhD and postdoc
programmes, use of MSCA for fostering excellence, further development of
engineering skills)
The EJP in fusion research will be carried out in full complementarity and coordination
with the Euratom activities, in support to the construction of ITER and support the
Broader Approach managed by DG Energy.
Fusion research relies on the use of large, expensive infrastructures and long-term
commitments. A prime example is the construction and exploitation of the ITER facility
which will have a lifespan of some 35 years. Should the Euratom funding during the
Euratom programme 2021-25 fall below the 2014-2020 level in absolute terms, key
priority objectives such as the materials development and risk mitigation experiments for
ITER will not be accomplished, thus delaying important objectives and milestones in the
overall implementation of the fusion roadmap.
Maintaining the level of ambition and innovation as well as the rate of progress in the
implementation of the fusion roadmap will depend on the level of resources and
stakeholder support, and on the increasing engagement of industry. With strong support
above the critical mass — i.e. with resources equal to or greater than those provided in
the 2014-2018 Euratom programme — it is expected that the first fusion electricity can
41
be generated in Europe early in the second half of this century, thus ultimately leading to
the introduction of commercial fusion power plants as part of a future sustainable energy
mix.
Fusion presents a special opportunity to provide a long-term, robust supply of low-
carbon electricity as part of a sustainable energy mix in Europe and worldwide. Fusion
distinguishes itself from other low-carbon electricity sources in that it can be an
intrinsically safe base-load electricity provider in regions and conditions where this is
required, thus eliminating issues of availability of supply and location.
The fusion roadmap outlines the approach chosen by Europe to address the significant
remaining scientific, engineering and industrial challenges, many of which have
synergies with other science and technology fields. Europe has a leading position in the
international fusion research community and has developed expertise in all relevant
areas, so is well placed to implement the roadmap. Additionally, Europe is currently
developing the necessary industrial expertise to be able to take full advantage of this
leadership in terms of know-how, spin-offs and jobs if suitably sustained. Fusion is an
international endeavour as exemplified by ITER, and Europe will continue to engage
strongly with its international partners.
3.2. Subsidiarity (EU added value/necessity for EU action) and proportionality
dimensions of the Euratom programme
The future Euratom programme will be based on Articles 4 and 7 of the Euratom Treaty.
According to Article 4 the Commission is responsible for promoting and facilitating
nuclear research in the Member States, and for complementing it by carrying out a
Community research and training programme. Such programmes are adopted by the
Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission (Article 7 of the
Treaty). In addition, Article 8 of the Treaty establishes the Joint Research Centre for
implementing research and other tasks, including introducing uniform nuclear
terminology and a standard system of measurements.
This proposal is an initiative in an area of shared competence and, therefore, the
necessity and EU added value tests of the subsidiarity principle apply.
The European added value of nuclear research is made explicit in the Euratom Treaty
itself and the Commission has an obligation to put forward an R&D programme to
complement those in Member States. The justification for Euratom intervention is based
mainly on the need to ensure high and uniform levels of nuclear safety in Europe.
Moreover, in chapter 3 on health and safety, the Treaty also establishes the obligation for
Member States to establish provisions on basic safety standards and to monitor the level
of radioactivity in the environment on their territory. Through the JRC, the Commission
provides standards and technical means to ensure that Member States fulfil their
obligations properly.
The Commission, in accordance with the chapter 7 of the Treaty, must fulfil its
safeguarding obligations, in particular safeguarding the existing radioactive materials in
the EU and the obligations assumed under the non-proliferation treaty. Under the
Euratom research and training programme the JRC develops methods, standards and
42
techniques and provides scientific and technical support to other Commission
departments.
The feedback from research stakeholders and end-users of nuclear research such as
nuclear regulators, NPP operators, industry and radiation protection authorities41
shows
that the current programme respects the subsidiarity and proportionality principles (see
Table 14). Given the similar features and scope, these findings can be extended to the
future Euratom programme 2021-2025.
The Euratom programme’s intervention does not replace national R&I actions and does
not go beyond what is required to achieve the objectives of the Union. Member States
will continue investing in their national research programmes to address specific issues
concerning nuclear safety and radiation protection.
Table 14 — Stakeholders and end-users’ views on the EU added value
of the Euratom programme (2017 open public consultation)
(% of ‘agree’ and ‘tend to agree’ answers)
Programme is improving knowledge-sharing and information dissemination 89 %
Programme is mobilising a wider pool of high-level, multidisciplinary skills than is
available at national level 85 %
Euratom is undertaking programmes beyond the reach of individual Member States so
that objectives that could not otherwise be achieved can be met 82 %
Source: European Commission
The main messages from the 2017 public consultation are also confirmed by the results
of the survey carried out by Ernst & Young42
to gauge in more detail the added value
provided by Euratom research projects, compared to research conducted at national level
or on the basis of bilateral international agreements. The respondents were presented with
the opportunity to provide their opinion on several aspects of added value (see Figure 5).
The main types of European added value underlined by the respondents are better sharing
of knowledge and best practices across borders, the wider dissemination of results
allowed by international dimension, greater cross-border collaboration and mobility, and
the contribution to the structuring of research. However, the Euratom programme is not
seen as exerting a strong influence on the financial aspects of the projects: only 34 % of
the respondents agree that the European project provides significant economies of scale
and a little under half feel that Euratom funding allows their organisation to secure
additional national funding.
41
In all, 63 % respondents to the 2017 consultation said that they were ‘end-users’ of Euratom-funded research.
42
A total of 589 replies were received from Euratom project coordinators or members of project consortia launched
between 2007 and 2015. For more details see Ernst & Young study 2016.
43
Figure 5 — Main types of EU added value of the Euratom programme identified by the
respondents to the E&Y survey
Source: Ernst & Young study
Some respondents also underlined other types of added value. The European programme
brings some important nuclear research issues to the European Commission’s attention
and enhances the creation of a common vision of research challenges across European
organisations. European action is also considered as key in training the next generation of
nuclear specialists, through cooperation between educational organisations and with
nuclear companies.
This picture of the added value of the Euratom programme is similar to the overview of
different aspects of the added value of EU-funded research explained in the Impact
Assessment for the Horizon Europe Framework Programme for Research and Innovation.
This is especially true as regards strengthening scientific excellence, creating a critical
mass of resources to address challenges and building multidisciplinary transnational
networks for more impact.
4. DELIVERY MECHANISMS
4.1. Main mechanisms to deliver funding under Euratom programme 2021-25
The Euratom programme complements the Horizon Europe Framework Programme’s
nuclear research activities and shares the same rules for participation. For this reason, the
main features of the delivery mechanism for the Euratom programme 2021-2025 will
also be shared with the EU Framework Programme (see Box 1).
44
Box 1 — Delivery mechanism shared with the Horizon Europe Framework Programme
for Research and Innovation
- Strategic programming process
- Single set of rules for participation
- Calls for proposals
- Funding model
- Forms of grants
- Proposal evaluation and selection
- Project management
- Dissemination and exploitation
For more details on these features and how they will help achieve the MFF’s cross-
cutting objectives (simplification, flexibility, coherence, synergies and focus on
performance), please refer to the impact assessment for the Horizon Europe Framework
Programme.
Taking into account the specifics of the Euratom programme (such as the importance of
EJPs, the role of industry and research infrastructures, and the minor role of SMEs),
along with the findings of the 2014-2018 Euratom programme’s interim evaluation, some
areas for improving delivery mechanisms must be carefully considered post-2020. This is
true, in particular, for those areas that will have a strong impact on the cross-cutting
objectives of the future MFF:
a) Cross-cutting actions with Horizon Europe Framework Programme
Implementation of some specific objectives of the future Euratom programme may
require cross-cutting actions with the Horizon Europe Framework Programme. This may
include:
- the specific objective of the Euratom programme 2021-2025 concerning applications
of ionising radiation (see section 2.2), which requires cross-cutting actions with the
Horizon Europe Framework Programme (health part). Such actions, for example in
medical applications of radiation (e.g. brachytherapy43
), may make it possible to
address challenging medical and radiation protection aspects at the same time; and
- the specific objective on education and training, which requires cross-cutting actions
with the MSCAs in order to make nuclear researchers eligible for MSCA fellowships.
Experience of Horizon 2020 shows that to launch and implement such actions
effectively, the following conditions must be met:
- both the legal acts establishing the Euratom and EU research programmes should
contain provisions facilitating the establishment of cross-cutting actions;
- these provisions should in particular address issues around the joint financing of such
actions and appropriate decision-making involving different programme committees;
- similarly, legal provisions should facilitate the use of the FP’s instruments such as
MSCAs with financial contribution from the Euratom programme.
b) Improvements in the use of European Joint Programmes (EJPs) by the Euratom
Programme
Under the 2014-2018 Euratom programme, the Euratom funding for EJPs in fission and
fusion research accounted for almost a third of the programme’s total budget. It is
43
Treatment for cancer involving inserting radioactive implants directly into the tissue.
45
expected that EJPs established in these areas will continue to play a significant role under
the future programme, under specific conditions (see Box 2).
Box 2 — conditions for continuation of funding for EJPs in nuclear research
- Alignment with priorities of the Euratom
programme
- Positive evaluation by independent experts
following an open call for proposals (fission)
and a named beneficiary (fusion)
- Up-to-date joint strategic research agenda or
research roadmap agreed by EJP members with
research topics assigned priority on the basis of
actual scientific and societal challenges
- Open access for all research teams on the basis
of scientific excellence
- Implementation of the best practices for
internal organisation of EJP consortium
- Involvement of all interested EU Member
States or associated countries
- EJP duration of up to 5 years, with possible
extension for another two years, if the
Euratom programme 2021-2025 is extended
- Level of Euratom funding close to 50 %
As the rules for participation will set only some general principles for the future
partnerships, which include EJPs, it is important to ensure that implementing provisions
such as Commission decisions on the model grant agreement and on the work
programmes address some issues raised by the interim evaluation44
and by research
stakeholders during the consultation.
The first recommendation referred to the inclusiveness of the European joint programme.
The expert group pointed out that even if the level of excellence remains the key for
applying for research funding, emerging contributors with the potential to provide new
ideas and innovation, should be able to continue and be further encouraged to participate
in the joint programme. During the 2014-18 implementation of the fusion programme,
this was done via the option of involving different entities as linked third parties.
However, this solution was not always adequate, especially for the involvement of
industry, because of the requirement to demonstrate the existence of a past legal link with
one of the beneficiaries. This requirement was not always fulfilled, resulting in an
inability to involve certain industries in the programme as third parties. This weakness of
the EJP as regards involving industry was also underlined by the Fusion Industry
Innovation Forum (FIIF) and the EUROfusion consortium in their position papers
submitted during the stakeholder consultation.
To address this problem it will be necessary to revise the conditions for linked third
parties participating in the European Joint Programmes (in fission and fusion research).
In particular, entities with no previous link to a beneficiary must be able to become third
parties where research cooperation is deemed important. Furthermore, to boost industry
involvement in the EU fusion programme, it is desirable to have the option of utilising
framework contracts between industrial entities and beneficiaries to provide services to
and/or framework partnerships with the consortium. In addition, experience shows that,
in many cases, the current rules on depreciation of hardware in the grant agreement
impede the procurement of components needed by the joint programme. The next
Euratom programme might therefore consider reimbursing the cost of the equipment.
Also, it would be beneficial for industry involvement to allow for pre-commercial
procurement.
44
Commission Staff Working Document SWD(2017) 427.
46
Another recommendation from the group of independent experts for the organisation of
the European fusion joint programme, and particularly for the fusion EJP, was to review
the system of unit costs. This system has been used for the mobility of researchers and
secondment of staff, but has in practice been found not to be well adapted to the evolving
needs of EUROfusion. The EUROfusion consortium also raised this point during the
stakeholder consultation. A complicating factor in this context is the significant
difference in salaries between researchers in the EU-12 Member States and the rest of the
European Union. Furthermore, seconded staff with children face additional problems
with costs for schools etc. To make it easier to second staff (from all the Member States)
to vital functions within EUROfusion, and to improve mobility for researchers, it will be
necessary to revise the current system of unit costs. This could be achieved in three ways:
firstly, by introducing a ceiling on unit costs for short-term mobility; secondly, by
updating the unit costs for education allowances for children so as not to discriminate
against researchers with families; and thirdly by extending the use of unit costs for long-
term secondments to third countries with which the Euratom fusion programme has
specific international collaboration, for instance for European exploitation of the
Japanese JT-60SA tokamak.
Concerning better project management within EUROfusion, the group of independent
experts suggested firmer arrangements for EUROfusion project management and making
the programme manager responsible for the development and implementation strategy.
To follow up on this recommendation, it is proposed that the EJP under the Euratom
programme 2021-25 should provide a training package on project management.
Likewise, following the recommendation from the FIIF in its position paper, the
introduction of a Full Lifecycle Cost management (FLCM) method for the estimation the
costs of a DEMO could be envisaged.
As demonstrated in the above paragraphs, the operational experience and consultation
with the main stakeholders in fusion research has highlighted many areas where
improvements are desirable. Consequently, in preparing the implementing provisions for
the future Euratom programme these will all be taken into account to ensure effective
implementation of the EJPs.
c) Synergies with EU cohesion and structural funds
In 2011 the European Commission approved European Regional Development Fund
(ERDF)45
support funding of EUR 5.5 million for the construction of a new research
facility in Řež in the Czech Republic, which now hosts helium and supercritical water
research loops. Early 2014, the Czech Republic obtained a further EUR 85 million in
ERDF funding (bringing the total to EUR 100 million) for their SUStainable ENergy
project (SUSEN). Building such a research infrastructure extends their energy research
possibilities, the emphasis being on nuclear technologies at the Řež Research Centre and
Pilsen University of West Bohemia. It also allows them to act as a relevant research
partner within the Commission’s smart specialisation platforms for energy cooperation,
involving the establishment of partnerships and cooperation with other European
research centres. All Member States and regions should remain eligible for support from
the ERDF, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund to support them in building
their research capacity.
45
For more on the ERDF, see http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/funding/erdf/.
47
d) Funding model
The rules for participation, shared with Horizon Europe Framework Programme, will
maintain the single reimbursement rate (up to 100 % of eligible costs for Research and
Innovation Actions and up to 70 % for Innovation Actions). It will be possible to reduce
the funding rate for implementing specific actions, where duly justified in the Euratom
work programmes, in particular for research topics involving industry. A flexible funding
rate could apply to funding for third parties involved in the EJPs.
5. HOW WILL PERFORMANCE BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED?
5.1. Lessons learned from monitoring and evaluation of Euratom Research
and Training Programme 2014-2018
In 2014-2018 the Euratom programme shared its monitoring and the evaluation system
with the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation. As with the
latter, the Euratom programme marked a shift in performance measurement, with a set of
key performance indicators defined in its legal basis. While the future Euratom
programme can usefully take up some of these indicators, the interim evaluation pointed
to the need for a more integrated approach to assess the impacts of the whole programme,
including direct and indirect actions. Learning from experience, the performance of the
future programme will be subject to a single evaluation, monitoring the progress that
programme as a whole has made towards its common specific objectives.
In line with changes proposed for the Horizon Europe, it is therefore proposed that
performance indicators, to the extent possible, are developed for the entire programme,
given the common objectives and interlinkages between the direct and indirect actions.
Nevertheless, to define meaningful indicators, it is necessary to keep in mind the specific
characteristics of both the direct and indirect actions of the programme and the different
way of implementing them to meet the common objectives, and to consider the parts of
the programme exclusively dealt with by direct actions.
The selected indicators should allow for a clear attribution of the effects observed to the
Euratom programme. The performance framework will also distinguish between progress
indicators in the short, medium and long term according to key impacts. With the aim of
further simplifying and reducing the administrative burden for participants in indirect
actions, better use will be made of existing indicators (e.g. indicators and data used by
other EU or national programmes or other external databases), of additional information
providers other than beneficiaries (such as project evaluators or reviewers) and of new
ICT tools (e.g. standardised IT identifiers of researchers and companies). More
automated data collection systems will also make for continued data collection after the
project ends, without burdening beneficiaries. The performance framework will be
simple and easy to communicate, with a limited number of indicators that a wider
audience can understand, and better dissemination and reporting activities.
5.2. Future monitoring and evaluation arrangements
Prior to the 2021-25 Euratom programme’s launch, the baseline data for all performance
indicators, mainly on the 2014-2020 programme, will be completed to allow for
benchmarking and assessing progress over time.
48
The future monitoring and evaluation arrangements for the Euratom programme will be
shared with the Horizon Europe Framework Programme for Research and Innovation.
Implementation data will be available on a dedicated online portal. Every year, the
Commission will publish a report analysing progress on key dimensions of the
Framework Programme’s and Euratom programme’s implementation. Monitoring
arrangements will be put in place to provide an analysis of the effects of the programme.
This will include the use of unique identifiers for researchers and companies, allowing
for the development of control groups. The monitoring system will be one of the key
sources of information for evaluations of the future programme. The CORDA system
implemented by the RTD Common Support Centre will continue to be the key repository
of monitoring data, as under previous programmes.
Evaluations will provide a robust evidence-based judgment of the performance of the
programme based on a wide set of quantitative and qualitative data sources and analytical
methods. Evaluations will be based on the Commission’s internal evaluation capacities
with the assistance of external contractors or experts. Results from the evaluations will be
communicated formally to the other institutions and to the stakeholder community at
large, to allow for a broad debate on the issues addressed.
In preparation for the launch of the future programme, an evaluation and monitoring
strategy will be developed. This strategy will ensure appropriate and systematic
evaluation coverage of the whole programme, with a detailed timetable for specific
evaluation work.
- An interim evaluation will be performed no later than 2023 (3 years into the
programme46
), according to the evaluation criteria of relevance, coherence,
efficiency, effectiveness and EU added value. This evaluation will rely on reports
from an independent expert group and the contractors’ evaluation of the specific
aspects of the programme. It will also provide a comprehensive overview of the state
of implementation and report on the longer-term effects of 2014-2020 Euratom
programme. The short-term recommendations for improvements from the interim
evaluation will feed into implementation and management over the remaining years
of the programme and into preparations for its extension to 2026-2747
. The longer-
term recommendations will serve as inputs for the debate on the future Euratom
research and training programmes, and will contribute substantially to future ex-ante
impact assessments.
- An ex-post evaluation will be carried out in 2029 (two years after the end of the
programme) with the same evaluation criteria. It will rely on in-depth evaluations of
each area of the programme (fusion energy, nuclear safety, waste management,
radiation protection, nuclear security and safeguards), using the same criteria and
common templates. It will be prepared starting in 2027 through the performance of a
set of dedicated studies.
Networking across the Commission departments involved in the implementation of the
Euratom programme, in particular DG Research, the Joint Research Centre and DG
Energy is essential to ensure an efficient and coherent evaluation and monitoring. It is
46
In accordance with Article 7 of the Euratom Treaty, a Community research programme can be no longer than 5
years in length.
47
An extension is necessary to match the duration of the MFF and Horizon Europe Framework Programme for
Research and Innovation.
49
equally important to step up the efforts to connect with the programme’s research
stakeholders and end-users. The Commission will ensure that appropriate feedback is
gathered via surveys, seminars and workshops.
To ensure full transparency in relation to the programme’s performance, a dedicated
evaluation and monitoring website for the future Euratom programme and Horizon
Europe Framework Programme will present all relevant material and studies performed,
following up on the website set up for current Euratom Programme and Horizon 2020.
5.3. Impact indicators
Progress towards achieving the specific objectives of the Euratom programme will be
measured using four impact categories using indicators shared with Framework
Programme for Research and Innovation48
.
a) Scientific impacts - the programme is expected to make progress as regards
knowledge for reinforcing nuclear safety and security; safe applications of ionising
radiation, spent fuel and radioactive waste management; radiation protection; and the
development of fusion energy. Progress in this area will be measured by indicators
concerning scientific publications, progress in the implementation of the fusion
roadmap, development of expertise and skills, access to research infrastructures.
Programme’s objective
Short-term indicators
(outputs)
Medium-term indicators
(results)
Longer-term
Improving the safe and
secure use of nuclear
energy and non-power
applications of ionizing
radiation, including
nuclear safety, security,
safeguards, radiation
protection, safe spent
fuel, radioactive waste
management and
decommissioning.
Publications –
number of Euratom peer-
reviewed scientific
publications
Citations -
Field-Weighted Citation
Index of Euratom peer-
reviewed scientific
publications
World-class science -
Number and share of
peer reviewed
publications from
Euratom programme
that are core
contribution to
scientific fields
Shared knowledge -
Share of research outputs
(open data/ publication/
software etc.) shared
through open knowledge
infrastructures
Knowledge diffusion -
Share of open access
research outputs actively
used/cited
New collaborations -
Share of Euratom
beneficiaries having
developed new
transdisciplinary/ trans-
sectoral collaborations
with users of their open
Euratom R&I outputs
Fostering the
development of fusion
energy
Progress in the implementation of the fusion roadmap –
Percentage of the fusion roadmap’s milestones established for the period
2021-2025 reached by the Euratom programme
Maintaining and further
developing expertise
and excellence in the
Union
Skills -
Number of researchers
having benefitted from
upskilling activities of
the Euratom programme
(through training,
mobility and access to
infrastructures)
Careers -
Number and share of
upskilled researchers with
more influence in their
R&I field
Working conditions -
Number and share of
upskilled researchers
with improved working
conditions
The number of researchers having access to research infrastructures through the
programme support
48
Unless stated otherwise methodology and data collection will be shared with Horizon Europe Framework
Programme for Research and Innovation.
50
Reference materials delivered and
reference measurements incorporated to
a library
Number of international standards
modified
b) Societal impacts – the programme helps addressing EU policy priorities concerning
nuclear safety and security, radiation protection and ionising radiation applications
through research and innovation, as shown by the portfolios of projects generating
outputs contributing to tackling challenges in these fields. Societal impact is also
measured in terms of the developments in the field of nuclear security and
safeguards.
Programme’s objective
Short-term indicators
(outputs)
Medium-term
indicators
(results)
Longer-term
Improving the safe and
secure use of nuclear energy
and non-power applications
of ionizing radiation,
including nuclear safety,
security, safeguards,
radiation protection, safe
spent fuel, radioactive waste
management and
decommissioning
Outputs -
Number and share of
outputs aimed at
addressing specific EU
policy priorities
Solutions -
Number and share of
innovations and scientific
results addressing specific
EU policy priorities
Benefits -
Aggregated estimated
effects from use of
Euratom-funded results,
on tackling specific EU
policy priorities, including
contribution to the policy
and law-making cycle
Number of services delivered in
support of safeguards in EU
Number of technical systems
provided and in use
Number of training sessions delivered to front-line officers
c) Innovation impacts - the programme is expected to deliver innovation impacts
supporting delivery of its specific objectives. Progress in this area will be measured
by indicators concerning intellectual property rights (IPR), innovative products,
methods and processes and their use, along with job creation.
Programme’s objective
Short-term indicators
(outputs)
Medium-term indicators
(results)
Longer-term
Maintaining and further
developing expertise
and excellence in the
Union
Innovative outputs -
Number of innovative
products, processes or
methods from Euratom
programme (by type of
innovation) and
Intellectual Property
Rights (IPR) applications
Innovations -
Number of innovations
from the Euratom
programme (by type of
innovation) including
from awarded IPRs
Economic growth -
Creation, growth and
market shares of
companies having
developed Euratom
funded innovations
Supported employment -
Number of FTE jobs
created and jobs
maintained in beneficiary
entities for the Euratom
project (by type of job)
Sustained employment -
Increase of FTE jobs in
beneficiary entities
following Euratom project
(by type of job)
Total employment -
Number of direct and
indirect jobs created
or maintained due to
diffusion of Euratom
results (by type of job)
Amount of public and
private investment
mobilised with the initial
Euratom investment
Amount of public and
private investment
mobilised to exploit or
scale up Euratom results
EU progress towards
3 % GDP target due to
Euratom programme
51
d) Policy impact. The Euratom programme provides scientific evidence for policy-
making. This in particular concerns scientific support for other Commission services,
such as the support to Euratom safeguards, or to the implementation by Member
States of nuclear and ionising radiation-related directives49
.
Programme’s objective
Short-term indicators
(outputs)
Medium-term indicators
(results)
Longer-term
Supporting Union
policy on nuclear safety,
safeguards and security
Policy-relevant findings -
Number of Euratom projects
producing policy-relevant
findings
Policy maker engagement
Number of Euratom outputs
having a demonstrable
impact on the EU policy
Policy uptake
Number and share of
Euratom projects
findings cited in
policy/programmatic
documents
Targets will be defined for both indirect and direct actions to reflect the expected results
for each part of the programme.
The indicators are complemented by a set of key management indicators to gauge
implementation of the programme and monitor the related JRC performance
(collaborative partnerships, support for international organisations and participation in
JRC-managed networks).Key management and implementation data will be collected for:
 Number of proposals and applications submitted, EC contribution requested and
total costs of submitted proposals (by source of funds)
 Number of proposals reaching the quality threshold
 Number of retained proposals
 Success rates of proposals
 EC contribution and total costs of retained proposals (by source of funds)
 Number of participations and single participants
 Number of collaborative projects where JRC participates
 Number of participants and countries in JRC networks
 Number of collaborations with international organisations (IAEA, OECD-NEA,
standardisation, etc.)
This information shall be collected according to:
 Types of action
 Types of organisations, including Civil Society Organisations (with specific data
for SMEs)
 Countries of applicants and participants (including from associated and third
countries)
 Sectors
 Disciplines
Data shall also be monitored on the profiles of beneficiaries and evaluators:
49
Council Directive 2014/87/Euratom of 8 July 2014 amending Directive 2009/71/Euratom establishing a
Community framework for the nuclear safety of nuclear installations; Council Directive 2011/70/Euratom of
19 July 2011 establishing a Community framework for the responsible and safe management of spent fuel and
radioactive waste; and Commission Regulation (Euratom) No 302/2005 of 8 February 2005 on the application of
Euratom safeguards.
52
 Gender balance (in projects, in EC advisory groups and evaluators)
 Role(s) in project
 Share of newcomers to the Programme
Data shall also be monitored on the implementation processes:
 Time-to-grant
 Time-to-pay
 Error rate
 Satisfaction rate
 Rate of risk taking
Data shall also be monitored on:
 The financial contribution that is climate-related
 The financial contribution that is sustainability-related
Data shall also be collected on:
 Dissemination of R&I results
 Exploitation of R&I results
 Exploitation and deployment of R&I results
53
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION
1. LEAD DG(S), DeCIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES
Lead DG: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (RTD)
Agenda planning number: PLAN/2017/671
2. ORGANISATION AND TIMING
An inter-service steering group (ISSG) on the Euratom research and training programme
was set up in 2016. The ISSG is composed of representatives from four Commission
Directorates-General (RTD, ENER, JRC, SG). In accordance with the Better Regulation
Guidance, the ISSG was involved in drafting an interim evaluation of the Euratom
programme 2014-18 and a proposal for the extension of this programme until 2020.
Work on input for the impact assessment for the Euratom programme 2021-2025 began
during the fourth quarter of 2017. The work was coordinated by the Strategy Unit (G.1)
in the Energy Directorate of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Research and
Innovation (DG RTD).
3. CONSULTATION OF THE RSB
The Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) received a draft impact assessment report in
March 2018. The RSB’s opinion was adopted on 13 April 2018.
4. EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY
The impact assessment is based on a wide range of sources. These include:
- internal Commission assessments;
- the input and results from the interim evaluation of the Euratom programme
2014-2018 (external expert group report)50
and from the Commission’s report
(COM(2017) 697) and Staff Working Documents (SWD(2017) 426 and 427);
- the Ernst & Young study on fission and fusion research; and
- the ex-post evaluation of the Euratom 7th
Framework Programme (FP7, 2007-
2013)51
.
Further evidence was provided by research stakeholders in the consultation carried out in
January and February 2018 (for details see Annex 2). The impact assessment’s quality
was ensured through a peer review of the report by units from DG RTD, JRC and DG
ENER.
50
https://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/archive/other_reports_studies_and_documents/panel_report_on_indi
rect_actions_of_euratom_interim_evaluation_2014-2018.pdf.
51
Annex to COM(2016) 5 and report from independent experts,
https://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/archive/fp7-ex-post_evaluation/ki0115936enn.pdf.
54
ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION
As part of the ex-ante impact assessment of the future Euratom Research and Training
programme (2021-2025), a targeted consultation, primarily aimed at stakeholders in
nuclear research, was carried out. The consultation consisted of three elements: a survey,
a seminar and contributions in the form of position papers.
1. STAKEHOLDER SURVEY
An online questionnaire was open for replies from 22 January to 16 February 201852
. As
targeted consultations are not published on the Commission’s page for open public
consultations, use was made of the EU Survey tool. Euratom research stakeholders were
invited to participate. While the nuclear research community was the primary target
audience, the survey was public, with a link provided from the Euratom research
webpage.
1.1. Respondents’ profile
In all, 366 people answered the questionnaire, which compares favourably with the total
of 323 who participated in the consultation on the interim evaluation of the 2014-2018
programme. More than half (56.1 %) said they were answering ‘in a professional
capacity or on behalf of an organisation’, the latter including universities (13.0 %),
laboratories (12.5 %) and technical support organisations (7.4 %). The fields of interest53
and countries of residence of respondents are shown in tables 1 and 2 respectively.
52
Targeted consultations are not bound by the same minimum duration requirements as open public consultations. A
period of four weeks was considered sufficient for this particular survey.
53
Respondents were allowed to indicate more than one field.
0 50 100 150 200 250
Other
Other non-power applications
Radioactive waste and spent fuel management
Safety of nuclear reactors and nuclear installations
Radiation protection
Development of new nuclear systems
Nuclear fusion research
Decommissioning
Fission research in general
Nuclear security and safeguards
Current nuclear systems
Radioisotopes, radiochemistry
Detection and measurement of nuclear materials
Industrial applications
Medical applications of radioactivity
Commissioning
Accelerators
Table 1. Field of Interest
55
1.2. Importance of the present programme
Respondents were asked to rank the programme’s actions in relation to their field of
interest and their main reasons for taking part in Euratom projects. The results are shown
in tables 3 and 4 below54
.
Table 3. Preferred Euratom programme actions for addressing field of interest
Rank Options
1st
Provide grants for collaborative research projects
2nd
Support education and training actions
3rd
Support access to research infrastructures
4th
Support networking and preparatory actions
5th
Support mobility of researchers
6th
Support frontier/basic research
54
For questions requiring the rank-ordering of a series of options respondents were asked to mark their preferences
starting with 1 (highest preference) and continue for as many preferences they liked (2, 3, 4, etc.). Respondents
were also allowed to give a preference more than once. Replies were then scored using a Borda count with the
formula t-p+1, where t is the number of options and p the preference given for that option.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Other non-Euratom
Ukraine
Switzerland
Luxembourg
Ireland
Cyprus
Slovenia
Slovakia
Bulgaria
Denmark
Portugal
Greece
Austria
Poland
Lithuania
Hungary
Netherlands
Finland
Czech Republic
Sweden
Belgium
United Kingdom
Spain
Romania
France
Italy
Germany
Table 2. Country of Residence
56
7th
Launch European joint programmes coordinating Member States’ research actions
8th
Support dissemination and exploitation of research results
9th
Support innovation (bringing new services and products to market)
Table 4. Main reasons for taking part in Euratom projects
Rank Options
1st
Receiving funding for my/our research
2nd
Establishment of research networks
3rd Access to knowledge and/or nuclear facilities not available or difficult to acquire alone at national
level, development of competences
4th
Enhancing critical mass of resources to address specific issues
5th
Credibility of the results obtained in Euratom activities
6th
Industrial competitiveness
1.3. Directions for the future programme
Respondents were also asked what would happen if they were to receive no funding from
the Euratom programme 2021-2025 (they were allowed to give more than one answer).
The largest group (65.2 %) said that projects would only be partially implemented,
followed by those who said that the project would be funded through national or private
funding only (47.6 %) and that the projects would not be implemented at all (43.6 %).
The response to other questions on the future direction of the programme can be found in
tables 5 to 10 below.
Table 5. What should be the role of indirect
actions of the Euratom programme?
Strongly
agree
Tend to
agree
Tend to
disagree
Strongly
disagree
Euratom funding should only focus on a limited number
of research areas in order to maximise impacts
25.95 % 33.53 % 31.20 % 9.33 %
Euratom funding should continue to cover the research
areas of the current programme
44.61 % 42.27 % 9.91 % 3.21 %
The programme should shift more resources towards
addressing basic needs in education and training,
mobility, access to infrastructures, knowledge
management
18.26 % 36.52 % 32.75 % 12.46 %
Table 6. What should be the role of the
Euratom programme with regard to the
access to fission research infrastructures?
Strongly
agree
Tend to
agree
Tend to
disagree
Strongly
disagree
The Euratom programme should support access to the
relevant research infrastructures in Europe
54.7 % 38.4 % 5.7 % 1.3 %
The Euratom programme should support the networking
and exchange of researchers between relevant research
infrastructures in Europe
38.6 % 55.5 % 5.0 % 0.9 %
The Euratom programme should better facilitate access
to the Commission’s research infrastructures
30.0% 54.5 % 13.8 % 1.7 %
Table 7. What should be the role of the
direct actions of the Euratom programme?
Strongly
agree
Tend to
agree
Tend to
disagree
Strongly
disagree
57
To provide independent scientific advice in Europe 42.9 % 41.3 % 12.6 % 3.2 %
To carry out research complementing national initiatives 38.4 % 48.3 % 11.3 % 2.0 %
To provide scientific and knowledge support to EU
policies
43.8 % 49.7 % 5.3 % 1.2 %
To develop a knowledge management centre for
Euratom research
24.7 % 48.4 % 21.1 % 5.8 %
Table 8. How should JRC direct actions be
integrated with indirect actions of the
Euratom programme?
Strongly
agree
Tend to
agree
Tend to
disagree
Strongly
disagree
The JRC should continue participating in Euratom calls
for fission proposals on a competitive basis and receive
funding as would any other member of a consortium
14.5 % 26.8 % 42.8 % 16.0 %
The JRC should not take part on a competitive basis in
Euratom calls for proposals but instead offer in-kind
contributions to applicants
24.6 % 46.6 % 21.3 % 7.5 %
The JRC should play a coordinating role in knowledge
management
24.4 % 55.9 % 13.0 % 6.7 %
Table 9. What should be the role of the
Euratom programme with regard to
decommissioning of nuclear facilities?
Strongly
agree
Tend to
agree
Tend to
disagree
Strongly
disagree
Support for decommissioning research should play an
important and similar role in the Euratom programme as
research in safety, waste management and radiation
protection
31.5 % 25.3 % 24.0 % 19.2 %
Euratom research on decommissioning should be
limited to specific issues such as development of skills
and exchange of best practices
14.6 % 37.7 % 40.9 % 6.8 %
Euratom research should support financially industry
efforts on decommissioning
7.1 % 17.5 % 26.6 % 48.7 %
Table 10. To what extent should the
Euratom programme be involved in non-
energy applications of nuclear science such
as medical applications?
Strongly
agree
Tend to
agree
Tend to
disagree
Strongly
disagree
Research on nuclear science issues for non-energy
applications (medical or others) should be supported by
the Euratom programme
22.0 % 23.6 % 32.1 % 22.3 %
Research on nuclear science issues for non-energy
applications (medical or others) should be supported by
other R&D activities (e.g. health)
36.5 % 42.0 % 17.3 % 4.2 %
Research on nuclear science issues for non-energy
applications (medical or others) should be supported
jointly by the Euratom programme and other R&D
activities
28.8 % 34.9 % 17.9 % 18.3 %
1.4. Support for innovation
A large majority of respondents (79.9 %) felt that the Euratom programme should
support breakthrough innovations in their field. They were then asked to rank-order
proposals for how this could be done; the results are shown in Table 11 below.
58
Table 11. How should the Euratom programme support innovation in your field?
Rank Options
1st Support early-stage, science and technology research by consortia exploring novel ideas for
radically new future technologies that challenge current paradigms and venture into the unknown
2nd
Support close-to-market projects of consortia of research and industry
3rd Support the development of European design codes and standards to facilitate deployment of
innovation
4th
Support prizes for breakthrough innovation
5th
Support close-to-market and scale-up projects of a single SME or of a consortium of SMEs
6th
Provide loans
When asked how the Commission should support education and training in fission in the
future programme, the options were ranked as shown in Table 12 below.
Table 12. How should the Commission support education and training in fission in
the future programme?
Rank Options
1st
Providing access to research infrastructures
2nd
Providing individual fellowships to postdoc researchers
3rd
Providing individual fellowships to PhD researchers
4th
Supporting short-term exchanges for staff/researchers
5th
Supporting European training networks providing PhD education
6th
Supporting European training networks providing graduate education
7th
Launching specific E&T projects
8th Dedicating more than 5 % of its financial support for collaborative research projects to education
and training actions
9th
Supporting life-long learning in specialist fields by means of (refresher) courses
10th
Supporting individual fellowships for training at the European Commission’s JRC premises
1.5. Education and training in fusion
The Euratom programme supports education and training in fusion by co-financing PhD
studies and EUROfusion grants for researchers and engineers. Respondents were asked
to rank possible ways the Commission could support education and training in fusion
research for the future Euratom programme.
The most popular reply was ‘Keep existing Euratom fusion E&T programmes’, followed
by ‘Expand the existing Euratom fusion E&T programmes’ and ‘Keep existing Euratom
fusion E&T programmes and enhance with Marie Skłodowska Curie fellowships’.
59
2. STAKEHOLDER SEMINAR
On 21 February 2018 the Commission organised a seminar for research stakeholders and
representatives from Member States, on ‘Euratom Nuclear Fission Research and Training
— What are the new specific needs?’. The following four topics of discussion were
selected: ‘Infrastructure Open Access’, along with the closely linked ‘Nuclear Education
and Training’, ’Non-Power Nuclear Science Applications’ and ’Innovation in Nuclear
Research’.
The seminar highlighted the importance and awareness of available research
infrastructures in the EU. In the nuclear safety domain, participants recalled the need for
continued know-how on safety improvements of the existing nuclear fleet and
anticipation of future nuclear safety challenges. On radiation protection the benefits of
bridging research activities in the medical and non-medical sectors were highlighted. On
innovation and radioisotope developments the need for a broader approach to neutron-
induced transmutation was suggested.
The need for innovation was emphasised to increase safety and make efficiency and
competitiveness gains. Euratom was invited to facilitate ‘acceptance’ of new tools, based
on new and modern technologies, and to decrease maintenance time and the time taken to
build new reactors. The early involvement of the regulator was mentioned, because in the
nuclear field not only the TRL counts, but the LRL (Legislation Readiness Level) as
well. New technologies (with huge innovation potential) need public support to cross the
valley separating research and market. P&T addresses the needs of both industry and
society and ADS technology presents a very high potential for innovation.
3. POSITION PAPERS SUBMITTED BY STAKEHOLDERS
Key messages concerning fission research
- The common position of the majority of stakeholders addressed the need to support
the implementation of the highest safety and radiation protection standards and the
best safety practices in all parts of the nuclear operation lifecycle. Research on further
nuclear safety improvements should remain a priority.
- Stakeholders highlighted the positive impact of Euratom programmes and the need
for a substantial increase in future Euratom funding to amplify EU R&I impact, to
maintain coherence with the ambitious Energy Union objectives, and to maintain EU
leadership in nuclear fission in the future. Nuclear research should be included in the
‘Mission Innovation’ intergovernmental initiative.
- Stakeholders proposed a ranking of R&I priorities, assessing the recent outcomes of
research projects and taking account of international projects to avoid effort overlaps.
Stakeholders stressed the need for further integration in relevant areas of fission
research and pointed to the integration and continuation of CONCERT as a way to
address the challenges in radiation protection.
- High importance was given to pursuing EU infrastructure development and to
support for R&I for advanced systems. Stakeholders also consider it important to
promote innovation and give more resources to innovative technologies, in particular
to progress in prototype development, demonstrators and innovative processes. The
need for public investments was expressed by several stakeholders involved in R&I
for future innovative reactor systems; Euratom was invited to continue dedicating
resources to this area and support ‘acceptance’ of new tools based on modern
technologies.
60
- Stakeholders also mentioned the importance of nuclear science and ionising radiation
technology applications, mainly in the medical sector and for industrial, research and
space applications.
- Fostering nuclear science as a basis for supporting standardisation is seen by several
stakeholders as an important component of the new Euratom programme. Euratom
support would also be beneficial in strengthening the leading role of the EU regarding
implementation of nuclear regulation worldwide.
- Research on waste management should be continued through EJP instruments
contributing to the development of safe, long-term solutions for the management of
ultimate nuclear waste, including final geological disposal.
- Several stakeholders propose the establishment of separate R&D-funding for the
decommissioning and environmental remediation of nuclear facilities as well as the
development of a coherent strategic research agenda.
- All EU and European Investment Bank financial instruments should be available to
the next Euratom programme. Extension of the ERIC scheme to nuclear research
infrastructure should ensure the availability of research infrastructure at EU level.
- The fission research community should have access to funding for cross-cutting
nuclear fission research projects via the European Research Council (ERC)
programme, and to Marie Skłodowska-Curie fellowships for researchers working in
nuclear energy. Possible synergies between Euratom and Horizon Europe have to be
addressed.
- The next Euratom programme should also propose instruments offering support for
proof of concept, technology transfer and spin-off companies.
- The development of international networks with industry involvement and
public/private partnerships for the creation of an ‘open access network’ for better use
of the available research reactors should also be 'supported.
- The knowledge management and development of competence in nuclear safety and
radiation protection are important for the competitiveness of European industry. The
Euratom programme should develop activities to promote pan-European knowledge-
sharing, including the transfer of knowledge across different fields and generations.
- The European E&T landscape should be further integrated and consolidated. The
Euratom programme should continue to support academic curricula and also go
beyond traditional paths by combining initiatives in the nuclear and relevant medical
and industrial sectors. The programme should also offer more focused and
coordinated training and promote life-long learning for specialists by means of
dedicated courses. Academia should be better linked/involved with industry and
institutions engaged in cutting-edge research. Including E&T activities within
collaborative research projects is beneficial and should be continued. Mobility should
be further encouraged, within the EU but also with third countries.
- Certain stakeholders mentioned the need to address socially relevant issues with a
high impact on Europeans.
- To take stakeholders views into account while preparing work programmes, the
following recommendations were made:
 looking at SRAs;
 consulting platforms on a regular basis;
 consulting major operators and national programmes;
 drafting and sending out questionnaires; and
 giving researchers the chance to express their views on an equal footing with
industry.
61
- Greater involvement on the part of all Member States is crucial to the success of the
next programme.
- The co-funding rates should be flexible and administrative rules must be simplified.
- The EJP instrument should be improved, based on the lessons learned from
CONCERT and could include more amenable procedures for third-party funding.
Key messages concerning fusion research
On fusion, five position papers were submitted in response to the stakeholder
consultation (one from the EUROfusion consortium, one from the Fusion Industry
Innovation Forum and three from researchers).
The EUROfusion paper concentrates on adjustments to the current implementation of
EUROfusion under the EJP grant agreement.
It points out that with EUROfusion and the EJP in 2014-2018 Euratom programme, the
coherence and integration of the programme itself, and its focus on delivering a DEMO
design, received a significant boost. Furthermore, the conclusion of different reviews
(mid-term review, the Ernst & Young management review and the interim evaluation of
the Euratom programme in Horizon 2020) state that EUROfusion is fit for purpose.
While ITER remains the critical research device on the road to fusion energy, it is
stressed that it is not the only research infrastructure needed. In particular, a fusion-
relevant neutron source should be built for qualifying materials for DEMO in a timely
fashion. Currently two Member States are interested in hosting the IFMIF-DONES
facility and are in touch with the relevant authorities and the Commission.
The position paper lists four issues that affect the scientific/technical implementation of
the fusion programme.
1. The main concern is that the funding for fusion in the next Euratom Programme
needs to be consistent with the requirements of the fusion roadmap. If the ambitious
goals set by the fusion roadmap are to be fulfilled, the funding for fusion research,
outside ITER, needs to increase in FP9. On the other hand, it is worth exploring
further if the research burden can be shared with international partners in some areas.
2. The second point, strongly linked to the first, merely states that it is crucial for the
programme in FP9, especially ITER support, to keep the current fusion devices in the
EU in operation, as well as having access to JT60-SA (under construction in Japan in
the framework of the Broader Approach). There is no disagreement on the need for
operation of a range of devices, but an FP9 review of facilities should be carried out
at some point to ensure that the existing suite of facilities is still fit for purpose, any
new ones are operating as required and there is no fragmentation of the experimental
programme.
3. Education and training is crucial for the future vitality of the fusion programme, and
the position paper suggests that this aspect could be improved further if Euratom had
access to Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions. The Commission is already exploring
this possibility.
4. The importance of finding a way of keeping the UK in the fusion programme is
stressed.
Points related to the grant agreement can be summarised as follows:
62
 Long-term secondment of staff to vital functions, especially the EUROfusion
programme unit, is a significant issue. The differing conditions in the seconded
staff’s home countries make the system very uneven, putting staff from the EU-12
Member States at a particular disadvantage. Furthermore, a particular problem
presents itself for seconded staff with children, where school fees in many cases can
make secondment economically unfeasible.
 Short-term missions supported by unit cost declarations are problematic in some
Member States because of domestic rules.
 There is a need for much increased industry involvement in EUROfusion, but the
current possibilities under the grant agreement are not well suited for this purpose.
 The rules on depreciation of hardware costs in the grant agreement are perceived to
inhibit or complicate procurement of equipment for some of the beneficiaries. One
should note that this is a wider issue than for the fusion programme alone.
 The accounting of costs for use of research infrastructures is said to be complex
under the grant agreement.
Discussions between EUROfusion and the Commission on the above issues are ongoing,
with a view to resolving most of them for FP9.
The position by Dr Fasoli of the Swiss Plasma Centre is a straightforward endorsement
of the EUROfusion position paper.
The position of Dr Federici, EUROfusion department Head for Power Plant Physics and
Technology, adds to point 1 above in stating that any slippage in the schedule of the
roadmap, because of inadequate funding, risks leading to a loss of the expertise built up
in the industry and in the fusion community in general in the time gap between ITER and
a DEMO. Moreover, because most civilian facilities producing tritium will be retired in a
few decades from now, he draws attention to the possibility of a tritium shortage if
DEMO is constructed later than currently assumed (tritium is used as a fuel component in
a fusion power plant).
The position of Dr Nolte is that there is currently an artificial separation between nuclear
data for fission and fusion applications. He therefore suggests the nuclear data could be a
subject for a cross-cutting initiative. This is a reasonable proposition and it should be
studied further.
The position paper prepared by the Management Board of the Fusion Industry Innovation
Forum (FIIF-MB) highlights the desired industrial contribution to the forthcoming
DEMO conceptual design phase, which runs in parallel with the next Euratom
Programme. Industrial participation is considered essential to successfully realise
sustainable and operational fusion power plants as quickly as possible. The FIIF
comments and recommendations are in line with the strategy described in the fusion
roadmap and are also consistent with the views of the EUROfusion General Assembly.
The FIIF paper further highlights key technical and programmatic industrial activities for
three core areas:
Core area 1: Systems engineering/project and programme support and
development/technology evaluation, creation of the design platform;
Core area 2: Technology and materials joint development R&D projects;
63
Core area 3: Front-end engineering and design, including close ‘project management’
support.
Furthermore, a number of recommendations are made in order to facilitate industrial
participation:
 A clear industry engagement and contracting strategy with attractive conditions is
required. The current practice with the two-stage process for closing contracts
between research units and industry is unworkable and the option of a longer-term
Framework Contract (FWC) must be considered.
 To support well-defined packages of near-term industry tasks of suitable scope and
continuity, there should be a phased long-term plan of increased investment in
DEMO and industry involvement.
 Industry-recognised approaches for project execution, including management, risk
and cost control in the programme should be adopted.
 Better involvement of industry as a driver to expand the technological direction of
‘fusion education’ should be facilitated.
 Industry should participate in the new bodies foreseen by the revised DEMO project
governance.


EN EN
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Brussels, 7.6.2018
SWD(2018) 307 final
PART 2/3
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Accompanying the document
Proposals for a
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
establishing Horizon Europe – the Framework Programme for Research and
Innovation, laying down its rules for participation and dissemination
DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on
establishing the specific programme implementing Horizon Europe – the Framework
Programme for Research and Innovation
COUNCIL REGULATION establishing the Research and Training Programme of the
European Atomic Energy Community for the period 2021-2025 complementing Horizon
Europe – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation
{COM(2018) 435 final} - {COM(2018) 436 final} - {COM(2018) 437 final} -
{SEC(2018) 291 final} - {SWD(2018) 308 final} - {SWD(2018) 309 final}
Europaudvalget 2018
KOM (2018) 0436
Offentligt
1
Annexes
Annex 1: Procedural information...................................................................................................................3
1 Lead DG(s), Decide Planning, CWP Reference ........................................................................................3
2 Organisation and timing.............................................................................................................................3
3 Consultation of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board.........................................................................................4
4 Evidence, sources and quality....................................................................................................................6
Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation.................................................................................................................8
1 Objectives ..................................................................................................................................................8
2 Target groups .............................................................................................................................................8
3 Consultation methods and tools.................................................................................................................8
4 Methodology and tools used to process the data......................................................................................11
5 Results of the stakeholder consultation....................................................................................................12
6 Inclusion of the stakeholder consultation results in the legal proposal....................................................22
Annex 3: Evaluation results ..........................................................................................................................23
1 Lessons from the evaluations of previous Framework Programmes .......................................................23
2 Lessons learnt from the Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020..................................................................25
Annex 4: Added Value of EU-funded R&I..................................................................................................28
Annex 5: Macroeconomic modelling............................................................................................................32
1 NEMESIS ................................................................................................................................................32
2 QUEST.....................................................................................................................................................37
3 RHOMOLO .............................................................................................................................................41
4 Comparison of results ..............................................................................................................................44
Annex 6: Indicators........................................................................................................................................46
1 Key Impact Pathways Indicators..............................................................................................................46
2 Key Management and Implementation Data ...........................................................................................49
Annex 7: Synergies with other proposals under the future Multiannual Financial Framework ...........50
1 Why do we need synergies between EU programmes? ...........................................................................50
2 The role of the Framework Programme in the EU R&I support system..................................................52
3 Synergies with the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).......................................................55
4 Synergies with the European Social Fund (ESF+)...................................................................................57
5 Synergies with the EU programmes for agricultural and maritime policy ..............................................58
6 Synergies with the Single Market Programme ........................................................................................59
7 Synergies with the InvestEU Fund...........................................................................................................60
8 Synergies with the Connecting Europe Facility.......................................................................................61
2
9 Synergies with the Digital Europe Programme........................................................................................62
10 Synergies with the Programme for Environment & Climate Action (LIFE) .......................................65
11 Synergies with Erasmus.......................................................................................................................67
12 Synergies with the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument ...........68
13 Synergies with the European Space Programme .................................................................................70
14 Synergies with the Innovation Fund under the EU Emissions Trading System ..................................71
15 Relevant studies ...................................................................................................................................72
Annex 8 Detailed information on key improvements in the design of Horizon Europe..........................73
1 European Innovation Council (EIC) ........................................................................................................73
2 Research and Innovation Missions ..........................................................................................................89
3 International R&I cooperation .................................................................................................................98
4 Open Science .........................................................................................................................................103
5 European Partnerships ...........................................................................................................................108
6 Strengthening the European Research Area - Sharing excellence.........................................................119
7 Support to policy-making: activities of the Joint Research Centre in Horizon Europe .........................123
8 European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT).......................................................................126
9 Support to education in Horizon Europe................................................................................................132
Annex 9 - Rules for Participation...............................................................................................................139
1 Single set of rules...................................................................................................................................139
2 Funding model and types of action........................................................................................................141
3 Forms of grants ......................................................................................................................................148
4 Further simplification/flexibility............................................................................................................151
5 Use of grants, financial instruments and budgetary guarantees.............................................................153
6 Proposal selection and evaluation, including experts ............................................................................155
7 Audits and controls ................................................................................................................................158
8 Intellectual Property Rights, including “Exploit in the EU”..................................................................162
9 Dissemination and exploitation of results..............................................................................................164
Annex 10: Implementation of the Strategy for international cooperation in R&I ................................167
1 Reinforcing the international dimension of the EU R&I Framework Programme ................................167
2 Improving the framework conditions for engaging in international cooperation ..................................169
3 Leading multilateral initiatives - working with international organisations on global challenges ........170
4 Reinforcing the partnership with Member States...................................................................................171
5 Intensifying the synergies with the EU's external policies.....................................................................172
6 Refining the communication strategy ....................................................................................................173
7 Conclusions............................................................................................................................................173
Annex 11: Simplification checklist .............................................................................................................175
3
Annex 1: Procedural information
1 Lead DG(s), Decide Planning, CWP Reference
The Impact Assessment of the future Framework Programme for Research and Innovation is the
result of a collective work carried out under the leadership of DG RTD with the R&I-family DGs,
including AGRI, CNECT, EAC, ENER, GROW, HOME, JRC, MOVE.
CWP Reference: COM(2017) 650 final
2 Organisation and timing
This Impact Assessment has benefited from co-creation with the following working groups: the
internal RTD IA Penholder Group, the RTD Indicator task team, the informal R&I IA working
group. The work was steered at senior management level through discussions at the R&I-family DG
meetings, as well as at the Inter-Service Steering Group on Horizon Europe (including the R&I-
family and BUDG, CLIMA, COMP, DIGIT, ECFIN, ENV, EMPL, MARE, REGIO, SJ, SANTE,
SG, TRADE). In addition, workshops open to all services were held on indicators with external
experts and on synergies between the Framework Programme and other EU programmes.
The following milestones constitute the bulk of the general chronology of the Impact Assessment:
Date Activity
10 January 2018 Launch of Cluster Stakeholder Consultation (8 weeks)
17 January 2018 Upstream meeting with RSB
19 January 2018 1st Informal R&I-family meeting
2 February 2018 2nd Informal R&I-family meeting
16 February 2018 3rd Informal R&I-family meeting
21 February 2018 Workshop with experts on indicators
27 February 2018 First formal ISSG meeting chaired by SG
2 March 2018 4th
Informal R&I-family meeting
6 March 2018 R&I DG meeting
9 March 2018 End of cluster consultation
19 March 2018 Second formal ISSG meeting chaired by SG
21 March 2018 Submission to the RSB
11 April 2018 RSB meeting
26 April 2018 Third ISSG meeting on the legal proposal
4 May 2018 Launch of ISC (duration: until 16 May 2018)
8 May 2018 Fourth ISSG meeting
7 June 2018 Adoption
4
3 Consultation of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board
The Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) gave a positive opinion (with reservations) to a draft version
of this impact assessment. The main text and annexes were adjusted following the recommendations
of the RSB. In particular, significant work was conducted to ensure consistency between challenges,
objectives, structure and impacts. All revisions were done to ensure that the assessment relies on a
solid methodology that meets the RSB standards. The Board's recommendations covered the
following key aspects.
(1) The report does not sufficiently describe the balance between the new three pillars of the
programme. It does not spell out the rationale, risks, and implications of the proposed structure and
priorities. This applies in particular to the Global Challenges pillar (pillar 2).
1 Pillar structure and objectives
The report should better explain and justify its proposed three
pillars' structure.
Text revised in section 3.1.
It should clearly explain how FP9 objectives will differ from
Horizon 2020.
Text revised in section 2.3 to address this
point.
It should better derive the proposed changes to the current structure
of Horizon 2020 from lessons learned and stakeholders’ input. This
is particularly relevant for the second pillar on Global Challenges
where the exact scope and implications of the proposed structure
should be substantiated.
New text added in 3.1.
Boxes with stakeholders’ inputs added
throughout the text, in particular for each
design novelty. Sections in annex on
stakeholder consultation revised.
The report should also confirm that the strengthened emphasis on
innovation and support to close-to-market initiatives will not
happen at the expense of basic research.
In this respect, the report should clarify how the concerns expressed
by stakeholders on the need for a balanced integration of social
sciences and humanities is taken on board.
New text added in 3.1.
In that respect, an indication of the expected breakdown of
resources across the different pillars and within each pillar would
provide useful information on the “centre(s) of gravity” of the
future programme.
New text added in 3.1.
(2) The report does not show the rationale and value added of the additional structures and initiatives for the
next framework programme, such as the European Innovation Council or the “R&I missions”.
2 Proposed novelties
The report should better demonstrate that the proposed novelties
build on sound foundations and will effectively address key
challenges identified for the next framework programme. It should
transparently present possible risks and trade-offs associated with
the introduction of these new instruments.
Text revised in the introduction of 3.2.
References added overall and for the different
novelties. All sections on novelties reinforced
in order to strengthen their rationale and added
value. New sections “what are the risks?”
added for each design novelty.
In the case of the European Innovation Council, the report should
better analyse its structure, governance, beneficiaries, optimal scale
and functioning. It should better demonstrate that the EIC addresses
a legitimate unmet demand from innovators that cannot be met
more efficiently and competently through other means or existing
structures such as the EU Institute for Innovation and Technology
(EIT) or the Joint Research Centre.
It should describe how it builds on the experience of providing
support to innovative SMEs.
It should explain its complementarity with the EIT and other
instruments in existing programmes supporting various stages and
forms of innovation.
Main text and annex revised for EIC. Section
on blended financed updated. Structure of EIC
clarified. Governance, beneficiaries and
functioning detailed in the annex. Optimal
scale covered by providing figures on the
equity funding gap.
5
The report should also better position the concept of “R&I
missions” in the overall proposed structure of the programme and
explain whether they will replace the current “focus areas”, how
“R&I missions” differ from and/or intend to build on them. The
report should more convincingly explain how the overall
governance and practical organisation of the “R&I missions” will
deliver on the expected societal engagement and ownership, while
ensuring timely progress and tangible impacts. The report should
clarify the expected interaction between “R&I missions” and the
EU regulatory framework.
Text added on overarching approach of
missions in section 3.1. Missions section &
annex revised accordingly.
The report should also provide safeguards and mitigation measures
protecting against potential risks associated with its proposed
bottom up approach to supporting innovation, in particular in terms
of respect of EU values, ethical approach and conflicts of interest.
It should strengthen the case for publicly supporting close-to-
market initiatives with high long-term profit potential by explaining
how citizens and public authorities will reap the benefits of such
high-risk public investments.
Sections on risks added for each design
novelty, including EIC. Section and + annex
on EIC revised accordingly
(3) The report does not convincingly demonstrate that the new programme will effectively
streamline its delivery mechanisms, including the partnerships landscape.
3 Simplification, notably rationalisation of partnerships
The delivery mechanisms should more clearly emphasise the
simplification proposed in the various instruments that will serve to
implement the next framework programme.
This concerns notably the rationalisation of the partnerships
landscape for which the programme should more clearly state its
ambitions. Currently the report does not demonstrate, in many
instances, that FP9 will be less burdensome and less costly for the
beneficiaries.
A mapping of instruments used in the current and proposed in the
new programme could usefully illustrate such simplification efforts
Simplification aspect reinforced throughout
the text. Section and annex on partnerships
revised. Revisions in section 4 in several
places. Table with continued and discontinued
instruments added in section 4.
4 Latest MFF developments, notably synergies
The report should reflect the latest developments, as they become
known, concerning the overall Multiannual Financial Framework.
Notably in the area of synergies across programmes, it should
provide more tangible elements on concrete measures to ensure that
they are fully exploited. This concerns for instance the interfacing
with the Digital Europe Programme, InvestEU, and the European
University Networks in Erasmus+.
Section and annex on synergies revised.
Other
The Board notes that this impact assessment will eventually be
complemented with specific budgetary arrangements and may be
substantially amended in line with the final policy choices of the
Commission’s MFF proposal.
Box in 1.1.1 added. The impact assessment
does not make any budget assumption (except
for the baseline scenario in the economic
models), therefore no drastic change was
required after the MFF proposal related to the
amount itself. Sections on synergies revised.
6
4 Evidence, sources and quality
Figure 1 Evidence used for the impact assessment
Findings from previous evaluations are used throughout the document. The impact assessment is
strongly guided by the results from the interim evaluation of Horizon 2020 and related evaluations,
which include:
 European Commission (2017), Interim evaluation of Horizon 2020, Staff Working Document (SWD). The
interim evaluation of Horizon 2020 (major reference used throughout the impact assessment)
 European Commission (2017), Interim Evaluation of the Joint Undertakings (JUs) operating under Horizon 2020,
Staff Working Document (SWD).
 European Commission (2017), Interim evaluation of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT),
Staff Working Document (SWD).
 European Commission (2017), FET Flagships – Interim evaluation.
 Joint Research Centre Implementation Review 2017: In the context of the Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020. DG
JRC, July 2017.
For this impact assessment, several references are made in particular to the recommendations and
findings of the High Level Group chaired by Pascal Lamy. The mandate of this High Level Group
was to provide advice on how to maximise the impact of the EU's investment in research and
innovation. Reports from high level groups used for this impact assessment include:
 LAB – FAB – APP: Investing in the European future we want, Report of the independent High Level Group
on maximising the impact of EU Research & Innovation Programmes, July 2017.
 Funding - Awareness - Scale - Talent (FAST): Europe is back: Accelerating Breakthrough Innovation, Full set of
recommendations from the Independent High-Level Group of Innovators on establishing a European Innovation
Council, 2018.
 Mission-Oriented Research and Innovation in the European Union: A problem-solving approach to fuel innovation-
led growth, by Mariana Mazzucato. February 2018.
 Mission-Oriented Research and Innovation: Assessing the impact of a mission-oriented research and innovation
approach. Study coordinated by the Joint Institute for Innovation Policy, February 2018.
 Mission-Oriented Research and Innovation Policy: A RISE Perspective, February 2018.
 Open Innovation, Open Science, Open to the World, Reflections of the Research, Innovation and Science Policy
Experts (RISE), March 2017.
7
 High Level Group; Towards a Mission-Oriented Research and Innovation Policy in the European Union: An ESIR
Memorandum, December 2017.
Several documents produced by the Commission and other institutions were used, including:
 Committee of the Regions (2017), CoR Opinion SEDEC-VI/026, Local and Regional Dimension of the Horizon
2020 Programme and the New Framework Programme for Research and Innovation.
 Council of the European Union (2017), From the Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020 towards the ninth Framework
Programme - Council conclusions.
 European Commission (2017), Reflection paper on the future of EU finances.
 European Commission (2017), The economic rationale for public R&I funding and its impact, Policy Brief Series.
 European Commission (2018), Communication on the Horizon 2020 Interim Evaluation, COM(2018)2 final.
 European Parliament (2017), REPORT on the assessment of Horizon 2020 implementation in view of its interim
evaluation and the Framework Programme 9 proposal, EP T8-0253/2017.
 European Economic and Social Committee (2016), EESC information report INT/807, Horizon 2020 (evaluation).
 European Research Area and Innovation Committee (2017), ERAC Opinion on the Interim Evaluation of Horizon
2020 and preparations for the next Framework Programme, ERAC 1207/17.
In addition to the existing literature of studies and reports related to research and innovation,
external studies were launched in the context of this impact assessment on specific issues:
 On economic modelling: Seureco (2018), Support for assessment of socio-economic and environmental impacts
(SEEI) of European R&I programme.
 On the impact of missions: Mission-Oriented Research and Innovation: assessing the impact of a mission-oriented
research and innovation approach. The Joint Institute for Innovation Policy, Joanneum Research, Tecnalia, TNO,
VTT, the Danish Technological Institute, and Valdani Vicari & Associati (2018).
 On Future and Emerging Technologies: Beckert B., et al. (2018), Visionary and Collaborative Research in Europe,
Pathways to impact of use-inspired basic research, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research,
Austrian Institute of Technology.
 On foresight: Ricci, A. et al. (2017), Beyond the Horizon: Foresight in Support of the Preparation of the European
Union’s Future Policies in Research and Innovation.
 On EU added value: PPMI (2017), Assessment of the Union Added Value and the Economic Impact of the EU
Framework Programmes (FP7, Horizon 2020).
Various consultation methods and tools were used (see Annex 2), including events, conferences,
workshops.
The quantification of the overall expected impact of the Programme relies on economic modelling
(see Annex 5). Internal and external expertise was mobilised:
 Results from the NEMESIS model were produced by an external contractor (Seureco). DG JRC and DG ECFIN
were part of the committee steering the related study to ensure the quality of the results.
 Results from the QUEST model were produced by DG ECFIN.
 Results from the RHOMOLO model were produced by DG JRC.
Internal expertise was used to ensure the overall quality of the impact assessment by triangulating
these different sources of information, organising several meetings and participatory workshops
with experts from the Commission on dedicated topics and ensuring continuous exchanges between
Commission services. The approach and results have been discussed and validated during senior
management and inter-service meetings.
8
Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation
1 Objectives
The aim of stakeholder consultations was to seek the views of EU Research and Innovation (R&I)
stakeholders on the key elements of the design of the post 2020 EU programme for R&I. The results
of the stakeholder consultation feed into the Impact Assessment for the programme and help to
shape the drafting of the legal text.
Previous stakeholder consultations used for this impact assessment include the following:
 the Horizon 2020 Stakeholder Consultation completed in January 2017 organised in the context
of the Interim evaluation of Horizon 2020 (3,500 responses and 300 position papers)1
;
 the European Innovation Council Call for ideas completed in April 2016 (1,000 respondents and
100 position papers)2
.
2 Target groups
In preparation to the stakeholder consultation activities a mapping of the key stakeholders was
carried out. They mainly include the EU and global umbrella organisations and institutions relevant
to the EU R&I policy field and the decision-making process. The consultations were, however, also
meant to reach citizens in general and involve them in the discussion on the future of R&I in
Europe.
3 Consultation methods and tools
A mix of consultation activities came in different moments of the Impact Assessment work to
ensure stakeholder views are systematically accounted for in the design of Horizon Europe.
To tailor for different information needs, consultation activities ranged from stakeholder
conferences and events, to expert groups, an on-line consultation, workshops, meetings and
seminars and analysis of the position papers.
Table 1 Consultation process
I. Preparatory phase
II. Assessment and
design phase
III.
Validation
phase
Q1-2017 Q2-2017 Q3-2017
Q4-
2017 Q1-2018 Q2-2018
3.1 Conferences and events
 Research & Innovation – Shaping our
Future
 European Research Excellence: Impact
and value for society
3.2 Expert groups
 HLG on maximising the impact of
European research and innovation
programmes
 EIC HLG of Innovators
1
http://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/index_en.cfm?pg=h2020interim_stakeholder
2
https://ec.europa.eu/research/eic/index.cfm
9
 Report on mission-oriented approach
3.3 On-line consultation
 Cluster-based public stakeholder
consultation
 Call for feedback on missions
3.4. Workshops, meetings and seminars
 Simplification workshop
3.1 Conferences and events
The aim of conferences and events was to gather input from a larger number of stakeholders
through direct interaction.
A conference "Research & Innovation – Shaping our Future"3
organised on 3 July 2017 brought
together policymakers from EU institutions, stakeholders and interested actors to discuss the role of
research and innovation for Europe's future. Pascal Lamy, the chair of the High Level Group on
maximising the impact of European research and innovation programmes, presented the Group's
vision and recommendations for the future, based on the results of the interim evaluation of Horizon
2020. Other visionary speakers included captains of industry, researchers and innovators at the
frontier of progress, politicians and movers and shakers in society but also young people. More than
600 stakeholders from 40 different countries and almost 5000 online viewers from 49 countries
actively engaged in the discussion on the future of EU R&I programme by asking 229 questions and
submitting 7,788 votes to polls through special IT tool Sli.do. The Commission also followed the
discussions at various events organised by different entities.
A conference "European Research Excellence: Impact and value for society"4
organised by
Estonian Presidency aimed to influence the debate on European research policy in the lead-up to the
next Framework Programme. The outcome of the EU Presidency Conference was presented in a
final declaration, the Tallinn Call for Action. The Conference brought together internationally-
outstanding scientists and policymakers from many EU countries, as well as a range of stakeholders
from academia, business, and civil society.
3.2 Expert groups
In September 2016 the European Commission mandated the High Level Group on maximising the
impact of European research and innovation programmes to provide advice on how to maximise
the impact of the EU's investment in research and innovation based on the results of the interim
evaluation of Horizon 2020. The High Level Group concluded with 11 recommendations for the
future EU R&I programme presented in the report "LAB – FAB – APP: Investing in the European
future we want"5
in July 2017.
European Innovation Council High Level Group of Innovators was set up in January 2017 and
mandated to support the European Commission in developing the European Innovation Council
(EIC). The report "Europe is back: Accelerating breakthrough innovation"6
with 14
recommendations was adopted in January 2018.
3
http://ec.europa.eu/research/conferences/2017/shaping-our-future/index.cfm
4
https://www.eu2017.ee/political-meetings/european-research-excellence-impact-and-value-society
5
https://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/index.cfm?pg=hlg
6
https://ec.europa.eu/info/news/high-level-group-innovators-offer-key-recommendations-european-innovation-council-2018-jan-
24_en
10
Following the recommendations of the Lamy report on missions, an external expert was appointed
to advise the Commission on the mission-oriented approach. In February 2018, Prof Mariana
Mazzucato presented a report "Mission-Oriented Research & Innovation in the European Union - A
problem-solving approach to fuel innovation-led growth"7
in which she recommends five key
criteria for the selection of missions at EU level.
3.3 On-line consultations
The aim of web-based consultations was to gather inputs from a broad range of stakeholders. It
included on one hand consultation with unlimited access to everybody who wished to contribute –
cluster-based public consultation and on the other hand targeted consultation – call for feedback on
missions.
 Cluster-based public consultation
Target group: citizens and stakeholders
Timing: January - March (8 weeks) 2018
The public consultation – launched through the Commission’s central public consultation website8
-
on EU funds in the area of investment, research & innovation, SMEs and single market was
launched as a mandatory element of the stakeholder consultation. It included both closed and open
questions and queried on the policy challenges, subsidiarity and added value, objectives of the
programmes and obstacles to reach them, scope for simplification and synergy between the
programmes. Stakeholder had also a chance to submit their position papers on the design of the post
2020 EU programmes. The consultation period was shortened to 8 weeks, as compared to the
standard 12 weeks, given the tight timing of the new programmes preparations.
 Call for feedback on missions
Target group: citizens and stakeholders
Timing: February – April 2018
In the report prepared by Prof Mazzucato on mission-oriented R&I9
, five criteria for setting up the
missions were suggested. A call for feedback on these recommended criteria was launched10
.
Besides stakeholders' views on the criteria for mission, as a new feature of the Framework
Programme, the respondents were also asked for suggestions of concrete missions. However,
information on the topics for concrete missions will be used in the future, not for the purpose of this
consultation.
7
https://ec.europa.eu/info/news/bold-science-meet-big-challenges-independent-report-calls-mission-oriented-eu-research-and-
innovation-2018-feb-22_en
8
https://ec.europa.eu/info/consultations/public-consultation-eu-funds-area-investment-research-innovation-smes-and-single-
market_en
9
https://ec.europa.eu/info/news/bold-science-meet-big-challenges-independent-report-calls-mission-oriented-eu-research-and-
innovation-2018-feb-22_en
10
https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/482a79de-3fad-17e1-c60d-2e4418c1a95d
11
3.4 Workshops, meetings and seminars
Stakeholder workshop on ideas for further simplification of the implementation of the R&I
Framework Programmes was organised by the Commission on 20 October 201711
. The main
objective of the workshop was to have a discussion with practitioners at working level on the
technical details of the processes, documentation and guidance for R&I grant implementation.
Representatives of the main European research stakeholder umbrella organisations were invited to
participate on site and the meeting was also web-streamed to allow for broader remote contribution.
The programme of the workshop was built upon the conclusions of the Conference on Performance
and Further Simplification hosted by Commissioner Moedas in February 2017, and the
recommendations of the Lamy Report.
3.5 Position papers
Various stakeholders expressed their views on the post 2020 EU programme for R&I by submitting
their position papers. More than 300 position papers have been submitted, either ad-hoc or as a
response to the cluster-based public stakeholder consultation.
The EU institutions also expressed their views on the post 2020 EU programme for R&I adopting
the reports based on the results of the interim evaluation of Horizon 2020:
 Competitiveness Council Conclusions From the Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020
towards the ninth Framework Programme adopted on 1 December 201712
;
 ERAC Opinion13
of 7 July 2017 on the Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020 and preparations
for the next Framework Programme (FP);
 European Parliament (EP) resolution of 13 June 2017 on the assessment of Horizon 2020
implementation in view of its interim evaluation and the Framework Programme 9
proposal14
;
 Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 20 October 2016 on the mid-
term evaluation of Horizon 202015
and an information report of 16 January 2017 on
Horizon 2020 (evaluation)16
;
 Opinion of the Committee of Regions on local and regional dimension of the Horizon 2020
Programme and the new Framework Programme for Research and Innovation of 12 July
201717
.
4 Methodology and tools used to process the data
Information collected during the consultation was analysed depending on the consultation method.
Reports from the conferences, workshops and expert groups were prepared and published. All
relevant stakeholder input, including the results of the on-line consultations as well as the position
papers, were carefully analysed against the key issues identified in the process of the impact
assessment preparations.
11
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/events/2017-10-20/final-report_en.pdf
12
http://www2.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2017/12/01/interim-evaluation-of-horizon-2020-council-adopts-
conclusions/#
13
ERAC 1207/17.
14
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P8-TA-2017-0253+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN
15
http://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/our-work/opinions-information-reports/opinions/mid-term-evaluation-horizon-2020
16
http://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/our-work/opinions-information-reports/information-reports/horizon-2020-evaluation
17
http://cor.europa.eu/en/activities/opinions/pages/opinion-factsheet.aspx?OpinionNumber=CDR%20854/2017
12
5 Results of the stakeholder consultation
5.1 Conferences and events
The conference "Research & Innovation – Shaping our Future" (3 July 2017) opened the discussion
with stakeholders on the future of R&I. At this early stage in the process, stakeholders expressed
first views regarding the missions underlying that transparency in setting up the missions is of
utmost importance and highlighting the role of society and citizens.
Stakeholders were also asked to summarise their vision for the future R&I programme and the
responses focused on such key concepts like jobs, SMEs and impact.
At the conference organised by the Estonian Presidency on 12 October 2017, "European Research
Excellence: Impact and value for society", the key message on the importance of R&I for the future
was translated into three priorities: 1) Ensure investment in research and innovation; 2) Increase the
impact of R&I investments; 3) Build trust between research and society, and within the R&I
system. It was followed by a number of more concrete actions addressed to different groups from
policymakers to researchers to increase public and political support for R&I.
5.2 Expert groups
In the preparation of the next Programme, the Commission sought information and assistance from
different expert groups. The High Level Group on maximising the impact of European research and
innovation programmes prepared 11 recommendations which triggered the discussion on the R&I
future. Stakeholders reflected upon many of them in their position papers:
 Prioritise research and innovation in EU and national budgets
 Build a true EU innovation policy that creates future markets
 Educate for the future and invest in people who will make the change
13
 Design the EU R&I programme for greater impact
 Adopt a mission-oriented, impact-focused approach to address global challenges
 Rationalise the EU funding landscape and achieve synergy with structural funds
 Simplify further
 Mobilise and involve citizens
 Better align EU and national R&I investment
 Make international R&I cooperation a trademark of EU research and innovation
 Capture and better communicate impact
In order to collect information on a way forward regarding the breakthrough innovation the
European Innovation Council High Level Group of Innovators was set up and developed 14
recommendations to support single innovators turning disruptive/breakthrough science and
technology into market-creating innovations grouped into four factors that hold back breakthrough
and deep tech innovation in Europe:
- Funding: empower the innovator, simplify, incentivise private investment,
- Awareness: champion innovators, communicate success,
- Scale: build the camp, leverage European ecosystems,
- Talent: connect people, create prestige for innovators.
A new concept of missions suggested in the Lamy report was further elaborated in the report
"Mission-Oriented Research & Innovation in the European Union - A problem-solving approach to
fuel innovation-led growth" prepared by an expert in the area, prof. Mariana Mazzucato. Five
criteria for the selection of the missions were identified:
 EU R&I missions should be bold, inspirational with wide societal relevance;
 EU R&I missions should have a clear direction: should be targeted, measureable and time-
bound;
 EU R&I missions should have ambitious but realistic research & innovation actions
 EU R&I missions should be cross-disciplinary, cross-sectoral and cross-actor
 EU R&I missions should foster multiple, bottom-up solutions
The stakeholders were asked to rate the importance of these criteria in a special Call for feedback
open until 3 April in which 1200 responses submitted. The overall picture is that respondents agreed
to the criteria and measures for implementing mission proposed by Prof Mazzucato, and agreed to
consult citizens on the choice of missions.
5.3 Workshops, meetings and seminars
Key messages from dialogue with stakeholders on simplification coming from the workshop on
that issue of key importance for participants, especially new ones, were as follows:
 Support to the existing funding model, with a single funding rate per project and a flat rate
for the indirect costs;
 Cautious regarding a broad extension of the simplified cost options, such as the Lump Sum
pilot in Horizon 2020, or the use of unit costs for personnel costs; clear preference for
continuation of cost reimbursement;
 Request for broader acceptance of usual cost-accounting practices and for the introduction
of the single audit principle/cross-reliance on audits;
 Further shortening of the Time to Grant, simplified project reporting and improvements to
the submission and evaluation processes;
 Improve projects reporting in order to increase the quality of dissemination and exploitation.
14
5.4 Online consultation, including the public consultation on EU funds in the area of
investment, research & innovation, SMEs and single market
More than 4000 responses were submitted to the cluster-based public consultation on EU funds in
the area of investment, research & innovation, SMEs and single market. 94% of respondents
referred to the EU support for R&I. These respondents are subject of the further analysis below.
Almost half of respondents (46%) replied to the consultation in individual capacity followed by
business and industry representatives (17%) and universities (14%). 93% of respondents were from
EU Member States, 5% from associated countries and 1% from third countries. Respondents came
from 70 different countries.
Figure 2 Respondents to cluster-based public consultation
Some 90% (3,414) of cluster survey respondents reported having experience with the Horizon 2020
program. Those respondents who reported having experience with Horizon 2020 also reported
having experience with European Structural and Investment funds (22%), EU Health Programme
(9%) and COSME (8.%).
The Commission has preliminarily identified a number of policy challenges that the
programmes/funds in the area of investment, research & innovation, SMEs and single market could
address. The three most important policy challenges in view of respondents are:
15
 “Fostering R&I across the EU”: 97% of respondents consider this very or rather important
policy challenge. The absolute majority of those who submitted position papers also
implicitly acknowledge R&I as an important policy priority for Europe. Stakeholders
consider that R&I play a fundamental role in forming European identity.
 “Supporting education, skills and training”: 93% of respondents consider this very or rather
important policy challenge.
 “Ensuring a clean and healthy environment and the protection of natural resources”: 90% of
respondents consider this a very or rather important policy challenge.
Some 61% of respondents believe that “fostering R&I across the EU” has so far been fully or fairly
well addressed policy challenge while 35% consider it has been addressed to some extent only.
Among other challenges, stakeholders consider that provision of smooth circulation of goods and
support to capital flows and investments are well addressed. However, stakeholder responses
suggest that more can be done to address unemployment and social disparities: only 14% of
respondents consider that this challenge is fairly well addressed, while 40% are of the opinion that it
has been addressed to some extent only and 21% believe that it has not been addressed at all.
According to vast majority of stakeholders, "too complex procedures leading to high administrative
burden and delays" is the main obstacle preventing the current programme from achieving its
objectives. Regional public authorities in particular agree with this statement. The other obstacles
noted were: "lack of flexibility to react to unforeseen circumstances", "insufficient synergies
between the EU programmes/funds" and "difficulty of combining EU action with other public
interventions and private finance".
Generally, stakeholders agree that fewer, clearer, shorter rules, alignment of rules between EU
funds and better feedback to applicants are the most important simplification factors.
The majority of respondents (88%) believe that the current programme adds value, to a large or
fairly good extent, compared to what Member States could achieve at national, regional and/or local
level. Public regional authorities, universities and civil society organisations appear to be slightly
more positive in this regard.
Collaboration and cooperation is the most often given example of the EU added value of EU
programmes and funds over efforts of Member States. Research organisations, national public
authorities and individuals more frequently referenced collaboration and cooperation compared to
other stakeholders. Business and industry, other stakeholders and individuals on the other hand
more frequently discussed maximising competition. Meanwhile, international organisations,
universities and regional public authorities more frequently than other stakeholders noted that
increased mobility is an added value of EU programmes and funds. Stakeholders consider also new
markets, various networks and partnerships, pooling of resources and increased visibility as factors
that provide considerable added value to EU programmes and funds.
5.5 Position papers18
Stakeholders expressed their views also in more than 300 position papers submitted either ad-hoc or
to the cluster-based public consultation. All the EU institutions reflected upon the next Framework
Programme as well, often in the context of the interim evaluation of Horizon 2020. Most common
views from stakeholders are as follows:
 Three-pillar structure should be kept, though better links between pillars are needed
The vast majority of stakeholders are satisfied with the current three-pillar structure of the
Framework Programme and wish to see either a complete replication or small modifications to the
18
Griniece, E. (2018), Synthesis of stakeholder input for Horizon Europe and European Commission analysis.
16
existing architecture. The main criticisms relate to the lack of coherence and links between the
pillars that hamper coverage of the whole knowledge chain. Some say that the societal challenges
pillar should become more prominent and more relevant, taking into account the current pressing
socio-economic issues. The suggestion was also made to rename the "Industrial Leadership" pillar
to "Innovation Leadership", giving it a more cross-cutting outlook.
 Successful individual researchers' schemes (ERC, MSCA) need increased budget
The European Research Council (ERC) and Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) are widely
appreciated and many voices stress that these two schemes should be strengthened with a budget
increase.
 The Future and Emerging Technology (FET) actions should be strengthened
The majority of stakeholders praise the FET schemes as an important set of instruments that should
be strengthened in the future. The bottom-up principle of FET is recognised as a strong point.
Suggestions are made to ensure better links with other R&I instruments such as the EIC and EIT.
The main concerns are related to the serious oversubscription, particularly to FET Open scheme,
hence a more strategic approach is needed when defining the FET priority areas and budgetary
allocation for individual calls.
 Key Enabling Technologies (KETs)
Those stakeholders commenting noted that KETs play a vital role in Europe’s industrial
competitiveness and ability to tackle societal challenges and should hence continue to play a central
role in the forthcoming Horizon Europe. Some stakeholders and Member States call for a separate
programme part oriented on KETs.
 Grants to remain the main funding model, complemented by dedicated financial instruments
An overwhelming majority of stakeholders stress that grants should remain the main funding mode
under the next Framework Programme, as the only acceptable funding instrument for public and
non-profit entities as well as certain economically non-viable R&D areas (in the short-term) despite
the huge socioeconomic impact they may have (in the long term). It is also widely shared that any
loan-based funding should not be introduced to the detriment of grant-based funding. At the same
time, some stakeholders say that financial instruments could be introduced as a very useful
complementary funding. This is especially the case for close-to-market activities in areas where the
possible scalability of innovations does not correlate to the very high expectations of the venture
capital funding or where periods between research and market success are very long.
Industry representatives, though, caution that proposals to give more flexibility to applicants to
choose from a portfolio of instruments provided and to have innovative blending of grant, loan and
equity- based forms of investment require careful consideration. For close-to-market activities
(above TRL8), blended instruments with additional loan funding can be useful, but attention should
be paid to maintaining clear and simple processes as well as avoiding higher bureaucracy both for
public and private sectors.
 Stronger emphasis for curiosity-driven research is needed
A significant share of stakeholders call for a stronger focus on bottom-up curiosity-driven calls to
adapt better to the emerging societal needs. The need for more bottom-up approach was particularly
referred in relation to the EIC and mission-orientation. One third of respondents flag the need to
ensure an adequate balance between top-down themes for societal challenges and a bottom-up
supply of ideas to address them.
17
 Use synergies with the Structural Funds to incentivise the widening of FP participation
Almost half of stakeholders, mainly Member States, universities and research organisations,
commented on the “Spreading excellence and widening participation” part of Horizon 2020. Many
Member States, from different parts of the European Union and with different experience and
performance in the Framework Programme, call for increased support to and/or dedicated
instruments to address the “spreading excellence” objective (Croatia, Czech Republic, Cyprus,
Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia and
Sweden). ‘Widening participation’ objective as an important aspect for the design of Horizon
Europe is highlighted also by Belgium, Ireland and Spain, yet they place more noticeable emphasis
on the need to incentivise Member States' own investments and efforts in capacity building or
national/regional research and innovation ecosystems. At the same time two Member States express
strong support to excellence as priority over any geographical considerations (Denmark and
Finland).
The most debated aspect is the proposition to introduce geographical quotas for participation in
Horizon Europe. A dominating view is though that this would not bring the required effects, but
only distort the excellence-based principle of the Framework Programme. Among the most
frequently cited means to spread excellence are synergies with the ESI funds through a ring-fenced
budget dedicated to the “widening” objective, continued support to existing mechanisms (Teaming,
Twinning, ERA-Chairs, COST, NCP networks), a return phase for intra-European MSCA
fellowships, EIT KIC Regional Innovation scheme and targeted measures to promote pockets of
excellence in low R&I performing countries. At the same time there are also voices on the need to
incentivise Member States' investments and efforts in capacity building of national/regional
research and innovation ecosystems. The Commission’s initiative to launch Policy Support Facility
(PSF) has been commended as a good step in this direction.
 Smaller scale collaborative projects are important for widening, originality and creativity
An overwhelming majority of stakeholders commenting on the size of projects support a justified
balance between big and small-scale projects. The budget threshold stakeholders consider as an
indicator for a small collaborative project ranges from less than EUR 3 million to less than EUR 8
million. It was reasoned that small and medium-sized collaborative projects offer good prospects for
the participation of junior researchers and newcomers (such as start-ups and young companies)
particularly from Member States which have, up to now, been involved to a lesser extent. Smaller
projects may also be much better starting point for exploring promising lines of enquiry, engaging
in riskier research and thus incentivising originality and creativity.
 Define R&I missions as ambitious but feasible high-impact objectives
Around half of the submitted position papers included references to mission-orientation of Horizon
Europe. Almost all stakeholders either clearly support mission-orientation or indirectly
acknowledge this as a possible future scenario. Only a few concerns were noted mainly that the
focus on the selected missions might be done at the expense of curiosity-driven fundamental
research.
In general, stakeholders consider that tangible missions that underpin the overall political objectives
could enhance visibility and create a more strongly engaging narrative of the Framework
Programme. One proposition is to define missions “as ambitious but feasible, high-impact
objectives, embedded within a challenge-based approach”. Missions should be limited in number,
easy to communicate and have a concrete budget and timeline. They should have a breakthrough or
transformative potential and a clear EU added value. Cross-sectoral and cross-disciplinary
collaboration should be at the core of mission approach.
In terms of programming and implementation modalities, stakeholders consider that R&I missions
should be formulated in an open manner and underpinned by non-prescriptive calls. There is
18
widespread acknowledgement on the need to engage wider society in identifying the most relevant
missions within broader societal challenges. Coordination mechanisms should be put in place to
support any synergies between the projects contributing to the same mission.
All EU Institutions stress the importance of getting citizens more involved and maximising impact
from the Framework Programme. The Committee of the Regions is very explicit in encouraging the
adoption of a new, complementary approach based on missions. ERAC and the Council point to the
need to deliver better and continued outreach to society, and call for exploring a mission-oriented
approach.
 Citizens should be better involved through tailored co-design and co-creation mechanisms
More than a third of stakeholders touch upon the idea of opening up the agenda-setting, design and
evaluation of European research and innovation to society and citizens. Stakeholders are supportive
of the idea that the Framework Programme should address citizens' concerns better and involve
them in a more substantial role with sufficient attention paid to "Societal Readiness Levels" (SRLs)
aimed at increasing societal impact. In several cases, stakeholders highlighted also crowdfunding as
a possible additional part in the COFUND scheme.
Stakeholders underline also the need to enhance science communication, as well as promote R&I
projects to develop more ambitious communication strategies, including all types of media. They
place particular attention on making sure that the impacts of designated R&I missions are clearly
communicated and disseminated to society at large.
 Reinforce Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) to make mission-orientation a success
Many stakeholders reflected upon SSH underlining its value in particularly with relation to societal
challenges and the suggested mission-orientated approach. Generally, stakeholders call for more
adequately reflecting the SSH dimension in the design of call and consortium requirements,
proposal evaluations and impact measurement.
 EIC should simplify the current support to innovation and act as an European Accelerator
Around 80% of stakeholders who reflected upon the future European Innovation Council (EIC)
favour the overall idea and provide detailed suggestions on the possible role, objectives and
arrangements for its operation. A recurring view is that the EIC should not add an extra layer of
governance, but rather seek to identify gaps, coordinate and simplify the existing support
instruments serving as an umbrella initiative with a concretely defined value added. The idea of
bringing together existing instruments (SME instrument, Fast Track to Innovation, FET Open and
inducement prizes) for a comprehensive support to all forms of innovation and technologies,
including market-creating innovation is well echoed across the stakeholder input.
Stakeholders consider that support to innovative SMEs and start-ups is essential to maximise
Europe’s potential for growth and socioeconomic transformation. Thus the role of EIC in support to
SMEs is frequently emphasised. Some stakeholders and Member States are of the opinion that the
introduction of the EIC should make the support landscape for SMEs much clearer and easier to
navigate.
There is a split opinion from stakeholders on the success of the current SME Instrument scheme.
While some consider the programme a great achievement of Horizon 2020, others are much more
critical pointing out the high rates of oversubscription and casting doubt on the EU added value of
funding single companies.
The main concerns expressed in relation to the EIC idea are that support to incremental innovation
should not diminish due to an increased emphasis on breakthrough innovation that the EIC will aim
to promote. There are also voices against the creation of a separate organisation suggesting
19
evaluating more carefully the possible merging of the EIC mandate with the EIT, FET or ERC to
capture the whole research-innovation spectrum.
The European Parliament stresses the importance of innovation support in general, and of disruptive
innovation and scaling up in particular. The Council emphasises the importance of supporting the
whole innovation value chain, including high-risk disruptive technologies, while the possible future
EIC should support breakthrough innovations and the scaling up of innovative companies.
 Boost international cooperation to tackle global challenges
Many stakeholders reflected on the international cooperation including around 70% of all Member
States who submitted position papers. A predominant view among stakeholders is that cooperation
with third countries should be strengthened to counter the drop in internationalisation activities and
participation rates from third countries that was experienced moving from FP7 to Horizon 2020.
Some stakeholders advocate that science is a strong force in international diplomacy; hence, the EU
should seek to strengthen collaboration in science and technology further beyond Europe. Several
contributions also highlighted that the Commission should consider making it easier for participants
from third countries to join ongoing projects on an ad-hoc basis, especially if they do not qualify to
receive EU funding. One suggestion is to allow secondary recipients of funds, who are not part of
the EU, to negotiate the terms of their cooperation directly with their European partners in order to
establish a mutually beneficial arrangement. As a principle, reciprocity between third country
programmes should be sought, where relevant.
A few stakeholders touched upon the issue of exploitation of research and innovation results in
Europe first. There were suggestions that the EU could adopt legislation to encourage stakeholders
conducting research mainly financed by European public funds, to exploit the results of this
research primarily on European soil.
The European Parliament calls for strengthening international R&I cooperation, including with
associate partners and emerging countries, as soon as possible through concrete actions. The
Parliament, in addition, highlights the value of science diplomacy. The Council reaffirms the
importance of reciprocity.
 Open science entails a complex cultural change that should be supported
Among stakeholders who reflected on these issues, Member States, universities and research
organisations appear to be more vocal. It is widely acknowledged that data and knowledge
produced from EU funded projects should be openly shared. Stakeholders frequently cite the need
to adhere to FAIR data principles. Business representatives underline more that the opt-out option
for Open Data Pilot should be maintained to secure some confidentiality of market-oriented
innovation outputs. Stakeholder contributions highlight that open science, open data and open
access paradigm calls for establishing new principles in citation and academic reward system, as
well as require more attention to development of skills in research data management. Some
stakeholders also mention European Open Science Cloud (EOSC) agenda, in most cases expressing
support to this EU level initiative. Incentives for Open Science were also mentioned.
The European Parliament opinion is in favour of the general principle of Open Access, while ERAC
regards the 100% Open Access policy of Horizon 2020 as a clear measure in favour of knowledge
circulation. Importantly, the Council Conclusions on the transition towards an Open Science System
give valuable guidance for the future, while the Council Conclusions on the Interim Evaluation of
Horizon 2020 highlight the role of Open Science in boosting impact and transparency.
 Make the R&I support landscape simpler
Concerns that the EU R&I funding instrument landscape is too complex are widely echoed in the
majority of position papers across all stakeholder groups. Stakeholders advocate for aligning
intervention logics of the proposed instruments with already well-embedded schemes to detect gaps,
20
overlaps and work towards better synergies. Some stakeholders explicitly emphasise that existing
support schemes should be carefully evaluated and discontinuation of funding should be an option
for measures that do not hold self-sustainability test (sunset clause).
The EIT receives positive remarks as an attempt to integrate all sides of the knowledge triangle and
create cross-border innovation networks as ‘true pan-European actors’. Yet stakeholders recognise
that EIT KICs are part of the proliferation of R&I instruments and call for formulating their clear
added value and complementarity with other instruments. A frequent plea for better synergies and
coordination between EIT and EIC is expressed. There is also a call for improving the EIT and the
KICs' openness to the inclusion of new relevant actors. Stakeholders also note the unnecessary
detailed rules and control requirements applied by the EIT for existing KICs, and call for better
adapting them to the nature of Horizon Europe.
ERAC considers it particularly urgent to rationalise the funding schemes, while considering public-
to-public partnerships essential for more coordinated implementation of national and EU R&I. The
Council similarly stresses that the current R&I ecosystem has become too complex and that all
partnership initiatives should have an exit strategy from EU funding. The European Parliament
advocates ‘decomplexifying’ the EU funding landscape.
 Synergies with other EU programmes are difficult to achieve, but are essential
An overwhelming majority of stakeholders specifically mention synergies with the ESI funds as an
area deserving most of attention. Also, cluster survey responses confirm synergies with the ESI
funds as the most frequently-discussed area for future complementarities. There is widespread
recognition, however, that achieving real complementarities between the Framework Programme
and the ESI funds is difficult in practice due to different nature and implementation modalities of
both funding instruments. In the views of some stakeholders, the Seal of Excellence has not lived up
to expectations as an attempt to bridge both programmes. Several stakeholders draw attention to the
need for ensuring that research infrastructures are able to effectively utilise the ESI funds to support
their construction and operation. Alignment and modifications in State Aid rules to ensure more
innovation-friendly regulatory environment is an equally prevailing concern of stakeholders.
The need to strengthen synergies and links with other EU programmes and instruments is much less
pronounced, though universities as well as some Member States refer specifically to synergies with
higher education area. Stakeholders acknowledge the necessity to strengthen the connections of all
three sides of the knowledge triangle and design complementarities between programme
intervention logics. Research organisations and industry stakeholders also recognise the untapped
potential of closer knowledge triangle integration. An idea of creation excellence-based university
network is proposed Critique of the idea of ‘European Universities’ label is expressed by both
university and industry networks.
 Enhance the strategic programming process
Many stakeholders, and the majority of Member States, reflected on the strategic programming
process. Several stakeholders flag that the transparency in the process of formulating work
programmes and traceability of stakeholder inputs should be improved and the comitology process
enhanced. Programme Committees should be fully involved in strategic discussions before
orientation papers are presented by the Commission. There should be enough time for negotiations
before decisions are taken. The process for drafting work programmes must be predictable, uniform
and transparent, allowing time for development of views and the identification of synergies between
the Programme Committees. An overall need to better align the interfaces between the EU, Member
States and societal stakeholders (joint standing committees) is flagged by another range of
contributors. The introduction of more flexible biennial work programmes is explicitly welcomed
by some respondents. There is also a more radical call to implement open calls with several cut-off
dates per year instead of having calls for proposals with deadlines.
21
Some stakeholders were also in favour of enhancing the management capacity of Commission
Directorates-General. Here, the need for better coordination among it was suggested to better
coordinate the work of the various Commission Directorates-General and the executive agencies to
ensure more strategic management approach and streamlined interpretation of rules. Other
stakeholders underline the need to resource and enhance the management capacities of the
Commission, in alignment with the level of ambition for the future programme.
 Continue the drive for simplification
Simplification efforts already implemented by the Commission have been well recognised. The
large share of stakeholders, however, call for further simplification actions. This was also a main
finding of the simplification workshop organised with European stakeholder umbrella
organisations.
The two-stage submission procedure is regarded as beneficial. It is a widely-held view that a more
selective first stage evaluating excellence and impact must be completed first, while the
implementation and consortium competence can be judged at the second stage. Some stakeholders
suggest also concrete targets for this procedure such as reaching a 1 in 3 success rate at the second
stage. At the same time, stakeholders consider that a more detailed feedback to all the unsuccessful
applicants also should be ensured. There is also a call for further optimisation of the Participant
Portal.
It is generally acknowledged that the current cost reimbursement formula (100% for direct costs +
25% for indirect costs) works well and has helped to simplify the current programme, even though
it is suggested to consider an increase of indirect costs in case of non-profit organisations.
Views on the introduction of lump sum-based funding are split. Around one third of stakeholders
that reflected on this topic welcome this initiative, stating that it has considerable simplification
potential, especially for SMEs and small projects with small-size participants. More than a half of
stakeholders, however, are more cautious and call for a careful assessment of the lump-sum pilots
beforehand. Stakeholders call for a thorough attention to the lump-sum calculation methodology to
ensure that it does not shift workload from administration and financial support teams to researchers
and does not create a competition on pricing and distort the ‘level playing field’.
Another area of concern relates to the need for a better model for reporting personnel costs, as
expressed by some Member States and organisations highlighting the need for an appropriate
system of personnel remuneration so that the rules are not disadvantageous for participants coming
from some countries. Other topics cited included the introduction of the Single Rulebook,
simplification of the Annotated Model Grant Agreement and further improvements to the
Participant Portal.
Generally, there is a consensus that the evaluation system of the Framework Programme should be
robust, fair, clear, transparent, and as fast as possible. Among the key improvements of the
evaluation process, stakeholders mention the need to increase the quality of the feedback
information provided to the applicants; the composition of and complementarities between skills,
experiences and perspectives (e.g. sector, including industry; discipline, especially SSH; gender;
nationality; end-users in case of close to market calls, etc.) of evaluation panel members; and re-
introduction of consensus meetings.
 Adapt the definition of innovation and improve evaluation to capture impacts of FP funding
A large majority of stakeholders highlighted aspects related to the need for better defining and
measuring impact, especially with regards to the mission-oriented approach. The significance of
tracing impact is widely recognised, especially by Member States and universities. Stakeholders
acknowledge the need to adopt a broader view on impact covering not only economic, but also
social, scientific and cultural impacts. The impact definition should describe the desired outcomes
22
of research and innovation while TRLs stipulate the route to get there. It is also underlined that
impact should be viewed in a much longer term than the current impact assessment practices
generally capture. This implies that Framework Programme project coordinators should be obliged
to provide interviews also long after the project has ended. A call to develop better methodological
frameworks to allow for tracking economic and social impact has been raised. But some
stakeholders, especially business and industry, warn that impact measurement should not become
too complex and overly bureaucratic.
Some stakeholders commented on the reporting and monitoring obligations, stating that imposed
reporting obligations should be feasible for beneficiaries and relevant to measure the progress of
projects towards the defined overarching goals. They flag the need to establish comprehensive
monitoring systems to measure the extent to which supported actions contribute to societal
challenges and other programme objectives. Other stakeholders emphasise that monitoring is
essential to ensure reflection, improve learning curves and revisit the structure of Horizon Europe
instruments to adapt to emerging trends.
6 Inclusion of the stakeholder consultation results in the legal proposal
Stakeholder views have been analysed and taken into account, to the extent possible, regarding the
structure and key principles, implementation and governance of Horizon Europe.
Following the overall endorsement by stakeholders, the three-pillar structure is maintained and
refined to enhance linkages between pillars for a greater impact. Key Enabling Technologies, due to
their effectiveness in tackling societal challenges, will continue under Global Challenges pillar. The
design of all new elements, but in particular missions and the European Innovation Council, fully
reflect stakeholder views. Citizens will be involved in selecting the most relevant missions, while
the EIC aims at simplifying existing support instruments. Although the EIC will focus on
breakthrough innovation, Horizon Europe will continue to support incremental innovation through
the Global Challenges and the EIT.
Synergies between different funding programmes will be facilitated by, for example, making the
Seal of Excellence more operational and addressing issues of State Aid. The complexity of the
research and innovation system is fully addressed by the new approach to Partnerships, which will
lead to a smaller number of more coherent initiatives having higher impact and leverage. Moreover,
the current Horizon 2020 support to lower-performing EU countries will be continued and
strengthen.
As regards implementation issues, the current funding rates will be maintained and lump sums will
be scaled up, though taking into account lessons learnt from the ongoing pilot phase. Provisions on
association to the Horizon Europe, and eligibility criteria for funding are both designed to increase
international cooperation. Finally, the strategic programming for calls will become more transparent
and open, to ensure a more active involvement of EU institutions, citizens and end-users.
23
Annex 3: Evaluation results
1 Lessons from the evaluations of previous Framework Programmes
While European research and innovation programmes have been successful, there are important
lessons to be learned from the past, from stakeholder feedback, and from analytical studies.
Research, innovation and education should be addressed in a more coordinated manner and
coherent with other policies and research results better disseminated and valorised into new
products, processes and services. The intervention logic of EU support programmes should be
developed in a more focused, concrete, detailed, inclusive and transparent manner. Programme
access should be improved and start-up, SME, industrial, EU13 and extra-EU participation
increased. Monitoring and evaluation need to be strengthened.
1.1 Improved horizontal and vertical policy coordination
A number of ex-post evaluations of the Framework Programme have noted that the coordination
between, on the one hand, the Framework Programme and other EU policies, and on the other hand,
the Framework Programme and Member State research activities could be improved. With regard to
horizontal policy coordination in the narrow sense, the FP7 interim evaluation19
noted that a
strategic shift is needed to establish stronger and better connections between research, innovation
and education (the so-called 'knowledge triangle'). As for broader horizontal policy coordination,
the FP6 ex-post evaluation20
called for a clearer division of labour between the FP and the cohesion
policy funds. It also stated that other EU policies such as transportation and energy would benefit
from a more coordinated interface between research activities under the Framework Programme and
regulatory and demand-side policies.
The need for horizontal policy coordination is confirmed by the conclusions of the OECD's work on
the most appropriate system of innovation governance. OECD21
, for instance, mentions the need to
develop "a strategic, horizontal approach", which "should include and develop the innovation policy
potential in other ministerial domains and ensure a co-ordinated division of labour between them".
And OECD22
concludes that "given the increasingly central role of innovation in delivering a wide
range of economic and social objectives, a whole-of-government approach to policies for
innovation is needed". With regard to vertical policy coordination, the FP6 ex-post evaluation noted
that, given its small size compared to Member State expenditure, the Framework Programme should
not try to substitute for Member State R&D policies but should use its added value in a more
strategic way and set an attractive and accepted European agenda. In the same vein, an evaluation23
concluded that the division of labour between the EU and national levels should be further refined,
in particular in view of the introduction of the likes of the European Research Council and the Joint
Technology Initiatives. The need for vertical policy coordination is confirmed by the results of
OECD work on the optimal system of innovation governance. OECD24
, for instance, calls for
"coherence and complementarities between the local, regional, national and international levels".
19
Annerberg et al. (2010), Interim Evaluation of the Seventh Framework Programme, Report of the Expert Group.
20
Rietschel et al. (2009), Evaluation of the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development, p. 58-59.
21
OECD (2005), Governance of Innovation Systems, vol.1: synthesis report.
22
OECD (2010), The OECD Innovation Strategy – Getting a head start on tomorrow.
23
Arnold E. (2009), Framework Programme 6 – Meta-evaluation, Technopolis Group.
24
OECD (2010), The OECD Innovation Strategy – Getting a head start on tomorrow.
24
1.2 Focus and a more robust intervention logic
A number of ex-post evaluations25
of the Framework Programme have noted that the programme's
design could be improved. Some pointed that the Framework Programme lacks a clear and robust
intervention logic: the programme has too many objectives, and higher-level objectives are
insufficiently translated into lower-level objectives.
With regard to the Framework Programme's objectives, the FP6 ex-post evaluation26
as well as
expert evidence27
noted that there were too many – addressing almost all S&T and socioeconomic
challenges - and that they were too abstract and vague and therefore untestable, complicating ex-
post evaluation. A European Parliament ITRE Committee report28
noted in the same vein that "an
ever-growing number of objectives and themes covered and diversification of instruments has
widened the scope of FP7 and reduced its capacity to serve a specific European objective". In
addition, no explicit links are made between higher-level objectives and lower-level concrete
technical goals29
. Meanwhile, instruments are not designed explicitly to achieve particular
objectives: challenges are defined so as to match existing instruments, not the other way around30
.
The result is 'catch all' instruments trying to tackle all problems and to satisfy all types of
stakeholders. That is why the European Court of Auditors has called for addressing a single
objective through each instrument31
.
The importance of focus and a proper hierarchy of objectives (combined with appropriate
monitoring) are confirmed by OECD work. OECD32
for instance, argues in favour of "a more
strategic focus on the role of policies for innovation in delivering stronger, cleaner and fairer
growth". The OECD33
notes that "third-generation innovation policy cannot be properly
implemented without precise targets and intelligent follow-up. Governments should increase their
capacity to develop actions plans based on horizontal, strategic approaches and translate these into
concrete measures to be taken by each ministry or agency.
1.3 Lower barriers to participation and increase dissemination and valorisation of outputs
All ex-post evaluations of the Framework Programme - see, for instance, the chapters on
participation in the FP6 ex-post 34
and FP7 interim evaluations35
- are unanimous in their view that
application, contract negotiation and project management procedures are too complex and
burdensome and that this results in high barriers to application and participation to the Framework
Programme, in general but in particular for first time, start-up, SMEs and applicants from new
Member States.
25
Rietschel et al. (2009), Evaluation of the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development; European
Court of Auditors (2007), Evaluating the EU RTD FP – Could the Commission’s approach be improved, Special Report No 9/2007,
paragraph IV.
26
Rietschel et al. (2009), Evaluation of the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development.
27
Arnold E. (2005), What the Evaluation record tells us about Framework Programme performance, Technopolis Group.
28
European Parliament, ITRE Committee Report, (2011), Report on FP7 Interim Evaluation, 2011/2043(INI).
29
European Commission, (2005), Five-year assessment if the European Union Research Framework Programmes 1999-2003.
Arnold E. (2009), Framework Programme 6 – Meta-evaluation, Technopolis Group.
30
Stampfer M. (2008), European Added Value of Community Research Activities - Expert analysis in support of the ex-post
evaluation of FP6, WWTF, Vienna Science and Technology Fund.
31
European Court of Auditors (2009), Networks of excellence and integrated projects in community research policy: did they
achieve their objectives? Special report n. 8/2009.
32
OECD (2010), The OECD Innovation Strategy – Getting a head start on tomorrow.
33
OECD (2005), Governance of Innovation Systems, vol.1: synthesis report.
34
Rietschel et al. (2009), Evaluation of the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development.
35
Annerberg et al. (2010), Interim Evaluation of the Seventh Framework Programme, Report of the Expert Group.
25
Participants' main reasons for getting involved in the Framework Programme relate to networking
and the creation of new knowledge36
. Research under the Framework Programme is also more of a
long-term, exploratory, technologically complex nature37
. The Framework Programme should
therefore not be expected to produce new, immediately marketable products and processes.
Nevertheless, Framework Programme’s evaluations conclude that more attention should be paid to
the production of project outputs and to their dissemination and economic valorisation, in particular
since the Framework Programme is supposed to support Europe's competitiveness. What is
highlighted is the absence in the Framework Programme of valorisation channels that enable the
exploitation of research results and the linkage of knowledge created through the Framework
Programme with socially beneficial uses38
. In the same vein, the FP7 interim evaluation observes a
lack of clarity on how the Framework Programme incorporates innovation (as opposed to 'pure'
research).
In this respect, OECD39
argues that "the creation, diffusion and application of knowledge are
essential to the ability of firms and countries to innovate and thrive in an increasingly competitive
global economy".
1.4 Strengthen monitoring and evaluation
The main problem affecting the monitoring and evaluation system of the Framework Programme
relates to the aforementioned lack of focused objectives and a robust intervention logic. The
evaluation process aims to link evidence emerging from project implementation with the strategic
and specific objectives set for the programme. As the European Court of Auditors40
observed, if this
connection is difficult to make, an assessment exercise becomes extremely complicated. The
evaluation and monitoring system suffers from other problems as well, however.
The importance of a proper monitoring and evaluation system is emphasized by the OECD41
, for
instance, recommends "improving evaluation and learning": "In general, governments should create
a solid basis for evaluation and learning and make them part of the policy-making process. This
includes evaluation of broader reforms, as knowledge about their impact on innovation is useful for
feedback and policy formulation. A more holistic approach to evaluation and learning can enhance
feedback in the governance system and lead to more effective policy". The OECD42
also argues that
"evaluation is essential to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of policies to foster innovation
and deliver social welfare. Improved means of evaluation are needed to capture the broadening of
innovation, along with better feedback of evaluation into the policy-making process. This also calls
for improved measurement of innovation, including its outcomes and impacts".
2 Lessons learnt from the Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020
The Horizon 2020 Interim Evaluation Staff Working Document identified the following strengths
and challenges that need to be addressed in the last three years of Horizon 2020, as well as in the
next Framework Programme:
36
Arnold E. (2009), Framework Programme 6 – Meta-evaluation, Technopolis Group.
37
Polt W. et al.(2008), Innovation impact study – Final report.
38
Rietschel et al. (2009), Evaluation of the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development; Annerberg
et al. (2010), Interim Evaluation of the Seventh Framework Programme, Report of the Expert Group.
39
OECD (2010), The OECD Innovation Strategy – Getting a head start on tomorrow.
40
European Court of Auditors (2007), Evaluating the EU RTD FP – Could the Commission’s approach be improved, Special Report
No 9/2007.
41
OECD (2005), Governance of Innovation Systems, vol.1: synthesis report.
42
OECD (2010), The OECD Innovation Strategy – Getting a head start on tomorrow.
26
2.1 Strengths
1. The evidence presented in the Horizon 2020 interim evaluation has demonstrated that, overall,
Horizon 2020 is an attractive and well performing programme. It has so far attracted more than
100,000 applications, representing a huge increase in the annual number of applications
compared to FP7. It involves top level participants from the higher education, research and
private sectors; from a wide range of disciplines and thematic fields; and from over 130
countries. 52% of participants are newcomers. Industrial participation has increased compared
to FP7. 23.9% of the budget for industrial and enabling technologies and societal challenges
goes to SMEs, far exceeding the target. Stakeholders are generally very satisfied with the
programme.
2. Horizon 2020's objectives and rationale for intervention remain highly relevant and have been
validated by, and are fully consistent with, recent EU and global priorities, such as the
Sustainable Development Goals. The programme has also proven that it is flexible and can
respond to emergencies (e.g. Ebola, Zika) and emerging needs.
3. Horizon 2020 is on track to be cost-efficient, achieving a very low administrative overhead,
thanks to the extensive externalisation of programme implementation, the creation of a
Common Support Centre, and the large-scale simplification of the rules for participation, in
particular the funding model, which has reduced time to grant and lowered costs for
participants, to the satisfaction of stakeholders and without reducing the level of co-funding by
beneficiaries.
4. In terms of effectiveness, through its focus on scientific, economic and societal impacts,
Horizon 2020 is on track to contribute to the creation of jobs and growth and the achievement of
the priorities of the Juncker Commission. It strengthens the science base by involving the EU's
and world's best research institutions and researchers; by training large numbers of EU-based
researchers; by producing large numbers of world class open access scientific publications and
data; by producing scientific breakthroughs; and by building cross-sectoral, inter-disciplinary,
intra- and extra-European research and innovation networks.
5. It fosters industrial leadership by successfully involving the private sector and SMEs; by
creating networks between the business sector, universities and research institutions; by
providing businesses and SMEs with risk finance to carry out their research and innovation
projects; by investing in demand-driven innovation; by producing high quality, commercially
valuable patents and other intellectual property rights; by generating proofs of concept and
demonstrators and supporting the deployment of innovation solutions; by producing new
knowledge, strengthening capabilities, and generating a wide range of innovation outputs
including new technologies, products and services; and by increasing the competitiveness of
beneficiaries. It addresses major societal challenges by producing publications, patents,
prototypes, products, process and methods. It is successful in spreading excellence and
widening participation through dedicated instruments and as a cross-cutting issue throughout the
programme. It achieves encouraging results in terms of gender equality and the integration of
the social sciences and humanities.
6. Compared to FP7, Horizon 2020 is an internally more coherent programme. Synergies with
other programmes and instruments are being strengthened.
7. Horizon 2020 has clear European added value in terms of speed, scale and scope and a strong
additionality: 83% of funded projects would not have gone ahead without EU funding.
27
2.2 Challenges
1. Horizon 2020 suffers from underfunding, resulting in large-scale oversubscription, much larger
than in FP7, which constitutes an enormous waste of resources for applicants and of good
proposals for Europe.
2. While Horizon 2020 demonstrates potential in terms of supporting breakthrough, market-
creating innovation, such support needs to be strengthened substantially.
3. There is a need for greater outreach to civil society to better explain results and impacts and the
contribution that research and innovation can make to tackling societal challenges, and to
involve them better in the programme co-design (agenda-setting) and its implementation (co-
creation).
4. While great efforts have already been made to increase the synergies between Horizon 2020 and
other EU programmes (notably European Structural and Investment Funds), these can be
strengthened further, particularly in view of R&I capacity building for lower performing
regions.
5. While Horizon 2020 has achieved a broad international outreach, international cooperation
needs to be intensified and more efforts are needed to ensure that the programme fully delivers
on its target for sustainable development.
6. While compared to FP7, great progress has been made in terms of simplification, simplification
is a continuing endeavour, which requires constantly identifying new candidate areas for
improvements; at the same time, there is scope for rationalising the Horizon 2020 funding
landscape.
7. While Horizon 2020 has made great progress in terms of making openly accessible to the wider
scientific community and public the scientific publications and data it generates, more can be
done in this respect.
28
Annex 4: Added Value of EU-funded R&I
Without replacing national Research and Innovation (R&I) activities, EU funded R&I activities
through the Framework Programmes produce demonstrable benefits compared to national and
regional-level support to research and innovation in terms of scale, speed and scope. The added
value comes through – inter alia –strengthening the EU’s scientific excellence through competitive
funding; the creation of cross-border, multidisciplinary networks; the pooling of resources to
achieve critical mass for tackling global challenges, and developing the evidence-base to underpin
policymaking. Overall, this increases EU's global attractiveness as a place to carry out research and
innovation, strengthens the EU’s competitiveness, contributes to growth and jobs 43
and makes the
EU a world leader in tackling global challenges. Therefore, EU research and innovation should be
“one of the essential policy priorities in the future”.44
Added value:
 Strengthening the EU’s scientific excellence through competitive funding – Excellence-
based EU-wide competition increases the quality and visibility of the research and
innovation output beyond what is possible with national or regional level competition. This
is shown by the fact that EU-funded peer-reviewed research publications are cited more than
twice the world average. Publications from EU funded R&I activities are almost four times
more represented in the world’s top 1% of cited research compared with the overall
publication output of the 28 EU Member States.45
Compared to 1.7% of national
publications, 7% of ERC publications (973, since its creation in 2007) are among the top 1%
highly cited in the world by field, year of publication and type of publication.46
 Creating critical mass to address global challenges- Collaborative projects funded at EU
level will help to achieve the “critical mass” required for breakthroughs when research
activities are of such a scale and complexity that no single Member State can provide the
necessary financial or personnel resources”. This occurs where a large research capacity is
needed and resources must be pooled to be effective, or where there is a strong requirement
for complementary knowledge and skills (e.g. in highly inter-disciplinary fields). Investing
in research and innovation at EU level will address global challenges (eg migration,
security, climate change, health) which facilitates finding solutions much faster and efficient
compared to what can be done at national level.
 Reinforcing the EU’s human capital – EU funded R&I activities support human capital
reinforcement through mobility and training which provide access to complementary
knowledge.47
300,000-340,000 researchers in the EU Framework Programmes teams are
43
Macro-economic modelling suggests that by 2030, the extra impacts of investing EUR 70 billion in R&I at EU level is expected to
generate between 0.27% and 0.35% more GDP, to increase EU net exports by between EUR 18 and 23 billion and to increase
employment by between 110 000 and 179 000 units compared to the reference scenario. Source: PPMI study, “Assessment of the
Union Added Value and the Economic Impact of the EU Framework Programmes (FP7, Horizon 2020)” (2017).
44
High Level Group Own Resources report, http://ec.europa.eu/budget/mff/hlgor/library/reports-communication/hlgor-
report_20170104.pdf
45
Elsevier, based on Field Weighted Citation Index.
46
The European Research Council is recognised as a global brand synonymous with research excellence, with substantial structuring
effects in the Member States. Four ERC grantees have been awarded the Fields Medal after being funded by the ERC. The ERC,
MSCA and FET, together with collaborative research themes, have supported at least 17 Nobel Prize winners prior or after the award
of their prize and Horizon 2020 beneficiaries have also contributed to major scientific discoveries including the Higgs Boson at
CERN, the detection of gravitational waves and the discovery of a planetary system composed of seven Earth-like worlds (exo-
planets) located relatively close to Earth in 2017.
47
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
29
fully or at least partly involved in EU-funded research activities48
. In the case of MSCA,
evidence shows that the research impact of internationally mobile researchers is up to 20%
higher than the impact of those who opt to stay in their home country49
.
 Building multidisciplinary transnational networks for more impact – EU R&I activities
build cross-sectoral, inter-disciplinary, intra- and extra-European research and innovation
networks which is key for bringing knowledge quickly to market and gaining industrial
leadership. Based on a counterfactual analysis, EU funded R&I teams had, on average, 13.3
collaborations versus six collaborations in the control group. The beneficiary teams also
built almost two times more collaborations with partners from outside the EU (on average,
3.6 partners from third countries versus 2.1 partners in the control group).50
This leads to
more impact: for example, Horizon 2020 publications including authors from associated and
third countries score up to more than three times as much as the world average.51
 Increasing the EU’s competitive advantage – EU R&I activities increase the competitive
advantage of participants, for example through international multi-disciplinary networks, the
sharing of knowledge and technology transfer and access to new markets. According to a
counterfactual analysis, EU funded R&I teams grow faster (11.8% more)52
. EU-funded R&I
teams are around 40% more likely to be granted patents or produce patent applications
compared with non-funded teams.53
Furthermore, patents produced in the context of EU
Framework Programmes are of higher quality and likely commercial value than similar
patents produced elsewhere.
 Creating new market opportunities through collaborative multi-disciplinary teams and
dissemination of results - Compare to the national level, EU R&I activities involve key
industrial players, SMEs and end-users, which reduces commercial risks, for example
through the development of common standards and interoperable solutions and by
defragmenting existing markets. EU funded collaborative R&I activities with open access
policies enable a more rapid and wide dissemination of results to users, industries, firms
(SMEs in particular), citizens, etc. – leading to a better exploitation and larger impact than
would be possible only at Member State level.
 Strengthening the evidence-base for policy-making – EU funded R&I activities have an
important role of supporting policy-making, which is for example illustrated by the results
of EU funded projects related to antimicrobial resistance54
and EU funded projects in the
field of climate change which played a key role in developing and aggregation climate
change models, with a strong impact at the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
 Leveraging private investment: EU funded R&I activities induce the private sector to
invest more of their own funds than they would under national funding schemes. A
counterfactual analysis shows a 24.6% difference in the budget leverage.55
Involving key
EU industry players helps ensure that research results and solutions are applicable across
48
PPMI study (2017), Assessment of the Union Added Value and the Economic Impact of the EU Framework Programmes (FP7,
Horizon 2020).
49
http://www.oecd.org/sti/Science-brief-scoreboard.pdf, “Outflows tend to be associated with higher rated publications than their
staying or returning counterparts. Assuming one could raise the performance of “stayers” to the level of their internationally mobile
researchers […] this would help countries catch up with leading research nations.”
50
PPMI study (2017), Assessment of the Union Added Value and the Economic Impact of the EU Framework Programmes (FP7,
Horizon 2020). Based on survey data.
51
Elsevier based on Field Weighted Citation Index.
52
Average growth rate of 24.4% in EU funded teams compared with 12.6% in the control group.
53
PPMI study (2017), Assessment of the Union Added Value and the Economic Impact of the EU Framework Programmes (FP7,
Horizon 2020). Based on survey data.
54
Several of these projects have allowed collaboration with policy makers, such as the European Medicines Agency and their results
have had an effect on antibiotic stewardship policies and infection control policies
55
Beneficiary teams increased their R&D budgets by 22.4%. The corresponding value for the non-FP teams was -2.2%. PPMI study
(2017), Assessment of the Union Added Value and the Economic Impact of the EU Framework Programmes (FP7, Horizon 2020).
Based on survey data.
30
Europe and beyond, enables the development of EU- and world-wide standards and
interoperable solutions, and offers the potential for exploitation in a market of 450 million
people: based on preliminary data, public-private partnerships (PPPs) are expected to attract
between EUR 0.90 and 2.17 from private actors per each EUR of EU funding invested.56
Existing public-private partnerships in advanced manufacturing and processing (Factories of
the Future, SPIRE and Energy-efficient Buildings) can already show private investments
between 1.5 and 5.4 times the public funding, taking current investments into account and
discounting intentions regarding future investments.57
Thanks to its leverage effect, it is
estimated through macro-econometric modelling that each EUR of EU investment in R&I
would bring a GDP increase of between EUR 6 and 8.5 during 2014-2030.
 High additionality – The EU invests in distinctive research and innovation projects, which
are unlike those funded at national or regional level: the programme's additionality (i.e. not
displacing or replacing national funding, see Figure 3) is very strong with, on average, 83%
of projects that would not have gone ahead without Horizon 2020 funding.58
Figure 3 Change in Government budget allocations for R&D and change in EU contribution between FP7 and
Horizon 2020 (size of circles: number of applications in Horizon 2020)
Source: LAB-FAB-APP, Investing in the European future we want, Lamy High Level Group Report (2017)
56
Data provided by the Thematic Units responsible for the seven Joint Undertakings.
57
Annual monitoring reports of Factories of the Future, SPIRE and Energy-efficient Buildings.
58
PPMI study (2017), Assessment of the Union Added Value and the Economic Impact of the EU Framework Programmes (FP7,
Horizon 2020). Based on survey data.
31
What stakeholders say about the EU Added Value of EU programmes and funds
In their open responses to cluster based public consultation 2,541 stakeholders elaborated on the EU added value
of EU programmes and funds. Four types of EU added value were most frequently mentioned:
Collaboration: 36% of respondents referenced collaboration and cooperation as an added value of the EU
programmes and funds. Respondents noted the EU programmes and funds allow addressing macro-level
challenges with a cross-border character (e.g. environmental sustainability, energy, health). The programmes
also helps to access external expertise, competencies, resources and innovations that may not be available in one
country, while allowing to scale-up and enhance innovative projects beyond national contexts. Multi-annual
strategic plans and long-term strategies are also more helpful in aligning priorities between international
partners than national programmes. Business and industry stakeholders frequently noted that the EU
programmes and funds by default promote access to the EU single market that boosts their global
competitiveness and help achieve greater long-term impacts. Here the creation of new cross-border value
chains, standards and interdisciplinary partnerships between diverse stakeholders and markets that were not
connected before is particularly pertinent. Civil society organisations note that improved collaboration
contributes to the harmonisation of the EU market and policies, improves social cohesion among Member States
and advances European integration. This allows achieving strategic development objectives, particularly in
cases where critical mass and pooling of resources is present. In addition research organisations view
international cooperation beyond the European Union as a considerable added value of the programmes, as it
contributes to greater impact of research projects, expands possible partnership options and introduces a
European dimension beyond the EU. A positive externality of this cooperation, according to research
organisations, is the breakdown of research silos and the minimisation of research effort duplications.
Maximising competition: 22% of stakeholders underlined that the EU programmes and funds provide
considerable improvements in competitiveness of participants by incentivising cross-border and cross-sectoral
partnerships and thus contributing to pooling of resources, knowledge transfer along with other positive spill-
over effects. Stakeholders also note that the EU programmes and funds improve the overall competitive edge of
Europe by sustained investments in innovation that address pan-European and global societal challenges; and in
the maintenance of effective innovation ecosystems throughout Europe. National public authorities note that
while oversubscription is one of the main obstacles that prevent the programmes from achieving its objectives,
high competition for funds also strengthens the European knowledge base and boosts the competitiveness of
successful applicants. This is particularly pertinent, in-part due to increased visibility and exposure.
Furthermore, performance benchmarking of participants by all applicants improves the overall performance,
leading to more ambitious and higher quality projects, breakthroughs and increased impact. Regional public
authorities note that EU R&I investments also strengthen the integration of SMEs into European value chains
that improves efficiency.
Mobility: 10% of stakeholders noted that since quality research is not localised to a specific country, one
of the most pronounced added value of EU programmes and funds is the support for the mobility of researchers,
particularly through mechanisms such as Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) and Erasmus. These are
considered as vital in flagship programs that support scientific exchange, foster methodological innovation,
multi-centred research collaborations, and a culture of joint research. Universities further note that support for
mobility has several amplifying effects on the added value of EU programmes and funds, particularly in the
form of skills and career development, as well as improvements in social cohesion and cooperation between
European researchers, thus increasing the productivity of this community. Furthermore, it also provides greater
freedom in choosing research topics and scope, partners, and impact areas than national efforts of EU Member
states. International organisations meanwhile note that mobility contributes to successful cross-border
collaboration, while also providing hardly measurable benefits to research and commercial activities.
Access to new markets: 9% of stakeholders noted that the programme, along with other EU funds and
programmes stimulates access to the EU single market and new markets that may not exist or are too small on a
national level. The support for the entire innovation chain (TRL 1 to 8) from the idea, to research and go-to
market actions and partnerships, stemming from longer-term funding modalities helps achieving these
objectives. Furthermore, the programmes are considered somewhat more successful in accelerating time-to-
market of innovative solutions. Business and industry stakeholders further note that EU funds help reducing
risks associated with R&D investments that on national and local levels are frequently funded through loans,
allowing to divert additional resources to new market entry. Explicit incentives for research-industry
cooperation also allow developing innovative products, thereby generating new markets and unlocking private
sector investment in innovation provided ex-post market uptake.
32
Annex 5: Macroeconomic modelling
Macroeconomic modelling is used to quantify the economic impact of the future EU R&I
Programme in terms of GDP gain and job creation in the EU. While there is a general consensus59
that R&I are decisive in fostering productivity growth, quantifying the impact of R&I policies at a
macroeconomic level requires modelling tools that appropriately capture how R&I translate into
economic gains.
There are several models available for assessing the impact of R&I, with each model presenting
specific features. This impact assessment uses results produced by three macroeconomic models:
NEMESIS, QUEST and RHOMOLO. NEMESIS results were produced by a team of external
experts60
, while RHOMOLO and QUEST results were produced by the European Commission
services (DG JRC for RHOMOLO and DG ECFIN for QUEST).
The strengths of these models rely on their specificities. Di Comite and Kancs (2015)61
consider
that NEMESIS is the richest model in terms of innovation types and policy elasticities when
compared to other standard macroeconomic models for R&D and innovation policies (QUEST,
RHOMOLO, GEM-E3). The forward-looking dynamic approach of QUEST makes the model the
most appropriate for assessing the impact of R&I innovation policies over time. By modelling
regional economies and their spatial interactions, RHOMOLO is the most suitable model to address
questions related to geographic concentration of innovative activities and spatial knowledge
spillovers.
The three models are used to assess the impact of the baseline scenario in order to triangulate the
signs, patterns and sizes of the impact of continuing the current Framework Programme. The
specificities of the models are then used to produce additional sets of results: the rich set of
elasticities and innovation channels in NEMESIS is used to assess the impact of modifying precise
R&I parameters of the model that capture the changes foreseen in the future Programme, while the
spatial dimension of RHOMOLO is used to assess regional impacts.
1 NEMESIS
Presentation of the model
The NEMESIS model was developed by a European consortium62
in 2000 in order to analyse the
macro-sectoral impacts of European structural policies. Its endogenous growth mechanisms were
first based on R&D investments and the related knowledge spillovers. The model became a
reference tool for the assessment of European or national research and innovation policies. Since
2004, the model has been used by the European Commission for several analyses, including the
assessment of the 3% R&D effort in the Lisbon Strategy63
, the assessment of the RTD National
Action Plan related to the Barcelona Objective64
and the assessment of the impact of European
59
Di Comite F. and Kancs D., Macro-Economic Models for R&D and Innovation Policies (2015), IPTS Working Papers on
Corporate R&D and Innovation – No 03/2015.
60
Seureco (2018), Support for assessment of socio-economic and environmental impacts (SEEI) of European R&I programme.
61
Ibidem.
62
Lab. ERASME / Ecole Centrale Paris (now SEURECO), Federal Planning Bureau of Belgium, E3M3 lab. / ICCS /NTUA and
Chambre d’Industrie et de Commerce de Paris.
63
Brécard, D., Fougeyrollas, A., Le Mouël, P., Lemiale, L. and P. Zagamé (2006), “Macro-economic consequences of European
Research Policy: Prospects of the NEMESIS model in the year 2030”, Research Policy n°35(7), pp. 910-924. Doi:
10.1016/j.respol.2006.03.001.
64
Chevallier, C., Fougeyrollas, A., Le Mouël, P., and P. Zagamé (2006), “A time to sow, a time to reap for the European Countries:
A macro-econometric glance at the RTD National Action Plans”, Revue de l’OFCE, 2006/5 (n°97 bis), pp. 235-257. Doi:
10.3917/reof.073.0235
33
research and innovation Programmes (ex-ante assessment of the 7th
Framework Programme65
and of
Horizon 202066
). In 2017, NEMESIS has been used for the ex-post assessment of the 7th
Framework
Programme and the interim evaluation of Horizon 202067
.
Structure
NEMESIS is a macroeconometric model composed of a system of sectoral detailed models for
every EU countries. The endogeneisation of technical progress in NEMESIS is derived from the
new growth theories where innovations result from the investment in R&D by private firms and
from the R&D achieved by the public sector. In the new version of NEMESIS used for this impact
assessment, innovations still arise from firms’ and public investments in R&D, but also from
investments in two other complementary innovation inputs: ICT and Other Intangibles (including
training and software). These improvements have allowed enhanced accuracy in assessing research
and innovation policies by considering the most up-to-date theoretical as well as empirical findings
of the economic literature (Le Mouël, et al., 2016).
How NEMESIS models R&I
1 Firms determine their investments in the three innovative assets (private R&D, ICT and OI).
2 The investment effort feeds their own knowledge (stock variable) as well as the knowledge in others
sectors and countries through knowledge matrices (knowledge transfers). For each innovative asset, these
knowledge stocks are modelled as a weighted sum of the stock of assets, R&D, ICT or OI, belonging to all
sectors and countries. The spread parameters used to build these stocks are calibrated using matrices based on
patent citations between sectors and countries. These matrices combine the citations between patents allocated
by technology classes and country with the OECD concordance table, in order to allocate these citations
between sectors (Johnson, 2002).
3 The growth of the knowledge stock of each innovation asset coupling with the knowledge absorption
capacity (measured with the investment intensity in each innovative asset) generates innovations.
4 These innovations take two forms: product and process. Product innovation increases the intrinsic quality
of the product sold by the firms whereas process innovation improves the production process without changing
the quality of the product sold (pure TFP effect). This distinction between process and product innovations is
crucial as econometric studies show that process innovations alone have a negative, or only a slight positive
impact on employment, whereas the impact of product innovations is always positive (Hall, 2011).
5 New product innovations raise internal as well as external demands for the enhanced product. New
process innovation reduce the production cost of the sector that, in a context of competitive market, will reduce
the end-user prices of the product and then increase its demand on the internal and external markets.
6 All these dynamics at sectoral level are brought together by the input-output tables of the model. Then,
the combination of these sectoral interdependencies (“bottom-up”) with the “top-down” macro-economic forces
impulses the medium and long term dynamics of the model. These macroeconomic forces depend mainly on the
labour market and the wage setting that are the drivers for the final consumption of vaughan, and also for the
domestic production prices and so of the competitiveness of the economy
The macroeconomic dynamic in NEMESIS can be summarised in three main phases:
1. An investment phase that is a “demand phase” in which all the dynamics are induced by the
change in the R&D expenditures without or with moderated impacts of the innovation (as the
innovations take time to appear). This phase can be viewed as a Keynesian multiplier.
65
Delanghe, H. and U. Muldur (2007), “Ex-ante impact assessment of research programmes: The experience of the European
Union's 7th Framework Programme”, Science and Public Policy, n°34(3), pp. 169-183, doi: 10.3152/030234207X218125.
66
European Commission (2012), “The Grand Challenge – The design and societal impact of Horizon 2020”, Directorate-General for
Research and Innovation. Doi: 10.2777/85874.
67
PPMI (2017), “Assessment of the Union Added Value and the Economic Impact of the EU Framework Programmes (FP7, Horizon
2020)”, 2017. https://frama.link/o6oBPRZU.
34
2. The innovation phase: the arrival of innovation (process and product) reduces the production cost
of the new products or raises their quality that induces an increase of external and internal demands.
3. The obsolescence phase: progressively the new achieved knowledge declines because of the
knowledge obsolescence68
and in the long-term, the macro-economic track goes back to the
reference scenario.
Key assumptions for the impact assessment
Key assumptions in NEMESIS for assessing the impact of the Framework Programme are related to
budget size, budget allocation and the value of key parameters such as leverage69
and performance.
Key assumptions (continuation of Horizon 2020)
Budget size Continuation of Horizon 2020 budget in constant prices – 15%
Budget allocation across years,
countries and sectors
Horizon 2020 allocation
Knowledge spillovers Inter-sectoral and international spillovers modelled using patent citation
techniques with no additional specificity for the Framework Programme.
Direct leverage effect Direct leverage:
- Basic research: 0
- National funding of applied R&I: 0.1
- EU funding of applied R&I: 0.15
Indirect leverage: firms keep their investment effort constant in the long term.
Economic performance Higher performance of EU funding (+15%) compared to national funding
Financing Reduction in public investment
Budget size and allocation are assumed to be the same as in Horizon 2020 in constant prices, minus
the contribution from the UK (assumed to be 15% of the budget). The Programme is assumed to be
financed by lowering national public investment. Regarding the direct leverage effect, the
assumptions used are supported by a survey70
on research units involved in the 7th
Framework
Programme and by the empirical literature71
. A sensitivity analysis72
shows that this parameter does
not significantly drive the results produced for this impact assessment. Economic performance in
NEMESIS is calibrated by country and sector on the basis of the available empirical literature. A
higher leverage and performance parameter for EU funding compared to national funding reflects
the benefits related to the EU added value of the Programme, with values that are supported by
existing quantified evidence on publications, patents and revenues from innovations73
.
In order to assess the impact of the various changes regarding the structure and priorities of Horizon
Europe, each of the changes for more impact and more openness (section 3) was translated into
variations of the parameters in NEMESIS. While the sign of these variations is straightforward,
their size is uncertain. Therefore, different scenarios were considered, from low to high, by using
ranges in the variation of the parameters. These ranges rely on plausible values found in the
literature74
, with extreme values showing how impactful Horizon Europe can be in the most
ambitious and optimistic conditions.
68
The obsolescence of the innovation comes from the depreciation rate used in the knowledge stock formulation. These depreciation
rates are of 15% for R&D, 35% for ICT and 36% for the Other Intangibles.
69
Amount of additional R&I expenditures leveraged by the initial R&I investment.
70
PPMI (2017), Assessment of the Union Added Value and the Economic Impact of the EU Framework Programmes (FP7, Horizon
2020), Final report, European Commission report.
71
Seureco (2018), Support for assessment of socio-economic and environmental impacts (SEEI) of European R&I programme.
72
Ibidem.
73
Ibidem.
74
Ibidem.
35
Table 2 Assumptions in NEMESIS
Changes for more impact This assumes … Range
Higher economic performance Focus on R&I with higher
economic impacts and on
breakthrough innovations.
Higher performance of EU
funding compared to national
funding: +0 (baseline) to +5
percentage points.
Lower knowledge obsolescence More focus on breakthrough
knowledge.
14% to 13% obsolescence rate
compared to 15% in the baseline.
Stronger complementarities with other
innovative assets
More cross-technological and
cross-sectoral R&I.
5% to 10% stronger than in the
baseline.
Higher direct leverage of private R&D Better access to finance of
innovative firms, especially for
SMEs.
0.1 (baseline) to 0.15.
Changes for more openness This assumes … Range
Higher complementarities with national
support to R&D
Increased complementarities
through partnerships.
Increased leverage for basic
research: 0.05 to 0.1 compared to
0 in the baseline.
Stronger knowledge diffusion Facilitated knowledge diffusion
nationally, between the different
categories of research
organisations and/or
internationally.
5% to 10% stronger than in the
baseline.
Results
Results from the NEMESIS model indicate that the Framework Programme is expected to generate
large GDP gains. The continuation of the Framework Programme is expected to produce 0.08% of
additional GDP on average over 25 years, which means that each euro invested can potentially
generate a return ranging from 10 to 11 euros of GDP gains over the same period75
. The highest
gains (+0.31% of GDP) are expected to occur around 2034.
Figure 4 GDP impact of the continuation of Horizon 2020 (NEMESIS, deviation in % from a situation without
Framework Programme)
Source: Seureco (2018), Support for assessment of socio-economic and environmental impacts (SEEI) of
European R&I programme.
75
Figures in constant prices. This corresponds to about EUR 720bn over 25 years, and EUR 550bn over 20 years.
36
The impact on jobs is also substantial. Over the period of the Programme, up to 100 thousand jobs
are expected to be directly created in R&I activities. During this period, while the Programme has a
positive effect on jobs in R&I, the decrease in national public investment that is assumed by the
model is mechanically accompanied by a comparable decrease in non R&I-related jobs. The net
indirect impact of the Programme on jobs materialises as from 2030, with the creation of more than
200 thousand jobs after 2035, including more than 80 thousand high-skilled jobs.
Figure 5 Employment impact of the continuation of Horizon 2020 (NEMESIS, deviation in thousand jobs from a
situation without Framework Programme)
Source: Seureco (2018), Support for assessment of socio-economic and environmental impacts (SEEI) of
European R&I programme
Compared to the continuation of Horizon 2020, the changes in the design of the Programme can
potentially generate an additional GDP gain up to 0.04% in a low scenario, and up to 0.1% in a high
scenario. The impact of the changes is expected to be the most significant after 2030. The total
impact of the Programme on EU GDP would be between EUR 800 billion and EUR 975 billion
over 25 years.
Figure 6 Decomposition of GDP impact of changes for more impact and more openness (deviation in % from the
continuation of Horizon 2020, scenarios based on highest values of the ranges)
Changes for more impact Changes for more openness
Source: Seureco (2018), Support for assessment of socio-economic and environmental impacts (SEEI) of
European R&I programme
37
Figure 7 GDP impact of changes for more impact and more openness (deviation in % from a situation without
Framework Programme)
Source: Seureco (2018), Support for assessment of socio-economic and environmental impacts (SEEI) of
European R&I programme
Limitations of the model
While NEMESIS’ strengths justify its relevance for measuring the impact of R&I policies, the
model’s specificities and approach also imply a number of limitations to be taken into account when
interpreting the results. First, it relies on the empirical observation of relationships and allows for
flexibility in behavioural functions, which may generate inconsistencies among the most recent
developments in macroeconomic theory. Furthermore, it does not use forward-looking expectations
but adaptive ones. Regarding the use of human capital in the model, NEMESIS does not link that
with investments in the educational system.
2 QUEST
Presentation of the model
The QUEST model is a global dynamic general equilibrium model developed by the Directorate
General for Economic and Financial Affairs of the European Commission76
. The different model
variants have been extensively used for macroeconomic policy analysis and research, e.g. analysing
the impact of fiscal and structural reforms and assessing the impact of Cohesion Policy77
. QUEST is
a fully dynamic structural macro-model with rigorous microeconomic foundations derived from
intertemporal utility and profit optimisation. The model also accounts for frictions in goods, labour
and financial markets.
Structure of the model
QUEST belongs to the class of micro-founded dynamic general equilibrium (DGE) models that are
now widely used in economic policy institutions as the latest step in the development of
76
See Ratto, M., Roeger, W., & in't Veld, J. (2009). QUEST III: An estimated open-economy DSGE model of the euro area with
fiscal and monetary policy. Economic Modelling, 26(1), 222-233.
77
See Varga, J., Roeger W. and in 't Veld, J. (2014), “Growth effects of structural reforms in Southern Europe: the case of Greece,
Italy, Spain and Portugal” Empirica, vol. 41, issue 2, 323-363., Varga, J. and in 't Veld, J. (2011). “A model-based analysis of the
impact of Cohesion Policy expenditure 2000-06: Simulations with the QUEST III endogenous R&D model.” Economic Modelling,
28 (1-2), 647-663. and https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/economic-and-fiscal-policy-coordination/economic-
research/macroeconomic-models_en for other publications using the QUEST model.
38
macroeconomic modelling. The focus in these models is on the economy as a whole, as an
integrated system of economic agents that base their economic decisions over a range of variables
by continuously re-optimising, subject to budgetary, technological and institutional constraints.
These models are forward-looking and intertemporal, i.e. current decisions account for expectations
about the future.
This impact assessment uses the semi-endogenous growth version of the European Commission’s
QUEST model with an R&D production sector (QUEST3RD). The model economy is populated by
households, final and intermediate goods producing firms, a research industry, a monetary and a
fiscal authority. In the final goods sector, firms produce differentiated goods which are imperfect
substitutes for goods produced abroad. Final good producers use a composite of intermediate goods
and three types of labour: low-, medium-, and high-skilled. The model has two types of households,
liquidity and non-liquidity constrained, a feature which has become standard in dynamic stochastic
general equilibrium modelling. Liquidity constrained households have no access to financial
markets. They simply consume their current income at each period. Non-liquidity constrained
households buy the patents of designs produced by the R&D sector and license them to the
intermediate goods producing firms. The intermediate sector is composed of monopolistically
competitive firms, which produce intermediate products from rented capital input using the designs
licensed from the household and by making an initial payment to overcome administrative entry
barriers. The production of new designs takes place in research labs, employing high skilled labour
and making use of the commonly available domestic and foreign stock of knowledge. Importantly,
the model is a global multi-country model of the EU Member States and the rest of the world in
which individual country blocks are interlinked with international trade and knowledge spillovers.
Assumptions used for the impact assessment
Key assumptions (continuation of Horizon 2020)
Budget size Continuation of Horizon 2020 budget in constant prices – 15%
Budget allocation across years,
regions and sectors
Horizon 2020 allocation
Spillovers International trade and knowledge spillovers, based on trade
statistics and elasticities in the relevant literature.
Direct leverage effect Identical leverage of EU funding and national funding
Economic performance Identical performance of EU funding and national funding
For this impact assessment, results were produced based on two scenarios regarding the financing
of the Framework Programme. In a first scenario, financing relies on raising additional VAT
revenues in the Member States. The second scenario assumes that future Programme is financed at
the expense of lowering national public investment.
Results
The results highlight the importance of the underlying financing assumptions. As value added taxes
are some of the least distortive taxes, financing productivity-enhancing R&D investments from
these resources is unambiguously beneficial at the EU level in the medium and long run (see left
side graph in
39
Figure 8a).
By changing from VAT financing to public investment cuts (e.g. roads, buildings), Members States
loose the potential productivity effects of these public investments and the GDP results are lower
both in the short- and long-run (second panel in
40
Figure 8b).
41
Figure 8 GDP impact of the continuation of Horizon 2020 (QUEST, deviation in % from a situation without
Framework Programme)
a. VAT financed b. Financed through public investment cuts
Source: European Commission, DG ECFIN
There is a small short-run output loss due to crowding out effects in the beginning of the
intervention period. This is because R&D subsidies stimulate innovation by helping R&D intensive
companies to attract more high-skilled labour from traditional production into research with higher
wages. In the second scenario, the expected GDP effects are less beneficial at the EU level. Similar
to R&D investments, public investment is also productivity-enhancing, therefore, this type of
financing is more costly for the Member States. It also takes longer to compensate the short-run
output loss.
In both scenarios, the GDP gains peak around the 2030-2032 period, up to 0.14%, and gradually
decrease after the Programming period due to the depreciation of tangible and intangible capital.
The average impact over 25 years can reach up to 0.14% over 25 years. Note, that in the QUEST
simulations EU and nationally funded R&I have the same leverage and performance effects.
Limitations of the model
Although the model is well-suited to simulate the effect of public financed subsidies to private
R&D, it does not distinguish between research undertaken in private or public R&I entities. All
R&D activities are carried out by a (virtual) R&D sector. Being an aggregate macroeconomic
model, QUEST also misses the extensive regional details present in RHOMOLO.
3 RHOMOLO
Presentation of the model
RHOMOLO is the spatial computable general equilibrium model of the European Commission
focusing on EU regions. It has been developed and maintained by the regional economic modelling
team at the Directorate-General Joint Research Centre (DG JRC) in cooperation with Directorate-
General for Regional and Urban Policy (DG REGIO). It is used for policy impact assessment and
provides sector-, region- and time-specific simulations to support to EU policy making on
investments and reforms covering a wide array of policies. RHOMOLO is built following a micro-
founded general equilibrium approach78
and is used to provide a breakdown of results by region and
sector.
78
The micro-founded general equilibrium approach is also the basis for other macroeconomic models developed by the Commission
such as the QUEST model developed by the Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs (DG ECFIN).
42
Structure of the model
RHOMOLO is a spatial dynamic general equilibrium model that covers 267 regions at the NUTS2
level. Each region contains 10 economic sectors. A subset of these operates under monopolistic
competition. The rest of the sectors operate under perfect competition. Regional goods are produced
by combining labour and capital with domestic and imported intermediates, creating vertical
linkages between firms.
Final goods are consumed by households, government and investors. Each region is inhabited by a
representative household which supply labour of three skills type, consume and save. The
government levy taxes, purchases public consumption goods, conduct public investments and
allocate transfers to the various agents in the economy. Goods and services can be sold in the
domestic economy or exported to other regions. Trade between regions is associated with a set of
bilateral regional transportations costs. The RHOMOLO model incorporates imperfect competition
in the labour market. The model allows one to switch from a wage curve to a Phillips curve.
RHOMOLO contains two types of capital, sector specific private capital and public capital available
to firms in all sectors within the region.
How RHOMOLO models R&I
R&D expenditure is modelled as private investments. Hence, R&D spending generates demand for
capital goods. In addition, R&D spending leads to the accumulation of an intangible knowledge capital
stock which in turn spills into an increase in total factor productivity (TFP).
Expenditure for R&D support is introduced into the model as a reduction in user cost of capital
which in turn generates an increase in R&D investments.
The impact of R&D expenditure on total factor productivity through the accumulated knowledge
capital stock is captured by a set of regional spillover elasticities which are conditional on R&D intensity
within the region. Higher regional R&D intensity is associated with higher spillover from knowledge
capital to TFP. The R&D spillover elasticities are based on estimates by Kancs and Siliverstovs (2016)79
.
Assumptions used for the impact assessment80
Key assumptions (continuation of Horizon 2020)
Budget size Continuation of Horizon 2020 budget in constant prices – 15%
Budget allocation across years,
regions and sectors
Horizon 2020 allocation
Regional spillovers Regional spillovers are conditional on R&D intensity within the
regions.
Direct leverage effect Direct leverage: Calculated as a weighted average from
NEMESIS
Indirect leverage: Determined endogenously by the models
investment demand specification
Economic performance Identical performance of EU funding and national funding
Financing Reduction in public investment
The regionalisation of funding is based on the regional distribution of existing Programme
spending. Hence, it is assumed that future R&I support would follow the same regional distribution
as previous spending programmes. Figure 9 shows the assumed regional accumulated spending for
79
Kancs, D. and Siliverstovs, B. (2016), R&D and non-linear productivity growth, Research Policy, 45, 634-646.
80
Christensen, M., Assessing the regional socio-economic impact of the European R&I programme, forthcoming.
43
R&D support for the period 2021-2027 in percent of GDP. Large regional variations in spending
can be observed.
Figure 9 Accumulated regional spending in support of R&D in the reference scenario (percent of GDP)
Source: European Commission, DG JRC
The impact of the Spreading Excellence and Widening Participation (SEWP) programme is also
measured using RHOMOLO by using the regional allocation of funds for the years 2014-2015
under SEWP. The largest receivers of funding were regions in Cyprus, Hungary, Slovenia, Portugal
and Estonia. The funding is mainly concentrated in regions in the widening countries. However,
some regions in other member states also receive funding through participation in project with
counterparts in the widening countries.
Results
Results from RHOMOLO show significant benefits of continuing the EU R&I Programme
compared to a situation in which funding is reallocated to national public investments. The
Programme is expected to generate up to 0.17% (in 2020) of additional GDP compared to a
situation without Framework Programme, with an average impact of 0.08% of GDP over 25 years.
44
Figure 10 GDP impact of the continuation of Horizon 2020 (RHOMOLO, deviation in % from a situation
without Framework Programme)
Source: European Commission, DG JRC
Key regional results from the model are the following:
 Regions from all Member States are directly or indirectly impacted by SEWP measures, not
targeted countries only.
 Regional impact of the SEWP can reach up to 0.18% of regional value added in some
regions.
 Each Euro invested in the SEWP part of the Framework Programme is expected to bring
similar return in terms of GDP gain compared to the rest of the Programme.
Limitations of the model
While the spatial dimension of RHOMOLO is clearly a key strength of the model, the extensive
regional disaggregation of the model requires that the dynamics are kept relatively simple81
,
implying that the optimisation problems in RHOMOLO are inherently static and do not
acknowledge the inter-temporal consequences of innovation decisions that can change not only the
level but also the rate of growth of regional economies. The model is solved by recursive dynamics.
Furthermore, RHOMOLO does not explicitly distinguish between private and public R&D
investments or between types of endogenous innovation.
4 Comparison of results
RHOMOLO, QUEST and NEMESIS are three different models corresponding to different
approaches and with very different specifications and settings of parameter values. One should
therefore not expect the three models to produce identical estimates of the economic impact of a
given policy change. However, comparing the findings from the three models for the baseline
scenario (i.e. the continuation of Horizon 2020) allows assessing the consistency of the impacts
identified in each model and contributes to address to some extent the issue of model uncertainty.
81
Di Comite F. and Kancs D. (2015), Macro-Economic Models for R&D and Innovation Policies, IPTS Working
Papers on Corporate R&D and Innovation – No 03/2015.
45
Figure 11 GDP impact of Horizon 2020 continuation (deviation in % from a situation without Horizon 2020)
Source: European Commission, DG Research and Innovation. Note: EU+ indicates that Nemesis uses higher
performance and leverage for EU funding compared to national funding as a reflection of the EU added value of
the Programme. QUEST *1 assumes that financing of the Programme relies on VAT increase. QUEST *2
assumes that financing relies on lowering public investment.
Overall, NEMESIS, QUEST and RHOMOLO present consistent results in terms of sign and
temporal pattern of the GDP gain from the Framework Programme (compared to the
discontinuation of the Programme) over 2021-2050. The three models show a strong increase in the
GDP impact during or after the period covered by the Programme, with highest impacts expected
between 2029 and 2034. The size of the GDP gain is the highest based on the NEMESIS results.
This can be explained by the fact that the three models use different sets of innovation channels and
elasticities. Furthermore, the parameters and mechanisms in QUEST and RHOMOLO do not
directly take into account the higher leverage and performance expected from EU funding of R&I
compared to national funding, which are acknowledged in NEMESIS as an illustration of the EU
added value of the Framework Programme.
46
Annex 6: Indicators
1 Key Impact Pathways Indicators
1.1 Scientific impact pathway indicators
The Programme is expected to have scientific impact by delivering creating high-quality new
knowledge, strengthening human capital in R&I, and fostering the diffusion of knowledge and
Open Science. Progress towards this impact will be monitored through the proxy indicators in
Figure 12, set along three key impact pathways.
Figure 12 Key scientific impact pathways indicators
Short-term Medium-term Longer-term Scientific impact
1 Message: Horizon Europe generates world-class science, as shown by the high-quality publications that become
influential in their field and worldwide82
.
Publications -
Number of FP peer reviewed
scientific publications83
Citations -
Field-Weighted Citation
Index of FP peer
reviewed publications
World-class science -
Number and share of peer reviewed
publications from FP projects that are
core contribution to scientific fields
Creating of high-
quality new
knowledge
Data needs: identification of publications co-funded by the FP through the insertion of a specific DOI for the FP (funding source
code) when publishing, allowing follow-up tracking of the perceived quality and influence through publication databases and
topic mapping.
2 Message: Horizon Europe strengthens human capital, as shown by the improvement in skills, reputation and working
conditions of participants84
.
Skills -
Number of researchers having
benefitted from upskilling activities
in FP projects (through training,
mobility and access to
infrastructures)85
Careers -
Number and share of
upskilled FP researchers
with more influence in
their R&I field
Working conditions -
Number and share of upskilled FP
researchers with improved working
conditions
Strengthening
human capital in
R&I
Data needs: collection of unique identifiers of individual applicants to the FP at proposal stage, allowing follow-up tracking of
their influence in their field through publication and patent databases, awards and prizes, as well as evolution of working
conditions through salary levels and benefits.
3 Message: Horizon Europe opens up science, as shown by research outputs shared openly, re-used and at the origin of
new transdisciplinary/trans-sectoral collaborations86
.
Shared knowledge -
Share of FP research outputs (open
data/ publication/ software etc.)
shared through open knowledge
infrastructures
Knowledge diffusion -
Share of open access FP
research outputs actively
used/cited after FP
New collaborations -
Share of FP beneficiaries having
developed new transdisciplinary/
trans-sectoral collaborations with
users of their open FP R&I outputs
Fostering
diffusion of
knowledge and
Open Science
Data needs: Identification of research outputs (in particular publications and research data) co-funded by the FP through the
insertion of a specific DOI for the FP when publishing or sharing openly (e.g. OA journals/platforms (publications) and open
FAIR repositories (data)), allowing follow-up tracking of open access performance in terms of active use/citations and
collaborations.
82
Indicators on publications are collected under Horizon 2020, for instance the number of peer reviewed publications and top 1% or
10% citations but with different coverage across programme parts.
83
The indicators will be tracked also for co-authored publications across types of organisations, disciplines, sectors, countries
(including associated and third countries).
84
Data on individual researchers and innovators is collected only under some programme parts under Horizon 2020 (ERC, MSCA). It
is proposed to extend the coverage to the whole Programme and to look at the overall effects of the FP on individuals based on the
collection of unique identifiers for each beneficiary at project’s start. This shall allow for a more solid and automated analysis of the
contribution of the Programme to the strengthening of human capital without further data requests to beneficiaries.
85
By type of activities: training, mentoring/coaching, mobility, access to infrastructures
86
Two indicators were specified as a cross-cutting issue under Horizon 2020 for open access publications and open access to data.
47
1.2 Societal impact pathway indicators
The Programme is expected to have societal impact by addressing EU policy priorities through
R&I, delivering benefits and impact through R&I missions, and strengthening the uptake of
research and innovation in society. Progress towards this impact will be monitored through the
proxy indicators in Figure 13, set along three key impact pathways.
Figure 13 Key societal impact pathways & progress indicators
Short-term Medium-term Longer-term Societal impact
4 Message: Horizon Europe helps addressing EU policy priorities (including meeting the SDGs) through research and
innovation, as shown by the portfolios of projects generating outputs contributing to tackling global challenges.
Outputs -
Number and share of outputs
aimed at addressing specific
EU policy priorities
(including meeting the
Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs))
Solutions -
Number and share of
innovations and scientific
results addressing specific EU
policy priorities (including
meeting the SDGs)
Benefits -
Aggregated estimated effects
from use of FP-funded
results, on tackling specific
EU policy priorities,
including contribution to the
policy and law-making cycle
Addressing EU
policy priorities
through R&I
Data needs: Projects classified according to the specific EU policy priorities (including the SDGs) pursued and follow-up
tracking of their outputs, results and impacts. Portfolio analysis on effects from scientific results & innovations in specific EU
policy priority/SDGs areas, text mining.
5 Message: Horizon Europe produces knowledge and innovation that contribute to achieving missions of EU interest 87
.
R&I mission outputs -
Outputs in specific R&I
missions
R&I mission results -
Results in specific R&I
missions
R&I mission targets met -
Targets achieved in specific
R&I missions
Delivering benefits
and impact through
R&I missions
Data needs: Projects classified according to the missions pursued and follow-up tracking of their outputs, results and impacts
according to the target set. Portfolio analysis on effects from scientific results & innovations in mission areas.
6 Message: Horizon Europe creates value for European citizen, as shown by the engagement of citizen in the projects
and beyond the projects by improved uptake of scientific results and innovative solutions88
.
Co-creation -
Number and share of FP
projects where EU citizens
and end-users contribute to
the co-creation of R&I
content
Engagement -
Number and share of FP
beneficiary entities with citizen
and end-users engagement
mechanisms after FP project
Societal R&I uptake -
Uptake and outreach of FP
co-created scientific results
and innovative solutions
Strengthening the
uptake of innovation
in society
Data needs: Collection of data at proposal stage on the roles of partners (incl. citizen) in the projects, structured survey of
beneficiary entities and tracking of uptake and outreach through patents and trademarks and media analysis.
1.3 Economic impact pathway indicators
The Programme is expected to have an economic/innovation89
impact by influencing the creation
and growth of companies, creating direct and indirect jobs, and by leveraging investments for
87
Missions are a new element under the Framework Programme, which did not exist under Horizon 2020 and will be not be specified
at the stage of the legal proposal. The interim evaluation of Horizon 2020 pinpointed to the lack of data to track the societal impact of
the Programme beyond publications and patents in fields related to societal challenges. It is proposed to assess the progress towards
the achievement of the targets set in each mission.
88
Data on responsible research and innovation was collected under Horizon 2020 at the level of the activities within projects. It is
proposed to go beyond this indicator to assess the effects of the co-creation on the development of citizen engagement mechanisms in
beneficiary entities (such as citizen fora, participatory research, co-creation facilities, etc.) to then assess the extent this affects the
uptake and outreach of the scientific results (e.g. changing behaviours) and innovative solutions from the programme.
89
An innovation is a new or improved product or practice (policy, process or procedure) of an institutional unit, or a combination
thereof, that differs significantly from the unit’s previous products and practices and has been brought into practical use by the unit
or made available to others.
48
research and innovation. Progress towards this impact will be monitored through the proxy
indicators in Figure 14, set along three key impact pathways.
Figure 14 Key economic impact pathways indicators
Short-term Medium-term Longer-term
Economic
impact
7 Message: Horizon Europe is a source of economic growth, as shown by the patents and innovations that are launched
on the market and generate added value for businesses90
.
Innovative outputs -
Number of innovative products,
processes or methods from FP (by
type of innovation91
) & Intellectual
Property Rights (IPR)
applications92
Innovations -
Number of innovations from FP
projects (by type of innovation)
including from awarded IPRs
Economic growth -
Creation, growth & market
shares of companies having
developed FP innovations
Innovation-
based growth
Data needs: Reporting of beneficiaries on innovative products, processes or methods from FP and their practical use, and
insertion of a specific DOI for the FP (funding source code) when filling IPR applications, allowing follow-up tracking of the
patents through patent databases and trademarks (“follow the investor approach”).
8 Message: Horizon Europe generates more and better jobs, initially in the projects, and then through the exploitation of
the results and their diffusion in the economy93
.
Supported employment -
Number of FTE jobs created, and
jobs maintained in beneficiary
entities for the FP project (by type
of job94
)
Sustained employment -
Increase of FTE jobs in
beneficiary entities following FP
project (by type of job)
Total employment -
Number of direct & indirect95
jobs created or maintained due
to diffusion of FP results (by
type of job)
Creating
more and
better jobs
Data needs: Collection of information on individuals involved in FP projects at proposal stage, including their workload (Full
Time Equivalent) and job profile allowing follow-up tracking of employment in beneficiary organisations. Longer-term
indicator will be an estimate based on a dedicated study.
9 Message: Horizon Europe is leveraging investments for research and innovation in Europe, initially in the projects,
and then to exploit or scale-up their results96
.
Amount of public & private
investment97
mobilised with the
initial FP investment
Amount of public & private
investment mobilised to exploit or
scale-up FP results
EU progress towards 3% GDP
target due to FP
Leveraging
investment
Data needs: Data on co-funding in FP projects by source of funds including other EU funds (e.g. ESIF), collection of unique
identifiers of applicants to the FP at proposal stage (e.g. VAT), allowing follow-up tracking of their capital. Longer-term
indicator will be an estimate based on a dedicated study.
90
Horizon 2020 includes an indicator on the growth and job creation in participating SMEs but no data is collected. It is proposed to
extent this indicator to the whole programme and to collect information on the types of jobs created or maintained based on the
collection of unique identifiers of companies. This shall allow for a more solid and automated analysis of the contribution of the
Programme to the creation of more and better jobs without further data requests to beneficiaries.
91
Types of innovation: by level of novelty of the innovation (e.g. based on the Oslo Manual definition), by objective of the
innovation (incl. social innovation) and by source of innovation (i.e. technological (Key Enabling Technologies, other) /non-
technological)
92
Patents, trademarks, standards. The indicators will be tracked also for co-authored IPR across types of organisations, disciplines,
sectors, countries (including associated and third countries).
93
Data on innovative products, process or methods developed in FP projects is collected under Horizon 2020 but the effects on
company creation, growth and market shares are not monitored.
94
Types of jobs: by level of qualification (low, medium, high (based on ISCED 1997 levels) and contract duration (short, long term).
95
Direct jobs: jobs within beneficiaries entities. Indirect jobs: Jobs in non-FP beneficiary entities (e.g. suppliers).
96
Public and private funding leveraged under Horizon 2020 is computed on different ways depending on the types of action. It is
proposed to use an overall indicator of the direct and indirect public and private investment leveraged including venture investment,
loans and other co-financing, to be able to assess the overall contribution of the Programme to the achievement of the 3% target for
R&D investments.
97
Including venture investment, loans and other co-financing.
49
2 Key Management and Implementation Data
This section specifies a number of key management data for assessing the state of implementation
of the Programme. The data covers the inputs and activities of the Programme, including the
European Partnerships.
 Number of proposals and applications submitted, EC contribution requested and total costs of
submitted proposals (by source of funds)
 Number of proposals reaching the quality threshold (funded/not funded)
 Number of retained proposals
 Success rates of proposals
 EC contribution and total costs of retained proposals (by source of funds)
 Number of participations and single participants
This information shall be collected according to:
 Types of action
 Types of organisations, including Civil Society Organisations (with specific data for SMEs)
 Countries and regions of applicants and participants (including from associated and third countries)
 Sectors
 Disciplines
Data shall also be monitored on the profiles of beneficiaries and evaluators:
 Gender balance (in projects, in EC advisory groups and evaluators)
 Role(s) in project98
 Share of newcomers to the Programme
Data shall also be monitored on the implementation processes:
 Time-to-grant
 Time-to-pay
 Error rate
 Satisfaction rate
 Rate of risk taking
Data shall also be monitored on:
 The financial contribution that is climate-related
Data shall also be collected on:
 Communication of R&I results
 Dissemination of R&I results
 Exploitation and deployment of R&I results, including through monitoring the funding allocated for
uptake of research and innovation results through the instruments listed in Annex 7 on synergies
with other EU programmes.
98
e.g. Research performer; Technology development; Testing / validation; Demonstration (proof of viability); Scale-up; Private
buyer of solutions to be developed; Public procurer of innovative solutions; Finance provider; Provision of the technology basis;
Provision of the technology infrastructure; Representative of civil society interests/needs; Co-definition of a research / market need;
Training, dissemination activities).
50
Annex 7: Synergies with other proposals under the
future Multiannual Financial Framework
1 Why do we need synergies between EU programmes?
The set of EU funding programmes under the next multiannual budget must be closely linked to
each other, and they must work in synergy. This can be described as:
 Compatibility: harmonisation of funding rules for projects; making co-funding schemes
more flexible; pooling resources at EU level;
 Complementarity between EU programmes: no overlap in funding;
 Coherence: alignment of strategic priorities in support of a common vision.
An important lesson learned from the Horizon 2020 interim evaluation is that, in cases where those
programmes were not designed with a clear strategic overview on their complementarities from
their inception, it proved difficult to ensure full complementarity and coherence at the
implementation stage.
More effective synergies between EU programmes under the next EU Multinational Financial
Framework (MFF) will make the EU's overall investments more effective, readable and able to
provide better value for citizens. It will amplify the impact of EU-level investments in R&I for
creating jobs, growth and competitiveness on the ground by bringing European, national and
regional R&I funding schemes better into play. Ultimately, they should contribute in a
complementary way to a common vision and shared objectives on tackling the major challenges
facing Europe and ultimately make the EU as a whole better equipped to face ever-increasing
competitive pressure from global markets.
What have we learned from the Horizon 2020 Interim Evaluation?
"It is difficult to assess to what extent the political willingness to increase Horizon 2020's external coherence has
translated into practical implementation. Given different rules and implementation structures, and varying scale and
scope of programmes, promoting synergies at project level (in terms of combining different financing sources for the
same project) still appears difficult"99
.
Differences in applicable rules lead to legal uncertainty for potential applicants; while communication,
coordination and support for synergies between all institutional actors involved is not optimal.
"Despite initiatives being taken to reinforce synergies with other EU funds, notably the ESIF, further coherence is
hampered by the different intervention logics and complexity of the different funding and other rules "100
.
"The main areas to be addressed to improve the generation of synergies and to boost their impacts on regional
development, on growth, job creation and tackling societal challenges are: strategic framework and programming;
generation of concrete guidance and implementation of best practice; monitoring. These issues should support a more
specific, widespread, efficient and effective implementation of synergies between Horizon 2020 and ESIF"101
.
99
In-Depth Staff Working Document on Horizon 2020 Interim Evaluation, SWD(2017) 221 final, p.171.
100
'LAB-FAB-APP: Investing in the European future we want' - Report of the High Level Group on Maximising the Impact of EU
R&I Programmes, July 2017, p26.
101
Synergies between Framework Programmes for Research and Innovation and European Structural and Investment Funds –
Contributing to the Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020, September 2017, p6.
51
Exploring synergies between the Framework Programme and other MFF proposals related to the
support of the research and innovation systems at the programme design stage aims to:
(i) ensure complementarity in designs and objectives of the different Programmes to ensure
the most efficient use of limited public resources and enhanced readability for
beneficiaries;
(ii) capture the scope of the activities supported through the different Programmes to ensure
full synergies and coherent approaches on the ground for instance through aligned
strategic programming processes (e.g. on priority areas, partnerships), and common
missions to guide funding priorities of different Programmes;
(iii) ensure the development of complementary and combined funding across programmes
and facilitate the implementation of the Seal of Excellence
What do stakeholders say?
The large majority of stakeholders state the broad view that increased synergies, coordination and strategic
alignment with other EU programmes would help to maximise the impact of the future EU R&I
programme.
In general, this is a consistently high priority for other EU institutions:
 [The European Parliament]"Notes that synergies between funds are crucial to make investments more
effective….regrets the presence of substantial barriers to making synergies fully operational and seek,
therefore, an alignment of rules and procedures for R&D&I projects under ESIF and FP…..encourages
the Commission to enhance synergies between the Framework Programme and other dedicated
European funds for research and innovation, and to establish harmonised instruments and aligned rules
for those funds"102
.
 [The Council] "Highlights the importance of improved synergies and complementarities between the
FP and other EU funding instruments. Considers therefore that regulations for the next FP and the
European Structural and Investment Funds, as well as state aid rules and any other relevant EU
programmes must be designed from the very beginning with synergies, coherence, compatibility and
complementarity in mind in order to provide a level playing field for similar projects under different
management modes and to consider harmonization of funding rules for R&I towards those of the
FP"103
.
Specific suggestions from stakeholder organisations include:
 To include education activities in relevant parts of the EU R&I programme and secure synergies with
the next EU framework programme for education.
 To increase the impact of national and regional funding coming from ESIF allocated to R&I activities,
to allocate a minimum specific percentage of the budget devoted to synergies with the R&I programme
for each Member State.
 To step up efforts for the ‘Seals of Excellence’ enabling excellent-but-unfunded projects submitted to
the R&I programme to be funded under other schemes (including private, national, other EU funds).
 To co-construct the future R&I and ESIF programmes by ensuring efficient support from the ESIF
funds to excellent R&I projects in capacity-building (upstream) and uptake of results (downstream).
 Request for broader acceptance of usual cost-accounting practices and for the introduction of the
single audit principle/cross-reliance on audits.
102
European Parliament Report on the assessment of Horizon 2020 implementation in view of its interim evaluation and the
Framework Programme 9 proposal June 2017, p.15.
103
Council Conclusions "From the Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020 towards the Ninth Framework Programme", December 2017,
p.11.
52
2 The role of the Framework Programme in the EU R&I support system
The Framework Programme remains the sole EU programme supporting mainly trans-national
research and innovation activities and networks, including through partnerships with Member
States, businesses and foundations, based on the key criteria of excellence. This includes the trans-
national access to and integration of national research infrastructures across Europe and the
development of ESFRI104
pan-European research infrastructures.
The Framework Programme will cover activities that support the development, demonstration and
market uptake of innovative solutions (through co-creation, EIC’s Accelerator, public procurement)
that usually have a trans-national dimension or require more support than may be provided for at
national/regional level, and are first-of-a-kind innovative solutions for Europe. Across its activities
the programme will support the development of the skills of researchers and innovators involved.
While the Framework Programme is open to participation from all Member-States and beyond, it
will continue to support the building of capacity in low-performing countries in R&I through
dedicated collaboration-based schemes - including for policy reforms, in the context of
strengthening the European Research Area, including outermost regions.
Other programmes under the next MFF will provide support for research and innovation activities,
including demonstration of solutions tailored to specific national/regional contexts/needs, as well as
bilateral and interregional initiatives. In particular, the European Regional Development Funds
support the building of research and innovation eco-systems in the Member States in terms of
infrastructures, human resources, modernisation of the public and private sectors, and
(inter)regional cooperation networks, such as clusters structures. MFF programmes such as the
Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), the Digital Europe Programme (DEP), the European Social
Fund (ESF) or LIFE make notably use of public procurement as one instrument to deploy physical
infrastructures and innovative technologies and solutions in specific areas - that can originate from
the Framework Programme activities, but not only.
The Framework Programme will also provide support for R&I activities underpinned by these
infrastructures and facilities, including testing, experimentation and demonstration across all sectors
and disciplines. Actions implemented through other MFF programmes will provide the backbone
for system transitions (e.g. infrastructures for energy transition) and ensure supportive framework
conditions such as interoperability, standards, innovation-friendly regulations, but also enhanced
skills and awareness of the wider population, the spreading of best practice in research and
innovation policy implementation, but also for the wider diffusion and uptake of (European)
innovations in the international arena, e.g. through external action.
Overall the wider dissemination of R&I results attained through the Framework Programmes
towards a broader audience within the European institutions but also Member States and other
stakeholders will be encouraged. Through the Seal of Excellence, high-quality but unfunded
proposals under the Framework Programme will continue to be promoted for support through
alternative funding sources, including ERDF or ESF where relevant.
Moreover, the development of the corporate eGrants/eProcurement suite of business processes and
IT tools for all centrally managed programmes will provide for harmonised implementation and
improved possibilities for exploiting synergies at project level. Cross-reliance on audits of other EU
programmes could also be considered, although its effectiveness will depend on the homogeneity of
the rules between programmes.
104
European Strategic Forum on Research Infrastructures.
53
Table 3 Support to R&I projects/activities, incl. closer-to-market activities, replication & diffusion of
technologies & innovative solutions – Complementarities Framework Programme/ Other EU programmes
Horizon Europe What will the other EU programmes typically cover?
R&I activities/projects:
- Programme focussed on excellent R&I from TRL
1-9 with continued strong focus on collaborative
R&I
- Support to individual entities and transnational
collaborations (top down and bottom-up)
- Mainly grants for TRL 1-8; repayable or
convertible advances, equity and/or guarantee for
loans (no grants) for TRL 5/6-9
- Support technological & non-technological
innovations ((citizen science, user-led innovation,
social innovation, business model innovation, public
sector innovation etc.), including innovative delivery
mechanisms
- Continuation of Coordination and Support Actions
- Incentives for institutional changes towards
Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) and
gender equality.
- Continued streamlined support to European
Partnerships: co-programming, co-funding (incl.
through procurement), institutional funding open to
all types of public, private stakeholders (incl.
foundations)
Market uptake:
- Market uptake considered as of FP projects’ proposal
development, fostering applicants to co-create/
experiment their research and solutions with users
from the outset, including within the KICs co-
location centres.
- Supporting innovation actions and the demonstration
of solutions of a first-of-a-kind nature in Europe
with potential for replication
- Establishing pipelines of innovative solutions from
R&I projects (incl. from ERC Proof of concept)
targeted to public and private investors, including
EIC’s Accelerator and other EU programmes
- Support to roll out and replication of innovative
solutions with cross-border & transnational
dimension
- Support to pre-commercial procurement and
public procurement of innovation as a stand-alone
tool maintained
- Support to scale-up of companies with
breakthrough potential to create new markets
with financial instruments under the EIC, in
particular where the market does not provide viable
financing
- Improved monitoring and dissemination of R&I
results including through initiatives such as the
dissemination and exploitation Boosters and the
Innovation Radar - also directed to other DGs and
programmes for further implementation.
R&I activities/projects
- Continue support R&I activities tailored to specific
national/regional contexts/needs, as well as bilateral and
interregional initiatives (e.g. ERDF, LIFE)
- Build R&I capacity in countries and regions (including regional
and national research infrastructures): ERDF, InvestEU
(infrastructure, human capital and SME windows), External
Instrument, Erasmus-supported European Universities initiative,
Strategic Partnerships, Knowledge Alliances and Mobility
- High-quality but unfunded proposals under the Framework
Programme (SME and MSCA Seals of Excellence) should be
supported through alternative funding sources, including ERDF
or ESF where relevant. In the case of the SME SoE, they should
benefit from similar funding conditions elsewhere, including
under national/regional funding schemes.
- Pool resources for coordinated parallel actions that complement
with the Framework Programme (including ERDF or ESF for the
support of European Partnerships) and for R&I in specific areas
(i.e. with ETS Innovation Fund)
- Align funding provisions/financial regulations between
programmes.
- Provide advice on finding alternative funding sources through
COSME+.
Market uptake:
- Support user-driven activities tailored to specific
national/regional contexts (e.g. living labs, testbeds under the ESI
funds, DEP)
- Support demonstration and innovation activities tailored to specific
national/regional contexts including trans-regional activities
(incl. LIFE, ESI funds)
- Take up FP results and support further development,
dissemination and deployment for the benefit of economy and
society (project pipelines) (all EU programmes when relevant)
- Replicate and deploy tested technologies and innovative solutions
to improve the environment, energy consumption or the health of
citizen or in digital technologies at local and regional level incl.
trans-regional through CAP, LIFE, ERDF or ESF (e.g. for
acquiring technologies, skills development) while preserving
competition within the internal market
- Support the take-up of innovative solutions by individuals and
final users, industry and public administration (e.g. for energy
consumption, health, environment) through ESIF, LIFE, CAP, etc.
- Build enabling framework conditions for the transition
processes (e.g. energy transition) such as interoperability,
standards, innovation-friendly regulations, but also enhanced skills
and awareness of the wider population, the spreading of best
practice in research and innovation policy implementation, but also
for the wider diffusion and uptake
- Support wider diffusion and uptake of (European) innovations
(including through External Instrument)
- Deploy physical infrastructures allowing technological system
transitions (e.g. for a transition to clean energy under CEF;
financial instruments under Invest EU, ERDF)
- Reinforce cooperation between DGs for developing further the
public procurement for innovative solutions in key areas of
European interest, in particular for energy, transport, environment,
health & ICT
54
Table 4 Support to entrepreneurship, start-ups, SME growth/scale up, clusters & innovation hubs
Horizon Europe What will the other EU programmes typically
cover?
Support to entrepreneurship & SME growth:
- Support the launch and scale-up of start-ups, innovative SMEs and
mid-capital firms with breakthrough potential to create new
markets with financial instruments through the European
Innovation Council (pathfinder, accelerator), preserving
competition within the internal market and not crowding out
private investments
- Dedicated R&I thematic window and SME Window (i.e.
including innovative SMEs) under InvestEU that are closely linked
to the objectives of the Framework Programme
- Blended finance for innovators that is distinct from indirect
financial instruments under InvestEU, but in synergy with funds
and intermediaries supported by InvestEU
- Support to companies (incl. mentoring and coaching) provided
within the EIT KICs, , including investments via EIC’s
Accelerator
Support to clusters, hubs and broader innovation ecosystem:
- Joint programmes and other actions son to enhance innovation
ecosystems
- Reinforcement of EIT KICs co-location centres (innovation
hubs) for experimentation and testing with end-users
- Support to development of standards for innovative
products/services in FP projects
Support to entrepreneurship & SME growth:
- Ensure full complementarity with financial
instruments implemented through InvestEU
windows to support scale-up of companies
- Support the growth and internationalisation of
mainstream individual companies (e.g. through
COSME; ERDF and External Instrument) in a
competitive environment
- Support to business skills development (ESF)
Support to clusters, hubs and broader innovation
ecosystem:
- Support the construction and equipment of
structures for SME support (clusters, incubators,
etc., notably under ERDF)
- Support to regional/national innovation ecosystem
development incl. provision of advice and support
services to companies (incl. through COSME+ and
the Enterprise Europe Network and through the ESI
funds).
- Shape R&I supportive standards in the
international standardisation arena (incl through
COSME)
Table 5 Support to research infrastructures, human capital development, networking & policy-making
Horizon Europe What will the other EU programmes typically cover?
Research infrastructure:
- Consolidate the landscape of European research
infrastructures e.g. ESFRI: support early-phase development
of pan European research infrastructures, the European Open
Science Cloud and European Data Infrastructures and enable
delivery of High Performance Computing/data services
- Open, integrate and interconnect national research
infrastructures
- Support partnerships with industry for the supply of high-
tech components while ensuring a level playing field
between competitors.
- Reinforce European research infrastructure policy and
international cooperation
Human capital development:
- Supporting individual researchers (incl. ERC, MSCA) and
R&I networks for the exchange of knowledge, incl.
mobility & career development
- Continue supporting mobility & career development of
researchers in ERA (e.g. Human Resources Strategy for
researchers, EURAXESS, RESAVER Pension Fund, etc.)
- Continue supporting access to research infrastructures for
researchers, innovators & SMEs on a transparent and non-
discriminatory basis
- Continue supporting responsible research and innovation
and gender equality & gender dimension in research and
innovation
- Continue supporting the development of entrepreneurial
skills in universities (EIT-KICs) and reinforce the role of the
EIT KICs for future skills identification in areas related to
global challenges
- Increase FP role in modernisation of universities in ERA,
i.e. through embedding Open Science practices as well as
Research infrastructure:
- Support the national/regional contributions to the
construction of pan European research infrastructures i.e.
with ERDF and InvestEU Fund
- Exploit the potential of the CEF and Digital Europe
Programme instruments for the large-scale coordinated
procurement/ deployment of digital infrastructures and
infrastructures for digital technologies
- Use External instruments for developing capacity in third
countries to participate in global research infrastructures
of EU interest
- Provide appropriate and continued financial support for
long-lasting initiatives beyond FP funding life-time
Human capital development:
- Support to skills development (technical, digital and
transversal) to support the use of innovative solutions,
while increasing employability and career prospects, but
also entrepreneurial skills through the future COSME
(Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs) and ESF
- Build/reinforce human R&I capacity in countries &
regions (including through regional & national research
infrastructures & fellowships): European Social Fund (incl.
basic digital skills), InvestEU (research infrastructure,
human capital & SME windows); Erasmus (targeting
particular sectors to provide a pipeline of talented pre-
graduates that can embark on a research career, European
Universities initiative, Strategic Partnerships individual
mobility for studies and for traineeships); External
Instrument
- Develop skills and capacities towards gender equality and
Responsible Research and Innovation
- Foster links and synergies between relevant policy actions
55
Horizon Europe What will the other EU programmes typically cover?
entrepreneurship focus (e.g. skills, recognition and rewarding
mechanisms, etc.)
- Continue mentoring & coaching companies to enhance
innovation & entrepreneurial skills (EIC, EIT/KICs)
- Launch new Recognition prizes (Women Innovators, Capital
of Innovation, EIT awards) and EIC Prizes
- Continue reinforcing human capacity in low R&I
performing countries (ERA Chairs)
Networking and policy-making :
- Continuation of coordination and support actions incl.
Sharing Excellence actions (Teaming, Twinning, ERA-
Chairs), Policy Support Facility to help EU Member States
reform their research and innovation policies and Innovation
Deals to identify barriers to innovation at sectoral level
- Rationalised support to European Partnerships: co-
programming, co-funding, institutional funding open to all
types of stakeholders
- Improved monitoring and dissemination of R&I results
towards policy
- EIC Forum of national agencies implementing national
innovation policies
linking education/research/innovation
Networking and policy-making :
- Ensure strong coordination between programmes,
especially in the area of research infrastructures,
innovation hubs, large demonstrators etc.
- Continue support R&I networking activities tailored to
specific national/regional contexts and inter-regional
cooperation
- Build R&I policy capacity in countries and regions e.g.
by developing networks across the quadruple helix to input
policy evidence
- Support through CAP and ERDF to upgrade national and
regional ecosystems and make them more innovation-
conducive (incl. through Smart Specialisation Strategies)
- External Instrument actions to help improve framework
conditions for innovation and for cooperation in R&I
3 Synergies with the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)
Table 6 European Regional Development Fund- Research and innovation related support
Sectors/Domains:
- Under development
Target beneficiaries:
- All of the Framework
Programme's
beneficiaries may also get
ERDF support either for
different types of projects
or within a common
project
Geographical coverage:
Member States and regions
R&I activities/projects
- Supports R&I projects of individual enterprises, and public institutions, cooperation university-
business and university researchers
Market uptake:
- Focusses funding for R&I on the take-up of technology and knowledge
- Social innovation and co-creation, use of design-thinking and other newer forms of innovation
- Supports all types of market take-up, prototyping, IPR management advice, etc. (within State-Aid
limits!)
- Funds replication and diffusion of innovative solutions and technology deployment, including the
actual public and private procurement of innovative solutions
- Open to PCP and PPI funding (both preparation of Terms of Reference and actual procurement), offers
technical assistance and training for national and regional authorities; networking among different
countries
- Supports interregional partnerships along value chains for joint investment pipelines, with the aim for
industrial transition
Support to
entrepreneurship & SME
growth:
- Financial instruments
under ERDF
- Funds the provision of
advice and support
services
Support to clusters, hubs
and broader innovation
ecosystem:
- Funds the construction
and equipment of
infrastructures for SME
support (clusters,
incubators, etc.)
- Funds the innovation
ecosystem development
R&I Infrastructure:
If in line with the relevant smart specialisation strategy, ERDF may pay for:
- The construction and upgrade of research infrastructures (this may include some training “on the job”
to correctly use new infrastructures and equipment)
- The construction and upgrade of innovation infrastructures (pilot lines, living labs, demonstrators, tech
transfer offices)
Human capital development:
- Funds the purchase of equipment and infrastructures needed for human capital development, if relevant
for the implementation of the smart specialisation priorities.
Networking and policy-making:
- Supports the development and improvement of national & regional innovation eco-systems including
business-industry-citizens-public support bodies’ cooperation, innovation governance, capacity-
building and the cooperation with other regions & Member-States for mutual learning & joint
investment pipelines
- Invests in networking with other countries & regions bringing together the policy-makers & funding
agencies/authorities/stakeholders on the ground
- Invests in better innovation policy-making for industrial modernization (Smart Specialisation)
- Invests in better innovation governance (entrepreneurial discovery process)
56
The Regional Development Funds aim at strengthening the EU's economic, social and territorial
cohesion. They have a prominent role in developing, improving and connecting national and
regional innovation ecosystems, and are expected to continue to dedicate important amounts in the
post-2020 period to research and innovation ecosystem investments, i.e. in research or innovation
infrastructures, SME innovation capacities, networking, innovation support services and human
capital. Support to innovation is provided through smart specialisation strategies which prioritise
public research and innovation investments through a bottom-up approach for the economic
transformation of regions, developing innovation ecosystems, building on regional competitive
advantages and facilitating market opportunities in new inter-regional and European value chains.
Smart specialisation provides a strategic framework to support 'upstream actions' to prepare
stakeholders to participate in the Framework Programme, and 'downstream actions' to exploit and
diffuse research and innovation results, developed under the Framework Programme.
Horizon Europe will continue to support and build capacity of low-performing countries in research
and innovation, in the context of strengthening the European Research Area and reforms to the
research and innovation systems. The complementarity between the Framework Programme's
support and ERDF support to the national and regional innovation systems will be ensured. For
instance, the Teaming mechanism will still require compliance with the relevant Smart
Specialisation strategy.
The scaling-up and transferability of projects and the communication and sharing of practices
constitute two key areas of improvement for the future. Establishing a more structured cooperation
across the Commission would pool efforts and streamline various initiatives. In this regard,
transnational cooperation activities and innovative national actions will be further supported with a
view to promote social innovation in the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights.
Arrangements for synergies between Horizon Europe and ERDF or ESF or national contributions
for similar type of projects will be further enhanced benefiting from more conductive rules. Legal
provisions allowing cumulative funding of grants from the Framework Programme and ERDF/ESF
for the same action (provided that there is no double funding) will be kept allowing a pro rata basis
approach. Programme co-fund actions will be designed to facilitate such funding synergies and
simplified rules. Similarly, funding of Seal of Excellence awards from national ERDF or ESF
allocations will be simplified and facilitated. Moreover, the take-up in Horizon Europe of simplified
cost options for reimbursing expenditure (lump sums, flat rates, unit costs) will further facilitate the
combination of funds. To accomplish the enhanced synergies and simplification mentioned above,
all relevant rules and regulations will be revised accordingly in time for Horizon Europe, provided
certain conditions are fulfilled.
High-quality-but-unfunded proposals under the Framework Programme (Seals of Excellence
awarded under SME actions or the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions, MSCA) will be able to
benefit from the same co-funding rates elsewhere, including under regional funding schemes. For
example, this means that ERDF or ESF allocations can be used to support Seal of Excellence
projects, where relevant to the local context and smart specialisation strategy.
Portfolios of R&I results and innovations attained by projects funded under the Framework
Programme that correspond to existing national or regional needs will be made available to national
or regional ERDF and ESF managing authorities in a consistent and organised manner. The role of
advisory services and their access to available innovations, knowledge and results stemming from
the Framework Programme will be given particular attention. More specifically, the ERDF may
feature increased funds dedicated to the take-up of results and the rolling out of novel technologies
and innovative solutions from past Framework Programmes and Horizon Europe.
57
Box 1 Concrete examples of how synergies with ERDF and ESF could look like in practice
 Horizon Europe projects can be implemented using the equipment and research infrastructures previously funded
from the ERDF.
 SME who have received a Seal of Excellence (SoE) can apply for alternative funding under conditions to be
further defined under relevant rules and regulations, including GBER with regard to State-aid compatibility. That
allows for reducing administrative burden and costs on the SME and funding body side.
 Researchers who received the MSCA SoE under the Framework Programme can be supported through alternative
sources of funding at regional or national level, including through use of ESF. This allows countries/institutions to
identify and employ excellent researchers, while removing/reducing the need to carry out a new evaluation of the
proposals.
4 Synergies with the European Social Fund (ESF+)
Table 6 European Social Fund + - Research and innovation related support
Sectors/Domains:
- Not sector-specific
Target beneficiaries:
- No groups are excluded
Geographic coverage:
- EU
R&I activities/projects
- Future ESF to continue promoting social innovation (i.e. policy testing and experimentation in the
social & employment policy fields)
Support to
entrepreneurship &
SME growth:
- ESF programme:
- access to finance
(microcredit and
microloans)for
vulnerable groups and
micro-enterprises;
continued support for
youth, social
entrepreneurship
R&I Infrastructure:
- Complements other EU instruments for investments in R&I infrastructure
Human capital development:
- Aims to improve the quality, efficiency and openness of (tertiary) education e.g. developing new
teaching methods, delivering high quality educational content, which is relevant to labour market
needs
- Stimulates partnerships between higher education, business and research organisations
- Aims to strengthen human capital in R&I, e.g. through training and capacity building for researchers
(e.g. complementarities and synergies with MSCA Seal of Excellence and MSCA co-funded
doctoral and postdoctoral research training programmes) and for teachers; opening tertiary education
access to disadvantaged groups
- Can mainstream curricula oriented towards equipping students with the skills needed in the future
labour market developed under the Framework Programme.
Networking and policy making:
- ESF support for reforms of education systems, curricula
The European Social Fund (ESF) is instrumental in supporting continuous investments in skills
which are key for harnessing technological development. Skills are a crucial element for developing
environments conducive to innovation, including in the European Research Area. The ESF+ will
mainstream and scale up Framework Programme-funded innovative curricula that will equip people
with the skills and competencies needed for the jobs of the future (based on forecasting of future
professions).
Across the EU funds, the ESF represents the major bulk of funding for social transformation
mainstreaming social innovation in the economy and reinforcing human capital, including for
research and innovation.
The deployment and support of ESF to Framework Programme-funded skills and competencies
curricula can take several approaches (i.e. integration of Framework Programme-funded curricula in
national or regional programmes; transnational cooperation networks on skills). This will translate
for example through synergies and complementarities between ESF and the Framework
Programme-MSCA co-funded doctoral and postdoctoral research training programmes. MSCA
proposals with the Seal of Excellence may be funded by the ESF+ to support activities promoting
human capital development in research and innovation and to attract talents, in aiming to strengthen
the European Research Area.
58
Box 2 Concrete examples of how synergies with ESF could look like in practice
 Framework Programme-MSCA researchers can use previously ERDF funded equipment and infrastructures for
the trainings and ESF can financially support innovative training activities as well as other capacity-building
measures (e.g. networking activities, mobility allowance).
5 Synergies with the EU programmes for agricultural and maritime policy
Table 7 European Agricultural Guarantee Fund; European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development;
European Maritime & Fisheries Fund - Research and innovation related support
Sectors/Domains:
- Agriculture
Target beneficiaries:
- Farmers
- Policy makers
- Bio-industries
- SMEs
Geographical coverage:
- EU
R&I activities/projects:
- Support to R&I in Member States’ CAP Strategic Plans
- Knowledge exchange and innovation actrivities within
Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS)
- Innovation projects (operational groups) with EIP-AGRI
(European Innovation Partnership)
- Bottom-up innovation projects (operational groups)
Market uptake:
- Investments projects
- EIP-AGRI
Human capital development:
- AKIS (European Agricultural Knowledge and Information
Systems) /EIP-AGRI
- Conditionality in coming CAP plans
Networking and policy making:
- CAP network
- European Innovation Partnership network
Research and innovation are set to play a stronger role in the future agricultural and maritime policy
as part of a key priority to foster innovation, in particular through the wider diffusion of innovation
and better access to new technologies and investment support.
Through the Framework Programme's strategic planning processes, coherent approaches with these
policies will be ensured. In particular they will work in tandem to promote Food and Nutrition
Security and the Sustainable Management of Natural Resources as a strong component under the
Framework Programme and the modernised CAP. This commitment is reflected in developing an
ambitious, integrated Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda (building on the Strategic
Approach to EU Agricultural R&I, Food 2030, and the Bioeconomy Strategy) as an important input
into the shaping of Horizon Europe and for serving the evolving innovation needs of the CAP.
The development of the Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda Plan will inform priorities of the
Framework Programme in the area of food and natural resources whereas the uptake of research and
innovation results into a modernised CAP will be promoted. This will build on the work undertaken
to date through the European Innovation Partnership on Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability
(EIP-AGRI)105
in mobilising the agricultural sector for innovation, funding multi-actor pilot
projects and making new knowledge available. The ambition is to bring about systemic knowledge
generation and CAP support that is generated upstream, thus leading to the downstream uptake and
deployment of innovations by end users within projects. This will enable the CAP to make best use
of research and innovation results and to promote the use, implementation and deployment of
innovative solutions, including those stemming from projects funded by the Framework
Programmes and from the European Innovation Partnership.
105
For example through a dedicated budget under CAP, programmed to be implemented under the Framework Programme
59
Box 3 Concrete example of how synergies could look like in practice
The implementation phase will ensure greater uptake of Framework Programme results in CAP programmes, e.g. by:
 Reinforcing the role of Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation systems (AKIS) in Member States and improve
the connections between national AKIS at various levels (regional, national, EU levels). The role of advisory
services and their access to research outcomes will be given particular attention.
 Increasing the impact of CAP instruments to foster demonstration, investments or new business models in farming
and rural areas. Examples provided under CAP instruments could address innovations in digitisation, precision
farming and the bioeconomy.
6 Synergies with the Single Market Programme
Table 7 Single Market Programme - Research and innovation related support
Sectors/Domains:
- SMEs across sectors
- Focus on SME in strategic value chains
Target beneficiaries:
- SME intermediaries
- Cluster organisations
- Technology clusters
- Specialised SME support actors
Geographical coverage:
- EU
Market uptake:
- Support SME’s uptake of innovation
through Joint Cluster Initiatives &
Scaling-up Instrument
- Facilitates SME’s access to markets,
including through public procurement
Support to entrepreneurship & SME growth:
- Upgraded Enterprise Europe Network: specialised business advisory services, e.g.
scale-up advice for entrepreneurs with a proven business model
- Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs: mentoring; initial business matchmaking
- New Scaling-up Instrument: For SMEs & strategic value chains channelled by Joint
Cluster Initiatives; supports SME scale-up across regional, sectoral & technological
boundaries to access global industrial value chains
- Delimitation New Scaling-up Instrument/ EIC accelerator: focus on growth drivers
beyond innovation (e.g. internationalisation, skills); specialised mainstream SMEs
(#only breakthrough innovators in EIC)
Support to clusters, hubs and broader innovation ecosystem:
- Joint Cluster Initiatives: foster strategic interregional collaboration among
specialised clusters and eco-systems to strengthen EU value chains (10-20 major EU
value chains)
Human capital development:
- Integrated business support, incl. skills
development and mentoring in
“Erasmus for young entrepreneurs”
Networking and policy-making:
- Strategic Cluster Initiatives:
strategically connect ecosystems and
clusters
- Enterprise Europe Network (innovation
ecosystem integrator & corporate tool)
- SME Panels and SME Feedback tools
for policy making through the EEN
The Single Market Programme - which integrates the COSME programme - addresses the market
failures, which affect mainstream SMEs, and will promote entrepreneurship and the creation and
growth of companies. Thus it will focus on generating growth opportunities for mainstream
enterprises. Under Horizon Europe, the European Innovation Council will support, in a
complementary way, the scale-up of innovative start-ups, SMEs and mid-cap firms with market-
creating innovation potential; in particular where the market does not provide viable financing.
Horizon Europe will remain the one-stop-shop for EU innovation policy support, as well as
measures stimulating innovation uptake that are already embedded in dissemination and
exploitation strategies of actions supported under Horizon 2020. Full complementarity will be
ensured between the COSME scaling-up instrument for mainstream companies deployed through
InvestEU and the actions of the future European Innovation Council for innovative companies, as
well as in the area of support services for SMEs, in particular where the market does not provide
viable financing.
For the dissemination of both future programmes (Horizon Europe and the Single Market
Programme) the Enterprise Europe Network (EEN) may play, as other existing SME support
structures, a complementary role to dedicated support structures put in place for the Horizon
Europe, such as National Contact Points (NCPs). The future mandate of Enterprise Europe Network
60
and the Horizon Europe support structures (e.g. NCPs, Innovation Agencies) will be defined to
avoid duplication, with the aim of maximising benefits to SMEs.
The skills and knowledge available in existing networks including EEN may be used for enhanced
existing services, like for example coaching activities under the EIC beneficiaries. These include
investment readiness development, linking with private investors, business partners and customers
through brokerage activities and events including trade fairs. The networks may also be used for the
testing of new initiatives with regards to support delivery to SMEs via specific actions.
7 Synergies with the InvestEU Fund
Table 8 InvestEU Fund - Research and innovation related support
The InvestEU Fund will integrate current EU-
level financial instruments and budgetary
guarantees under a single mechanism and in
particular deploy indirect financial instruments
provided for under Horizon Europe and other
EU programmes.
Sectors/Domains:
- R&I Window
- SME Window including innovative companies
- Sustainable infrastructure window
- Social, skills and human capital window
Target beneficiaries:
- Financially viable projects or commercial
entities facing market gaps or sub-optimal
investment situations
Geographical coverage:
- EU
R&I activities/projects
- The R&I window and products for innovative companies developed under
the SME Window, will provide a range of debt and equity financing products
in line with the variety of potential final beneficiaries at different
development stages and in different EU policy areas.
Market uptake:
- The R&I window will support high-risk investments in R&I and new
technologies, including in large-scale first-of-a-kind demonstrations for
which market investor interest may be low.
- The R&I window will de-risk investments in innovative technologies and,
together with the SME window, transfer established solutions to new
markets.
- Products for innovative companies developed under the SME Window will
boost SME investment capacity.
Support to entrepreneurship & SME growth:
- The SME window will improve access to
finance by supporting SME financing,
including and in particular for innovative
companies. It will further support start-ups and
companies commercialising R&I results.
- The R&I window and SME Window will
provide a range of financing products to
support growth of companies, including and in
particular innovative ones.
- The Social, skills and human capital window
will promote inclusive entrepreneurship,
improve access to employment (including self-
employment), job creation, labour market
integration, social inclusion by increasing the
availability of and access to micro-finance106
,
and access to finance for social enterprises.
R&I Infrastructure:
- The R&I Window will facilitate access to finance through debt and equity
instruments to research infrastructures. It would support in particular those
that are financially viable and investment ready.
Human capital development:
- Social and human capital window: support to investment in all levels of
education and (necessary for building a knowledge-based society), support
to increase vocational training and lifelong learning, including non-formal
learning investment in human capital.
Networking and policy making:
- The InvestEU Fund will provide project development assistance to support
the development of a robust pipeline of investment projects. It could also be
used to facilitate blending opportunities with grants schemes.
Financial instruments for research and innovation and innovative companies, including SMEs,
supported under Horizon Europe or other EU programmes will be deployed through InvestEU.
InvestEU will feature a dedicated R&I window as well as a dedicated SME window that will also
target innovative companies, possibly through a sub-window. Investment efforts under InvestEU
will complement investment and support efforts under Horizon Europe (including by supporting
high-risk investments in research and innovation and new technologies) in a manner that does not
crowd out private investments.
106
With specific regard to vulnerable groups including refugees micro-enterprises and young adults.
61
Additionally, Horizon Europe will provide blended finance for innovators in a way that is distinct
from indirect financial instruments under InvestEU, in case of a very high level of risk where no
intervention from InvestEU would be possible (yet). Blended finance shall be implemented in
tandem with financial intermediaries supported by InvestEU, in order to ensure investment
continuity where appropriate and necessary.
Box 4 Concrete example of how synergies could look like in practice
A radically innovative SME with scale-up potential that is supported under the Accelerator scheme of Horizon
Europe's European Innovation Council and hence is benefiting from a mix of finance and other types of support in
order to deliver on a particular innovation – which implies that the latter becomes fully market-mature and investment-
ready – can be introduced to the different schemes under the SME window of InvestEU, in order to allow it to find
additional finance – where appropriate and necessary – in view of supporting further company development and scale-
up. The idea is that the Accelerator will de-risk the innovation project driven by the SME to a point that it becomes an
attractive investment target for financial intermediaries implementing SME products under InvestEU.
8 Synergies with the Connecting Europe Facility
Table 9 Connecting Europe Facility – Research and innovation related support
Sectors/Domains:
- Energy
- Transport
- Digital
Target beneficiaries:
- Public authorities
- Industry: infrastructure building/
manufacturing, Infrastructure
managers, transport operators
- Consultants for studies
Geographical coverage:
CEF-transport divided into 2
‘envelopes’:
- General envelope: for all Member
States
- Cohesion Fund envelope: for
Cohesion Member States
R&I related activities/projects:
- Transport, energy, telecom: Support to deployment of new technologies & innovation,
as per TEN-T guidelines Art.33
- Real-life pilots (studies/works)
- Deployment of existing innovations
Market uptake:
- CEF supports pilots, prototypes for certain technologies developed under the
Framework Programme or relevant for transport infrastructure
- CEF funds transnational infrastructures to strengthen Energy Union and accelerate
energy transition: research and innovation state-of-the-art should be considered in CEF
(particularly regarding digital applications, electric charging and alternative fuels).
- CEF transport supports the development of the SESAR Joint Undertaking solutions
through the SESAR deployment managers: technology deployment;
Support to entrepreneurship &
SME growth:
- Grants and public procurement
R&I Infrastructure:
- Not R&I infrastructures but efficient and interconnected networks + main infrastructure
components
- Smart infrastructure for sustainable mobility (digital, alternative fuels, multimodality,
innovation)
- Safer, secure, resilient and accessible infrastructure (i.e. climate resilience)
Networking and policy making:
- Support to policy making: alternative fuels, ITS, Urban, etc. policies
The future CEF will prioritise the large-scale roll-out and deployment of existing and
proven/demonstrated innovative new technologies and solutions which result from Framework
Programmes in transport, energy and mobility, in particular through the Climate, Energy and
Mobility cluster as well as digital technologies. Research and innovation needs in the areas of
transport, energy and the digital sector within the EU will be identified and established during the
Horizon Europe strategic planning process.
Strategic synergies will be pursued through making the two programmes’ contributions to EU
policy more explicit and clearer, while deployment of state-of-the-art technology will be pushed
62
within targeted areas – for example electro-mobility107
. The exchange of information and data
between the Framework Programme and CEF projects will be facilitated in particular by
highlighting technologies arising from Framework Programme projects with a high market
readiness that could be deployed through CEF.
The blending of funds and instruments for common objectives, for example public procurement,
will be explored. In view of the investment challenges in the three CEF focus areas, and the
transformational character of most of the CEF projects, public procurement for innovation could be
used to facilitate and de-risk the take-up of such technologies in the networks sector. This could
also enable system operators to invest substantially higher volumes than they (both through their
balance sheets and their regulated asset bases) are used to.
Box 5 Concrete example of how synergies could look like in practice
Research and development on low-emission vehicles will be supported by the Framework Programme, while re-
charging infrastructure / alternative re-fuelling stations will be deployed under CEF.
9 Synergies with the Digital Europe Programme
Table 10 Digital Europe Programme - Research and innovation related support
Sectors/Domains:
Digital technologies for :
- High Performance Computing (HPC)
- Cybersecurity
- Artificial Intelligence
- Advanced digital skills
- Areas of public interest and industry
Target beneficiaries:
- Public authorities and administrations
- Industry including SMEs
Geographical coverage:
- EU wide
Market uptake:
- Support to transformation of areas of public interest and
industry
- Wide deployment of digital technologies
- Large-scale deployment projects making best use of digital
capacities and latest technologies such as High Performance
Computing and Artificial Intelligence in areas of public
interest
Support to entrepreneurship & SME growth:
- Through Digital innovation hubs and networking of
competence centres
Support to clusters, hubs and broader innovation
ecosystem:
- Support to Digital Innovation Hubs and networking of
digital facilities
R&I Infrastructure:
- Co-investment in digital capacities (through joint procurement)
- Promotion of interoperability and standardisation
Human capital development:
- Support to advanced digital skills in HPC and Big Data,
Cybersecurity and Artificial Intelligence
The Digital Europe initiative is a new initiative dedicated to enlarging and maximising the benefits
of digital transformation to all European citizens and businesses. Both Horizon Europe and the
Digital Europe Programme (DEP) will provide public support in the field of digital technologies.
Under Horizon Europe, a dedicated budget will be allocated to a cluster "Digital and industry". In
addition, digital technologies will, because of their cross-cutting nature, also be developed in a wide
range of other (thematic) parts of the programme.
While several thematic areas addressed by Horizon Europe and Digital Europe coincide (e.g. both
will cover High Performance Computing, Artificial Intelligence, Cybersecurity), the type of actions
107
See p.43-44 of the Connecting Europe Facility Mid-Term Evaluation Staff Working Document (SWD 2018 44 final) for details on
the coherence and complementarity with Horizon 2020. For example: "With its deep research and development shape, Horizon 2020
can be seen as an instrument for providing financial support to studies, assessments and preliminary tests and pilot projects, which
can be then tested and deployed in the framework of CEF".
63
to be supported, their expected outputs and their intervention logic are different and
complementary. Digital Europe will focus on large-scale digital capacity and infrastructure
building. These capacities and infrastructures will support the wide uptake and deployment across
Europe of critical existing or tested innovative digital solutions. This will mainly be implemented
through coordinated and strategic investments with Member States, notably through joint public
procurement, in digital capacities to be shared across Europe and in EU-wide actions that support
interoperability and standardisation as part of developing a Digital Single Market.
Research and innovation needs related to digital aspects will be identified and established as part of
the strategic planning process of Horizon Europe; this includes research and innovation for High
Performance Computing, Artificial Intelligence, Cybersecurity, combining digital with other
enabling technologies and non-technological innovations; support for the scale-up of companies
introducing breakthrough innovations, including based on digital technologies; the integration of
digital across all the Global Challenges pillar; and the support to e-Infrastructures.
Digital Europe capacities and infrastructures will be made available to the research and innovation
community, including for activities supported through Horizon Europe including testing,
experimentation and demonstration across all sectors and disciplines. As the development of novel
digital technologies matures through Horizon Europe, these will progressively be taken up and
deployed by Digital Europe. Horizon Europe initiatives for the development of skills and
competencies curricula, including those delivered at the co-location centres of the European
Institute of Innovation and Technology's Digital KIC (EIT Digital), are complemented by Digital
Europe-supported capacity-building in advanced digital skills.
To ensure strong coordination mechanisms for programming and implementation the strategic
programming and operating procedures for both programmes are aligned, inter alia using the
services provided by the Horizon Europe Common Support Centre. Their governance structures
involve the respective Commission services as well as others concerned by the different parts of the
respective programmes.
Figure 15 Complementarities between Horizon Europe and Digital Europe at the strategic
level
Horizon Europe Digital Europe
Development of technological and non-technological
solutions, including digital content
Large scale deployment of digital capacity and existing
digital technologies in areas of public interest or market
failure
Research, technological development, demonstration,
piloting, proof-of-concept, testing and innovation
including precommercial deployment
Capacity and infrastructure building on HPC, AI,
Cybersecurity and advanced digital skills
Research and innovation on digital technologies Making the best use of digital capacities in areas such as
health, public administration, justice and education
Selection through EU level competition and support for
cross-border collaboration
Large-scale deployment of digital capacities, infrastructures
and solutions within Member States as part of an overall EU
strategy or policy
EU-level calls for proposals: grants, public procurement,
financial instruments and budgetary guarantees (*).
An important part will be strategic co-investment with
Member States through public procurement. Funding also to
be provided through procurement grants, financial
instruments and budgetary guarantees(*).
Networking at EU level of research & innovation actors Promotion of interoperability of digitised public services
Support to cross-border access to and integration of
research infrastructures
Construction, maintenance, upgrade and use of digital
capacities and infrastructures in computing, AI and
cybersecurity.
64
Horizon Europe Digital Europe
Development of skills and competencies curricula Support for capacity building on advanced digital skills
Supporting EU-wide research databases Building of shared digital capacities including "common
data spaces" of public sector data and other publicly
available data
(*) To be implemented under the InvestEU Fund.
Complementarities in specific thematic priorities Digital Europe / Horizon Europe
High Performance Computing (HPC)
=> Digital Europe will focus on co-investment (through joint procurement with Member States) in
the latest supercomputers, the networking of supercomputing facilities and the use of these in areas
of public interest, e.g. health, public administration, climate, etc. Supercomputing capacity will be
also available to the scientific community and industry, notably SMEs. The budget will be used: (i)
to procure together with Member States two top-range exascale super computers by 2022-23; (ii) to
provide an EU coordinated framework for MS wishing to upgrade and share their mid-range
supercomputing facilities across Europe; (iii) to facilitate the networking and use of the
supercomputing facilities.
=> Horizon Europe will support research and innovation underpinned by HPC infrastructures and
facilities, including testing, experimentation and demonstration across all sectors and disciplines.
On HPC specifically, Horizon Europe funding will cover research and innovation for next
generation computing paradigms, architectures and programming environments, like cognitive
computing, neuromorphic systems, multi-purpose quantum computing and codes for post-exascale
performance. It will explore features like extreme low-power and large-scale distributed data
processing.
Cybersecurity
=> The DEP will focus on:
 Investments in advanced cybersecurity equipment and infrastructures that are essential to
protect critical infrastructures and the DSM at large. This could include investments in
quantum facilities for cybersecurity (e.g. Quantum key distribution and facilities for post
quantum cryptography) and other tools to be made available to public and private sector
across Europe.
 Scaling up existing technological capacities in the Competence Centres in Member
States and ensuring wide deployment of the latest cybersecurity solutions across the
economy;
 Networking of Cybersecurity Competence Centres in the Member States with leading
technology capacity able to support the digital economy. This should also include aligning
and enhancing cybersecurity skills;
=> Horizon Europe will provide support for research and innovation underpinned by
cybersecurity infrastructures and facilities, including testing, experimentation and demonstration
across all sectors and disciplines impacted by cybersecurity. In addition Horizon Europe will
support research and innovation on cyber-secure components and software relevant for areas such
as protection of infrastructure or privacy and data protection. These novel approaches include, e.g.
new paradigms for safety- and security-by-design, for cryptography, for self-healing systems and
for cyberattack monitoring and rebuttal.
Artificial Intelligence (AI)
65
=> Digital Europe will focus on common capacity building to ensure the wide deployment of AI in
Europe including, e.g. (i) the provision of an "AI on demand" based on open source software,
algorithms, tools and equipment, and on a "common data space" containing public sector data and
other publicly available data. The platform will be made available widely across Europe (notably
through the Digital Innovation Hubs, see below) to actors in all sectors; (ii) the set up and
reinforcement of the network of Digital Innovation Hubs to cover all regions in Europe with AI
expertise and facilities. Support will go both, to the reinforcement of existing competence centres
(at the core of the Digital Innovation Hubs) and to building up of new ones where needed.
=> Horizon Europe will support for research and innovation underpinned by AI infrastructures and
facilities, including testing, experimentation and demonstration across all sectors and disciplines
that are influenced by Artificial Intelligence. Horizon Europe will also support research and
innovation in advanced AI technologies including explainable AI, unsupervised machine learning
and data efficiency. Horizon Europe will support the networking and EU-wide access to specialised
innovation hubs and innovation infrastructures for research and innovation performing activities.
Digitisation of areas of public interest and of industry
=> Digital Europe will support the Europe-wide transformation of areas of public interest and of
industry. This will be done through co-investment with Member States and, where relevant, the
private sector in leadership deployment projects making the best use of digital capacities and latest
digital technologies in areas of public interest or market failure. The added value of Digital Europe
will be in ensuring interoperability of solutions, suitable regulatory frameworks and standards
across the EU, as well as higher impact through EU-wide actions avoiding digital divide and
fragmentation, and with significant economies of scale. An important component of Digital Europe
will be the access to and availability of advanced digital skills. This action will complement the
training activities performed in the KIC-Digital of the EIT under Horizon Europe.
=> Under Horizon Europe a dedicated budget will be allocated to support research and innovation
dedicated to “digital and industry” and digital aspects will be behind almost every research,
including health, transport, environment, energy, etc.
10 Synergies with the Programme for Environment & Climate Action (LIFE)
Table 11 LIFE - Research and innovation related support
Sectors/Domains:
- Better integration of environmental legislation:
Natura 2000 areas
- Waste, water, air pollution plans
- Projects with direct environmental impact
- Climate mitigation measures
- Climate adaptation measures
Target beneficiaries:
- Cities, NGO, administrations, entreprises
Geographical coverage:
- EU
Market uptake:
- ”Standard action projects” best-practice or demonstration projects (public,
private, university) for new measures or approaches at Member
State/regional level with significant environmental or climate impact
- “Strategic integrated projects’ mobilising and ensuring the effective
contribution of other EU, national/regional/private funds to the
implementation of key measures as per the environmental and climate plans
(e.g. river basin management plans, clean air plans, adaptation strategies or
climate and energy plans)
- Not directly supporting PCP/PPI but regions could use the Strategic
Integrated projects to that end
- Capacity building, policy implementation and support for large-scale
deployment of innovative solutions for clean energy transition (energy
efficiency, renewable energy)
Support to entrepreneurship & SME growth:
- Financial instruments as part of Invest EU
Networking and policy making:
- Not addressing R&I actors but enterprises, cities, NGO, administrations
The future LIFE programme will continue to act as a catalyst for implementing EU environment,
climate and energy policy and legislation, including by taking up and applying research and
66
innovation results from the Framework Programme. The future LIFE programme will, firstly,
strengthen its role as a catalyst for the implementation of EU legislation and policies, for instance
through strategic integrated projects. Secondly, its complementarity with other EU programmes will
be reinforced where the market does not provide viable financing.
LIFE synergies with Horizon Europe will ensure that research and innovation needs to tackle
environmental, climate and energy challenges within the EU are identified and established during
Horizon Europe's strategic research and innovation planning process. LIFE will continue to act as a
catalyst for implementing EU environment, climate and energy policy and legislation, including by
taking up and applying research and innovation results from Horizon Europe and help deploying
them at national and (inter-)regional scale where it can help address environmental, climate or clean
energy transition issues. They can subsequently be deployed at large scale, funded by other sources,
including Horizon Europe. In particular LIFE will continue to incentivise synergies with Horizon
Europe through the award of a bonus during the evaluation for proposals which feature the uptake
of results from Horizon Europe. Horizon Europe's European Innovation Council can provide
support to scale up and commercialise new breakthrough ideas that may result from the
implementation of LIFE projects.
Through strategic programming there is also potential for LIFE to highlight the areas where it sees a
research and innovation need. LIFE will continue to incentivise synergies with the Framework
Programme through the award of a bonus during the evaluation for proposals that feature the uptake
of Framework Programme results.
The integration of Clean Energy Transition sub-programme in LIFE will continue the actions
funded under Intelligent Energy Europe III/Horizon 2020-Societal Challenge III. It will focus on
capacity building and policy support activities, while the Framework Programme will continue
focusing on technology and non-technology related research and innovation for clean energy
transition.
LIFE projects will also find further ways to gain support in helping them scale up and
commercialise their ideas. This will occur via channelling relevant successful LIFE projects into the
European Innovation Council mechanism. This would be relevant for those innovators having
benefitted from the LIFE programme for their projects having demonstrated direct environmental
impact at the regional or national scale, which also have a high growth potential and ambition to
accelerate the transition to a low-carbon, energy efficient and circular economy through sustainable
innovation.
67
11 Synergies with Erasmus
Table 12 Erasmus - Research and innovation related support
Sectors/Domains:
- Education, Training, Youth /Higher
Education, Vocational Education and
Training, Adult Learning
Target beneficiaries:
- Students (researchers and young
entrepreneurs)
- Teachers, Researchers and other
Higher Education Staff
- Higher Education Institutions
- Policy Makers & Higher Education
stakeholders
Geographical coverage:
EU and international
R&I activities/projects
- European Universities initiative:
o support the development of new, joint and integrated, long term and sustainable
strategies on education, research and innovation based on trans-disciplinary and
cross-sectoral approaches to make the knowledge triangle a reality, providing
impetus to economic growth;
o foster the emergence of multidisciplinary and multilingual environments where
students, lecturers, researchers and other public and private actors co-create and co-
share knowledge and innovation, working together to address global societal
challenges (for example: they could focus on SDGs or priorities of the Framework
Programme).
- Further roll out of Higher Education for Smart Specialisation to advice public
authorities to involve higher education institutions and to align their educational offer
to the needs identified in smart specialisation strategies
Market uptake:
- Strategic Partnerships and Knowledge Alliances for the small-scale testing of research
outcomes
Support to entrepreneurship & SME
growth:
- Support for Innovation Partnerships
through Knowledge Alliances
- Expanded use of HEInnnovate tool in
making innovation and
entrepreneurship a core part of overall
institutional strategy
- Step-up support for University-
Business Cooperation and
Establishment of regional and national
University-Business fora
R&I Infrastructure:
- Create a Europe-wide platform for digital higher education
Human capital development:
- European Universities initiative – educating students and researchers to be critical and
reflective thinkers with solution-oriented analytical skills and ethical and intercultural
awareness
- Erasmus research internships and Strategic Partnerships will encourage
undergraduates and Masters students to be involved in research projects and develop
their research and critical thinking skills
Networking and policy making:
- Ensure dissemination of results from Policy Experimentation projects to common
stakeholders and explore synergies between Erasmus-supported Peer Learning and
Peer Counselling on funding of higher education and Research and Innovation
supported Peer Review
Europe's high-level skills needs are addressed by both Horizon Europe and Erasmus through
investments in the development of competences, inter-disciplinary, transferable and entrepreneurial
skills in forward-looking fields or disciplines that are strategic for smart economic and social
development (such as science, technology, engineering and mathematics, climate change, clean
energy, artificial intelligence, robotics, data analysis, design, etc.). More specifically, Erasmus will
continue to support mobility, cooperation and policy initiatives in the field of higher education,
whereas Horizon Europe continues supporting the improvement of skills within funded projects and
provides incentives for universities embracing open science.
Both programmes foster the integration of education and research through facilitating higher
education institutions to formulate and set up common education, research and innovation
strategies, to inform teaching with the latest findings and practices of research to offer active
research experience to all students and higher education staff and in particular researchers, and to
support other activities that integrate higher education, research and innovation.
Horizon Europe will complement the Erasmus programme's support for the European Universities
initiative, in particular its research dimension, as part of developing new, joint and integrated long-
term and sustainable strategies on education, research and innovation based on trans-disciplinary
and cross-sectoral approaches to make the knowledge triangle a reality. This will provide impetus to
economic growth.
68
At the level of postgraduate training, the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) under Horizon
Europe will further strengthen the provision of transferable skills for researchers, including by
transferring research results into teaching. The participation to MSCA projects' activities, in
particular network-wide training, where relevant, of Erasmus students or staff and vice versa, will
concretise synergies between research and education programmes.
Erasmus European Universities, Strategic Partnerships, Knowledge Alliances or Erasmus Mundus
Joint Masters Degrees will support forward-looking skills and new curricula aligned with the
objectives of the future EIT KICs and Horizon Europe’ Missions to create specific synergies.
Encouraging undergraduates and Masters students to be involved in research and innovation
projects and develop their research and critical thinking skills will continue to be a higher education
priority supported through research internships and Strategic Partnerships under the future Erasmus
programme.
The European Universities initiative will be a catalyst for human capital development, education,
research and innovation activities and projects. The alliances will seek to address the big societal
challenges and skills shortages that Europe faces, underpinned by higher education institutions
which can seamlessly cooperate across borders. This will progressively increase the international
competitiveness of European higher education institutions by:
 fostering development of new, joint and integrated, long term and sustainable strategies on
education, research and innovation based on trans-disciplinary and cross-sectoral approaches
to make the knowledge triangle a reality;
 driving educational and research innovation by making use of the most innovative teaching
methods and digital technologies;
 creating new joint curricula based on forward looking skills and multidisciplinary
approaches;
 attracting the best students, teachers and researchers across the world and acting as role
models and mentors for other higher education institutions throughout Europe;
 fostering opportunities for students, teachers, researchers and other public and private actors
to co-create knowledge and innovation together (e.g. working together to address global
societal challenges, Sustainable Development Goals or priorities identified by the
Framework Programme).
Box 6 Concrete example of how synergies could look like in practice
The Erasmus students could take part in the EIT/KICs courses and vice versa where the Erasmus activities will be
easier to access for the beneficiaries of the Framework Programme.
12 Synergies with the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation
Instrument
Table 13 EU Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument - Research and
innovation related support
Sectors/Domains:
- Cross-cutting sectorial role covering all pillars of the Framework Programme
(sustainable agriculture, food & nutrition security, natural resources &
environment, migration, socio-economic development)
- 2030 Agenda – Sustainable Development Goals
- Commitments under the Paris Agreement (2015)
Target beneficiaries:
- Public authorities
- Civil society
Market uptake:
- Infrastructure projects
- Investment projects
69
- Beneficiaries in procurement contracts
Geographic coverage:
- Geographic pillar of the External Instrument covering the Neighbourhood, Sub-
Saharan Africa, Americas, Asia and Pacific and European non-EU member
states, corresponds to global reach of the Framework Programme …
Support to clusters, hubs and broader innovation ecosystem:
- Socio-economic development programmes including access to finance, capacity
building and entrepreneurship programmes.
- Support to clusters, hubs and broader innovation ecosystem: Development of
technology roadmaps
R&I Infrastructure:
- Laboratory and research facility
benchmarking and development
Human capital development:
- Capacity building for researchers as well as
- Education
- Researcher/expert mobility
Networking and policy making:
- EU representation in international for a and
organisations including at regtional level
(e.g. the Union for the Mediterranean)
The Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument groups together
several existing external instruments108
under the current MFF in addition to the European
Development Fund, which is brought under the EU budget. This new design will address at least in
part some of the present fragmentation in external instruments and favour complementarities and
synergies, particularly at implementation stage, between detailed external programmes and the
Horizon Europe. Synergies will ensure that Horizon Europe activities with the participation of Third
Countries and targeted international cooperation actions seek alignment and coherence with parallel
market uptake and capacity-building actions under the Instrument.
There are inherent complementarities between Horizon Europe and the Neighbourhood,
Development and International Cooperation Instrument, for example in so far as they both
contribute towards the EU's international commitments such as the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development109
, the Paris Agreement on Climate Change110
, or the renewed EU-Africa
Partnership111
among others.
The overall objectives of the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation
Instrument will focus on supporting sustainable economic, social and environmental development,
reducing global poverty, maintaining a special relationship with neighbourhood countries and
addressing global challenges.
Targeted international cooperation actions will be mainly implemented through the Framework
Programme's call topics dedicated to international cooperation. This will pursue the trend of the
final years in Horizon 2020 flagship initiatives as a means to lever international cooperation. In
addition European Partnerships are also expected to play an important role in structuring
cooperation with Third Countries. These comprise both co-programming and co-funding activities.
Where relevant, the Framework Programme's partnerships with the participation of Third Countries
should seek alignment and coherence with parallel capacity building strands within the Instrument,
based on common defined priorities.
Box 7 Concrete example of how synergies could look like in practice
 The Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument develops research capability and
supports the role of academia and evidence-based policy making in third countries. Capacity building takes place
at individual level, for example through brain circulation and training; at organisational level (laboratories,
108
Notably including the EDF, DCI; ENI; PI; EIDHR; IcSP; INSC and the CIR. Financial instrument include the European Fund for
Sustainable Development (EFSD) and the European Investment Bank’s (EIB) external lending mandate (ELM)
109
See https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld
110
See http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php
111
See https://www.africa-eu-partnership.org/en
70
building research departments) and institutional (by developing good governance, regulatory environments and
incentive schemes).
 The EU-African Union partnership will develop a joint research and innovation programme on renewable energy
to adapt renewable energy technologies to the African environment, social and economic conditions through joint
research efforts. Subsequently market take-up and scaling of technologies and solutions developed could be
undertaken by the External Instrument in African markets.
 As part of the external dimension of internal EU policies, opening trade and cooperation in other policy areas
including migration and visas are also key contributors for establishing framework conditions for innovation and
the penetration of technologies developed in the EU in world markets.
13 Synergies with the European Space Programme
Space technologies, data and services can support numerous EU policies and key political priorities,
including the competitiveness of our economy, migration, climate change, the Digital Single Market
and sustainable management of natural resources. Space is also of strategic importance for Europe.
It reinforces Europe’s role as a stronger global player and is an asset for its security and defence.
Space policy can help boost jobs, growth and investments in Europe. Investing in space pushes the
boundaries of science and research. Europe has a world-class space sector, with a strong satellite
manufacturing industry, which captures around 33 % of the open world markets, and a dynamic
downstream services sector with a large number of SMEs. The European space economy, including
manufacturing and services, employs over 230 000 professionals and its value was estimated at
EUR 46-54 billion in 2014, representing around 21% of the value of the global space sector .
The Union has made a strong political commitment with the Space Strategy for Europe,
supplemented by an ambitious space agenda welcomed by the Council and European Parliament
which provided further political orientations. The Space Strategy focuses on four strategic
objectives: (1) Maximising the benefits of space for Europe’ society and economy; (2) Fostering a
globally competitive and innovative European space sector; (3) Reinforcing Europe’s autonomy in
accessing and using space in a secure and safe environment; (4) Strengthening Europe’s role as a
global actor and promoting international cooperation.
Europe needs to maintain and further strengthen its world-class capacity to conceive, develop,
launch, operate and exploit space systems. To ensure this, there is need to support the
competitiveness of the whole supply chain and actors from industry to research organisations. There
is also need to foster the emergence of an entrepreneurial ecosystem, opening up new sources of
financing, creating new business opportunities, and making sure this will benefit businesses in all
Member States.
Coherence and synergies between the space programme and Horizon Europe will be instrumental
for the delivery of solutions to the aforementioned challenges. Space research shall be an integral
part of the Global Challenges pillar of Horizon Europe, with research and innovation needs of space
sector identified and established as part of the programme's strategic planning process. Space data
and services made available by the Union space programmes will be used to develop breakthrough
solutions. Horizon Europe will also be instrumental to foster the space entrepreneurial innovation
ecosystem through the Open Innovation pillar and to push the frontiers of space science through the
Open Science pillar. Space data and services made available through the European Space
Programme can be used to develop breakthrough solutions through research and innovation,
including in Horizon Europe, while Copernicus Data and Information Access services will
contribute to the European Open Science Cloud and thus facilitate access to this data.
71
Box 8 Concrete example of how synergies could look like in practice
 Space data and services made available as a public good by the Union Space Programme will be used to develop
breakthrough solutions through research and innovation, in particular for sustainable food and natural resources,
climate monitoring, smart cities, automated vehicles or disaster management.
 The Copernicus Data and Information Access Services contribute to the European Open Science Cloud and thus
facilitate access to Copernicus data for researchers and scientists.
 Horizon Europe will underpin the evolution of the Union Space Programme systems and services as well as the
competitiveness of the space sector, notably with regard to sustainability of supply chains, non-dependence and
access to space.
 Technology transfer from the space ecosystem can enable multidisciplinary innovation and entrepreneurship.
 The space innovation ecosystem will be fostered by the open innovation pillar of Horizon Europe through a
mechanism for pipelines of projects emerging from the implementation of the Space Programme.
 Research infrastructures, in particular in situ observing networks constitute essential elements of the in situ
observation infrastructure enabling the Copernicus services. In turn, they benefit from information produced by
Copernicus services.
14 Synergies with the Innovation Fund under the EU Emissions Trading System
Table 14 Innovation Fund under the EU Emission Trading System - Research and innovation related support
Sectors/Domains:
- Innovative low-carbon technologies in
energy intensive industries in Annex I of
the ETS Directive, energy storage, CCS
and innovative renewable energy
technologies
Target beneficiaries:
- Enterprises and their grouping
Geographical coverage:
- EU
R&I activities/projects:
- Can support projects as of TRL 6-9
Market uptake:
- Demonstrations & first-of-a-kind commercial scale projects
The Innovation Fund is established by the revised EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) Directive
and will support innovation in low-carbon technologies and processes, including environmentally
safe carbon capture and utilisation (CCU) that contributes substantially to mitigate climate change,
as well as products substituting carbon intensive ones, and to help stimulate the construction and
operation of projects that aim at the environmentally safe capture and geological storage of CO2
(CCS) as well as innovative renewable energy and energy storage technologies.
The EU ETS Directive already sets the frame of the support. For example, projects shall have the
potential for widespread application or for significantly lowering the costs of transitioning towards
a low-carbon economy for the sectors concerned; technologies receiving support shall not yet be
commercially available, but shall represent breakthrough solutions or be sufficiently mature to be
ready for demonstration at pre-commercial scale; projects shall be selected in geographically
balanced locations within the territory of the Union, etc.
Horizon Europe (and the R&I window of InvestEU Fund) will support research and technology
development and innovation in the EU decarbonisation, energy and industrial transformation,
especially under pillar 2. However, the need for public financing to overcome the “valley of death”
of low-carbon technologies at high TRLs is significant. The Innovation Fund may, subject to
fulfilment of its selection and award criteria, support the demonstration phase of eligible projects
that may have received the support from the Horizon Europe or its predecessor programmes.
Synergies will be sought in governance cooperation and alignment of funding conditions where
possible.
72
Box 9 Concrete example of how synergies could look like in practice
 Potential Innovation Fund’s support provided via financial instruments could be channelled via the EU Invest R&I
window, if possible and relevant, subject to meeting the provisions of the ETS Directive.
 Further synergies will be sought in governance cooperation, aiming at coordinated approach vis-à-vis final
beneficiaries.
15 Relevant studies
 From Rivalry to Synergy: R&I Policy and Cohesion Policy. European Commission, DG Regional and Urban
Policy, February 2018.
 In-Depth Staff Working Document for Horizon 2020 Interim Evaluation, SWD(2017) 221 final, May 2017.
See in particular section 9.2: "To what extent is Horizon 2020 coherent with other EU initiatives?"
 Issue Papers for the High Level Group on maximising the impact of EU research and innovation programmes.
European Commission, DG Research and Innovation, February 2017112
.
 Synergies between Framework Programmes for Research and Innovation and European Structural and
Investment Funds – Contributing to the Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020 Final Report.
 DG Research and Innovation and Joint Institute for Innovation Policy, 2017.
 EU Funds Working Together for Jobs and Growth: Synergies between the R&I Framework Programmes and
the European Structural and Investment Funds. European Commission, DG Research and Innovation, 2016.
 Enabling Synergies between European Structural and Investment Funds, Horizon 2020 and other research,
innovation and competitiveness-related Union programmes – Guidance for policymakers and implementing
bodies. European Commission, DG Regional and Urban Policy, 2014.
 Maximisation of Synergies between European Structural and Investment Funds and Other EU Instruments to
Attain Europe 2020 Goals. European Parliament, REGI Committee, 2016.
 European Parliament Resolution of 6 July 2016 "Synergies for innovation: the European Structural and
Investment Funds, Horizon 2020 and other European innovation funds and EU programmes"
 Synergies between EU R&I Funding Programmes: Policy Suggestions from the Launching of the Stairway to
Excellence. Joint Research Centre Technical Report, 2014.
112
The Issue Paper on 'Widening Participation' states: "An important example of synergies between ESIF and Horizon 2020 is the
ELI - Extreme Light Infrastructure (distributed) project, located in Czech Republic, Hungary and Romania, that is supported by
these countries under their ESIF resources complementing the European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures (ESFRI)".
Many examples of ESIF-R&I Framework synergies are also profiled in the "EU Funds Working Together for Jobs and Growth"
publication listed above, while practical ways to improve Horizon 2020-ESIF synergies are outlined in the "Contributing to the
Interim Evaluation Final Report" publication listed above.
73
Annex 8 Detailed information on key
improvements in the design of Horizon Europe
1 European Innovation Council (EIC)
1.1 Why do we need an EIC and why should this be done at EU level?
The EU innovation ecosystem generates as many start-ups as the US in number but only a few of
them grow-up rapidly113
. This is even truer for start-ups carrying out breakthrough innovation114
and for the science-based115
ones (“deep tech”)116.
The fact that the next wave of breakthrough
innovation will be science-based calls for immediate action.
Breakthrough innovation that creates new markets and, therefore, growth and jobs, is too rare in
Europe. This is due to a range of factors, including lack of venture capital (VC), deep-rooted
aversion to risk that builds also on fragmentation of the internal market and regulatory barriers and
lack of transfer of new technologies from the research base to the market. The EIB estimates that
the total equity funding gap in Europe is EUR 70 billion, of which 85% is represented by the first
valley of death117
.
There is market-based evidence emerging from InnovFin Advisory studies118
that there is a
particularly acute funding gap and need for “patient capital” for so called “deep tech” companies
(such as Key Enabling Technologies, Life Science and semiconductor and photonics). These
companies are characterised by high capital intensity, high technology risk, and long development
periods. The combination of these factors make the investment proposition of “deep tech”
companies less appealing from a risk/return prospective than companies such as ICT/digital (which
mainly assume product and execution risk).
113
OECD, Entrepreneurship at a glance 2017, fig. 4.4. The percentage of firms that do not grow at all or by less than 5 % was over
45 % in Europe compared to 37 % in the US (Bravo-Biosca, 2011, A look at business growth and contraction in Europe). The tiny
proportion of start-ups that do grow provide a disproportionate share of the new jobs (Marcin Szczepanski, 2017, Helping European
SMEs to grow, LAB-FAB-APP,
http://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/archive/other_reports_studies_and_documents/hlg_2017_report.pdf July 2017.
114
“Deep tech” refers to companies founded on a scientific discovery or meaningful engineering innovation. Arthur D. Little, 2016,
Systemizing Breakthrough Innovation.
115
Arthur D. Little (2016), Systemizing Breakthrough Innovation.
116
The Economist: From clout to rout: June 30, 2016, https://www.economist.com/news/business/21701480-why-european-
companies-have-become-fading-force-global-business-clout-rout .
117
Equity Funding in the EU, Deloitte (July, 2016).
118
Improving Access to Finance for Beneficiaries of the SME Instrument, InnovFin Advisory (EIB), 2018.
74
Figure 16 Equity funding in the EU: gap of EUR 70 billion in the SMEs and mid-caps space (up to 3,000 FTEs)
Source: Deloitte, July 2016
High-growth potential firms, which receive public funding in the form of equity, contribute to job
creation and growth. The employment growth rate varies from 50% to 145% and turnover from 125
and 800%119
. Evidence shows that innovative firms not only grow twice as much as their non-
innovative counterparts in terms of employment but also "faster growing firms continue to innovate
providing impulses to rejuvenate the economy"120
. This may be due to their absorptive/learning
capacity and intensive R&I activities121
.EU support to breakthrough innovators needs to evolve
towards an agile, seamless and tailor-made approach. Current EU support to breakthrough
innovators remains fragmented, complex and does not attract the most innovative companies. It is
often described as complex to navigate, too prescriptive, uncoordinated, involving many rules,
inflexible projects, forms of funding and management designed for classical R&D projects, not
fitting with innovators needs (“one size fits all approach”), etc. Moreover, current EU programmes
do not address in a seamless way the required tailor-made support to science/technology leading to
breakthrough innovation and scaling up.
Challenges
Europe lacks venture capital for companies to scale-up fast.
The ample supply of venture investment helps US companies to turn market-creating innovations into world-
leading companies, while Europe's innovators struggle to access risk finance above the €10 million range.122
The
supply of flexible, agile funding, such as via blended finance (combining grants with loans or equity), or through
crowdfunding, is insufficient. This hampers young innovative companies (‘yollies’) to scale up to ‘Unicorns’123
.
'Unicorns’ are young companies reaching a market valuation of $ 1 billion. Europe has 26, China has 59, and the
US has 109. Per capita, Europe has 7 times fewer unicorns than the US.
119
Improving access to finance for young innovative enterprises with growth potential: evidence of impact on firms' outputs (JRC,
2017).
120
From Funding Gaps to Thin Markets: UK Government Support for early-stage venture capital. Research report TM/28 (Nesta,
2009).
121
Acemoglu, D., U. Akcigit, N. Bloom, and W. Kerr (2013). Innovation, Reallocation and Growth, National Bureau of Economic
Research, NBER Working Paper 18993.
122
PwC/CB Insights, Money Tree Report Q4 2017, p. 93. Esp. funding rounds of companies above $100 million is 5 times higher in
the US and Asia than in Europe (p. 92).
123
The EIB Investment Report 2017-2018 states that 'Young SMEs with radical innovative projects are the most credit-restrained
category of firms' (p. 339, www.eib.org/attachments/efs/economic_investment_report_2017_en.pdf.) Also in
http://bruegel.org/2015/05/are-european-yollies-more-hampered-by-financial-barriers-than-their-us-counterparts/ and Cincera, M., J.
Ravet, R. Veugelers (2016), The Sensitivity of R&D Investments to Cash Flows: Comparing Young and Old EU and US Leading
Innovators, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 25(3), 304-20.
75
Lack of financial resources is the main challenge that EU companies face when commercialising their innovative
goods and services124
. Two-thirds of VC investments in Europe are in the home country of the investor only125
.
Consequently many European start-ups move to the US: US companies enjoy 14 times more later-stage capital
than their European counterparts do126
. The European stock markets provide insufficient help. In 2012-2016, the
average European venture capital exit via Initial Public Offering was nearly $70 million versus $220 million for
the US127
.
Access to finance for young high growth innovative enterprises needs to be improved
The data on new lending to SMEs shows that of the 25 countries that provided data for 2016, growth in new SME
loans was negative in 15 of them, sometimes substantially. In the Czech Republic and Denmark, SME loan growth
turned negative in 2016 following positive growth in the previous year. Austria, Luxembourg, Portugal and
Slovenia witnessed a bigger decline in 2016 than in 2015. In only a minority of instances, growth rates turned
positive or strengthened128
.
In fact, most SMEs, including new, innovative and fast-growing firms, remain heavily reliant on internal resources
and traditional bank debt. The lack of appropriate forms of finance, especially of the equity-type, stands in contrast
with large businesses, and is limiting entry, long-term investment, expansion and innovation129
.
According to an EIB study, a significant proportion of KETs companies, including innovation leaders with a
documented solid growth, find it hard to raise the capital needed to expand. Thus, while there is evidence that
high-growth innovative firms can be catalysts for aggregate economic growth, their capacity to grow is highly
dependent on the access to financial resources130
. Almost 30 per cent of the KETs companies fail to obtain
adequate debt financing. KETs companies (about 50 per cent) find themselves severely struggling to obtain the
finance needed to generate further growth and innovation131
.
Europe has a shortage of risk capital for small, early-stage growing businesses. This is holding back the
development of high-growth sectors such as technology, which are essential for economic competitiveness. While
sources of capital such as crowdfunding and business angels are becoming more accessible, the EU is still at a
significant disadvantage to the US132
.
Europe needs high growth companies to create new jobs
Among the 23 million European SMEs, only a fraction are high growth companies quick to grow, invest, create
jobs and become leaders in their respective markets. "With more equity investment, more businesses could survive
and potentially create new jobs. But start-ups, scale-ups and high growth companies respectively need seed, early-
stage and expansion capital to reach their objectives"133 .
124
Flash Eurobarometer 2014 “The role of public support in the commercialisation of innovations”.
125
33% of around 1,000 investments made by European VCs are into companies based in countries outside of the VC’s domestic
market. Source: Atomico, The State of European Tech 2017, p. 25.
126
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/europe-startups-tech-success-by-william-echikson-2017-04 .
127
https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/07/venture-investing-in-the-us-and-europe-are-totally-different-industries/85 .
128
Financing SMEs and Entrepreneurs (2018 OECD Scoreboard, p. 23).
129
Meeting of the OECD Council at Ministerial Level Paris, 7-8 June 2017 (p. 16).
130
Improving access to finance for young innovative enterprises with growth potential: evidence of impact on firms' outputs, JRC,
2017 (p. 5).
131
Access-to-finance conditions for Key Enabling Technologies (KETs) companies, EIB, 2016 (p. 4).
132
Shortage of Risk Capital for Europe’s High Growth Businesses AFME, March 17 (p. 4).
133
The Shortage of Risk Capital for Europe’s High Growth Businesses AFME (March 2017, p. 6).
76
Europe is associated with a deep-rooted aversion to risk
Europe is associated with 'a deep-rooted aversion to risk' and a low entrepreneurial spirit compared to the US,
China and Korea134
. In Europe—like most of the world—failure in business can be a stigma, inhibiting an
entrepreneur’s ability to secure new investors. Relatively few European start-ups (compared to Silicon Valley) set
aggressive goals or start with the idea of changing an industry or the world, instead targeting niche growth in their
home markets'.
European financial intermediaries (e.g. banks) are also risk averse when confronted to high risk projects. Banks
appear to have become more risk averse compared to the pre-crisis period, to the detriment of innovative
companies, young firms and start-ups135
. For instance, under the InnovFin actions in Horizon 2020, the European
Commission had to provide 100% guarantee for products such as Energy Demo Projects (EDP) and Infectious
Diseases Finance Facility (IDFF) to get the intermediaries on-board to provide loans.
Europe lacks transfer of new technologies from the research base to the market
According to the 2016 Eurobarometer136
, around two thirds of European manufacturing companies have not
recently used any advanced technologies and this proportion has increased considerably since the 2015 survey. At
the same time, significant resources have been devoted over recent years by the US and Asian economies toward
the development and deployment of key enabling technologies such as ICT, nanotech and biotech in such
companies. The results can be seen in the ICT industry world-wide. Most of the biggest R&D intensive ICT
companies are in US or Asia and many of them are young.137
European innovators cannot exploit the scale of the Union and face regulatory complexity
In Europe, innovators and companies with international growth potential have to cope with 28 national markets
with their diverse currencies, languages and business cultures.138
Such fragmentation also applies to the innovation
ecosystem. While Europe is home to a growing number of hotspots (London, Berlin, Paris, Stockholm and
Amsterdam now figure in the top-20 world-wide start-up ecosystems139
), these are not well connected140
. Also,
regulations can hinder company growth141
, especially the 'maze of regulatory regimes' in Europe.142
Consequently,
European start-ups tend to move to the more homogeneous US market.143
Current EU support is not optimal for breakthrough innovation
Horizon 2020 is the first European programme to support innovation next to research, but few of the young and
quickly growing innovative companies take part. The current support is seen as too complex and the multitude of
acronyms discourages them to apply. EU support has tended to focus on incremental innovation and prescribed
thematic topics that often do not correspond to modern innovation taking place at the intersection between
different sectors and dsiciplines.
134
Citizens of EU-OECD countries score lower on their attitude to entrepreneurship and preference for self-employment than those
in the US and China, e.g. the index for attitude towards entrepreneurship in 21 EU countries is 46 (males) and 31 (females),
compared to 70 resp. 57 in the US, 62 resp. 54 in China and 57 resp. 35 in Korea (figures 2013):
http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?queryid=70778.
135
Financing SMEs and Entrepreneurs (2018 OECD Scoreboard, page 39).
136
Flash Eurobarometer 433, Innobarometer 2016 – EU business innovation trends.
137
Europe is host to only 19% of these companies, of which 61% are 'youngsters': founded after 1970. In Asia, the share of these
youngsters is 68% and in the US even 83%. JRC-IPTS-R&D Scoreboard of the 2500 largest R&D spenders globally (2015); data
from 2013. Quoted in Veugelers, 2016, Ecosystems for young digital innovators, paper prepared for the JTT special issue at the
occasion of the EIED conference, Paris (2016).
138
COM/2016/0733 final - Europe's next leaders: the Start-up and Scale-up Initiative.
139
Global Startup Ecosystem Report, https://startupgenome.com/report2017/.
140
Europe's next leaders, 2017. Also in Afme, The Shortage of Risk Capital for Europe's High Growth Businesses, March 2017, p.
20, and in EIF: The European venture capital landscape, 2016, par. 3.1.1 .
141
Better regulations for innovation-driven investment at EU level, Commission Staff Working Document 2016:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/innovrefit_staff_working_document.pdf. The importance of regulation for
innovations is also mentioned in Atomico, The State of European Tech, 2017, p. 110 https://2017.stateofeuropeantech.com/.
142
A.T. Kearny (2014), p. 15: Rebooting Europe's High-tech industry
143
One US report states that 14 percent of European scale-ups have a “dual model”: moved headquarters abroad since the initial
phases of its lifecycle. Such companies would raise 30% more capital than scale-ups that follow a domestic funding path. The most
popular destination is Silicon Valley: http://mindthebridge.com/european-dual-companies/.
77
Tackling these challenges at the EU level allows:
 To pool resources and unleash the potential of European and global markets for EU
innovators. Scaling up to exploit the European market is the first step towards international
growth. Only the EU as a whole has the capacity to tackle persistent lack of large-scale high-
risk venture capital. EU support can be bigger in size and more comprehensive (e.g.
common regulation) compared to national or regional support.
 To encourage risk taking and increase the quality of innovations through EU-wide
competition between the best. This will provide Europe’s best innovators with resources
they need to allow them to scale up and compete better at global level. Operating across
Europe on a competitive basis will allow to draw on a wider pool of talents and ideas than
would be possible through national schemes. Only the most risky and most breakthrough
ideas will compete against each other.
 To create synergies across Europe (and beyond) by stimulating cross-border cooperation
mainly through networks144
. European support for innovation creates synergies with related
regional and national programmes, agencies and financial intermediaries. For instance,
tackling the problem of slow industrial transformation at the EU level provides the critical
mass and the networks needed to develop and take up key enabling technologies by
manufacturing companies and their supply chains145
.
What do we have now in Horizon 2020?
SME Instrument provides EUR 500 million per year in grants to SMEs for investigation of technical and
commercial feasibility of a business idea and development of innovation with demonstration and scale-up
purposes (TRL 6).
Fast Track to Innovation provides EUR 100 million in grants to consortia of partners from different
countries with innovation projects addressing any technology or societal challenge field. It aims to reduce
time from idea to market and to stimulate the participation of first-time applications to EU research and
innovation funding.
Future and Enabling Technologies (FET) provides EUR 200 million per year in grants to collaborative
research. It aims to stimulate bottom-up small scale explorations (FET-Open), build up a critical mass
around promising directions (FET-Proactive) and fund large scale interventions that require a common
European effort over a longer period to pursue grand challenges in science and technology (FET Flagships,
such as Graphene and the Human Brain Project).
InnovFin actions provide EUR 400 million per year in loans to single beneficiaries for investment in
research and innovation, guarantees to financial intermediaries making loans to beneficiaries and
combinations of loans and guarantees, guarantees or counter- guarantees for national, regional and local
debt-financing schemes, venture and/or mezzanine capital to individual enterprises in the early stage (start-
up window).
EU awards challenge prizes to innovators who develop a new solution for a highly demanding challenge,
such as the battery of the future with advanced specifications. These prizes are open to any bids and can
attract both incumbents and newcomers. They are top-down in defining the challenge, but encourage
bottom-up new approaches.
144
Cooperation within the innovation projects shall not be a requirement as they are close to the market and companies often prefer
to walk that 'final mile' alone.
145
According to companies participating in the business acceleration services of the SME Instrument, the exposure to a European
network is crucial for building real business contacts with potential partners, clients and investors. Report: 'Is the SME-Instrument
delivering growth and market creation? Analysis of first finalized Phase 2 projects, part 2 in-depth case studies, EASME Dec. 2017.
78
Public procurement of innovative solutions (PPI) are grants for establishment of networks of public
procurers to prepare for launching PPI as well as direct financing of consortia of public procurers to
undertake PPI procurement.
Pre-commercial procurement (PCP) are grants to consortia of public procurers to buy R&D from several
competing suppliers in parallel to compare alternative solution approaches and identify the best value for
money solutions that the market can deliver to address their needs.
What have we learned from Horizon 2020 Interim Evaluation?
Horizon 2020's Interim Evaluation identified that the Framework programme has a potential for supporting
breakthrough, market-creating innovation, but noted that such support must be considerably
strengthened in the future.
In particular, Horizon 2020 Interim Evaluation assessed the programme lacks connection between grant
and loan based financing for companies. Horizon 2020 invests EUR 400 million per year in risk
financing through European Investment Bank (InnovFin) but only a small number of firms receiving
Horizon 2020 grants benefit from such financial instruments.
Similarly, Horizon 2020 invests EUR 500 million per year in the SME Instrument. The Interim Evaluation
assessed that the scheme is on track to deliver innovations to the market by providing grant based funding
and business acceleration services to SMEs. However, there is also scope for improvement such as the need
to scale up companies and the need for more interaction with business angels and Venture Capitalists.
The Communication on the Interim Evaluation notes that the future Framework Programme should provide
support faster and more flexibly and build on the current achievements in innovation support through the
SME Instrument, collaborative projects and public-private partnerships.
Horizon 2020 supports scientific excellence in Europe and has contributed to high-profile scientific
breakthroughs. But there is a need to raise the breakthrough market-creating innovations, which is vital
for future growth and jobs. This is not about switching budget from fundamental research to innovation, but
about generating more impact from innovation funding. The increasing impact could build on key
ingredients in the success of the European Research Council, for example building a prestigious brand
focused around excellence, with a strong bottom-up emphasis.
What do stakeholders say?
 The Lamy High Level Group146
called for a 'true EU innovation policy that creates future markets' and
proposes that the impact of the EU programme is maximised by fostering ecosystems for research,
innovators, industries and governments, and by investing in innovative ideas with rapid scale-up potential.
The group notes that an ambitious European Innovation Council should be a central pillar in the next EU
research and innovation programme. It also recommends (#4 Design the EU R&I programme for greater
impact) that the EIC design new proposal evaluation and selection processes to better capture high-risk,
high-return projects, introduces greater flexibility in grant management (stop-go decisions) and tolerates
146
The Group's mandate was to provide advice on how to maximise the impact of the EU's investment in research and innovation
based on stakeholder feedback and the findings of the interim evaluation. The recommendations are published in the report LAB-
FAB-APP, Investing in the European future we want, Lamy Group Report (2017).
79
failure.
 The High Level Group of Innovators, advising the Commission on innovation , developed a set of
recommendations to support single innovators turning disruptive/breakthrough science and technology into
market-creating innovations147
:
- Funding: empower the innovator, simplify, incentivise private investment,
- Awareness: champion innovators, communicate success,
- Scale: build the camp, leverage European ecosystems,
- Talent: connect people, create prestige for innovators.
 The Commission engaged in a dialogue with a variety of other stakeholders to gain more insight on
options for EIC. A consultation process was organised with national innovation agencies148
as well as the
wider innovation community through a 'Call for ideas'149
and cluster consultation. In their feedback through
the position papers, stakeholders called for:
- European Innovation Council that increases synergies and acts as European Accelerator. Some 51% of
all stakeholders submitting a position paper for the Framework Programme expressed their views on
the idea of the European Innovation Council (EIC). Around two thirds of these stakeholders favour the
overall idea of EIC providing detailed suggestions on the possible role and objectives of its
organisation and concrete modalities for its functioning.
- A reoccurring view is that the EIC should not add an extra layer of governance, but rather seek to
identify gaps, coordinate and forge synergies with the existing support instruments serving as an
umbrella initiative with a concretely defined value added.
- The idea of bringing together existing instruments (SME instrument, Fast Track to Innovation, FET
Open and inducement prizes) for a comprehensive support to all forms of innovation and technologies,
including market-creating innovation is well echoed across the stakeholder input.
- For example, Tekes considers that the role of EIC is to provide the best applicants with a tailor-made
growth package including a combination of public and private funding fit for the needs of the
company. This must be complemented by top-level expertise services like coaching, mentoring,
training, soft landing measures etc. In other words, “EIC should act as an European Accelerator
bringing all relevant EU funding and services into a single, fit-for-purpose 'one-stop-shop' for the most
promising enterprises”. Some stakeholders (for example, CEASAR) view EIC as a label for excellence
and a vehicle to leverage more private investments.
- The main concerns expressed are that support to incremental innovation should not diminish due to an
increased emphasis on radical and ground-breaking innovation that the EIC is envisioned to promote.
Four position papers (Denmark, Flanders, Croatia and ALLEA) inexplicitly caution against the
creation of a separate organisation. These stakeholders suggest evaluating more carefully the possible
merging of the EIC mandate with EIT, FET or ERC to capture the whole research-innovation
spectrum.
1.2 What do we want to achieve with the EIC?
With the European Innovation Council (EIC), the objective is to identify, develop and deploy
breakthrough innovations, and to support the rapid scale-up of innovative firms carrying out
market-creating innovations at EU and international levels.
The EIC will aim at:
147
https://ec.europa.eu/info/news/high-level-group-innovators-offer-key-recommendations-european-innovation-council-2018-jan-
24_en
148
Commissioner Moedas met twice with representatives of national innovation agencies to discuss their experiences with promoting
market-creating innovation, e.g. through providing coaching, loans and venture capital, lessons for the EU and ways in which EU
could add additional value to their existing activities. Three workshops with experts from innovation agencies provided additional
insights.
149
In 2016 the Commission ran a call for ideas with a wider innovation community which gathered 1022 replies to the online
questionnaire and 183 supporting documents. Overview of responses can be accessed here:
https://ec.europa.eu/research/eic/pdf/eic_call_for_ideas-overview.pdf
80
1 Fostering breakthrough and market creating innovations in EU and support the rapid scale-up of
innovative firms at EU and international levels;
2 Sharing high risks involved in breakthrough innovations, leveraging public and private
investment; ensuring the selection of the most promising ideas and impacting innovations,
researchers and innovators;
3 Increasing entrepreneurial and risk-taking mind-set in Europe through structural impact of EIC-
funded projects and innovators setting a clear and inspirational targets for breakthrough
innovation in Europe;
4 Simplifying EU support schemes for breakthrough market creating innovations by combining
existing schemes under one EIC umbrella.
The EIC will not create an additional administrative layer; on the contrary, it will provide a one-
stop shop for innovation support thereby making the programme more user friendly.
1.3 What changes will the EIC bring and what are the expected implications?
To place the EU in the lead for breakthrough market-creating innovation, the European Innovation
Council (EIC) will be set up under the Open Innovation Pillar of the Framework Programme.
The EIC will combine all EU support to breakthrough and market-creating innovation in one place.
It will build on the experience gained with Access to Risk Finance and the EIC Pilot launched early
2018 under Horizon 2020, which grouped relevant existing schemes and introduced first reforms
(e.g. simplified application form and interviews with potential beneficiaries). However, this pilot
phase is constrained by the legal acts of Horizon 2020 and much more is possible in Horizon
Europe.
The EIC will provide tailor-made support to innovators through two main funding instruments – the
Pathfinder and the Accelerator - with the following common characteristics: a focus on
breakthrough innovation; a largely bottom-up approach (with top-down elements); a high-risk
taking behaviour; a focus on innovator needs; and a pro-active management.
 The Pathfinder for Advanced Research will provide grants for early technology stage (proof
of concept, technology validation) to early commercial stage (early demonstration,
development of business case and development of strategy). Top-down competitive calls
developing key strategic objectives150
calling for deep-tech and radical thinking will allow to
establish critical mass of effort and build up and structure new research communities of a
multidisciplinary nature. However, the Pathfinder will also allow for the submission of
proposals on a bottom-up basis, so as to stimulate the opportunities of serendipity and
unexpected ideas, concepts and discoveries. The Pathfinder will be open to all, from
academic researchers to start-ups, SMEs and mid-caps.
 The Accelerator will support the further development and market deployment of
breakthrough and market creating innovations, to a stage where they can be financed on
usual commercial terms by investors (from demonstration, user testing, pre-commercial
production and beyond, including scale-up). It will provide tailor-made blended finance (i.e.
grant type support with equity financing or financial guarantee) through a single process and
according to the needs, stage of development and risk profile of the innovation. The
Accelerator will be open to all innovators, start-ups, SMEs and midcaps, but will also
accelerate innovations / spin-offs / start-ups generated within the Pathfinder as well as from
150
These could include topics such as Artificial Intelligence, Quantum computing, Biocontrol or Second generation digital twins, or
any other identified in close cooperation with Member States’ networked programmes.
81
any other parts of the Framework Programme such as European Research Council (ERC),
the European Institute of Innovation and Technology's (EIT) Knowledge and Innovation
Communities (KICs) and R&I missions. This instrument will finance projects with high
risks concerning innovation that is close to market, or small businesses investments. The
open and bottom-up calls will be complemented by focused approaches on emerging
breakthrough or disruptive technologies of potential strategic significance.
What is blended finance?
'Blended finance' is a financial instrument that combines grant-type support with equity or access to loans and other
types of finance. Finance can be blended both simultaneously — for example, as a grant-plus-loan package offered
at once— and sequentially, as when a grant attracts a later investment by a VC fund, business angel or corporate VC
arm, or facilitates a loan from a bank or a non-bank lender. The EIC’s Accelerator will essentially target high-risk
potential market creating innovations. It will hence provide for simultaneous blending, with the aim of de-risking
more and from the onset selected operations and attract later stage co- or alternate private investors.
Why blended finance?
Grants may be provided up to demonstration stages, but only covering part of the costs and for limited amounts.
Financial instruments such as those to be deployed under InvestEU intervene when a project is "bankable", meaning
there is a return on investment, or where the level of risk can be easily mitigated and be acceptable for private
investors, including VC funds. This leaves innovators facing “the valley of death” where there are high development
costs (which can only be partially covered by grants) but where the level of uncertainty and risks for making returns
are too high for private investors. The EIC’s Accelerator aims at bridging this valley of death and to de-risk selected
operation so as to leverage these investors.
Under both Pathfinder and Accelerator, each EIC awardee would also be offered a series of support
services such as coaching, peer to peer mentoring, facilitated access to services provided by others
schemes (EIT, national and regional, corporates, etc.), specific support to help with regulatory
barriers ("innovation deal" like), access to world-class fairs, etc. The Commission will organise an
EIC Forum of Member States’ and Associated countries’ public authorities and bodies in charge of
national innovation policies and programmes, with the aim to promote coordination and dialogue on
European innovation ecosystem.
The EIC work programmes will be implemented by a single implementation structure pro-actively
managing all EIC funding (i.e. an executive agency and a specific vehicle/networks of finance
partners), including the possibility to stop or amend the projects, to support and use technology
intelligence in order to strengthen the potential of the projects, etc. This calls for the involvement of
programme managers (ARPA-E approach151
) who are able and empowered to interact with
innovators/market players. In particular, programme managers will propose evaluation ranking
based on the constitution of consistent strategic portfolio of projects, expected to make essential
contributions to the emergence of potential societal or economic market creating innovations. An
EIC Advisory Board (composed of high level investors, entrepreneurs, etc.) will support and guide
these programme managers. The EIC Advisory Board will also have the responsibility to advise the
Commission services on the implementation (e.g. design of work programme and evaluation
processes), to assess emerging technologies and trends (including by bringing in top expertise in
areas identified by the programme managers), etc.
The EIC will fund what other investors do not dare to invest into, or at least not alone (risk
aversion). In that context, the EIC shall rely on expertise stemming also from the investment world,
and also allow for investors to submit projects for which sharing the risks is key (pre-screening).
In order to mitigate risks of distortion of competition, the EIC will operate at market price and will
exit from investment as soon as alternate investors are ready to substitute (no crowding out effect).
151
https://www.darpa.mil/ .
82
The EIC would considerably simplify the funding landscape and fill the gaps that currently exist.
Figure 17 Pathfinder and accelerator in the EIC
Evolution not revolution: the EIC from Horizon 2020 to Horizon Europe
Horizon 2020, incl. the EIC pilot EIC in Horizon Europe (experiences from the EIC pilot)
FET Open: bottom-up, early stage, future and
emerging technologies
FET Proactive, FET Launchpad
Yes, will be taken up in the Pathfinder and further developed
through transition activities aiming at nurturing emerging
innovations and spin-offs from portfolios of projects.
FTI: consortia, SME-driven Yes, will be taken up in the Accelerator
SME phase 1 feasibility study  Feasibility studies can be awarded under Pathfinder’s transition
activities, and where needed as part of the overall support
provided under the Accelerator.
 Member States and associated countries can set up joint
programmes to support feasibility studies. EIC can co-fund
these.
SME phase 2 projects as in the EIC pilot, so
bottom-up, with interviews, 4 cut-offs per
year, evaluation criteria are Horizon 2020
standard (excellence, impact, organisation).
Grants of up to € 2.5 m (in principle, higher is
possible).
Yes, will be taken up in the Accelerator, with changes:
 even stronger focus on market-creating innovations
 6 cut-offs per year
 non-SMEs can also apply: from non-incorporated individuals to
mid-caps. Investors may also submit proposals for co-
investment by the Union.
 larger amounts: more budget per projects
 wider range of support: through blended finance: grant-type
advances with, equity or loan, guarantees. Will follow the
phase of the innovation.
 evaluation by experts on excellence, impact and (new) the risk
profile
 Commission will take yes/no decisions on a first come first
served basis
 Commission may deviate from the experts' proposal
 for projects coming from other parts of the Framework
Programme, award decision will rely on review of the on-going
project
SME phase 3 business acceleration, e.g.
linking SMEs to investors and corporates,
open to all beneficiaries
Yes, similar services to be continued in pillar III Open Innovation
SME coaching, role for Enterprise Europe
Network and coaches
Yes, similar services to be continued in pillar III Open Innovation
Monitoring of running projects by their self- Yes, to be continued in pillar III Open Innovation, more intensively.
83
reporting, private data on VC, experts using
the Innovation Radar
Closer Commission involvement to stop projects not reaching their
milestones, or amend projects (high-level programme managers)
Waypoint SMEs to the InnovFin financial
instruments by EIB/EIF and their partners
Yes, to be continued in pillar III Open Innovation. InvestEU will
have a dedicated R&I window and products for innovative
companies under the SME window.
HLG of innovators Advisory Board will assist in defining the EIC work programmes,
objectives, actions, evaluation criteria and selection of proposals.
- EIC Fellowships
EIC inducement prizes EIC Inducement prizes
A need for a dedicated implementation structure?
Three scenarios of implementation structure for the EIC are envisaged based on the expected difference in
the programme management between Horizon 2020 actions and the EIC namely a move from generic to
specialised profiles, passive to active management and from process-driven to portfolio driven
management. The three scenarios are as follows:
 Scenario 1: Business as usual - existing EASME as the EIC implementing Executive Agency;
 Scenario 2: EASME revamped as EIC exclusive implementing Executive Agency by transferring
non-EIC activities from EASME to other agencies; or
 Scenario 3: EIC implemented by a dedicated newly created Executive Agency possibly starting with
the pilot under Horizon 2020 and continuing under Horizon Europe.
Further assessment of different implementation options shall be based on a dedicated cost benefit analysis.
Horizon 2020 implementation by the
executive agency EASME
EIC implementation by a dedicated implementation
structure
Generic profiles: Project officers (mainly
contract agent staff) with generic skills and
competences in project management and project
finance. No industry/sector specific knowledge
required.
Specialised profiles:
 Programme managers with specialised profiles and
considerable knowledge and experience in the
industry/sector, in particular with start-ups/scale-ups to
respond to the need for high level technical and financial
expertise;
 Project officers (mainly contract agent staff), with generic
skills and competences in project management and finance
to help keeping projects on track.
Passive management: Project officers have no
power or knowledge to select, steer or terminate
the project (apart from financial and legal fraud
cases).
Proactive management:
 Project officers will assist programme managers
(responsible authorising officers, i.e. RAOs) in identifying
research teams and projects (after independent evaluation by
external experts).
 Programme managers will support actively the management
of selected portfolios of projects and propose a vision for
their development (e.g. EIC transition activities).
Programme managers will steer the beneficiaries by helping
project innovators identify and anticipate commercialisation
challenges (e.g. market shifts or manufacturing bottlenecks).
They may recommend amending or terminating projects,
based on pre-established milestones and external reviews.
Process-driven management: Different project
officers assigned to the same project at different
implementation stages. No connection between
different projects overseen by one officer.
Projects in the same industry/technology
managed by different project officers. Project
management and distribution mainly based on
the principle of efficiency.
Portfolio driven management: RAOs are responsible for the
overall management of a portfolio of projects within the same
technology domain/industry from the selection process
onwards. They are assisted in this role by programme
managers. Distribution of projects among RAOs will be based
on the principle of effectiveness/impact (i.e. the added value to
the portfolio and complementarities, cross-linkages of projects
within each portfolio).
1.4 What are the expected implications?
 More innovations that create the new markets of the future. Giving more
prominence and visibility to science-based breakthrough innovation, the EIC
will allow the future Programme to increase its capability to attract Europe’s
84
best innovators. The selection process by peer-scientists and innovators and
investors will increase probability of supporting the most promising
innovators. Those that will be selected will be managed actively (by
programme managers empowered as responsible authorising officers) based
on a set of challenging targets and possibility to amend and terminate the
projects when necessary which will further increase the probability of their
breakthrough. The type and volume of financing will be tailor-made to the
needs. According to the High Level Group of Innovators152
, a successful EIC
should allow the EU to be home to leading companies in major areas for
breakthrough deep tech innovation such as Artificial Intelligence, biotech,
and augmented/virtual reality (e.g. 1/3 of the leading global companies
should come from Europe).
 Scaled up companies and higher SME growth The EIC will support late
stage innovation activities and market deployment for the most promising
ideas, resulting in an increase in the number of growing EU start-ups and
SMEs. It will target innovative companies (up to mid-caps) with a great
potential for scaling up, offering tailor-made type and volume of financing to
the needs of the firm, its size and stage, the nature of the technology and the
length of the innovation cycle/market deployment. Co-investment in equity
or through guarantees for alternative types of finance (e.g. bank loan) will be
awarded for scale-up. These measures are expected to help filling-in the
missing gap in risk finance in Europe (“bridging the valley of death”). Such
support is expected to have a positive impact on the growth, market
valuation, employment and turnover of EU companies (especially SMEs).
 Increased complementarities between grant-type funding financial
instruments and leverage from private investment. Under the EIC
Accelerator, blended finance would allow the Union to bear the initial risk of
deploying market breakthrough innovations, with the aim of de-risking these
operations as they unfold, down to a stage where they can be financed
through private capital, hence incentivize private investors. The EIC support
through blended finance should lead to a greater propensity to co-invest or to
offer lower interest-rates loans and less onerous requirements for collateral,
hence to more breakthrough market-creating innovations to be effectively
translated and deployed in the market. Financing will be targeted to involve
private investors on the basis of de-risking. The alignment of interests with
private investors will provide improved access to venture capital and risk
finance, hence leveraging the overall volume of finance necessary to develop
the innovation to a stage where it can be financed through private capital.
 More entrepreneurship and risk-taking. The EIC will provide business
acceleration services to innovators and will award EIC Fellowships to the
outstanding ones. The EIC will highlight innovators who can inspire others
(researchers, youngsters and other potential entrepreneurs) to set up and grow
their own enterprises.
152
Funding - Awareness - Scale - Talent (FAST): Europe is back: Accelerating Breakthrough Innovation, Full set of
recommendations from the Independent High-Level Group of Innovators on establishing a European Innovation
Council, January 2018.
85
 More accessible and user-friendly support to innovation. The EIC support
and services will be provided through a one-stop shop enabling easy and
quick access for innovators to EU support.
1.5 What alternatives were considered?
Four alternative policy options were considered and discarded:
 Full centralisation: Under this option, public support for market-creating innovation at the
EU level would be fully centralised. The EU would replace the existing national, regional
and local level support to promote market-creating innovation.
 Discontinuation: This option assumes that the EU R&I Framework Programme would stop
financing activities related to market-creating innovation. The public support for market-
creating innovation would become fully decentralised and solely in the remit of the Member
States.
 Horizon 2020: Under this option, the initial Horizon 2020 measures to support innovation
would continue. This would include the SME Instrument, Fast Track to Innovation (FTI)
and FET Open (and, by implication, other running innovation support actions such as
InnovFin, Eurostars, JTIs and KICs).
 Horizon 2020 with the EIC Pilot: This option would combine the three Horizon 2020
measures that offer most opportunities for potential market-creating innovations: the SME
Instrument, FTI and FET Open under one umbrella; it would make the SME instrument
bottom-up, evaluate the proposals with interviews by financiers and innovators, extend
mentoring and coaching to support SMEs; and it would blend grants with financial
instruments to assist the growth of companies. InnovFin, Eurostars, JTIs and KICs measures
would remain the same as under Horizon 2020 option. This option is being implemented in
the second half of the Horizon 2020 programme. However, as this pilot is staying within the
legal and budget boundaries of Horizon 2020, its effectiveness and coherence would remain
flawed: the link between direct innovation support (grants) and indirect support (loans, VC)
would remain weak; a parallel time-consuming evaluation and decision process would take
place through indirect financial instruments, abiding to different criteria and risk perception
for private investment; there would be no explicit interface between the EIC and the other
parts of the Framework Programme and the three grant schemes would remain 'joint' in the
pilot but without optimal coherence.
86
1.6 How will the EIC be implemented?
Pathfinder Accelerator
Management
 European Commission assisted by EIC Advisory Board and supported by an executive
agency:
- EIC Advisory Board: Established by specific programme decision will assist
the Commission in setting the overall strategy, governance of the instruments,
the work programmes
- A dedicated implementation structure with high-level programme managers
(5 years non-renewable) acting as Responsible authorising officers (RAO)
managing Pathfinder’s portfolios of projects. RAOs will consult with the EIC
Advisory Board. RAOs decide on Pathfinder’s transition activities and steer
their beneficiaries. Pathfinder and Accelerator projects may be amended or
terminated by RAO if milestones are not met.
Aim
 Strengthening the emergence and
development of breakthrough
science/technology leading to
breakthrough innovation
 Accelerating and accompanying the
scale-up of enterprises carrying-out
breakthrough innovation
Target group
 Researchers, universities, start-ups,
SMEs: from single beneficiaries to
multi-disciplinary consortia.
 Innovations / spin-offs, including those
generated within the Pathfinder as well
as any other part of the Framework
Programme
 Individual entrepreneurs, mainly start-
ups and SMEs, including young and
women innovators.
Toolkit
 Research and innovation actions
(RIA): grants to high-risk cutting-edge
research projects from early technology
stage (proof of concept, technology
validation) to early commercial stage
(early demonstration, development of
business case and development
strategy)
Available to all legal entities.
 Transition activities: Proactive
management of portfolio of related RIA
projects, on theme distinct from Pillar 2
missions and industrial road-maps.
Establish a critical mass of European
researchers, building up and structuring
new interdisciplinary research
communities with the objective to bring
market creating breakthrough ideas to
genuine and mature innovations.
Activities may consist in additional
grants to existing actions, new RIA,
innovation actions and coordination
and support actions (e.g. feasibility
studies for SMEs)
 Innovation and market deployment
actions: blended finance (i.e. grants with
direct equity financing and access to lean
financing) for further development and
market deployment of breakthrough and
market creating innovations, to a stage
where they can be financed on usual
commercial terms by investors (from
demonstration, user testing, pre-
commercial production and beyond,
including scale-up).
 Business acceleration services: access
to networks of potential partners and
investors
 Equity and bank guarantee to other
types of finances: to be managed in
close relation with InvestEU and EIB
Group (service level agreements).
Management of equity may entail the
establishment of a dedicated Investment
Fund in close relationship with the EIB
group.
Calls  Bottom-up and top-down calls,
following the ethical principles of the
framework programme.
 periodical competitive closing dates
 direct award (no call) of small CSA
(50,000 euros) in the context of
transition activities
 Bottom-up and top-down calls, following
the ethical principles of the framework
programme.
 cut-offs every two months, first come
first served basis
 Business acceleration services may
involve coordination and support
actions, including procurements.
Selection/Evaluation  Selection criteria: excellence of science
and innovation, impact (market-creating
 Selection criteria: excellence of science
and innovation, excellence of the
87
Pathfinder Accelerator
nature) and excellence of delivery
(quality of organisation)
 evaluated by expert panels
impact (marketability), and the level of
risk;
 Step 1: Expert panel (e.g. researchers
and scientists)
 Step 2: Expert panel (e.g. innovators
and investors)
 Step 3: Interviews with expert panel
(e.g. innovators and investors)
 Projects may be amended or terminated
if milestones are not met.
Links to other
programme parts
 Selected RIA falling within the scope of
Pillar 2 missions shall be managed in
close relation with related mission
portfolio.
 Close coordination with ERC and EIT
KICs.
 Will accelerate innovations / spin-offs/
start-ups generated within Horizon
Europe, in particular the ERC, EIT KICs
or other parts of the Global Challenges
and Industrial Competitiveness pillar
following a fast-track procedure that
builds on previous review.
1.7 Complementarities with InvestEU Fund
EIC support would be clearly differentiated from InvestEU products:
 EIC would only support start-ups / SMEs where the risk profile requires a component
of grant funding and strong public support to lower risks for private investors to
intervene. Innovative SMEs that can be financed through private debt or equity would be
directed to the schemes provided under the InvestEU Fund (notably under its SME Window
– innovative SMEs dimension).
 EIC would be highly selective, targeting those innovations that have a breakthrough
nature (not incremental improvements to existing products, services or business models)
and essentially support start-ups/SMEs where the profile requires a component of grant
funding and strong public support to lower risks for private investors to intervene.
 EIC funding would be based on specific governance. While final financing decisions
would be made by the Commission, this would follow assessments by the best independent
expertise from across Europe (e.g. to judge the breakthrough nature) and strategic advice
from the EIC Board.
1.8 Relevant studies
 Funding - Awareness - Scale - Talent (FAST): Europe is back: Accelerating Breakthrough Innovation, Full set
of recommendations from the Independent High-Level Group of Innovators on establishing a European
Innovation Council, January 2018.
 LAB-FAB-APP: Investing in the European future we want: Report of the High Level Group on Maximising
the Impact of EU Research and Innovation Programmes, July 2017.
 Europe's future: Open innovation, open science, open to the world : reflections of the Research, Innovation and
Science Policy Experts (RISE) High Level Group, May 2017.
 European Commission (2017), Interim evaluation of Horizon 2020, Staff Working Document (SWD).
 Improving Access to Finance for Beneficiaries of the SME Instrument, InnovFin Advisory (EIB), 2018.
 Improving access to finance for young innovative enterprises with growth potential: evidence of impact on
firms' outputs JRC 2017.
 The Shortage of Risk Capital for Europe’s High Growth Businesses AFME March 2017.
88
 Financing SMEs and Entrepreneurs 2018 - An OECD Scoreboard.
 Improving access to finance for young innovative enterprises with growth potential: evidence of impact on
firms' outputs JRC 2017.
 Access-to-finance conditions for Key Enabling Technologies (KETs) companies EIB 2016.
 European Small Business Finance Outlook EIF, June 2017.
89
2 Research and Innovation Missions
2.1 Why do we need EU R&I missions and why should this be done at EU level?
Currently, the EU's investments in research and innovation could have a higher impact on the
strategic challenges our society faces and in driving sustainable economic growth. A mission-
oriented, impact-focussed approach would enable a sharper EU focus on global strategic challenges
and it would enable industrial transformation towards a more knowledge-intensive economy and job
creation.
Missions would be designed specifically to privilege cross-sectoral and multidisciplinary
collaboration. They should capture public imagination and involvement by setting a clear and
inspiring time-bound goal for Europe, which would have clear and understandable benefits on the
daily lives of European citizens. A mission-oriented R&I policy can improve the flow of knowledge
across disciplinary and sectoral 'silos', and it can involve end-users and citizens much more closely
in EU research and innovation activities. Missions can also stimulate system-wide transformation
across many different sectors. Developing strategic research and innovation missions at EU level is
a way to provide the necessary scale, scope and wide mobilisation of resources required to address
pressing common challenges that cross national borders.
Challenges
Europe's R&I investments directed to tackling societal challenges are spread thinly
Europe invests significant resources in tackling global societal challenges through research and innovation activities
providing solutions to those challenges. Around €30 billion from 2014 to 2020 is allocated for collaborative R&I
under seven Societal Challenges within Horizon 2020, while a number of other EU-level initiatives (public-private
partnerships, EIT Knowledge and Innovation Communities, Industrial Leadership pillar of Horizon 2020) address
major challenges facing our society. However, a key finding of the Horizon 2020 interim evaluation is that investment
is fragmented across different funds, schemes and instruments. Thus a mission-oriented approach would create more
impact by concentrating EU investments in priority areas with a transformative potential for the economy, society
and/or environment.
Citizens are disengaged from EU research and innovation
The Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020 emphasises the clear need for greater outreach to citizens. Involving citizens,
customers and end-users in the future R&I programme's agenda-setting (co-design) and its implementation (co-
creation) will lead to more innovation by stimulating user-driven innovation and greater demand for innovative
solutions. This is one of the major opportunities afforded by adopting a more impact-focused, mission-oriented
approach in the future.
90
What do we have now in Horizon 2020?
Within a dedicated Societal Challenges pillar, seven societal challenges with a budget of around €30 billion
support collaborative research and innovation tackling specific challenges facing our society and economy.
Within Horizon 2020, over 20 Focus Areas were introduced in key areas where priorities cut across different
parts of the programme (i.e. blue growth, circular economy, Internet of Things, smart and sustainable cities, Digital
Security). Focus Areas concentrate resources and efforts on areas of high policy and political relevance and societal
concern. The interim evaluation of Horizon 2020 found that the programme's coherence was reinforced by the use of
focus areas, even if their multiplication has also resulted in some confusion.
Under the Future and Emerging Technologies scheme, Horizon 2020 supports two FET Flagship initiatives on
Graphene and the Human Brain (with a third Flagship, Quantum, planned to become fully operational under the future
programme). These large-scale partnerships are expected to run for about 10 years, with a total budget of around €1
billion each. A key overriding aim is to establish a close link between related activities (at European, national and
regional levels) of the research activities that contribute to the Flagship.
What have we learned from the Horizon 2020 Interim Evaluation?
"The EU should not spread its investments in R&I too thinly. Instead, it should prioritise investing in areas
where the EU added value is greatest and where the benefits of economies of speed, scale and scope can be reaped.
The post-2020 EU R&I programme should thus translate global societal challenges into a limited number of large-
scale R&I missions. These would define expected impacts across an entire portfolio of activities, rather than at the
level of individual call topics…. Missions should be open to all actors in the research and innovation cycle, easy to
communicate and capture public imagination and involvement. They should mobilise many actors and investors,
including at national level, and induce action across disciplines, sectors and institutional silos".
('LAB-FAB-APP: Investing in the European future we want' - Report of the High Level Group on Maximising the
Impact of EU R&I Programmes, July 2017)
In the conception and design of future research and innovation missions, it is also important to take
into account lessons learned from ongoing mission-like initiatives across EU countries. These
include the “Energiewende” plan to clean the energy system in in Germany by 2050, or the “Fossil
fuel-free vehicles by 2030” mission in Sweden. In the USA, the 'Cancer Moonshot' initiative
unveiled in 2016 aims to accelerate cancer research to achieve in 5 years (by 2023) research and
treatment gains that otherwise might take at least a decade, while the Apollo programme in the
1960s is estimated to have generated more than 400,000 jobs and over 1,800 spin-off companies153
.
What do stakeholders say?
A wide range of stakeholders back the idea of adopting a mission-oriented approach in the future EU R&I
programme. Examples of specific feedback within stakeholder position papers include:
 "We need to look beyond the short-termism of the current 3-year project cycle. Many of the problems to be
tackled through the missions will require contributions from across research fields and involve a wide variety
of stakeholders".
 "The concept of ‘missions’ looks attractive as it captures the objective of prioritising investments in areas
with a clear EU added value and of defining expected impacts for each of them. It also has the potential to
strengthen the link between research-driven and industry-driven EU level activities".
153
Source: Joint Institute of Innovation Policy, see 'References' section.
91
 "Continuing the explicit alignment of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals with the future
Framework Programme's missions is warranted for Europe to become the global leader in research and
innovation. Europe and its trading partners need a Framework Programme that is mission-oriented, addresses
both current and future global challenges, and encourages bottom-up solutions".
 "The potential added value of missions in the Framework Programme can contribute to making the results of
research and innovation more tangible for society at large. For these missions to be successful, however, it is
crucial that they have well-defined thematic goals. Missions should focus on topics where a European
approach has a distinct added value, and should be generated bottom-up and top-down in broader national
and European policy initiatives".
The Economic and Societal Impact of Research and Innovation (ESIR) expert group has emphasised that a future EU
mission-oriented approach would substantially increase private investment in R&D and increase the economic impact
of research and innovation through deployment diffusion and accompanying spill-overs. In short: a more holistic
approach which effectively supports the whole innovation cycle.
A structured consultation process to obtain stakeholder input on future EU R&I missions has taken place, including
the opening of a public call for expressions of interest from February 2018 until April 2018. In addition, as part of the
Joint Institute for Innovation Policy study (referenced on the final page), over 1800 responses were submitted to an
online survey and 40 stakeholders were interviewed. The responses, submitted by all types of stakeholders, strongly
emphasise that a mission-oriented approach would increase the impact achieved by the future programme.
2.2 What do we want to achieve with missions?
The need to create more impact from, and generate more citizen involvement within, EU research
and innovation activities through mission-orientation has been identified as one of the key
improvements to be made in the design and execution of the future EU R&I programme154
.
A mission-oriented approach in the future EU R&I programme will aim at:
 Prioritising investments where the EU added value in addressing a global challenge (social,
economic, environmental) is greatest:
 Focussing on areas with a transformative potential for science, technology, industry or society;
 Inducing cross-sectoral and multi-disciplinary collaboration in achieving mission goals,
including the social sciences and humanities;
 Stimulating demand for innovative solutions and support user-driven innovation through co-
design and co-creation of missions with citizens and civil society (including by taking into
account the local context and smart specialisation, where relevant);
 Improving communication and outreach on the contribution of R&I to providing solutions to
major global challenges;
 Inspiring, enthusing and mobilising citizens (and citizen groups)155
around a clear time-bound
goals;
 Set the direction for public and private sector research and innovation activities in Europe,
thereby leveraging further investments and improving societal uptake of innovative solutions.
154
See section 3.4 of the Commission Communication on the Interim Evaluation, January 2018 (COM(2018) 2 final), and the
recommendation of the ex-post evaluation of FP7 on: “bringing science closer to citizens” (COM(2016) 5 final).
155
"The process of engagement needs to make the best use of networked technologies, reach a wide number of citizens across the
European Union, and show clearly that people in every part of the Union have an opportunity to participate in setting priorities, and
opportunities to become further involved in the future". Citizen Participation in FP9: A model for mission and work programme
engagement. Democratic Society, February 2018, p.18. .
92
This approach would put into practice a number of key recommendations of the Horizon 2020
Interim Evaluation and the High Level Group report, thus demonstrating that missions would be an
appropriate tool of delivery for Horizon Europe.
2.3 What changes and what are the expected implications?
The legal proposal for Horizon Europe will lay down the selection criteria and methodology that
will frame a mission-oriented approach, while missions as such will be identified and chosen during
the implementation phase. The starting point and reference framework for defining a mission-
oriented approach are the UN's Sustainable Development Goals. The SDGs are a powerful point of
departure for rethinking Europe’s efforts, instruments and approaches to promote research and
innovation (as illustrated by the figure below), including through a mission-oriented approach.
Figure 18 From SDGs to mission-oriented innovation policy
EU SDG Indicator Set
Frontier 2030
(Europe)
EU
MS
Spending (MFF)
Sectoral policies
Horizontal policy
Semester/Cohesion funds
National SD
pathways
Mission innovation
Mission 1 Mission 2 Mission X
Governance
Tools
Progress/evaluation
Overall EU SDG goals Overall EU policy Mission-oriented innovation policy
Based on recommendations made by Prof M. Mazzucato, the criteria proposed for selecting
missions are:
 Bold, inspirational with wide societal relevance
 A clear direction: targeted, measurable and time-bound
 Ambitious but realistic in terms of research and innovation
 Cross-disciplinary, cross-sectoral, and cross-actor activities
 Multiple bottom-up solutions.
 Strong EU added value
Horizon Europe will introduce a limited number of highly visible R&I missions. Missions will
replace and build on the current "focus areas" used within Horizon 2020. They will be well-
defined156
and self-standing programme parts, as opposed to the focus areas which are 'virtually
linked calls' within the Horizon 2020 programme structure.
This will more clearly and directly incentivise cross-sectoral and cross-disciplinary cooperation.
Clear objectives and a clear rationale will be established at the mission's inception (addressing a
specific weakness identified in the focus areas approach) in order to define targets, clear time-bound
156
Over 20 Focus Areas were introduced in Horizon 2020, and the interim evaluation found that "their multiplication resulted in
some confusion" (p.149, In-Depth Staff Working Document on Horizon 2020 Interim Evaluation, SWD(2017) 220 final).
93
goals and expected impact. Non-prescriptive calls will underpin the missions, as opposed to the
'top-down' focus areas. Finally, missions will be co-designed with end users and citizens, thus
prioritising public engagement and involvement. As is generally accepted, governance regarding the
implementation of innovations and technologies "is both inevitable and desirable, helping to
develop shared ownership and responsibility of outcomes and risks"157
.
At the implementation stage, missions will be managed by a clearly identified and empowered
Mission Board that is responsible and held accountable for their progress and achievements.
Governance will be flexible, in order to adapt to changing challenges and to monitor critical issues
in real time for the purpose of reaching the final goals. Mission Boards will be involved in co-
designing the missions involving stakeholders and the wider public, providing input to the content
of the call for proposals and the evaluation of project proposals and in monitoring missions. A
mission manager will be appointed for each mission with the task of ensuring that the mission
objectives are reached through a portfolio approach. By involving citizens and stakeholders in the
definition, selection and monitoring of missions, a sense of urgency and collective commitment will
be created while also ensuring societal ownership of the missions158.
Future missions could accelerate technological, social or industrial change; or they could transform
entire systems. One type of missions could aim to accelerate progress towards a set technical or
societal solution, focusing large investment on a specific target with the aim of accelerating the
achievement of innovative – often disruptive – solutions (for example, efforts to accelerate market
uptake of post Li-ion battery and energy storage solutions). Another type of missions could focus on
transforming an entire social or industrial system within an established timeframe, for instance the
transformation of the entire energy system or a mobility system in cities (in line with major EU
policy goals). The distinctive feature would be a clear and measurable target set from the outset for
the complete transition linked to a year of achievement. This overall EU objective would articulate
new R&I solutions with regulatory, infrastructure, financial or social initatives initiated outside the
future EU R&I programme.
Figure 19 Characteristics of missions that accelerate and missions that transform
Missions that accelerate
 Can be scientific, technological, social or
industrial
 More narrowly defined missions that are linked
to specific breakthroughs.
 Targets will aim to speed up developments
already in the pipeline (e.g. lifesaving drug to
market in 5 rather than 10 years)
 The cross-sectoral and cross-disciplinary
dimension will be important
 The need to involve coordination with policy
and regulation may still exist, but will be less
strong than with transformer missions.
 Relevant targets to be defined by
straightforward indicators (xKW per hour for
€y by 20XX) or targets (vaccine for malaria by
20XX)
Missions that transform
 Address European societal challenges: aiming at
achieving truly transformative change in how economic
sectors and organisations work, and how citizens live.
 Will contain a number of accelerator missions aimed at
achieving related scientific, technological, social or
industrial aims
 Aligned with wider policy and regulatory measures and
demand-side stimulus (procurement)
 Broad coherence with wider European and international
policy agenda
 Require research and innovation achievements, but also
changes in regulation and user behaviour.
 Cover coordinated R&I activities in several sectors,
across thematic policies (i.e. energy, transport etc.) and
may require public sector innovation, social innovation,
behavioural change.
 The relevant targets will concern broad societal
indicators, presupposing a wide uptake of new
157
Democratic Society (2018), p.17.
158
"Missions require to set up specific governance structures with full-time professionals and to keep close contacts with all
stakeholders. A balanced system of separation of powers between steering, strategic and financial decision-making and the day-to-
day management is a must to establish from the outset" MOP2 study.
94
technologies, products and processes.
 Strong multi-level governance and coordination is
required (EU, national, regional and urban level)
The success of missions hinges on the timely and due consultation and dialogue with stakeholders,
to avoid the risk of disengagement and lack of follow-up. At implementation phase, a challenge will
be to ensure that evaluation and monitoring mechanisms can capture the long-term impacts of
missions. Finally, the uptake and roll-out of innovative solutions arising from the missions would
ultimately be dependent on wider framework conditions – this can be mitigated through policy
actions in the spirit of the Innovation Principle or through Innovation Deals159
. A mission-oriented
approach in Horizon Europe will thus require new adaptations and learning.
What are the expected implications?
 Improved cross-sectoral and cross-disciplinary cooperation. Missions
will require expertise from different sectors and disciplines to come together:
climate change cannot be fought by the energy sector alone; it will also
require changes in transport, nutrition, and in many other areas160
. Because
global challenges are complex and "wicked"161
, and their solutions imply
system transformations162
and creating instead of fixing markets163
, mission-
oriented R&I initiatives targeting them must ensure that the many
technologies will be developed and deployed across sectors164
. The mission-
oriented approach will work across clusters to promote these system-wide
transformations. This is confirmed by the large majority of stakeholders as an
appropriate support to mission orientation165
.
 Increased impact on global challenges and EU policy priorities. Missions
are expected to be more effective in delivering societal impact for end-users
and citizens, because they prioritise investments and set directions to achieve
objectives that are relevant for the society. Directionality and intentionality
are core features of mission-oriented R&I initiatives, and this differentiates
them from other types of policy initiatives like challenge-oriented and
systemic policies. Lack of directionality can impede system transformations
and lead to the failure of mission-oriented initiatives, as shown by many case
studies from across the globe that are driven by urgent societal challenges166
.
In addition, instituting a mission-oriented approach with visible targets is
likely to provide a reliable long-term framework incentivising private firms
and the public sector to invest in R&I, thus reaping new markets. Public R&I
159
https://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-deals/index.cfm
160
Mazzucato M. (2017), Mission-Oriented Innovation Policy: Challenges and Opportunities, Working Paper IIPP WP 2017-01.
161
Nelson, Richard R. “The Moon and the Ghetto Revisited.” Science and Public Policy 38, no. 9 (2011): 681–90.
162
Weber, K. Matthias, and Harald Rohracher. “Legitimizing Research, Technology and Innovation Policies for Transformative
Change: Combining Insights from Innovation Systems and Multi-Level Perspective in a Comprehensive ‘Failures’ Framework.”
Research Policy 41, no. 6 (2012): 1037–47.
163
Mazzucato, Mariana. “From Market Fixing to Market-Creating: A New Framework for Innovation Policy.” Industry and
Innovation 23, no. 2 (2016): 140–56.
164
Foray, Dominique, David C. Mowery, and Richard R. Nelson. “Public R&D and Social Challenges: What Lessons from Mission
R&D Programs?” Research Policy 41, no. 10 (2012): 1697–1702.
165
A survey conducted for the Joint Institute for Innovation Policy-coordinated survey recorded 80% of respondents agreeing that
cross-disciplinary and cross-sectoral calls for projects and proposals in the future is an appropriate tool for mission orientation.
166
Weber, K. Matthias, and Harald Rohracher. “Legitimizing Research, Technology and Innovation Policies for Transformative
Change: Combining Insights from Innovation Systems and Multi-Level Perspective in a Comprehensive ‘Failures’ Framework.”
Research Policy 41, no. 6 (2012): 1037–47. See also the Joint Institute for Innovation Policy study for a profiling of different
missions and their various drivers (including also geopolitical and technological challenges).
95
investments have a higher economic impact if they are directed to specific
missions, with targets set by policy in close interaction with both public and
private actors167
.
 Decreased gap between science/innovation and society. R&I missions
should be easy to communicate, in order to mobilise citizens and end-users in
their co-design and co-creation. In turn, this increases the relevance of
science and innovation for the society and it would stimulate the societal
uptake and deployment168
of innovative solutions and leverage business
investment.
2.4 What alternatives were considered?
 Replacing Societal Challenges with missions: an option would be to replace the current seven
societal challenges of Horizon 2020 with a similar number of missions, thus for instance having
a mission on energy and one on health. This would require large-scale missions that would need
to be broad in scope. This alternative was discarded because it is not suitable to meet the
operational objectives. Defining broad, large-scale missions entails a significant risk that they
would not provide sufficient focus. Furthermore, if missions become very broad there is a risk
that the involved stakeholders find it more difficult to feel ownership of the mission. Very broad
missions also have the disadvantage that they would be difficult to measure since they would
need to cover many different aspects.
 Continue with the Horizon 2020 focus areas: according to the interim evaluation of Horizon
2020, the focus areas in Horizon 2020 have boosted the programme's internal coherence and its
capacity to provide interdisciplinary solutions to multiple societal challenges. However,
adopting over 20 focus areas with limited overall coordination resulted in confusion among
stakeholders. Furthermore, the current strategic programming process for choosing focus areas
and priorities for the challenge pillar involves end-users and citizens only to a limited extent.
This leads to low awareness and acceptance of R&I driven societal transformation. Because the
focus areas are virtual and do not always have clear objectives, they do not provide the
necessary impetus to set the direction for public and private actors.
 Accelerator-type missions only: this alternative would imply that the 'Global Challenges' pillar
would allocate funding exclusively to future accelerator missions. Each call in the challenge
pillar programme would focus on one clear scientific, technological or industrial mission, with a
clearly defined target and timeline to achieve it. The lack of focus on entire systems means that
the transformative potential of accelerator missions would be smaller compared to transformer
missions, which could mean not delivering on EU strategic challenges, contributing to EU
policy-making and increasing cross-sectoral and cross-disciplinary cooperation. Furthermore,
the accelerator missions would often be less relatable to citizens.
 Transformer-type missions only: under this scenario, the Challenges pillar would be structured
to invest in future transformer missions, with a very large funding allocation. In the EU
framework programme for R&I each call in the challenge pillar would be defined as a
transformer mission, contributing to the overall EU policy agenda and a sustainable
development. The complexity of transforming entire systems entails a fairly high risk of not
reaching the set mission, which could lead involved stakeholders to find it more difficult to see
exactly what their role would be.
167
This is the view of the ESIR expert group. In other words, contrary to the approach of previous EU Framework Programmes,
setting up visible targets from the outset so that the future programme provides a reliable long-term framework incentivising private
firms to invest in R&I reaping new markets. Public R&I investments have a higher economic impact if they are directed to specific
missions, with targets set by policy in close interaction with both public and private actors.
168
Foray, Dominique, David C. Mowery, and Richard R. Nelson. “Public R&D and Social Challenges: What Lessons from Mission
R&D Programs?” Research Policy 41, no. 10 (2012): 1697–1702.
96
More widely, if the Global Challenges pillar only is implemented via missions, many of the current
topics and calls that address specific policy needs could not be implemented since they do not
require a large-scale intervention. Furthermore, many current R&I areas would no longer be tackled
leading to a significant decrease in the capacities in these areas. This would make it difficult to pave
the way for new missions in areas not covered by current ones.
2.5 How will the mission-oriented approach be implemented?
Only a part of the Global Challenges pillar would be implemented through missions, thus leaving
room to operate more 'traditional' calls for proposals as in Horizon 2020. Future missions will often
cut across the different programme parts for collaborative research, and thus they will require
flexibility in implementation.
 Co-creation of potential missions with Member States, stakeholders,
citizens and other actors will be a key part of the strategic
programming process, while the choice of missions should be
adaptable to future needs and policy priorities at EU level.
 Aligned with the guiding principles of Responsible Research and
Innovation in ensuring that governance of science is fully
transparent, citizens will thus be involved in the priority-setting of
the missions.
 Missions will define the expected impact at call level, meaning that
the calls for proposals can be more open than is the case in Horizon
2020 work programmes.
 If needed to achieve a particular mission, work will also be carried
out to provide input to put in place a proactive regulatory framework
that can be conducive to innovation.
 Involvement of end-users could be defined as an award criterion, or
alternatively as an eligibility criterion, for project proposals.
Missions will be implemented using the existing Executive Agencies of the Commission and will
largely use the same evaluation criteria as the rest of the Framework Programme. However, some
specific features are foreseen as regards the evaluation of proposals under a specific future mission:
 The project proposers should be able to choose the most suitable instrument out of a given
toolbox
 When evaluating project proposals under missions higher weighting for contributing to the
mission impact could be introduced
 At the level of selecting project proposals, it should be possible to select proposals that are not
in the ranking order as established by the evaluators, on the grounds that they are more likely to
achieve the mission objectives;
 At the level of project management there should be an option to easily amend/terminate projects
2.6 Relevant studies
 Mission-Oriented Research and Innovation: assessing the impact of a mission-oriented research and innovation
approach. The Joint Institute for Innovation Policy, Joanneum Research, Tecnalia, TNO, VTT, the Danish
Technological Institute, and Valdani Vicari & Associati (2018).
97
 Citizen Participation in FP9: A model for mission and work programme engagement. Democratic Society,
February 2018.
 Mission-Oriented Research and Innovation in the European Union: A problem-solving approach to fuel
innovation-led growth, by Mariana Mazzucato. February 2018.
 Mission-Oriented Research and Innovation Policy: A RISE Perspective, February 2018.
 Towards a Mission-Oriented Research and Innovation Policy in the European Union: An ESIR Memorandum,
December 2017.
 LAB-FAB-APP: Investing in the European future we want: Report of the High Level Group on Maximising
the Impact of EU Research and Innovation Programmes, July 2017.
 European Commission (2017), Interim evaluation of Horizon 2020, Staff Working Document (SWD).
98
3 International R&I cooperation
3.1 Why do we need international R&I cooperation and why should this be done at EU
level?
International cooperation in R&I is key to ensure that researchers and innovators in the EU have
access to knowledge, knowhow and facilities that lie outside the Union. They need to collaborate
with their counterparts worldwide to tackle increasingly interlinked global societal challenges and
to ensure that companies in the EU stay competitive. EU-level action can more effectively shape
multilateral R&I policy agendas and actions and framework conditions for cooperation.
The increasing scope and interconnectivity of global societal challenges require more international
joint R&I action and coordination of R&I agendas. This is also seen in the increasing number of
multilateral initiatives that have emerged in the last decade such as the Belmont Forum169
and
Mission Innovation170
, shaping the global R&I policy agenda and coordinating efforts.
With growing dominance of international collaborative research in knowledge production and the
emergence of new countries as major R&I players, the EU needs to intensify its access to, and
benefits from, the world’s best talents, expertise and resources. Over the last decade, the EU's share
of the world's gross expenditures in R&D has dropped from one fourth to one fifth. The EU's share
of scientific publications has dropped from one third to one fourth and the EU share of patents has
also dropped from one third to one fourth171
.
International cooperation is important to support to the internationalisation of innovative EU
companies and their global scale-up, by removing barriers to enter global value chains and foreign
markets. International co-invention of patents has increased significantly across almost all
technologies over the last decade, and most countries have experienced significant increases in the
share of foreign value added in exports and final consumption.
There are clear benefits of intensifying international R&I cooperation at EU level, compared to
what can be achieved by Member States alone. Openness of the Framework Programme to third
countries enhances the EU added value of the Programme itself, allowing EU participants to
collaborate with the best minds in the world. The EU can more effectively shape policy agendas
when represented as a single voice in multilateral fora and international organisations. The EU has a
comparative advantage as compared to single Member States when negotiating bilateral agreements
with third countries regarding framework conditions such as mutual openness of funding
programmes or issues related to Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) protection. Thanks to the
Framework Programme, Member States are enabled to cooperate with several third countries,
including countries with which they do not have bilateral agreements.
What do we have now in Horizon 2020?
Association to the programme is limited to countries geographically close to Europe: Enlargement, EFTA and
European Neighbourhood Policy countries, as well as countries already associated to FP7. Legal entities from
Associated Countries can participate in actions under the same terms and conditions as entities from Member States.
Legal entities from non-associated third-countries can participate in projects in all parts of the programme, e.g.
for mono-beneficiary grants, specific close-to-market innovation activities and actions for access to risk finance.
Third-country nationals are eligible to apply for ERC grants when the host institution is in a Member State or
169
https://ec.europa.eu/research/environment/index.cfm?pg=belmont
170
http://mission-innovation.net/
171
Science, Research and Innovation performance of the EU (2016); World Intellectual Property Indicators, WIPO (2015).
99
Associated Country. Third-country nationals are eligible for all MSCA actions except for Global Fellowships and for
the European Reintegration Panel.
Except for a few cases, only participants from low- and middle-income countries are automatically eligible to
receive EU funding. EU funding can be exceptionally granted to other third-country entities whose participation is
deemed essential for carrying out an action.
What have we learned from Horizon 2020 Interim Evaluation?
Targeted international R&I cooperation initiatives are needed to pursue strategic cooperation.
Targeted activities are important incentives to attract international engagement. While topics that are particularly
relevant for international cooperation correspond to around 25% of all Work Programmes' topics, they attract around
75% of international participation. Moreover, the established co-funding mechanisms with countries that are not
eligible for funding have proven more effective in increasing their participation to the programme when combined
with targeted activities, such as those with China that have to a high degree restored the initial drop of the country's
participation. Much participation from countries eligible for funding is also due to targeted actions.
Association agreement with the programme does not necessarily lead to increased participation.
The programme's highly competitive, excellence-driven nature has led to noticeable disparity in the engagement of
associated countries: participation of those with less advanced R&I systems is far more challenging than those with
strong R&I systems. On the other hand, policy support, mobility and coordination actions have proven beneficial for
some of the underperforming countries. For example, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, Israel have long-standing
participation in the EU Framework Programmes and a very strong performance. For ENP countries, the association
has contributed to the integration of their R&I systems in the ERA, despite lack of national capacity needed to fully
benefit from their association.
Secured (EU and third country) funding for R&I is an important incentive to attract international
engagement.
EU funding has proven to be an important incentive for engaging third countries in the programme. The
discontinuation in Horizon 2020 of the automatic funding to organisations from Brazil, Russia, India, China and
Mexico caused an important decrease of their participation. Most countries for which the rules of funding remained
the same did not experience such a significant drop. Third-country co-funding mechanisms can lead to increased
participation. However, effectiveness depends on their implementation and successful communication to potential
third-country applicants.
Investing in global multilateral R&I partnerships brings important benefits, but implementation can be
improved.
Horizon 2020 shifted towards investing more on programmatic cooperation and multilateral instruments. This has
contributed to better international coordination and leverage of investments from other countries. However, there is
need for further rationalisation of funding schemes and there is space for improvement in the implementation of EU
support to international initiatives.
What do stakeholders say?
Stakeholder provided the following recommendations for EU support to international R&I cooperation:
 Strengthen international R&I cooperation in the Framework Programme while encouraging reciprocity.
 Explore synergies between the Framework Programme and national R&I strategies, structures, instruments and
networks to support strategic coordination of international cooperation in the Framework Programme.
 Use the Sustainable Development Goals to frame large-scale R&I missions and stimulate and steer international
R&I cooperation on common global challenges.
 Organise the Framework Programme to facilitate access to and benefits from talent, knowledge, ideas and
markets across the globe.
100
 Associate third countries to the Framework Programme based on their excellence in R&I, not confined to one
part of the world.
3.2 What do we want to achieve with international cooperation?
International cooperation in R&I is indispensable for effectively tackling global challenges and for
implementing global commitments. It will aim at:
 Attracting the participation of the world's top researchers, innovators and knowledge-
intensive companies.
 Shaping the global R&I policy agenda, in particular for addressing common challenges and
for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.
 Contributing to Europe's efforts to harness globalisation by establishing fairer framework
conditions with international partners.
3.3 What changes and what are the expected implications?
International cooperation will be intensified based on the following:
 Extend association to the Framework Programme, beyond EU enlargement, EEA countries and
ENP countries, to include all countries with proven science, technology and innovation
capacities to make cooperation and funding of joint projects as smooth as possible.
 Intensify support to international large-scale flagship initiatives, partnerships, bilateral and
multilateral initiatives and joint programmes and calls, to increase EU access to researchers,
knowledge and resources worldwide and optimise benefits from cooperation.
 The programme will continue to fund entities from low-mid income countries, and to fund
entities from industrialised and emerging economies only if they possess essential competences.
What are the expected implications?
 Improved excellence of the Programme. Attracting and collaborating
with the world's top researchers, innovators and knowledge-intensive
companies reinforces the EU’s science and technology base. Evidence
shows that international collaboration increases the impact of scientific
publications172
.
 Higher influence of the EU in shaping global R&I systems. This
approach will enhance the EU leading role in setting the policy agenda,
in particular for addressing common challenges and for achieving the
Sustainable Development Goals. The mutual benefits of international
cooperation strengthen EU leadership in the knowledge-intensive
economy. The Programme will be an effective instrument in Europe's
efforts to harness globalisation by removing barriers to innovation and by
establishing fairer framework conditions with international partners.
172
Within the Programme, peer-reviewed publications with at least one associated or third country have a higher impact than other
ones: European Commission (2017), Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020, SWD(2017) 220, book, p. 115.
101
 More impact from the Programme. Increased international cooperation
will reinforce EU R&I excellence and the creation and diffusion of high-
quality knowledge in the EU. Cooperating internationally is
indispensable as the scope and interconnectivity of global societal
challenges increase and require more international joint action and
coordination of agendas International openness of the innovation eco-
systems will strengthen EU competitiveness by promoting a level playing
field and enhancing supply and demand of innovative solutions. The
association agreements with countries having excellent R&I capacities
will facilitate mutual access to European and third-country know-how
and markets as cooperation with top third country innovators facilitates
access to expertise that is increasingly developed outside the EU.
3.4 What alternatives were considered?
The international dimension of the Framework Programme depends on its openness to association,
participation and funding of third countries, as well as the scale of targeted international
cooperation actions. Alternatives to a Framework Programme less 'Open to the World' than Horizon
2020 include, for instance, a Framework Programme without targeted actions, which would mean
losing opportunities to pursue strategic international cooperation in line with EU priorities; a
Framework Programme that would not fund entities from developing countries, which would be
damaging since many of these countries play a major role in global efforts on tackling global
challenges; and a Framework Programme excluding third-country entities from close-to-market
activities, which would hamper prospects of EU-based companies to exploit growing supply of and
demand for innovative solutions in new and emerging markets outside Europe.
3.5 How will international cooperation be implemented?
 The future Programme will be open to association of EU enlargement, EEA
countries and ENP countries, as well as other countries with proven science,
technology and innovation capacities. The rules governing their financial
contribution should ensure a close approximation between payments and returns.
 The Programme will promote and integrate cooperation with international
partner countries based on common interest and mutual benefit and identified
based on their science and technology capabilities, market opportunities and
impact on EU competitiveness, contribution to international commitments, and
framework conditions for cooperation.
 The Programme will intensify synergies with EU external policies, e.g. to help
build R&I capacity, support diffusion and uptake of innovation, and contribute to
the EU's economic and development policy objectives.
 The general opening for participation of entities from all third countries will be
maintained, while encouraging comparable reciprocal access to third country
programmes.
 The Programme will continue to fund entities from low-mid income countries,
and to fund entities from industrialised and emerging economies only if they
possess essential competences or facilities.
102
 Cooperation through strategic targeted initiatives will be reinforced with a wider
use of a range of implementation tools:
- Programme co-funds for supporting international partnerships, multilateral
initiatives and joint programmes;
- Joint, coordinated and twinning calls for bilateral and multilateral
cooperation;
- Calls for proposals on topics of broad scale and scope mandating or
strongly encouraging third-country participation.
3.6 Relevant studies
 OECD Science Technology and Industry Scoreboard (2017).
 Science, Research and Innovation Performance of the EU (2016).
 "Global Catastrophic Risks ", Global Challenges Foundation (2017).
 "Rates of return to investment in science and innovation", prepared for the UK Dept. for Business, Innovation
and Skills (2014).
 World Intellectual Property Indicators, WIPO (2015).
 European Commission (2016), Analysis of the International Positioning of the EU Using Revealed
Comparative Advantages and the Control of Key Technologies.
 “Global Startup Ecosystem Report”, Startup Genome LLC. (2017).
 "EU Industrial R&D investment Scoreboard", EC (2016).
 "Analysis of ERA-NET Cofund actions under Horizon 2020", Expert Group Report (2016).
 LAB-FAB-APP: Investing in the European future we want: Report of the High Level Group on Maximising
the Impact of EU Research and Innovation Programmes, July 2017.
 European Commission (2017), Interim evaluation of Horizon 2020, Staff Working Document (SWD).
103
4 Open Science
4.1 Why do we need Open Science and why should it be supported at EU level?
Open Science entails a general shift towards a more open, collaborative, data-intensive and
networked way of doing research and sharing research results. It supports the early sharing of
research outputs in open access modes, empowers the participation of non-academic scientists in the
research process (e.g. citizen-scientists), and. promotes an active engagement with the public.
Among stakeholders in Europe and internationally there is a shared understanding of the potential
benefits of Open Science and of the fact that Open Science is the direction that research policy
should be advancing. EU Member States are gradually establishing strategies for open access and
Open Science, and have endorsed politically the transition towards an Open Science system in the
Competitiveness Council Conclusions adopted in May 2016.
Open Science contributes to swiftly advancing research and addressing societal challenges, helps
fight against unnecessary duplication, non-reproducibility of research, fraud and scientific
misconduct. Traditional, closed scientific practices, on the other hand, are obstacles to scientific
progress and limit the economic and social impact of science.
Open Science is needed to enhance the efficiency of EU support to R&I by facilitating the
circulation and re-use of the excellent research and innovation funded by the Framework
Programme. Supporting it at the EU level will accelerate the transition to Open Science in Europe,
and its positive effects will be amplified by the wider scale at which they are implemented (e.g.
more research data openly accessible leads to less duplication). Moreover, the European
Commission already supports through Horizon 2020 Work Programmes the development of the
European Open Science Cloud as the underpinning research data infrastructure for Open Science in
Europe.
Challenges
Only some two thirds of scientific publications supported by the EU Framework Programme are openly accessible,
locking them away from innovative SMEs, interested citizens, and fellow researchers.
There is a very large economic potential of opening up access to research outputs (including data) from publicly
supported research. The estimated economic return on investment made for the Human Genome project is close to
10.
104
What do we have now in Horizon 2020?
Open access to publications: Open access to publications is mandatory, i.e. self-archiving ('Green OA') only
or the combination of open access publishing with self-archiving ('Gold OA' combined with 'Green OA'). Open
access publishing is encouraged and relevant costs eligible. Beneficiaries are encouraged by guidelines to keep
enough (copy)right to self-archive but are not legally empowered to do so.
Open access to research data: Participation in the Open Research Data Pilot is the default for Horizon 2020
projects, and it requires them to develop a Data Management Plan (DMP). Under specific conditions it is possible
to opt out from the Pilot at any stage of the proposal/project. There is no reference to FAIR data (Findable,
Accessible, Interoperable, Re-usable). Data is 'as open as possible, as closed as necessary’.
What have we learned from Horizon 2020 Interim Evaluation? What have we learned from Horizon 2020
Interim Evaluation?
While Horizon 2020 has made great progress in terms of making the scientific publications and data it
generates openly accessible to the wider scientific community and public, more can be done in this respect. In
addition to further efforts for mainstreaming open access and open data practices, much remains to be done to
promote broader Open Science practices.
Only ~61-68% of publications funded by Horizon 2020 appear to be actually available in open access.
Participation rates in the Horizon 2020 Open Research Data Pilot for the years 2014-2016 were 68% of projects in
the pilot’s core areas, with an additional 9% voluntarily opting in (from non-core areas). For 2017, preliminary
data indicates a participation rate of 62%.
What do stakeholders say?
 In the context of the Open Science Policy Platform established by the European Commission in 2016,
representatives of the main stakeholders have issued detailed and consensual advice on how to further
elaborate and implement Open Science policies.
 Adopting policies towards Open Science is recommended by the RISE high level advisory group for policy
development, which supports the Commissioner in setting the policy agenda.
 Open Science and the significance of open data has been underlined in the G7 Science Communiqué in Turin
(September 2017).
 Research performing organisations increasingly require open access to publications and data resulting from
their funding, and incentivise Open Science practices through specific programmes or awards. Increasingly,
universities are considering new ways to assess researchers’ careers and requiring new types of research skills
from researchers.
4.2 What do we want to achieve with Open Science?
The rather limited progress at the EU level in the transition towards Open Science, including on
open access to research outputs, has been identified as one of the specific improvements to be made
in the new Framework Programme. A reinforced support to Open Science will contribute to the
Framework Programme objectives. More specifically, Open Science will aim at:
 Increasing the circulation of openly accessible high-quality scientific content to stimulate the
rapid creation and diffusion of more high-quality scientific information;
 Improving the reproducibility and re-use of research data, and decreasing unwanted
duplication;
 Participating in the globalisation of Open Science through G7/G20, GRC, initiatives on
research data – both general (RDA) and sector specific, and as an integrated component of
multilateral bilateral agreements (e.g. with CERN).
105
 Increasing and improving the level of openness, transparency and networked collaboration
leading to a higher degree of responsiveness of the research community to societal challenges;
 Sponsoring trustworthy and more accessible science from the point of view of citizens and civil
society organisations, by engaging with them in the programming and conduct of scientific
activities.
 Fostering innovation, in particular among innovative SMEs by facilitating and accelerating
access to cutting edge discoveries.
4.3 What changes and what are the expected implications?
 The open access mandate for publications will be simplified with more straightforward
provisions; enabling conditions will be put in place for authors/beneficiaries to be able to
comply with it.
 Open access to research data will be disambiguated from Data Management Plans (DMPs) and
emphasis will be placed on sound research data management. While the open data mandate will
continue to apply by default but with opting-out possibilities in duly justified cases under the
principle 'as open as possible, as closed as necessary', the development and implementation of a
DMP will be an obligation for all projects producing data.
 Emphasis will be placed on supporting as much as possible the proliferation of data that is
Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Re-usable (FAIR).
 The Programme will fully embrace and support Open Science as the new research modus
operandi.
What are the expected implications?
 Increase the availability of scientific output in open access. A higher
percentage of projects will make their outputs (publications, data, algorithms
etc.) available in open access because of the simplification of provisions, the
stricter formulation of exceptions, and financial support provided through the
Programme.
 Higher levels of excellent research and innovation. Placing high quality
content in the open, and stimulating knowledge diffusion, improves science
communication and enables interdisciplinary research. Large bodies of peer-
reviewed scientific information will be made available to everyone and
across global challenges.
 Increased accessibility to high quality digital content. Data are
increasingly becoming the starting point for innovation, with high returns.
With digitisation, it can be expected that SMEs and other companies will
base new business models on digital content, hence will reap the benefits of a
strengthened Open data environment in Europe and maximise the
exploitation of digital resources through reusability.
 Higher societal impact. The Programme will improve reach-out and
involvement of citizens in the research process, contributing to building a
society based on knowledge and education. Open science allows citizens to
be part of the research process (for example through citizen science), helping
lifelong learning and developing an informed society for the 21st
century
challenges.
106
4.4 What alternatives were considered?
Alternatives consisting of softer policy or no open access policy were ruled out for a variety of
reasons: firstly and most importantly, they do not contribute towards but rather go against the
objectives of the Framework Programme for the circulation of knowledge and enhancing open
science. Studies show that non-binding funder and institutional open access (as opposed to
mandates), lead to limited uptake of the policies.173
It is therefore to be expected that going back on
the requirements of the current policy would result in less uptake than we currently observe
(roughly 61% for publications) with all the relevant disadvantages for research, innovation and
society described above (cf. section on problem definition). Further, discontinuing an open access
policy, or open research data policy, would be against coordinated initiatives of funders and MS
described earlier and is not expected to enjoy political support.
4.5 How will Open Science be implemented?
 Open access will be adapted to the evolving scholarly communication
environment. Open access to all scientific publications will continue to be
mandatory and requirements will be introduced for beneficiaries to ensure that
they or the authors retain sufficient intellectual property rights to ensure
compliance with the open access requirements. Early sharing of publications
(pre-prints) will satisfy open access requirements. Article Processing Charges
will be eligible for purely open access publishing venues (i.e. not 'hybrid'
journals)..
 Data Management Plans will be required of all projects producing research data
in view of making Data Management an integral part of the research process.
 Open access to research data will be the general rule following the principle 'as
open as possible, as closed as necessary'; possibilities for exceptions will be
available for duly justified reasons (e.g. concerns related to commercial
exploitation, protection of personal data or confidentiality/security).
 Open access to other related research outputs will be promoted (e.g. to software,
algorithms).
 Mandatory technical standards will be crafted to ensure that scientific
information, publications, data and other outputs, as well as the metadata about
them is available for re-use in the long term. This includes the use of persistent
and unique identifiers, the use of certified repositories that are compliant to the
standards of the European Open Science Cloud; finally, it includes complying to
the FAIR principles for the management of research data produced by projects.
 Requirements for recognized good Open Science practices for the entire research
cycle will become embedded in select work programmes, depending on the
scientific discipline and their particular focus.
 Financial incentives to encourage Open Science practices may be deployed in
some work programmes as incentives for full compliance with good Open
Science practices. This will also concern training and development for
researchers seeking to acquire and improve their skills in Open Science.
 As to rewards for Open Science, a label will be introduced to recognise
universities which embody modern, collaborative practices.
 Research integrity will be fully incorporated in guidance documents and likewise
the Commission will promote the adaptation of the European Code of Conduct
173
A. Swan, 2015. Open Access policy effectiveness: A briefing paper for research institutions, PASTEUR4OA project policy
resources, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.54748 (Open Access Policy Alignment STrategies for European Union Research (611742)).
107
for Research Integrity in order to accompany the support of Open Science.
Minimum scientific quality requirements (e.g. publishing research protocols) will
also be foreseen.
 In order to build effective co-operation between science and society, funding will
be ensured for Citizen Science, as well as dedicated parts of the Framework
Programme. Specific Key Performance and Impact Indicators linked to citizen
science activities will also be set.
 Combined with qualitative expert assessment, next generation metrics will be
used to accurately capture the uptake of Open Science.
 Open Science will be an element to consider in the evaluation of proposals.
4.6 Relevant studies
 Tennant JP, Waldner F, Jacques DC et al. (2016), The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open
Access: an evidence-based review. F1000Research 2016, 5:632 (doi: 10.12688/f1000research.8460.3).
 Kittrie E, Atienza AA, Kiley R, Carr D, MacFarlane A, Pai V, et al. (2017) Developing international open
science collaborations: Funder reflections on the Open Science Prize. PLoS Biol 15(8): e2002617.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2002617
 LAB-FAB-APP: Investing in the European future we want, Report of the High Level Group on Maximising
the Impact of EU Research and Innovation Programmes, July 2017.
 European Commission (2017), Interim evaluation of Horizon 2020, Staff Working Document (SWD).
108
5 European Partnerships
5.1 Why do we need research and innovation partnerships at EU level?
Through research and innovation (R&I) partnerships, the Framework Programme since 2002 pools
resources between the European Union (EU), the private sector and the Member States to tackle big
challenges, support competitiveness and jobs, develop closer synergies with national and regional
programmes, and encourage greater public and private investment in research and innovation.
Beyond supporting the development of a true European Research Area (ERA), EU-wide
partnerships provide EU added value by contributing to the openness and transnational cooperation
in R&I in Europe. They also provide leverage and directions for European R&I investments to
address common policy objectives.
What do we have now in Horizon 2020?
Figure 20 Overview of R&I partnerships supported under Horizon 2020, including their implementation modes
Horizon 2020 supports two broad categories of partnerships:
 Public-private partnerships (PPP): mainly involving industry, i.e. Article 187 initiatives and contractual
PPPs (cPPPs); and
 Public-public partnerships (P2P): involving mainly Member States, i.e. Article 185 initiatives, ERA-NET
Cofund, European Joint Programming-Cofund (EJP-Cofund) and Joint Programming Initiatives174
.
In addition it supports other types of partnerships through the Future and Emerging Technologies (FET)
Flagships and the Knowledge and Innovation Communities of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology
(KICs).
What are the criteria for the identification of R&I partnerships under Horizon 2020?
Public-private partnerships (Article 25 of Horizon 2020 Regulation)
1. Horizon 2020 may be implemented through public- private partnerships where all the partners concerned commit
to supporting the development and implementation of pre- competitive research and of innovation activities of
strategic importance to the Union's competitiveness and industrial leadership or to addressing specific societal
challenges. Public- private partnerships shall be implemented in such a way that full participation of the best
European players is not impeded.
174
Not included here are the European Innovation Partnerships (EIPs) as they do not entail EU support for direct R&D activities.
109
2. The involvement of the Union in public-private partnerships shall make use of the pre-existing and lean
governance structures and may take one of the following forms:
(a) financial contributions from the Union to joint undertakings established pursuant to Article 187 TFEU under the
Seventh Framework Programme, subject to the amendment of their basic acts; to new public-private partnerships
established pursuant to Article 187 TFEU; and to other funding bodies referred to in points (iv) and (vii) of point (c)
of Article 58(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012. This form of partnerships shall only be implemented
where the scope of the objectives pursued and the scale of the resources required justify it taking full account of the
relevant impact assessments, and where other forms of partnerships would not fulfil the objectives or would not
generate the necessary leverage;
(b) contractual arrangements between the partners referred to in paragraph 1, which specify the objectives of the
partnership, respective commitments of the partners, key performance indicators, and outputs to be delivered,
including the identification of research and innovation activities that require support from Horizon 2020.
With a view to involving interested partners, including, as appropriate, end-users, universities, SMEs and research
institutions, public-private partnerships shall make public funds accessible through transparent processes and mainly
through competitive calls, governed by rules for participation in compliance with those of Horizon 2020. Exceptions
to the use of competitive calls should be duly justified.
3. Public-private partnerships shall be identified and implemented in an open, transparent and efficient way. Their
identification shall be based on all of the following criteria:
(a) the demonstration of the added value of the action at Union level and of the choice of the instrument to be used;
(b) the scale of impact on industrial competitiveness, job creation, sustainable growth and socio-economic issues,
including societal challenges, assessed against clearly specified and measurable objectives;
(c) the long-term commitment, including a balanced contribution from all partners based on a shared vision and
clearly defined objectives;
(d) the scale of the resources involved and the ability to leverage additional investments in research and innovation;
(e) a clear definition of roles for each of the partners and agreed key performance indicators over the period chosen;
(f) complementarity with other parts of Horizon 2020 and alignment with the Union research and innovation strategic
priorities, in particular those of the Europe 2020 strategy.
Where appropriate, complementarity between priorities and activities and the involvement of Member States shall be
ensured in public-private partnerships.
4. The research priorities covered by public-private partnerships may, where appropriate, be included in regular calls
in Horizon 2020 work programmes, in order to develop new synergies with research and innovation activities of
strategic importance.
Public-public partnerships (Article 26 of Horizon 2020 Regulation)
Horizon 2020 shall contribute to the strengthening of public-public partnerships, as and when appropriate, where
actions at regional, national or international level are jointly implemented within the Union. Particular attention shall
be paid to Joint Programming Initiatives between Member States. Joint Programming Initiatives receiving support
from Horizon 2020 shall remain open to the participation of any Member State or associated country.
Public-public partnerships may be supported either within, or across, the priorities set out in Article 5(2), in particular
through:
(a) an ERA-NET instrument using grants to support public- public partnerships in their preparation, establishment of
networking structures, design, implementation and coordination of joint activities, as well as Union topping-up of no
more than one joint call a year, and of actions of a transnational nature;
(b) Union participation in programmes undertaken by several Member States in accordance with Article 185 TFEU
where the participation is justified by the scope of the objectives pursued and the scale of the resources required.
For the purposes of point (a) of the first subparagraph, top-up funding shall be conditional on the demonstration of
the added value of the action at Union level and on prior indicative financial commitments in cash or in kind of the
participating entities to the joint calls and actions. One of the objectives of the ERA-NET instrument may, where
possible, be to harmonise rules and implementation modalities of the joint calls and actions. It may also be used in
order to prepare for an initiative pursuant to Article 185 TFEU.
For the purposes of point (b) of the first subparagraph, such initiatives shall only be proposed 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, proposals for such initiatives shall
be identified on the basis of all of the following criteria:
110
(a) a clear definition of the objective to be pursued and its relevance to the objectives of Horizon 2020 and broader
Union policy objectives;
(b) indicative financial commitments of the participating countries, in cash or in kind, including prior commitments
to align national and/or regional investments for transnational research and innovation and, where appropriate, to
pool resources;
(c) the added value of the action at Union level;
(d) the critical mass, with regard to the size and the number of programmes involved, the similarity or
complementarity of activities and the share of relevant research they cover;
(e) the appropriateness of Article 185 TFEU for achieving the objectives.
Proposals for Article 185 initiatives shall be identified on the basis of all of the following criteria:
a) a clear definition of the objective to be pursued and its relevance to the objectives of Horizon 2020 and
broader Union policy objectives;
b) indicative financial commitments of the participating countries, in cash or in kind, including prior
commitments to align national and/or regional investments for transnational research and innovation and,
where appropriate, to pool resources;
c) the added value of the action at Union level;
d) the critical mass, with regard to the size and the number of programmes involved, the similarity or
complementarity of activities and the share of relevant research they cover;
e) the appropriateness of Article 185 TFEU for achieving the objectives.
Other partnerships – EIT Knowledge and Innovation Communities (EIT Regulation and SIA)
The European Institute of Innovation and Technology selects and designates partnerships into Knowledge and
Innovation Communities according to the priority fields and time schedule defined in the EIT Strategic Innovation
Agenda. This selection and priority-setting process is governed by the EIT Regulation175
.
The interim evaluations of Horizon 2020-supported partnership initiatives show how effective they are in
leveraging significant additional private and public funding and in aligning R&I priorities across Europe.
Public-public partnerships under Article 185, e.g. Eurostars2, European and Developing Countries Clinical
Trials Partnership 2 (EDCTP2) have created long-term R&I partnerships and networks between research
funders and governments, thus contributing to the European Research Area (ERA). They mobilise significant
investment in transnational research projects in important policy areas, with an increasingly global action
remit. The key strength for all public-private partnerships under Article 187, e.g. CleanSky2 JU, Bio-
Based Industries (BBI JU), is their ability to engage and leverage strategic industry partners in priority areas
of action for the Union, across borders and business sectors, and their direct contribution to competitiveness
and EU policy goals. They link activities across the innovation cycle, and help overcome fragmentation in
their respective sectors by creating long-lasting precompetitive collaborative networks that bring together
previously unrelated stakeholders. Contractual PPPs, e.g. Factories of the Future (FoF), Energy-efficient
Buildings (EeB), were found to have broadly achieved their goals, being flexible and efficiently managed,
bringing together major industrial partners in EU-driven strategies, with mutual understanding of
deliverables by industry and a high level of transparency, and openness in participation, including of SMEs.
The KICs of the EIT succeeded in creating a portfolio of nearly 250 supported star-ups and scale-ups and
were able to raise nearly 300 M€ of equity investments.
Challenges
Need to rationalise the European R&I partnerships landscape
There are so far close to 100 different R&I partnerships, of which around 80 Public-Public Partnerships, in Horizon
2020. Multiple partnership structures and networks are established without clear exit strategies for the EU funding. This results
in the risk of a static system that gives preference to the continuation of existing partnerships without self-sustainability, instead
of creating opportunities for new ones of greater relevance.
175
https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/cc76ff75-6bff-11e3-9afb-01aa75ed71a1/language-en
111
Need to improve the openness and transparency to launch future European R&I partnerships
Smaller actors and R&D less-intensive countries and regions often do not have necessary (human) resources to participate on
equal terms. 46 % of Horizon 2020 funding in Joint Undertakings goes to 3 Member States and 18% of PPP funding
go to SMEs (23% in the case of cPPPs). This is a barrier for a more optimal and inclusive participation of all types of
stakeholders, favouring rather closed incumbents networks from a limited number of countries and hampering the diffusion of
knowledge across borders, sectors, disciplines and along the value chain.
Need to link European R&I partnerships to future EU R&I missions and strategic priorities
There is limited coherence between R&I partnerships within certain thematic fields (including obvious thematic
overlaps) and between the R&I partnerships and priorities of the Framework Programme: This tends to favour partnerships
which have a strong political support, without ensuring a selection towards partnerships with the highest impact probability in
complementarity with actions of the Framework Programme.
What have we learned from evaluations on the areas for improvement for R&I partnerships?
The Horizon 2020 Interim Evaluation concludes that the overall partnership landscape has become overly
complex and fragmented. While the overall number of R&I partnerships in Horizon 2020 is about 100, they represent
on average about 25% of the available Horizon 2020 budget with PPPs (cPPPs and JTIs) accounting for about 17.5%
of the Horizon 2020 budget. The interim evaluation identifies the need to rationalise the overall European research
and innovation partnership landscape, improve their openness and transparency, and link them with future EU R&I
missions and strategic priorities.
The Article 185 evaluation finds that the EU public-to-public cooperation (P2P) landscape has become
crowded, with too many similar initiatives working with insufficient coherence among the P2Ps, as well as between
the P2Ps and Horizon 2020.
The Article 187 evaluation points out that Public-Private Partnership (PPP) activities need to be brought more
in line with EU, national and regional policies, and calls for a revision of the Key Performance Indicators.
The contractual PPPs (cPPPs) review identified challenges of coherence among cPPPs and the need to develop
synergies with initiatives such as KICs.
The EIT evaluation identifies the need to develop further synergies with other EU initiatives (at programming
and implementation level) such as other parts of Horizon 2020 and the thematic smart specialisation platforms
(TSSPs), funded through the Structural funds.
5.2 What do we want to achieve with a new approach to European R&I partnerships?
The objective for the use of partnerships under Horizon Europe is to improve substantially the
quality and impacts of R&I investments in Europe by supporting more coherent and integrated use
of public and private investments at programming level.
A more effective and smarter use of Partnerships requires a more strategic and ambitious approach
that is impact-oriented and ensures complementary with the Framework Programme, with the
Commission as active facilitator for selection and set-up of partnerships. A revised approach for
R&I partnerships aims at:
 Preparing for a new generation of R&I partnerships based on common guiding principles and
an objective- and impact driven intervention logic in order to achieve impacts from EU
funding that cannot be achieved with other action under the Framework Programme or
national action alone;
112
 Setting and applying clear criteria for the establishment, implementation, monitoring and
phasing out of partnerships under the Framework Programme, including clear exit strategies
thus contributing to a rationalisation of the European R&I partnership landscape;
 Catalysing a more open and integrated use of public and private R&D investments on
common EU strategic priorities, in particular future R&I missions and EU strategic priorities;
 Ensuring more participation of different types of stakeholders from different countries and
regions in R&I partnerships.
5.3 What changes and what are the expected implications?
An overall R&I partnership strategy based on an objective- and impact driven intervention logic
will be developed and implemented in order to ensure that R&I partnerships are established only in
cases where impacts need to be created that cannot be achieved by other Framework Programme's
action or national action alone. The strategic planning process of the Framework Programme will
frame the establishment of European Partnerships. This will ensure that the next generation of
partnerships will support agreed EU priorities and will lead to a rationalised R&I landscape, with
fewer, but more targeted initiatives receiving co-funding/investment from the Framework
Programme. All future European Partnerships will be designed on the basis of the same guiding
principles of Union added value, transparency, openness, impact, leverage effect, long-term
financial commitment of all the involved parties, flexibility, coherence and complementarity with
EU, national, regional and international initiatives.
The design and implementation of future European Partnerships will include an improved
coherence between Framework Programme’s actions and R&I partnerships, as well as among
initiatives. In addition, communication and outreach will be strengthened by a clear, easy-to-
communicate architecture under the umbrella term “European Partnerships”. This encompasses all
Partnerships with Member States, Associated or Third Countries and/or other stakeholders such as
civil society/foundations and/or with industry (including small and medium sized enterprises), with
greater openness to international cooperation. European Partnerships will only be developed on
agreed EU policy priorities in the context of the Framework Programme, and subject to the
commitment of partners to align their own investments, programmes and priorities, and will be
limited in time with clear conditions for phasing out from the Framework Programme funding.
There will be only three types of intervention modes (i.e. several Horizon 2020 labels like P2P,
PPP, ERA-NET, FET Flagship and cPPP will be discontinued):
i) co-programming between the EU, Member States, and/or other stakeholders, based on
Memoranda of Understanding or contractual arrangements with partners;
ii) co-funding of R&I activities, based on a single, flexible programme co-fund mechanism;
iii) institutionalised partnerships (based on Art. 185 or 187 TFEU, EIT regulation for KICs).
113
Table 15 European Partnerships – a simplified implementation for more impact
Co-programmed
European Partnerships
Co-funded European
Partnerships
Institutionalised
European Partnerships
Objective To encourage public and
private stakeholders to
co-programme, co-invest
and coordinate their R&I
priorities together with
the Commission
To provide EU support to a
joint programme of public
and/or private stakeholders to
tackle EU strategic priorities
through research and
innovation
To commit in the long-term
for shared investments in
research and innovation with
public and private
stakeholders in key strategic
areas with international
visibility and impact
Coverage of FP
support
Parts of the FP work
programme largely
defined by the partners
but implemented through
FP rules
Co-funding and policy
collaboration between the EU,
Member-States/ associated
countries and other private
non for profit organisations
such as foundations to
achieve impacts that FP
action alone cannot achieve
EU commitment for shared
investments with public and
private stakeholders based
on individual legal acts.
Changes compared
to schemes existing
under Horizon
2020
Replaces cPPP Replaces ERA-NETs, EJP,
FET Flagships
Art 185 of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European
Union (TFEU):
institutionalised public-
public partnerships
Art 187 TFEU:
institutionalised public-
private partnerships
Thematic coverage Delivering on FP global challenges and R&I missions across the whole FP
Target groups Member States, industry (including small and medium sized enterprises) and civil society
organisations/foundations
Changes in priority
setting process
Only developed on agreed EU priorities in the context of the FP, based on pre-defined criteria
Changes in
implementation
mode
Memoranda of
Understanding and/or
contractual arrangements
FP contributions for
coordination costs
through the Work
Programme (incl.
comitology), e.g. through
Coordination and Support
Actions
Cofund actions implemented
through the Work Programme
(incl. comitology) conditional
to partners fulfilling their
commitments and obligations.
More flexibility in support for
joint actions, including
financial support to third
parties in the form of grants,
prizes and investments/loan
guarantees.
Art 187: Implemented via a
Council Regulation
Art 185: Implemented via a
Decision by European
Parliament and Council
Changes in
governance model
An overall 'strategic coordinating process' will advise on selection, implementation,
monitoring and phasing out of future European Partnerships as part of the overall strategic
programming process for the Framework Programme.
114
What are the expected implications?
 More coherence and better impacts through limited number of
partnerships with clear intervention logics and fully applied
criteria for establishment, implementation, evaluation and phasing-
out. The new generation of R&I partnerships, both renewed and new
ones, will be based on a clear rationale for the use of R&I partnerships,
the elaboration of distinct and clear intervention logics based on policy
objectives and the application of an impact-based criteria framework
along the life cycle of R&I partnerships, including their phasing-out.
This revised policy approach will lead to a smaller number of R&I
partnerships and thus improve the overall coherence and readability of
the European R&I ecosystem. The toolbox will be simplified with three
types of intervention under the umbrella “European Partnerships”: co-
programming of R&I agendas; co-funding of research and innovation
activities between the EU and public and private stakeholders to deliver
on EU strategic priorities; institutionalised R&I partnerships under
Article 185 and Article 187 TFEU, respectively.
The main implications besides an overall smaller number of European
Partnerships will be that more public and private R&I investments in
Europe will be directed towards commonly shared European policy
objectives, thus reducing the R&I related risks for business and
strengthening the societal impacts stemming from R&I investments in
Europe. The strengthening of cross-border R&I cooperation within
European Partnerships will have positive implications for the
excellence of the European science system and contribute to the
deepening of the single market for knowledge based activities.
 More openness and flexibility through partnerships open to all
types of stakeholders (Member States, civil society/foundations and
industry, including small and medium sized enterprises) with no
entrance barriers for newcomers, smaller R&I players. The future
generation of R&I partnerships will respond better to the needs and
priorities of all EU Member States and other stakeholders, notably
industry and foundations. Overall openness will be strengthened by a
more strategic and revised policy approach, closely linked to the overall
strategic programming of the Framework Programme. Flexibility will
be encouraged with the simplified toolbox and a life cycle based
planning and implementation approach.
The main implications will be that more Member States and more
stakeholder groups, in particular foundations will be active partners in
the European Partnerships. A broader set of joint actions beyond joint
calls between the partners will substantially increase the flexibility of
the partnership initiatives according to the specific needs and objectives
and thus increase impacts, in particular policy and societal impacts.
Enhance impact and visibility of EU R&I funding. R&I partnerships
have the potential to substantially expand the impacts of EU R&I
funding by leveraging additional R&I investments on EU priorities, by
providing 'directionality' to public and private R&I investments and by
115
reaching out to broader stakeholders thus improving the uptake of
innovative solutions and enhance the visibility of the Framework
Programme. The future design of R&I partnerships will ensure that
these potentials for additional impacts will be exploited by encouraging
a broader scope of joint activities, by ensuring clearer intervention
logics for the use of R&I partnerships and by encouraging more open
participation pattern in R&I partnerships. The main implications will be
that the up-take of innovative solutions will be facilitated, both in
national/regional policies and in new products and processes. Overall,
EU support to partnerships will have quantitative and qualitative
impacts on the further completion of the ERA and thus on the quality of
Europe's R&I ecosystem. The more strategic use of partnerships on EU
level will be echoed at national and industry level and contribute in turn
to higher and better commitments from partners and to a better
recognition and visibility of EU's R&I policy and support measures.
The overall 'absorptive capacity' for uptake of innovative solutions in
Europe will be strengthened.
5.4 What alternatives were considered?
Taking into account the stakeholder suggestions on the improvement of the EU R&I partnership
landscape, the following policy alternatives have been considered and discarded:
 Discontinuation of EU R&I partnerships. Support to any kind of partnerships in the future
Programme would be discontinued.
 Continuation of approach to partnerships as implemented under Horizon 2020. The forms
and criteria for establishing EU R&I partnerships under Horizon 2020 would continue to
exist. The development of a more coherent and strategic partnership approach would not be
addressed, as transaction costs and potential impacts are assessed as being not balanced.
Still, a substantive part of the available budget of the Framework Programme (between 25-
40% according to Horizon 2020 experience) would be "locked" in continuing existing
partnerships. The scope of activities would continue to be largely limited to the
implementation of joint calls and the management of corresponding transnational R&I
projects. The existing partnerships would be mostly continued and their growing maturity
would raise the risks of a rather closed set of beneficiaries with limited openness and
transparency.
 Simplification: limitation of EU R&I partnerships to coordination. The EU R&I partnership
landscape would be simplified by limiting the number of different forms of partnerships.
Two sub-alternatives were identified:
a) Only coordination actions: 'Coordination and support actions (CSAs)' would be used to
facilitate and catalyse the alignment of national and/or industry related R&I programmes in
Europe. In contrast to the second alternative, this would be organised in a competitive way
and not linked to the strategic priorities of the EU Framework Programme . This new
approach would facilitate the emergence of new networks and topics to addressed in a
coordinated way and have a stronger impact on the overall 'openness' of national and/or
sectorial R&I systems.
b) Only joint co-funding: the EU Framework Programme would co-fund joint efforts by
Member States and/or industry sectors in a small number of overall EU priorities, clearly
linked to the priorities of the Framework Programme. On the other hand, the EU Framework
116
Programme would discontinue support coordination of national and/or sectorial R&I
priorities. As a result, the number of co-funded R&I partnerships would decrease and thus
the complexity of the partnership landscape. The focus of co-funding on the priorities of the
Framework Programme would substantially improve the strategic positioning of the R&I
partnerships in the overall priorities of the Framework Programme and thus the coherence
and complementarity between the direct EU action and the corresponding partnerships. The
mandatory co-funding, following largely the rules for participation of the Framework
Programme, might however discourage industry and other private non-for-profit
stakeholders such as foundations, to participate in the R&I partnerships, as they prefer an
administratively simple and relatively fast cooperation framework.
 Maximising EU R&I Partnerships. Partnerships would be used as default option for
Framework Programme implementation with direct funding as exception.
All alternatives presented are legally feasible, as they are covered by the TFEU and would not
require additional new legislative action (except for articles 185/187 TFEU initiatives). The
technical feasibility of the alternative 4 'Maximising EU R&I partnerships' is regarded as limited as
it would require a complete overhaul on the currently applied and tested priority setting procedures
for the next Framework Programme. The political feasibility to discontinue support is regarded as
very low, as political resistance in Member States and by industry would be high. The coherence
with other EU policy objectives is for the two policy alternatives 'discontinuation' and 'maximising
partnerships' limited, as the potential of R&I partnerships to address broader EU policy objectives,
notably growth and competitiveness and tackling global challenges jointly, would not fully be used.
5.5 How will the revised research and innovation partnerships be implemented?
In order to implement the changes the following elements need to be developed:
 The establishment of European Partnerships framed by the strategic
planning process of the Framework Programme to ensure delivery on agreed
EU strategic priorities;
 The development and use of an objective- and impact-based criteria
framework along the life cycle of European Partnerships - developed
together with Member-States - for the selection, implementation,
monitoring, evaluation and phasing out of European Partnerships ;
 New modes of governance for European Partnerships, in order to ensure
the value, Union visibility and outreach of all European Partnerships.
The revised approach to European Partnerships will limit them to three different types:
a) Co-programmed European Partnerships:
 This mode is the simplest, fastest and least bureaucratic in implementation, with the legal
basis for the European Partnerships being political Memoranda of Understanding (MoU)/
contractual arrangements with public and/or private partners (extended cPPP model),
specifying the objectives of the partnership, related commitments for financial and/or in-
kind contributions of the partners, key performance and impact indicators, and outputs to be
delivered and comitology for the respective contributions from the Framework Programme;
 The MoU specifies the partners' commitment to invest in the area and coordinate
programmes and activities. They implement their programmes, activities and investments
under their responsibility;
 The Commission implements its part in the Work Programme with calls for proposals, based
on indicative commitments for ring-fenced budgets. In addition, if necessary, the
117
coordination between partners can be supported via the standard instrument, i.e. the
Coordination and Support Action.
b) Co-funded European Partnerships:
 This implementation mode will be applied if the integration of all activities in a single
programme is necessary to achieve the objectives;
 The legal basis will provided under the respective Work Programme (comitology),
providing Framework Programme funding for Programme Cofund actions (simplified
instrument, open also to civil society organisations such as foundations);
 It will be used to co-fund the European Partnerships for the implementation of a joint
programme of activities, based on the commitment of the partners for financial and in-kind
contributions and integration of their relevant activities;
 The initiatives will be implemented on the basis of Annual Work Plans, subject to the
approval by the Commission Services as part of their supervision of the grant agreement.
The programme of activities may support networking and coordination, research,
innovation, pilot and market deployment, training and mobility, awareness raising and
communication, dissemination and exploitation, or a combination thereof, directly
implemented by those entities or by third parties to whom they may provide financial
support in the form of grants, prizes, procurement, as well as financial instruments such as
investments or loan guarantees.
c) Institutionalised European Partnerships176
:
 This implementation mode, based on Article 185 and 187 of the TFEU, is the most complex
in preparation and will be implemented in cases required by the Treaties and where a
political validation outside the comitology is necessary via a Council Regulation (or
Decision by EP and Council, for Article 185 TFEU initiatives), and where other forms of
European Partnerships would not fulfil the objectives or would not generate the necessary
expected impacts, and if justified by a long-term perspective and high degree of integration
including central management of all financial contributions;
 The legal basis is the respective basic act, the delegation agreement with a Dedicated
Implementation Structure or Joint Undertaking, and Annual Work Programmes, as requested
by the Financial Regulation and Financing Decisions requiring Commission Decision.
5.6 Relevant studies
 European Commission (2017), Interim evaluation of Horizon 2020, Staff Working Document (SWD).
 European Commission (2017), Participation of the EU in research and development programmes undertaken
by several Member States based on Article 185 of the TFEU, Staff Working Document (SWD).
 European Commission (2017), Interim Evaluation of the Joint Undertakings (JUs) operating under Horizon
2020, Staff Working Document (SWD).
 European Commission (2017), Interim evaluation of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology
(EIT), Staff Working Document (SWD).
 European Commission (2017), LAB – FAB – APP: Investing in the European future we want, Report of the
independent High Level Group on maximising the impact of EU Research & Innovation Programmes.
 European Commission (2017), FET Flagships – Interim evaluation.
 European Commission (2017), Mid-term review of the contractual Public Private Partnerships (cPPPs) under
Horizon 2020, Report of the independent expert group.
 European Parliament (2017), REPORT on the assessment of Horizon 2020 implementation in view of its
interim evaluation and the Framework Programme 9 proposal.
 European Research Area and Innovation Committee (ERAC) (2017), ERAC Opinion on the Interim
Evaluation of Horizon 2020 and preparations for the next Framework Programme.
176
As the EIT/KICs are set-up along clear mechanisms specified in the EIT regulation, they are not included here.
118
6 Strengthening the European Research Area - Sharing excellence
6.1 Why do we need to share excellence and why should it be supported at EU level?
The Framework Programme is based on excellence and every entity, regardless its origin, can
benefit from the Programme as long as all the criteria are met. While pockets of scientific
excellence exist in all EU countries, they are scattered. Moreover, despite serious efforts deployed
at national and European level, disparities in terms of research and innovation performance persist
among EU Member States, as confirmed by the European Innovation Scoreboard 2017177
. The ERA
Progress Report 2016178
also concluded that large disparities, both in performance levels as in
growth rates between countries in the field of research and innovation exist and that there is still
much room for further progress on European Research Area (ERA).
Different analyses179
agree on a number of reasons for these disparities, the most important being:
1) low national and regional R&I investments; 2) insufficient creation and diffusion of high-quality
knowledge and innovation; 3) insufficient connectivity and visibility and international cooperation;
4) inadequate R&I framework conditions; 5) sub-optimal functioning R&I systems; 6) low
involvement and information of beneficiaries and lack of skills in participating in Framework
Programmes.
Additional obstacles180
often highlighted are information and language barriers; lack of research
networks; lack of leading Universities and Research organisations leaders in proposal matters; weak
training in preparing successful proposals and in project management; little experience in cross‐
country cooperation; generally low focus on R&I in policy and in business; few options for
exploitation of research results at the national level. Furthermore, there is a cognitive distance181
between the scientific and technological portfolio of prospective participants from the countries
which joined the EU after 2004 (EU13) and the portfolio of the more successful EU15 and
prospective participants from the EU13 are not good enough relative to the EU15. Both the Horizon
2020 interim evaluation and other studies highlight that, while EU13 have lower rate of
participation and success compare to EU15, the dichotomy is not so clear and the two groups are
not homogeneous in their inside. In addition, the problems are not specific to all the EU13, nor
absent from the EU15 countries.
What do we have now in Horizon 2020?
Horizon 2020 introduced three specific measures addressed to low R&I performing Member States: teaming
(institution-building), twinning (networking institutions), ERA Chairs (bringing excellence to institutions).
Additionally Horizon 2020 provides funding for the Policy Support Facility (PSF) – tailor-made services to
reform national R&I systems and COST (Cooperation in Science and Technology) – European intergovernmental
framework to promote networking.
Widening National Contact Points network is also supported in its endeavour to promote spreading excellence
177
http://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/innovation/facts-figures/scoreboards_en
178
European Commission (2017), ERA progress report 2017: The European Research Area: Time for implementation and
monitoring progress, COM(2017) 35
179
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 . Similar findings have been confirmed by
other studies, analysis and public discussions, for instance STOA Report 'how to overcome the innovation gap' (Jan 2018) and the
FP7 MIRRIS project http://www.mirris.eu/.
180
High Level Expert Group on the Ex-post evaluation of FP7 (2015)
https://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/fp7_final_evaluation_expert_group_report.pdf.
181
European Parliament - STOA-Project “How to overcome the innovation gap in Europe: Structural shortcomings in the EU-13 and
recommendations for a better performance in Horizon 2020”- February 2018
119
and widening calls and build the skills by organising brokerage events, workshops and conferences.
What have we learned from Horizon 2020 Interim Evaluation?
The interim evaluation of Horizon 2020 provides evidence that participation of low R&I performing countries
remains low in absolute terms. However, taking into account the size of the population, the number of researchers and
national investments in R&D the performance differences are more nuanced and the targeted countries are affected by
these problems in various intensity. Moreover, there are clear performance differences and heterogeneity among the
EU13 countries and across Horizon 2020.
The current actions have demonstrated already a positive impact: ERA Chair and Twinning projects already
resulted in substantially increasing the attractiveness of the institution for international excellent researchers, the
capability of the institution to compete for international funding. Teaming, whose second phase related to the creation
of centres of excellence, has started in February 2017, has already leveraged significant amounts of Structural funds,
as proposers were expected to mobilise from national/regional public. COST actions demonstrated effectiveness in
including excellent researchers from low R&I performing countries with a steadily increasing participation rate. The
recurrent feedback on the Policy Support Facility work received from national policy-makers and stakeholders has
shown that the operational recommendations formulated by leading experts and policy practitioners prove valuable as
catalysers of national R&I reforms.
What do stakeholders say?
Stakeholder provided the following recommendations for EU support to sharing excellence:
 synergies with ESI funds and ring-fenced budget dedicated to “spreading excellence” objective,
 continued support to teaming, twinning, ERA-Chairs, COST, NCP networks, EIT Regional Innovation scheme
(EIT RIS),
 targeted measures to promote pockets of excellence in low R&I performing countries .
Stakeholders input was used to improve activities addressed to low R&I performing countries set up in Horizon
2020.
6.2 What do we want to achieve with the sharing excellence strand?
The overriding goals of consolidating the Spreading Excellence and Widening Participation actions
under Horizon 2020 is to reinforce EU R&I capabilities through the creation and diffusion of high-
quality knowledge, by sharing and connecting excellence across Europe and increasing cross-
sectorial, cross-disciplinary and cross-border cooperation.
The Sharing Excellence strand will aim at:
 Helping in creating new or upgrading existing centres of excellence;
 Strengthening a defined filed of research by linking entities with different experience in the area
with internationally-leading research institutions;
 Helping in attracting and maintaining excellence in the institution;
 Stimulating networking and cooperation between researchers from targeted countries and well
R&I performing countries.
6.3 What changes and what are the expected implications?
Following the results of the interim evaluation of Horizon 2020 and stakeholder views, the main set
of activities launched in Horizon 2020 under a part called "Spreading Excellence and Widening
Participation" will be kept with a few changes following the structure of the Framework
120
Programme, changing R&I landscape in the targeted countries and importance of the issue. The title
of these activities becomes Sharing Excellence.
In Horizon Europe, the Sharing Excellence strand, with four key activities (Teaming, Twinning,
ERA Chairs, COST), is included in the "Strengthening the European Research Area" part. The
Sharing Excellence activities are focused on addressing disparities in R&I performance in targeted
countries. The second strand (i.e. Reforming and Enhancing the European R&I system) is open to
all the EU Member States and focuses on reforms and enhancement of the European R&I system
and institutional changes in research funding and performing organisations including universities,
citizen science, gender as well as implementation of the Programme.
For Teaming, Twinning and ERA Chairs under Sharing Excellence a dedicated indicator will be
used to identify low R&I performing countries; only constituencies from these countries and
from Outermost Regions would be eligible as coordinators182
.
Taking into account importance of sharing excellence across Europe, as well as existing support in
Horizon 2020 “Spreading excellence and widening participation” mechanisms, the budget of this
strand will be ring-fenced and increased in comparison to Horizon 2020.
Following the Horizon 2020 interim evaluation, stakeholders views and the feedback received from
coordinators and reviewers of current Teaming, Twinning and ERA Chairs projects, there are
several issues which improve these three instruments under the Framework Programme:
 Sustainability: To address the sustainability during the project implementation, specific
arrangements could be considered (e.g. COFUND to allow better combination and
exploitation of synergies between the Framework Programme and structural funds. To
address the current beneficiaries' concern of ensuring continuity after the project funding is
finished, the Framework Programme could require a sustainability plan.
 Preparatory scientific activities: The utility of networking, staff exchanges, expert visits
can only reach a certain level, which is why stakeholders recommend supporting preparatory
scientific work (i.e. starter kit) under these instruments.
 Strengthen research management: One of the issues coming from the different analyses is
the lack of experience with regard to research management and administration in certain
countries. There is a need to reinforce the institution building component of these
instruments by putting emphasis on the staff preparation and training on proposal
preparation and project management.
 For ERA Chairs, following some feedback from implementation so far, it is under
consideration to include an Advanced Partner, as it is currently the case for the other
“Spreading excellence and widening participation” actions.
COST, under Sharing Excellence, will continue (open to all the countries) while expanding the
focus on targeted low R&I performing countries (80% of the COST budget devoted to countries
identified as low R&I performing countries). COST will provide opportunities for participation,
giving organisations from these countries the opportunity to build experience, accumulate a
reputation, and strengthen their network position. The continuation of the COST actions with a
higher budget devoted to the targeted countries will address this need and give the opportunity to
strengthen collaboration across Europe.
182
In its Communication "A stronger and renewed strategic partnership with the EU's outermost regions" (COM(2017) 623 final) the
Commission recognizes that participation of most of the outermost regions in the EU research programmes is still insufficient and
could be significantly increased. To this end and in the context of Article 349 of the TFUE, which recognises the EU Outermost
Regions specific social and economic situation, it is recommended the full eligibility of Outermost Regions for the Sharing
Excellence actions.
121
The implications of these changes are the following:
 Better R&I performance. Increasing the excellence of the science base,
strengthening knowledge transfer, the innovation creation and diffusion,
building knowledge, skills, and co-operation. Tapping into the unexploited
research and innovation potential of Member States with a lower R&I
performance, increasing their ability to participate in the Framework
Programme and integrate the European Research Area and single market will
maximise the quantity, quality and impact of R&I investment, benefitting
each Member State concerned and Europe as a whole.
 More cooperation. Forging cooperation and links across national borders
and across sectors, while fostering open science and open innovation
practices which help the diffusion of excellence and know-how across the
Europe.
 Better impacts of R&I investments. Improved quality and impact of R&I
systems on productivity, economic growth, job creation and well-being.
Although the impact of measures addressed to targeted countries varies
across regions, regions from all the Member States are impacted, in some
cases with up to 0.18% of GDP183
.
6.4 What alternatives were considered?
The following options were considered and discarded following the stakeholders' views and interim
evaluation of Horizon 2020 results:
 Discontinuation of core measures under a ring-fenced budget and alternative financing for
similar actions would be established mainly under the structural funds. With this approach
opportunities for overcoming the participation gap and innovation divide by improving
connectivity and networking would be missed. The partnering dimension by knowledge
circulation between a catching-up and advanced partner would be constrained because the
financial support to the advanced partner would require the use of Art. 70 of the ESIF
regulation. However, the latter does not fully align with the political objectives of the
current Teaming instrument. Twinning with more complex consortia would be even more
difficult to implement under this constraint and the continuation of COST networks with on
average 27 participants would be also virtually impossible.
6.5 How will the this be implemented?
Sharing Excellence will be implemented as in Horizon 2020 via calls for
proposals. The list of eligible countries will be included in the work
programmes.
183
Based on the RHOMOLO model. European Commission, DG JRC.
122
7 Support to policy-making: activities of the Joint Research Centre in Horizon Europe
7.1 Why do we need support to policy-making and what is the role of the JRC?
People rightly expect political leaders to be honest with facts when making decisions that impact on their
everyday life or their future, especially in an era when the role of scientific evidence, rational enquiry and
fact-based conclusions are being challenged as never before. This is why scientific support to policy-making
is so important for Europe. EU policies and activities must be based on robust scientific evidence that is
transparently formulated, independent of political interests and includes insights from different disciplines
and approaches. This will enhance the credibility and legitimacy of those policies, and their impact in
addressing our most pressing challenges.
As the science and knowledge service of the European Commission, the JRC contributes to ensuring that
policy‑makers have the best available, independent, scientific evidence when taking important decisions that
have an impact on EU citizens' daily lives, whether when preparing policies or implementing them. The
JRC's research supports priorities of the EU's policy agenda including jobs and economic growth, digital
transformation, the Energy Union, the Sustainable Development Goals, civil protection and security, and
consumer protection and safety.
What do we have now in Horizon 2020?
The JRC shall contribute to the general objective and priorities of Horizon 2020 by providing customer-driven
scientific and technical support to EU policies, in collaboration with relevant national and regional research
stakeholders, where appropriate, while flexibly responding to new policy demands184
.
The JRC undertakes research and innovation activities, known as "direct actions" and supported by the
programme. Around €2 billion of the Horizon 2020 budget is allocated to the JRC, which is approximately 2.5% of
the overall programme budget.
What have we learned from evaluations of the JRC?
Ex-post external evaluations of the JRC in previous EU research programmes have consistently rated the JRC's
performance, as well as the quality and impact of its scientific outputs, as high, and concluded positively on its
effectiveness185
Following a key recommendation of the FP7 ex-post evaluation in 2015, the JRC developed a long-
term strategy for 2016-2030 and initiated a large number of improvements proposed by the external evaluation panel.
The Horizon 2020 interim evaluation report on the JRC, published in July 2017, commended the JRC on the rapid
implementation and follow-up of the recommendations made in 2015.186
What do stakeholders say?
The JRC is a trusted partner in global research and innovation partnership initiatives, including in the framework of
the EU-African Union partnership, the UN (work on climate change and on biodiversity), EU institutions (Science
for Parliament, and Science for the Regions). In a survey of national and regional authorities, the JRC-operated
Smart Specialisation Platforms (which support regional growth in specific priority areas) received a high satisfaction
score (4.5/5); it received the Best Practice European Public Sector Award (EPSA Award) in 2017.
184
Horizon 2020 Regulation, Article 4.
185
FP7 (http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC96870),
FP6 (https://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/jrc.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none)
186
Available at: http://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/459053
123
7.2 What do we want to achieve with the JRC in the next Framework Programme?
The JRC aims to become a global leader in the creation, management and communication of fit-for-purpose
knowledge for public policy, for example through helping to address the concerns raised by the current 'post-
fact' debate and leading the campaign for evidence-informed policy.
Whilst retaining its focus on excellent scientific support to policy, the JRC aims to better position and focus
its research to address the complex, multi-sectoral societal challenges facing Europe. Another goal is to
initiate new ways of bringing the JRC's own research, new open access policy and strategic partnerships
tapping into the wealth of knowledge within and outside Europe. This will reinforce the JRC's role as a core
provider of high-quality scientific evidence to the Commission. The overall ambition is to enhance the
scientific evidence base for, and its use in, policy making, while also enhancing the "responsible research and
innovation”187 agenda in the activities of the JRC.
7.3 What will change compared to Horizon 2020 and what are the expected implications?
The JRC will increasingly co-design its programme of activities with the policy departments of the
Commission to maximise the relevance and impact of its activities. The JRC's knowledge and competence
centres (see below) will be an important feature of JRC activities post-2020. They are a new way of working
across policy areas, scientific disciplines and sectors, bringing together expertise from many Commission
departments and the scientific community. They support multidisciplinary research, thereby delivering
integrated advice which strengthens the knowledge base required to propose policy recommendations.
New initiatives to extend JRC's collaboration with academia and develop a new generation skilled at the
science policy interface, together with a policy of open access to its world class research infrastructure will
build closer links to Member States, industry and the scientific community. Member States' and regions'
participation in JRC research activities will be promoted via new platforms, such as a proposed set of
'Science4Policy platforms' which would bring the JRC's rich data resources, knowledge, services and
networks closer to end-users and citizens.
7.4 What alternatives were considered?
Following a key recommendation of the ex-post evaluation of JRC in FP7, the JRC adopted its Strategy 2030
in 2016. The interim evaluation of the JRC, conducted in the context of the Horizon 2020 interim evaluation
in 2017, concluded that the JRC should continue to implement this strategy. Alternatives (business-as-usual
with the JRC's activities in FP7) were considered when drafting the strategy, but discarded because they
would not have adequately responded to the need for more integrated approaches (cross-silo, cross-
disciplinary, incorporating social aspects), nor would have enabled an enhanced capacity to respond to
emerging challenges and for a broader knowledge base in order to address the increasingly complex policy
needs.
7.5 How will this be implemented?
The knowledge management strategy will be implemented through better management of scientific
knowledge in the process of delivery of evidence for policy-making, and in specific areas through the
establishment of Knowledge Centres and Competence Centres.
The JRC has established four Knowledge Centres in the fields of territorial policies, migration and
demography, disaster risk management and bioeconomy, which bring together experts and knowledge to
inform policy-makers about the status and findings of the latest scientific evidence, and which have already
produced innovative tools, such as, the Migration Data Hub used by the Commission and professionals in the
Member States. Similarly, JRC Competence Centres have been created which focus on analytical tools and
187
Responsible Research and Innovation is defined as an approach whereby societal actors (researchers, citizens, policy makers,
business, third sector organisations, etc.) work together during the whole research and innovation process in order to better align both
the process and its outcomes with the values, needs and expectations of society.
124
providing services across the Commission, such as, improving quantitative evidence for impact assessments.
New knowledge and competence centres will be established, where appropriate.
Finally, the JRC will reinforce its activities in supporting a social Europe by exploring the drivers behind
'fairness' and the resilience of societies. The JRC will also invest in maintaining and further developing its
scientific excellence in order to ensure that its scientific advice is based on the best and most robust available
evidence.
7.6 Relevant studies
 Joint Research Centre Implementation Review 2017: In the context of the Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020.
DG JRC, July 2017.
 Joint Research Centre Strategy 2030. DG JRC, May 2016.
 Strengthening Evidence-Based Policymaking through Scientific Advice. European Commission, DG Research
and Innovation, May 2015.
125
8 European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT)
8.1 Why do we need the European Institute of Innovation and Technology?
The European Institute of Innovation and Technology’s overall mission is to contribute to
sustainable European economic growth and competitiveness by reinforcing the innovation capacity
of the Member States and the Union. Started in 2009, and since 2014 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 are large-scale European partnerships that operate within specific
societal challenges.
From 2010 until 2017 six KICs operated in the fields of:
 Climate Change (Climate-KIC, established in 2010)
 Energy (KIC InnoEnergy, established in 2010)
 Digital (EIT Digital, established in 2010)
 Health (EIT Health, established in 2015)
 Raw Materials (EIT Raw Materials, established in 2015)
 Food (EIT Food, established in 2017).
In January 2018, the EIT launched a new call for the selection of two additional KICs in the field or
Urban Mobility and Added-Value Manufacturing. These will be the last two KICs within the
Horizon 2020 framework and are planned to be designated in December 2018.
EIT KICs vary in size and have between 50 (recently established KICs) and more than 200 (mature
KICs) partners each. Overall there is more than 1000 partners from research, business and education
directly involved in operation of current 6 KICs. Each KIC is also organised around a small number
of co-location centers that are intended to act as geographical innovation hubs for the practical
integration of the knowledge triangle188. Building on the existing labs, offices or campuses of
some of a KICs’ core partners, each co-location center offers a physical location where people and
teams from research, business and education meet and work together on common innovation
initiatives. This facilitates a trusted face-to-face collaboration across KIC members and serves as a
gateway for potential partners. Each co-location center provides regional access to the knowledge,
expertise and talent pool of the KIC’s community and carries out education activities.
In particular, each KIC aims at reinforcing innovation capacities by running a portfolio of activities
in three areas:
1. Research/ Innovation projects: they encompass a range of activities broadly related to supporting and
developing new innovative products, services and solutions that address societal challenges in the
KICs areas of activity. Each KIC launches its own research and innovation project portfolio linking
universities, research institutes and businesses taking a market-led approach, in order to make
solutions market-ready. These projects may comprise demonstrators, pilots or proofs of concept.
2. Education: The development of human capital is supported through a range of innovative
educational and training programmes offered by each KIC in the form of post-graduate (MSc/ PhD)
programmes, executive/ professional development courses, lifelong learning modules, summer
schools and more. The courses are based on a multidisciplinary approach, significant business
188
For example, the EIT Raw Materials is based in Berlin and has Innovation Hubs in Belgium, France, Finland, Italy, Poland and
Sweden and counts 116 formal Partners and another 125 participants as affiliated entities (linked third parties).
126
involvement in the development of learning outcomes and cross-border mobility. The EIT Label
aims to ensure quality and recognition within the EIT Community and beyond.
3. Business creation and support activities: The KICs offer a range of business support services such as
start-up and accelerator schemes to help entrepreneurs translate their ideas into successful business.
These business support services focus on access to market, access to finance, access to networks,
mentoring & coaching.
EIT KICs engage also in a range of outreach, communication, dissemination and horizontal cross-
sectoral activities., In 2014, the EIT has developed the EIT Regional Innovation Scheme189
to help
increase the innovation capacity in areas and regions in Europe not participating in KICs.
The EIT regulation sets out the general objectives and the scope of the EIT’s functioning. The EIT's
specific objectives, its rationale, EU added value, the broad lines of activity and the EIT's
performance indicators are defined in the Horizon 2020 Regulation. The strategic, long-term
priority fields and financial needs for the EIT for a period of seven years is laid down in a Strategic
Innovation Agenda which include detailed modalities on the operation of EIT such as the selection
and designation of the partnerships into KICs and their performance monitoring. This selection and
priority-setting process is governed by the EIT Regulation.
The EIT addresses specific structural weaknesses in the EU’s innovation capacity which are
common across Member States. Amongst them are: the under-utilisation of existing research
strengths for creating economic or social value; the lack of research results brought to the market;
low levels of entrepreneurial activity and mind-set; low leverage of private investment in research
and development; an excessive number of barriers to collaboration within the knowledge triangle of
higher education, research, business and entrepreneurship on a European level. The EIT addresses
these challenges through the KICs.
By providing coordination and steering, the EIT has tailored its support structure to the specific
needs and goals of the KICs (i.a. requirements for setting up KICs, performance based funding,
simplification). Through systematic focus on cross-KIC activities, sharing of best practices and
integrating lessons learnt from the past, the EIT has built up knowledge and experience on which
each KIC can draw (i.a. framework for guidance to set up new KICs). In turn, the KICs provide the
EIT with practical insights and feedback on what works on the ground and what does not (thus
increasing effectiveness and synergies).
The total budget for the EIT under Horizon 2020 is EUR 2.4 billion190
. Of this overall EIT funding
allocation a fully mature KIC is expected to receive on average between EUR 70 million and EUR
90 million annually to cover its portfolio of activities presented in its annual Business Plan. The
duration of EU funding is expected to last up to 15 years and after such a period the KICs should be
able to pursue their activities without EU funding.
189
The EIT Regional Innovation Scheme (EIT RIS) is the EIT Community’s outreach scheme. The scheme enables the
transfer of good practices and know-how from the EIT’s unique approach to boosting innovation. The EIT Regional
Innovation Scheme was introduced in order to share good practices and experience emerging from EIT Community
activities and to widen participation in these activities across Europe.
190
reduced from EUR 2.7 billion following the set-up of the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI).
127
Lessons learned and future challenges
The Horizon 2020 interim evaluation Staff Working Document identifies the need to
rationalise the overall European research and innovation partnership landscape, improve their
openness and transparency, and link them with future EU R&I missions and strategic priorities. The
EIT/KICs are unique type of partnerships based on knowledge triangle integration with the education
at its core and thus they are different in nature to other partnerships.
The EIT interim evaluation Staff Working Document concluded that it contributes to
addressing structural weaknesses in the EU’s innovation capacity. The EIT evaluation highlights the
need to develop further synergies with other EU initiatives from the programming stage. It also
identifies scope for streamlining the relevant goals the EIT and the KICs are expected to achieve with
clear and measurable objectives. It notes that the role of the KICs in the EU R&I landscape needs to
be better defined. The integration of the KICs into local innovation ecosystems need to improve.
The Commission Opinion on the EIT independent evaluation also stresses the rationale
behind the establishment of the EIT and its contribution to the development of the Community and
Member States innovation capacity in order to tackle societal challenges, through the integration of
the knowledge triangle. It confirmed to target major structural weaknesses of the innovation
capacities in the EU (in key thematic areas) such as the limited entrepreneurial culture, the low level
of cooperation between academia and industry and the insufficient development of human potential,
and aims to contribute to closing the innovation gap between the EU and its key competitors.
The Lamy High-Level Group recommends that KICs could be more coherently deployed to
address global challenges, and be directly incorporated into the post-2020 EU R&I programme. It
recognises that education plays a central role in the KICs and it calls for Europe’s universities to
stimulate entrepreneurship, tear down disciplinary borders and institutionalise strong non-disciplinary
collaborations between universities and industry.
The Communication on the Interim Evaluation outlines recommendations for the future
guiding principles of the EIT and the KICs:
 Streamlining the relevant goals which the EIT and the KICs are expected to achieve through
clear and measurable objectives;
 The role of the KICs in the EU R&I landscape also needs to be better defined;
 Improving the openness and transparency of the partnerships (including KICs) and link them
with future EU R&I missions and strategic priorities.
The High Level Group on the EIT identified a clear need to strengthen the role of the EIT
headquarters as a provider of shared services and expertise to the KICs.
8.2 What do we want to achieve with a revised role for the EIT/KICs in the next
Framework Programme?
The focus of the EIT on the knowledge triangle integration through developing KICs remains valid
as well as its added-value in providing a support mechanism to the KICs and in setting the
framework conditions to create innovation. In order to reinforce the role of the EIT and the KICs in
the overall European R&I support system and in light of the overall rationalisation of the European
R&I partnerships (see dedicated Annex), a revised role for the EIT/ KICs under the Framework
Programme will aim at achieving the following objectives:
 Reinforce the focus of current and future EIT KICs on delivering on EU strategic priorities,
in particular global challenges through the integration of education, research, business and
entrepreneurship. It will foster, grow and strengthen ecosystems for addressing global
challenges through research and innovation across Europe by connecting people,
disciplines, sectors, organisations and resources.
128
 EIT KICs will play a stronger role in reinforcing the research and innovation capacity in
regions with modest or moderate innovation activity through its innovation hub co-location
centers and their networking.
 Reinforce the links between higher education and the innovation ecosystem by scaling up
the knowledge triangle model established by the EIT beyond the KICs and by
mainstreaming support for the renewal of European universities. This will be achieved by
stimulating entrepreneurial education, fostering strong non-disciplinary collaborations
between industry and academia; and identifying prospective skills for future innovators to
address global challenges, which includes advanced digital and innovation skills but also
skills specific to each thematic area.
 Ensure complementarity and synergies between the EIT and the KICs, the European
Innovation Council (EIC), and other research and innovation instruments for a seamless
support to research and innovation in Europe.
8.3 What is changing in practice under the next Framework Programme for the EIT and
the KICs?
Towards a European seamless support to innovation ecosystems through complementarity
with the EIC
The EIT will play a reinforced role in strengthening sustainable innovation ecosystems across
Europe. The EIT midterm evaluation has confirmed the relevance of the EIT model. Stronger
integration of the EIT in the Framework Programme will be sought through a focus on synergies
with key instruments such as the EIC Accelerator, i.e. via EIT-supported start-ups, which can be
scaled up through the EIC or offering ecosystem support such as mentoring or coaching for EIC
funded scale-ups in the KICs' thematic fields. The EIT will ensure complementarity with other
instruments in the Framework Programme though its distinctive focus on entrepreneurial education,
skills identification and reinforcement, and strong multidisciplinary collaborations between industry
and academia.
The role and visibility of the KICs innovation hub co-location centres as physical places for
experimentation and co-creation around global challenges and future R&I missions ((incl. direct
feedback loops with potential users and citizen) will be reinforced. This will help developing
innovations in line with societal needs and support their market uptake, as well as reinforce the
international visibility of European physical hubs for addressing key challenges/missions.
Stronger alignment with FP strategic priorities and European R&I partnership approach
EIT and KICs will be a core part of the future Framework Programme with its key focus on
strengthening innovation ecosystems. EIT and KICs will also play a key role in addressing global
challenges and will strive to contribute to achieving the objectives of future R&I missions (Pillar 2)
as well as the Open Science (Pillar 1).
The alignment of the EIT's activities with others in the future Framework Programme will improve
through the strategic planning, in compliance with the EIT's regulation and its specific governance
structure. As regards the broad strategic orientations and setting-out multi-annual Commission
corporate priorities for the Framework Programme implementation, the EIT will help inform the
broad areas and themes of the future partnerships, thereby ensuring complementarities and
synergies with other relevant Framework programme initiatives and EU programmes.
129
Reinforced role of the KICs for education and training and the modernisation of universities
The EIT has played a pioneering role in integrating education and training in the innovation
ecosystems across multiple societal challenges. In order to strengthen the role of the EIT, a better
integration of the education aspects into the European innovation ecosystems through increased
support to European universities by stimulating the entrepreneurial and open science education and
fostering multidisciplinary collaboration between industry and academia is necessary. This implies
a structured approach on support actions for driving innovation and entrepreneurship agendas in
universities in order to achieve a systemic effect.
Such an approach will also build on the successful outreach activities by the EIT Regional
Innovation Schemes that target modest and moderate innovators and help create network effects
from existing excellence.
Through the knowledge triangle integration, the identification by KICs of prospective skills
needs/curricula for innovation to solve global challenges and R&I missions will be encouraged.
New types of profiles and competences might indeed need to be developed and reinforced in key
thematic areas. Following the identification of emerging skills needs, EIT and KICs could develop
dedicated training offers in partnerships with the knowledge triangle actors.
What will we be the implications of the changes?
More coherence: Through an overall limited number of European R&I partnerships – including the
KICs - with clearer intervention logics based on FP objectives; complementarity with the innovation
support provided through the European Innovation Council; and reinforced education focus of the KICs.
More impact: Through a more strategic and revised policy approach for the priority-setting of the
KICs, closely linked to the overall strategic programming of the Framework Programme to deliver on
global challenges and EU research and innovation missions.
More openness and transparency: Through the application of an impact-based criteria framework
for the selection, implementation, monitoring and phasing out of the KICs, as for other R&I partnerships.
8.4 How will the changes be implemented?
The EIT Regulation will be amended:
 To align EIT with the objectives of the next Framework Programme;
 To align the programming of the EIT with Horizon Europe strategic programming;
 To reinforce the role of the EIT in developing innovation capabilities through addressing
global challenges;
 To seek an enhanced role for the EIT in embedding innovation and entrepreneurial
capabilities, prospective skills identification and talent development in Higher Education
Institutions (HEIs).
8.5 What alternatives were considered?
Taking into account the stakeholder suggestions on the improvement of the EU R&I partnership
landscape, the following policy alternatives have been considered and discarded:
 Reduction/Discontinuation of EIT KICs interventions
130
The EIT is highly relevant and has a clear EU added value as there is no other instrument
that builds EU-wide ecosystems of education, research, business and other stakeholders
(EIT interim evaluation). The reduction of the EIT scope of its intervention or a full or
partial phasing out of KICs from the current operating model would bear severe implications
and negative impact on the knowledge triangle integration development, the research and
innovation performance and the overall research and innovation landscape in Europe.
 Continuation of strategic approach to EIT/KICs as implemented under Horizon 2020
EIT/KICs would operate on the basis of initial objectives, scale and operating modes. The
key challenge of rationalization of the European R&I partnerships landscape in line with the
overall objectives of the future Framework Programme would not be realised. The
coherence between the EIT and other EU innovation policy initiatives and instruments at
programming as well as implementation level would not be matched.
 Direct integration of KICs into the Framework Programme (without EIT)
As confirmed by the past evaluations, the EIT model comprising the EIT and its Knowledge
Innovation Communities (KICs) is valid and working well. The EIT has tailored its support
structure to the specific needs and goals of the KICs by providing coordination and steering
(i.a. requirements for setting up KICs, performance based funding, simplification). Through
systematic focus on cross-KIC activities, sharing of best practices and integrating lessons
learnt from the past, the EIT has built up knowledge and experience on which each KIC can
draw (i.a. framework for guidance to set up new KICs). In turn, the KICs provide the EIT
with practical insights and feedback on what works on the ground and what does not (thus
increasing effectiveness and synergies).
The EIT/KIC model is based on a long-term approach to innovation, i.e. KICs are set up
bearing in mind a long-term perspective to achieve the impact and their sustainability
beyond the direct public financial support. The EIT provides a wide range of services, from
education, training and coaching, building and maintaining networks where young
entrepreneurs and enterprises connect with future partners and investors in order to take up
the research results and bringing them to the market. This goes far beyond the management
of EU contracts and projects. The EIT has thus built up a wealth of knowledge and
experience on innovation that is unique at a European scale and decoupling of EIT and KICs
would cause the effectivity loss. The gradually built-up EIT Community of regular
exchange, mutual support and trust would disappear. Further, the current efficiency at the
EIT central management level as well as in the management of KIC operations would be
lost.
8.6 Relevant studies
 European Commission (2017), Interim evaluation of Horizon 2020, Staff Working Document (SWD).
 European Commission (2017), Interim evaluation of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology
(EIT), Staff Working Document (SWD).
 European Commission (2017), LAB – FAB – APP: Investing in the European future we want, Report of the
independent High Level Group on maximising the impact of EU Research & Innovation Programmes.
 European Parliament (2017), REPORT on the assessment of Horizon 2020 implementation in view of its
interim evaluation and the Framework Programme 9 proposal.
 European Research Area And Innovation Committee (ERAC) (2017), ERAC Opinion on the Interim
Evaluation of Horizon 2020 and preparations for the next Framework Programme.
131
9 Support to education in Horizon Europe
9.1 Why do we need support to education in the Horizon Europe
The European Research Area (ERA) is designed to be the backbone of a well-performing science
and innovation system in Europe. Through it, knowledge and a highly skilled workforce circulate
freely, researchers benefit from attractive careers and gender equality is ensured, where Member
States develop common strategic research agendas, aligning national plans, defining and
implementing joint programmes, and where the outcomes of R&I are understood and trusted by
informed citizens and benefit society as a whole. Without a strong and well-performing ERA, we
would miss opportunities to set common agendas, instil a culture of cooperation, and establish and
achieve the funding scale required for tackling important societal challenges.
Demand for highly skilled, socially engaged people is both increasing and changing. Driven by
digital technology, jobs are becoming more flexible and complex. People’s capacities to be
entrepreneurial, manage complex information, think autonomously and creatively, and use digital
resources are more crucial than ever. European higher education must simultaneously respond to the
moving targets of education and training, and prepare the next generation of skilled digital natives
to be resilient in the face of rapidly evolving societal challenges.
The skills mismatch in Europe is well documented, and Europe’s need to address it is more urgent
than ever. The unmet demand for graduates in the science, technology, engineering and maths
(STEM) fields is great, as is the need to ensure our students have the transversal skills necessary to
be successful in an increasingly competitive labour market. Moreover, the increasing prominence of
carrying out research in a collaborative, transparent and accessible manner is transforming the
research landscape. Universities need to address these issues in order to maintain the flow of skilled
graduates.
A coherent approach of EU policies on education, research and innovation is crucial to create 'jobs,
growth, investment, and competitiveness'. Education will have to play an important role in the
future Europe as investing in skills, competences and knowledge is essential to boost Europe's
resilience. Investing in stronger links between education and research will support the development
of human talent, which is the fundamental driver of innovation. The importance of the human
capital in addressing the future global challenges will be enhanced in the next generation of
European programmes. Universities, as leading centres of innovation, need to be empowered to
create more innovation impacts, across all their core functions, notably education, research,
knowledge transfer, engaging with citizens in science and other public services.
This is in concordance with the Communication on Strengthening European Identity through
Education and Culture, the renewed EU agenda on Higher Education and the Communication on
the Digital Education Action Plan.
Europe's high-level skills needs must be addressed through investments in the development of
competences, inter-disciplinary, transferable and entrepreneurial skills in forward-looking fields or
disciplines that are strategic for smart economic and social development (such as science,
technology, engineering and mathematics, climate change, clean energy, artificial intelligence,
robotics, data analysis, design, etc.).
The innovation performance of the EU is growing, but not fast enough to ensure our future welfare.
Modern universities as leading centres of innovation need to be empowered to create more
innovation impacts, across all their core functions, notably education, research, knowledge transfer,
engaging with citizens in science and other public services. This has to be nurtured by the culture of
the university and its institutional set-up. The core attributes and functions of modern universities
should enable excellence, innovation and openness to the world. Excellence must be at the centre of
132
research – including incentives for inter- and trans-disciplinarity. Openness must be at the centre of
the research mind-set. Internationalisation and cross-border open research practices must be
embedded in programmes.
In the current and future world of research it will be important to adapt education models and
experiment with new forms of open education and learning empowered by digitisation. It is
essential to provide, train and reward young talent with future skills for the jobs of tomorrow.
Universities should go beyond their educational missions and become regional hubs for education
and innovation exchange, promoting joint curricula with industry. Structural collaboration with
local and regional stakeholders will further facilitate science-industry cooperation. Stronger links
and coherence between European Research Area and European Higher Education Area by better
aligning the objectives and priorities is crucial.
Until recently, education and culture have not been centre stage in the debate about the future of
Europe but, since leaders decided to put them on the agenda at their meeting in Gothenburg in
November 2017, they come increasingly to the fore. The discussion among leaders has been
informed by a contribution of the Commission on "Strengthening European Identity through
Education and Culture"191
, which set out a number specific actions, i.e. a vision to create a
European Education Area by 2025. Key goals include stepping up investment in education to 5% of
EU GDP. It includes the establishment of a European Universities initiative, and taking forward the
mutual recognition of higher education diplomas. The importance of ensuring that higher education
contributes to innovation is also emphasised in the Renewed EU Agenda for Higher Education,
published in May 2017.
What do we have now on education in Horizon 2020?
Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) is a bottom-up, competition-for-excellence based research
programme focusing on frontier science, research excellence, human capital training and career development, inter-
sectoral and international mobility and good working conditions for researchers. At the level of postgraduate training,
MSCA is mainstreaming innovation in learning context for researchers and fostering new skills and will strengthen its
efforts to do so in the future: MSCA equip researchers with training in transferable competences such as a creative
mind, an entrepreneurial outlook and a diversity of skills, including teaching of students, that will allow them to face
current and future global challenges, as well as match the future needs of the labour market and enabling the
transmission to, and take-up of research results by, society and economy.
The educational dimension has been a major focus of the European Institute of Innovation and technology (EIT)
since its creation. The EIT has always stressed the importance of an adequate mix of technical and entrepreneurial
skills as drivers of innovation. Through its KICs, the EIT supports a variety of education, and more generally human
capital development activities, aiming at training the next generation of innovators and entrepreneurs. The offer, with
the EIT Label as its flagship, is targeting primarily Master and PhD students, as well as a growing number of
professionals. Students are awarded degrees from partner universities, on top of which comes the EIT Label. This
Label aims to be a guarantee of quality for innovative programmes bridging universities and industry. Students are
exposed to new cross-sectorial curricula with innovative pedagogical models of teaching and learning, aiming at
developing at the same time both their technical knowledge and their entrepreneurial mind-sets and skills. These new
programmes go beyond what is being normally offered by the universities partners in a KIC, usually research-
intensive universities, in particular in terms of mobility, industry exposure, networking opportunities and, more
broadly, learning experience.
Science with and for Society part on 'Accelerating and catalysing processes of institutional change' contributes to
implementing the RRI keys (public engagement, science education, ethics including research integrity, gender
equality, and open access) through institutional governance changes in Research Funding and Performing
Organisations (RFPOs) in an integrated way and to disseminate good practices. Results contribute to the
implementation of ERA priorities, a greater involvement of all stakeholders in R&I, and a better and more sustainable
engagement with society.
What have we learned from evaluations
191
COM(2017) 673 final.
133
According to the Lamy Group, a fundamental reform of the role of education should systematically embed
innovation and entrepreneurship in education across Europe192
. Europe’s universities need urgent renewal, to
stimulate entrepreneurship and tear down disciplinary borders. Strong non-disciplinary collaborations between
universities and industry should become the rule and not the exception. The next Framework Programme needs to
incentivise for the modernisation of universities. Research and higher education institutions that actively promote open
science, open innovation and openness to the world (e.g. through new ways of teaching, promoting cross-disciplinarity
and entrepreneurship, or attracting researchers and students from around the world) should be rewarded.
The MSCA have contributed to making the science system of the Union more competitive and attractive on a global
scale. Evidence shows that the MSCA not only have a positive structuring impact on individuals, organisations, and
at system level, but also yield high-impact and breakthrough research results and contribute significantly to societal as
well as strategic challenges.
The EIT fills a gap in the system of support for innovation provided by the Member States and bring unique
perspectives to education programmes193
. EIT-label educational courses provide graduates with hard and soft
entrepreneurial skills, a unique access to businesses and a stronger level of competence in delivering innovation. Some
linkages in KICs´ knowledge triangle activities are still underexploited, e.g. those between education and innovation-
support and acceleration services, and require further efforts in the future. KICs´ should better monitor their education
offer in view of ensuring a high quality having in mind the goal of increasing the outreach of their educational
activities. Its mandate was to develop ‘flagship’ education as a model for excellence throughout European higher
education, i.e. reach out and influence higher education beyond those individuals, faculties and institutions directly
involved. In order to broaden the added value, the EIT and its KICs should re-examine their actual contribution
towards a systemic transformation of the education landscape194
. It is likely that additional efforts will be required,
for example through an alternative offer based on better quality (more specific, efficient and cost effective), on broader
targeted groups (beyond young Master and PhD students), and the export of the EIT educational model to a broad
audience of education providers.
What do stakeholders say?195
 Seek a stronger alignment of policies for education, research and innovation, stronger links between the European
Research Area and the European Higher Education Area.
 Linking education, research and innovation through an alignment of the next Framework Programme and the
successor of Erasmus+ should be explored.
 While keeping the main focus on research, introduce into EU grant agreements the possibility of linking research
to education and sharing research results with students.
 Researchers funded through Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) and the ERC, for example, should be
permitted to engage in high-level teaching activities and to include these activities in their time sheets.
 Consider introducing a funding stream within the MSCA instrument for doctoral schools, in order to enhance the
capacity of universities in the education and training of the next generation of researchers.
 The emphasis on education in the report of the High Level Group on maximising the impact of EU R&I
programmes has resonated amongst stakeholders196
. The call to “educate for the future and invest in people who
will make the change”, including the need for universities to better support innovation and entrepreneurship,
generated a lively debate on universities as enablers of innovation in the 21st
century
197.
192
LAB-FAB-APP, Investing in the European future we want, Lamy High Level Group Report (2017)
193
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT on the Interim evaluation of the European Institute of Innovation and
Technology (EIT) {SWD(2017) 352 final}
194
The Future of EIT, Report by Commissioner Navracsics' High Level Group on the EIT, 2016
195
http://eua.be/Libraries/publications-homepage-list/eua-next-framework-programme-for-research-and-innovation-
(fp9).pdf?sfvrsn=2;
https://www.leru.org/publications/excellent-education-in-research-rich-universities; …
196
‘We recognise the importance of the modernisation agenda and of stimulating the open science agenda, including in universities’.
League of European Research Universities, Response to HLG Group report, July 2017
197
The debate was in motion following the publication of the Renewed EU Agenda for Higher Education.
134
9.2 What do we want to achieve on education in the next Framework Programme?
Integrate research and education across borders. In order to do so, strong links between the
European Research Area (ERA) and European Higher Education Area (EHEA) agendas need to be
developed. EU programmes on research and innovation, and on education need to provide
incentives for higher education institutions and research institutes to integrate education, research
and innovation across borders and to facilitate knowledge transfer from higher education
institutions to companies or spin-offs. Member States, regions and higher education institutions
need to be incentivised to work together to upgrade curricula to match changing skills needs, revise
career incentives for academics to recognise entrepreneurial achievements or reward institutions for
new ways of teaching that promote trans-disciplinary and entrepreneurial skills. Synergies also need
to be developed between research and innovation activities on the one hand and students’ education
on the other hand. It will be crucial to establish the future programmes in such a way that they do
not only promote the transfer of research results to companies and other societal actors, but also the
transfer of research into teaching, thereby enabling students to connect better with and learn from
research and researchers. Teaching and professional development for teaching need to be promoted
and integrated into an academic career as early as possible, through future research funding
schemes such as the European Institute for Innovation and Technology (EIT) and the Marie
Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA). Synergies need to be exploited across all relevant funding
programmes, both nationally and at European level.
Facilitate knowledge transfer from higher education institutions and research institutes into
existing companies or spin-offs and introduce rewards for academics' entrepreneurial
achievements. To achieve this, the following could be considered:
 regard excellent teaching and education-focused scholarship as activities equal to excellence in
research.
 regard excellent service to society, innovation activities or transfer of knowledge outside
academic sector.
 establish reward systems for academics for their 'service to society' in general and for their
entrepreneurial achievements in particular; reward any type of innovation and entrepreneurial
activities, not excluding the social and non-profit sector.
Reward new ways of teaching towards transdisciplinary and entrepreneurial skills:
 Programmes like MSCA and EIT Knowledge & Innovation Communities already ensure the
establishment of training and career development systems that equip students and researchers,
including many future academics, with skills based on the 'Triple I' principle, i.e.. international,
interdisciplinary, inter-sectoral. MSCA and EIT will continue to do so.
 EU programmes could consider including incentives that enable its participating higher
education institutions to reward and promote excellent university teachers and education-focused
leaders, in order to empower students to become agents of change, and to encourage higher
education institutions introducing such systems into their general practice.
Upgrade curricula to match changing skills needs. Well-designed higher education programmes
and curricula, centred on students’ and researchers' learning needs, are crucial for effective skills
development. A wider range of course choices and options for continuous professional development
will help higher education respond better to people's needs. As much teaching in higher education
takes place in research-performing institutions, research must be better exploited as input for
teaching, while undergraduates should be more involved in research such that they are afforded
opportunities to explore contemporary issues and develop their research skills. Digitally-enabled
open science provides for new possibilities to address this. The programme should explore ways to
enhance the quality and relevance of learning and teaching as well as to promote a stronger link
between teaching, learning and research at all study levels, and should consider ways to provide
135
incentives for institutions, teachers and students to intensify activities that develop creativity,
innovation and entrepreneurship. This could for example happen through the European
Universities 198
working across borders and fostering development of new joint and integrated long
term and sustainable strategies on education, research and innovation based on trans-disciplinary
and cross-sectoral approaches to make the knowledge triangle a reality, providing impetus to
economic growth.
9.3 What will change compared to Horizon 2020 and what are the expected implications?
Horizon Europe will explore ways to put a greater emphasis on human capital and skills
development. A coherent approach on human capital across all parts of the future Programme
should be ensured and the links between education on the one hand and research and innovation
projects on the other should be strengthened. Follow-up and monitoring of the results of the human
capital and skills development as part of the research and innovation projects should be reinforced.
The European Universities initiative, the MSCA and the EIT Community could help universities to
become more entrepreneurial, innovation oriented educational institutions, supportive of open
science practices, i.e. through developing a complete portfolio of education activities not only at
higher level (bachelor, masters and doctoral programmes) but also in a life-long-learning
perspective. This would reduce skills mismatch and boost skills uptake across the whole education
chain. European Universities will promote cross-border cooperation among higher education
institutions, boost mobility for students and teachers and facilitate language learning. The idea is to
promote bottom-up alliances of universities across the EU, bringing together people who can
cooperate in different languages, across borders and disciplines. European Universities will pioneer
studies across disciplines and sectors. This approach will help address big societal challenges and
skills shortages. The aim of European Universities is to drive innovation in education and research
in Europe whilst making use of the most innovative pedagogies and digital technologies. European
Universities will act as models for other higher education institutions in the EU, progressively
increasing the international competitiveness of European higher education. Synergies should be
explored between Horizon Europe and the future Erasmus programme to see whether it would be
possible to co-fund higher education institutions which are partners in alliances of the European
Universities initiative.
The role played by EIT in relation to strengthening the innovation ecosystem landscape across
Europe and in mainstreaming its educational support for the renewal of European higher
education institutions will be crucial. Actions aiming at fostering the Europe's innovation capacity
and the innovation in higher education and business should allow the EIT Community to test and
share the outcome of their experimental educational activities beyond their direct beneficiaries and
offering students, entrepreneurs and professionals across and beyond Europe the cross-cutting
programmes where specialist and sector specific knowledge is combined with entrepreneurial and
innovation oriented skills. Synergies will concern also activities that support sectoral vocational
training in order to tackle also the needs identified at single KIC and cross-KIC level. Aiming at
equipping the next generation of innovators with the relevant technical and transversal skills to
thrive in a fast changing economic environment, the EIT’s education programmes include physical
and cross-sectoral mobility of students. The synergies with Erasmus are evident and some elements
of EIT programmes, in particular the mobility components, could be also supported by Erasmus
when relevant.
198
The European Council debated the issue in December 2017 and called for the establishment of bottom-up networks of universities
across the EU with the broad aim to strengthen research, innovation and education in Europe and to bring about more European
integration through higher education.
136
9.4 How will this be implemented?
Options will be explored to ensure that every researcher recruited on any R&I project in the next
Framework Programme gets proper training & career development and good working conditions at
the same high standards. This could entail establishment of Career Development Plans for young
researchers & innovators, the mandatory implementation of the European Charter and Code for
Researchers199
to ensure good working conditions, as well as a 'best effort' to implement an open,
transparent, and merit-based recruitment (OTM-R) mechanism in all projects.
The cost for trainings and skills development should become eligible in programmes where it is
relevant, such as projects related to specific missions, global challenges or specific innovation
activities, in addition to MSCA and EIT that already implement this. The role of teaching for
researchers and feeding back research results into teaching will be general points of attention.
Feeding back results from Framework Programme projects into teaching should be requirements in
dissemination & exploitation and will be closely followed-up, monitored and ex-post evaluated.
MSCA and EIT educational programmes can support training & career development for the rest
of the Framework Programme. As the missions will require highly interdisciplinary skilled people,
proper training is likely to be a strong prerequisite to fulfil a mission's goal. In this respect, the
missions could very well profit from the MSCA and EIT educational activities and use it as and
implementing tool to support relevant interdisciplinary skills training activities. Such skills will
include a creative mind, an entrepreneurial outlook, but also teaching of students, transferring back
research result into teaching, engagement with society in general, which will allow researchers to
face current and future global challenges and enable the transmission to, and take-up of research
results by, society and economy.
Together with the Framework Programme's part on 'Sharing Excellence', measures should be
considered under that can stimulate brain circulation also to Widening countries, without
compromising on the excellence principle. The future Euratom Programme could fund MSCA to
provide training & career development in the sector of nuclear research.
The European Universities initiative will be a catalyst for R&I activities and projects, innovation
hubs and human capital development. The alliances will bring together a new generation of
Europeans, who are able to cooperate in different languages, across borders and disciplines, to
address the big societal challenges and skills shortages that Europe faces, underpinned by European
higher education institutions which seamlessly cooperate across borders. The alliances will act as a
game changer in Europe progressively increasing the international competitiveness of European
higher education institutions by
• fostering development of new joint and integrated long term and sustainable strategies on
education, research and innovation based on trans-disciplinary and cross-sectoral approaches
to make the knowledge triangle a reality;
• being drivers of educational and research innovation by making use of the most innovative
pedagogies and digital technologies;
• creating new joint curricula based on innovative research output forward looking skills and
multidisciplinary and inter-sectoral approaches;
• attracting the best talent, students, teachers and researchers across the world and acting as
role models for other higher education institutions and the business sector throughout
Europe by committing to implement policies on education, research and innovation;
199
https://euraxess.ec.europa.eu/jobs/charter
137
• fostering opportunities for talent, students, teachers, researchers and other public and private
actors to co-create knowledge and innovation together (e.g. working together to address
global challenges or other priorities identified by the Framework Programme).
138
Annex 9 - Rules for Participation
1 Single set of rules
1.1 What is the current situation under Horizon 2020?
FACTS
A single set of participation rules exists for participants in the programme, for example concerning
eligibility criteria for the calls for proposals and the reimbursement rate. This applies to the different
types of R&I support provided under the programme.
The rules are aligned as much as possible to the EU Financial Regulation, in order to ensure
coherence with other EU funding programmes. Some derogations from the rules do, however, exist
for specific initiatives.
Under FP7, the previous programme covering the 2007-2013 period, different rules including
eligibility criteria and reimbursement rates, depending on the programme part and on the type of
organisation, were used.
A single set of rules was put in place under Horizon 2020 with the aim of ensuring a coherent
framework for participation, including within programmes managed by the European Institute of
Innovation and Technology (EIT), public-private partnerships managed by Joint Undertakings
under Article 187 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) and public-public
partnerships under Article 185 TFEU.
Following the inter-institutional discussions on Horizon 2020, flexibility was sought by introducing
a number of limited derogations, which exist for both Joint Undertakings (under Article 187) and
public-public partnerships (Article 185).
For Joint Undertakings, the scope of derogations from the Rules for Participation is set out in the
Rules themselves and developed further through delegated acts – a means by which the Parliament
and the Council maintained control on the detailed content of these derogations. For Article 185
initiatives, derogations from the Rules are laid down in the respective basic acts, adopted by the
Parliament and Council by ordinary legislative procedure.
Compared to FP7, the single set of rules under Horizon 2020 was a major simplification. Under
FP7, participants had to comply with different rules depending on the programme part. The
different funding bodies applied a variety of diverging rules, with different eligibility criteria or
funding rates. This triggered fragmentation, reduced legal certainty and increased the administrative
burden and resources required to participate. As highlighted in the ex-post evaluation of FP7, the
level of complexity and the lack of consistency between different parts of the programme meant
that the rules were too complex. This explains, at least in part, the relatively high error rate
associated with FP7 which the Court of Auditors attributed to risks inherent in the programme's
design and implementation.200
Lessons learnt from Horizon 2020
The application of the single set of rules is widely seen by beneficiaries as advantageous: it contributes to
200
Ex-post evaluation of FP7, 2016.
139
increased legal certainty, coherence and simplification of the rules. For example: "One single set of simplified EU
rules for participation is essential to safeguard a level playing field across borders given the big differences in
national legislation….we welcome the introduction of a single set of rules".
(CESAER position paper on FP9: "How You Can Boost Worldwide Research and Innovation", January 2018).
"Within the EU funding programmes landscape, Horizon 2020 has achieved remarkable simplification. It has
made access to the programme easier, reduced costs for applicants and made the programme more attractive"
(p.18, LAB-FAB-APP: Investing in the European future we want. Report of the High Level Group on maximising the
impact of EU research and innovation programmes, July 2017).
The interim evaluation of the Article 185 initiatives indicates that "initiatives with fully centralised
implementation are considered as more efficient in their programme implementation" while the reporting
requirements for participants in decentralised initiatives201
were identified "as a challenge"
(p. 32, Staff Working Document on Evaluation of the Participation of the EU in Research and Development
Undertaken by Several Member States Based on Article 185 of the TFEU, September 2017).
The interim evaluation of Joint Undertakings also indicates that uniform application of the Horizon 2020 Rules
contributed to the improved operational efficiency of JUs, but this progress was in some cases hampered by the
design of the individual JU.
(p. 36, Staff Working Document on Evaluation of the Participation of the EU in Research and Development
Undertaken by Several Member States Based on Article 185 of the TFEU, September 2017).
1.2 What are the changes?
The new EU Financial Regulation will be used as a common reference. Derogations should be kept
to a minimum and are clearly justified in every case..
The Rules for Participation will aim for further simplification, increased legal certainty and reduced
administrative burden - for beneficiaries, for other stakeholders and for programme administrators.
This will uphold the single set of rules while introducing further improvements. All bodies
implementing the programme will be brought together under one roof, including the EIT.
Derogations for Article 185 and 187 initiatives, which will adhere to the common set of funding
rules and the central management of all financial contributions, will be minimised.
The Participant Guarantee Fund202
(renamed Mutual Insurance Mechanism) will also be extended to
cover actions under Horizon Europe managed not only by the Commission, the EU agencies and the
EU funding bodies (i.e. JUs and the EIT), but also by non-EU funding bodies (i.e. the bodies
implementing the public-public partnerships under Article 185). Moreover, it may also be extended
to beneficiaries of any other directly managed Union programme203
.
201
Fully centralised implementation: This model, used by EMRP and EMPIR, the successive public-public partnerships on
metrology under FP7 and Horizon 2020, is the most integrated one. Here the whole programme, including the management of the
grants, is implemented by the Dedicated Implementation Structure. Fully decentralised implementation: In this model (AAL2 and
Eurostars2) the DIS is mainly organising the central evaluation and channels the EU co-funding to the national funding agencies that
are managing individual national grant agreements for the funded projects.
202
Under Horizon 2020, actions managed by non-Union funding bodies are not covered by the Participant Guarantee Fund (PGF).
Since 2007, two Participant Guarantee Funds were created (EU and Euratom FP7) in order to protect the risk of non-recovery of
sums due to the Union and to allow ongoing projects to continue in case of default of one of the beneficiaries in grants administrated
by the Commission, executive agencies and the GSA (European Global Navigation Satellite Systems Agency). The positive
experiences acquired during the first FP7 PGF justified its continuation in Horizon 2020 ..
203
The Commission will adopt provisions for participation of beneficiaries of other Union programmes and the associated
contributions to the Fund will take account of their risk profiles.
140
1.3 What are the expected implications of the changes?
A single set of rules would deliver on the aim to rationalise Horizon Europe. It would streamline
implementation methods and reduce administrative burden for beneficiaries. The accessibility and
attractiveness of the programme, in particular for applicants with limited resources such as SMEs,
would be sustained. As a result, legal certainty would increase and participation would be simplified
further.
The extension of the coverage by the Participant Guarantee Fund to non-EU funding bodies would
lead to more coherence in applying the rules. Provided that proper safeguards are in place, this is
expected to be positively perceived by Member States, many of whom previously expressed their
wish for including projects funded by Article 185 initiatives under the scope of the Fund.
1.4 What alternatives have been considered?
Keep the Horizon 2020 status quo - this would reproduce all the current programme's benefits and
limitations. While this would result in a smoother transition, it would also not lead to further
simplification and streamlining and would not take account of the lessons learnt from the Horizon
2020 interim evaluation.
Return to the FP7 situation - this would abandon the single set of rules principle and allow the
different bodies to adopt their respective rules as they see fit. However, this flexibility would be
granted at the expense of beneficiaries, who would face an excessively complicated set of diverging
rules. Simplification efforts would be thwarted, and legal certainty would decrease.
The administrative burden for adjusting to different sets of rules would become prohibitive,
hampering participation by beneficiaries with limited resources, in particular SMEs.
2 Funding model and types of action
2.1 What is the current situation under Horizon 2020?
FACTS
The single set of rules under Horizon 2020 features a simplified funding model. There is a single funding
rate per type of action (up to 100% of eligible costs for research actions, but limited to a maximum of 70%
for innovation actions, except for non-profit organisations) and a 25% flat rate for indirect costs. A number of
different types of action exist..
Under FP7, the previous programme from 2007 to 2013, costs were reimbursed based on a complex matrix of
organisation categories and activity types.
Funding model
 The Horizon 2020 funding model is based on two main features: a single funding rate (up to
100% of eligible costs for research actions, but limited to a maximum of 70% for innovation
actions, except for non-profit organisations), and a single flat rate of 25% for indirect costs.
 Under FP7, contrastingly, direct costs were reimbursed based on a matrix of organisation
categories and activity types. The indirect costs were calculated using four different
methods, including real indirect costs.
 The Horizon 2020 funding model has mobilised and largely satisfied stakeholders. In a
simplification survey conducted in 2015, around 78% of respondents expressed the benefit
141
of a single reimbursement rate in a project, and 74% felt the benefit of the single flat rate for
indirect costs.
 The Horizon 2020 funding model has had positive effects on stakeholder appreciation, time
to grant204
, attractiveness and has reduced administrative burden. This is reflected in the
application statistics and underlined by the interim evaluation of Horizon 2020.
Types of action
The following types of action are used within Horizon 2020:
Type of action and objectives pursued Target Groups Changes FP7
GRANT-BASED TYPES OF ACTION
Research and Innovation Actions (RIA): Action primarily
consisting of activities aiming to establish new knowledge
and/or to explore the feasibility of a new or improved
technology, product, process, service or solution. It may include
basic and applied research, technology development and
integration, testing and validation on a small-scale prototype in
a laboratory or simulated environment
Consortia of partners from
different countries, industry
and academia
Changes to
funding model
and further focus
on innovation
Innovation Actions (IA): Actions primarily consisting of
activities directly aiming at producing plans and arrangements
or designs for new, altered or improved products, processes or
services. For this purpose they may include prototyping, testing,
demonstrating, piloting, large-scale product validation and
market replication. They are used for areas where the scientific
and technology insights are available and the focus shifts to
turning these into applications.
Consortia of partners from
different countries, industry
and academia
New action and
changes to
funding model
Fast Track to Innovation (IA): Continuously open calls will
target innovation projects addressing any technology or societal
challenge field
Consortia of partners from
different countries
New action
European Joint Programme Cofund (COFUND-EJP): Support
to coordinated national research and innovation programmes in
implementing a joint programme of activities (ranging from
research and innovation activities to coordination activities,
training and dissemination activities).
Independent legal entities
from Member States or
Associated Countries owning
or managing national research
and innovation programmes
New action
ERA-NET-Cofund: Support public-public partnerships in their
preparation, establishment of networking structures, design,
implementation and coordination of joint activities as well as
Union topping-up of a trans-national call for proposals
Independent legal entities
from Member States or
Associated Countries owning
or managing national R&I
programmes
-
Pre-Commercial Procurements (PCP): PCP actions aim to
encourage public procurement of research, development and
validation of new solutions that can bring significant quality
and efficiency improvements in areas of public interest, whilst
opening market opportunities for industry and researchers
active in Europe
EU funding for a group of
procurers ('byers group') to
undertake together one joint
PCP / PPI procurement
-
Public Procurement of Innovative solutions (PPI): PPI actions
enable groups of procurers to share the risks of acting as early
adopters of innovative solutions, whilst opening market
opportunities for industry
EU funding for a group of
procurers ('buyers group') to
undertake together one joint
PCP/PPI procurement
-
Coordination and Support Actions: Actions consisting primarily
of accompanying measures such as standardisation,
dissemination, awareness-raising and communication,
Single entities or consortia of
partners from different
countries
-
204
"The first three years of Horizon 2020 have shown a significant reduction of the time elapsing between the closure of a call and
the signature of the Grant Agreement (i.e. Time to Grant), from an average of 303 days in FP7 to an average of 192.2 days, which is
a decrease of 36.6% (more than 110 days)". (p.55, In-Depth Staff Working Document on Horizon 2020 Interim Evaluation,
SWD(2017) 220 final, May 2017)
142
Type of action and objectives pursued Target Groups Changes FP7
networking, coordination or support services, policy dialogues
and mutual learning exercises and studies, including design
studies for new infrastructure and may also include
complementary activities of networking and coordination
between programmes in different countries
Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA): Bottom-up funding
for international research fellowships in the public or private
sector, research training, staff exchanges
Early stage researchers or
experienced researchers (of
any nationality), managerial,
technical or administrative
staff supporting the research
and innovation activities,
single entities or consortia of
partners from different
countries, industry and
academia
-
MSCA Co-fund: Support for regional, national and
international doctoral and fellowship programmes to foster
excellence in researchers' training, mobility and career
development, spreading the best practices of the MSCA
Single legal entities from
Member States or Associated
Countries owning or
managing international/
national/regional R&I
programmes, early stage
researchers or experienced
researchers (of any
nationality)
-
European Research Council frontier research grants: Funding
for projects evaluated on the sole criterion of scientific
excellence in any field of research, carried out by a single
national or multinational research team led by a ‘principal
investigator’
Excellent young, early-career
researchers, already
independent researchers and
senior research leaders.
Researchers can be of any
nationality and their projects
in any research field.
-
SME Instrument Phase 1 (IA): The SME Instrument is targeted
at all types of innovative SMEs showing a strong ambition to
develop, grow and internationalise. It provides staged support
covering the whole innovation cycle in three phases
complemented by a mentoring and coaching service. Phase 1 –
feasibility study verifying the technological/practical as well as
economic viability of an innovation idea/concept
Only SMEs can participate.
Either a single SME or a
consortium of SMEs
established in an EU or
Associated Country
New action
SME Instrument Phase 2 (IA): Phase 2 – innovation projects
that address a specific challenge and demonstrate high potential
in terms of company competitiveness and growth underpinned
by a strategic business plan
Only SMEs can participate.
Either a single SME or a
consortium of SMEs
established in an EU or
Associated Country
New action
Specific Grant Agreement (SGA): The Financial Regulation provides the possibility of
Framework Partnership Agreements for long-term partnerships and associated specific grant
agreements. Framework Partnership Agreements and Specific Grant Agreements have been used
in a limited way when in line with the objectives of the programme parts.
-
OTHER INITIATIVES UNDER HORIZON 2020
Prizes: Financial contribution given as a reward following the
publication of a contest. Inducement prizes are a 'test-validate-
scale' open innovation approach that brings together new and
small players that may pursue more radically new concepts than
large, institutionalised contestants. Inducement prizes offer an
incentive by mobilising new talents and engaging new solver
communities around a specific challenge. They are only
awarded based on the achievement of the target set, solving the
challenge defined. ‘Recognition prizes’ are used to recognise
past achievements and outstanding work after it has been
performed, whereas an ‘inducement prize’ is used to spur
Whoever can most effectively
meet a defined challenge
(future target or past
achievement)
New action
143
Type of action and objectives pursued Target Groups Changes FP7
investment in a given direction, by specifying a target prior to
the performance of the work.
Public-Public Partnerships also provided via the Article 185
initiatives: Article 185 of the TFEU allows the integration of
national efforts into a programme undertaken jointly by several
Member States, with the participation of the EU, including
participation in the structures created for the execution of the
joint programme.
EU Member States -
Public-Private Partnerships: Support the development and
implementation of research and innovation activities of strategic
importance to the Union's competitiveness and industrial
leadership or to address specific societal challenges. They take
the form of Joint Undertakings under Article 187 of the TFEU
and organise their own research agenda. Contractual PPPs, in
which the activities take place under the umbrella of the
Horizon 2020 work programmes, may also be supported.
Partnerships between public
and private sector
-
Public Procurement: Supply of assets, execution of works or
provision of services against payment
By means of tenders and
subject to special procurement
procedures
Financial instruments: Equity or quasi-equity investments;
loans; guarantees; other risk-sharing instruments. Horizon
2020's financial instruments operate in conjunction with those
of COSME. Strong synergies shall be ensured with the
European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) to create the
maximum possible impact. Shall be the main form of funding
for activities close to market under Horizon 2020.
FI are not directly
implemented by the
Commission (nor via the WP),
but via EIB/EIF.
Replacing Risk
Sharing Finance
Facility
Lessons learnt from Horizon 2020
"The Horizon 2020 funding model puts the focus on the costs that are directly related to the project. It was
expected to simplify the financial management of projects, by a reduced complexity of the financial rules; reduce the
financial error rate detected in ex-post audits; increase legal certainty for beneficiaries; increase the attractiveness and
ease of access to the programme, in particular for newcomers, smaller actors, SMEs and industry; and contribute to the
acceleration of the granting processes. The thematic assessments confirm that the expected benefits have largely
materialised".
(p.54, In-Depth Staff Working Document on Horizon 2020 Interim Evaluation, SWD(2017) 220 final, May 2017).
"The new funding model has mobilised and largely satisfied stakeholders. It can also be assumed to have
contributed to the attractiveness of Horizon 2020 as reflected in application statistics. For around 90% of universities and
more than half of research organisations which have used in FP7 the 60% flat rate method for indirect costs, the Horizon
2020 funding model has brought little change compared to FP7 in terms of funding rate and has therefore not had any
major impact on the participation pattern of research organisations and universities".
(p.56, In-Depth Staff Working Document on Horizon 2020 Interim Evaluation, SWD(2017) 220 final, May 2017).
Further simplification efforts and more flexibility are needed, for example concerning the additional remuneration
scheme and the broader acceptance of beneficiaries' accounting practices. The additional remuneration scheme has been
perceived by Member State representatives and stakeholders as being difficult to implement (see p.56 of the Staff
Working Document), and as having a negative financial effect on those beneficiaries whose usual remuneration practices
are based on very variable levels of remuneration. Broader acceptance of usual accounting practices (strengthening the
current cases under Horizon 2020, with the future possibility to have other cases where the usual cost accounting
practices of the beneficiary could be accepted) will be further explored.
144
2.2 What are the changes?
Funding model
The current funding model will be maintained. The Rules for Participation provisions will be
complemented by clear guidance on use of the maximum funding rate, and the possibility to lower
this in justified cases.
Types of action
The types of action under Horizon Europe, for example in the area of public-private and public-
public partnerships, will be rationalised and will provide more flexibility for the applicant. An
overview of continued, discontinued and new funding instruments can be found in Table 16 below.
For the forms of funding and types of action to be maintained under Horizon Europe, the level of
detail within the current Rules for Participation, with some adjustments in the area of prizes, will be
maintained. There will be no duplication with the EU Financial Regulation, which will serve as a
single rulebook for all actions financed from the EU budget.
Table 16: Mapping of continued, discontinued and new instruments in Horizon Europe
CONTINUED
Without Changes
CONTINUED
With Changes
DISCONTINUED NEW
Design – Priorities
 Excellent Science: becomes Open
Science pillar and does not include the
FET specific objective
 Societal Challenges: becomes Global
Challenges and Industrial
Competitiveness pillar and covers the
LEITs specific objective of the
Industrial Leadership pillar
 EIT: becomes part of the newly created
Open Innovation pillar
Industrial
Leadership as a
separate pillar
 Open Innovation
pillar
 ERA foundation
("Strengthening the
ERA") : covers
SWAFs, Widening,
which were separate
specific objectives
Design - Specific objectives
 European Research
Council
 Marie Skłodowska-Curie
Actions
 Research Infrastructures
 Direct Actions (Joint
Research Centre)
 Support to the European
Institute of Innovation
and Technology
 Leadership in enabling and industrial
technologies (becomes cross-cluster,
though in particular in Digital and
Industry cluster)
 Innovation in SMEs, (included in
European Innovation Council)
 Societal Challenges 1-7 (becomes
Clusters in the Global Challenges
pillar)
 Science with and for Society (becomes
intervention areas within ERA
foundation)
 Spreading Excellence and Widening
Participation (becomes Sharing
Excellence, within ERA foundation)
 Future and
Emerging
Technologies as
separate label,
but activities
included in other
parts
 Fast Track to
Innovation
 Access to Risk
Finance (moved
to InvestEU
programme)
European Innovation
Council (building on EIC
pilot)
Implementation - instruments
145
 Research and Innovation
Actions
 Innovation Actions
 ERC frontier research
 Training and mobility
actions
 Programme co-fund
actions
 coordination and support
actions
 inducement prizes
 recognition prizes
 public procurements
 ERA Chairs
 Twinning
 Teaming
 Policy Support Facility
 Pre-commercial procurements (PCP)
and Public procurement of innovative
solutions (PPI) (becomes Coordinated
innovation procurement)
 SME Instrument (integrated into EIC
Accelerator and transition activities)
 Future and Emerging Technologies
(FET) Open (becomes EIC Pathfinder)
 Future and Emerging Technologies
(FET) Flagships (incorporated within
missions concept)
 Support to Joint Programming
Initiatives, ERA-NETs, Contractual
Public Private Partnerships,
Institutionalised public-private
partnerships (Art. 187) and
Institutionalised public-public
partnerships (Art. 185): incorporated
within European Partnerships initiative.
Missions
EIC pathfinder
EIC accelerator
EIC transition activities
Implementation – concepts
 Key Enabling
Technologies
 Integration of social
Sciences and Humanities
 Responsible Research
and Innovation (Trying to
drop this term – better to
treat the components
separately)
 Communication
 Gender Equality
 Ethics standards
 International cooperation (new criteria)
 Strategic planning – widened to include
the R&I activities from other funding
programmes
 Governance
2.3 What are the expected implications of the changes?
Funding model
The proposed changes would:
 Provide continuity with the current situation, complying with the principles of the Financial
Regulation.
 Be positively perceived by recurrent Horizon 2020 beneficiaries
 Facilitate access to the programme for beneficiaries who have difficulties to get other
sources of funding for their projects, possibly increasing the number of newcomers and
covering a wider range of potential beneficiaries.
However some of the difficulties experienced in Horizon 2020 to date, notably on oversubscription
to calls, would most likely continue (alternative ways to address oversubscription are also identified
in section 3.4 of the Impact Assessment).
Types of action
The proposed changes would ensure stability while taking account of the lessons learned from
Horizon 2020 so far, for example the need to rationalise the number of existing EU funding
146
instruments for research and innovation. It would better suit participants' needs by applying
simplified forms of funding; thus streamlining further the EU R&I funding landscape. Thus, the
result would be a more user-friendly set of EU funding schemes for R&I, coherence with the EU
Financial Regulation and greater complementarity between instruments.
2.4 What alternatives have been considered?
Funding model
A single reduced funding rate for all projects (75% funding rate) and linking the flat rate for indirect
costs to personnel costs based on an optional unit cost was considered. This could reduce
oversubscription (as a higher number of beneficiaries could benefit from EU funding), further
simplify the current rules (i.e. no differentiation between funding rates for Research and Innovation
Actions and Innovation Actions) and enhance opportunities for newcomers. However, the reduction
of the funding intensity would lower the overall attractiveness of the programme, especially for
non-profit entities and SMEs, and would negatively affect the principle of excellence.
Different levels of funding for industry compared to other types of beneficiaries were also
considered. The funding rates for industry evolved from 50% in FP7 (with a possibility to charge
real indirect costs) to 100% (70% in innovation actions) in Horizon 2020 (with a 25% flat rate for
indirect costs). Doubling of the nominal funding rate in Horizon 2020, in combination with the 25%
flat rate for indirect costs (and no real indirect costs), has had a positive effect in attracting industry
and only a minor impact on the effective funding rate for industry. Having a separate (lower) rate
for industry could release funds to increase the number of grants and to offer further possibilities for
newcomers. However, the introduction of a different funding rate for industry would have a
negative impact on industry participation, time-to-grant and would work against the drive for
simplification.
3 Forms of grants
3.1 What is the current situation under Horizon 2020?
FACTS
Different forms of grants205
are provided for under the current EU Financial Regulation and used by the
Horizon 2020 programme.
To reduce the complexity of the funding rules, Horizon 2020 features a "simplified cost
reimbursement system with enhanced use of lump sums, flat rates and unit costs"206
.
Actual costs (i.e. costs actually incurred by beneficiaries) are the most widely used. Unit costs are
used in relation to personnel costs (i.e. for average personnel costs and SME owners without a
salary), other direct costs (i.e. internal invoices) and for MSCA, while flat rates are used for the
indirect costs. Lump sums are used, for example within Phase 1 of the SME Instrument).
Lessons learnt from Horizon 2020
"The range of funding schemes for R&I across the EU budget is numerous, complex and not accessible enough…a
205
Art. 125 of the new EU Financial Regulation refers to "forms of Union contribution", however the more user-friendly "forms of
grants" term is used in this section of the annex.
206
Recital 13 of the Horizon 2020 Regulation. The flat-rate for indirect costs, the unit cost for the owners of SMEs and the unit cost
based on average personnel costs also all mentioned in the core text of the Horizon 2020 Rules for Participation.
147
minimum objective should be to eliminate one third of R&I funding schemes, instruments and acronyms across the
landscape" (LAB-FAB-APP: Investing in the European future we want, Report of the High Level Group on maximising
the impact of EU research and innovation programmes, July 2017).
"The use of new instruments such as the pre-commercial public procurement (PCP), public procurement for
innovation (PPI) and inducement prizes clearly aim at leveraging demand for future solutions. Evidence of outputs so
far is however still lacking on the effects of the PCP and PPI, since the first projects were signed only in 2015….overall
more could be done to support demand for innovative solutions and user-driven innovation" (p.110, In-Depth Staff
Working Document on Horizon 2020 Interim Evaluation, SWD(2017) 220 final, May 2017).
Due to the perceived need to focus more on performance rather than auditing of spending, there is a general
interest to simplify funding and shift the focus from the reimbursement of costs to the implementation of defined
activities. The main step is the new Financial Regulation, whose main purpose is to facilitate and stimulate, as far as
possible, the simplified forms of grants. Further simplification of the current actual cost reimbursement system is
necessary, in particular in the area of personnel costs.
3.2 What are the changes?
There will be specific provisions on forms of Union contribution (as described under Article 125 of
the new Financial Regulation) within the Rules for Participation. These provisions will include, as
exists today, the reimbursement of actual costs, flat rate costs and increased use of lump-sum costs
(building on the lump-sum pilot under Horizon 2020) and prizes. In addition, the funding of Marie
Skłodowska-Curie Actions, fully based on unit costs, will be continued, and other forms of Union
funding will be considered.
For projects funded mainly on the basis of incurred costs, the current unit cost options (average
personnel costs, internally invoiced goods and services, SME owner unit cost, clinical studies, etc.)
calculated in accordance with the beneficiary's usual practices207
will be maintained. In addition, the
unit cost for internally invoiced goods and services will allow for a higher acceptance of usual cost
accounting practices. This means that beneficiaries will be able, under certain conditions208
, to
calculate unit costs based on actual direct and indirect costs. Public procurement instruments will be
aligned to the new Financial Regulation, while some specificities are provided for pre-commercial
procurement and procurement of innovative solutions.
Issue Planned status within Horizon Europe Programme
Actual costs
Rules on personnel costs The current Horizon 2020 system of reimbursement of actual personnel costs will
be simplified and, where possible, further aligned with the Financial Regulation:
the distinction between basic and additional remuneration will be removed and the
Horizon 2020 capping on additional remuneration of EUR 8.000 per person per
year abolished.
At the same time, building on Horizon 2020, the costs of personnel will be eligible
up to the remuneration that the person would be paid for the time worked in
projects funded by national schemes.
Eligibility of costs from third
parties
The system of in-kind contributions provided by third parties to beneficiaries will
be further aligned to the Financial Regulation: in-kind contributions against
payment will be treated and reimbursed according to the conditions set out in this
Regulation.
The possibility for beneficiaries to declare costs of in-kind contributions provided
207
The conditions for eligibility of these costs will be set out in the model grant agreement.
208
These conditions (e.g. beneficiaries must be able to identify their actual eligible indirect costs, they must use of a fair key or driver
to distribute these costs) will be further developed in the model grant agreement.
148
by third parties (free-of-charge) will be kept and further simplified. Beneficiaries
will be able to declare costs related to in-kind contributions provided by third
parties (free-of-charge) as eligible up to the direct eligible third parties’ costs.
Therefore, no distinction as to whether these resources (e.g. seconded persons,
contributed equipment) are used on the beneficiaries or third parties’ premises will
be necessary any longer.
In addition, the obligation to declare such costs as receipts will be removed in light
of the provisions of the Financial Regulation.
Flat rate costs
Indirect costs The current Horizon 2020 flat rate of 25% for indirect costs will be maintained.
Lump sum costs
The use of lump sums will be increased based on the experience of the lump sum
pilot projects under Horizon 2020.
Unit costs calculated in accordance with the beneficiary's usual accounting practices
The current provisions for unit costs (i.e. average personnel costs and costs of
internally invoiced goods and services) will be maintained. In addition, the unit
cost for internally invoiced goods and services will allow for a higher acceptance
of the usual cost accounting practices by allowing beneficiaries, under certain
conditions – to be set out in the grant agreement - to calculate such unit cost based
on 'actual direct and indirect costs'.
Unit costs for MSCA
The current system of unit costs will be maintained (not excluding the use of other
forms of Union funding).
EU financing not linked to costs
The topics where this form of Union contribution could be used will be identified
in the Specific Programme or in the Work Programme. Further details will be set
out in subsequent Commission procedure as indicated in the revised Financial
Regulation.
Operating grants
No specific references in the Rules are necessary to conclude operating grants
(which could be specified within the Work Programme).
3.3 What are the expected implications of the changes?
These changes would provide legal certainty and consistency by offering the complete set of forms
of grants set out in the Financial Regulation to beneficiaries, but outlining the choice of the most
appropriate one in the Work Programme. This is also expected to improve and simplify
reimbursement of actual costs, while providing flexibility.
3.4 What alternatives have been considered?
Alternative considered Reason not favoured
Rules for personnel costs
Provide for an optional unit cost (hourly rate) set out by
the Commission for all EU and Euratom programmes.
This would not help deliver the objective of broadening
opportunities for participants of the Framework
Programme and increasing the leverage effect of the EU
funding.
Provide for a unit cost (hourly rate) calculated by the
beneficiary based on the average salary of the person in
This would require detailed rules to determine the formula
149
the previous year. to be applied.
Payment of the personnel costs against certain conditions,
by fixing an amount to cover the personnel costs for the
work done in the project.
This would imply replacing the actual cost system with
contribution not linked to costs; however, given the
diversity in salary costs across the Union, it would not be
possible to set out a fixed amount for personnel across
Europe.
Eligibility of costs from third parties
Fully align to the Financial Regulation by considering in-
kind contributions as part of the co-financing and
therefore as ineligible costs.
This would imply a significant change and a potential
financial loss for beneficiaries, in particular for
universities of many Member States whose professors are
paid by the ministries. Thus this would be challenged by
Member States, research beneficiaries and stakeholders.
4 Further simplification/flexibility
4.1 What is the current situation under Horizon 2020?
FACTS
Simplification of rules and procedures is a central guiding principle of Horizon 2020, and is fully reflected
in the programme's design, rules, financial management and ways of implementation. The aim has been to
make the programme simpler and more attractive, in particular to newcomers.
Significant simplification has resulted in the single reimbursement rate, the flat rate for indirect costs, the
improved Participant Portal and the electronic grant management processes.
The Lump Sum pilot is the main element of the second wave of simplification of Horizon 2020. It will test
two options for lump sum funding in the 2018/2020 Work Programme.
Lessons learnt from Horizon 2020
The Lamy Report recognises the "remarkable simplification achieved" in the context of Horizon 2020. It
identifies areas for further simplification for Horizon Europe in order to: (i) make the Participant Portal website a “one-
stop-shop” for all steps from application to final reporting; (ii) give participants the choice between cost-based and
lump-sum funding; and (iii) further simplifying administrative processes along the project cycle.
The Horizon 2020 Interim Evaluation highlights that simplification is a continuous endeavour, and identifies
possible areas for improvement, such as the broader acceptance of beneficiaries' usual cost accounting practices or the
more extensive use of simplified forms of funding (unit costs, flat rates, lump sum). This is in line with the new
Financial Regulation and the EU Budget Focused on Results initiative.
The European Court of Auditors, in its briefing paper on "A contribution to simplification for research beyond
Horizon 2020"209
, identifies among other things the "following proposals to be considered to bring more focus on the
discussion in Horizon Europe that is taking place now: (i) further use of simplified cost options, such as lump sums and
prizes; (ii) accepting beneficiaries' accounting practices.
209
Briefing Paper on ‘A contribution to simplification for research beyond Horizon 2020’, March 2018, available at:
https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/Briefing_paper_H2020/Briefing_paper_H2020_EN.pdf
150
4.2 What are the changes?
Based on the achievements of Horizon 2020, Horizon Europe will aim for further simplification of
rules for beneficiaries. This is fully in line with the overall objective of the next EU budgetary cycle
to have simple and effective common rules across Programmes, with adequate flexibility in justified
cases. The changes are:
 A wider/greater cross-reliance on audits and assessments – with other EU programmes – is
envisaged if the costs can be audited or assessed against the same set of rules.
 Broader acceptance of beneficiaries' usual cost accounting practices, in order to reduce the
administrative burden on beneficiaries who will be able to identify their cost components via
their own trusted methods.
 Increased use of lump sums is based on the lessons learned from the lump-sum pilot within the
2018-2020 calls under Horizon 2020. In addition, although not specifically mentioned in the
Rules, the two current unit costs calculated in accordance with the beneficiary's practices
(average personnel costs and internal invoices) will be maintained.
 The unit cost for internally invoiced goods and services will allow for a higher acceptance of
the usual cost accounting practices by allowing beneficiaries, under certain conditions (to be set
out in the grant agreement) to calculate this based on 'actual eligible direct and indirect costs'.
 Secure electronic system will be maintained: the use of a tool for providing secure electronic
interaction (currently the Participant Portal) should be made mandatory, in accordance with the
Financial Regulation. The Participant Portal will also be extended to other EU programmes.
 To address oversubscription, a broader use of multi-stage submission could be explored..
 Simplification measures should also address Article 185 initiatives, e.g. potential inclusion in
the Participant Guarantee Fund and the ex-post audit coverage by the Common Audit Service.
4.3 What are the expected implications of the changes?
 The expected reduction of audit efforts should decrease administrative buden and costs for
beneficiaries, as well as for Commission services.. Implementing additional automated checks
and tools for simpler entry of data will also have a positive impact where beneficiaries need to
submit information to EC.
 Increased alignment to the Financial Regulation on actual costs, broader use of simplified
forms of costs and of acceptance of beneficiaries' usual cost accounting practices will make
Horizon Europe less burdensome and more attractive. Further acceptance of the beneficiaries’
usual cost accounting practices will reduce the error rate on issues that have seen recurrent and
repetitive errors under FP7 and Horizon 2020.
 Further simplification due to increased use of lump sums under Horizon Europe. The use of
lump sums reduces substantially the administrative burden during the lifetime of the project,
shifting the focus of project monitoring from financial checks to performance and content.
 The improvements to the Participant Portal, the single entry point for information providing
secure electronic interaction, will offer easier access to the programme. Further improvements
of the interfaces, guidance documents, as well as the online version of the Annotated Model
Grant Agreement will similarly allow for easier access to information. Integration of ex-post
audit support into the Portal will enable a clearer view on the progress of audits and allow for
completely electronic exchange of documents and notifications, thus reducing administrative
burden and costs.
151
4.4 What alternatives have been considered?
Several alternatives to the simplification measures were considered, and several additional measures
may be introduced during Programme implementation.
5 Use of grants, financial instruments and budgetary guarantees
5.1 What is the current situation under Horizon 2020?
FACTS
More than 90% of the Horizon 2020 support is grant based. Less than 10% of support is provided through
financial instruments, such as debt and equity.
Horizon 2020 invests €400 million per year in risk financing, through the European Investment Bank. This
is, however, less than 10% of Horizon 2020's overall budget.
Grants are the most widely used and appropriate form of public support for early stage research and
innovation projects. Financial instruments are used for projects closer to the market.
Lessons learnt from Horizon 2020
Only a small number of companies receiving Horizon 2020 grants benefit from such financial instruments, and
the programme lacks genuine connections between grant and loan-based financing for companies.
A key aim of the Horizon 2020 financial instruments is to finance R&I projects closer to the market. But the
analysis of Technology Readiness Levels (used to measure the maturity level of innovation) illustrated that the
financial instruments financed an equal share of projects with lover level of maturity (TRL 1-3), medium level of
maturity (TRL 4-6) and higher level of maturity (7 – 8).
"Overall, the InnovFin scheme is performing well against its objectives of improving access to finance for
innovative companies and projects, and helping to address related market failures. To the extent that shortcomings
have been identified, these are more to do with the implementation of particular InnovFin schemes than being inherent
programme design faults" (p.467, Annex 2 of Staff Working Document on Horizon 2020 Interim Evaluation,
SWD(2017) 221 final, May 2017).
5.2 What are the changes?
Horizon Europe aims to increase the number of young, highly innovative European companies that
can scale up rapidly and grow into leading, market-creating innovators worldwide.
The availability of flexible, agile funding is a key mechanism that enables scaling up. However,
Europe's innovators, currently cannot access risk finance above the €10 million range. The supply
of flexible funding, such as blended finance (combining grants with loans or equity) or
crowdfunding, is insufficient. European investors are more cautious than their American
counterparts and are typically focused on smaller amounts. The European stock markets provide
insufficient source of finance210
.
210
In 2012-2016, the average European venture capital exit via Initial Public Offering (IPO) was nearly $ 70 million versus $ 220
million for the US: https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/07/venture-investing-in-the-us-and-europe-are-totally-different-industries/85
152
As a result, a major concern for Horizon Europe is to increase the willingness of private investors
and lenders to commit to these young, highly innovative European companies. Blended finance will
help. Combining grants with equity, loans, soft loans or guarantees, this allows for blending
simultaneously, for example, as a grant-plus-equity package . Sequential blending is also possible,
as when a grant attracts a later investment by a Venture Capital fund, business angel or corporate
Venture Capital arm, or facilitates a loan from a bank or a non-bank lender.
5.3 What are the expected implications of the changes?
 Blended finance will increase the availability of large-scale risk finance in Europe;
 The leverage of EU R&I funding is expected to increase through measures put in place to
stimulate private finance for instance through hard blending;
 Increased risk taking for breakthrough innovation by de-risking technical, commercial or
company failure.
5.4 What alternatives have been considered?
Providing grant based support through Horizon Europe and financial instruments through the
InvestEU single fund:
 In Europe, financial intermediaries (banks and investors) remain averse to the risk when
investing in high-risk innovative projects. Therefore, available private and corporate financing
remains small for innovation activities and market take-up for breakthrough innovations, as
financial institutions must limit their risks to maintain their market rating. There is hence a
necessity for direct Union intervention. Innovation will thus be reinforced by the InvestEU
single fund, providing indirect financial instruments carried out through the European
Investment Bank Group or other implementing partners, with a dedicated window for R&I
investments and specific products for innovative companies.
 Providing grants only allows lowering the risk of operations and attracting private or corporate
finance. This is only partially the case, as some activities too close to market, including
deployment and scale-up, may not be covered by grants. However, the alternative of awarding
blended finance to a project by allocating grant-type funding (through the Framework
Programme) and financial instruments (through InvestEU) might not be fully adapted to the
needs of risky breakthrough innovators who need to proceed to the market quickly..
6 Proposal selection and evaluation, including experts
6.1 What is the current situation under Horizon 2020?
The approach for the evaluation and selection of proposals submitted to Horizon 2020 calls is to
ensure a maximum of coherence across the different implementing bodies, with three standard
evaluation criteria outlined in the Rules for Participation. Details of the evaluation criteria,
weighting and thresholds, as well as additional eligibility criteria, are laid out in the Work
Programmes. As regards the appointment of independent experts to evaluate proposals (and other
tasks), the key provisions are set out in the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme Regulation rather
than the Rules for Participation.
FACTS
Three criteria against which proposals are evaluated – Excellence; Impact; Quality and Efficiency of the
Implementation (with Excellence only for the European Research Council calls).
153
There is a higher weighting for Impact within Innovation Actions calls.
Independent experts shall be chosen on the basis of their skills, experience and knowledge appropriate to
carry out their tasks. When appointing, the Commission shall seek a balanced composition within the
expert groups and evaluation panels in terms of various skills, experience, knowledge, geographical
diversity and gender. Where appropriate, private-public sector balance shall also be sought.
Lessons learnt from Horizon 2020
"There is room for improvement in the current evaluation process. The thematic assessments….highlight
dissatisfaction with application procedures, proposal evaluation and selection and reporting procedures. In addition
they note that the quality of feedback provided to applicants is an area for improvement. This is also reflected in the
stakeholder consultation results, where 62% of respondents assess the quality of the feedback from the evaluations as
“good” or “very good”, while 34% judged it as “poor” or “very poor”. Some respondents ask for more transparency
and an improved quality of the evaluation feedback they receive. Respondents complain that not enough details are
provided, that the quality of the feedback varies greatly from one evaluation panel to the other, and that discordant
views can be provided to the participant.
In their position papers, some stakeholders from academia, research organisations, public authorities and
business commented on the evaluation process and noted that the quality of the current process should improve. A
variety of issues was highlighted, in particular: the Evaluation Summary Reports are reportedly too short and provide
generic and not tailored feedback. A few stakeholders noted […] evaluation committees should have a balanced
representation of stakeholders including industry, business participants and SSH experts. Business representatives
further noted that the selection rules of expert panels, especially around conflicts of interest, seem to dissuade
industry experts as evaluators; evaluators should have the necessary expertise and training, while consensus meetings
should be reintroduced". (In-Depth Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020, SWD(2017) 220 final)
"A modernised proposal evaluation system should attract different types of evaluators. Evaluation teams should
consist of top people with broad experience well-matched to the call or mission and different competences to evaluate
excellence and impact. Resources should be invested in providing meaningful evaluation feedback to applicants,
including on the choice of funding instrument". (p.15, LAB-FAB-APP, July 2017).
"The Council invites the Commission to develop the evaluation process further by e.g. promoting diversity in
evaluation panels, piloting blind evaluations, where possible".
(p.8, Council Conclusions "From the Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020 towards the Ninth Framework
Programme", December 2017)
"The European Parliament calls for better and more transparent evaluation and quality assurance by the
evaluators; stresses the need to improve the feedback given to participants throughout the evaluation process and
urges that complaints made by unsuccessful applicants that the Evaluation Summary Reports (ESRs) lack depth and
clarity on what should be done differently in order to succeed be taken into consideration; calls on the Commission,
therefore, to publish, in conjunction with the call for proposals, detailed evaluation criteria, to provide participants
with more detailed and informative ESRs and to organise calls for proposals in such a way as to avoid excessive
oversubscription, which badly affects researchers’ motivation and the reputation of the programme". (p.13, European
Parliament Report on the assessment of Horizon 2020 implementation in view of its interim evaluation and the
Framework Programme 9 proposal, June 2017)
6.2 What are the changes?
Proposal selection and evaluation
154
A similar level of detail on the evaluation and selection of proposals should be maintained in the
legal acts and call documents of Horizon 2020, with small changes in order to address lessons
learned and the specific features of Horizon Europe. Based on the specific recommendations
coming from the Horizon 2020 Interim Evaluation, the following issues will be addressed in the
design of the new programme:
 Differentiate the evaluation process according to objectives of the calls.
 Allow for differentiation of expertise within evaluation stages, where appropriate.
 Provide flexibility and allow for experimentation.
Thus the provisions retained in the Rules for Participation include:
 Clarified time-to-grant and time-to-inform milestones.
 Outlined award criteria - Excellence, Impact, and Quality and efficiency of the
implementation, with the only exception of the ERC, where the sole criterion of excellence
will apply.
 The possibility for selection to take into account factors beyond proposal-by-proposal
evaluation (for example, a mechanism to ensure a coherent portfolio of projects).
 Possible selection on first-come-first-served basis (i.e. no ranking of batches).
 The main aspects of the proposal review procedure.
Experts
The rules on appointment of external experts are further aligned to the Financial Regulation.
Therefore, the following provisions are included in the Rules for Participation for Horizon Europe:
 Selection criteria: independent experts may be selected without a call for expression of
interest, if justified, and the selection is carried out in a transparent manner;;
 Appropriate remuneration;
 The publication of the names of external experts evaluating grant applications.
6.3 What are the expected implications of the changes?
Experience under Horizon 2020 has made clear the advantage of keeping certain principles fixed
across the board, while adjusting the arrangements via the Work Programme. There are no obvious
reasons for departing from this approach under Horizon Europe. Furthermore, many of the
deficiencies noted (inadequate evaluation feedback; need for a broader pool of experts) should be
addressed by the business processes – rather than by provisions in the Rules for Participation.
More widely, the changes detailed above would ensure necessary coherence across the programme
but balanced with flexibility (in line with the guiding principle of “evolution not revolution”) – thus
enabling further simplification, addressing the lessons learned from the interim evaluation of
Horizon 2020 and the Lamy Group report, whilst preparing for expected new features under
Horizon Europe.
6.4 What alternatives have been considered?
Firstly, the possibility to specify in further detail the criteria for evaluation and selection of
proposals in the Rules themselves (at a similar level of detail as in current Work Programme
annexes) was considered. This would ensure a high degree of coherence across Horizon Europe.
Different approaches between instruments could still be included in the Rules, but exceptions and
derogations would all but disappear. This would provide a measure of stability for applicants.
However, it would be virtually impossible to adapt the rules according to experience gained – nor
experiment with new approaches. As such, there would be significant loss of flexibility.
155
Secondly, the possibility to move all or most of the rules out of the Rules for Participation (to the
Work Programme, for example) was considered. This would lighten the legislative process, and
would be more in line with wider Commission processes. However, with a programme of the
breadth of Horizon Europe, and given the experience of Horizon 2020 and previous programmes, it
is important to fix certain rules to ensure overall coherence and to avoid re-opening fundamental
principles with every set of calls. This approach would maximise flexibility, but it would risk a
divergence of rules in practice, jeopardise smooth business processes, and lead to unpredictability
for applicants.
7 Audits and controls
7.1 What is the current situation under Horizon 2020?
FACTS
A simplification measure introduced for Horizon 2020 was to reduce the audit burden on participants
through an ex-post control strategy which emphasises risk-based control and fraud detection.
The maximum length of time for an audit after the final payment to a Horizon 2020-funded project was
reduced from five years to two years.
The Horizon 2020 ex-post audit function has been centralised in the Common Audit Service within the
Common Support Centre (part of DG Research and Innovation) serving all the Horizon 2020 stakeholders
The internal control system as a whole is supported by the Financial Regulation, which identifies
the responsibility of the Authorising Officers for the control of budget implementation at
programme level. This includes the calculation of the error level and the consequent corrective
measures.
According to the existing Financial Regulation "each operation shall be subject at least to an ex-
ante control". Nevertheless, the extent in terms of frequency and intensity of the ex-ante controls
shall be determined by the Authorising Officer taking into account risk-based and cost-effectiveness
considerations.
The ex-post financial audit rules shall be clear, consistent and transparent and that the Commission
shall ensure equal treatment of beneficiaries of a programme, in particular where it is implemented
by several Authorising Officers.
The Horizon 2020 control framework is based on the following elements:
 Operational capacity and financial viability checks: Article 15 of the Horizon 2020 Rules
for Participation and Dissemination states that this is required only for project coordinators
when the requested EU contribution is equal or superior to €500,000, or when there are grounds
to doubt the financial capacity of participants. It will not be verified for entities guaranteed by a
Member State (or an associated country), or by any other legal entity whose financial capacity
shall in turn be verified, or for higher or secondary education establishments.
 Certificate on Methodology to calculate Unit Costs: Participants that calculate and claim
direct personnel costs on the basis of unit costs, in accordance with the Horizon 2020 Rules for
Participation, may submit to the Commission a certificate on the methodology (CoMUC). This
must comply with the conditions set out in Article 33(2) of the Rules for Participation and
156
Dissemination211
and meet the requirements of the grant agreement. Where the Commission
accepts a certificate on the methodology, it shall be valid for all actions financed under Horizon
2020 and the participant shall calculate and claim costs on this basis. Once the Commission has
accepted a certificate on the methodology, it shall not attribute any systemic or recurrent error
to the accepted methodology. However, the certificate is optional has seen very low interest to
date.
 Certificate of Financial Statements (CFS): In Horizon 2020, a CFS is required when an
amount claimed by a beneficiary for actual/unit costs calculated on the basis of the
beneficiary's usual cost accounting practices is equal or greater to €325,000. This is a
derogation from the current Financial Regulation, which states that a CFS is only required if
the total grant amount is EUR 750,000 or more, and that a CFS may also be demanded on the
basis of a risk assessment by the Authorising Officer. The Horizon 2020 CFS (as the CFS
under FP7) is based on “agreed upon procedures” instead of an “audit opinion”.
 Ex-post audits are an important part of the overall control framework and provide inputs to the
ex-ante checks. The Horizon 2020 Audit Strategy is supported by the existing Financial
Regulation and the Horizon 2020 Regulation.
 Acceptance of usual of Cost Accounting Practices: Under Horizon 2020, the Commission set
out certain unit costs on the basis of the usual cost accounting practices of beneficiaries (i.e
average personnel costs and internal invoices) under certain conditions detailed in the MGA.
This concept is also used when referring to beneficiaries' records in the accounts: i.e.
beneficiaries must record actual costs in accordance with their usual cost accounting practices.
However, those provisions have to be compatible with the other Horizon 2020 eligibility
criteria..
In addition, the simplified funding model (see Annex 9, section 2) introduced for Horizon 2020 is
expected to reduce the financial error rate detected in ex-post audits, although when the Horizon
2020 interim evaluation was carried out in mid-2017 no ex-post audits had yet been completed.
Lessons learnt from Horizon 2020
"In order to reduce the audit burden, the obligation to provide representative ‘error rates’ for the programme
should be dropped. Audits should only be carried out when there is a suspicion of fraud or serious financial
wrongdoing on a project". (LAB-FAB-APP: High Level Group report, July 2017).
"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".
(p.57, In-Depth Horizon 2020 Interim Evaluation, SWD(2017) 220 final, May 2017).
Several beneficiaries have repeatedly expressed the need for having their processes confirmed in order to
obtain comfort on their reporting. Experience has shown that the current way of auditing under both FP7 and
Horizon 2020 does not necessarily provide this assurance to the beneficiaries since the current audit process focuses
only on costs declared and not on the beneficiaries systems and their overall accounting practices.
7.2 What are the changes?
The overall objectives remain the following:
 Effectiveness, efficiency and economy of operations;
211
Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013
157
 Adequate management of the risks relating to legality and regularity, taking into account the
multiannual character of programmes and the nature of the payments concerned.
Specific changes include:
 Certificate on Methodology / Systems and Process audits: Under Horizon 2020, the
Certificate on Methodology to calculate Unit Costs (CoMUC) was optional and the
beneficiaries have shown low interest to date, resulting in very little added value as ex-ante
controls. In addition, applying for a CoMUC is complex and burdensome. Therefore, it is
envisaged to remove the existing CoMUC. Alternatively, a procedure under which
beneficiaries may opt to have their systems and processes audited - under conditions to be set
out in the Model Grant Agreement - is proposed.
 Certificate of financial statements (CFS): The new Financial Regulation does not set any
limit. The CFS may be demanded by the Authorising Officer on the basis of a risk assessment.
The use of CFS might be broadened in order to provide more assurance, or narrowed as a
simplification measure (reduction of administrative burden). Considering the CFS has proved
in Horizon 2020 to be a relatively effective ex-ante control (with cost claims with a CFS
having on average an error rate 50% lower than those without), it is proposed that the CFS
remains mandatory under similar conditions as under Horizon 2020 (thresholds, cost covered).
 Ex-post audits: the approach under Horizon 2020 is successful and should be maintained;
although the intensity of ex-post controls may be adapted..
 The cross-reliance on assessments and audits: The explicit reference to this principle in the
new EU Financial Regulation allows for broadening its use by accepting other audits (i.e.
audits of other EU programmes) as a basis for the assurance to be obtained by the Responsible
Authorising Officers. This requires that the costs could be audited or assessed against the same
set of rules. In addition, taken into account the balance between trust and control, it is proposed
that the opportunity of performing ex-post audits should be reconsidered.
 Ensuring equal treatment of beneficiaries when implementing the Framework
Programme: In order to strengthen this common approach, a "coordination and monitoring
mechanism" is currently under design and will be effective as of 2018 for Horizon 2020. This
is is expected to be extended to Horizon Europe.
 Acceptance of usual of cost accounting practices: While attractive from a simplification
perspective, the acceptance of usual cost accounting practices presents important challenges
since neither international nor national standards/rules exist defining a minimum core
benchmark of what is an acceptable set of “usual cost accounting practices”. As for Horizon
2020, the usual cost accounting practices of beneficiaries can be accepted under certain
conditions to be detailed in the Model Grant Agreement. Those conditions have to be
compatible with the new Financial Regulation and eligibility criteria of Horizon Europe.
7.3 What are the expected implications of the changes?
While the reduction of the audit burden is a shared objective for beneficiaries, Commission and
implementing bodies, the expected implications are:
 An alignment of the rules with other EU funding programmes will allow the beneficiaries to
apply in a harmonised way their usual accounting practices. This will result in a smoother audit
approach since the costs will be audited or assessed against the same set of rules.
 Specific features on the Certificates of Financial Statements (thresholds, frequency…) are
foreseen in the Rules, which will result in a lower audit burden for beneficiaries.
 Further efforts in the area of ex-ante controls (through implementing additional automated
checks and tools for simpler entry of the data) will have a positive impact where beneficiaries
need to submit information to the Commission. The integration of ex-post audit support into the
158
Participant Portal will enable a better view of progress of audits andallow for completely
electronic exchange of documents and notifications.
7.4 What alternatives have been considered?
It can be envisaged to identify possible common benchmarks / principles or best practices for a
broader acceptance of usual cost accounting practices of beneficiaries from different sectors and/or
different countries.
The concept of cross-reliance on other audits or assessments with other EU programmes was
considered, however its effectiveness depends on the coherence of rules between programmes.
Identifying possible common benchmarks / principles or best practises for a broader acceptance of
usual cost accounting practices of beneficiaries from different sectors and different countries can be
further explored as a second alternative with the aim of moving from a rule-based approach towards
a principle-based one.
Such a challenging alternative would be possible, only once having taken into account the eligibility
criteria of the different EU programmes.
8 Intellectual Property Rights, including “Exploit in the EU”
8.1 What is the current situation under Horizon 2020?
FACTS
498 Intellectual Property Right (IPR) applications arising from Horizon 2020 projects have been submitted,
of which 212 were awarded. This mainly consists of patents (408 applications and 141 awards) and
trademarks (66 applications and 50 awards). These numbers212
will greatly increase as more projects
under Horizon 2020 are completed.
The Horizon 2020 rules relating to dissemination and exploitation were largely built on the rules of
the FP7 Programme: the same level of detail was maintained and the balance of interests between
the different types of participants was not fundamentally altered.
Apart from simplification measures, changes were mainly introduced due to new policy objectives
(e.g. open access to scientific publications), the inclusion of innovation (e.g. possibility to lay down
additional exploitation obligations, publicly known as "Exploit in the EU first"), the need for
specific rules deviating from the general framework in certain areas (e.g. security research) and new
forms of funding (e.g. pre-commercial procurement).
The general rule in Horizon 2020 for exploitation obligations is that participants, having received
EU funding, must use their best efforts to exploit their results, without any further conditions.
'Exploitation' is broadly defined.
Therefore, participants enjoy a large degree of flexibility when deciding how, where and by whom
to exploit. Additional exploitation obligations may be laid down within the grant agreement, if
foreseen in the Work Programme. Beneficiaries must report on their dissemination and exploitation
activities during the project.
Lessons learnt from Horizon 2020
There is no major support for fundamentally different rules but some areas of improvement have been identified.
Recently, national representatives and other stakeholders have also underlined a need to strengthen the rules requiring
that Horizon 2020 project results should be exploited preferentially in the EU. Furthermore, the European Parliament
212
'Horizon 2020: In Full Swing – Three Years On' brochure, January 2018 (p.46).
159
resolution of June 2017 on the "assessment of Horizon 2020 implementation in view of its interim evaluation and the
Framework Programme 9 proposal" stressed that "FP9 for R&I should strengthen societal progress and the
competitiveness of the EU, creating growth and jobs and bringing new knowledge and innovations in order to tackle
the crucial challenges faced in Europe, as well as delivering further progress in developing a sustainable ERA".
Feedback from R&I projects to other beneficiaries and policy-making must be strengthened, requiring also
reporting after the end of the project on the dissemination and exploitation activities of beneficiaries, as those
activities often take place after the end of the project. Moreover, if beneficiaries cannot successfully exploit their
results, they should pro-actively seek that others are given the opportunity to exploit these results, including through
an appropriate online platform.
The Horizon 2020 rules require that the Commission be given an opportunity to assume ownership of, and
protect, any results that a participant would not wish to protect or for which they want to abandon protection or not
extend protection (subject to various conditions). This requirement is perceived as an administrative burden and
probably being complied with to a widely variable degree, as the notifications remain rather low. Moreover,
experience has shown that if participants do not wish to protect, protection by the Commission is not considered
appropriate either.
In Horizon 2020, joint owners may only agree not to continue with joint ownership after the results have been
generated. This constraint was introduced during the legislative process to help less experienced participants (but the
actual benefits are unclear). However, it means that no comprehensive agreement can be reached before the start of
the project. This creates legal uncertainty having a negative impact on the cooperation required in multi-partner
projects and may lead to a lower quality of projects/results. Moreover, this rule creates the illogic discrepancy that a
participant may agree before the results are generated to transfer results it will solely generate but not results it will
jointly generate. Restoring flexibility and offering guidance for beneficiaries to understand the issues at stake to help
them to reach appropriate agreements for their specific project seems the best way forward.
8.2 What are the changes?
Most provisions of the Horizon 2020 rules will be maintained, with further simplification and
improvements. This would entail:
 Reinforcing the focus on exploitation in particular in the Union, as a general rule, while
keeping the possibility for exploitation outside the Union and additional exploitation
obligations at Work Programme level.
 Specifying that the dissemination and exploitation plans must be updated during the project
and after its end: the plan should contain a credible strategy if the expected exploitation
entails developing, creating, manufacturing and marketing a product or process, or in
creating and providing a service.
 Providing for the possibility to require reporting regarding the beneficiaries’ dissemination
and exploitation activities beyond the life time of the R&I projects.
 Removing the requirement to notify the Commission if no protection of results is sought, or
if protection is abandoned or not extended.
 Removing the prohibition to agree on a regime other than joint ownership before results are
generated;
 In view of the shortcomings in exploitation, beneficiaries which do not succeed in exploiting
their results, need to use an appropriate online platform to seek exploitation by others.
8.3 What are the expected implications of the changes?
 These refinements to the IPR rules would help to ensure that the rules under Horizon Europe
are fully fit-for-purpose.
 Improving legal certainly for participants and providing further simplification and
flexibility.
160
8.4 What alternatives have been considered?
Alternative considered Reason not favoured
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) – general rules
Not to have detailed IPR rules, but lists
of principles
This would be a radical shift from recent programmes and would be criticised
by stakeholders - especially since it would force participants to negotiate all
IPR provisions from scratch before starting a project, and could result in
projects not having the necessary rules in place with a detrimental effect on
the implementation of the project and the exploitation and dissemination of its
results.
Include detailed IPR rules and
fundamentally alter the balance of
interests between the different type of
participants
Such a shift does not seem justified given that most types of participants are
of the opinion that the current rules are relatively well balanced.
Exploit in the EU first
Not to have any 'protectionist' rules or
provisions
Having no rules at all is not favoured as this approach does not guarantee that
the Union will benefit from the exploitation of results.
Apply more stringent 'protectionist'
rules across the board.
Having a more stringent general rule was considered not justified as there
may be valid reasons why exploitation occurs elsewhere (in which cases the
EU often still benefits from such exploitation). Moreover, depending on the
type of project the expected results are often not directly exploitable and
would require systematically assessing all projects for long after the end of
the project and not only those close to market. Finally, such a generalised
approach would deter in particular industrial and international participation
leading to a loss of excellence and a lower quality of results.
9 Dissemination and exploitation of results
9.1 What is the current situation under Horizon 2020?
FACTS
Under Horizon 2020, a strategy for the dissemination and exploitation of R&I results was launched in
2015 at Framework Programme level, with dedicated dissemination and exploitation activities. The strategy
was reviewed in 2017 and streamlined for the remaining years of Horizon 2020. At the same time,
dissemination and exploitation activities were introduced from the various parts of the programme (i.e. the
ERC Proof of Concept, the FET Launchpad, the SME Instrument) that support the uptake of results and
innovations in the Union.
To assist project consortia in their dissemination and exploitation activities, the Commission provides
tailor-made support services in the form of the Common Exploitation Booster (236 projects supported in
2017) and Common Dissemination Booster (260 projects supported in 2017) and the wide use of the
Innovation Radar as a methodology to identify the innovations and innovators in R&I projects.
A new methodology tracking of research results obtained through the programme is under development. A
new Horizon 2020 Dashboard making available all project related data and outputs was also set up.
Throughout Horizon 2020, specific calls for proposals, coordination and support actions and public
procurements provide targeted assistance to projects in order to increase their dissemination and
exploitation capacity and activities.
The uptake of R&I results for policy making, as well as measuring the impacts of the Framework
Programme’s investment, is improving under Horizon 2020. The Commission is piloting additional
methodologies for tracking the research results (outputs, outcomes and impacts) after the
completion of the projects. The aim of this is to acquire a more comprehensive view of what the
research funded under the Framework Programmes has achieved.
161
For external stakeholders, CORDIS is the primary public repository and portal to disseminate
information on all EU-funded R&I projects and their results; providing user-friendly access to
project data and results through faster and broader visibility of projects' outputs and improved
search functions. Specifically, project deliverables and project beneficiary information were
disseminated for the first time in the history of Framework Programmes. 'Results Packs', a new
dissemination function presenting thematic collections of exploitable research results, was
developed along with 'Enhanced Results in Brief', a new function that provides additional support in
dissemination of research results.
In 2017, the Commission has launched a new platform for advanced visualisation of data on the
Framework Programme, the Horizon 2020 Dashboard, that provides a wide range of visualisation
options for Horizon 2020 projects and proposals. It allows the users to visualise the performance
and evolution of the data on the Framework Programmes in terms of impact, participation,
investments, international cooperation, results, etc. The ‘Projects for Policy (P4P)’ initiative
launched in 2017 clusters and uses R&I results for evidence-based policy recommendations. In
addition, the Innovation Radar was introduced as a Horizon 2020-wide methodology to identify
innovations and innovators within R&I projects.
Lessons learnt from Horizon 2020
Dissemination and exploitation activities are key to demonstrate the success and the impact of the Framework
Programme. The dedicated activities to beneficiaries to better disseminate and exploit their results and increase their
market and technology readiness were very successful and popular. Through the optimal use of IT infrastructure and
the advanced visualisation of the available data on the Framework Programme (Horizon 2020 Dashboard), the
Commission demonstrated the added value of the Programme.
Although a robust framework has already put in place to help dissemination and exploitation of R&I results from
Framework Programme’s projects, they are still not fully accessible to all relevant stakeholders and this represents a
barrier to knowledge circulation and to innovation uptake. Additional efforts required to access and make available
knowledge and results from projects supported under the Programme.
Current information collection does not systematically cover research results, innovations and market uptake, and
therefore does not always allow for the assessment of projects’ medium- and long-term impacts. New policy
challenges should be better matching by the appropriate mechanisms to collect the necessary data.
The results of most Horizon 2020 R&I projects mainly improve scientific knowledge and advance science in the
field(s) in question. Some will have market or technological potential. The uneven exploitation capacity among
beneficiaries hinders the market uptake of key exploitable results and incentives for market exploitation are limited
once funding has stopped.
Many R&I projects produce recommendations for policy-makers in various fields. As policy recommendations
are less market- and technologically ready than other key exploitable results, projects do not tend to emphasise this
kind of output. This hinders the full potential for exploitation of results from the Framework Programme for policy-
making at EU and national levels.
(Sources: Horizon 2020 Interim Evaluation, Review of the Strategy for an Effective Dissemination and Exploitation of
Research Results in Horizon 2020, studies)
9.2 What are the changes?
Within Horizon 2020, reporting has focused mainly on input information in relation to projects
launched and funding granted. However, to address the significant need to report on the impact of
research and innovation investments, equal attention will be given to information on results to
develop a clear picture of the number of completed projects, the fields to which these relate, what
they delivered and what steps have been taken regarding exploitation of research results.
The following changes are envisaged for the future Programme:
162
Short term:
 Support R&I stakeholders in fully endorsing the principle of the open access and work with
them to make the European Open Science Cloud a reality;
 Put in place a comprehensive go-to-market package to incentivise the exploitation of
Framework Programme’s results by helping beneficiaries to find the most appropriate
instruments and channels for the market uptake of their innovations;
 Pilot the role of Horizon 2020 as a pan-European policy influencer through Projects for
Policy initiatives, with the aim of using scientific knowledge and results created by R&I
projects;
 Design a methodology for monitoring the Framework Programme’s results and foster
business intelligence that could build on artificial intelligence, advanced data visualisation
and data mining tools to demonstrate impact.
Long term:
 Based on the positive experience of the previous dissemination and exploitation strategy, put
in place a more ambitious and comprehensive strategy for increasing the availability of R&I
results and accelerating their uptake to boost the overall impact of the Framework
Programme and thereby strengthen European innovation.
 Strengthen innovation-friendly framework conditions that allow for unrestricted and
constant knowledge circulation and create the necessary incentives for beneficiaries and
innovators to share their results for reuse.
 Disseminate clusters of mature research results to EU regions for potential uptake based on
their specific needs. This would maximise the benefits coming from synergies with EU
initiatives, for increasing regional competitiveness and innovation.
 Provide holistic support throughout the dissemination and exploitation lifecycle to ensure a
constant stream of innovations stemming from the Framework Programme.
9.3 What are the expected implications of the changes?
 No major changes envisaged for Horizon Europe’s rules for participation. The obligation of
beneficiaries towards dissemination, exploitation and impact demonstration shall be
reinforced.
 The possibility of additional reporting specifically on dissemination and exploitation or
impact demonstration might be considered within the framework of simplification. This
reporting should continue beyond the lifetime of the projects.
9.4 What alternatives have been considered?
 Additional incentives: beneficiaries could be given additional financial or other incentives
to enhance their dissemination and exploitation capacity, focus on key exploitable results
and their uptake, and/or enhance the impact of their research in real-world settings.
 More funding for ‘research on research’ would allow researchers to take the time to
assess the quality and consistency of scientific results, gather research on a particular topic,
identify common themes and develop common responses.
 Changes in the evaluation phase: a different consideration of exploitation at evaluation
phase, with an evaluation panel featuring clear business experience alongside academic and
scientific background would help select proposals better placed for ensuring uptake of
research results. For recurring participants in the Framework Programmes (i.e. having
participated in previous programmes), consider introducing the requirement to submit, as
part of their proposal, an ex-post Impact or Outcome Statement of their research conducted
under previous Framework Programmes.
163
164
Annex 10: Implementation of the Strategy for
international cooperation in R&I
The strategy for EU international cooperation in research and innovation (R&I) published in
2012213
supports the objectives of strengthening the EU’s R&I excellence, attractiveness and
economic and industrial competitiveness, tackling global societal challenges, and supporting the
EU’s external policies, including enlargement, neighbourhood, trade and development policies.
It makes a significant contribution to the implementation of the Commission priority on 'Europe as
a stronger Global Actor' and is crucial for delivering on the 'Open to the World' priority of the EU's
R&I policy.
These were as follows: 1) There is significant room for improvement of the international dimension
of Horizon 2020, in particular through work programme (WP) topics of sufficient scale and scope
that are specifically devoted to international cooperation; 2) The Commission shall remain proactive
in ensuring good framework conditions for international cooperation, notably including extended
co-funding mechanisms; 3) Further action shall be taken to widen participation and strengthen the
EU's role in global multilateral fora; 4) Stronger synergies with the actions of Member States shall
be sought including by means of structured policy coordination and opening of joint programmes to
international participation; 5) Science diplomacy shall be used more extensively as an influential
instrument of the EU's external policies; and 6) The communication strategy shall be refined to
ensure global awareness of EU science and technology (S&T) strengths and its role in international
R&I cooperation.
1 Reinforcing the international dimension of the EU R&I Framework Programme
The international dimension of Horizon 2020 has been reinforced as part of priorities set for the last
part of the programme covering commitments in 2018 to 2020.
Since the last progress report, Joint S&T Cooperation Committee meetings have been successfully
organised with a range of countries214
. In addition, Regional policy dialogues have notably included
a Ministerial meeting with the Western Balkans, a Ministerial conference on strengthening Euro-
Mediterranean cooperation in R&I, an Eastern Partnership summit, an EU-African Union high-level
policy dialogue, and two EU-CELAC senior officials meetings. Multilateral work was also
undertaken to ensure the coordination of the G7 Science Ministerial and Carnegie meetings.
Agreements at the S&T cooperation dialogues and high level policy dialogues have continued to
serve as a basis for priority-setting in Horizon 2020 programming, continuous efforts have been
undertaken to ensure that activities agreed effectively materialise, and multi-annual roadmaps for
targeted international cooperation with twelve countries and six regions have been updated on a
regular basis to reflect the latest status215
.
Increased attention to and support of international participation in Horizon 2020 projects have been
provided with the launch in October 2017 of the 2018-20 WP with more than 30 flagship initiatives
213
COM(2012)497
214
USA, China, India, Japan, South Korea, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Russia, Australia, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Ukraine and
South Africa.
215
See http://ec.europa.eu/research/iscp/index.cfm?pg=countries and http://ec.europa.eu/research/iscp/index.cfm?pg=regions
165
of large scale and scope on topics dedicated to international cooperation in areas of mutual benefit,
comprising a total budget of over 1€ billion.
Examples of large Flagship initiatives include the EU-Africa Partnership on Food & Nutrition
Security & Sustainable Agriculture, the EU-China Food, Agriculture and Biotechnology flagship
initiative, acceleration of energy innovation through the Mission Innovation initiative, large call on
human data storage with Canada, multilateral cooperation on greener and safer aviation and road
transport automation, climate action in support of the Paris Agreement, multilateral cooperation on
5G and on nanosafety, and international cooperation on migration challenges.
The latest statistics on participation of entities from non-associated international partner countries in
Horizon 2020 grant agreements for collaborative actions216
show only a slight improvement as a
result of actions in the 2016-17 WP: 24 % of WP topics are flagged for international cooperation,
2.5 % of all participations are from third countries, 0.9 % of EU contribution go to third-country
participants, 12.0 % of all grant agreements include one or more partners from third countries, and
€44 million per year is invested by third-country participants in Horizon 2020 projects. 2.3 % of all
European Research Council (ERC) Principal Investigators have come to EU MS/AC from non-
associated international partner countries; 17.3 % of all grantees of Marie Skłodowska-Curie
Actions (MSCA) Individual Fellowships and almost 30 % of participations in MSCA Research and
Innovation Staff Exchange come from third countries making it the most international scheme in
Horizon 2020217
.
For some types of action, partners from third countries are not part of the Horizon 2020 grant
agreement, but sign separate (coordination) agreements. Notably, until end-2017, Horizon 2020 has
launched 21 joint, coordinated and twinning calls with third countries that have led to projects with
220 European participations and a similar number of participations from non-associated third
countries. Furthermore, participation of third country research programme funders in ERA-NET
Cofund actions is at 5%, reflecting a similar share in the projects funded by these actions.
The Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) has strengthened its collaboration with
international partners. Close links with partners in Horizon 2020 Associated Countries have been
consolidated, e.g. via technology-transfer support to the Western Balkan countries and new
arrangements with the Research Council of Norway. The JRC has concluded new arrangements
such as with the USA Department of Energy, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and the Japanese
Institute for Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, and extended partnerships such as with
the USA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, the South African Space
Agency, and the Brazilian Ministry of Science, Technology, Innovation and Communications. The
JRC has also pursed its cooperation with multilateral organisations such as United Nations
Organisation, World Bank and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD).Engaging internationally has positive effects. Horizon 2020 data shows that the success
rate of proposals increases when the consortium takes on board international partners and
international co-publications are on average more often cited than other publications.
The significant number and size of international cooperation flagship initiatives launched for the
last part of Horizon 2020 are expected to result in a step-change improvement in international
216
Source: CORDA, May 2018. Includes all Horizon 2020 actions, except those under ERC, MSCA, Access to risk finance, EIT,
JRC, and topics using the SME Instrument .
217
MSCA account for more than half of all third country participations in Horizon 2020 and around 80% of all US participations.
Since 2014, almost 140 nationalities have received MSCA funding and around one in four MSCA fellows are researchers attracted to
Europe from countries outside the EU Member States or the Horizon 2020 Associated Countries.
166
involvement, be it through participation in Horizon 2020 projects, through coordinated calls, or
through contributions to global multilateral initiatives.
The Commission has also continued to monitor and assess the implementation of Horizon 2020
Association Agreements and to examine measures to improve and develop cooperation. This has
been done through Joint Committee meetings as well as through policy support to assist with reform
agendas.
Assessments have been carried out for the Associated Countries for which the review clause was
applicable. These assessments looked at Horizon 2020 budget absorbed versus contributions made
to the EU budget, as well as progress towards the ERA priorities, number of researchers in the
country, participation in Horizon 2020 proposals and projects, and success rate of these proposals.
In case of a large degree of underperformance, the assessments also analysed the root causes of this
and suggested remedies.
For the next Framework Programme, the Commission proposes to extend openness for association,
beyond EU enlargement, EEA countries and ENP countries, to include all countries with proven
science, technology and innovation capacities to make cooperation and funding of joint projects as
smooth as possible. It is also proposed to intensify support to international large-scale flagship
initiatives, partnerships, bilateral and multilateral initiatives and joint programmes and calls, so as to
increase access to researchers, knowledge and resources worldwide and optimise benefits from
cooperation. The programme should continue to fund entities from low-mid income countries, and
to fund entities from industrialised and emerging economies only if they possess essential
competences or facilities.
2 Improving the framework conditions for engaging in international cooperation
The Commission has remained proactive in creating a level playing field for researchers from
across the world to cooperate smoothly with each other.
Notably, the Commission has continued to encourage and assist industrialised and emerging
economies in increasing the scope and improving the functioning of mechanisms for funding the
participation of their researchers in Horizon 2020.
For instance, at the 3rd EU-China Innovation Cooperation Dialogue in June 2017 agreement was
reached to renew and extend the co-funding mechanism for the Chinese government to support
entities from China in Horizon 2020 projects for the period 2018-20. In India, the Ministry of Earth
Science has set up its own co-funding mechanism, following the path of the Ministry of Science and
Technology.
Many S&T Cooperation dialogues have also discussed reciprocal access to science, technology and
innovation (STI) resources, supported by monitoring, data collection and analysis. Concrete
outcomes include, for example, a new Guide for EU stakeholders on Chinese national STI funding
programmes that was published in January 2018.
Other bilateral and regional S&T cooperation dialogues have also tackled priorities for
improvements in framework conditions. For example, in September 2017 a ministerial meeting of
the Western Balkans Platform on R&I discussed how to increase national R&I capacities and
progress towards integration into the European Research Area; and the two EU-CELAC senior
officials meetings in 2017 resulted in a policy advice initiative for CELAC countries, a bi-regional
initiative to strengthen the management of and access to research infrastructures, a bi-regional call
on cancer research, and an extension of the EURAXESS initiative to all CELAC countries.
167
New structures supporting European research, innovation and business organisations to establish
connections and a foothold in third country markets have been established. Early 2017 grants were
awarded to launch the first nodes of a Network of European R&I Centres and Hubs in the USA,
China and Brazil.
Smooth mobility of researchers is another important framework condition. In addition to activities
under MSCA, the Commission has supported ERC Implementing Arrangements that have now been
signed with funding bodies in ten countries around the world: USA, South Korea, Argentina, Japan,
China, South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, Canada, and India.
The multi-annual roadmaps for targeted international cooperation contain more detailed information
on framework conditions in place for each country/region and the priorities for future
improvements.
3 Leading multilateral initiatives - working with international organisations on global
challenges
Action has been taken to strengthen the EU's role in global multilateral initiatives and to leverage
investments in solutions to global challenges of high priority for the EU.
In February 2017, the Commission took over the chairmanship of the Steering Committee of the
Mission Innovation initiative on clean energy research. It is leading two Innovation Challenges and
is actively engaged in the five remaining ones. The initiative is also growing in terms of its
membership, in particular from the EU Member States. Calls for proposals designed for Mission
Innovation-related activities have been introduced in the 2018-2020 WP of Horizon 2020 for a total
amount of nearly €150 million.
In addition, as part of the efforts towards structuring marine research cooperation, a new South
Atlantic R&I Flagship Initiative was signed in July 2017 to improve the scientific knowledge of
marine ecosystems and the links between oceans and climate change, food and energy systems, as
well as the dynamics of the Atlantic Ocean and its interconnected circulation systems from
Antarctica to the Arctic. The All Atlantic Ocean Research Alliance Flagship and the Future of Seas
and Oceans Flagship have been allocated more than €80 million in the 2018-2020 WP of Horizon
2020.
Global health issues have remained top of the agenda. Multi-lateral initiatives such as the
International Rare Diseases Research Consortium, the International Human Epigenome Consortium
and the Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases, have continued their active role with calls published
under SC1. The Coalition of Epidemic Preparedness Innovation, CEPI, was launched in January
2017. At the end of 2016, through the Global Research Collaboration for Infectious Diseases
Preparedness, the EU mobilised substantial political, financial and scientific resources to help the
people affected by the Zika virus and to contain, control, treat and ultimately defeat it. The 2018-
2020 WP of Horizon 2020 contains topics with a combined budget of more than €250 million that
will go to projects contributing to global health multilateral initiatives. The EC has continued with
the contribution to the Human Frontier Science Programme, an international funding organisation
for multi-disciplinary life science frontier research of 15 countries over four continents.
As climate change and the environment are global issues, EU action has continued to be
coordinated with international and multilateral processes such as the Group on Earth Observation
(GEO) and the Belmont Forum. Active EU involvement in these platforms has contributed to
setting global agendas to implement jointly, and their feedback has been used to inform strategic
168
programming at EU level. For example, the 2016-17 WP of Horizon 2020 included three Belmont
Forum topics: sustainable urbanisation, transformations to sustainability, and biodiversity scenarios.
Moreover, the Commission has continued to play an important role in intergovernmental bodies
such as the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Intergovernmental Platform on
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). EU projects have contributed substantially to
stocktaking and knowledge generation: for example, EU action plays a key role in the development
and aggregation of climate change models in coordination with the IPCC.
The Commission also continued its active role in international bodies such as the OECD and the
G7/G20. For example, the joint Commission-OECD survey on STI policies, the Commission
participation in a range of thematic working parties of the OECD, and the contribution of several
Commissioners in the G7 Innovation Week in Italy in September 2017.
4 Reinforcing the partnership with Member States
Synergies with Member States' actions have been strengthened notably by involving third countries
in joint programmes.
In particular, the Partnership for Research and Innovation in the Mediterranean Area, PRIMA, was
launched in early 2018, following adoption of the PRIMA Basic Act by the co-legislators and
putting in place international agreements regulating the participation of third countries that are not
associated to Horizon 2020. Work is now underway to devise new R&I approaches to improve
water availability and sustainable agriculture production in a region heavily distressed by climate
change, urbanisation and population growth. The partnership will be financed through a
combination of funding from participating countries (currently €274 million), and a €220 million
contribution from the EU through Horizon 2020.
The second European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership Programme, EDCTP2,
supported by nearly €700 million in EU funds, has so far launched 31 calls for proposals resulting
in 125 grants worth € 264 million to accelerate the clinical development of medical interventions
for poverty-related diseases in Sub-Saharan countries. In addition, projects granted € 157 million
from calls in 2017 are about to start.
The EC supported Member States led initiative International Consortium for Personalised Medicine,
ICPerMed, set up in 2016, which includes several non-EU partners among the current 40 members.
Canada is already on board and discussions are ongoing to include institutions from Brazil, South
Africa and other countries. In an effort to join forces on the fight to anti-microbial resistance, the
Joint Programming Initiative on Anti-Microbial Resistance has opened up to Third countries:
Argentina, Canada, Egypt, India, Japan, South Africa and South Korea have recently joined it.
The international dimension of ERA-NET Cofund actions, supporting public-public partnerships in
their implementation of joint activities and topping-up of a trans-national call for proposals, has also
increased. Nearly half involve third countries as full partners, and more than two-thirds include
activities dedicated to establishing partnerships with third countries, e.g. through additional joint
calls or through global multilateral initiatives.
The Strategic Forum for International Scientific and Technological Cooperation, SFIC, has
continued its work to further develop, implement and monitor the international dimension of the
ERA. In particular, in 2017, the Forum issued opinions on international cooperation in the context
of the mid-term review of Horizon 2020 and the preparation of the 9th
EU Framework Programme
for R&I, as well as on gender aspects in international R&I cooperation.
169
Part of the strategic advice from SFIC also includes reports on instruments for the implementation
of international S&T cooperation agreements and other international S&T cooperation activities at
EU and national level. Furthermore, the Forum has continued contributing to the implementation of
the ERA Roadmap, fostered peer-learning activities, and carried on work on geographic initiatives
such as for China and for Brazil.
5 Intensifying the synergies with the EU's external policies
The Joint S&T Cooperation Committee meetings and Regional Policy Dialogues have been
instrumental for R&I to feature prominently in several Summit discussions and conclusions,
including, inter alia, those with the Eastern Partnership countries, with India and with the African
Union. This is also a result of continuously close interactions between the Commission and the
European External Action Service.
Further integration of the Western Balkans into existing EU knowledge networks and support for
R&I capacity building for an effective participation in the EU's Framework Programmes are part of
the Action Plan in support of the transformation of the Western Balkans issued in February 2018.
Centres of Excellences set up with Horizon 2020 support are attracting researchers, contributing to
combating brain drain in the region, and they have a direct economic impact, triggering growth
through innovation, enabling joint R&I activities across borders and contributing to building trust,
reconciliation and stability in the region.
The strategy has also stayed closely coordinated with EU neighbourhood policies. For instance, the
EU4Innovation initiative was presented as a key deliverable of the 5th
EaP Summit in November
2017. The initiative combines all EU activities that support the development of Eastern Partnership
countries' innovation capacities, notably those funded under Horizon 2020 and the European
Neighbourhood Instrument, bringing new mobility opportunities and fostering research-industry
partnerships amongst others.
Science diplomacy action has continued as an important part of the strategy. For example, in May
2017 the SESAME synchrotron, the first major international research infrastructure in the Middle
East, started operating in Jordan. With financial support to its construction, the EU has been a major
contributor to SESAME, which also contributes to foster a culture of peace and cooperation through
science in the region. Other examples include R&I activities with Iran in the context of the EU-Iran
Renewed Partnership. Horizon 2020 has extended its support to projects analysing cases and
instruments of science diplomacy and devising tools and processes for science diplomacy as part of
EU external action.
Cooperation with development policies has continued. For instance, in October 2017 the 4th EU-
African Union High level Policy Dialogue on Science, Technology and Innovation took stock of
results of the partnership on Food, Nutrition Security and Sustainable Agriculture integrating
capacity building and innovation processes and adopted the roadmap towards a new partnership
focused on climate services, renewable energy and energy efficiency.
Finally, EU international S&T cooperation has been used to enhance the EU's influence on common
positions within international fora that are defining global targets and regulations in various
thematic fields. For example, EU-supported research has often provided the foundation for
international maritime safety rules for global shipping which are applied via the International
Maritime Organisation.
170
6 Refining the communication strategy
The Commission has continued to refine its communication strategy and strengthen its monitoring
of the strategy.
In particular, the Service Facility in support of international R&I cooperation policy development,
priority-setting and implementation started operating early 2017 and is now providing services for
awareness raising and training, support to National Contact Points, organisation of R&I events, set-
up of R&I, business and policy partnering platforms, and thematic and geographical analysis and
monitoring activities.
In addition, the Commission, in close cooperation with the EU Delegations, have continued
promoting Horizon 2020, raising the profile of the EU as an excellent destination for R&I and
promoting the 'Open to the World' policy priority. Special emphasis has been put on the use of
multipliers and on taking advantage of existing events.
Monitoring of the implementation of the strategy in Horizon 2020 has been upgraded through the
'International Cooperation' dedicated view of the Horizon 2020 Dashboard, providing real-time
values of the international cooperation indicators and more.
7 Conclusions
The dominance of international collaborative research in knowledge production and the emergence
of new countries as major R&I players are accelerating. This calls for further strengthening of
action to ensure that the EU has access to, and benefits from, the world’s best talents, expertise and
resources.
Moreover, EU international cooperation in R&I policy should contribute to the EU's economic
policy objectives, enhancing EU's external competitiveness, creating a level playing field and
opening up new markets for European companies via innovative solutions, making use of economic
diplomacy tools where appropriate. Synergies with EU external policies should also contribute to
the EU's development policy objectives, help build R&I capacity, and support diffusion and uptake
of innovation.
The increasing scope and interconnectivity of global societal challenges require more international
joint action and coordination of agendas. Instruments for EU support to global multilateral
initiatives should be improved, and partners from the rest of the world should increasingly be
invited to join EU efforts as an integral part of initiatives in support of EU action for sustainable
development.
In the further implementation of the strategy, priority should be given to activities that facilitate the
collaboration of European researchers with their counterparts worldwide, enable international
mobility of researchers and ensure access to research infrastructures globally, so as to ensure
reinforced EU R&I excellence and the creation and diffusion of high-quality knowledge in the EU.
International openness of the innovation eco-systems promotes a level playing field, opens markets
for European companies and enhances supply and demand of innovative solutions. Further activities
under the strategy should extend support to joint and coordinated funding of global industrial
research and innovation cooperation, so as to strengthen EU economic and industrial
competitiveness.
171
Using the EU R&I Framework Programme as a key vehicle for cooperation, activities under the
strategy should continue to promote and integrate cooperation with international partner countries
based on mutual benefit. Priorities should be identified based on thematic and geographical strategic
intelligence and foresight of S&T capabilities, market opportunities and impact on EU
competitiveness, contribution to international commitments, and framework conditions for
cooperation.
In short, openness to the world remains a strategic priority for EU R&I policy as it reinforces R&I
excellence, strengthens competitiveness, and helps solve global societal challenges in support of EU
external action. Hence, the objectives of the strategy stay pertinent and further activities are needed
to ensure that the EU benefits from latest developments.
172
Annex 11: Simplification checklist
This checklist is added to this impact assessment to highlight the Commission efforts in simplifying
rules and procedures, based on lessons learnt under the current financial framework. It will
contribute to the Simplification Scoreboard, to be added to the new MFF package.
Item Checks
1. Scope for using
Simplified Cost
Options,
payments based
on output /
against
conditions
Yes;
Horizon Europe will offer the complete set of forms of grants set out in the Financial
Regulation to beneficiaries and indicate the choice of the most appropriate ones in the
Work Programme. Although, actual incurred costs will remain the main form of costs under
the Framework Programme, the use of simplified forms of costs could be extended to other
areas than currently under Horizon 2020.
In order to lower administrative burden, increased use will be made of lump-sum project
funding against fulfilment of activities - building on the experience from the lump-sum
pilot in Horizon 2020 - and other simplified forms of funding provided by the new
Financial Regulation.
Simplified form of costs will be used in a flexible manner across the next Framework
Programme depending on the needs and specificities of the policy objectives:
‒ indirect costs will be reimbursed via a flat-rate calculated on the direct eligible
costs;
‒ unit costs calculated in accordance with the beneficiary usual cost accounting
practices will be kept (i.e. average personnel costs and costs of internally invoiced
goods and services); MSCA will continue to be entirely financed by unit cost;
‒ Lump sum will continue to be used for small-scale actions. Building on the Lump
Sum pilot carried out for collaborative project under Horizon 2020, increased use
will be made of lump-sum project funding against fulfilment of activities in the
next Framework Programme.
‒ Financing not linked to costs (set out under Article 125.1 (a) of the Financial
Regulation) could be envisaged in order to give financial incentives to grant
beneficiaries to implement specific objectives (e.g. to implement gender equality
plans).
Experience has shown that simplified forms of costs have proven to be viable an
appropriate for the R&I programme, in particular lump sum.
2. Budget Focussed
On Results
There are several mechanisms to ensure delivery of results, from strategic planning to
support for dissemination and exploitation; moreover, the programme's performance
towards its general objectives will be closely monitored along key impact pathways.
Appropriate baselines and targets for the pathway indicators will be set; implementation
data will be publicly available in close to real-time.
3. Additional
externalisation to
executive
agencies, JU,
PPP,
Yes.
Following the positive results of the last 3 years evaluations of R&I executive agencies, the
intention is to further delegate to executive agencies, provided that the results of the
mandatory cost-benefit analysis are positive.
173
decentralised
agencies
Partnerships will be an important part of the next R&I Framework Programme. Mandatory
impact assessments will be required for partnerships established under Art. 185 and 187.
-ies) foreseen?
Yes, the financing of Executive Agencies is foreseen.
4. Synergies instruments, programmes ensured?
The Commission will now capitalise on the experience gained in jointly implementing the
current generation of funding programmes and will focus on enhancing synergies with
other EU Programmes from the programme design stage to ensure that the range of EU
instruments and programmes covers the whole innovation cycle, in particular, by:
- Bringing priorities more in line with each other;
- Making co-funding schemes more flexible in order to pool resources at EU level; and
- Improving compatibility of rules, for example, making it possible to apply the Seal of
Excellence.
5. Flexibility: in
programming,
between
management
modes
Horizon Europe is designed to allow the maximum of flexibility, while ensuring coherence
across the board. It is intended to externalise all implementation to executive agencies.
Recourse to joint undertakings and other structures to implement partnerships will be the
subject of a strategic planning process, and will not form part of the legislation.
6. Non-allocated
envelopes
-allocated envelope appropriate/foreseen?
No. Considering the high oversubscription and that any urgent research needs should be
covered by the next R&I Framework Programme, a non-allocated envelope is not
appropriate.
7. Budget-support,
SRSS
Not applicable to Horizon Europe.
8. Fraud proof set to ensure fraud prevention?
-fraud provision clear?
The R&I family has a common anti-fraud strategy for grants. This will be updated after the
adoption of the new Commission Anti-Fraud Strategy in 2018. DG RTD is also developing
its own anti-fraud strategy for non-grant expenditure, especially Financial Instruments, and
is working with OLAF on this question.
The anti-fraud strategy has been audited by the Internal Audit Service and appropriate
action plans put in place to address any recommendations.
Audit and anti-fraud provisions are (or will be) included as necessary in the base
legislation, the Rules for Participation and the Model Grant Agreement, all based as far as
possible on the standard rules of the Financial Regulation.
9. Single rule book
The new Financial Regulation is used as a common reference for the Horizon Europe rules
for participations. Compared to Horizon 2020, the rules are further aligned to the Financial
Regulation and the derogations kept to a necessary minimum, justified by the specificities
of the R&I ecosystem and built on the experience from past framework programmes. The
main derogations concern: time to grant, treatment of in-kind contributions, financial
capacity check, appointment of external experts. As an example, the system of in-kind
contributions provided by third parties to the beneficiaries is further aligned to the Financial
Regulation (i.e. for in-kind contributions against payment), while the specificities of the
research are preserved (i.e. for in-kind contributions free-of-charge).
For each limited derogation, several alternatives have been considered including alignment
to the Financial Regulation. However, this alignment would imply significant changes for
beneficiaries, which will neither reduce the administrative burden nor enhance the
simplification of the rules. In addition, it may reduce the attractiveness of the programme
and therefore negatively affect its results.
174
10. Single portal Has a single portal (e-access) for beneficiaries of the policy area been foreseen,
independently from the delivery tool (Financial Instruments, grants, etc.)?
Yes. As is already the case for Horizon 2020, the Horizon Europe will be managed fully
electronically by a single portal. The portal will cover all actions implemented by grants,
prizes and procurement, and will provide links to the instances for managing Financial
Instruments.
11. Multi-annual
programme
-annual programming?
The work programmes under Horizon Europe are expected to follow the pattern of Horizon
2020, spanning a period of at least two years, with the possibility to be updated within this
period in case of unforeseen needs or other special circumstances.
In the specific case of the European Research Council, the work programme will be
adopted on an annual basis, as the Scientific Council, which is responsible for the
preparation of the work programme, needs to deliberate in the light of the experience of the
previous calls.
12. Error rate/high
control costs under this programme?
First audit results for Horizon 2020 suggest that the error rates will be lower than those
from FP7:
 FP7 - 5% on a representative basis and 3% residual error rate
 Horizon 2020 – 3% on a representative basis and 2.5% on a residual basis, but if
all things remain equal the residual error rate will fall over time.
Further simplification of rules in Horizon Europe, and especially a wider use of Simplified
Cost Options, will allow for a further fall in the error rate. However, in a system based on
the reimbursement of eligible costs, it is uncertain whether the error rates can be brought
below 2%.
One way to sharply reduce the error rate would be the wider use of lump sum funding,
which is already used in Horizon 2020 for the SME programme stage 1 programme. The
legislation allows for this. The work programme 2018 includes pilots of lump sum funding
in some cooperation grants. In the next Framework Programme, an increased use will be
made of lump-sum project funding against fulfilment of activities – building on the
experience from the lump-sum pilot in Horizon 2020
The emphasis foreseen in Horizon Europe on cross reliance on audits & assessments
between EU programmes (e.g. with ERDF and CF) is expected to reduce the audit burden
on beneficiaries, thus the cost of control for the Commission.
13. Re-conduction of
previous basic
act
amendment of an existing act?
A new basic act is required because of the scope of changes between Horizon 2020 and
Horizon Europe for simplification and rationalisation. Moreover, the legal texts of the
Framework Programme and of the Rules for Participation (currently separate) will be
merged into a single text.