COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Report on the first interim evaluation of the Innovative Medicine Initiative Joint UndertakingReport on the first interim evaluation of the Clean Sky Joint Technology Initiative Joint UndertakingReport on the first interim evaluation of the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking
Date: 2011-09-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: aeronautical industry, fuel cell, innovation, inter-company cooperation, joint venture, medicinal product, public-private partnership, research and development

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 21.9.2011 
SEC(2011) 1072 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

Report on the first interim evaluation of the Innovative Medicine Initiative Joint 
Undertaking 
Report on the first interim evaluation of the Clean Sky Joint Technology Initiative Joint 
Undertaking 
Report on the first interim evaluation of the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking

Accompanying the document 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

Partnering in Research and Innovation 

{COM(2011) 572 final} 

 
 
 
 
  
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

Report on the first interim evaluation of the Innovative Medicine Initiative Joint 
Undertaking 
Report on the first interim evaluation of the Clean Sky Joint Technology Initiative Joint 
Undertaking 
Report on the first interim evaluation of the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking 

Accompanying the document 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

Partnering in Research and Innovation 

Overall introduction 

Joint  Technology  Initiatives  (JTIs)  are  a  major  novelty  of  the  Seventh  Framework 
Programme.  On  the  basis  of  Article  187  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European 
Union,  five  JTIs  have  been  set  up  under  7th  Framework  Programme  (FP7):  Innovative 
Medicines initiatives (IMI), Advanced Research and Technology for Embedded Intelligence 
and  Systems  (ARTEMIS),  Aaeronautics  and  Air  Transport  (Clean  Sky),  European 
Nanoelectronics Initiative Advisory Council (ENIAC) and Fuel Cells and Hydrogen (FCH).  

In  line  with  the  request  to  the  Commission  under  Article  11.2  of  the  Council  Regulations 
setting up the Joint Undertakings to implement the Joint Technology Initiatives, independent 
interim evaluations of the operation of the Joint Undertakings have recently been carried out.1  

The  Commission  response  to  the  interim  evaluations  of  the  ARTEMIS  and  ENIAC  Joint 
Undertakings has already been presented in COM(2010) 752 of 16 December 20102. 

This  Staff  Working  Document  presents  the  detailed  Commission  response  to  the  interim 
evaluations of the IMI, Clean Sky and Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertakings.  

1 

2 

First  Interim  Evaluation  of  the  ARTEMIS  and  ENIAC  Joint  Technology  Initiatives  (30  July  2010), 
Clean  Sky  1st  Interim  Evaluation  (15  December  2010),  First  Interim  Evaluation  of  the  Innovative 
Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking (20 December 2010), First Interim Evaluation of the Fuel Cell & 
Hydrogen Joint Undertaking (13 April 2011) 
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/information_society/evaluation/rtd/jti/ 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Report on the First interim evaluation of the Innovative 
Medicine Initiative 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This report highlights the findings and recommendations of the first interim evaluation of the 
Innovative  Medicines  Initiative  (IMI)  Joint  Undertaking  (JU).  The  IMI  JU  was  created 
between the European Commission and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries 
and  Associations  (EFPIA),  the  umbrella  organisation  of  the  European  pharmaceutical 
industry,  to  implement  the  Joint  Technology  Initiative  in  the  area  of  Innovative  Medicines. 
This report formulates the Commission's initial response to the evaluation's recommendations 
and sets out follow-up measures. The Commission thereby complies with the requirement to 
report on the first interim evaluation of the IMI JU, as laid down in the founding act.3 

2. 

BACKGROUND 

In  the  field  of  innovative  medicines,  IMI  was  established  in  2007  as  a  Joint  Undertaking, 
based on Article  187 TFEU  (ex Article  171  EC). This EU  body constitutes a public-private 
partnership  (PPP)  between  the  pharmaceutical  industry  represented  by  EFPIA,  and  the 
European  Union.  The  aim  is  to  implement  a  research  agenda  defined  by  the  European 
research  communities  (pharmaceutical  industry,  academic/research  organisations,  Member 
States)  in  the  field  of  pre-competitive  pharmaceutical  research.  This  is  to  be  achieved  by 
means of in-kind contribution from the participating pharmaceutical companies, matched by a 
direct  financial  contribution  from  the  EU.  The  JTI  IMI  thereby  aims  at  increasing  the 
investments  in  the  biopharmaceutical  sector  in  Europe  and  provide  socio-economic  benefits 
for  European  citizens,  contribute  to  the  health  of  European  citizens,  increase  the 
competitiveness  of  Europe  and  help  establish  Europe  as  the  most  attractive  place  for 
biopharmaceutical research and development. 

At the time of the first interim evaluation, the IMI JU had operated as an autonomous body 
for approximately one year, had launched its first two calls and was about to launch the third 
call.  Fifteen  projects  from  the  first  call  had  kicked-off  and  were  ongoing,  and  a  further  8 
projects from the second call were under negotiation. These projects have been  launched in 
the first few months of 2011. The in-kind contribution from the EFPIA companies to projects 
in  the  first  two  calls  is  €  198  million  and  th e  financial  contribution  from  the  EU  budget, 
disbursed by the IMI JU is € 190  million. This is slightly lower than what was foreseen at the 
launch of IMI (€ 199.5 million).  

3. 

CONDUCT OF THE EVALUATION 

The objective of this evaluation was to assess the IMI JU against three criteria: the quality and 
efficiency of the IMI JU and its progress towards the objectives set. The Commission invited 

3 

Council  Regulation  No  73/2008  of  20  December  2007  setting  up  the  Joint  Undertaking  for  the 
implementation of the Joint Technology Initiative on Innovative Medicines. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
a panel of independent experts4 to perform the first interim evaluation. The experts reviewed 
evidence and interviewed stakeholders5. 

The evaluation panel issued its report on 20 December 2010. The full report is available on 
the EUROPA website (http://www.imi.europa.eu/content/documents#imi_governance). 

4. 

EVALUATION RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The overall appreciation of the panel  for the  first interim evaluation of IMI is  positive. The 
experts state that: 

"through  the  IMI  JU,  Europe  has  succeeded  in  establishing  a  new  business  model 
between  public  and  private  sectors"  ...by  bringing  together  the  pharmaceutical 
industry, academia, SMEs as well as regulatory authorities and patient organisations.  

This is considered a rare achievement by the experts.  

This cooperation: 

"enables mutual learning and the opportunity to build understanding of the respective 
rationales and approaches, with benefits to all parties." 

Thereby  IMI  is  a  novel  model  for  "open  innovation",  having  achieved  a  unique  scale  in 
Europe. 

The experts consider the scientific scope of IMI as well targeted and: 

"The  consortia  formed  so  far  carry  out  focussed  research  addressing  problems  of 
immediate  relevance  to  industry  and  future  public  health.  To  have  formed  and 
embedded  this  new,  applied  research  environment  is  a  significant  achievement  for 
Europe." 

As  critical  comments  the  evaluation  panel  underlines  that  it  has  heard  evidence  that  the 
framework of IMI is not satisfactory for all stakeholders, especially concerning funding rates 
and sharing of intellectual property. The experts observed that the IMI: 

"Executive Office is not yet fully staffed, but within this limitation is providing the 
necessary support to the programme." 

The experts consider that the implementation of certain aspects of the IMI governance should 
be refined in order to better align the different actors in IMI, namely the Governing Board, the 
Scientific Committee, the Executive Office and the States Representatives Group. 

4 

5 

The  expert  panel  was  composed  of  the  following  experts:  Dr  Fred  Gvillo  (chairman)  –  formerly  of 
Schering  AG,  Prof.  Magdalene  Rosenmöller  (rapporteur)  -  IESE  Business  School,  Tom  Andersen  – 
European  Investment  Bank,  Prof.  Manfred  Horvath  -  Vienna  University  of  Technology,  Ruth  Keir  – 
Archea Ltd., Bart Wijnberg – former employee at the Dutch ministry of health. 
The IMI-related documents and information consulted included the legal documents for setting up IMI, 
documents describing the functioning of the IMI JU, the JTI Sherpa report and published articles about 
IMI as well as information including statistics about the projects selected so far.  

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In their performance assessment, as regards the effectiveness, the experts conclude that after 
the process of setting up the structure, IMI is now running well. Also, the first call projects 
running so far are working well. While the operation of IMI is overall considered as efficient, 
recommendations  for  improvements  are  given.  Based  on  the  large  response  to  the  calls,  the 
positive reports about the evaluations from the independent observers as well as the potential 
of  the  projects  and  enthusiasm  of  the  participants  IMI  is  considered  of  high  quality.  The 
development of appropriate indicators to objectively measure the quality of IMI is considered 
important. 

To  put  the  assessment  of  IMI  in  a  strategic  context,  the  evaluation  panel  performed  an 
analysis of the strength, weaknesses, opportunities and threats for IMI (SWOT analysis). The 
panel identified many strengths of IMI, such as the creation of a unique partnership between 
the  public  and  private  sectors  that  enables  broad  engagement  of  stakeholders  and  access  to 
otherwise  hidden  resources  in  the  pharmaceutical  area.  Further,  the  panel  mentions  the 
successful  implementation  of  IMI,  support  from founding  members,  interest  in  participation 
and the high quality of the projects. 

The  panel  considers  the  lack  of  key  performance  indicators  and  proactive  communication 
activities,  including  limited  engagement  with  policy  makers  as  weaknesses.  The  fact  that 
internal  governance  structures  are  not  yet  working  optimally  and  lack  of  autonomy  of  the 
Executive Office are also considered as weaknesses. 

The links with regulators, possible synergisms with programmes at national level, established 
through the States Representatives Group and the launching of larger, more strategic projects 
are all considered as opportunities for IMI. 

The identified weaknesses can become threats, if not appropriately addressed. The economic 
crisis and the continued change in the pharmaceutical industry and the rapid pace of scientific 
change can potentially become threats for IMI. The move towards larger projects identified as 
an opportunity can also lead to new threats for IMI. 

Based  on  the  identified  weaknesses  in  the  areas  of  governance  structures,  lack  of  proactive 
communication,  not  optimum  exploitation  of  the  advisory  potential  of  stakeholders  such  as 
the  European  Medicines  Agency  and  finally  the  lack  of  key  performance  indicators,  the 
evaluation panel has come up with seven recommendations to make IMI better: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

Continuously improve stakeholder involvement in IMI supported research projects. 

Continuously  ensure  EFPIA  and  Commission  commitment  to  IMI’s  success  and 
sustainability. 

Ensure excellence and exploit new ways to support IMI scientific objectives. 

Improve IMI communication. 

Reinforce and streamline decision making and well-functioning processes. 

Ensure best use of IMI results and IMI sustainability. 

Develop monitoring and evaluation processes. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
Each  of  the  top-level  recommendations  is  broken  down  into  several  sub-recommendations, 
addressed  to  either  one  or  several  of  the  following:  IMI  Executive  Director,  IMI  JU 
Governing  Board,  European  Commission,  EFPIA  for  a  total  of  28  recommendations.  The 
detailed recommendations are listed in the annex. 

5. 

PLANNED FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS 

The  Commission  welcomes  the  interim  evaluation  report  about  IMI  JU.  It  takes  note  of  the 
recommendation  of  the  evaluation  panel.  The  Commission  is  committed  to  working  with 
EFPIA to implement the recommendations addressed to the IMI Governing Board, where the 
two founding members work together to give strategic direction and oversight to the IMI JU. 
The Commission is committed to  implementing the recommendations addressed to it and is 
open  to  collaborating  with  EFPIA  and  the  IMI  Executive  Director  implementing  the 
recommendations addressed to them. 

Most  of  the  recommendations  can  be  implemented  in  the  short  to  medium  term  and  indeed 
many  are  already  being  addressed  through  actions  from  the  Governing  Board  and  the 
Executive Office. 

The recommendation to setting up public private partnerships as a 'special body' can only be 
addressed  in  the  context  of  the  discussion  about  the  next  generation  of  public  -  private 
partnerships (PPPs). 

(a) 

Recommendations addressed to the IMI Governing Board 

The  evaluation  panel  has  issued  the  largest  number  of  recommendations  to  the  Governing 
Board of IMI, in which EFPIA and the Commission are equally represented. 

The recommendation regarding concerns about the IMI IP policy has already been addressed 
by the Governing Board and the Executive Director. A clarification note to the IMI IP policy 
had been issued in 2009, supplemented by a guidance note published in November 2010. An 
IP Help Desk has been established by the Executive Director, and operating since December 
2010 

The  experts  recommend  that  the  IMI  Board  should  reflect  on  how  to  best  account  for 
resources contributed by EFPIA from outside of Europe. The Commission welcomes EFPIA 
company participation in IMI projects from outside of Europe. EFPIA can inform about this 
participation, which is in addition to the in kind contribution that is expected in proportion to 
the funding for academic and SME researchers contributed by the public side. 

The issue of rates for indirect costs of academic and SME participants in IMI projects eligible 
to receive a financial contribution is addressed by a revision of the IMI grant agreement. In 
addition  to  the  current  flat  rate  for  indirect  costs  participants  eligible  to  receive  a  financial 
contribution  from  IMI  will  be  able  to  charge  actual  indirect  costs,  including  a  method  for 
simplified calculation of the actual indirect costs. 

The Commission fully endorses the recommendation of continuing to ensure excellence and 
exploit  new  ways  to  support  the  scientific  objectives  of  IMI  by  implicating  the  States 
Representatives Group and the Scientific Committee. This has been addressed in the ongoing 
revision  of  the  Scientific  Research  Agenda  and  the  preparation  of  the  topics  for  the  fourth 
call.  Input  from  the  Scientific  Committee  and  the  SRG  will  continue  to  be  solicited  for  the 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
definition of the topics for the remaining IMI calls. The fourth call already contains the first 
topics for "Think Big" projects, a trend that will continue. Bringing in industries converging 
with the pharmaceutical industry is already happening in several of the ongoing IMI projects. 
The Commission would welcome further examples of this, where scientifically justified. 

The  Commission  agrees  that  more  can  be  done  as  regards  communicating  about  IMI. 
Together  with  the  Executive  Director,  the  Governing  Board  is  working  on  refining  the 
communication strategy for IMI and putting it into practice. It is clear that the communication 
strategy of IMI is led by the Executive Director with support from the founding members. 

During  the  set-up  of  IMI  and  its  early  implementation,  the  IMI  Governing  Board  had  to 
address many organisational issues. As IMI is now moving into the phase of implementing the 
successive  calls,  the  Governing  Board  has  more  time  addressing  strategic  issues  of  IMI.  In 
this  context  the  Commission  considers  that  in  the  spirit  of  a  true  partnership  decisions  are 
taken at the Governing Board in the appropriate time frame. 

The Commission agrees that knowledge management processes need to be developed. This is 
being  taken  up  in  the  fourth  call  and  the  Commission  supports  continued  attention  to  this 
aspect  throughout  IMI.  This  will  also  support  the  sharing  of  knowledge  between  all  IMI 
projects. 

The  experts  recommend  that  the  IMI  Board  should  consider  how  to  realise  value  from 
excellent but ultimately unfunded proposals through networking and knowledge management. 
The Commission agrees that the second-ranked and following Expressions of Interest that are 
considered  of  high  quality  in  the  evaluation  represent  significant  potential.  However,  it  is 
unlikely  that  such  projects  will  be  funded  in  the  way  they  were  proposed.  Therefore  the 
Commission  considers  that  it  will  not  be  possible  to  implement  the  recommendation  of  the 
evaluation  panel  as  proposed.  More  generally  the  Commission  considers  that  it  is  a  good 
proposal  to  open  up  certain  aspects  of  the  knowledge  management  system  of  IMI,  to 
incorporate results from related research funded from other sources. This can for example be 
of relevance in cooperation between IMI and other partnerships in pharmaceutical research at 
national or international level. 

Overall  IMI  is  clearly  a  key  initiative  for  the  European  Commission,  which  is  fully  in  line 
with the Europe 2020 Strategy and the Innovation Union. The Commission is ready to further 
develop the partnership in pharmaceutical research to the benefit of patients and to improve 
the competitiveness of Europe. 

(b) 

Recommendations addressed to the Executive Director 

implementing 

The Commission is ready to support the Executive Director of IMI and the Executive Office 
in 
the 
recommendations, notably as regards improving the communication activities of IMI, are also 
addressed to the Governing Board. 

the  recommendations  addressed 

to  him.  Indeed,  several  of 

The Commission agrees to the importance of harnessing the innovation potential of SMEs for 
IMI.  The  activities  of  the  Executive  Office  to  be  in  close  contact  with  SME  umbrella 
organisations  are  welcome.  The  Commission  considers  that  it  is  worth  further  reinforcing 
these efforts. Meaningful involvement of patient organisations is key for biomedical research. 
Amongst  the  projects  that  will  be  launched  from  the  third  call  one  will  specifically  address 
this aspect.  

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
Regulators  and  in  particular  the  European  Medicines  Agency  (EMA)  are  also  an  important 
stakeholder in IMI. The Commission welcomes their involvement in several ongoing projects 
and considers it relevant for them to continually be implicated in the further development of 
IMI.  However,  as  EMA  is  also  involved  in  IMI-funded  projects,  care  needs  to  be  taken  to 
avoid conflicts of interest and for example EMA should not be a member of the IMI scientific 
committee. 

During  the  setting  up  of  the  Executive  Office  a  considerable  number  of  staff  had  to  be 
recruited and some delays were experienced. This phase is now ending and only the filling of 
a  few  more  posts  is  envisaged.  The  Commission  does  not  have  particular  concern  in  this 
context. 

The continued evaluation of the IMI through Key Performance Indicators is fully supported 
by  the  Commission.  Although  the  recommendations  in  this  area  are  addressed  to  the 
Executive Director of  IMI,  the Governing Board  has taken this up as being of key strategic 
importance and will work with the Executive Director implementing this aspect. 

(c) 

Recommendations addressed to EFPIA 

The  Commission  agrees  that  the  leadership  for  the  definition  of  the  Scientific  Research 
Agenda  and  its  implementation  through  the  launch  of  calls  must  come  from  EFPIA.  The 
organisation of the pharmaceutical companies is changing constantly, resulting in changes of 
staff involved in  IMI from EFPIA  side.  The  Commission  considers that after  the successful 
setting up and launch of IMI there has been some challenge of moving ahead in the revision 
of the Scientific Research Agenda as fast as would have been desirable. This revision is now 
almost complete and the call topics for the 4th call have been defined. This call includes the 
first "Think Big" topics are considered a success by the Commission. 

In  light  of  the  volume  of  funds  still  to  be  committed,  for  the  Commission  it  will  be  very 
important that sufficiently high commitment for in kind contribution will be made by EFPIA 
companies in all next calls. 

(d) 

Recommendations addressed to the European Commission 

Both  the  Commission  and  EFPIA  are  recommended  to  dedicate  enough  staff  to  IMI.  The 
Commission  considers  that  both  founding  members  have  shown  extraordinary  commitment 
towards  the  successful  setting  up  of  IMI,  including  the  launch  of  the  IMI  JU  as  an 
autonomous  entity.  Considering  the  number  of  processes  that  had  to  be  established,  the 
Commission  considers  that  overall  this  has  succeeded  well,  while  recognising  that  some 
delays have occurred. It is inherent in a partnership between partners as  different as EFPIA 
and the European Commission that it takes some time to agree on certain points, especially at 
the  beginning.  With  the  IMI  JU  Executive  Office  now  almost  fully  staffed,  all  operational 
responsibility has moved to it. Indeed, the Commission is committed to giving the Executive 
Director full autonomy for this responsibility. Accordingly, the number of staff dedicated to 
IMI  has  been  reduced  at  the  Commission,  without  any  loss  of  capacity  to  dealing  with  the 
issues at hand. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
The recommendation to develop a simpler legal framework than the current set-up of IMI as a 
community  body  is  in  line  with  the  recommendations  made  by  the  JTI  Sherpas'  Group6. 
Changes to the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Union 
are required to make this possible. 

6 

Designing together the 'ideal house' for public-private partnerships in European research- JTI Sherpa’s' 
Group  –  Final  Report  –  January  2010,  ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/docs/jti/jti-sherpas-report-
2010_en.pdf 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Report on the First interim evaluation of the Clean Sky 
Initiative  

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This document highlights the findings and recommendations of the first interim evaluation of 
Clean  Sky.  Clean  Sky  is  a  Joint  Undertaking  (JU)  implementing  the  Joint  Technology 
Initiative  (JTI)  in  the  field  of  environmentally  friendly  aeronautical  technologies.  It 
formulates  the  Commission’s  initial  response  to  the  evaluation’s  recommendations  and  sets 
out follow-up measures. Thereby the Commission complies with the requirement to report on 
the first interim evaluation of Clean Sky as laid down in its founding act7.  

2. 

BACKGROUND 

The  Clean  Sky  Joint  Undertaking  contributes  to  the  implementation  of  the  Seventh 
Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development 
and  demonstration  activities  (2007-2013)  and  particularly  to  the  Specific  Programme 
"Cooperation"  on  its  theme  "Transport".  Its  objective  is  to  develop  innovative  technologies 
with low environmental impact for all flying segments of the Air Transport System, allowing 
substantial  reduction  of  noise,  fuel  consumption  and  emission  of  noxious  gases  in  line  with 
the targets set by the Technology Platform for Aeronautics ACARE. Its activities will consist 
in technical development up to full scale final demonstrators covered by Grant Agreement to 
named beneficiaries and by further partners selected through Calls for Proposals. 

The Clean Sky Joint Undertaking became autonomous on 19 November 2009, meaning that it 
has the operational capacity to implement its own budget. 

After the first 2.5 years of operation, members in Clean Sky have performed activities for a 
cumulated  value  of  €  232  million  across  all  progr amme  areas  and  the  first  flight  tests  of 
innovative technologies have been accomplished. In addition to the members' activities, seven 
Calls for Proposals have been launched so far for additional € 63 million of funding (€97.5 
million total scope of activities), engaging some 374 partners in 201 projects with an average 
duration of three years.  

While  this  represents  a  considerable  engagement  of  facilities,  resources  and  budget,  delays 
with  respect  to  the  original  time  plan  have  accumulated,  due  to  initial  difficulties  in 
establishing  the  Clean  Sky  Joint  Undertaking  internal  procedures  and regulations  as  well  as 
building up the technical teams and unfolding the technical programme. 

3. 

CONDUCT OF THE EVALUATION 

The objective of this evaluation was to assess the effectiveness, efficiency and quality of the 
JTI  operations,  both  with  regard  to  the  Joint  Undertaking  and  its  operating  bodies  and  the 
technical activities carried out by its members and partners, as well as the progress of Clean 

7 

Council Regulation No 71/2008 of 20 December 2007 setting up the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Sky towards its objectives as set up in Article 2 of the Clean Sky Regulation. To this end, the 
Commission invited a panel of independent experts8 to conduct the evaluation. 

The evaluation was carried out over the period from 29 September to 7 December 2010, and 
the  evaluation  panel  issued  its  report  on  15  December  2010.  The  evidence  base  for  this 
evaluation included legal, financial and other documents setting up Clean Sky, technical and 
annual  reports,  project  information  and  participation  statistics.  Interviews  were  carried  out 
with representatives from the JU, members and partners of Clean Sky, including industry (and 
SMEs), research organisations and universities. 

4. 

THE EVALUATION RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The  evaluation  panel  recognises  the  appropriateness  of  the  Clean  Sky  Joint  Undertaking 
(CSJU) concept and acknowledges a number of achievements: 

• 

• 

• 

The setting up of an entirely new Public Private Partnership. 

Successful stimulation of developments towards environmental targets. 

Wide  high  level  participation  from  all  EU  key  industries,  and  inclusion  of  a  large 
number  of  SMEs,  thereby  forging  new  collaborations  and  enhancing  European 
integration. 

At  the  same  time,  the  experts  express  their  concern  that  Clean  Sky  has  incurred  significant 
delays  in  the  technical  programme  and  urge  for  a  robust  action  to  ensure  that  the  final 
technical objectives are reached in full within the regulatory time frame. The panel notes the 
following: 

• 

• 

• 

8 

The start of the CSJU activities was slow as compared to initial plans due to the time 
needed to establish and implement the rules of procedures and the time required to 
build  up  the  working  teams  for  both  Integrated  Technology  Demonstrators  and  the 
Joint Undertaking Executive Team. 

The panel sees clear requirements for special provisions for the implementation and 
the  specific  operating  needs  of  Joint  Undertakings  for  Joint  Technology  Initiatives 
such  as  Clean  Sky  and  for  developing  a  specific  model  regulation  for  PPPs  as 
foreseen by Article 201 of the proposed new Financial Regulation. 

For  future  Joint  Technology  Initiatives, a  clear  separation  should  be  made  between 
formal establishment and formal start of technical activities. The Commission should 
ensure  that  prior  to  the  formal  start  of  technical  activities,  the  resources  and 
administrative  tools  are  essentially  available  and  that  an  in-depth  review  of  the 
technical programme is carried out. 

The  expert  panel  consisted  of  the  following  members:  Dr.  Michel  Huguet  (chairman)  (FR),  formerly 
Technical  Director  of  the  JET  Joint  Undertaking;  Prof.  Enzo  Bertolini  (IT),  Director  of  the 
Astronomical  Observatory  of  Valle  d'Aosta,  formerly  Head  of  the Power  Supply  Division of  the  JET 
Joint Undertaking; Dr. Dietrich Eckardt (DE),Senior Engineering Consultant, Alstom Switzerland Ltd; 
Prof.  Peter  Hecker  (Rapporteur)  (DE),Managing  Director  -  Institute  of  Flight  Guidance,  Technical 
University  of  Braunschweig;  Dr.  Ivonne  Herrera  (NO),Research  Scientist,  SINTEF;  Prof.  Manfred 
Horvat (AT), Vienna University of Technology ;  

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
5. 

PLANNED FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS 

The  Commission  welcomes  the  interim  evaluation  report  and  takes  note  of  the  evaluation 
panel’s  recommendations.  The  Commission  is  committed  to  address  its  part  of  the 
recommendations and to work with the stakeholders on the private side of the partnership and 
the Joint Undertaking to help them address their parts. The Commission will undertake: 

(1) 

(2) 

immediate  actions  for  the  existing  Joint  Undertaking  (i.e.  the  JTI  activities  in  the 
period  2011-2013)  to  be  followed  up  through  their  governance  structures,  such  as 
strengthening the analysis of contents of traditional projects and JU topics, support a 
revision of the delegations granted to the Executive Director by the Governing Board 
and  contributing  to  streamlining  administrative  requirements  within  the  current 
reporting duties; and 

longer-term actions for the potential next generation of PPPs. An assessment of the 
role and options for PPPs within the Common Strategic Framework for Research and 
Innovation9 is now underway. 

(a) 

General recommendations 

The Commission notes the positive opinion of the panel on the Clean Sky JU concept, in spite 
of the delays and underspending which have accumulated at programme start. It agrees that 
the JTI model should be analysed further and is committed to assess the operational aspects of 
the JTI in order to optimize its effectiveness in the context of determining the "ideal house" 
infrastructure for future PPPs.  

(b) 

Recommendations to the European Commission 

The Commission agrees  with  the  panel's views that  a thorough analysis of the "Community 
Body"  legal  framework  should  be  carried  out  in  line  with  the  findings  of  the  JTI  Sherpas' 
report10.  Nevertheless,  the  Commission  considers  that,  after  the  initial  period,  the  JTI  JU 
appears to have increased its efficiency, and that the technical work plan has been reviewed 
thoroughly.  

It  recognises  that  the  "Community  Body"  approach  is  too  rigid  in  some  of  its  aspects  to  be 
applied to a Joint Undertaking of the size of Clean Sky.  

The  Commission  recognises  the  need  to  better  coordinate  the  calls  published  by  Clean  Sky 
and those published by the Commission under the Framework Programme. It agrees with the 
panel  which  recommends  formalising  the  process  of  coordination  between  the  two  work 
programmes. An appropriate procedure is being established. 

It  also  recognises  the  need  for  streamlining  the  coordination  between  the  activities  of  the 
SESAR Joint Undertaking and Clean Sky. It is noted that this task is under the responsibility 
of the JUs concerned and the Commission is prepared to act as a facilitator.  

9 

10 

COM(2011)  48:  Green  Paper:  From  Challenges  to  Opportunities:  Towards  a  Common  Strategic 
Framework for EU Research and Innovation funding 
"Designing  Together  the  'ideal  house'  for  public-private  partnerships  in  European  research",  JTI 
Sherpas' Report, Final Report - January 2010 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The Commission agrees with the panel conclusion that the Clean Sky JU should be continued 
with  special  attention  towards  adhering  to  the  main  objectives  and  work  plans.  It  already 
closely  monitors  and  stresses  the  need  to  achieve  the  objectives  set  out  in  the  Clean  Sky 
Regulation  (article  2).  However,  the  technical  choices  necessary  to  this  end  are  under  the 
responsibility of the JU and in particular its industrial members.  

The  Commission  acknowledges  the  relevance  of  regulatory  measures  to  accelerate  the 
introduction of new 'green' technologies demonstrated in Clean Sky on aircraft. The inclusion 
of  aviation  in  the  EU  Emissions  Trading  Scheme  (ETS)  as  of  1  January  2012  constitutes  a 
step in this direction.  

The Commission agrees with the panel that EU funding should target high risk R&D activities 
where the market failure component is substantial. The programme of Clean Sky fulfils this 
condition  while  the  necessary  controls  and  monitoring  activities  are  in  place,  including  the 
possibility  of  carrying  out  technical  audits.  It  is  noted  that  the  JU  has  the  responsibility  of 
ensuring that the activities undertaken are focused on meeting the Clean Sky objectives which 
include novel and advanced technological concepts requiring full scale demonstration before 
being considered for deployment.  

(c) 

Recommendations to the Governing Board 

As a member of the Governing Board, the Commission agrees to review the level of decisions 
this body is called upon in order for it to focus on strategic decision and to conduct reviews of 
research  needs  and  policy  priorities,  when  necessary  with  the  involvement  of  Clean  Sky's 
Scientific  and  Technical  Advisory  Board  and/or  external  experts.  The  Commission  would 
support to the extent possible a revision of the delegations granted to the Executive Director 
to enable the Governing Board to focus on strategic decisions, leaving the daily management 
to  the  Executive  Director.  The  Executive  Director  should  be  fully  responsible  for  the 
implementation  of  the  budget,  within  the  boundaries  set  out  by  the  Annual  Implementation 
Plan as adopted by the Governing Board.  

In  particular,  the  Commission  supports  the  recommendation  of  the  panel  calling  for  an 
increase of staff levels to enable the Executive Team led by the Executive Director to fully 
exercise its coordinating and monitoring role. The Commission would welcome a proposal of 
the Executive Director on this point.  

The Commission understands the need for a contingency budget as underlined by the panel to 
cover  unforeseen  changes,  repairs  etc.  It  looks  forward  to  a  proposal  on  this  point  from  the 
Joint Undertaking, in line with the current Commission financial regulatory framework.  

The panel recommends introducing multi-annual grant agreements for the members of Clean 
Sky.  The  Commission  points  out  that  the  need  to  have  annual  amendment  to  the  grant 
agreements of the members derives from the availability of the Commission budget which is 
subject to the annuality principle governing the general budget of the European Union, as well 
as for practical reasons of accounting transparency. However, the Commission has recognised 
the  need  to  reduce  the  administrative  burden  which  arises  from  the  annual  grant  agreement 
cycle. In addition, after 2013, the Members' activities will already be covered by multi-annual 
grant agreements, as the end of FP7 will lead to a final commitment to cover all the remaining 
activities of the JU.  

(d) 

Recommendations to the Joint Undertaking  

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
The  Commission  agrees  that  a  number  of  streamlining  measures  should  be  put  in  place  in 
order  to  increase  the  effectiveness  and  control  capability  of  the  JU  over  technical  activities 
carried  out  by  members  and  partners.  It  notes  further  that  some  procedures  were  newly 
developed as Clean Sky is part of the first wave of JTIs being implemented, and considers that 
adequate  processes  and  tools  should  be  put  in  place  in  order  to  monitor  and  analyse  the 
strategic  achievements  of  Clean  Sky.  In  particular,  the  panel  recommends  a  number  of 
measures  to  be  implemented  to  ensure  that  all  objectives  are  reached  in  full,  including 
auditing  strategies  and  the  monitoring  of  roadmaps.  While  the  Commission  agrees  with  the 
aim  of  the  recommendation,  it  is  up  to  the  JU  to  respond  on  practical  issues  of 
implementation. 

The Commission agrees with the request of speedy and efficient implementation of the panel 
recommendations. 

The panel highlights the importance of proper communication both within and outside Clean 
Sky. The Commission agrees to this, and notes that a Communication strategy document has 
been prepared by the JU to that effect. 

Finally,  the  Commission  shares  the  panel's  opinion  that  the  Technology  Evaluator  has  a 
central role in Clean Sky, both technically and politically. It endorses the recommendation of 
raising the profile of the Technology Evaluator and agrees to a more proactive role for it at the 
later  stages  of  the  Clean  Sky  programme,  also  in  view  of  future  developments  of  the  JTI 
concept. 

(e) 

Recommendations to the Stakeholders 

The Commission notes that the panel highlights the need for streamlining technical activities 
in order to ensure reaching the Clean Sky targets. The Commission supports this view. It also 
supports  the  position  that  it  is  imperative  for  Clean  Sky  to  reach  its  objectives  in  full  as  a 
condition for developing further the JTI concept in the aviation domain.  

(f) 

Conclusions 

The  Commission  acknowledges  the  thorough  and  in-depth  work  carried  out  by  the  Interim 
Assessment panel. Its recommendations are valuable in order to identify and focus on specific 
areas  the  improvement  of  which  would  increase  the  effectiveness  of  the  Clean  Sky  JU 
programme.  

It is satisfied that the validity of the JTI approach is recognised by the panel and undertakes to 
implement corrective measures when appropriate within its powers of intervention and invites 
other bodies (JU, stakeholders, Governing Board members) to act accordingly. 

The recommendations are taken on board and, when it comes to operational aspects (mostly 
addressed to the JU), actions have been proposed and, when appropriate, a deadline identified. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
First interim evaluation of the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen 
Initiative 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This  section  highlights  the  findings,  recommendations  and  conclusions  of  the  first  interim 
evaluation of the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking (FCH JU) performed by a panel 
of independent experts. It also formulates the Commission’s initial response and position to 
the panel’s recommendations and proposes follow-up measures. 

2. 

BACKGROUND 

The  Seventh  Framework  Programme  (FP7)  for  research,  technological  development  and 
demonstration  activities,  the  European  Union  provides  for  a  financial  contribution  for  the 
establishment  of  long  term  public-private  partnerships  in  the  form  of  Joint  Technology 
Initiatives  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  JTI)  which  could  be  implemented  through  Joint 
Undertakings  within  the  meaning  of  Article  171  of  the  EC  Treaty  (now  Article  187  of  the 
TFEU) and defines specific criteria to identify them.  

The  Fuel  Cells  and  Hydrogen  Joint  Undertaking  (hereinafter  referred  as  FCH  JU)  was 
established via Council Regulation11. The FCH JU is a public-private partnership that has as 
members  the  European  Union  represented  by  the  European  Commission,  the  fuel  cell  and 
hydrogen  industries  represented  by  the  "NEW"  Industry  Grouping  and  the  research 
community represented by the "N.ERGHY" Research Grouping. Its main aim is to accelerate 
the  market  introduction  of  these  technologies,  realising  their  potential  as  an  instrument  in 
achieving a carbon-lean energy system.  

As for the other JTIs, the process of creation of the FCH JU was rather slow and complex due 
to the constraints and requirements arising from its status as a "Community body". The FCH 
JU became autonomous on 15th November 2010, when it reached the operational capacity to 
implement its own budget. During the period May 2008 - November 2010, the responsibility 
for managing the FCH JU was with the European Commission.  

Three  annual  calls  for  proposals  have  already  been  completed  up  to  date  and  a  balanced 
portfolio  of  projects  has  been  selected.  Those  from  the  first  two  calls  for  proposals  (44 
projects already on-going) will receive grants for a cumulative value of ~ 100 million Euros, 
engaging  some  250  different  partners.  The  negotiations  for  projects  of  the  2010  call  for 
proposals (estimated 43 grants for a value of ~ 89 million Euros) should be completed by the 
end  of  July  2011.  The  2011  call  was  published  on  3rd  of  May  2011.  Consequently,  the 
operational delivery of the FCH JU to date is as originally planned.  

On  April  20th  2011,  the  Commission  adopted  a  draft  proposal  for  amending  the  Council 
Regulation (EC) N° 521/2008.This amendment recognises the important role of the Research 
grouping and the research community and at the same time will allow to better align the FCH 

11 

Council Regulation (EC) No 521/2008 of 30 May 2008 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
JU  maximum  funding  rates  to  those  of  FP7  making  them  more  predictable  and  competitive 
than at present. 

3. 

CONDUCT OF THE EVALUATION 

The objective of this evaluation was to assess the effectiveness, efficiency and quality of the 
FCH JU operations, both with regard to the Joint Undertaking and its operating bodies and the 
technical activities carried out by its members and project participants. In particular, emphasis 
was put on the progress of the FCH JU towards its objectives as set up in article 2 of the FCH 
JU  Regulation.  To  this  end,  the  Commission  invited  a  panel  of  independent  experts12  to 
produce a final report based on the review of evidence obtained from the background material 
procured  by  the  Commission  and,  mainly,  from  interviewing  a  representative  group  of 
selected stakeholders. 

The experts' evaluation was undertaken between mid-December 2010 and mid-April 2011, i.e. 
in  the  first  few  months  of  the  FCH  JU  autonomous  operation.  During  this  time  the 
Commission  services  provided  the  necessary  secretarial  assistance  to  the  expert  panel.  The 
background  material  procured  by  the  Commission  for  this  evaluation  consisted  inter  alia  of 
legal,  financial  and  other  documents  related  to  the  setting  up  the  FCH  JU,  technical  and 
annual reports, minutes of meetings, and information and statistics on calls for proposals and 
projects.  The  main  evidence  base  was  obtained  through  interviews  carried  out  with  a 
representative and balanced group of people covering the whole spectrum of stakeholders of 
the FCH JU. 

4. 

THE EVALUATION RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The  primary  outcome  of  the  experts'  report  is  that  the  "FCH  JU  should  be  maintained  and 
supported  to  implement  its  work  as  originally  envisaged".  However,  the  experts  have  also 
identified a number of issues and problems encountered by the FCH JU as well as some areas 
where  its  operation  could  be  improved,  and  they  had  made  a  number  of  specific 
recommendations to this end. 

First of all, the report states that the establishment of the FCH JU as an industry-led public-
private  partnership  (PPP)  is  an  achievement  in  its  own  right  and  represents  a  valuable 
instrument  for  the  European  Union.  It  is  considered  a  unique  platform  and  instrument  at 
European  level  involving  the  most  important  stakeholders  in  defining  objectives  and 
implementing  and  monitoring  activities  towards  deployment  of  fuel  cells  and  hydrogen 
technologies. The evaluation found also that the overall technical objectives of the FCH JU as 
defined in the Multi-Annual Implementation Plan (MAIP) remain ambitious and competitive 
in comparison with efforts  world-wide. It concluded that the FCH  JU  approach is generally 

12 

The  expert  panel  consisted  of  the  following  members:  Elisabet  Fjermestad  Hagen  (Chair)  (NO), 
formerly  Director  for  business  development  of  new  energy  markets  of  Norsk  Hydro  ASA;  John 
Loughhead  (Rapporteur)  (UK),  Executive  Director  of  the  UK  Energy  Research  Centre;  Dr.  Jens 
Rostrup-Nielsen  (DK),  formerly  Executive  Vice  President  (R&D)  at  Haldor  Topsøe  A/S  and  adjunct 
professor  at  the  Technical  University  of  Denmark;  Maria  Rosaria  Di  Nucci  (IT),  Associate  senior 
research fellow at the Environmental Policy Research Centre of the Freie Universität Berlin; Ana Sofia 
Caires  Branco  (PT),  Technology  Transfer  expert  having  worked  in  several  energy  and  transport 
agencies and research centres (e.g. AREAM, CIDAUT; Prof. Manfred Horvat (AT), Vienna University 
of Technology. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
regarded as a good mean to enhance public-private activities in the field and perceived as an 
improvement to the research landscape.  

However, the experts consider that the set-up of the FCH JU took too long and conclude that 
the current legal framework as a “Community/Union body” is not best-suited to industry led 
public-private  partnerships  like  JTIs  and  should  be  streamlined.  They  also  highlight  that 
funding  rates  for  FCH  JU  projects  have  proved  variable  from  year  to  year  and,  in  addition, 
always  considerably  lower  than  those  of  FP7.  Other  expressed  concerns  requiring  due 
attention  are  the  inadequate  resources  of  the  Programme  Office  for  effective  project 
monitoring and management, the insufficient cohesion and collaboration with Member States’ 
related  programmes  and,  the  lack  of  a  formal  communications  plan  and  an  international 
cooperation strategy.  

In  order  to  address  the  different  issues  and  difficulties  identified  in  the  report,  the  experts' 
panel  makes  a  series  of  recommendations  that  aim  to  remove  or  reduce  weaknesses  as 
identified  in  the  current  operations  of  the  FCH  JU  and  to  improve  its  effectiveness  and 
quality. The recommendations have been grouped in five broad categories: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

Reinforce portfolio management 

Ensure high agility of operations and adaptability to changing competitive forces  

Improve visibility, communication and outreach 

Improve collaboration and alignment with Member States  

Ensure high efficiency of operations 

The position and response of  the Commission  to these recommendations  is  presented in  the 
following section. 

5. 

PLANNED FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS 

In  general,  the  Commission  agrees  with  the  panel  overall  views  and  conclusions  as  well  as 
with most of the specific recommendations. The Commission is committed to address its part 
of the recommendations and to work together with the other FCH JU stakeholders and bodies 
to treat the recommendations addressed to them. The Commission will undertake: 

Short-term actions affecting the operational aspects of the FCH JU in the period 2011-2013; 
and 

Longer-term  actions  of  relevance  for  the  potential  next  generation  of  PPPs  within  the 
Innovation Union initiative launched to address the Europe 2020 strategy. 

The Commission notes the positive opinion of the panel on the FCH JU concept, in spite of 
the  difficulties  encountered  and  the  issues  identified.  It  also  agrees  that  the  potential 
continuation  of  the  FCH  JU,  or  an  equivalent  initiative,  in  a  new  phase  of  EU  support 
following FP7 should be further reviewed at a later date. 

5.1. 

Group of Recommendations 1: "Reinforce portfolio management" 

5.1.1.  The  Commission  acknowledges  the  panel  comment  on  the  need  for  a  thorough 
review  and  update  of  the  Multi  Annual  Implementation  Plan  (MAIP)  before  the 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
production of the Annual Implementation plan (AIP) for 2012. However, it notes that 
such a revision is currently on going with a final version of the document expected in 
the  third  quarter  of  2011.  It  also  notes  that  the  Commission  lead  service  for  the 
Technologies Information System (SETIS) has committed to produce a methodology 
for reviewing and testing the correlation between the project targets and the overall 
achievement of objectives and to contribute to the development of a roadmap for fuel 
cell and hydrogen technologies extending up to 2020. 

5.1.2.  The  Commission  is  also  aware  that  breakthroughs  are  needed  for  hydrogen 
production, storage and distribution and that the FCH JU current projects portfolio is 
light on this critical area. However, it notes that in the AIP 2011 a higher share of the 
funding is foreseen for this Application Area. The Commission will oversee that this 
is also the trend for AIPs 2012 and 2013. The FCH JU programme should also look 
at synergies between hydrogen and renewable electricity and integrated infrastructure 
solutions  for  fuel  cell  and  battery  electric  vehicles  (FCVs,  BEVs).  Also  quality 
manufacturing methods should be considered. 

5.1.3.  The  Commission  agrees  that  the  priorities  for  Regulations,  Codes  and  Standards 
(RCS)  should  be  formulated  by  industry.  The  Commission  also  agrees  on  the 
relevance  of  RCS  to  accelerate  the  introduction  of  fuel  cell  and  hydrogen 
technologies  in  the  market  and  feels  that  it  is  an  area  where  more  effort  and 
coordination with international partners are needed. 

5.1.4.  The Commission fully agrees that the structure and composition of the annual calls 
for  proposals  should  explicitly  support  the  objectives  of  the  FCH  JU.  The 
Programme Office should make sure that the call topics and subsequent projects are 
wholly  in  response  to  challenges  identified  as  arising  from  the  FCH  JU  objectives 
and  this  aspect  should  prevail  over  specific  industrial  interests  and/or  established 
competences  of  specialised  expert  communities.  To  that  end,  the  Commission 
advices  the  Executive  Director  to  make  sure  that  the  Project  Managers  of  the  FCH 
JU get involved early in the process of elaborating the Annual Implementation Plans. 

5.1.5.  The  Commission  recognises  that  basic  research  seeking  radical  innovation  is  not 
sufficiently addressed in the FCH JU Annual Implementation Plans and notes that it 
has  already  raised  this  point  to  the  Governing  Board.  The  Commission  feels  that 
complementary  support  to  this  kind  of  research  could  be  explored  through  the 
"Future and Emerging Technologies" calls of the FP7 energy theme. The agreement 
of the Energy Programme Committee will be sought to that end. 

5.2. 

Group  of  Recommendations  2:  "Ensure  high  agility  of  operations  and 
adaptability to changing competitive forces" 

5.2.1.  The Commission agrees that all stakeholders of the value chain should be involved in 
the  FCH  JU.  In  particular,  the  role  of  Regions  and  Municipalities  (through 
“HyRaMP”) should be enhanced. Furthermore, the Executive Director could explore 
potential  links  with  the  financial  sector -  especially  EIB  and  Venture  Capital 
community  -  as  well  as  trade  associations  for  industry  users  and  various  potential 
consumer bodies. 

5.2.2.  The  Commission  agrees  with  the  panel  that  the  establishment  of  an  SME  contact 
point  at  the  Programme  Office  would  facilitate  participation  of  SMEs  in  product 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
development  and  early  markets  projects  and  encourages  the  Executive  Director  to 
provide the necessary means and resources to that end. 

5.2.3.  The  Commission  commits  to  work  together  with  the  FCH  JU  to  explore 
opportunities  for  complementarity  between  fuel  cell  and  battery  electric  vehicles 
(FCVs, BEVs) in the market place. The recent report on automotive applications “A 
portfolio of power-trains for Europe: a fact-based analysis” performed by McKinsey 
could  be  used  as  the  guidance  document.  The  relevant  Commission  Services,  the 
Programme  Office  and  the  Industry  Grouping  should  take  the  necessary  steps  in 
order to explore these opportunities. 

5.2.4.  The  Commission  recognises  the  need  for  a  strategy  to  strengthen  the  development 
plans  for  stationary  applications  in  a  similar  way  to  what  has  been  done  for 
automotive  applications  (i.e.  the  above-mentioned  “McKinsey  report  “).  However, 
the  Commission  notes  that  a  public  procurement  for  a  contract  to  establish  an 
independent fact base for fuel cell technology in stationary applications as well as a 
European based roll out plan is foreseen in the FCH JU Annual Implementation Plan 
2011. 

5.3. 

Group  of  Recommendations  3:  "Improve  visibility,  communication  and 
outreach" 

5.3.1.  & 

5.3.2.  The  Commission  acknowledges  the  need  for  an  effective  communication  strategy 
and dissemination plan both within and outside the FCH JU in order to increase the 
"visibility" of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies identified by the panel. However, 
it  notes  the  positive  steps  already  taken  since  the  appointment  of  the  "Policy  and 
Communications Officer" and the "Stakeholder Relationship Manager", which have 
resulted inter alia in the development of a new website and in the first draft of a FCH 
JU Communication (internal and external) strategy. The Commission also welcomes 
the proposal of the Programme Office of linking the Stakeholders General Assembly 
with  the  review  of  all  FP7  ongoing  projects  on  FCH  and  will  contribute  to  the 
definition of a suitable approach. 

5.3.3.  The  Commission  agrees  with  the  panel  recommendation  to  best  involve  the  States 
Representatives Group in the FCH JU communication and outreach activities. 

5.3.4.  The panel's views that an appropriate strategy and priorities should be developed and 
agreed for international cooperation are also shared by the Commission. The FCH JU 
should  be  able  to  define  the  level  of  international  engagement  or  participation 
required  to  support  the  achievement  of  its  programme  objectives,  building  on 
previous  experiences.  Existing  cooperation  schemes  such  as  the  International 
Partnership  for  Hydrogen  and  Fuels  Cells  in  the  Economy  (IPHE)  and  the  EU-EU 
Energy  Council  should  continue  with  an  increasing  support  of  the  Programme 
Office. 

5.3.5.  The  different  services  of  the  Commission  involved  in  the  activities  of  the  FCH  JU 
should coordinate their effort to ensure that the outputs from the FCH JU projects are 
integrated  into,  and  used  to  support  to  the  relevant  EU  policies,  particularly  those 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
stemming from the EU 2020 Strategy such as the "Innovation Union" and "Resource 
efficient Europe" Flagship Initiatives. 

5.4. 

Group  of  Recommendations  3:  "Improve  collaboration  and  alignment  with 
Member States" 

5.4.1.  & 

5.4.2.  The Commission takes note of the panel's view that the States Representatives Group 
(SRG)  needs  to  significantly  improve  the  interaction  and  coordination  between  the 
activities  of  the  FCH  JU  and  the  Member  States’  programmes.  To  that  end,  the 
Commission agrees that the profile of the SRG members needs to be revised so that 
they are connected directly to their domestic policy and programme delivery and able 
to identify opportunities for alignment of national activities to those of the FCH JU. 
The Commission also recognises the need to further involve the SRG members in the 
activities of the FCH JU.  

5.4.3.  The  Commission  fully  supports  the  panel  recommendation  to  explore  joint  funding 
schemes  between  FCH  JU  and  Member  States,  in  particular,  the  FCH  JU  should 
consider  using  some  of  the  funding  mechanisms  currently  being  tested  by  some  of 
the  European  Industry  Initiatives  (EIIs)  of  the  SET  Plan.  The  mapping  exercise 
currently being performed by the responsible Commission service is considered as an 
important first step. 

5.5. 

Group of Recommendations 5: "Ensure high efficiency of operations" 

5.5.1.  The  Commission  acknowledges  the  panel's  general  view  that  the  current  legal 
framework  as  a  Community/Union  body  is  not  best-suited  to  industry  led  public-
private  partnerships  like  JTIs  and  notes  the  panel's  support  to  the  related 
recommendations of the JTI’s Sherpa Group. In addition, the Commission recognises 
that  the  resources  for  project  management  and  monitoring  might  have  to  be 
strengthened  and  agrees  that  the  possibility  of  sharing  resources  for  required 
administrative  functions  between  the  different  JUs  to  reduce  costs  is  worth  to  be 
considered.  The  Commission  would  welcome  proposals  from  the  Executive 
Directors on these points.  

5.5.2.  The  Commission  takes  note  of  the  panel's  view  that  interaction  and  exchange 
between  projects  should  be  promoted  and  that  the  planned  Stakeholder  General 
Assemblies  will  include  the  review  of  all  FP7  on-going  projects  (see  position  on 
recommendations R3.1 and R3.2 above). However, the Commission underlines that 
all FCH JU projects are still at their early stages. 

5.5.3.  The  Commission  recognises  the  need  for  the  establishment  of  a  robust  system  for 
project monitoring and assessment. However, it notes that a proposal received in the 
call  2010  for  the  development  of  a  framework  for  technology  monitoring  and 
assessments  (TMA)  is  currently  being  negotiated  and,  if  successful,  could  provide 
the necessary tools for assessing progress of projects and of the programme.  

5.5.4.  The  Commission  acknowledges  the  need  to  establish  international  benchmarking 
against comparable schemes in order to help guide targets for the selection of future 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
projects.  The  TMA  framework,  to  be  developed  in  the  above-mentioned  proposal, 
should provide the necessary tool also to that endeavour. 

6. 

CONCLUSIONS 

The Commission acknowledges the thorough and in-depth work carried out by the Evaluation 
Panel  and  is  satisfied  that  the  panel  recognises  the  validity  of  the  JTI  approach.  It  also 
appreciates the positive views about the future prospects of the FCH JU.  

The  Panel  recommendations  are  considered  very  valuable  for  removing  or  at  least  reducing 
weaknesses  identified  in  the  current  operations  of  the  FCH  JU  and  for  improving  its 
effectiveness and efficiency.  

The  Commission  undertakes  to  implement  corrective  measures  when  appropriate  within  its 
powers of intervention. It also commits to work together with the other FCH JU stakeholders 
and bodies to address the recommendations appropriately. 

EN 

21 

   EN