Table of Contents

1............ Introduction. 3

2............ Overall analysis of progress achieved in 2012. 4

2.1......... Communication and administration. 4

2.2......... Strategic Research Agenda. 5

2.3......... Operational progress. 7

2.3.1...... Progress achieved by the CLEAN SKY JU.. 7

2.3.2...... Progress achieved by the INNOVATIVE MEDECINES INITIATIVE JU.. 9

2.3.3...... Progress achieved by the FUEL CELL AND HYDROGEN JU.. 12

2.3.4...... Progress achieved by the ARTEMIS JU.. 14

2.3.5...... Progress achieved by the ENIAC JU.. 15

2.4......... Stakeholder participation. 17

2.5......... Innovation and SMEs involvement 19

2.6......... Participation across Countries. 21

2.7......... Grant portfolio. 25

2.8......... Actions performed by Commission in 2012. 26

2.8.1...... Stakeholder consultations. 26

2.8.2...... Cost-benefit analysis of the JUs. 28

2.8.3...... Preparatory work for the second interim evaluation. 30

3............ CLEAN SKY JOINT UNDERTAKING.. 31

3.1......... Introduction to the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking (CS JU) 31

3.1.1...... Budget 32

3.1.2...... Governing structure. 32

3.2......... Overall progress since the establishment of clean sky jti/ju. 33

3.2.1...... Programme implementation overall 33

3.2.2...... Grant agreements with members. 35

3.2.3...... Description of the 'Integrated Technology Demonstrators' (ITD) activities. 35

3.3......... Implementation of calls for proposals (CFPs) overall 35

3.4......... Outline of the main activities and achievements during 2012. 36

3.4.1...... Running of the JU.. 36

3.4.2...... Second Interim Evaluation. 42

3.4.3...... Achievements at Programme level 42

3.4.4...... Governance - Major decisions taken by the Governing Board and other JU bodies. 49

3.4.5...... General Forum.. 54

3.4.6...... Main communication activities. 54

3.4.7...... Success stories. 55

3.5......... Call(s) implemented in 2012. 56

3.5.1...... CALL 11 SP1-JTI-CS-2012-01. 56

3.5.2...... CALL 12 SP1-JTI-CS-2012-02. 60

3.5.3...... CALL 13 SP1-JTI-CS-2012-03. 64

3.6......... Grant Agreements/Project Portfolio. 68

3.6.1...... Grant agreements signed (commitment amounts) 68

3.6.2...... Grant Agreements for which activities have ended and/ or final results are available. 78

4............ INNOVATIVE MEDICINES INITIATIVE JOINT UNDERTAKING.. 85

4.1......... Introduction to the Innovative Medicines Initiative JU (IMI JU) 85

4.1.1...... Budget 85

4.1.2...... Governing structure. 85

4.2......... Overall progress since the establishment of the imi jti/ju. 86

4.2.1...... Bibliometric Analysis. 89

4.3......... Call implementation – aggregated information from the establishment up to 2012. 90

4.3.1...... Samples of Key Performance Indicators. 94

4.4......... Outline of the main activities and achievements in 2012. 96

4.4.1...... Overview of 2012 achievements. 96

4.4.2...... Running of the IMI JU.. 99

4.4.3...... Second Interim Evaluation. 101

4.4.4...... Progress in the implementation of the strategic research agenda. 101

4.4.5...... Major decisions taken by the governing board and other ju bodies. 102

4.4.6...... Main communication activities. 102

4.4.7...... Success Stories. 105

4.5......... Calls implemented in 2012. 106

4.5.1...... Calls implementation - Overview.. 106

4.5.2...... Evaluation and selection procedures. 107

4.5.3...... Aggregated information 2012. 109

4.5.4...... IMI – 3rd Call – 2010 – Implementation of final stages. 111

4.5.5...... IMI - 4th Call – 2011. 113

4.5.6...... IMI – 5th Call – 2012. 117

4.5.7...... IMI – 6th Call – 2012. 119

4.5.8...... IMI – 7th Call – 2012. 123

4.6......... Grant agreements/project portfolio. 126

4.6.1...... Grant agreements signed during the year 2012. 126

4.6.2...... Aggregate GA signed. 127

4.6.3...... Grant agreements for which activities have ended and/or final results are available. 129

GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS. 130

1. Introduction

The present Commission Staff Working Document accompanies the Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council on the progress achieved by the Joint Technology Initiatives Joint Undertakings in 2012. In compliance with Article 11 (1) of each Council Regulation establishing the Joint Technology Initiatives Joint Undertakings (hereinafter referred to as "JTI JUs") it shall provide details on the implementation of their research activities, i.e. number of proposals submitted, number of proposals selected for funding, type of participants, including SMEs, and country statistics. The document shall also "include assessment results of the Technology Evaluator referred to in Article 8(1) of the Statutes [of the Clean Sky JU], as appropriate" pursuant to Article 11(1) of Council Regulation (EC) 71/2008 setting up the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking.

The data contained in this document is gathered through a specifically designed template, filled in by each JTI JU under the guidance of the European Commission. The document introduces a comprehensive analysis of progress and achievements in 2012 and it is followed by further five sections, one per Joint Undertaking, which detail in-depth the results achieved by the JTI JU. Each section contains the following three sub-sections providing information on the JTI JUs' activities in 2012 in a structured and uniform way: 1) Introduction, 2) Overall progress since the establishment of the JTI JUs, 3) Outline of the main activities and achievements in 2012, 4) Calls for proposals implementation in 2012 and 5) Grant Agreements/ projects portfolio.

The description of the progress of each Joint Undertaking throughout the year starts with a short introduction of the JTI JU, outlining its legal basis, main objectives, research priorities, funding and governing structure. The second sub-section highlights the key achievements of the entity from its establishment up to 2012 whilst the third sub-section focus on the activities and achievements during 2012 only and submission and evaluation process of the individual JTI JUs calls is also explained.

The second to last sub-section is dedicated to the calls for proposals launched by the Joint Undertakings in 2012. In case the entity has launched multiple calls during the year, each call is described with a brief summary listing the call topics, eligible beneficiaries, timeline and indicative budget, followed by detailed statistics on the submitted proposals by types of participants and by country. A special attention is given to the number of SMEs, whose participation in the call is presented separately.

Detailed statistics on the selected proposals by types of participants and by country are provided, which can serve for a comparative analysis of the participants at the different steps of the call. Each sub-section ends with a table giving information on the grant agreements signed in the respective call.

The last sub-section provides details on the Grant Agreements signed by the relevant JTI JU as well as details on Grant Agreements for which activities have ended and/ or final results are available.

2. Overall analysis of progress achieved in 2012

2.1. Communication and administration

In order to increase participation in the projects of SMEs and research community, the first interim evaluations advised the JTI JUs to take a more proactive and target-oriented approach in their communication activities. Recommendations clearly invited JTI JUs to develop and implement better-tailored communication and dissemination plans, establish a separate identity and improve synergies with national programmes and international cooperation with non-EU stakeholders.

Following actions taken in 2011 to reinforce communication and dissemination activities, JTI JUs continued to reinforce their visibility towards stakeholders and the general public.

Newsletters (from IMI and Clean Sky) and a paper magazine (ARTEMIS and Clean Sky) are circulated regularly and a number of press releases on significant achievements have also been published.

JTIs JUs websites are also regularly updated and represent a communication tool rich in novelties and tailored for stakeholders.

In 2012, the JTI JUs again have efforts to widen participation, for example by improving communication with potential applicants to the calls for proposals. This also entailed the organisation of targeted awareness rising and communication activities held in countries usually less represented in projects selected for funding.

A consistent number of tailor-made Info Days were held and JU participation in seminars, events and major technological fairs and exhibitions continued to grow. Progress was also made in increasing the public visibility of JTIs by, for instance, constantly improving the JTIs’ web sites to present better and more user-friendly information.

The Annual General Forum and Stakeholders Forum are also major events at which members, partners and potential partners get together and are given up-to-date information on achievements and project results. These events have attracted hundreds of participants in 2012.

Besides, FCH and the IMI in particular gained international visibility as part of European actions in support of research and policy making. The United States and South Korea were the main target countries: a number of bilateral meetings took place during the year with the aim of developing cooperation at project level and exchanges of information. In this context, appropriate international strategies should be defined or boosted for each JTI JU, taking into account their specific research areas, the potential benefits of cooperation in terms of research, innovation and regulation and, of course, the collateral risks.

All the five JUs made significant progress towards reaching their full complement of staff in 2012 replacing staff members who left during the year.

ARTEMIS filled two existing administrative positions while ENIAC was almost fully staffed (one Seconded National Expert will join in 2013). The FCH JU also recruited two staff and reached its full complement of 20 staff by the end of the year. IMI reached full strength in mid-2012.

Clean Sky lost three temporary staff who were replaced in good time and two out of six contract staff also left. Currently it has a staff of 24 members, but to tackle the workload, it has three extra staff on temporary contracts.

The JUs complied with planning and reporting requirements, both their governing and advisory bodies met on a regular basis and their Governing Boards (GB) approved strategic documents such as the 2011 final accounts and draft budgets. The FCH JU’s GB also approved changes in the organisational structure of the Programme Office. For Clean Sky and IMI, new Governing Boards chairs and vice-chairs were elected in 2012 and the contracts of the Executive Directors were renewed.

2.2. Strategic Research Agenda

The Strategic Research Agendas (SRAs) were revised to set new priorities, to meet current challenges and to take into account the industrial progress achieved in recent years. The revised SRAs have strengthened the innovation dimension and reinforced the focus on a higher level of readiness of the technologies. This entailed addressing a higher number of research activities at the levels of TRL[1] 4 to 8.

In aeronautics, the overall Clean Sky (CS) programme was revised in 2012 as a consequence of major changes made in 2011 to work in the engine Integrated Technology Demonstrator (ITD) with reference to the Open Rotor configuration. Due to the high level of interdependence of the six ITDs, the targets set for the Clean Sky JTI JU were reassessed and updated in March 2012, together with the development plan and the forecast of the environmental benefits to be expected by the end of the programme.

The achievements in the development of the open rotor allowed introducing a new technology stream on lean-burn engines focusing on the reduction of NOx emissions, thus strengthening the CS capability to address ambitious NOx reduction targets.

The Technology Evaluator (TE), which gathers all the 12 ITD leaders and the major aeronautical research establishments in Europe, ran the First Internal Assessment of Clean Sky technologies for the purpose of analysing the full environmental potential of Clean Sky technologies. Its results were published in March 2012. The assessment was based on a comparison of two scenarios for the air traffic system in 2020: with fleet Clean Sky aircraft replacing all existing aircraft and without Clean Sky aircraft. Combining the analysis for airports and air traffic systems, the results indicate that Clean Sky is on track to reduce noise, to reduce CO2 emission by 50% and NOX by 80% and to minimise the life-cycle impact of aircraft on the environment by 2020. It also indicated that, to minimise the environmental impact of the aircraft' life cycle, all research and technology areas of Eco-Design should be considered. The assessment also showed the benefits of linking work programmes closely to the key technical and demonstration milestones in each ITD.

In the pharmaceutical sector, the Innovative Medicines Initiative’s SRA was fully revised by the end of 2011 to reflect scientific advances and changes in the industry environment. The focus was put on large-scale, game-changing projects and in 2012 this new vision resulted in a decision to fund two major projects: a pan-European platform for drug discovery, the European Lead Factory, and the antimicrobial resistance programme New Drugs for Bad Bugs. Both projects’ research activities also involve clinical and chemical developments closer to the market. The assessment of a number of on-going projects demonstrated that the results are in line with the objectives set for the IMI.

In the fuel cells and hydrogen sector, a review of the Implementation Programme in November 2012 confirmed that, overall, the JTI JU is making progress towards the main objectives set in its the Multi-Annual Implementation Plan (MAIP). Market introduction has been achieved for some early applications such as forklifts and small back-up power units. For both energy and transport applications, progress has been made in materials performance, durability and cost reduction for both components and systems for transport and stationary power applications.

In the embedded systems sector, a working group on success criteria and metrics was set up in early 2010 to better monitor the research progress made by ARTEMIS and to convert targets generically described in the SRA into measurable quantities. This working group analysed data collected via targeted questionnaires that were distributed to project participants in 2011 and 2012. The replies to the second-phase survey suggest in particular that: new partnerships have been established and a growing number of SMEs been involved in networks of stakeholders; there is growing interest in building prototypes and demonstrators, including trials and field testing; the impact on business has mainly been to reduce development costs and time to market while increasing the level of reusability.

In the nanoelectronics components sector, overall progress in the implementation of the SRA shows that the ENIAC JTI JU has boosted technological areas in which Europe improved its competitiveness, namely "Equipment, Materials and Manufacturing" (28% of the JU funding allocated), "Semiconductor Process and Integration" (25% of funding) and "Energy Efficiency" (24% of funding). This process is also helping to reduce the fragmentation in the research and innovation environment and facilitating steady cooperation among stakeholders. In 2012 investment in electronics R&D was increased significantly by combining ENIAC and CATRENE[2] funding. Cooperation between the ENIAC JTI JU and CATRENE has always been a key element of the SRA and finally brought the expected results.

2.3. Operational progress

JTI JUs aim to coordinate resources and funding from industry and public bodies so as to achieve synergies and help build Europe’s future growth, competitiveness and sustainable development. In 2012, the five JUs launched 12 calls for proposal, opening 263 research topics in line with their updated SRAs. JTIs JUs also continued to evaluate and negotiate grants arising from previous calls. Overall, over 2500 participants submitted proposals and over 1200 participants were selected for funding in 2012 with an aggregated success rate of about 34%.

The 263 research topics for which calls were launched and managed in 2012 resulted in over 500 proposals being submitted [3] and 172 being selected for funding (see table below).

|| Number of proposals submitted in 2012 || Number of proposals selected for funding in 2012 || Success rate ||

Clean Sky || 344 || 120 || 35% ||

FCH || 72 || 28 || 39% ||

IMI || 37 || 5 || 14% ||

ENIAC || 27 || 11 || 40.7% ||

ARTEMIS || 24 || 8 || 33% ||

Total || 504 || 172 || 34% ||

As JTI JUs differ in terms of the number and type of calls launched and managed, the research topics, the types of beneficiaries and stages of evaluation, progress in implementing calls is outlined for the different JTIs in sections 3.1 to 3.5 below.

2.3.1. Progress achieved by the CLEAN SKY JU

Clean Sky was set up to achieve three main objectives by the end of the programme. These are: (i) to accelerate environmental improvements in the Air Transportation System (ATS) through the introduction of advanced technologies and full scale demonstrators, (ii) to improve on the overall ATS impact on the environment (reducing noise, emissions, and fuel consumption), and (iii) to consolidate the European aeronautics industry around a project of common interest. To achieve these objectives, Clean Sky works with the Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research (SESAR) JU, as the two initiatives complement each other.

A total budget of € 1.6 billion was allocated to Clean Sky: a maximum € 800 million from the European Union in cash, to be matched by industry contributions in-kind worth at least € 800 million.

Clean Sky works mainly via grants to named beneficiaries rather than calls for proposals. Its main achievements result from the work of its members, organised in six different technical areas called Integrated Technology Demonstrators (ITD), supported by a Technology Evaluator (TE) that continuously monitors and assesses the results. Most of the overall budget ( € 600 million or 75 %) is distributed to these members, who are the "named beneficiaries"; the remaining € 200 million is allocated through calls for proposals. This report focuses in particular on these calls, launched on a regular but one-off basis when ITD members express a need for additional specific research activities to complement their work. The implementation of research by named beneficiaries is reported in Annexe I.

Clean Sky calls for proposal are targeted call; they cover various topics in each technological area and are usually of short duration (averaging six months to one year) with a limited number of partners in the consortia (in average less than two partners per project). Calls for Partners are evaluated in a single-stage process with the support of independent experts. In 2012, Clean Sky published three calls for proposals.

In 2012, The JU managed 158 topics in total, with 245 partners from 17 countries selected after call 13. Compared to 2011 and for a similar number of research topics to be implemented (159 in 2011), Clean Sky faced a slight contraction in the number of participants and countries involved. This could also be due to fewer calls being launched over the year (four in 2011, three in 2012). The table below gives an overview of the calls launched and evaluated by Clean Sky in 2012, including proposals submitted and evaluated.

Calls reference || Proposals Submitted || Evaluation Results ||

Call N° || Ref || Number of proposals || Number of eligible proposals || % of retained || Above threshold || Selected for funding || Redress cases || Reserve List || Success rate ||

11 || 2012-01 || 159 || 142 || 89,31% || 96 || 54 || 5 || 42 || 33,96% ||

12 || 2012-02 || 109 || 104 || 95,41% || 69 || 36 || 1 || 33 || 30,28% ||

13 || 2012-03 || 76 || 71 || 93,42% || 49 || 30 || 1 || 19 || 39,47% ||

|| total || 344 || 317 || 92,71% || 214 || 120 || 7 || 94 || 35% ||

The overall maximum funding available at call publication was €98.9 million and the funding requested after evaluation €64.2 million.

The overall eligibility of proposals was as high as in 2011 about 93% of submitted proposals were considered eligible for evaluation, against 95% in the previous year. The number of projects selected for funding increased (to 120 from 118 in 2011), split over three calls and not four as in 2011.

In comparison with the other JUs, the high overall number of topics is high and this factor affects participation in the calls, which is high, as is the number of projects selected for funding. The participants are evenly distributed between research organisations, industry, universities and SMEs. Clean Sky was again less attractive to public bodies and regulatory agencies in 2012. SMEs accounted for a very high number of participants[4] in the projects funded (38 %) with a significant success rate (51%); over the period 2008–2012, SMEs accounted for 34% of the EU’s Clean Sky funding for calls for proposals[5].

Based on the data available on the funded projects, calls 11 to 13 attracted participants from 17 countries, about 30% of the countries involved in 2011 did not apply in 2012. The countries best represented were Spain, the United Kingdom, Italy, France and Germany in that order; they confirm their strong industrial tradition in aeronautics in Europe. Their participations[6] altogether account for over 72% of the total selected for funding.

The promising representation of the newer Member States (the EU-12) reported in 2011 decreased significantly, from 22 to 7 participants in 2012, though Cyprus participated for the first time in JTI JU calls.

Switzerland increased its leadership among the Associated Countries with 12 participations, twice as many as in 2011. Clean Sky did not include any international partners in the funded projects, although China and Russia were successfully represented in 2011.

On Communication, in 2012, 15 press releases and press clipping were published and a new brochure on the Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda was posted online. Special issues of the ‘Skyline’ magazine presented the assessment of the first Technology Evaluator.

Clean Sky organised 8 events, including Information Days on calls that were held in Madrid, Turin, and Brussels; it participated in 12 other major international events: in particular, ‘Innovation Zone’ at Farnborough Air Show where the stand was visited by Rt Hon David Willetts, the UK Minister for University and Science.

Conferences with the goal of raising students’ interest in aeronautics, environment and Europe took place in Amsterdam, Bristol, Paris and Berlin, with audiences of up to 150 students. The General Forum took place in November 2012 and over 120 stakeholders from industry, SMEs, academia, research organisations and EU institutions participated in this annual event.

Concerning Governance, the Governing Board met four times in 2012. On 30 March 2012, the CS JU Development Plan was adopted and on 13 December 2012 the Chair (Mr Alessandro Franzoni) and Vice- Chair (Mr Ric Parker) for 2013 were elected.

2.3.2. Progress achieved by the INNOVATIVE MEDECINES INITIATIVE JU

The European Commission and the pharmaceutical industry collaborated to jointly achieve at the end of the programme a number of objectives which are paramount for Europe. These are: (i) to build a more collaborative environment for pharmaceutical R&D in Europe; (ii) to speed up the development of more effective and safer medicines; and (iii) to increase the competitiveness of the EU pharmaceutical sector.

A total budget of € 2 billion was allocated to the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) JU. Of this, a maximum of € 1 billion was to be allocated from the EU budget for the Seventh Framework Programme, while in-kind contributions worth at least another € 1 billion were expected from member companies of the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA).

Companies have found that IMI calls are well suited to their needs and are participating much more in IMI projects now than in FP7 Health Projects.

The IMI handles calls for proposals in two stages. In stage one, applicants that can be funded under the IMI send expressions of interest (EoIs); in stage two, the best-ranked participants and EFPIA companies are invited to form consortia and jointly draft a full project proposal (FPP). This mechanism also implies two-stage evaluation: in step one for EoIs and in step two for FPPs. Only FPPs that meet all the evaluation criteria and pass ethical review are finally selected for funding. In 2012, for already ongoing projects, IMI introduced a new option of applying for additional research funding if projects proved to be worth more investment to explore new scientific opportunities. The first Explore New Scientific Opportunities (ENSO) call was launched in August and five applications were submitted by the second cut-off date in December. Since no proposals had been received by the first cut-off date, the budget available for the two was combined, and amounted to € 5 214 163. Five projects were selected for funding and overall five new organisations joined: one from EFPIA and four non- EFPIA members.

ENSO partners – including EFPIA companies – come mostly from Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Switzerland, the Netherland, Sweden and Belgium. Organisations from the newer Member States EU-12 are less well represented: only Poland, the Czech Republic and Estonia are included in one of the five funded projects , once each (as are Ireland, Israel, Norway, Denmark).

In 2012, the IMI signed the two final grant agreements for call 3, finalised the stage 2 evaluation of call 4 and published four additional calls for proposals (calls 5, 6, 7, and 8). Grant Agreements were also signed for all projects from calls 4 to 6. The table below presents a general overview of calls 5 to 7, which were launched and evaluated in 2012[7].

Call Reference || Submitted Expression of Interest || Evaluation results

Submitted Expression of Interest || Eligible EoIs || % of retained || EoI above threshold || Full Project Proposals selected for funding || Success rate (selected FPPs/ submitted EoIs)

Call 5 - 2012 || 14 || 12 || 85.7% || 2 || 1 || 7.1%

Call 6 - 2012 || 14 || 13 || 92.9% || 3 || 2 || 14.3%

Call 7 - 2012 || 9 || 8 || 88.9% || 2 || 2 || 22.2%

Total || 37 || 33 || 89.2% || 7 || 5 || 13.5%

|| || || || || ||

Calls 5 to 7 [8] attracted 418 applicants, of which only 14% were selected for funding. These 418 applicants submitted a total of 33 eligible Expressions of Interest and five projects were selected for funding at the end of the evaluation procedure. Furthermore, in calls 5 and 6, two eligible proposals submitted by different research groups were merged into one project. This was recommended by the independent experts to optimise the potential benefits of projects, avoid fragmentation in the research environment and keep the highest possible number of beneficiaries involved.

For the IMI, there are a limited number of research topics and a large allocated budget and this affects the final number of partners involved in each consortium.

The IMI participant[9]' typology of is very specific. Industry is well represented (by EFPIA companies and SMEs, the latter participating in 104 out of 418 EoIs) and there is very high participation by universities and research organisations, which together submitted 74% of EoIs. Academia also accounted for most of the participants in the projects eventually funded (25) in 2012 followed by research organisations (18) and SMEs (16), with the latter representing 26 % of total participation considering all calls for which Grant Agreements were signed in 2012 (calls 4 to 6). It is worth mentioning that this result appears slightly different if only calls launched in 2012 and for which Grant Agreements were signed during the year are taken into account: SMEs participation in calls 5 and 6 was 20,5%. This is good progress compared to the 17.7% in 2011. Globally, SMEs were awarded about €93 million under the Grant Agreements signed in 2012.

Regarding the geographical distribution of successful participants, the quantity and quality of available figures improved in 2012. Participants in projects selected for funding (62, excluding EFPIA companies) came from 13 countries, mostly the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands and France. Hungary was the only EU-12 country represented, with one participation in call 5. Calls 5 to 7 did not include international partners although these were represented in the calls finalised in the first half of the year (e.g. calls 3 and 4). Associated countries also participated significantly only in calls 3 and 4 with 20 participations overall (about 7%).

On Communication, IMI participated in 15 different events in 7 different European countries and was presented in National Info Days throughout 2012 in 13 different European countries. It published 9 press releases and was quoted in 11 public newsletters. On dissemination of results, IMI achieved 366 publications relating to funded projects. Access to the web page increased by about 20 % from 2011, taking into account unique visitors (about 8000 visitors/month).

Concerning Governance, the governing board met three times in 2012. In April 2012, Mr Roch Doliveux (EFPIA) became Chair and Dr Rudolf Strohmeier (EC) Vice-Chair for a one-year term. 21 decisions on running the JTI JU were approved.

2.3.3. Progress achieved by the FUEL CELL AND HYDROGEN JU

The FCH JU pursues three main objectives: (i) to accelerate the development and deployment of fuel cell and hydrogen technologies; (ii) to provide the technology base to start marketing them within the timeframe 2015 to 2020, reducing the “time to market”, and (iii) to place Europe at the forefront of these technologies worldwide.

To achieve these objectives by the end of the programme, a budget of € 940 million was allocated. The EU cash contribution is €470 million maximum, to be matched by cash contributions to running costs and by in-kind contributions to operational costs from the legal entities participating in FCH JU activities.

The FCH JU uses two types of funding schemes to further a wide spectrum of RTD activities: collaborative projects (for basic research and demonstration) and coordination and support actions (for networking activities, including pre-normative research). Another feature of the FCH JU is cross-cutting activity: to complement the four scientific application areas it aims to raise awareness, educate the public and support the market. Proposals are submitted and evaluated by means of a simple single-stage process.

During 2012 the FCH JU launched and evaluated one call for proposals (FCH-JU-2012-1), for an indicative available budget of €77,5million. 72 proposals were submitted, of which 68 were eligible. 28 were proposed for negotiations, representing a success rate of 39%. No Grant Agreement was signed for this call for proposals in 2012; but 33 Grant Agreements were signed for proposals evaluated in 2011.

The table below presents the major features.

Call Reference || Submitted Proposals || Evaluation results || Reserve list, if any % of retained

Submitted Proposals || Eligible Proposals || % of retained || Above threshold || selected for funding || Success rate

FCH-JU-2012-1 || 72 || 68 || 94% || 43 || 28 || 39% || 35%

The 72 proposals submitted covered the five application areas, four scientific and one cross cutting, with best results in the areas of Transportation and Refuelling Infrastructures and Early Markets for which 100% of the proposals submitted were selected. The results did not vary much from the previous year, and overall the volume of activity and the results remained steady.

The FCH JU attracted a wide range of participants[10] of all types, including public authorities (e.g. national/regional bodies, energy agencies) and NGOs. This might be because of their particular interest in coordination and support actions. The participants were also evenly distributed between research organisations and industry. The Commission is partnering with the New Energy World Industry Grouping (NEW-IG), which associates industrial companies, and the N.ERGHY Research Group, which represents the research community. Of the 573 applicants responding to the call, 222 had their projects funded, with an overall success rate of 39%. 12 public bodies and organisations other than private companies were selected for funding whilst SMEs had 55 participations in successful proposals; this represents 25% of the total participation. Taking as its baseline the Energy Theme of the Cooperation Programme in FP7 in the period 2008-2012, SMEs participation in FCH JU activities is significantly higher than in FP7. In the FCH JU, SMEs receive 25% of the funding compared to 18% in FP7.

Twenty countries were represented in the call, led by Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Italy and Belgium. Compared to the previous year, France performed better than the UK within the seven countries that altogether are leaders in the sector. EU-12 countries were represented with 11 participations. Poland demonstrated best results in the group of four (Poland, Czech Republic, Lithuania and Romania).

Of the Associated Countries, Switzerland and Norway maintained their position with 17 participations overall, a slight increase compared to 2011, and Croatia participated for the first time. The international partners were only represented by the United States with one participation.

On Communication, in 2012, FCH JU organised 3 events and participated in another 7. Publications included a general leaflet on FCH JU, a listing & mapping of demonstration activities and a report on the programme review with fact sheets for each project. The FCH web site, operational since March 2011, acquired pages on the stakeholders’ general assembly and related activities, programme reviews, and projects presented by application area and year.

Concerning Governance, the governing board met four times in 2012. In addition to decisions on running the JTI JU, in November 2012 two other new members of the scientific committee were appointed.

2.3.4. Progress achieved by the ARTEMIS JU

ARTEMIS JU was set up to achieve at two main objectives by the end of the programme: (i) to tackle the research and structural challenges faced by industry in embedded systems, and (ii) to help European industry consolidate and reinforce its world leadership in embedded computing technologies.

Embedded systems are the invisible brain of all electronic systems and are a main differentiating factor in the market. In 2012 the world market for embedded systems was estimated at €472 billion.

The work in ARTEMIS is closely linked and depends on the work done in ENIAC as electronic components nowadays incorporate more functionalities.

The participation of Member States in funding and governance alongside the EU and industry is a major feature of the JU. The European Union, Member States and industry share the total maximum budget as follows: the maximum EU contribution is €420 million, the ARTEMIS Member States contribute at least 1.8 times the EU contribution (€756 million), and in-kind contribution from industry must be at least equivalent to the public authorities’ total.

To date, the 44 running ARTEMIS projects represent total R&D&I investment of € 708 million, comprising € 228 million in national contributions, a € 116 million contribution by the EU and € 363 million from industry. All eight sub-programmes of the ARTEMIS Research Agenda are covered. In the first four years of the JU to 2011, commitments from the ARTEMIS Member States fell. However, the introduction of the ARTEMIS Innovation Pilot Projects (AIPPs) for the 2012 call reversed this trend, resulting in the highest ever commitment for an ARTEMIS call. € 38 million was allocated in funding via JU grants, along with € 66 million funding by Member States.

Currently 23 different countries are cooperating on implementing the ARTEMIS SRA to boost embedded systems in Europe. Poland signed an Administrative Agreement in December 2011 and committed the resources needed; nine Polish organisations have participated successfully in calls for proposals, a very promising result for a new member.

The submission and evaluation procedure is normally in two-stage: applicants first send a project outline (PO), then a full project proposal (FPP). This procedure was used in calls for proposals for 2009, 2010 and 2011. In 2012, as in 2008, ARTEMIS launched and evaluated calls following a single-stage procedure. So in 2012, the Project Outline phase was skipped and the process speeded up. The table below gives an overview of the FFPs submitted in response to the 2012call, together with the results of the evaluation.

Call Reference || Submitted Full Project Proposals || Evaluation results || Reserve list if any % on list

Submitted Full Project Proposals || Eligible FPPs || % of retained || Above threshold || selected for funding || Success rate%

ARTEMIS-2012-1 || 25 || 24 || 96% || 13 || 8 || 32% || 3 proposals, 23% of above threshold

631 applicants were involved in Full Project Proposals and 326 were selected for funding in the 8 successful projects. This entailed an increase in the number of partners by project: on average consortia included 40 partners in 2012 against 23 in 2011. ARTEMIS seeks to foster collaboration between all stakeholders — especially industry, including SMEs, national and/or regional authorities, and academic and research centres — pulling together and focusing research efforts. There was again a good balance between the types of participants[11] that were represented with some 33.1% from universities and research organisations altogether, 34.4% form large industry and 32.5% from SMEs. Globally, SMEs have been funded with over €9 million in 2012.

The projects funded involved 18 countries, led as in the previous year by Spain, Italy, France, Germany, Netherlands and Finland. The EU-12 countries were represented by the Czech Republic again this year followed by Poland, Slovenia and Latvia. Only Turkey had participation as an Associated Country but the 2012 call did not attract international partners.

On Communication, ARTEMIS participated in over a dozen events. The Chair of the JU Governing Board was interviewed for the Embedded World Conference and Exhibition newspaper and the Research Media (UK) published an interview with ARTEMIS Industry Association Chair Klaus Grimm, focusing on international innovation. Series 12 and 13 of the ARTEMIS Magazine were published, plus various brochures on the JU in general and on specific matters such as calls.

Concerning Governance, the governing board met three times and the public authorities’ board met four times. The main decisions taken by the governing board during the year were related to the annual implementation plan 2012 and annual budget plan 2012.

2.3.5. Progress achieved by the ENIAC JU

ENIAC pursues three main objectives at programme level: (i) to tackle research and innovation in nanoelectronics technologies and their integration in smart systems; (ii) to help European industry consolidate and reinforce its position in nanoelectronics technologies and systems and (iii) to contribute to further incorporation and miniaturisation of devices, and increase their functionalities while delivering new materials, equipment and processes.

Considering the high cost and the great complexity of R&D requiring multi-disciplinary efforts, coordination in the field of electronic components at European level with the Member States is of paramount importance.

The work done in ENIAC complements the embedded systems development done in ARTEMIS.

The maximum budget allocated by the European Union is €450 million, which should be boosted by ENIAC Member State funding of at least of 1.8 times that (€ 810 million). The industry’s in-kind contribution must at least match the public authorities’ total. As with ARTEMIS, the participation of Member States in funding and governance alongside the EU and industry is a major feature of ENIAC.

After ENIAC became autonomous, commitments from ENIAC Member States steadily declined, but this trend was reversed in 2011. This turnaround was reinforced by the successful second call launched in 2012, which focused on the Key Enabling Technologies (KET) pilot line. Research activities for this call involved a higher level of technology readiness (TRL 4 to 8) and a larger budget (€ 193.2 million). At the end of 2012, national investment increased to € 150 million, from € 62 million on setting up.

Typically, ENIAC calls follow a two-stage submission and evaluation process like ARTEMIS (project outline, then full project proposal) and in 2012 two calls were launched and managed.

The table below gives an overview of the two calls launched and evaluated in 2012.

Call Reference || Submitted Project Outlines (POs) || Evaluation results

Submitted Project Outlines || Eligible POs || % of retained || Full Project Proposals || Selected for funding || Success rate

ENIAC-2012-1 || 16 || 16 || 100% || 11 || 6 || 37.5%

ENIAC-2012-2 || 11 || 11 || 100% || 6 || 5 || 45.5%

total || 27 || 27 || 100% || 17 || 11 || 40.7%

Of the 360 applicants that sent Full Project Proposals (FPPs) for the 2012 ENIAC calls, 247 were selected for funding, with a success rate of over 68%. The quality of Project Outlines proved good in 2012 and all 17 went to the second-stage: 11 FPPs were selected for funding, with a success rate of 40.7%. Participants[12] selected for funding include research organisations (39), universities (42), industry (108) and SMEs (58). SMEs accounted for 23% of all participations and received over €24 million funding in 2012.

Participants in the calls came from 21 countries, with France, Netherlands, Germany and Italy leading with 155 participations between them, out of 247 (about 63 % of the total). EU-12 countries also participated, mostly represented by the Czech Republic (4 participations), Poland (3) and Hungary, Malta, Slovak Republic and Romania (2 each). There was also good participation from Associated Countries; Israel took the lead with 4 participations, followed by Norway (3) and Switzerland (2). In 2012, no international partners were selected for funding, as in 2011.

At the end of 2011, the ENIAC JU launched a call for Expressions of Interest in setting up pilot lines. This call prepared the JU to help implement the policy on improving Europe’s position in six key enabling technologies (KET) including nanoelectronics. The pilot lines are intended to boost innovation and implement activities at higher technology-readiness levels (TRL 4 to 8)[13]. Consequently, the second call of 2012 was fully dedicated to developing projects targeting pilot lines. After evaluation, 5 of these projects were selected for funding for a total of 128 participants, including 27 SMEs.

On Communication, on top of participating in several events in Germany, Austria, Italy, and sponsoring events in Belgium, France, the Netherlands and Germany, ENIAC issued 2 press releases which attracted over 10 000 and 8 000 internet views respectively. Together with The Parliament Magazine, it organised the ‘Securing the Future’ round table event at the European Parliament, among other events and publications.

Concerning Governance, the governing board met three times and the public authorities board met four times in 2012. Main decisions concerned the AIP 2012, the annual budget plan 2012 and adoption of the work programme 2013.

2.4. Stakeholder participation

After three years of full operational autonomy of the JUs, it is possible to start appreciating the progress achieved in terms of participation[14]. The data also provide an initial overview of the research and innovation environment best served by JTI JUs and information on the level of participation reached by category of beneficiaries.

The graphic below compares overall participation in 2011 and 2012.

Categories of beneficiaries in 2012 are presented in the table below.

|| Participations in proposals submitted (2012) || Participations in projects selected for funding (2012)

Clean Sky || 483 || 245

IMI || 418 || 62

FCH || 573 || 222

ARTEMIS || 631 || 326

ENIAC || 360 || 247

Total || 2465 || 1102

In 2012, JTI JUs recorded 2465 participations in submitted proposals while participations in funded projects came to 1102. In comparison to 2011, the number of proposals submitted contracted by about 30 % while the number of projects selected for funding was the same.

This is particularly evident for the IMI and reflects the new focus put on ‘think big’ projects. In fact, in 2012, in the three out of four calls launched for which data are available the number of full project proposals selected for funding was small (5) and this therefore affected the total number of participations.

The trend was more or less stable in the other four JTI JUs with the exception of ENIAC where the number of participations in projects selected for funding was higher than in the Project Outline phase. This is due to the two-stage evaluation and to the recommendations provided by evaluators after the first step evaluation. In some cases consortia that submitted Project Outlines decided to add specific capabilities and/or equipment following feedback from the independent experts. This also happened in the IMI but it did not affect total participations before and after the evaluation procedures ended.

The overall success rate increased from 35.8 % in 2011 to 45% confirming that JUs are a tool to fund industry-driven highly specific research. This also demonstrates that the involved stakeholders are getting more and more acquainted with the modus operandi of these new instruments.

The types of stakeholders involved in the research projects vary according to the JU.

Participation in the FCH JU is diverse, with all stakeholders being represented in funded projects: 59 research organisations (around 27%), 31 universities (around 14%), 68 large industries (around 31%), 55 SMEs (around 25%) and 3 public bodies among its 222 participants. The participation of public bodies is linked to the demonstration activities of the JU, where collaborations at national and regional level are of importance.

IMI has attracted mostly industry representatives (66, i.e. 59%) both from large companies (EFPIA) and SMEs; universities, research organisations and regulators accounted for a further 46 participants (around 41%).

Generally, Clean Sky, ARTEMIS and ENIAC proved less attractive for public bodies. SMEs are well represented in Clean Sky, with 94 (38%) participations, and in ARTEMIS and ENIAC, with 106 (32.5%) and 58 (23%) respectively.

Overall, SMEs represent about 30% of the total participations and large industry account for another 31,1 %.

The following table shows participations by category for the five JTI JUs. Note that:

· in the IMI, EFPIA companies — which are ‘private for profit’ — are not included. Overall, since the IMI was set up, EFPIA companies have accounted for 363 participations in funded projects, while in 2012 they accounted for about 50;

· in ARTEMIS, universities and research organisations are normally considered together and the table follows that practice.

Type of participant || Clean Sky || FCH || IMI || ARTEMIS || ENIAC ||

Public bodies || || 3 || || || || 3

Research organisations || 53 || 59 || 18 || 108 || 39 || 277[15]

Higher or secondary education || 54 || 31 || 25 || 42 || 152

Private for profit (excl. education) || 44 || 68 || **[16] || 112 || 108 || 332

SMEs || 94 || 55 || 16 || 106 || 58 || 329

Others || || 6 || 3 || || || 9

Total || 245 || 222 || 62 || 326 || 247 || 1102

However, when looking at participation and the representativeness of figures, it should be borne in mind that targeted results are expected in each technological sector.

2.5. Innovation and SMEs involvement

The current five JTI JUs are an innovative model for implementing research. The partnership between the public and the private sectors is a significant step forward in transferring research results to the market. The JTI JUs set their own research agendas in close cooperation with industry, with the aim of turning results into applications in the shortest possible time. This process of accelerating the use of research results will be pushed further under Horizon 2020.

We can highlight some points that allow the JTI JUs’ innovation performance in 2012 to be appreciated, but the report does not aim to present a detailed analysis of this aspect of the JUs.

The concept of Technology Readiness Level (TRL), which emerged in the aeronautic and space sectors, has been extensively used by the Clean Sky JU in evaluating projects submitted to ascertain the maturity of the technology[17]. ENIAC has also introduced the concept of TRL, in particular for projects selected for funding as part of the KET Pilot Line. This was the topic of the second ENIAC call in 2012 and proposals were expected to demonstrate a TRL of between 4 and 8.

In ARTEMIS, an index of maturity and an index of SME engagement in proposals has been used in the last two years to help identify those projects which can best contribute to developing innovation from research. ARTEMIS also interacts with Centres of Innovation Excellence (CoIE), which are multi-country, multi-organisation, interconnected R&D operators whose aim is successful innovation in a given market (e.g. intelligent building). The ARTEMIS Innovation Pilot Projects (AIPPs) concept was introduced in 2012. Projects funded under the AIPP are expected to cover the full innovation chain, from the proof of concept and prototyping stage to potential applications in industrial platform.

A number of prototyping and demonstration activities were presented in the Annual Implementation Plans for the JTIs. In particular, the FCH increased the number of demonstrators, namely in the area of "Early Markets" and called for proof of concept at system level in the area of "Stationary Power Generation and CHP". These two technology areas, together with "Transportation and Refuelling Infrastructures", feature large demonstration projects.

In Clean Sky, in the technological area of Green Regional Aircraft, the INDUCER project successfully delivered a laboratory-scale demonstration on "smart repairs" and further research topics launched in 2012 calls have addressed the demonstration and testing phases.

Within the FCH, a Danish SME has developed and facilitated the commercialisation of its two innovative products: H2Station (Hydrogen refuelling stations for automotive, bus and materials handling applications), and H2Drive (Fuel cell systems for materials handling vehicles such as forklift trucks and airport tow tractors).

Two new projects received ENIAC’s ‘Innovation Award’, introduced in 2011 to recognise projects approaching completion or recently completed that produced the most impactful innovation. These were IMPROVE and LENS, which are generally considered success stories. IMPROVE, in particular, boosted cooperation between manufacturers and research organisations in Europe and has produced over 90 publications.

In the area of key standards and tools for drug development, IMI is supporting RAPP-ID, a project that successfully developed a device and protocol related to breath-borne aerosol sampling currently at the patenting stage.

FCH has currently submitted 13 patents, according to its operational indicators for 2012.

The JTI JUs continued to encourage SME participation, with improved results in 2012: SMEs accounted for about 30 % of successful participants[18] and 329 of the organisations involved. Of the five JTI JUs, Clean Sky proved most attractive to SMEs, which accounted for 38[19]% of total participation in the JU, followed by ARTEMIS (32.5 %); IMI (26 %); FCH (25 %) and ENIAC (23 %).

As regards to the Governance in the FCH JU, where the sector is still young and based on a high number of SME's, it should be noted that the Industry Grouping (IG) has grown from 48 members in 2007 till 68 at present and 60% of these members are SME's. Furthermore, one of the IG seats in the Governing Board is reserved for an SME.

The amount of EU funding which went to SMEs in 2012 varied from one JTI JU to another: IMI allocated over €55 million to SMEs in call 5 to implement the major European Lead Factory project (EUC2LID) and about €93 million overall. Clean Sky, FCH and ENIAC averaged €22 million and ARTEMIS about €10 million.

The table below gives a detailed overview of SME participation in the five JTI JUs, both in proposals submitted and in projects selected for funding 2012. Globally, SMEs submitted fewer proposals than in 2011 but performed better in terms of success rate: this has increased overall from 35 % to 44 %.

|| Participations in submitted proposals || Participations in projects selected for funding

Clean Sky || 186 || 94

IMI || 104 || 16

FCH || 160 || 55

ARTEMIS || 225 || 106

ENIAC || 70 || 58

Total || 745 || 329

The number of participating SMEs confirms that JTI JUs offer a good range of research activities tailored to SMEs, in which their contributions are essential to achieving more general research and innovation objectives. Progress in 2012 has shown the JTI JUs to be a powerful tool to foster innovation and they are expected to contribute further under the Horizon 2020 programme.

2.6. Participation across Countries

The five JTI JUs involved an average of 20 Member States in the implementation of the SRAs in 2012, as in the previous year. The IMI demonstrated a significant increase in the number of countries involved: eight new countries took part in projects selected for funding by the end of the year. On the other hand, Clean Sky and FCH witnessed a decline in geographic diversity. As shown in the table below, the top players come from Member States that have an advanced industrial environment surrounded by dynamic systems of SMEs, research centres and universities. These countries are: Germany (201 participations) France (182), the United Kingdom (139), Italy (126), the Netherlands (101), Spain (92), Austria (19), Sweden (18) and Belgium (13). Amongst the nine countries France and Germany participated to calls for proposals in all five JTI JUs. In particular in IMI and FCH the top players confirmed their ranking positions: the United Kingdom kept the lead in IMI and Germany led in FCH.

|| N° of countries participating in projects selected for funding || Top players[20]

Clean Sky || 17 || Spain, the United Kingdom, Italy, France, Germany

IMI || 23 || The United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, France, Sweden

FCH || 21 || Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Belgium

ARTEMIS || 18 || Spain, Italy, France, Germany, the Netherlands

ENIAC || 20 || France, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Austria

In terms of the international dimension in 2012, the number of partners involved from outside the EU was small. Only four organisations from the United States were selected for funding, three in the IMI and one in FCH. This represents a percentage well below the 3 % reported in 2011.

EU-12 countries’ access to JTI JU research activities improved overall: in general, the newer Member States accounted for approximately 6 % of total participation in funded projects, against 4 % in 2011. For the first time, organisations from Lithuania were represented in a selected project.

The table below shows the number of participations by country, in funded projects, and the distribution in each JTI JU.

Country || IMI || FCH || Clean Sky || ARTEMIS || ENIAC || Total

Czech Republic || 1 || 3 || || 16 || 4 || 24

Cyprus || || || 3 || || || 3

Estonia || 1 || || || || || 1

Hungary || 3 || || 1 || || 2 || 6

Latvia || || || || 2 || || 2

Lithuania || || 1 || || || || 1

Malta || || || || || 2 || 2

Poland || || 5 || 2 || 9 || 3 || 19

Romania || || 1 || 1 || || 2 || 4

Slovak Republic || || || || || 2 || 2

Slovenia || || || || 4 || || 4

Total || 5 || 10 || 7 || 31 || 15 || 68

EU-12 participation was analysed for each JTI JU for the last two years of activity.

EU-12 participation in Clean Sky (2011–2012) by country and number of participations.

EU-12 participation in IMI (2011–2012) by country and number of participations.

EU-12 participation in FCH (2011–2012) by country and number of participations.

EU-12 participation in ARTEMIS (2011–2012) by country and number of participations.

EU-12 participation in ENIAC (2011–2012) by country and number of participations.

EU-12 participation in FCH and ENIAC remained steady in the last two years and increased slightly in the IMI, which shows the efforts made by the JTI JUs to better represent less involved countries.

By contrast, EU-12 participation decreased by about 25% in Clean Sky, which performed better in 2011. ENIAC registered the most significant increase in participation (roughly 26%).

Overall, participation by the Czech Republic remained consistent and confirmed its leading position in the group. Poland and Hungary followed with 19 and 6 participations respectively. The remaining nine countries were less well represented and Bulgaria was not involved in funded projects.

Specific efforts have been made to attract more participation. For example, in April 2012, Clean Sky interviewed a representative of the Polish Institute of Aviation with the aim of highlighting the experience of Polish organisations as project coordinator.

The IMI successfully launched the Cooperative Medicine Development Course for postgraduate students from Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Portugal and Turkey. This high-level educational experience is intended to provide the best teaching in the field of pharmaceutics.

ARTEMIS organised an International Brokerage Event in Prague in January 2012 and a Call Workshop in Gdansk, in May 2012, in cooperation with the European Institute of Technology (EIT) and the National Contact Point.

JTI JUs research activities also proved attractive to countries associated with the FP7, which accounted for approximately 5 % of participations. The most active Associated Country in 2012 was Switzerland, followed by Norway and Israel, with 58 participations altogether, these countries account for 92% of participations in the five JTI JUs. Croatia, which joined the EU in July 2013, was successfully involved in FCH activities. The IMI and FCH attracted the highest number of participants from Associated Countries, followed by Clean Sky, ENIAC and ARTEMIS. Further assessments of associated country involvement in ARTEMIS and ENIAC should also take into account their tripartite model of funding.

An overview of the involvement of FP7 associated countries in JTI JU research activities is provided below.

Country || IMI || FCH || Clean Sky || ARTEMIS || ENIAC || Total

Croatia || || 1 || || || || 1

Iceland || 3 || || || || || 3

Israel || 4 || || || || 4 || 8

Norway || 2 || 5 || || 3 || 3 || 13

Switzerland || 11 || 12 || 12 || || 2 || 37

Turkey || || || || 1 || || 1

Total || 20 || 18 || 12 || 4 || 9 || 63

2.7. Grant portfolio

The grant agreements (GAs) portfolio varies from one JTI JU to another, together with the types of projects, the size of consortia and the budget allocated. JTI JUs may not only develop collaborative research but also support networking activities (e.g. FCH) with coordination and support actions or tailored high level training (e.g. IMI and FCH), where consortium size is naturally smaller and its composition different.

The overall number of grant agreements signed in 2012 increased slightly (151 GAs were signed in 2011), while the activities for which results are available or GAs ended naturally increased by about 20 %, as programme implementation advanced.

|| GAs signed in 2012 || GAs for which activities ended in 2012

Clean Sky || 102 || 55

IMI || 11 || 0

FCH || 33 || 5

ARTEMIS || 9 || 11

ENIAC || 11 || 8

Total || 166 || 79

Clean Sky’s GAs remain the most distinctive. The number of projects funded and GAs signed is bigger, but with fewer partners in each project and relatively small smaller budgets per project. Clean Sky calls allow single-partner projects, particularly when the research topics are so specific that only one organisation (or few competing in selection and evaluation) fits the call requirements.

There are on average two partners in Clean Sky GAs, with an average allocated budget of € 408 000 and a funding rate of 65.3 %. The usual duration of projects is also rather limited (12 to 24 months average) since results have to be achieved in a short time and be integrated in the correspondent technological area. The JU contribution to the 102 GAs signed in 2012 is of about € 44 million. So, while the number of GAs to be signed and the management of reporting call for considerable efforts, coordination with and between partners is less burdensome.

FCH consortia have an average of eight partners and a JU contribution of €3 million. The JU contribution to the 33 GAs signed in 2012 is of about €117 million. Management effort is likely to be similar to those engaged in FP7 cooperative research projects.

The IMI’s project portfolio typically features fewer projects (and GAs signed) but they are bigger in terms of both the budget allocated and the number of partners. The average number of partners in an IMI project is over 20, taking EFPIA and non-EFPIA organisations together. In 2012, the average budget of the GAs signed was roughly € 20.6 million (IMI JTI JU contributions only). The IMI has also a stock of 39 GAs signed since it was set up and no results from completed projects. Note that a small number of projects, which were close to obtaining results or proved worth continuing with their scope revised were funded through the new ENSO calls

ARTEMIS involves on average 21 partners in a consortium with an average budget of €16 million. The JU contribution to the 9 GAs signed in 2012 was about €24 million. In ENIAC, the average number of partner organisations involved is 21, with a budget of about €13.5 million.

For the IMI, ARTEMIS and ENIAC, the effort required to coordinate the relevant number of partners in a given consortium are likely to be offset by the limited administrative interaction required because the number of projects selected for funding is small.

2.8. Actions performed by Commission in 2012

2.8.1. Stakeholder consultations

Stakeholders were consulted by the European Commission in 2012 with a view to extending the JTI JUs’ mandate under Horizon 2020. These consultations are part of the impact assessment accompanying the legislative proposals for JTIs under the new research and innovation framework programme. In the case of ARTEMIS and ENIAC, a single consultation was carried out, as the Commission proposal foresees merging them into a single initiative dealing with electronic components and systems. The consultations were carried out using different tools but all included public web-based consultation, the results of which are presented in detail in the impact assessments for the proposals. Other tools used were:

1. Individual position papers by stakeholders, JTI JU members and JTI JU advisory bodies;

2. Hearings/meetings with the wider stakeholders’ community (some general, some targeted);

3. Meetings with representatives of Member States and Associated Countries;

4. Surveys amongst participants in on-going projects;

5. Independent experts’ advice;

6. Specific studies on future trends and impact of the JTI JU in the specific sector;

7. Identification and analysis of economic data, carrying out literature searches and assessing results from R&D projects.

Overall, the consultations demonstrate the clear European added value of public private partnerships. Stakeholders consider that the sectors in which the JUs operate are key to addressing societal challenges and industrial competitiveness but that it is impossible to rely solely on market mechanisms to achieve major innovations closer to the market. Therefore, they consider it appropriate to set up public private partnerships in these areas under Horizon 2020, as they are contributing to achieving the critical mass required for technological breakthrough and large-scale investment in research, development and demonstration, and to bridging the gap between academic and industrial research. Stakeholders also consider that Member States’ support would not be sufficient.

Having lighter structures and increasing SMEs’ involvement are mentioned as points to be considered for future improvement.

A profile of the stakeholders emerges from the over 500 replies submitted through the online questionnaires by the deadline.

The public consultation on Clean Sky, FCH and IMI JUs took place from 11 July to 4 October 2012. The number and types of respondents varied from one JU to another, as outlined below. Information on the results of the consultation on ARTEMIS and ENIAC JUs is presented separately because the relevant online consultations were followed a different path.

· 91 replies were received by the closing date of the consultation on Clean Sky.

Replies came from at least 17 different countries, including five from Associated Countries. France and Spain were the best represented (with 23.1 % each), followed by Germany (15.4 %). Other countries included Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Italy, Sweden and the United Kingdom. The country profile was generally in line with participation in calls for proposals, particularly for Spain, France and Germany.

· 127 replies were received by the closing date of the consultation on FCH.

Replies came from at least 22 different countries, including five from Associated Countries. France was the best represented (with 30 % of respondents), followed by Germany and the United Kingdom (13 % each). Participation by Nordic and EU-12 countries was generally low. This does not match the general pattern of participation in calls for proposals launched by the FCH JU, which are more widely representative. This generally means less dominance by one country, while in the consultation by far the highest number of respondents were from France.

· 134 replies were received by the closing date of the consultation on IMI.

Replies mainly came from six EU countries — Belgium, France, Germany, Portugal, Spain and United Kingdom — which accounted for 66 % of replies. There was at least one reply from 19 EU countries. Under ‘Other’ (non-EU) several replies were from Associated Countries, e.g. Switzerland and Norway. This reflects these two countries’ recurrent participation in calls for proposals. Note that the six countries that answered most include those which participate most in funded projects.

· For ARTEMIS and ENIAC, the online consultation was conducted between 20 July and 12 October 2012 and 151 replies were received.

Replies mainly came from the 23 European countries involved in the current JTIs, with more than 20 % from Germany and France. The industrial associations that are currently members of the ARTEMIS and ENIAC JUs responded for their constituencies (representing respectively 206 and 126 members) which gave their views more weight. Germany and France were also amongst the countries performing best in calls for proposals from ARTEMIS and ENIAC.

The table below presents the response to the open consultations by JU and by type of respondent. ‘Other’ includes organisations from non-EU countries. Individual citizens accounted for over 20 % of responses in three consultations out of four (Clean Sky, IMI, and FCH): this might imply better public awareness of JTI JUs, too. An average of 12 % of SMEs replied to the online questionnaires. Universities are included in the category ‘research organisations’ and, surprisingly, none of them replied to the consultation on Clean Sky.

Respondent by type || Clean Sky || IMI || FCH || ENIAC & ARTEMIS

Individual Citizens || 25.3% || 21.64% || 27.6% || 1%

SME s || 10% || 8.21% || 18.9% || 11%

Research Organisation || 0% || 12.69% || 18.9% || 39%

Large Business || 34.2% || 7.46% || 14.17% || 26%

Business Organisation || 3% || 6.72% || 6.3% || 2%

NGOs || 6% || 21.64% || 5.51% || 0%

Other || 15.4% || 14.93% || 4.72% || 13%

Member State Administration || 6% || 5.22% || 2.36% || 8%

Regional/ Local Administration || 0% || 1.49% || 1.57% || 0%

|| 100% || 100% || 100% || 100%

2.8.2. Cost-benefit analysis of the JUs

In preparation of the new framework programme for research and innovation, Horizon 2020, the Commission assessed its current implementing modes, including the JTIs. This involved assessing their impact on the relevant technology sectors, and carrying out a cost-benefit analysis of the JUs as administrative structures.

The cost-benefit analysis was included in the Impact Assessment performed in 2012 on public-private partnerships set up under Article 187 TFEU for Horizon 2020. It first examined the current situation of JUs in comparison with implementation by DG RTD. Then it considered possible scenarios for the use of JTI JUs under Horizon 2020 and relevant key features, such as the cost impacts of simplification measures and derogations.

The CBA covers the cost efficiency of the administrative structures set up to implement the JTIs’ strategic research agendas (e.g. setting them up, supervision and winding down), not of the instrument as such (i.e. programming, project management, etc.).

The analysis revealed a number of areas where the next framework programme and the next generation of JUs could be improved, as follows.

· The suitability of the general legal framework of the JUs.

The legal framework has proven less suited to the needs of relatively small structures like the JUs. Generally, administrative procedures are not geared to small entities. Examples include: high administrative overheads (on average 50 % of JU staff are administrative compared with 22 % in the rather larger European agencies[21], also set up as EU bodies), procedures for staff recruitment and procurement, financial regulation limits, sharing of services between JUs and governing boards that tend to be involved in administrative decisions rather than focused on strategic issues.

The optimal balance between the legal framework and efficiency of the JU may not have been reached because the limited size of the administrative structure (JU) needed to support the JTI as a means of implementing the PPP was not sufficiently taken into consideration. Under the next Framework Programme, the Commission envisages a number of measures to move closer to the optimal balance by amending the legal basis for future JUs, including granting derogations to the Horizon 2020 rules on participation and dissemination specifically for Article 187 initiatives and proposed simplification measures under Horizon 2020.

· The setting up costs of the JUs.

This phase was a resource-intensive experience for all parties involved in terms of: building, recruitment, service level agreements (SLAs) and transfer of the initial project portfolio from the Commission to the JUs. Moreover, the average time taken for the JUs to reach financial autonomy was 725 days[22].

The analysis concludes that, while the cost of setting up the current JUs was a one-off cost, the costs of renewing their mandates should be covered by the efforts to set up Horizon 2020 and the cost of their current supervision. The CBA also assumes that, if a new JU is set up under Horizon 2020, the cost will be a one-off expense again and this could be estimated at about € 500 000 a year. In the light of the actual proposals for JUs under Horizon 2020, the set up cost will be lower, through learning from the experience under FP7.

· The cost of monitoring and supervising by the Commission services, including the programming of the JUs.

Supervising the JUs has been resource-intensive for the Commission. In particular, the effort involved in supporting the work of the governing boards was underestimated.

In sum, use of a JU to implement a JTI of the current size is roughly cost neutral for the Commission, both in terms of the JU’s setting up, operation and winding down procedure and in terms of managing any FP7 legacy, as long as 50 % of the administrative running costs are being covered by the private partner. To secure cost-neutrality for Horizon 2020, the size of the JTI programmes has to increase, cost-reducing simplifications must be implemented and cost-increasing derogations from Horizon 2020 provisions avoided.

Conversely, the benefits of a JTI JU are non-monetary, e.g. shared decision-making with private partners and defragmentation of research and innovation environment in given sectors, which are key for European competitiveness. There may be monetary benefits from the JTI, such as leveraging additional funding for research and innovation, but these were addressed in the Impact Assessment on the JTIs.

2.8.3. Preparatory work for the second interim evaluation

The Council Regulations setting up the JTI JUs require two interim evaluations. The first was performed on time and covered in the 2011 report. The second is due by 31 December 2013 and will, in particular, assess the implementation of previous expert recommendations on a number of issues. These are: the need to reinforce coordination and complementarity with FP7 and national programmes and funds; the need to improve communication and to enhance the visibility of JTI actions aimed at the public and at international level; the need for a coherent system of data collection and performance monitoring through a set of key performance indicators.

In 2012, JTI JUs (Clean Sky, FCH and IMI) jointly cooperated with Commission staff on preparatory work for the second interim evaluation. This concerned in particular the provision of data, statistics and information on programme operations and the inputs required to define consistent terms of reference. Their final reports on the second interim evaluation should be ready in autumn 2013.

ARTEMIS and ENIAC began the evaluation in late September 2012 and appointed six independent experts, coordinated by a panel chair and supported by a recorder, to evaluate the JTIs’ relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and research quality. These evaluation criteria will also favour reflection on merging ARTEMIS and ENIAC. Initial conclusions were produced in early 2013 and the final report on the second interim evaluation is expected in November 2013.

3. CLEAN SKY JOINT UNDERTAKING

3.1. Introduction to the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking (CS JU)

The Clean Sky Joint Undertaking (hereinafter referred to as "CS JU") has been established by Council Regulation (EC) 71/2008 of 20 December 2007 as a public-private partnership between the aeronautic industry and the European Union for a period up to 31 December 2017. In its set-up, the European Union is represented by the European Commission and the Aeronautics industry is represented by the leaders of the Integrated Technology Demonstrators (ITDs)[23] and their associates. The ITD leaders are twelve industrial organisations that jointly committed to perform, complete and exploit the Clean Sky programme[24]. Each leads or co-leads a specific Integrated Technology Demonstrator. The associate members are seventy-four private or public organisations representing industry, academia, SMEs and research centres, selected through a transparent and fair process as permanent members of the Clean Sky JU. They committed to perform and complete certain essential work packages in one or more ITDs for the duration of Clean Sky.

The main objective of Clean Sky JU is to develop environmental technologies impacting all flying segments of commercial aviation in order to contribute to the ACARE targets[25] for reduction of emissions and noise in air transport in Europe[26], thus contributing to improving the air transport system worldwide. This objective is achieved through coordination of research activities that pool resources from the public and private sectors, and that are carried out by the main aeronautical stakeholders (ITD leaders and associates) directly and by partners selected through open and competitive calls for proposals.

The CS JU is built upon six different technical areas called Integrated Technology Demonstrators (ITD), which develop innovative technologies covering all segments of commercial aviation. Each ITD is led by two founding members and operates through a matrix structure. The ITDs are listed below:

Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft (SFWA) led by Airbus and SAAB – focused on active wing technologies that sense the airflow and adapt their shape as required, as well as on new aircraft configurations to optimally incorporate these novel wing concepts;

Green Regional Aircraft (GRA) led by Alenia Aeronautica and EADS-CASA – dealing with low-weight configurations and technologies using smart structures, low-noise configurations;

Green Rotorcraft (GRC) led by Agusta-Westland and Eurocopter – focused on innovative rotor blades and engine installation for noise reduction, lower airframe drag, diesel engine and electrical systems for fuel consumption reduction and environment-friendly flight paths;

Sustainable and Green Engines (SAGE) led by Rolls-Royce and Safran – integrating technologies for low noise and lightweight low pressure systems, high efficiency, low nitrous oxides and low weight core;

Systems for Green Operations (SGO) led by Thales Avionics and Liebherr Aerospace – coping with all-electric aircraft equipment and systems architectures, thermal management, capabilities for green trajectories and improved ground operations;

Eco-Design (ED) led by Dassault Aviation and Fraunhofer Gesellschaft – addressing the full lifecycle of materials and components, focusing on issues such as optimal use of raw materials, decreasing the use of non-renewable materials, natural resources, energy, emission of noxious effluents and recycling. Multiple links for coherence and data exchange is ensured between the different ITDs.

Complementing these six ITDs, the Technology Evaluator (TE) is a dedicated evaluation platform cross-positioned within the CS project structure. The TE is co-led by DLR and Thales and includes major European aeronautical research organisations as members. Its objective is to assess the environmental impact of the technologies developed by the ITDs and to assess the result of the overall Clean Sky's project output.

3.1.1. Budget

The total budget of the CS JU is equally divided between the EU and its private members and is set to a maximum of € 1.6 billion. The EU contribution is maximum € 800 million, paid from the budget appropriation allocated to the theme "Transport" of the Specific Programme "Cooperation" under the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) of the European Union (2007-2013)[27], while the industry should commit the resources at least equal to the EU contribution.

3.1.2. Governing structure

The CS JU governance is composed of three bodies: the Governing Board, the Executive Director and the ITD Steering Committees. It is also supported by three advisory groups: the Scientific and Technological Advisory Board (STAB), the National States Representatives Group (NSRG) and the General Forum.

The Governing Board is composed of the 12 ITDs leaders (the members), the European Union represented by the Commission and 6 Associates.

The Executive Director is the legal representative and the chief executive for the day-to-day management of the CS JU in accordance with the decisions of the Governing Board in line with Article 6 of the CS Statutes.

Two advisory bodies provide further input, recommendations and play a coordination role:

The National States Representative Group (NSRG) is the focal point on Clean Sky at the national level; it operates as a network of national representatives of each EU Member State and of each other country associated to the Framework Programme. The NSRG ensures the organisation and the outcome of the calls are transparent and fair, assists with the organisation of Info days and dedicated technical workshops, reviews information and provides opinions on the programme progress to the Clean Sky JU, contributes to the update of the strategic orientation of the programme and the involvement of SMEs in Clean Sky.

The Scientific and Technological Advisory Board (STAB) is composed of high level scientists and engineers and aims at advising the JU on matters related to scientific and technological analysis, environmental effects forecast, and societal aspects and economics.

The General Forum is a statutory assembly open to all members and partners of the Clean Sky programme.

3.2. Overall progress since the establishment of clean sky jti/ju

3.2.1. Programme implementation overall

Clean Sky JU gained operational capacity to implement its budget on 16 November 2009. Until that point, the European Commission was responsible for the establishment and the initial operations of the Clean Sky JU in collaboration with the other private founding members and in accordance with Article 16 of the Council Regulation establishing the Clean Sky JU. During the first years of independent functioning the CS JU achieved progress in both increasing its operational capacity and in running the Clean Sky operations.

Since its establishment, Clean Sky supports research activities carried out by the members of Clean Sky and by partners selected following open and competitive Calls for Proposals, independent evaluations and negotiations leading to the conclusion of grant agreements with partners.

Built upon 6 different Integrated Technology Demonstrators (ITDs), Clean Sky JU ensures the continuous progress in all target technologies. From the beginning of the programme, each ITD has developed the work plan by identifying and selecting the most promising technologies to achieve the objectives based on the ACARE targets for 2020, and to design the associated technology demonstrators to be tested in the second part of the programme. Currently, the development in each ITD is going according to the plans. In 2011, a change in scope of the first engine demonstrator related to the Open Rotor configuration was introduced and the programme has been revised and adapted to this change accordingly, including the impact on the planned flight activity which is part of SFWA ITD. In March 2012, a revised Development Plan was adopted by the Governing Board in order to update the strategic targets of the JU.

Concerning the Technology Evaluator, created in 2008 with the objective to assess the environmental impacts and benefits of the overall Clean Sky's project output, the general requirements were defined in 2009. They were reviewed and detailed in 2011, paying particular attention to the first assessment cycle and to the needs of the trade-off studies. In March 2012, the Technology Evaluator completed its first full-scale simulation and performed the evaluation of Clean Sky’s progress at all three assessment levels (Aircraft, Airport, and Air Transport System). Preliminary results show that with research that has been started within the programme, the objectives of Clean Sky will be achieved. The programme has a potential to reduce CO2 and NOx emission by 20-40% depending on the aircraft type and bring significant noise reduction.

At the end of 2012, Clean Sky, according to its Regulation and Statutes defining 25% of the EU funding to be allocated to partners selected via Calls for Proposals, has launched 13 calls with the total of 170 M€ EU funding. The topics in each call are defined by each ITD. The calls serve the dual purpose of widening the participation in Clean Sky to further organisations and to identify R&D performers who will participate in the mainstream activities of Clean Sky.

As aircraft fuel economy is also influenced by a flight trajectory management strategy, CS JU has established links with the SESAR Joint Undertaking which investigates Air Traffic Management (ATM) technologies in line with the "Single Sky" initiative of the European Commission. These links are established via the Technology Evaluator, as well as via the SGO ITD that develops the avionics equipment interfacing with ATM, and via management meetings involving the relevant staff members of the two JUs (i.e. for Clean Sky, the SGO Project Officer, up to the two Executive Directors. As mentioned above, a joint review / audit was performed in a leading company of both JUs, in order to check the quality and the comprehensiveness of the interface between the two programmes in the relevant work packages.

In the 4th Quarter of 2010 a first interim assessment of the Clean Sky JU was performed by a Panel of six members designated by the European Commission. The report was delivered to the European Commission and the JU in January 2011. A second interim evaluation is to be completed in the autumn of 2013 and the panel has started its activities in the spring 2013.

3.2.2. Grant agreements with members

The majority of the work inside the Clean Sky JU is carried out by its industrial members under the form of grant agreements with named beneficiaries. According to Article 13 (2) (a) of Council Regulation (EC) 71/2008 setting up the Joint Undertaking, an amount of up to € 400 million shall be allocated to the ITD leaders and up to € 200 million – to the associate members. In turn, the ITD leaders and associates engage to contribute resources at least matching the EU contribution.

The Clean Sky JU signed the first seven grant agreements with its members (referred to as "GAM") in 2008: - one for each of the six ITDs, - a supplementary one for the activities of the Technology Evaluator.

These grant agreements will remain in force for the whole duration of Clean Sky, until 31 December 2017. Each year, an amendment is signed in order to update the annual description of work with the corresponding JU financial contribution. No new named beneficiaries joined the CS JU in 2012. The commitments amounted to €17 M€ in 2008; €70.6 M in 2009, €75.7 M in 2010, €103.16 M in 2011 and 111.94 M 2012.

3.2.3. Description of the 'Integrated Technology Demonstrators' (ITD) activities

The detailed progress of activities of each ITD in 2012 is presented in Annexe I.

3.3. Implementation of calls for proposals (CFPs) overall

At least 25 % of the EU funding to the CS JU must be allocated to Partners selected via Calls for Proposals. Topics are defined by each ITD. They serve the dual purpose of widening the participation to Clean Sky to other organisations and to identify R&D performers called in to participate to the mainstream activities of Clean Sky. Partners selected via Calls for Proposals are being funded in compliance with the upper funding limits set in the Rules of Participation of the 7th Framework Programme.

Activities to be carried out by Partners selected via CFPs are an essential part of the core R&D activities of Clean Sky and have to lock in with the activities carried out by CS JU members other than the European Community.

What is peculiar for Clean Sky Calls for Proposals is that the content of the activities is much more focused, i.e. they are topics and not research themes, with limited duration and specific targeted results expected (at higher Technology Readiness Levels). The topics are prepared by the Topic managers of the ITDs and checked by the Project Officers at the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking (JU).

Another difference from collaborative research calls is that the budget is defined by the topic value, and not by the maximum funding: this to allow a wider participation from all types of entities, independently from the actual eligibility for funding. Furthermore, a single entity can present proposals, with no need for a consortium to be created. Differently from Collaborative research, there is always one winner per topic, provided suitable proposals are submitted and positively evaluated.

Clean Sky Calls for Proposals results, from Call 1 to Call 13, at a glance:

Total cost: 260 M€ Total funding: 196.8 M€ Total running projects: 347 Average funding rate: 65.3 % Number of topics successfully applied to: 417 Number of winning participations: 808 Average number of participants by topic: 1.938 Average budget by project: 408 000€ Number of partners: 462 (NB: there are less partners than “successful participations”, because of entities being selected for funding more than once, in several topics along time) Average SME share: 33.7 % in funding Average Academia share: 18 % in funding.

In addition to that, the proposals received at deadline in the 13 calls launched so far are 1210. Considering the geographic distribution of successful organisations since the setting up of Clean Sky, the overall picture is presented below.

The best players, both in terms of coordinators and participants, are the UK (with a total of 101 participations overall), France (with a total of 86 participations) and Germany (82). Germany furthermore, shows high performance in coordinating projects, ranking 52 only beyond UK that coordinates 54 projects.

Figure 1: Overall geographic distribution of successful organisations (by coordinator and participant)

3.4. Outline of the main activities and achievements during 2012

3.4.1. Running of the JU

3.4.1.1. HR Issues

Clean Sky JU is composed of 18 temporary agents and 6 contract agents (24 staff). Due to the rejection of an increase of posts in its MSPP 2012-2014 and 2013-2015, the JU could not enlarge in staff numbers. However, in order to face the expected increase of workload, 3 interim staff have been hired.

The hiring concerned the functions:

1 Administrative Assistant

2 Project Support Officers to help the Project Officers in the management of projects and the calls for proposals.

In 2012 the implementation of research activities implied for a team of 7 Project officers, 2.5 Financial Officers, 1 Legal Officer also the processing of a greater number of administrative tasks, these were:

Negotiated GAPs:

– Amendments of grant agreements: GAPS= 45, GAMs = 9

– Payments to Partners: 142

– Payments to Members: 14 (covering individual payments to 210 beneficiaries)

In addition to that, the JU administrates all of its running costs internally, e.g. salaries, mission costs, utility invoices, experts reimbursements (over 250 individual payments),

In 2012, 16 of the Temporary Agents posts available from the initial Governing Board decision were filled for the full year. 2 Temporary Agents (Legal officer and Accounting officer) left and were recruited within the year. 4 of the 6 contract agents’ positions were also filled for the entire year.

In June, the CA FG IV (Ex-Post Audit Officer) left and the recruitment was started. The successful applicant started his contract on 15/1/13. In addition, in September one CA FG II (secretary) left and the recruitment process initiated. This was still on-going at the end of the year as the JU received over 500 applications for the position.

In August, the Communication Officer (TA AD7) left and the recruitment of the successor was achieved in 2012; the selected candidate started on 1/2/2013.

Clean Sky JU has also hired 2 trainees, one as support for the Communication officer and one for the secretariat from September, when the related posts were not occupied and the recruitment not completed yet.

It is expected that the future workload will keep increasing. This entails in particular an increasing of tasks as highlighted below:

(1) Number of grant agreements to be established for Partners:

– Calls 1 to 13: 88 GAPs are still in negotiation (currently dealt with by 6 Project Officers who already have on average 50 on-going GAPs each to manage

– Call 14: 54 projects are foreseen to be negotiated

(2) Total number of interim or final reports from Partners to be treated:

– 508 for the currently existing GAPs - this number is growing as more GAPs are signed.

– 428 for grants currently in negotiation or for still on-going calls. The number is based on 171 topics to be launched at 2.5 periods per GAP.

– Total reports foreseen: 936

(3) Number of grant agreements to be amended and monitored for Members (GAMs):

– 4 annual and 3 multiannual amendments (annexes 1A and 1B), which entail a total number of 210 beneficiaries

– 7 annual reports for a total number of 210 beneficiaries.

Since no long term solution is reachable under the current situation, the JU has opted for hiring of interim staff as a temporary mitigation action. Due to the lack of continuity and the inefficiency caused by frequent changes of staff, the core business processes dealing with the operational and financial grant management face important risks of underperformance.

In parallel, Clean Sky has done considerable efforts in lean management. These efforts have been focused mainly in optimising IT costs by sharing the IT infrastructure maintenance and support costs (e.g. common IT helpdesk and support contract) and the use of common facilities such as meeting rooms and mail collection with 4 other JUs residing in the same building.

A lean management of Staff has also resulted in a saving of 4.5 posts, which would normally be covered individually in a similar structure. This has been achieved as follow:

– The most crucial HR processes (like recruitment procedures, departures of staff, performance evaluation and the entire administration of the existing team of more than 24 people) have been centralised under the responsibility of the Assistant to the Executive Director. This has avoided hiring a dedicated staff member in the position of HR Assistant.

– The pool of 3 secretaries has been reduced to 2 staff by allocating the tasks relating to calls support and administration to one former secretary.

– The Internal Auditor is performing a coordination and management role for the increasingly heavy burden of the ex-post audit process. This function is combined with the role of quality management officer for the JU too.

3.4.1.2. Legal Issues

A revision of the GAMs model core Grant Agreement and Annex II was carried out since the Commission has decided to commit the remainder of the funds dedicated to the Specific ‘Cooperation’ Programme[28] of the Decision No 1982/2006/EC on FP7[29]. As a consequence of the multi-annuality and on the request of some ITDs, the Grant Agreements for Members (‘GAMs’), concluded on a yearly basis, had to be revised on the basis of the model of FP7 grant agreement. The revisions concerned the reference to programme duration, reporting periods and payment modalities (pre-financing, interim and final payments).

This global commitment allows the CS JU to set-up multi-annual GAMs, either on a two, three or four-year basis, as from 2013 to 2017.

The JU left open the possibility of either scheme (multi-annual GAM annual) to each ITD. The model Grant Agreement has been adapted in such a way as to accommodate any solution. The revised models were approved by Decision of the GB on 13 December 2012 (GB-2012-12-13-12 doc7a Core GA-Annex II).

The Executive Director adopted a decision (no. 69) on the funding of third parties established outside the EU and FP7 Associated countries (ED Decision n° 69). The JU had to assess some requests and, after consulting DG RTD, decided for legal certainty and equal treatment of beneficiaries to establish a procedure to assess such cases.

The GB approved a transitional mandate to the Executive Director to ensure overall continuity of the JTI activity and the coordination of the preparatory phase of Clean Sky 2 Programme (CS-GB-2012-12-13 doc9 Mandate_ED_CS2)

3.4.1.3. ICT Issues

The year 2012 was one of on-going development in the area of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) in Clean Sky. In addition to the regular support, software updates and refinements, some notable advances were made.

Clean Sky joined several more framework contracts of the European Commission for ICT hardware and service procurement. This provides more options and flexibility to meet future requirements.

An agreement was concluded in January 2012 with DG RTD to use their ICT facilities to access essential systems for key Clean Sky staff in the event of a disaster situation impacting the Clean Sky ICT facilities. These facilities were successfully tested in June 2012. This forms an important part of the business continuity options from an IT perspective for the CS JU.

A lot of progress was made in further integration with the relevant IT systems of the European Commission. System testing of access to the CORDA data warehouse was completed in 2012 ready for implementation in January 2013.

A new IT system for managing the Grants for Members was developed and implemented (GMT). This required the setup of a new server to host the application and security measures and certification for the on-line user interface.

Further measures were implemented to improve the safekeeping of data. On the server side, a second tape drive was purchased and installed to improve the speed and robustness of the tape backups. On the client side, all desktops and laptops with upgraded with software to backup and synchronise local data with the server to protect against PC hardware failure or accidental deletion.

The Wi-Fi network was improved in several ways. A large project was started to redesign the document file structure and the new architecture was largely in place and more than two-thirds of the documents migrated by the end of 2012.

A pilot for the uploading of electronic versions of financial certificates (CFS) and reports (Form C) from partner grant beneficiaries was successfully completed. In November 2012 automatic generation of invoices was implemented in the contract management system for partner grant beneficiaries (CPM / PDM). This is in turn integrated with the budgetary system (ABAC) in which those invoices are now automatically created at data entry level in the workflow.

Clean Sky staff has regularly participated in the discussions concerning the new IT systems to be implemented for the CfP process in Horizon2020. Clean Sky requirements have been integrated and the first of those systems (SEP) has already been tested in 2012 and is now in use for the submission of proposals in the 14th Clean Sky call for proposals.

Concerning management, a more formal structure has been put in place for the governance of the ICT facilities shared between the JTIs. A road map has been developed to plan the evolution of the ICT facilities over the coming years.

3.4.1.4. Procurements and contract signed in the year 2012 (see table below)

Contractor || Selection procedure || Document Reference || Subject || Signature Date || Duration || Amount >5000 Euro

Start People/CSJU || Framework Contract IMI JU 2011.SC.137 || Purchase Order n°25 || Interim PO Assistant Exceptional activities long term || 24/01/2012 || 01/03/2012-31/08/2012 || 40.473

Start People/CSJU || Framework Contract IMI JU 2011.SC.137 || Purchase Order n°26 || Interim Communication Assistant || 24/01/2012 || 4h/day for 4 weeks 30/01/2012-31