CS
Evropského hospodářského a sociálního výboru |
Hodnocení ex post iniciativy Horizont 2020 |
_____________ |
Hodnocení ex post iniciativy Horizont 2020 |
|
INT/974 |
|
Zpravodaj: Xxxxxxx XXXX XXXXXX |
|
CS
Žádost o vypracování stanoviska |
Evropská komise, 01/10/2021 |
Právní základ |
článek 304 Smlouvy o fungování Evropské unie |
Odpovědná sekce |
Jednotný trh, výroba a spotřeba |
Přijato v sekci |
10/03/2023 |
Přijato na plenárním zasedání |
23/03/2023 |
Plenární zasedání č. |
577 |
Výsledek hlasování |
162/2/3 |
1.Úvod
1.1Horizont 2020 byl program EU pro financování výzkumu a inovací na období 2014–2020 s rozpočtem dosahujícím téměř 80 miliard EUR. Měl tyto obecné cíle: pomoci EU stát se ekonomikou a společností založenou na znalostech a inovacích, prosazovat inteligentní a udržitelný růst podporující začlenění v souladu se strategií Evropa 2020 a dalšími politikami EU a dokončit a podporovat jednotný trh pro výzkum, inovace a technologie (Evropský výzkumný prostor).
1.2V souladu s metodikou hodnocení EHSV byla tato zpráva vypracována na základě misí (uskutečněných v hybridním režimu) a online průzkumů provedených ve čtyřech zemích: Chorvatsku, Lotyšsku, Nizozemsku a Portugalsku. Kromě toho, že se v doporučeních odrážejí názory sociálních partnerů a organizací občanské společnosti, byly také provedeny konzultace s veřejnými orgány. Podrobnější informace o výsledcích tohoto procesu se nacházejí v technické příloze.
1.3Do této zprávy byly zahrnuty pouze názory a hodnocení reprezentativního vzorku organizací občanské společnosti ze čtyř členských států. Uvedená doporučení jsou syntézou názorů, na nichž se shodla většina zástupců sociálních partnerů a organizací občanské společnosti zapojených do konzultace.
2.Závěry týkající se účinnosti
2.1Celkové hodnocení programu bylo takové, že má výrazně vyšší hodnotu než jeho předchůdci, komplexní a jasně definované pilíře a větší dopad na společnost. Panovala všeobecná shoda ohledně příznivého dopadu programu Horizont 2020 a jeho účinnosti, pokud jde o naplňování „vertikálních cílů“ či směrování k jejich naplnění, zejména co se týče provádění Evropského výzkumného prostoru a „Unie inovací“. Názory na účinnost naplňování „horizontálních cílů“ nejsou jednoznačné. Pokud jde o plnění cílů v oblasti odpovědného výzkumu a inovací a posilování šíření a využívání znalostí, byl program hodnocen jako vysoce účinný, zatímco v oblasti zvyšování otevřenosti vůči novým účastníkům, prosazování genderové vyváženosti a podpory zvyšování atraktivity výzkumu v souvislosti s výběrem povolání v Unii bylo hodnocení jeho účinnosti spíše nízké.
2.2Navzdory celkovému konsensu však jedno zjištění budí pozornost: ačkoli zúčastněné strany téměř jednomyslně uznaly vysokou účinnost programu Horizont 2020, pokud jde o posilování excelence EU ve vědě, při hodnocení programu co do účinnosti podpory vedoucího postavení v oblasti technologií a inovačních schopností v soukromém sektoru byli respondenti poněkud zdrženlivější – převážná většina respondentů označila klastr vedoucí postavení v průmyslu a klastr společenské výzvy za středně účinné.
2.3Existují také výrazné rozdíly v tom, jak vysokou účinnost programu Horizont 2020 přisuzují různé zúčastněné strany: jednak bylo toto vnímání pozitivnější u zúčastněných stran ze zemí EU-15 než u zemí EU-13, a současně je ve značném rozporu hodnocení akademické obce a veřejných orgánů na jedné straně a zástupců soukromého sektoru na straně druhé (téměř 50 % zástupců soukromé sféry mělo o účinnosti programu značné pochyby).
2.4Několikrát zazněly výhrady ohledně nízkého zapojení malých a středních podniků a překážek, které jim bránily v účasti. Zúčastněné strany poukázaly na přílišné zvýhodnění větších projektů a uvedly také, že velká konsorcia (zahrnující 30 a více subjektů) svou povahou neodpovídají potřebám malých a středních podniků (MSP) a tyto podniky někdy využívají pouze jako prostředek pro získání finančních prostředků. I když se MSP do konsorcií dostanou, spolupracovat a smysluplně přispívat je pro ně velmi obtížné.
2.5Výjimkou prý byl Nástroj pro malé a střední podniky, ale vzhledem k relativně omezenému objemu finančních prostředků, který byl na tento nástroj vyčleněn, panovala v tomto ohledu tvrdá konkurence a skutečně získat finanční prostředky bylo pro MSP značně obtížné (pravděpodobnost úspěchu byla poměrně nízká, asi 5%). To by mělo být jednoznačně označeno za nedokonalost systému.
2.6V rámci programu Horizont 2020 bylo identifikováno několik překážek a nedostatků, zejména co se týče nepružnosti a byrokracie. Zúčastněné strany si stěžovaly, že účast výzkumných pracovníků se stává čím dál obtížnější, neboť postupy podávání žádostí jsou příliš dlouhé, vyžadují mnoho zdrojů a jsou značně byrokratické. To platí i v případě malých a středních podniků, které jsou s postupy programu obeznámeny ještě méně.
2.7Pokud jde o synergie s dalšími fondy EU a vnitrostátními programy, zkušenosti byly pozitivní, v zájmu optimalizace jejich účinnosti, harmonizace a přístupnosti je však dle zúčastněných stran na tomto aspektu ještě třeba výrazně zapracovat. Konkrétně vyslovila velká většina zúčastněných stran názor, že v jejich zemích nebyly vyčleněny dostatečné prostředky na doplňkové programy (např. Eureka a Eurostars).
2.8Velmi pozitivně byla hodnocena podpora ze strany vnitrostátních kontaktních míst v rámci programu Horizont 2020, pokud jde o zvyšování povědomí, šíření informací, zvláštní podporu pro účastníky a propagační akce, avšak co se týče podpory účastníků v souvislosti se synergiemi v oblasti financování z programů Horizont 2020 a EFRR a v podobě školení (např. pokud jde o vypracovávání žádostí), názory se rozcházely.
3.Závěry týkající se relevantnosti
3.1Program Horizont 2020 byl dle účastníků velmi relevantní, neboť účast v těchto projektech byla pro členské státy impulsem k posílení financování výzkumu a vývoje, pomohla s budováním politického a vědeckého kapitálu a pozitivně ovlivňuje reputaci jednotlivých organizací a umožňuje jim tak získávat další prostředky na vnitrostátní a mezinárodní úrovni. Program rovněž umožnil vytváření strategických partnerství v rámci nových nebo stávajících sítí.
3.2Za jeho největší nedostatek je považována skutečnost, že se nepodařilo snížit rozdíly mezi zeměmi EU-15 a EU-13. Účinnost výzkumu v zemích EU-13 se v průběhu programu nezlepšila a rozdíl oproti zemím EU-15 je i nadále velmi výrazný. Větší a rozvinutější země získávají finanční prostředky v takové míře, že „odčerpávají“ i z objemu dostupného zemím, v nichž je výzkum méně rozsáhlý a méně rozvinutý. Nejvýraznější rozdíly panují v souvislosti s vedoucím postavením v průmyslu a průmyslovou excelencí. Do řešení tohoto problému se musí výrazněji zapojit politická úroveň a EU musí podniknout kroky ke zmírnění této nerovnováhy.
4.Závěry týkající se zapojení občanské společnosti
4.1Panuje všeobecná shoda ohledně významu úlohy občanské společnosti v oblasti výzkumu a inovací, zejména pokud jde o zapojení organizací občanské společnosti do plánování, provádění a monitorování programu Horizont 2020.
4.2Účastníci zdůraznili, že pokud je občanská společnost zapojena již v rané fázi programu, usnadňuje to řešení společenských výzev a je to přínosné pro všechny strany.
4.3V rámci EU-27 však existuje zřetelná nerovnováha v souvislosti se zapojením občanské společnosti – v zemích EU-15 byla občanská společnost zapojena ve vysoké míře do všech fází procesu (plánování, provádění a monitorování), zatímco sociální partneři ze zemí EU-13 uvedli, že úloha občanské společnosti stále není dostatečná.
4.4Navzdory rozdílům mezi členskými státy je zřejmé, že organizace občanské společnosti mohou přinést přidanou hodnotu ve všech fázích inovačního procesu, a nestačí je zapojit pouze v rámci „povinnosti“ nebo plnění požadavku za účelem splnění kritérií. Aby z toho měl prospěch celý ekosystém, musí se tak dít reálně a od samého počátku.
5.Doporučení
5.1Iniciativám zaměřeným na malé a střední podniky by finanční prostředky měly být vyčleňovány ve větších objemech. Budoucí programy by měly posílit zapojení MSP a omezit překážky bránící jejich účasti. Aby se dosáhlo většího zapojení malých a středních podniků, mělo by být navýšeno financování inovačních ekosystémů. Tyto ekosystémy, v nichž plní MSP významnou úlohu, mohou zásadně přispět k řešení nadcházejících společenských výzev.
5.2Sociální partneři vyzývají k provedení důkladného posouzení dopadů programu Horizont 2020 a považují za potřebné investovat do komunikace o jeho výsledcích, neboť zapojení občanské společnosti a podpora financování výzkumu a inovací jsou považovány za stěžejní.
5.3Sociální partneři vyzývají k urychlení procesů přezkumu a zjednodušení procesu hodnocení, zejména pro malé a střední podniky, a zároveň ke zvýšení jejich transparentnosti a soudržnosti. Dále zaznělo, že poměrně přísné jsou etické požadavky (někdy až příliš), což vytváří byrokratické překážky. Jedná se o další otázku, jíž je třeba se v rámci programu Horizont Evropa zabývat.
5.4Bylo by vhodné zavést možnost pozměnit konsorcia, neboť během provádění projektů se často objevují nové poznatky, a aby je bylo možné uplatnit, je zapotřebí jistá flexibilita.
5.5Velmi důležitým aspektem je předvídatelnost. Potenciální účastníci musí být schopni plánovat dopředu a odpovídajícím způsobem alokovat své zdroje. Proto je třeba v dostatečném předstihu zveřejňovat rozpočet i pracovní programy.
5.6Programy Horizont 2020 a Horizont Evropa jsou považovány za „chytré peníze“ (smart money), protože kladou důraz na dopad, zatímco regionální a vnitrostátní programy financování jsou vzhledem ke svému vysoce byrokratickému přístupu považovány za „hloupé peníze“ (dumb money). Je třeba zlepšit synergie a provázanost s regionálními a vnitrostátními programy financování, přičemž Evropská komise je považována za strategického partnera, jenž má zajistit větší soulad a harmonizaci mezi nařízeními a postupy. Dále zaznělo, že v případech, kdy se komunita v oblasti výzkumu a inovací domnívá, že vnitrostátní programy založené na EFRR jsou zdlouhavější a byrokratičtější než program Horizont 2020 / Horizont Evropa, měly by být členské státy povinny přijmout postupy a předpisy uplatňované v rámci programu Horizont Evropa.
5.7Více než dvě třetiny (64 %) respondentů označilo komunikaci a informování o programu Horizont 2020 za dobré nebo velmi dobré. Téměř polovina (46 %) respondentů se vyjádřila v tom smyslu, že komunikace s příjemci programu Horizont 2020 by se dala zlepšit. EHSV se domnívá, že v této oblasti se mohou Komise a členské státy vždy dále zlepšovat. EHSV doporučuje zlepšit komunikační procesy v oblasti financování inovací a výzkumu a vývoje, a to zejména pokud jde o malé a střední podniky. Zásadní roli mohou v tomto ohledu sehrát organizace občanské společnosti.
V Bruselu dne 23. března 2023
Xxxxxxx XXXXXXX
předsedkyně Evropského hospodářského a sociálního výboru
*
* *
Pozn.: Následuje technická příloha.
EVALUATION OF HORIZON 2020 Technical appendix |
Table of Contents
2. Závěry týkající se účinnosti 3
3. Závěry týkající se relevantnosti 4
4. Závěry týkající se zapojení občanské společnosti 5
1.1 Methodology and sampling 11
2. Focus of the evaluation report 13
2.1 The policy and the evaluation criteria 13
2.2 Overview of H2020 implementation in the selected Member States 14
3. Primary data: findings and analysis 16
Introduction
The European Economic and Social Committee has drawn up an evaluation report assessing (ex post) the implementation of the EU's Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) – Horizon 2020 (hereafter referred to as H2020). The programme was set out in Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013 (Horizon 2020 Regulation), with Council Decision 2013/743/EU establishing the specific programme; Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013 laid down the rules for participation and dissemination. The report reflects the views of social partners and civil society organisations, including public authorities, in selected EU Member States (Croatia, Latvia, the Netherlands and Portugal) on the effectiveness, relevance and added value of civil society involvement in the implementation of this programme.
Based on findings collected during in-person and virtual meetings in the aforementioned EU Member States and expert online questionnaire replies, this technical appendix gathers, analyses and summarises the views of civil society organisations and of public authorities on the implementation of H2020 in these countries. In particular, stakeholders were asked to share their views on the relevance, effectiveness and added value for civil society of the implementation of the H2020 programme. In collecting these views, the EESC focused on the following key aspects: support for micro-, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs); procedures and simplification; and synergies with other funds and tools.
The evaluation report and this appendix aim to inform policymakers of the views of civil society organisations and public authorities regarding the implementation of H2020 and assess their experience and role in the implementation of this programme, aiming to contribute to the European Commission's evaluation. These documents will be shared with the European Commission and other relevant stakeholders.
1.1Methodology and sampling
The members of the EESC study group collected the views of civil society organisations and public authorities through two channels: four in-person or virtual fact-finding visits in the selected countries and a targeted online questionnaire.
Secondary data collected on the EESC's past work on the subject was also analysed.
1.2Fact-finding meetings
The fact-finding meetings included semi-structured interviews with local civil society organisations and representatives of public authorities, generally following the thematic structure of the questionnaire. They took place either in person or via the Interactio online platform.
The sample of Member States was selected by the study group based on criteria adopted by the EESC Bureau on 13 December 2022. The European Commission was also informed about the sample.
The countries were selected based on:
political spread e.g. high/low level of implementation, application success rates, most/least affected by the legislative proposal/programme, etc.;
geographical spread i.e. by setting up four groups of Member States and choosing one from each group.
The following EU Member States were selected for this information report where in-person or virtual fact-finding meetings took place: Latvia (8 December 2022), the Netherlands (13 December 2022), Croatia (21 December 2022) and Portugal (16 January 2023).
1.3Questionnaire
The questionnaire was created on the EUSurvey online portal, using a combination of question formats (filter questions, closed and open-ended questions, a grid). The questionnaire consultation was open from 3 December 2022 to 22 January 2023.
The aim of the questionnaire was to complement the information obtained from the fact-finding meetings. Composed of 30 questions, the questionnaire was sent to organisations in the Member States selected for the fact-finding meetings (not only to those participating in the in-person or virtual meetings, but also to other relevant organisations).
1.4Respondent breakdown
During the four virtual fact-finding visits, the EESC delegation consulted in total about 37 representatives of research institutions, the business sector, civil society organisations and public authorities. It is important to note, however, that the total number of people interviewed was slightly higher as on many occasions more than one representative of an organisation participated in the meeting.
In addition, 39 contributions were collected through the online questionnaire, including 22 representatives from research and academia (56%), 4 representatives from public authorities, 4 from the business sector and 4 representatives from other civil society organisations; 5 respondents considered themselves as "other".
Regarding the origin of the respondents, there was a relatively even distribution of answers across the four countries, with the most answers coming from Croatia (13) and the least from Latvia (6).
The complete list of organisations consulted via the fact-finding meetings and via the questionnaire is available in chapter 5 of this report.
2.Focus of the evaluation report
2.1The policy and the evaluation criteria
H2020 was the main EU tool for financing research and innovation from 2014 to 2020. It was the successor to the seven previous framework programmes, aiming to expand upon the previous programmes in terms of both funding and ambition. Its legal basis was Article 179 TFEU: "The Union shall have the objective of strengthening its scientific and technological bases by achieving a European research area ... and encouraging it to become more competitive".
The general objective of H2020 was to achieve the target of spending 3% of EU gross domestic product (GDP) on research and development, as set out in the Europe 2020 strategy. H2020 also intended to help build a society based on knowledge and innovation by providing funding for research, development and innovation. H2020 had three thematic priority areas: Excellent Science, Industrial Leadership and Societal Challenges.
Available funds were allocated under three consecutive work programmes, the first for 2014-2015, the second for 2016-2017 and the third for 2018-2020. It has been succeeded by the Horizon Europe programme for 2021-2027.
H2020 had a total budget of EUR 74 828.3 m (EUR 72 444.3 m for TFEU activities and EUR 2 383 m for the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT)). An additional EUR 200 m was allocated for 2017-2020 following the mid-term review of the 2014-2020 Multiannual Financial Framework.
Funding was allocated to projects in the fields of natural sciences (EUR 35 bn), engineering and technology (EUR 26 bn), the social sciences (EUR 24.7 bn), the medical and health sciences (EUR 12.24 bn), agricultural sciences (EUR 4 bn) and the humanities (EUR 3.4 bn).
The average project received EUR 1.9 m in EU contributions. A total of 35 381 grants were allocated throughout the programme.
The evaluation report takes into consideration the full programme's implementation.
The EESC evaluation methodology follows the European Commission's Better Regulation guidelines, where the information reports are structured around the part of the evaluation criteria used by the European Commission, in particular:
Effectiveness: considers how successful EU action has been in achieving or progressing towards its objectives.
Relevance: looks at the relationship between the needs and problems in society and the objectives of the action and hence touches on aspects of design. Analysing relevance also involves considering how the objectives of EU action correspond to wider EU policy goals and priorities.
To this, the EESC also adds an assessment of civil society involvement in the policy in question.
Thus, and with a view to complementing the European Commission's evaluation, the EESC evaluation has focused in particular on the following issues:
effectiveness (how successful H2020 has been in achieving or progressing towards the aforementioned goals);
implementation at local/regional level (including procedures, consistency, simplification and synergies with other funds);
civil society added value (assessing the level of civil society involvement in designing, monitoring, implementing and evaluating the EU legislation in question through the informed engagement of citizens and civil society in research and innovation).
2.2Overview of H2020 implementation in the selected Member States
The following section presents a brief overview of the implementation of H2020 in each of the four selected Member States.
Croatia: In Croatia, participants received EUR 137.8 m from the H2020 funds, ranking 25th out of 28 EU Member States for funding received. Croatian proposals had a 15% success rate, compared to an EU average of 14%.
Over the course of the H2020 programme, 818 Croatian organisations participated across 1 519 xxxxxxxx0. Of these organisations, higher or secondary education establishments comprised 33%, private for-profit entities 28%, research organisations 25% and public bodies 9%. The organisations receiving the most funding from H2020 in Croatia were the University of Zagreb (EUR 53.35 m), the Institut Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx (EUR 30.75 m) and the Genos Laboratory (Genos d.o.o. za vještačenje i analize) (EUR 7.14 m).
Looking at the projects funded in Croatia by thematic priority, EUR 75.3 m went towards projects under Societal Challenges, EUR 29 m to Excellent Science projects and EUR 17 m to Industrial Leadership projects. Projects on Spreading Excellence and Widening Participation received EUR 10 m and Science with and for Society received EUR 3 m, with EUR 2.4 m going towards Euratom research and training.
Latvia: In Latvia, participating organisations received EUR 116.9 m from the H2020 funds, ranking 26th out of 28 EU Member States for funding received2. Proposals in Latvia had a 14% success rate, equal to the EU-28 average.
In Latvia, 544 organisations participated in H2020-funded projects. Of these organisations, higher or secondary education establishments comprised 40%, private for-profit entities 28%, research organisations 14% and public bodies 11%. The organisations receiving the most funding from H2020 in Latvia were the Riga Technical University (EUR 14.7 m), the Institute of Solid State Physics (EUR 13.9 m) and the University of Latvia (EUR 10 m).
Looking at the projects funded in Latvia by thematic priority, Societal Challenges accounted for EUR 51.6 m of the funding received, Industrial Leadership for EUR 20.8 m and Excellent Science for EUR 11.7 m. Projects working on Spreading Excellence and Widening Participation received EUR 28 m, Science with and for Society EUR 1.5 m and Euratom research and training programmes EUR 2.7 m.
Netherlands: Organisations in the Netherlands received EUR 5.38 bn in H2020 funding, the 6th highest of the EU Member States3. Proposals in the Netherlands had a success rate of 16%, two points higher than the EU average of 14%.
In the Netherlands, 11 084 organisations participated in H2020-funded projects. Half of these organisations were higher or secondary education establishments (49.5%), a quarter were private for-profit entities (25%) and 19% were research organisations. Public bodies accounted for just 2%. The top three organisations receiving the most funding from H2020 in the Netherlands were all universities: the Delft University of Technology (EUR 319.6 m), Utrecht University (EUR 240 m) and Amsterdam University (EUR 206 m).
By thematic priority, the most funding was allocated to Societal Challenges (EUR 2.2 bn). This was followed by Excellent Science (EUR 2.2 bn), Industrial Leadership (EUR 890 m) and Science with and for Society (EUR 36 m).
Portugal: In Portugal, participants received EUR 1.15 bn from the H2020 funds, ranking 14th out of 28 EU Member States for funding received. Proposals in Portugal had a 13% success rate, compared to the EU average of 14%.
Over the course of the H2020 programme, 3 951 organisations participated in EU-funded projects4. Research organisations accounted for 38%, with higher or secondary education establishments and private for-profit entities both accounting for 27%. Public bodies accounted for 5%. The organisations receiving the most funding from H2020 in Portugal were Nova University Lisbon (EUR 42.6 m), Coimbra University (EUR 41.6 m) and Minho University (EUR 39.4 m).
Looking at the projects funded in Portugal by thematic priority, EUR 454 m went towards projects under Societal Challenges, EUR 316 m to Excellent Science projects and EUR 244 m to Industrial Leadership projects. Projects on Spreading Excellence and Widening Participation received EUR 102.5 m and Science with and for Society projects received EUR 12.5 m, with EUR 11.8 m going towards Euratom research and training.
3.Primary data: findings and analysis
3.1Effectiveness
A
ccording
to the European Commission Better Regulation toolbox, the criterion
of effectiveness "considers how successful EU action has been in
achieving or progressing towards its objectives"5.
General conclusions
With regard to the effectiveness of H2020 actions in supporting the implementation of the European Research Area and the flagship initiative "Innovation Europe" (question 1), the vast majority of respondents considered it to have been effective (46% deeming it "very effective" and 51% "moderately effective"), with not a single person choosing the options "not very effective" or "not effective at all".
In terms of countries, the most positive response came from Latvia and the Netherlands, with 67% of respondents in both countries viewing the listed H2020 actions to have been "very effective". The majority of the Portuguese and Croatian respondents, however, considered that they had been "moderately effective" (73% and 54% respectively).
Looking at the different categories, representatives from the public authorities (75%, or 3 participants), civil society (50%, or 2 participants) and academia (50%, or 11 participants) held the most positive views, whereas 75% of representatives (or 3 participants) from business organisations considered the listed H2020 actions to have been "moderately effective".
During the semi-structured interviews, the Dutch farmers' representatives mentioned that the creation of the European Innovation Partnership (EIP) for Agriculture and Horticulture had enabled entrepreneurs to be involved in projects. Together with the "multi-actor" approach, these tools had enabled entrepreneurs in the agricultural sector to play an active role in projects from the beginning, which in turn had increased the likelihood that they would actually make use of the findings.
When asked whether the H2020 programme had helped the EU to become a knowledge and innovation-based economy and society (question 2), no less than 87% of the total respondents were of the opinion that the EU had made solid advances in the right direction, compared to only 5% who thought that "no relevant progress during the 2014-2020 funding period" had been achieved.
At country level, 100% of both the Dutch and Portuguese respondents held a positive view, while 77% and 67% of the Croatian and Latvian respondents respectively were of the same view. Furthermore, 1 Latvian and 1 Croatian respondent considered that no relevant progress had been achieved in this area.
In terms of categories, no less than 95% of respondents from academia (or 21 participants) believed that the EU had advanced towards a knowledge and innovation-based economy and society, as did 100% of the public authority representatives (or 4 participants), 75% of the civil society representatives and half of the respondents (or 2 participants) from the business sector.
Specific conclusions
The majority of respondents believed that H2020 had indeed helped the EU in certain specific aspects (question 3).
With regard to strengthening the EU's excellence in science, 90% of the respondents were of the opinion that H2020 had indeed done so. The most positive views were held by the Dutch and the Portuguese (100%), followed by the Croatians (85%). Latvians were the most sceptic, with 67% answering "yes" and 33% being "unsure". No respondent in any country answered "no".
The respondents were less positive with regard to supporting technological leadership and innovation capability in the private sector, with slightly over half (54%) considering that H2020 had indeed supported technological leadership and innovation capability in the private sector. However, 44% were unsure.
The views were rather diverging in the four countries: the Dutch and Portuguese were split between "yes" (67% and 64% respectively) and "unsure" (33% and 36% respectively), while the Latvians held very positive views (83% "yes") and the Croatians were the most negative, with 69% "unsure" and 8% answering "no".
With regard to tackling the societal challenges identified in the Europe 2020 strategy by supporting activities covering the entire spectrum, from research to market, 69% of the respondents considered that H2020 had been supportive in this respect and 28% were not sure.
The results were divided very similarly when broken down by country – the majority of respondents from all four countries were of the view that H2020 had helped the EU in the above-mentioned aspect (69% of the Croatians, 67% of both the Latvians and the Dutch, and 64% of the Portuguese respondents). Only 1 Dutch and 1 Croatian respondent answered "no".
When asked to assess the effectiveness of H2020 priorities in contributing to the programme's objectives and expected results (question 4), the Excellent Science thematic cluster received the most positive assessment from the respondents, with 69% viewing it as having been "very effective". The vast majority of the respondents viewed both the Industrial Leadership and the Societal Challenges clusters as having been "moderately effective" (59% and 54% respectively).
This trend was mostly echoed across the countries, with the Croatian, Latvian and Portuguese respondents assessing the Excellent Science cluster as having been the most efficient in achieving the H2020 objectives and expected results (62%, 50% and 63% respectively); 100% of the Dutch respondents considered this to have been the case.
The Croatian, Latvian and Portuguese respondents viewed the Industrial Leadership cluster as having been "moderately effective" (46%, 50% and 82% respectively), whereas 3 of the Dutch respondents considered it to have been "very effective" (33%) and 5, or 56%, "moderately effective". A few respondents (4 in total) considered this cluster to have been "not very effective".
Finally, with regard to the Societal Challenges cluster, the Croatian, Latvian and Portuguese respondents again shared similar views, with the majority considering this cluster to have been "moderately effective" in achieving the H2020 objectives and expected results (54%, 50% and 72% respectively). In contrast, 4, or 44%, of the Dutch respondents held the view that it had been "very effective" and 3, or 33%, "moderately effective". Furthermore, one Croatian participant viewed this cluster as having been "not effective at all" and another one as "not very effective".
During the semi-structured interviews, the Latvian public authorities noted that the Excellent Science pillar was still a challenge for the country. The results had not been very good there and, indeed, it seemed to be a challenge for many of the newer EU Member States. The reason for that was a lack of investment in research over a longer period of time. For the next programming period of 2021-2027, Latvia had identified this area as one of its priorities, earmarking a larger share of national financing for it. Moreover, national capacity should be improved in this pillar, which would be a long-term process.
Furthermore, the respondents said that the outcome of the Industrial Leadership pillar could be deemed adequate (for example, in the ICT sector). Looking at the Societal Challenges pillar, they said that involvement in Latvia was at a very high level, especially as regards the food and energy sectors.
Finally, the Latvian public authorities noted that there was a significant increase in private sector involvement in all three priority areas under H2020 in Latvia compared to the previous framework programme, which had seen very few companies participate. They said that private companies might not seem to be the first choice when it comes to scientific project partners, but they were not in competition with scientific institutions.
With regard to H2020's effectiveness in achieving its horizontal objectives (question 5), the vast majority considered the following objectives to have been the most successful ("very effective"):
respect fundamental ethical principles – responsible research and innovation (56%, or 22 respondents);
increase the circulation and exploitation of knowledge (46%, or 18 respondents);
contribute to the attractiveness of the research profession in the Union (46%, or 18 respondents).
The least successful ("not very effective") horizontal objectives were considered to be the following:
openness to new participants (26%, or 10 respondents);
promoting gender balance (13%, or 5 respondents);
contribute to the attractiveness of the research profession in the Union (13%, or 5 respondents).
Comparing the four countries, the Croatian respondents were of the view that H2020 had been most effective in achieving the objectives of "increase the circulation and exploitation of knowledge", with "very effective" and "moderately effective" each accounting for 46% of responses, and "responsible research and innovation" (46% for "very effective" and 38% "moderately effective"). "Openness to new participants" and "promoting gender balance" were seen as having been "not very effective" by 38% and 23% respectively.
The Latvian respondents were also of the view that H2020 had been most effective in achieving the objectives of "responsible research and innovation" (67% for "very effective" and 17%, or 1 respondent, for "moderately effective") and "increase the circulation and exploitation of knowledge" (33% for " very effective" and 67% for "moderately effective"). The small number of Latvian respondents (6) does not allow for any further distinction in results in this question.
The Dutch respondents expressed slightly different views. In their opinion, H2020 had been most effective in achieving the objective of "increase the circulation and exploitation of knowledge" (56% for "very effective" and 44% for "moderately effective"), with the second most successful being "consideration for equal treatment and non-discrimination in R&I content throughout all stages of the research cycle" (22% for "very effective" and 78% for "moderately effective"). Moreover, the objective of "contribute to the attractiveness of the research profession in the Union" received a high score, with 78% of the Dutch respondents considering H2020 as having been "very effective" in achieving it. The answer "not very effective" was given to only some of the objectives, by just one or two respondents.
Finally, the Portuguese respondents agreed to a large extent with the Croatian and Latvian respondents, most highly rating H2020's effectiveness in achieving the objectives of "increase the circulation and exploitation of knowledge" (45% for "very effective" and 55% for "moderately effective") and "responsible research and innovation" (63% for "very effective" and 36% for "moderately effective"). The objectives of "openness to new participants" and "contribute to the attractiveness of the research profession in the Union" received the most "not very effective" responses (18% each).
With regard to the question of whether the supplementary programmes supported by H2020 which involved the participation of certain Member States only (e.g. joint undertakings) had been identified and implemented in an open, transparent and efficient way (question 6), the majority of the respondents (41%) agreed partially, while 21% agreed fully and 26% were unsure.
This trend was also reflected across the four countries, with the majority of respondents in all four countries replying that they partially agreed with the above statement (23% of the Croatian, 50% of the Latvian, 56% of the Dutch and 45% of the Portuguese respondents). Both in Croatia (46%) and in Latvia (33%), the number of respondents who did not know how to assess this was higher than in the Netherlands and Portugal (1 person in each).
With regard to categories, the trend was similar – with the exception of the business organisation representatives (half of whom (2 respondents) fully agreed with the above statement), respondents from all other categories agreed partially with the statement. Even none of the 4 respondents from the public authorities could fully agree that the supplementary programmes had been identified and implemented in an open, transparent and efficient way.
Regarding the balance between small and large projects – particularly in the Industrial Leadership and Societal Challenges clusters (question 7), the vast majority (54%) found that it had been "excessively biased towards bigger projects", while 28% found it to have been "appropriate" and 18% were "unsure".
In terms of countries, all the countries surveyed except for the Netherlands mirrored the above views. Specifically, 62% of respondents in Croatia, 50% in Latvia and 55% in Portugal thought that the balance between small and large projects in H2020 had been "excessively biased towards bigger projects". The Dutch respondents were equally split between "appropriate" and "excessively biased towards bigger projects" (44% each). Those respondents who thought that the balance between small and large projects in H2020 had been "appropriate" represented 15% in Croatia, 33% in Latvia and 27% in Portugal.
Looking at the categories, most respondents agreed that the balance between small and large projects in H2020 had been "excessively biased towards bigger projects" (41% of the respondents from academia, 75%, or 3, of the respondents from the public authorities, 50%, or 2, of the respondents from business organisations, and 75%, or 3, of the respondents from civil society organisations).
With regard to the effectiveness of H2020 support for micro-, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) in various aspects (question 8), the vast majority of the respondents were of the opinion that the following aspects had been the most effective:
appropriate funding instruments (21% for "very effective" and 31% for "moderately effective");
appropriate evaluation framework (13% for "very effective and 28% for "moderately effective");
covering different innovation needs over the whole innovation cycle in a single funding instrument (13% for "very effective and 28% for "moderately effective").
The majority of the respondents found "ease of participation (admin effort)" to have been "not very effective" and 13% found it "not at all effective".
In terms of countries, the Croatian respondents were mostly unsure of how to assess the effectiveness of H2020 support for MSMEs with regard to the above aspects, with the most positive assessment given to "appropriate evaluation framework" and "covering different innovation needs over the whole innovation cycle in a single funding instrument" (38% for "moderately effective" in both).
The Latvian and Portuguese respondents shared more positive views: "ease of participation (admin effort)" was found to be "very effective" by 50% of the Latvian and 36% of the Portuguese respondents; however, at the same time almost half (45%) of the Portuguese respondents considered this aspect to be "not very effective". Furthermore, "covering different innovation needs over the whole innovation cycle in a single funding instrument" was viewed as "moderately effective" by 67% of the Latvian respondents and 55% of the Portuguese respondents. For the remaining two aspects the assessment was split between "very effective" and "moderately effective".
As for the Dutch respondents, none of the aspects were deemed "very effective", and only "appropriate funding instruments" and "appropriate evaluation framework" were found to have been "moderately effective", by 33% and 22% of the respondents respectively.
The rest of the answers in all four aspects were split between "not very effective", "not at all effective" and "unsure". It is worth mentioning that "ease of participation (admin effort)" and "covering different innovation needs over the whole innovation cycle in a single funding instrument" received no positive assessments, with 44%, or 4, of the respondents and 22%, or 2, of the respondents considering these aspects as having been "not at all effective" in H2020 support for MSMEs.
During the semi-structured interviews, the Croatian participants suggested several improvements to be made to H2020 in terms of its support for MSMEs. First of all, they said that there was room for wider participation and that the process could be made more accessible to MSMEs. Targeted publicity about MSME participation in H2020 was required to promote greater participation.
The Dutch participants saw the rather low involvement of MSMEs, especially in the area of industrial leadership, as one of the main shortcomings.
The Latvian public authorities too expressed the view that MSME involvement in H2020 should be increased. Comparing Latvia with other countries in this respect, they said that Latvia was small and had a different business structure and that, under H2020, the state gave the highest priority to companies with a high innovation component. Hence, MSMEs had less chance to participate in tenders because they lacked capacity.
Furthermore, it was noted that H2020 had a special instrument – the SME tool – aimed at MSMEs, but, from the total of 625 applications from Latvia, only 2.16% had received funding. This was an extremely low indicator in comparison to other funding opportunities. Under H2020, this competition for funding between MSMEs had increased even further, which was seen as not at all attractive for this type of company, which had to plan their financing very carefully.
The Croatian participants noted that the process was too dependent on larger companies to ensure a successful proposal. Smaller firms always ended up relying on larger organisations as partners due to previous success with applications and resources, but this did not always benefit the smaller organisation and they could be overshadowed.
Secondly, according to the Croatian stakeholders, applying to H2020 was seen as overly complex, and support for project management (accounting, HR, technology support etc.) was insufficient. The Accelerator tool was highly selective and demanding, which acted as a barrier to SMEs. It was very difficult for these organisations to find consortia and almost impossible for them to form their own. Larger organisations and institutes tended to have their own "favourite" or established MSME partners, so newcomers were barred from participation in several ways.
The Dutch and Latvian stakeholders mentioned the difficulty in finding suitable partners and gaining access to existing consortia as well.
Moreover, the Croatian stakeholders said that the low success rate was demotivating for applicants. After being rejected, many gave up on H2020 and applied instead for other funding opportunities. This problem was magnified for MSMEs, who faced stronger constraints on resources. Moreover, it took eight months on average from application to funding, which was too long for smaller organisations to work without achieving funding. This was another barrier to smaller organisations' participation.
In this regard, the Latvian participants proposed the idea of providing better support for smaller applicants, such as enabling partnerships and providing technical assistance with specific problems throughout the process.
The Croatian stakeholders, on the other hand, thought that a potential solution to this issue could be smaller calls that were adapted to MSME-level capacity, especially in countries with lower participation rates, such as Croatia. This would also help such companies to set up their own consortia and gain valuable leadership experience.
Finally, the Croatian participants mentioned the high level of administrative work needed for participation in H2020 as another way in which SMEs were excluded because they did not have the staff and resources to cover lengthy and complex applications. By comparison, the European Social Fund did not have such a high administrative burden. However, H2020 remained easier than national funds, which were seen as even more demanding and complicated.
The Dutch participants agreed that the administrative burden was a common obstacle, especially for MSMEs. All the Dutch participants agreed that the application procedures took too long and should be facilitated and accelerated in future programmes.
In this regard, the Latvian stakeholders mentioned the fact that one barrier to MSME participation was previous negative experiences with structural funds in terms of the high administrative burden and overwhelming bureaucracy. These made them hesitant to apply for other funds. In general, it could be said that MSMEs in Latvia lacked innovation capacity, which hindered their participation, especially when the H2020 grant application process was highly competitive. The potential solution could indeed be for them to unite in consortia and find their special niche. The public authorities agreed that there was a lot of potential for growth in Latvia with regard to private sector participation in Horizon.
When asked whether they knew on which priority of the H2020 their Member State had focused the most (question 9), the respondents gave the following replies:
the Croatian respondents: 54% – Excellent Science and 46% – Societal Challenges;
the Latvian respondents: 83% – Societal Challenges and 17%, or 1 respondent – Industrial Leadership;
the Dutch respondents: 56% – Excellent Science and 33% – Industrial Leadership;
the Portuguese respondents: 91% – Excellent Science and 9%, or 1 respondent – Industrial Leadership.
When asked about their opinion of H2020-funded actions in their country (question 10), the majority of the respondents (38%) deemed them "appropriate", while 36% said that they were "very good, we use or monitor them regularly", and 21% considered them as "poor".
Opinions varied across the countries. A significant proportion of the Croatian respondents (38%) considered the H2020-funded actions in Croatia to have been "poor", whereas an equal number of 31% viewed them as having been "very good, we use or monitor them regularly" or "adequate".
The Latvian and Dutch respondents held the most positive views, with 50% (or 3 respondents) and 67% respectively saying that the H2020-funded actions in their respective countries had been "very good, we use or monitor them regularly".
Finally, the majority of the Portuguese respondents (64%) viewed the H2020-funded actions in Portugal as having been "adequate", and 18% thought that they had been "poor".
In terms of categories, representatives from academia and the public authorities viewed the outcomes of the H2020-funded actions in their countries in the most positive light (45% and 50% (or 2 respondents) respectively considering them "very good"). In contrast, 50% (or 2 respondents) from business organisations and 75% (or 3 respondents) from civil society organisations viewed them as "poor".
During the semi-structured interviews, the Croatian participants from educational establishments and research organisations, as well as those from NGOs, businesses and social partners, held very positive views of H2020 overall and praised it as a beneficial tool for Croatian companies to develop technical excellence and increase Europe's standing in R&D globally. However, the Croatian public authorities had mixed opinions on whether H2020 had been successful in the country. The tough competition, lack of a twinning project and modest results in land-use projects due to there being no national land-use strategy were cited as negative points.
The Dutch participants had an overall positive view of H2020, which allowed direct networking, discussions and exchanges of experience among scientists and other experts in the relevant field. They considered it to be much better than its predecessors and they assessed the performance of the H2020 programme positively, stressing its comprehensiveness and its clearly defined pillars. Particularly, Dutch research organisations warmly welcomed H2020 and explained that the Netherlands had performed very well under it. They appreciated the fact that the programme enabled the implementation of some projects which could not have been carried out without it.
Representatives from Latvian research organisations, NGOs and businesses felt that, overall, the programme had been highly successful, particularly in Latvian educational and research organisations, and in general had had good levels of participation and had led to successful projects. They said that participating in H2020 projects was greatly beneficial to those involved and contributed to the scientific process within these organisations.
They said that one of the major advantages to participating in H2020 had been establishing networks with other European countries by collaborating on projects. However, the lead partner for a project had to be a leading expert in the field, which tended to favour countries with a more established research community. This had been an issue for Latvia, whose participation had therefore been primarily in initiatives started by other partners. This was not seen as a problem of a lack of capacity, but more a lack of "research maturity".
The Latvian business stakeholders noted that the advantages of H2020 for SMEs were the possibility to develop innovative services, to network with and learn from others in the same field abroad, to better understand the markets of other countries and to develop national forecasting capabilities.
Furthermore, they pointed out that H2020 was more accessible, simpler and had a lower administrative burden than other funds; for example, they praised the fact that all reports were standardised.
However, they said that Latvia's successes under H2020 had been dominated by the two largest universities. Aside from these two recipients, Latvia had had a small number of projects and low funding compared to other Member States. At the same time, around one quarter of H2020 projects in Latvia had been awarded to companies, so the employers' confederation considered that Latvian companies had been very successful under H2020.
Finally, the representatives from public authorities expressed the view that, considering the size of the county, its research capacity and the population, Latvia saw itself as a well-performing country. Furthermore, they stressed that H2020 had been a very important programme for Latvia, for developing the Latvian research system and for improving integration into the European Research Area.
Portuguese stakeholders from academia noted that H2020, by enabling research in areas with considerable potential (such as health and pharmaceuticals), had been instrumental in promoting research that had eventually been taken up by private companies. They also praised the H2020 selection and reporting processes, believing it perfectly balanced. The Portuguese business representatives noted that H2020 had had much less bureaucracy than national programmes, making it very attractive; it had focused less on the paper trail and more on results.
However, the Portuguese representatives from academia emphasised that H2020's effectiveness in Portugal had been affected by the lack of scale (many small research centres) and this had led to less efficient and effective use of resources. There had also been a lack of strategic vision for Portugal, impacting on decisions made about complex procedures, with no attention having been paid to developing innovation. They said that the overall mindset in Portugal was to have bureaucracy for the sake of it and not for the sake of public good; in this regard, the European Union had the potential to nudge Portugal away from this mindset.
When asked whether their country had allocated appropriate funding to complementary programmes (e.g. Eureka and Eurostars) (question 11), the majority of the respondents (44%) did not agree and said that the funds had been "insufficient", while 36% were "unsure" and 21% considered them to have been "appropriate".
When looking at the views per country, Croatian, Latvian and Portuguese respondents held that the funding allocated to complementary programmes had been largely "insufficient" (54%, 50% and 55% respectively), while 56% of the Dutch respondents found them "appropriate". Only 1 Dutch respondent thought that the funds had been "insufficient". Furthermore, a large proportion (46%) of the Croatian respondents did not know how to assess this matter.
Breaking the respondents down by category shows a similar picture: respondents from academia and business associations considered the funding allocated to complementary programmes as "insufficient" (55% and 75% respectively), whereas 75%, or 3, of the respondents from civil society organisations were "unsure". Finally, 75%, or 3, of the respondents from public authorities were of the opinion that these funds had been "appropriate".
When questioned on the role of national contact points (NCPs) in H2020 (question 12), stakeholders had divided opinions on their role at different levels of the programme. The response was by and large positive concerning awareness-raising about H2020 and associated programmes, concerning dissemination of information on it (including open calls, rules of participation and proposal submission), concerning specific assistance to participants (call identification and topic framing, action types, partner search, rules of participation, roles and responsibilities of consortium members, ethical aspects), promotional events (information days, seminars, conferences, newsletters, workshops) and information provided about other European research and innovation programmes (e.g. European Health Programme, COSNIE, Eureka, Digital Europe, etc.). Approximately 60% to 80% of respondents, all countries and categories included, believed NCPs were effective in these fields.
Opinions were more divided on support for participants with available funding synergies between H2020 and European Regional and Development Fund (ERDF) programmes in their countries, with 18 positive answers and 18 negative answers. More than half of the respondents believed NCPs were not very effective, or not effective at all, in organising training events (e.g. proposal writing).
Overall, the Dutch and, to a lesser degree, the Portuguese respondents had a very positive view of the NCPs. Most of the answers falling under the categories "not very effective" and '"not effective at all" came from Croatia and Latvia.
Participants in the country missions in these two countries expressed views that hinted at the possible origins of these disparities. In the field of research, a divide persisted between "older" and "newer" Member States. Latvian institutions noted that their main partners in H2020 projects had been the older Member States. H2020 was seen as a tool for bridging this gap by encouraging partnerships and aiding the development of research networks between countries. Countries with less developed research capacities could learn from those with more developed capacities, which was seen as a major advantage to participation. There was also growing cooperation to promote scientific excellence in the region to address this gap, for example through the Institute of Central Europe6. The institute acted as an association for cooperation and the exchange of best practices and was developing a white paper on how H2020 partnerships could help bridge this divide, which was expected to be published shortly and would be disseminated to relevant authorities in Brussels and the Member States.
Organisations were split in half concerning the question of whether the actions of the H2020 programme had been adapted to the change brought about by the pandemic (question 13): one half believed they had, the other half were unsure. Only 1 research organisation in Latvia gave a negative answer.
Strikingly, this split was visible across all categories of participants and across the four countries participating in this evaluation. This issue did not gather much attention in the country visits, though Portuguese participants connected to biomedical research did underline that H2020 funds had also been used in research contributing to the fight against the pandemic.
Respondents to the questionnaire were asked to identify (question 14) problems in the implementation of H2020. About half of the respondents shared issues that they had faced, though others (especially in line with the information gathered in the country visit to Portugal) said that H2020 had been an exemplary process. The difficulties that Portuguese stakeholders mentioned related to internal difficulties and national bureaucracy and, if anything, they would want Portuguese authorities to directly apply the procedures used by the European Commission. Nevertheless, question 14 allowed stakeholders from the four countries to share some remarks.
Specifically, stakeholders in the fields of business and academia complained about the complexity of procedures and of H2020's structure itself. This was clearly the case for SMEs and academic stakeholders who were less experienced in competing for European funds and building international research consortia. Including new partners in projects had been difficult due to project timelines, inexperience and the administrative burden. The low success rate made it a less attractive investment opportunity for SMEs. One of the respondents suggested that business associations could play a decisive role in encouraging companies to participate in H2020 project applications.
Interactions with other funds and the difficulties for the academic world in dealing with the programme's requirements were also matters of concern. A Dutch research institution mentioned that a large part of the scientific community did not understand the budget allocated to the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI). It seemed to them that those who profited from the R&D funding were not at all engaged in R&D and the H2020 budget was used because it was easy to do so. H2020 had been the first EU R&D programme that used a different procedure from previous EU R&D programmes. This included an emphasis on innovation, which was not among the primary goals of comprehensive universities, hence they focused on low technology readiness level (TRL) research instead of higher TRL research. This also applied to Horizon Europe and needed to be taken into account. Academic research contributed to solving national, European and even global challenges, but most often did so from the low TRL research point of view. Higher TRLs were often dealt with by either more applied research universities or research and technology organisations or companies and industries engaged in R&D. Moreover, TRLs did not necessarily apply to social sciences and humanities research. This was also the case for Horizon Europe. It might be better to rephrase and redefine the term as "(societal) impact readiness levels".
The issue of competition for funds and human resources was also mentioned. While access to the H2020 programme had been very competitive, Croatian academic stakeholders believed that there had been a lack of transparency in the proposal evaluation process. The process had not provided researchers with an opportunity to easily and effectively respond to and oppose the reviewers' statements.
Other academic stakeholders complained that competition for human resources was also an issue that some institutions faced. Being successful in grant applications depended not only on institutional skills, but also on the experience and competences of individual researchers. Poorer countries were less able to hire experienced researchers and so were disadvantaged. This was in line with the opinion of Portuguese public authorities, who felt that it was necessary to provide opportunities for pre-competitive research, together with European added value. There was still much to be done to counteract the unidirectional migratory flows of skilled people from the peripheries to the centre of Europe. Research careers and intersectoral mobility could be strengthened by promoting scientific employment, committing more funds to actions aimed at retaining the best talent, and consolidating knowledge and research and innovation ecosystems.
3.2Relevance
According to the European Commission's Better Regulation toolbox, the criterion of relevance "looks at the relationship between the needs and problems in society and the objectives of the intervention and hence touches on aspects of design. Relevance analysis also requires a consideration of how the objectives of an EU intervention (…) correspond to wider EU policy goals and priorities." 7 |
General conclusions
When asked about the influence of H2020 in the evolution of R&D spending in their countries (question 15), the overwhelming majority of the respondents (7 out of 10) believed that H2020 had been either very relevant or adequate. The Croatian respondents were the least positive on this question, with only 4 out of 10 being positive, contrasting with the Dutch respondents, who were all positive: 7 thought it was very relevant and 2 that it was adequate. None believed it was poor or were unsure of H2020's relevance for the development of R&D.
According to the participants in the country visit to the Netherlands, H2020 had been extremely relevant in the country, as participation in such programmes helped to build political and scientific capital and had positive effects on reputation. In the Netherlands, a better reputation enabled organisations to receive other national funds. The programme also made it possible to build networks with international scholars quickly.
According to the Dutch participants, all pillars of H2020 were relevant, especially the second pillar, Industrial Leadership, and were becoming more relevant due to their link to societal changes and mission-oriented innovation policies. In the Netherlands, the European mission-oriented innovation policy was being applied, which trickled down to the regions. Thus, the pillars were having an ever-bigger impact on society, while the results were increasingly visible. Furthermore, they stressed that the three pillars were intertwined and complemented each other and hoped for the continuation of this structure. The Excellent Science pillar was of particular interest for the participating universities, as were the European Research Council and Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx-Xxxxx Actions.
In Croatia, by contrast, some stakeholders complained that there were weak links between Croatian bodies and H2020 programmes and other EU funds. They had different priorities and different application criteria and methods – for example, the first-come-first-served method was still used in Croatian application evaluations, which participants criticised as being very outdated.
In Portugal, for most organisations, the majority of their research funding came from public funds, half from European funds and half from national funds. The remaining funding (10% to 30%) came from private funds. Portuguese public funds were used to maintain research centres' core capabilities (both scientific and institutional management), whereas EU funding was invested in specific research projects. Some stakeholders believed that H2020 had professionalised project management. In the past, scientists used to contact each other directly. In recent years, it was managers who contacted different teams about how to set up projects. Thus, H2020 had enabled research institutions to gain experience in applying for other sources of international funding and build strategic partnerships within new or existing networks.
In terms of programme design, H2020 (question 16) was considered adequate by 3 out of 4 respondents of the questionnaire. This positive evaluation was seen across the sectors and the four countries.
Nevertheless, whereas the assessment was generally very positive in the Netherlands and Latvia, 5 out of 13 Croatian respondents found H2020 challenging or too complex, and 3 of the 13 Portuguese respondents found it challenging. As already described above in the analysis of the answers to question 14, the difficulties experienced by some stakeholders were felt mainly by smaller institutions or those with less experience and, as mentioned by Dutch stakeholders, by SMEs, which were even less familiar with the programme's procedures. The respondents recognised, though, that the programme facilitated international cooperation, which was becoming increasingly complex and could not be done by one university alone.
One Portuguese participant recommended making the Horizon programme more focused and not using its budget across individual programmes, as there were other funds for that. The respondents recommended focusing on major challenges in society and on tools that were already known and proven, like the European Research Council. They said that there was no need to reinvent the wheel with every new framework programme and that the European Commission should stick with what was going well and replicate that. It should be kept in mind that, even if a small change was made, it would have huge repercussions across the industry.
For more than 7 out of 10 respondents to the questionnaire, access to financial resources and technical assistance, and to the financial programmes and instruments available, should be simplified (question 17).
Some participants in the semi-structured interviews mentioned that the selection and reporting processes under H2020 were perfectly balanced – some further agility was needed, but good reporting was no less important because this was public money.
Others did give more direct suggestions for improvements. The Dutch participants, for example, pointed out that, in order to be eligible for H2020 funds, organisations had to invest large amounts of money beforehand, not knowing if the potential funds would outweigh the initial investments. Moreover, it took a lot of time and effort to prepare and submit the proposal. If the applicants failed, they did not get this investment back. In earlier programmes, the European Commission had provided project officers who had offered advice and the option of discussing matters with potential participants at an early stage. It had been well organised. After 10 years, this possibility had disappeared. Having this kind of offer in future programmes would help make the process easier for applicants.
In Croatia, some participants pointed to the fact that, in some other countries, national funding was available for the preparation phase of applications. This would help bridge some of the gap between larger applicants and SMEs, and should be encouraged.
Relations between H2020 and the ERDF
Although half of the questionnaire respondents believed that, for the success of the H2020 programme actions, it was important to seek synergies with the ERDF and for actions to complement other funds and programmes (question 19). A similar number of respondents thought that the H2020 programme had not been consistent with or complementary to the European Structural and Investment Funds, in particular the ERDF (question 18).
While 8 of the 11 Portuguese respondents believed that the synergies between the two funds had been a success factor, only 1 of the 9 Dutch respondents shared this opinion, possibly due to ERDF financing not having the same relevance in the two countries. Notwithstanding this, in the semi-structured interviews, one Dutch participant highlighted the Digital Europe programme and the Interregional Innovation Investments (I3) instrument, which came under the ERDF, and pointed out that these could facilitate synergies. As for Portugal, public authorities stressed the important role that R&D could play in promoting cohesion by adopting countercyclical measures to adequately strengthen knowledge-based cohesion platforms across Europe.
In Latvia, H2020 projects had also been used to follow on from previous EU-funded projects, for example one participant noted that a current H2020 project was the "logical follow-on" from a previous ERDF project. Structural funds had been strategically used to expand organisations' capacities, which had borne fruit in terms of which H2020 projects they had participated in. This had allowed organisations to become more interesting as partners and take a leading role in new fields. This use of structural funds was intentional, but had worked even better than expected and opened organisations up to many more H2020 projects. This had been especially true in the areas of microbiology and virology.
When asked if they believed that their countries implemented efficient synergies between the H2020 and ERDF funding programmes (e.g. fast-track to funding through ERDF programmes for H2020 applications awarded the "seal of excellence") (question 22), no stakeholders answered positively. Answers were split in half between "no" and "unsure".
In Portugal and Croatia, though, the proportions were slightly different: Portugal had fewer negative answers, the overwhelming majority of stakeholders being unsure, whereas 8 out of 13 Croatian stakeholders answered that there were no synergies.
Relations between H2020 and other funds
Half of the questionnaire respondents believed that H2020 was consistent with and complementary to other programmes and funds (question 20). Very few of the respondents answered negatively, but 2 out of 5 were unsure on this question.
On the other hand, with regard to whether there were any overlaps or duplications of actions between H2020 and other programmes and funds (question 21), out of every 4 respondents, 2 believed there were no overlaps, 1 believed there were and 1 was unsure.
These results were not uniform across the countries: 3 out of the 6 Latvian respondents believed there were overlaps, as did 4 out of the 11 Portuguese respondents. By contrast, almost all the Dutch respondents (7 out of 9) answered that there were no duplications between H2020 and other funds.
During the semi-structured interviews in Portugal, stakeholders called for a better sense of priorities, identifying which areas should receive more investment in order to have better value for money. They referred to the fact that overlaps between EU and national funds could be frustrating. It would be preferable to have more complementarity and fewer overlaps since there might be areas that were underfunded due to the concentration of EU and national funds in specific areas. The Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) would also cover many areas relevant for innovation. Horizon Europe should focus on more alternative research. Overlaps should be avoided – and this was not only the case for the RRF, but also for national funds. It was this public funding that enabled companies to develop technologies that had market potential but were still not mature enough for an immediate transfer. In such sectors, public funding such as Horizon gave important signals both through direct financial investment and by showing that political actors and public authorities were committed to a given field of technological development research. Better complementarity and fewer overlaps would allow for a wider range of research without wasting resources on duplicate projects.
In Latvia, H2020 implementation coincided with, and to a large extent supported, reforms in the national system for science (aiming to reduce fragmentation and change the structure of programmes etc.). Latvian public authorities usually mentioned Horizon programmes to European Commission representatives as examples of how to simplify procedures and cut red tape. Stakeholders believed that H2020 had a significant and positive impact on the national research and innovation system.
In Croatia, stakeholders called on public authorities to implement additional funds to increase the capacities of research institutions and the private sector when applying for EU funds such as H2020. This could be a way to support national research while ensuring complementarity between EU and national funds.
3.3Inclusion of civil society and added value
Respondents differed significantly across Member States on the inclusion of civil society (question 23). Latvia and the Netherlands saw the highest levels of reported inclusion at 67%, and no Latvian respondents answered no. Croatia and Portugal saw 46% and 27% respond no, respectively.
Looking at responses by type of organisation, public authorities were the most positive about the inclusion of civil society, with 100% responding yes. By contrast, half of civil society organisations did not feel included. Around 40% of research institutes and other types of organisations felt that public authorities had included civil society in H2020.
Civil society stakeholders were perceived as having much to contribute in terms of specialist knowledge, innovative solutions and access to the public, and should be further encouraged to participate, with the process being made easier for them. There was a perception that H2020 projects were too large and complicated for smaller civil society organisations to be involved in, and national stakeholders had a role to play in improving communication about the benefits and challenges to participation. Participants noted that the value of participating was often non-material: the experience gained, networking opportunities, etc. Communicating this aspect was important to encourage civil society to engage in projects.
However, research institutes and H2020 partners pointed out that civil society participation was also dependent on the area of the research project. For example, for one participant working in the strictly regulated area of medical research, civil society involvement was impossible. However, they had been able to involve patient advocacy groups and doctors' associations in some projects related to the social impact of medical interventions. For others working on infrastructure, consulting local residents had been a key part of the project.
When asked specifically about their own institution (question 24), 25% of civil society respondents and businesses indicated they had been regularly consulted. Three quarters of the civil society organisations who responded to the survey had not been consulted. Almost two thirds of research institutes who responded and 40% of other organisations had been regularly consulted.
Breaking down these results by country, the majority of survey respondents in the Netherlands (78%), Latvia (67%) and Portugal (55%) indicated that they had been regularly consulted. In Croatia, only 31% of respondents had been regularly consulted, with more than half (54%) stating they had not been consulted.
Of those who had been consulted, 48% reported that the level of involvement had been very good, another 48% reported a good or adequate level and 5% indicated that their level of involvement had been poor.
When asked whether the final beneficiaries of H2020 were aware of the origin of the resources and programmes (question 25), over two thirds of respondents indicated yes, 13% said they were not aware and 21% were unsure.
In all countries, more than half of respondents indicated that beneficiaries were aware of the origins of H2020 resources and programmes. This level of awareness was highest in Latvia (83%) and Portugal (82%), with 56% of Dutch and 54% of Croatian respondents answering yes.
Over two thirds (64%) of respondents rated communication and information about H2020 as good or very good (question 27). Looking at the results by country, Latvian respondents were the most positive about H2020 communication and information, with 83% rating it as good or very good and no respondents indicating that it was poor. This was followed by Portugal (73% good or very good) and Croatia (62%). In the Netherlands, 44% of respondents felt that communication and information were good or very good.
Almost half (46%) of respondents thought that communication towards H2020 beneficiaries could be improved (question 26). A third (33%) responded that communication and information systems did not need modifying.
When asked how to improve the involvement of beneficiaries, social partners and civil society organisations in future actions of the Horizon Europe programme, introducing targeted communications for social partners, civil society and beneficiaries was strongly encouraged. NCPs were identified as the best placed people to reach out to civil society in their countries and make them aware of H2020 opportunities. Holding promotional events for beneficiaries and civil society where information and opportunities to network would be available could increase participation and the formation of new consortia.
The participation and selection criteria could also be widened. Smaller calls or calls targeted at civil society stakeholders as leads would be welcomed and, where relevant, proposals which included civil society should be valued. Previous best practice examples of civil society involvement should be shared to make all participants aware of how this wider participation could work.
Authorities were urged to involve societal stakeholders in all aspects of developing, regulating and evaluating research, with one respondent pointing to the example of the Netherlands, where "various civil society organisations are involved in the various programmes", for example through sounding board groups. Establishing national research priorities was also mentioned as an area where civil society stakeholders could make valuable contributions.
3.4Additional comments
Stakeholders were given the opportunity to raise further issues that were not included in the questionnaire or to expand on issues that they thought deserved additional attention. Below, we summarise the additional contributions, organised by topic.
Competition between private businesses and research institutes:
Some participants raised the point that broader participation in research calls could lead to private companies, including SMEs and state-funded research institutes, competing for the same resources. Separate support for different types of stakeholders could help avoid competition between the state and the private sector.
Strategic autonomy:
In order for the EU to work on its industrial strategic autonomy, it needed to use the strengths and diversity of business, civil society and research across regions. Greater inclusion in research and development was noted as a key step towards strategic autonomy, which needed to include all TRL levels.
4.Secondary data: literature review of EESC work
In this section we provide an overview of the Committee's past work relating to H2020 (and, more broadly, research and innovation).
In INT/996 on A new European Innovation Agenda (2022), the EESC welcomed the Commission's European Innovation Agenda and, particularly, its twofold objective of fostering Europe's competitiveness and of promoting European citizens' welfare.
The focus on closing the so-called "scale-up" and deep tech gaps, which the EU currently had in comparison with third states where growth-stage tech businesses were more common, was considered as crucial. The EESC urged the Commission to put more emphasis on the role played by businesses, SMEs and start-ups in particular and the innovation networks that they led in delivering the green and digital transitions.
The EESC pointed out the importance of funding experimentation and testing infrastructure in order to help start-ups and to close the gap between labs and commercial applications. In this regard, it welcomed the introduction of the new concept of "testing and experimentation infrastructures" in the draft revised General Block Exemption Regulation (GBER) on State aid.
The Committee urged the Commission to encourage the interregional dimension of investments, with the joint participation of less and more innovative regions. Further, public support should also benefit higher education and innovation labs. To that end, it proposed using a number of pilot research centres and universities to pursue innovative goals.
The EESC also welcomed the Commission's support for Member States in taking forward cross-border projects of common European interest. It therefore proposed that both research work and the professional development of researchers be funded and that research results, which were publicly supported, be open to further development by innovators, possibly through the Innospace Platform.
In INT/962 on A Pact for R&I in Europe (2022), the EESC welcomed the fact that the Pact for Research and Innovation in Europe set out commonly agreed values and principles for R&I and identified at a general level the areas where Member States would jointly develop priority actions.
The EESC highlighted that, in the future, Europe should turn its R&D results into value creation, business opportunities and quality jobs. One very important tool for turning Europe's R&D results into business opportunities, higher profits and jobs for Europe was intellectual property rights (IPR). The great importance of IPR and patents should be added to the paragraph in the pact on value creation, and a clear IPR strategy for Europe should be developed as part of the Pact for the New European Research Area (ERA).
The EESC welcomed the Pact for Research and Innovation's clear call to deepen the ERA, i.e. to move from coordinating national policies to deeper integration of these policies, and its call to accelerate the twin green and digital transitions.
In view of the massive investments in research, technology and innovation (RTI) in Asia (China, South Korea etc.), the EU had to substantially speed up its efforts in R&I, especially regarding the swift transformation of R&D results into innovative products and services, since Europe was lagging behind in this area. In the new Pact for R&I, Europe also needed to lay the groundwork for a more entrepreneurial culture such as risk-taking.
The EESC stressed that, to date, only a limited share of the EU population (the "usual suspects for R&I" only) had been engaged in the EU's R&I policies. However, modern socioeconomic research had highlighted the great importance of science, technology and society in fostering strong performers in R&I. The EESC asked for civil society organisations and social and economic partners (notably organisations representing MSMEs) to be included appropriately at EU and national level so that they could make specific contributions, with a view to making the EU stronger on the global stage.
In INT/941 on a Global approach to R&I (2021), the EESC welcomed the EU's commitment to leading and to preserving openness in international research and innovation cooperation, while promoting a level playing field and reciprocity underpinned by fundamental values.
The Committee deemed it necessary to better involve civil society organisations in supporting EU institutions and Member States in developing extraordinary policies and special programmes (career mobility, attracting/retaining researchers, and using research and innovation results to boost the entrepreneurship culture of EU SMEs) capable of "collecting EU value added" that could in turn feed into an ambitious European Research Area for the next decade.
The EESC pointed out the importance of strengthening the EU's leading role in supporting multilateral research and innovation partnerships to find new solutions to green, digital, health, social and innovation challenges, taking into consideration the current impact of COVID-19 on European health systems, societies, business communities and the wider global economy.
The EESC recommended including civil society organisations appropriately at EU and national level in the European Commission's work in monitoring actions, as set out in the Commission's Communication, so that they could provide specific contributions, with a view to making the EU stronger on the global stage.
In INT/924, on A new ERA for R&I (2021), the EESC welcomed the focus on rapidly translating R&I results into sustainable business and advocated new governance in the field of research in order to remove administrative and regulatory barriers to innovation.
The Committee emphasised that an intelligent blending of R&D tools at all levels (regional, national, European and global) was important and that R&D and innovation should be promoted by making use of the large EU structural funds.
The EESC described the following key sectors and technologies as vital for the EU's prosperity:
digital business models;
technologies for manufacturing goods and food;
clinical research, and the pharmaceutical and biotechnological sectors;
space technologies;
clean water and sanitation.
Further, the EESC considered the European Innovation Council (EIC) and the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT), with its knowledge and innovation centres (KICs), to be valuable partners and tools in accelerating the translation of R&I results and in redirecting the focus of the EU's R&I towards the generation of breakthrough innovations that addressed the concrete needs of citizens and businesses, particularly in relation to major societal challenges.
The EIC accelerator offered substantial EU funds for innovative European start-ups with high growth potential, whereas the EIT by definition pursued research excellence for technology push innovations in its KICs; thus, both the EIC and the EIT were important partners in accelerating the translation of R&I results.
The EESC noted that research in the social sciences and humanities was very important for the complex renewal of the ERA agenda. Further, it noted that Europe was especially lagging behind the US and Asia regarding the speed of turning R&D results into innovative products and services. As a result, the EESC encouraged the Commission to aim for both "excellence" and "speed" in its research, technology and innovation policy.
In INT/881 on Fostering an entrepreneurship and innovation-friendly single market – promoting new business models to meet societal challenges and transitions (2019), the EESC recognised that it was necessary to pursue a social market economy which, while making smart use of new technologies, managed to address the major challenges relating to sustainability, climate change and reducing inequalities. The business world could play an active and important role in this.
Given the wide variety of economic models and types of company in Europe, it was important that legislative proposals concerning businesses, the economy and the internal market were not uniform and took the "biodiversity of companies" into consideration.
The EESC stressed that the European institutions needed to support the development of artificial intelligence and the proper use of big data, both by creating appropriate rules to guarantee the development of such technology while respecting individual rights and by investing European and national public resources in a coordinated manner so as to ensure that the EU was competitive on a global scale.
It was important that changes to productive processes and to the economy in general took place in the context of constructive social dialogue and with due respect for workers' rights and quality of life.
The EESC noted the need to recognise and support the role that SMEs, family businesses, social economy enterprises, craft businesses, small traders and farmers played in promoting and spreading entrepreneurial spirit focused on the role of people and local communities, thereby helping to build the European model of an inclusive single market.
In INT/858 on Horizon Europe (2018), the EESC welcomed the fact that many of the recommendations made by the Committee for the Horizon 2020 mid-term evaluation had been taken up in areas such as collaborative research and mobility, as well as in steps to strengthen innovation, overcome disparities among regions, promote science and innovation activities among members of the public, remedy low success rates and reduce the administrative burden.
The Committee emphasised that science, research and innovation needed to be key elements of the European community-building process and therefore supported the Horizon Europe approach of bringing the public closer to these activities and achievements.
Further, the EESC supported the design of R&I missions as part of Horizon Europe's strategy to achieve more impactful R&I outcomes and to really change the way people perceived science and its impacts in their day-to-day lives. The EESC stressed the urgent need to organise strategic missions that could stimulate research and innovation ecosystems across Europe and boost collaborative research as the main tool in broadening knowledge and creating impact.
The EESC underlined that the European Innovation Council (EIC) was an important tool in supporting breakthrough innovation and boosting entrepreneurship and competitiveness at EU level and thought it should particularly focus on very innovative SMEs and start-ups. The EESC also supported the "open science" policy approach but stressed that introducing a certain timeframe for publishing all the scientific results should be considered.
Finally, the EESC welcomed the aim of further simplifying State aid rules to facilitate the combination of different funds, which could be instrumental in overcoming the major disparities between Member States and regions in terms of the number of successful R&I projects.
In TEN/678 on EURATOM – Research and Training Programme 2021-2025 (2018), the EESC welcomed the proposal for a Regulation establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM) Research and Training Programme for 2021-2025.
The EESC considered the EURATOM budget to be proportionate to the objectives set and considered it essential to maintain this financial allocation regardless of the outcome of the Brexit negotiations. The Committee also considered it crucial in this respect to manage the United Kingdom's exit from the Euratom programme with the utmost care, particularly with regard to research already in progress, shared infrastructure and the social impact on staff (e.g. working conditions), both on British soil and elsewhere.
The Committee stressed that the Joint European Torus (JET) project was a key factor in the development of the international thermonuclear experimental reactor (ITER) project, with ITER being, from a scientific point of view, the successor to JET. For this reason, the Committee considered it important that JET remain operational (as an EU project or as a joint EU-UK project) until the ITER project became operational.
Further, the EESC emphasised that nuclear safety needed to be understood as a dynamic concept, which entailed constant monitoring of and adjustments to existing legislation in accordance with recent developments and innovations, covering the whole life span of plants. Plants located on borders between EU countries should be given particular attention, with increased coordination between national and local authorities and the effective involvement of citizens and workers.
Finally, the EESC considered education – beginning with compulsory education – and training to be an essential factor in attracting young people to scientific and technological subjects.
List of organisations consulted
Organisation name |
Member State |
Consultation via online questionnaire |
Consultation via meetings |
Agencija za mobilnost i programe EU |
Croatia |
x |
x |
Bio-mi Ltd |
Croatia |
|
x |
CEPOR jCEPOR – SMEs and Entrepreneurship Policy Centre |
Croatia |
x |
|
Croatian Agency for SMEs, Innovation and Investments |
Croatia |
|
x |
Croatian Employers' Association / HUP Hrvatska udruga poslodavaca |
Croatia |
x |
x |
Genos DNA Laboratory |
Croatia |
|
x |
National Foundation for Civil Society Development |
Croatia |
|
x |
ODRAZ-Sustainable Community Development |
Croatia |
x |
x |
Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx Institute |
Croatia |
x |
x |
Sveučilište u Zagrebu Agronomski fakultet |
Croatia |
x |
x |
Sveučilište u Zagrebu Fakultet elektrotehnike i računarstva |
Croatia |
x |
|
University of Zagreb |
Croatia |
x |
|
University of Zagreb, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computing |
Croatia |
x |
|
UNIZG-FER |
Croatia |
x |
x |
AS Latvijas Finieris |
Latvia |
x |
x |
Baltic Studies Centre |
Latvia |
x |
x |
Confederation of Employers of Latvia |
Latvia |
|
x |
Ekodoma |
Latvia |
x |
x |
Horizon 2020 National Contact Point |
Latvia |
|
x |
Latvian Council of Science |
Latvia |
x |
x |
Latvian Institute of Organic Synthesis |
Latvia |
x |
x |
Latvijas Zinātnes padome |
Latvia |
x |
|
Ministry of Education and Science |
Latvia |
|
x |
Riga Biomaterials Innovations and Development Centre |
Latvia |
|
x |
Riga Technical University |
Latvia |
|
x |
Riga Technical University |
Latvia |
|
x |
Beyond 4.0 – a project under the H2020 Work Programme |
Netherlands |
|
x |
Regional Development Agency East Netherlands – Oost NL |
Netherlands |
x |
x |
TNO, Healthy Living and Work Unit |
Netherlands |
x |
|
TNO, Vector Centre |
Netherlands |
|
x |
TNO, Netherlands, Organisation for Applied Scientific Research |
Netherlands |
x |
x |
Twente Board |
Netherlands |
x |
x |
University of Groningen |
Netherlands |
|
x |
University of Twente |
Netherlands |
x |
x |
UNL – National rectors' conference, Universities of the Netherlands |
Netherlands |
|
x |
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam |
Netherlands |
x |
|
Wageningen University & Research |
Netherlands |
x |
x |
ZLTO – farmers' and market gardeners' organisation |
Netherlands |
|
x |
Zuidelijke Land en Tuinbouw Organisatie |
Netherlands |
x |
|
AECEF – Association of European Civil Engineering Faculties |
Portugal |
x |
|
Altice Labs, SA |
Portugal |
x |
|
CoLAB ForestWISE – Laboratorio Colaborativo para a Gestão Integrada da Floresta e do Fogo |
Portugal |
x |
x |
FeedInov CoLAB |
Portugal |
x |
|
Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia |
Portugal |
x |
|
Instituto de Medicina Molecular |
Portugal |
x |
x |
International Iberian Nanotechnology Laboratory |
Portugal |
x |
x |
L.C.S.D. – Associação Data Colab – Laboratório Colaborativo Para Serviços de Inovação Orientados Para Os Dados |
Portugal |
x |
|
MORE CoLAB |
Portugal |
x |
|
University of Coimbra |
Portugal |
x |
|
University of Coimbra, Liaison with the business sector |
Portugal |
|
x |
University of Coimbra, Research Management Service |
Portugal |
|
x |
WavEC Offshore Renewables |
Portugal |
x |
x |
______________
1H2020 country profile: Croatia xxxxx://xxxxxxx.xx.xxxxxx.xx/xxxxxxxxx/xxxxx/xxx/x000x000-0000-00x0-xxxx-x00000000000/xxxxx/0x0xx00x-x00x-0xx0-xx00-00xx00xx0xx0/xxxxx/xxxxxxxx/xxxxxx/Xxxxxxx/Xxxxxxx.
2H2020 country profile: Latvia xxxxx://xxxxxxx.xx.xxxxxx.xx/xxxxxxxxx/xxxxx/xxx/x000x000-0000-00x0-xxxx-x00000000000/xxxxx/0x0xx00x-x00x-0xx0-xx00-00xx00xx0xx0/xxxxx/xxxxxxxx/xxxxxx/Xxxxxxx/Xxxxxx.
3H2020 country profile: the Netherlands xxxxx://xxxxxxx.xx.xxxxxx.xx/xxxxxxxxx/xxxxx/xxx/x000x000-0000-00x0-xxxx-x00000000000/xxxxx/0x0xx00x-x00x-0xx0-xx00-00xx00xx0xx0/xxxxx/xxxxxxxx/xxxxxx/Xxxxxxx/Xxxxxxxxxxx.
4H2020 country profile: Portugal xxxxx://xxxxxxx.xx.xxxxxx.xx/xxxxxxxxx/xxxxx/xxx/x000x000-0000-00x0-xxxx-x00000000000/xxxxx/0x0xx00x-x00x-0xx0-xx00-00xx00xx0xx0/xxxxx/xxxxxxxx/xxxxxx/Xxxxxxx/Xxxxxxxx.