COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION on the Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking
Date: 2013-07-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Joint Undertaking, air transport, greenhouse gas, intelligent transport system, pollution control measures, public-private partnership, sustainable development













EUR-Lex - 52013SC0257 - EN











|



52013SC0257

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION on the Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking /* SWD/2013/0257 final */









TABLE OF CONTENTS
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT
ASSESSMENT Error! Bookmark not
defined.
1........... Procedural Issues and
Consultation of Interested Parties.................................................. 5
1.1........ Background in the development of
the legislative proposal............................................... 5
1.2........ Organisation and timing................................................................................................... 6
1.3........ Consultation of the Impact
Assessment Board (IAB)....................................................... 6
1.4........ Impact Assessment Inter-service
Steering Group (ISG)................................................... 6
1.5........ Consultation and expertise.............................................................................................. 7
1.6........ Main stakeholder views on future
policy options.............................................................. 7
2........... Problem Definition.......................................................................................................... 8
2.1........ Policy background.......................................................................................................... 8
2.1.1..... Aviation in the EU context............................................................................................... 8
2.1.2..... Clean Sky Joint Undertaking........................................................................................... 8
2.1.3..... Smart, Green and Integrated
transport challenge under Horizon 2020.............................. 9
2.2........ What are the problems.................................................................................................... 9
2.2.1..... Aviation's environmental impact is
growing...................................................................... 9
2.2.2..... EU Industrial leadership is
threaten by increasing international competition...................... 12
2.2.3..... Current EU Public-Private
Partnership in aeronautics needs improvements..................... 12
2.3........ What are the challenges................................................................................................ 13
2.3.1..... The aviation should reduce its
future environmental impact............................................. 13
2.3.2..... European aeronautics' sector
should remain a global leader............................................ 13
2.4........ Improving the environmental
performance of aeronautics technologies is an extremely complex and long
process.................................................................................................................................... 14
2.4.1..... Regulatory measures alone are not
sufficient.................................................................. 15
2.4.2..... Aeronautics sector cannot rely
solely on market mechanisms.......................................... 16
2.5........ EU level intervention brings
added value........................................................................ 16
2.6........ Clean Sky achievements and need
for improved framework........................................... 17
2.6.1..... Clean Sky attracts wide
participation............................................................................. 18
2.6.2..... Clean Sky provides already first
technical results........................................................... 18
2.6.3..... Clean Sky is on the track to
achieve its environmental objectives.................................... 19
2.6.4..... Challenges with respect to
operations and implementation.............................................. 19
2.6.5..... Challenges with respect to
complexity and cost-effectiveness......................................... 20
2.7........ Baseline scenario.......................................................................................................... 21
3........... Objectives.................................................................................................................... 21
3.1........ Overall objective.......................................................................................................... 22
3.2........ Specific objectives........................................................................................................ 22
3.3........ Operational objectives.................................................................................................. 23
3.4........ Objectives relation to the
problem statement.................................................................. 23
4........... Policy Options.............................................................................................................. 24
4.1........ Discarded options......................................................................................................... 24
4.1.1..... No EU funding option................................................................................................... 24
4.1.2..... Regulatory option......................................................................................................... 25
4.1.3..... No Public-Private Partnership....................................................................................... 25
4.2........ Business-as-usual option............................................................................................... 25
4.3........ Contractual PPP option................................................................................................ 26
4.4........ Improved JTI JU option................................................................................................ 26
4.5........ Analysis of the options.................................................................................................. 27
4.5.1..... Methodology................................................................................................................ 28
5........... Analysing the Impacts................................................................................................... 28
5.1........ Critical mass................................................................................................................. 28
5.2........ Small and Medium Size Enterprises............................................................................... 29
5.3........ Leverage effect............................................................................................................. 29
5.4........ Coherence.................................................................................................................... 30
5.4.1..... Coherence with Member State Programmes.................................................................. 30
5.5........ Innovation Impact......................................................................................................... 30
5.6........ Environmental Impacts.................................................................................................. 31
5.7........ Economic Impacts........................................................................................................ 32
5.7.1..... Macro-economic impact............................................................................................... 32
5.7.2..... Competitiveness........................................................................................................... 32
5.8........ Social Impact............................................................................................................... 33
5.9........ Cost effectiveness......................................................................................................... 34
5.9.1..... Cost neutrality and JTI JUs as
effective means to achieve goals...................................... 34
5.9.2..... Possible improvements - efficiency................................................................................ 34
5.9.3..... Possible improvements -
effectiveness........................................................................... 35
6........... Comparing the Options................................................................................................. 35
6.1........ Comparison of the options............................................................................................ 35
6.2........ Preferred option........................................................................................................... 36
6.2.1..... Scope.......................................................................................................................... 37
6.2.2..... Structure...................................................................................................................... 38
6.2.3..... Budget......................................................................................................................... 38
6.2.4..... Governance and organisation........................................................................................ 39
7........... Evaluation and Monitoring............................................................................................. 40
7.1........ Measurement of progress.............................................................................................. 41
7.1.1..... Evaluation levels........................................................................................................... 41
7.1.2..... Technical monitoring and
evaluation............................................................................... 41
7.1.3..... Managerial monitoring................................................................................................... 41
7.1.4..... Financial monitoring...................................................................................................... 42
Annex I: Results from the public consultation
on the preparation of the Clean Sky Joint Technology Initiative under Horizon
2020.......................................................................................................................................... 43
Annex II: European aviation key figures....................................................................................... 55
Annex III : Summary of the cost-benefit
analysis of JU................................................................. 59
Annex IV: Executive summary of the
preliminary report of the Impact Assessment Expert Group.. 60
Annex V: Technology Readiness Levels (TRL)............................................................................ 62
Annex VI: Clean Sky.................................................................................................................. 64
Annex VII: List of Clean Sky Demonstrators
per ITD.................................................................. 66
Annex VIII: Statistics on Clean Sky calls..................................................................................... 70
Annex IX: Product Timeline Assumptions.................................................................................... 72
Annex X: Impact Assessment board opinion................................................................................ 73
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Accompanying the document
Proposal for a
COUNCIL REGULATION
on the Clean Sky 2 Joint
Undertaking 

1.           Procedural
Issues and Consultation of Interested Parties
1.1.        Background
in the development of the legislative proposal
1.           Decision No 1982/2006/EC
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning
the Seventh Framework Programme, provides basis for a Community contribution to
the establishment of long term public private partnerships in the form of Joint
Technology Initiatives. 
2.           In 2008, Council
Regulation (EC) 71/2008 established the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking, a Public
Private Partnership (PPP) between the European Commission and the Aeronautics
Industry for a period up to 31 December 2017 with a budget of €1.6 billion,
equally shared between European Commission and the European aeronautics industry.
3.           The White Paper “Roadmap
to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a Competitive and Resource
Efficient Transport System”[1]
stipulates that joint European efforts will bring the greatest European added
value in areas such as clean, safe and silent vehicles for all different modes
of transport, from road vehicles to ships, barges, rolling stock in rail and
aircraft.
4.           The Commission Communication
"Partnering in Research and Innovation"[2] indicates that the partnering
approach in PPP can help to address major societal challenges and strengthen Europe's competitive position by making the R&I cycle more efficient and shortening the
time from research to market. It can also contribute to environmental and
resource efficiency objectives. When the necessary commitment to partnering
exists, Europe can excel in science and technology and achieve critical mass.
5.           The Commission's proposal
for "Horizon 2020"[3]
provides a legislative basis for future EU PPPs in Research and Innovation. It
stipulates that "Horizon 2020" may be implemented through PPP where
all the partners concerned commit to support the development and implementation
of research and innovation activities of strategic importance to the Union's competitiveness and industrial leadership or to address specific societal
challenges.
6.           According to the proposal,
the PPP shall be identified based on the following criteria:
(a)         
the added value of action at Union level;
(b)         
the scale of impact on industrial
competitiveness, sustainable growth and socio-economic issues;
(c)         
the long-term commitment from all partners based
on a shared vision and clearly defined objectives;
(d)         
the scale of the resources involved and the
ability to leverage additional investments in research and innovation;
(e)         
a clear definition of roles for each of the
partners and agreed key performance indicators over the period chosen.
7.           The Commission's proposal
presents also a common set of rules for all initiatives supported under
"Horizon 2020" in order to simplify participation, while leaving the
necessary flexibility for individual initiatives to achieve their objectives,
as well as ensure complementarity between the two Common Strategic Frameworks,
for Research and Innovation and for Cohesion.
1.2.        Organisation
and timing
8.           The present IA has been
conducted including the following steps: 
·              
Preparing a detailed roadmap and consultation
plan.
·              
Setting up an inter-service Steering Group (ISG)
in June 2012, to oversee the process (section 1.4).
·              
Setting up an independent expert panel in June
2012 to carry out an analysis of the current progress and assess the possible
ways forward (section 1.5).
·              
Consulting interested parties through an open
public consultation which ran from 11 July to 4 October 2012 (section 1.5).
·              
Setting up a hearing with the wider stakeholders’
community on the proposal for the Clean Sky extension in September 2012.
1.3.        Consultation
of the Impact Assessment Board (IAB)
9.           The Commission Impact
Assessment Board was consulted in February 2013 and following its opinion the
present IA report was revised as follows. First the problem definition text was
shortened and focused on the lessons learned from the current initiative.
Second, the objectives were revised and its reasoning explained better. Third, the
options analysis section was strengthened and its comparison was supported
better by quantitative analysis. The difference between the options in terms of
timing, effectiveness and efficiency was better presented. Finally, critical
opinions of different groups of stakeholders were analysed and addressed[4].
1.4.        Impact Assessment Inter-service Steering Group (ISG)
10.         This Impact Assessment was
elaborated by DG RTD. In this context, a Commission Inter-Service Steering Group
(ISG) has been created in June 2012. It included DG MOVE, DG ENV, DG ENTR, DG
ENER, DG CLIMA, DG COMP, SG, DG BUDG and Legal Service. Meetings have been held
for all major steps in the development of the initiative. In relation to this
Impact Assessment, the ISG met on June 8th 2012, July 20th
2012, September 20th 2012 and November 22nd 2012. The
last IASG meeting took place on December 12th 2012.
1.5.        Consultation and expertise
11.         All stakeholders and
enlarged community of industry actors were consulted through a public,
web-based consultation conducted between July, 11th and October, 4th
2012 with 91 responses received (see Annex I for more detail). Additionally,
individual position papers were issued by the main stakeholder associations
(e.g. EREA of research organisations, EASN of universities, Member States and
Associate States groups).
12.         A hearing with the wider
stakeholders’ community on the proposal for the Clean Sky extension was
organised at a seminar at the ILA Air show on 12th of September 2012 in Berlin. The seminar conclusions and different opinions voiced are included in the public
consultation report. 
13.         In addition, an independent
expert panel was established by the European Commission with the objective to
review the current progress and assess the possible ways forward. The expert
panel included 5 experts in aeronautics, large EU programme management, as well
as experts with socio-economic background and their report has supported the
drafting of this Impact Assessment[5].
1.6.        Main
stakeholder views on future policy options
14.         The key messages received from
the actors during the public consultation were[6]:
Stakeholders, in
general, underline the relevance of the aeronautics industry in addressing
societal challenges in transport and the importance of the Aeronautical R&D
to Europe in an increasingly competitive global market. Strengthen R&D
infrastructure and associated skill base is considered as the key factor to
achieve required technology advances necessary to support the sector. They
stress the fact that it is impossible for the EU aeronautics sector to rely
solely on market mechanisms to achieve major innovations. They highlight that
public support is essential at all levels and consider appropriate to set up a
Public Private Partnership in aeronautics under Horizon 2020.
Member States and public authorities consider
that the Clean Sky JTI is proving to be a very effective and efficient
instrument to mature and demonstrate promising greening technologies and
innovations and they are supportive of the preparation of a future JTI within
the coming Framework Programme Horizon 2020 while improving further and
increasing the openness of Clean Sky activities.
Research Establishments consider that the Clean Sky Joint Technology Initiative has proven
to be an important and efficient instrument for demonstration and are
supportive to its continuation under Horizon 2020. 
Universities
find positive the overall experience from the participation of academic
institutions in Clean Sky and support its succession.
2.           Problem
Definition
2.1.        Policy
background
2.1.1.     Aviation
in the EU context
15.         The aviation sector is at
the heart of the Europe 2020 strategy and its flagship initiatives including
Innovation Union[7], an Industrial Policy for the Globalisation Era[8] and Resource Efficient Europe[9]. It has
an important role to play in the further integration and growth of the enlarged
EU and in the life of EU citizens being at the same time an important element
in the reduction of the green-house emissions. 
16.         The White Paper “Roadmap to
a Single European Transport Area – Towards a Competitive and Resource Efficient
Transport System”[10]
proposes concrete initiatives for the next decades aiming at, amongst others,
increasing mobility and cutting carbon emissions. New technologies for vehicles
and traffic management are recognized with high potential to lower transport
emissions. At the same time, European Union launched the European Union
Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) with the objective to limit the amount of
certain greenhouse gases and airlines will join the scheme. The aviation is
also an important part of the EU Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon
economy in 2050[11].
17.         In parallel, recognising
the evolving challenges facing the aviation sector, in 2011, the High Level
Group on Aviation Research, established by the Commission, produced a new
vision "Flightpath 2050"[12] for
aviation following the objectives of Europe 2020 and of the Transport White
Paper. This vision was developed in common agreement between major private and
public players in the aviation sector in Europe in order to address the
environmental and competitiveness challenges and proposes ambitious goals for a
sustainable and competitive aviation sector for 2050. It is complemented by a new
Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda (SRIA) of the ACARE (the Advisory
Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe) and will guide and support future
actions in public and private funding programmes along the common roadmap all
over Europe.
2.1.2.     Clean
Sky Joint Undertaking
18.         In 2008, the Clean Sky
Joint Undertaking, a Public Private Partnership between the European Commission
and the aeronautics industry, was established by Council Regulation (EC)
71/2008 for a period up to 31 December 2017. Its main objective is to develop
environmental friendly technologies impacting all flying segments of commercial
aviation, in order to contribute to the ACARE 2020 targets for reduction of
emissions and noise in air transport in Europe. Clean Sky Joint Technology
Initiative is a European research programme with a budget of € 1.6 billion,
equally shared between the European Commission and the aeronautics industry,
over the period 2008 – 2017[13].

19.         In the Clean Sky programme
12 industry lekoaders, 74 associated members and more than 400 partners – out of
which more than 40% are SMEs – are working together in a number of technology
domains to address the common environmental objectives and to demonstrate and
validate the required technology breakthroughs. All those technology domains
have been integrated into 6 Integrated Technology Demonstrators (ITD) and a
Technology Evaluator programme assessing the performance of the technologies
developed under Clean Sky. Detailed description of the programme and the
technical aspects is provided in Annex VI of this document.
2.1.3.     Smart,
Green and Integrated transport challenge under Horizon 2020
20.         On 30 November 2011, the European
Commission adopted the proposal for Horizon 2020, the new framework programme
for research and innovation for 2014-2020[14].
The Societal Challenges pillar of the proposal includes the Smart, Green and Integrated
Transport challenge which focusses mainly on three overarching objectives:
resource efficiency, better mobility, global leadership for the European
transport industry. These objectives are in line with the challenges the
European aviation sector is facing. 
21.         The Commission proposal for
Horizon 2020 underlines also the added value of achieving critical mass through
partnering, and foresees greater impact of EU funding by combining Horizon 2020
and private sector funds within public-private partnerships in key areas. These
partnerships, in particular in the form of Joint Technology Initiatives (JTIs),
move away from the traditional case-by-case public funding of projects approach
towards large scale research programmes dedicated to common strategic research
targets. According to the proposal, JTIs launched under FP7 “may be continued
using more fit-for-purpose structures”[15]. The Clean
Sky JU is explicitly mentioned as one of the initiatives for which further
support may be provided under Horizon 2020[16]. This
added value is supported also by the Commission Communication "Partnering
in Research and Innovation" which indicates that the partnering approach
in PPP can help to address major societal challenges and strengthen Europe's competitive position.
2.2.        What
are the problems
2.2.1.     Aviation's
environmental impact is growing
22.         Aviation[17] is an important sector for the European economy and society[18] but it
contributes to climate change because aircraft release
carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) through the burning
of fuels. Aircraft noise is also an important environmental issue, in
particular for population close to airport areas and under the main arrival and
departure tracks. 
23.         In 2009, the CO2
emissions from the aviation sector were about 7% of all the emissions produced
by the transport sector and around 2% of total CO2 emissions in the
world[19]. Its share is growing rapidly (by 87% between 1990 and 2006[20]) and the overall impact of aviation is estimated to be greater than
Figure 1 indicates. On the other hand, due to the electrification of road
transport, the share
of aviation is expected to increase to 20-30% from all transport CO2 emissions in 2050[21].
Figure 1: Global man-made CO2
emissions
24.         Over the last 30 years the
aviation industry has reduced its environmental footprint threefold and is
working actively to reduce it further (see Figure 2). An aircraft today produces 70% less CO2
than its equivalent 50 years ago and is 75% quieter than 30 years ago. This
tendency is also kept for the future with International Civil Aviation
Organisation (ICAO) targets including a global annual average fuel efficiency
improvement of 2% until 2020 and an aspirational goal to continue improvement
at this rate to 2050. Figure 2 shows the reduction of the aircraft energy
intensity leading to reduction of CO2 emissions for the different
models over the last decades. 
Figure 2: Energy intensity of
aircraft. Source IEA (2009)
25.         Aircraft noise technology
has also significantly improved over the last 40 years[22]. Today, several techniques are
used in order to reduce the aircraft noise and its impact including use of new
technologies and improved flight procedures[23].
As an example, the "noise footprint[24]"
of the Airbus A300, introduced in 1974 is 4.17 km², whereas for the upcoming
A350, it is anticipated to be in the 1-2 km² area. The next figure illustrates
the technological advancement in terms of noise reduction over the last 50
years by plotting the cumulative aircraft noise relative to the ICAO Noise
Standards[25]
in effective perceived noise level expressed in decibels (EPNdB[26]) by year. The aircraft are
grouped by engine bypass ratio (BPR), a key driver of overall aircraft noise.
Figure 3: Progress made in noise
reduction at source since implementation of aircraft noise Standards - by
engine bypass ratio (source ICAO, ICCAIA 2008)
26.         Despite all the
improvements in reducing the environmental impact of aviation, it is still growing
due to the growth of the air traffic. According to the EUROCONTROL forecast,
flights in Europe in 2030 will be 1.8 times more than in 2009, with an average
growth of 2.8% per year in the ‘most-likely’ scenario. This growth will be even
stronger outside of Europe with the global expected traffic growth estimated to
be 4.8% annually over the next 20 years[27]. The next figure shows the
increase of the world air traffic in revenue passenger kilometres (RPK[28]) since 1970 and provides an
estimate until 2030.
Figure 4: World annual air
traffic, 1970-2030 (source Airbus, ICAO)
2.2.2.     EU Industrial
leadership is threaten by increasing international competition
27.         Today, the European
aeronautics sector is one of the world leaders in terms of production, employment
and exports. In 2010 Europe was the clear leader in terms of the number of
transactions announced and Airbus, with revenues of US$36.6 billion in 2009, is
the leader in the large commercial aircraft segment, closely followed by Boeing [29]. In the civil helicopter market, Europe is the global leader with
players such as Eurocopter and Agusta Westland. 
28.         The
world’s fleet of passenger aircraft with more than 100 seats is expected to
grow from 15,000 at the beginning of 2011 to nearly 31,500 by 203027
and the business jet deliveries will reach 24,000[30]. At
the same time, the global market will require 149,000 engines to be delivered over
the 20 year period from 2012-2031 worth around US$975 billion[31].
29.         Despite this leadership,
the European aeronautics sector evolves in a complex international environment
and the EU aeronautics industry is increasingly confronted with strong
international competition from traditional or emerging competitors. 
30.         The US aviation industry is one of the main global competitors and US government strongly invests in
aeronautics R&D. Today, the large commercial aircraft segment is marked by
fierce rivalry between two players, Airbus and Boeing. 
31.         In the longer term, this
duopoly is bound to be challenged as other actors and new entrants invest in
development programmes - most notably Bombardier (Canada), Embraer (Brazil), Commercial Aircraft Company of China (COMAC China), and Sukhoi Civil Aircraft Company (SCAC
Russia) as well as new competitors from Japan. 
32.         Annex II provides more
detailed description on the international competition on the aeronautics sector.
2.2.3.     Current
EU Public-Private Partnership in aeronautics needs improvements
33.         Given the specificities of
the aeronautics sector, new developments require a scale of effect and
continuity of purpose and often depend on effective cooperation between the
public and the private sector. Therefore the decision concerning the FP7
‘Cooperation’ specific programme identified certain aspects of the research
agenda in aeronautics and air transport as requiring a Joint Technology
Initiative[32]
and resulted in establishing the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking (JU).
34.         Since its establishment,
the Clean Sky JU is successfully stimulating developments towards the strategic
environmental targets as confirmed also by the expert panel of the interim
evaluation of Clean Sky in 2010[33]. In
2010, the independent experts, performing the first Interim Evaluation, concluded
that the concept of the JU is appropriate for its objectives and recognised a significant
success and a number of achievements. These findings were furthermore confirmed
by the Expert Panel established by the European Commission to review the
current progress and assess the possible ways forward[34].
35.         Despite these achievements,
the experts also identified a clear need for improved operational and legal
framework. In addition, the JTI Sherpas' group recognised in its report[35] the need to streamline the
legal framework to make it fit for the purpose of setting up and implementing
JTIs and PPPs in research in general in the future. They provided several
operational recommendations in order to improve the efficiency and the manner
the JTIs function. Chapter 2.6.4 and chapter 2.6.5 present detailed analysis of
the challenges and the improvements for the PPP.
2.3.        What
are the challenges
2.3.1.     The
aviation should reduce its future environmental impact
36.         The expected increase of
the aircraft fleet in the next 20 years would lead to more intensive energy
(fuel) use and higher growth rate in CO2 and NOx emissions. According
to ICAO[36],
estimated range of CO2 emissions will grow between 2.5 and 3 times
in 2036 compared to 2006 in the most realistic scenarios (assuming advanced
technologies and operational improvements). At the same time, the NOx emissions
emitted at less than 3 000 feet above ground level are expected to grow between
2 and 2.5 times by 2036 compared to 2006. In terms of noise, the population
exposed to significant aircraft noise will grow from approximately 21.2 million
people worldwide in 2006 to between 26.6 million and 34.1 million people,
depending on the scenario.
37.         With such a forecast,
emissions will increase significantly if no further measures are taken to
mitigate the environmental impact at a rate equal or outweighing the effects of
growing traffic levels. To this end, the cut of air transport emissions, in
particular CO2 emissions, through drastic reduction of aircraft fuel
consumption and innovation in green operations is essential to achieve
reduction of this impact. 
38.         These environmental aspects
are very important for the EU because the Union is at the forefront of
international efforts in climate change mitigation actions, driving the
strategic political agenda. The environmental aspects of aviation are also in
the focus of international groups and organisations. 
39.         The public consultation
related to the Impact Assessment also revealed that emission reduction and
noise reduction are important challenges that European aeronautics sector will
be confronted with in the following decades. It confirmed that reducing air
transport environmental impact is a very important area where the EU level
aeronautics research should be focused on.
2.3.2.     European
aeronautics' sector should remain a global leader
40.         One of the challenges that EU
industry is facing is to remain a global leader and keep the same market share
in the frame of stronger competition and increased production. Europe is one of the leaders in the aeronautics sector today but in the current context of
international competition this leadership is not guaranteed without sustained
investment. 
41.         Break-through technologies
will be required to secure future competitive advantage. In the current
situation, technological capability and innovative potential of actors play a
critical role and is becoming the major competitive differentiator, most
notably in terms of energy and environmental performance. 
42.         In order to maintain its world
leadership, EU aeronautics industry should provide competitive and high quality
products and develop innovative fuel efficient technologies. In addition, high
oil prices and economic measures, such as the inclusion of aviation in the EU
Emission Trading Scheme, increase the necessity of a major leap in fuel
efficiency.
43.         The public consultation
related to the Impact Assessment demonstrated that 79.1% of the respondents
find that the strong international competition is a very relevant challenge
that European aeronautics sector will be confronted in the following decades.
It also indicated that 84.6% consider that EU level aeronautics research should
be focused on the support of the industrial leadership of EU in the sector.
2.4.        Improving
the environmental performance of aeronautics technologies is an extremely
complex and long process
44.         The aeronautics industry is
characterized by complex knowledge bases, and uncertainty in performance. A
commercial aircraft comprises a wide range of components for propulsion,
navigation, aviation, communication etc., that are already individually
extremely complex but the interaction and integration of these systems is more
complex and crucial to the performance of an aircraft. For this reason it is very
difficult to predict the behaviour of a final product from design and
engineering data, even with presently available computer-aided design
techniques. 
45.         The development of new
products in aeronautics is a complex, lengthy and costly process. The sector is
characterised by extended lifecycles including long production complemented by
long usage times of aircraft and consequently long maintenance periods[37]. The research, technology and
product development phase from conception (TRL 1) to “fit-to-fly” (TRL 9)[38] is between 10 and 20 years
presenting substantial financial investment and no incomes while the first
positive cash-flow will come years after entry into service. Production and
maintenance phases need also investment in new technologies because user
requirements evolve during the prolonged lifetime of an aircraft design (Figure
5). 
Figure 5: Indicative example of
major civil aerospace programme lifecycle
46.         The development requires a multidisciplinary
approach and high level of cooperation between different partners with
different expertise. It is characterised by very tight horizontal cooperation
between actors with different expertise (materials, electronics, ICT, etc.) as
well as between specific industry actors (design, manufacturing, maintenance
and other service providers; academia and research institutes; end-users;
public bodies such as certification agencies, air space management etc.). The
research requires also important and expensive infrastructure for testing (e.g.
wind tunnels, simulation tools, technology evaluators and test aircraft). 
2.4.1.     Regulatory measures alone are not sufficient
47.         To incentivise the
necessary development and introduction of green aircraft technologies,
performance standards for aircraft emissions are set through regulations. There
are already a number of regulations that constrain aviation emissions.
Practically all aviation emission sources are independently regulated and
legislation applies to products (i.e. environmental certification standards[39]), to local or regional fleet
operation (e.g. noise dependent landing fees) or to a global fleet operation
(e.g. ICAO, the International Civil Aviation Organization, imposes limitations
on the aircraft noise and engine emissions through technical standards[40]).
48.         The regulatory measures
have proven to be a good incentive to reduce aviation environmental impact and EU
has provided several regulations or certification rules ensuring mitigation of
aviation environmental impacts[41].
In order to be effective, the regulatory framework should be streamlined to
accelerate development and deployment of technologies that reduce environmental
impact and to trigger new R&D efforts. Performance regulations should be
flexible enough to avoid favouring a particular technology or particular market
player and require research and determination of appropriate performance
targets. At the same time they should be agreed and applied at international
level in order to avoid distortion of competition. Therefore, in order to allow
reaching ambitious objectives, the regulatory framework should be supported by
extensive R&D effort.
2.4.2.     Aeronautics
sector cannot rely solely on market mechanisms 
49.         From an economic point of
view, the aeronautics industry cannot address alone the technological challenge
to reduce the environmental impact because of the expenses and the risks
involved. There are several sources of market failure discouraging aeronautics
research in the reduction of fuel consumption, emission and noise of future
aircraft. The step changes required to implement the goals for greening of aviation
can only be met effectively if a number of investments are put in place as part
of a co-ordinated and innovative integrated multidisciplinary approach. Major
areas of work have to cover the broad range of R&D work: aircraft (fixed
wing and rotorcraft), engines, systems, and eco-design concepts able to deliver
more environment-friendly aircraft production and operation.
50.         On the other hand the
social benefits of cleaner air travel cannot all be appropriated by the
investing firms. As with the rest of the transport sector, the full
environmental costs to society are not paid by operators or manufacturers. This
negative externality represents a market failure that results in sub-optimal
investment in, and deployment of, new environmentally beneficial technologies. Support
to technological innovation is a key measure to reduce the extent of this
negative externality all over the world.
51.         Due to the specific aspects
of aeronautics research, private companies have difficulties to mobilise the
human and financial resources necessary to develop radical, game-changing
technological advances. This effect is amplified in times of economic crisis
when the investment community is placing a much lower value on high-risk
endeavours than it has before.
52.         The public consultation also
indicated that 79.1% of the respondents strongly disagree that the EU
aeronautics sector can rely solely on market mechanisms to achieve major
innovations without public support. Therefore, there is a crucial need to
address the different sources of market failure discouraging aeronautics
research in the reduction of fuel consumption, emission and noise of future
aircraft. 
2.5.        EU
level intervention brings added value
53.         Member States support the
aeronautics industry via national programmes that directly increase or aim to
foster R&D and innovation. Different EU Member States put in place aeronautics
research funding mechanisms in order to support the aeronautics industry. Grants
are the most common form of support, although some countries also provide loans
as supplementary funds. Other support mechanisms include fiscal incentives,
venture capital funds, repayable launch investment, etc. The majority of
programmes have annual public calls with fixed deadlines.
54.         An important characteristic
of the national programmes is that funding is allocated at national level and
programmes address individual national technology developments. However, the
scale and scope of the research agenda for greening of aircraft go beyond the borders
and the capacity of individual Member States, both in terms of the financial
commitment and of the research capacity involved. National programmes are not
able to address in full the major technological advances because of the
Pan-European nature of the aeronautics industry[42] (specialisation in the
manufacturing, geographical distribution…). There is also some overlap of
similar research activities, as most countries are willing to keep and improve
their national competencies in key activities of this strategically relevant
sector. This may imply the positive effect of some competitive pressure between
European countries, but this effect may also imply a duplication of funding and
may prevent fast technological progress[43].

55.         On the other hand, studies[44] show that inter‐firm
collaboration is lower in the aerospace sector in comparison with other sectors
of similar size. Fostering inter‐firm collaboration, especially in
R&D, is a way to sustain competitiveness of the EU aerospace sector.
Therefore, it is important to ensure that all relevant European stakeholders
cooperate in developing and maturing the most promising key technologies
towards full industry application. 
56.         According to the results of
the public consultation, 84.6% of the respondents find that the EU aeronautics
sector should receive support at all levels (regional, MS and EU) to achieve
major innovation. There are 13.2% considering that the sector should be
supported only at EU level, 1.1% only on regional level and no one considers
that the support should be done only at Member States level. At the same time 94.5%
consider appropriate to set up a Public Private Partnership in aeronautics
under Horizon 2020.
57.         The right for the EU to act
in this field is provided by article 187 TFEU, which specifically authorises to
"set up joint undertakings or any other structure necessary for the
efficient execution of Union research, technological development and
demonstration programmes".
2.6.        Clean Sky achievements and need
for improved framework
58.         The Clean Sky programme, as
established in 2008, provides ground for radical new technological concepts
that would otherwise be beyond the manageable risk of the private sector. It gives
the necessary financial certainty and stability to the aviation sector and
investors to develop and introduce game-changing innovations in timeframes
otherwise unachievable. A major strength of the programme is that it brings together
the key actors from across Europe in order to implement a common agenda; it
allows them to work together in a united manner and it avoids the fragmented
approach.
59.         According to the public
consultation performed in the frame of this Impact Assessment, the respondents
find that there is very much added value provided by Clean Sky to its
objectives. 95.6% of the respondents consider that Clean Sky Joint Technology
Initiative is an appropriate way to address environmental targets in
aeronautics. The respondents consider that Clean Sky succeeded in addressing
the key environmental targets in aeronautics research (93.6% of the
respondents), in increasing European competitiveness in this area (91.2%), in bringing
together main relevant stakeholders (92.3%) and in aligning them towards
collaboration in large scale demonstrators (85.8%). Most of the respondents
agree also that Clean Sky has organised a sound and transparent proposal
evaluation system (72.6%) and that it effectively engaged with SMEs (74.8%) and
with Public Research Organisations and universities (78.1%).
2.6.1.     Clean Sky attracts wide
participation
60.         The first Interim Evaluation
report of Clean Sky acknowledged that the programme was highly successful in
attracting a high level and wide participation from all EU key industries and a
large number of SMEs.
61.         The report underlined that Clean
Sky has led to new collaborations and the participation of new organisations
thus enhancing European integration. The statistics from the Clean Sky calls
show that 37% of the budget[45]
is dedicated to SMEs and 59% of these SMEs have not been beneficiaries of EU-level
Collaborative Research before.
62.         By mid-July 2012, Clean Sky
has already published 13 Calls for Proposals. Based on the evaluation of the
first 11 calls published between 2009 and 2012, there are 339 projects
selected, 664 participations (winning proposals) among 1911 proposals received
and 413 unique participants from 24 countries. This translates into a success
rate of 35% for Call for Proposals. The breakdown of the participation by type
of participant is 37.3% of SMEs, 23.6% of Universities, 17.5% of Research
Centres and 21.5% of Industry[46].
63.         The main reasons of higher
SMEs involvement in Clean Sky are the lighter project management structure (consortia
may have less than 3 participants), reasonable financial exposure (95% of
projects coordinated by mono-beneficiary SMEs are below 300k€ of budget), short
time duration (19 months on average for projects coordinated by
mono-beneficiary SMEs) and direct contact with end-users (SMEs are in direct
relation with large companies and have the opportunity to demonstrate their
ability to become a future supplier of the supply chain).
2.6.2.     Clean Sky provides already
first technical results
64.         Although half way through,
the Clean Sky started to provide already first results. Two open rotor engine demonstrators,
a concept providing lower environmental impact than the conventional engines, have
been successfully gone through initial testing in the Sustainable and Green
Engines ITD. Main critical components were tested at component level and the
first build of the open rotor demonstrator will be ground tested in 2015 and
flight tested in 2016 on an Airbus A340-600.
65.         In the Smart Fixed Wing
Aircraft ITD, the Advanced Lip Extended Acoustic Panel, the technology to
reduce the Fan noise of large turbofan engine was flown and validated in
operational conditions in 2010 with an Airbus A380-800 aircraft. This test
campaign brought significant data to help reach the last step of technological
maturity and enable design fine tuning for potential implementation in the next
generation of large commercial aircraft. Once finalised, this noise absorbing
panel will enhance the acoustic performances of the engines and reduce the
noise levels.
66.         A flight test with Falcon
F7X, which proved the technology to visualize laminar flow structure in flight
by an infrared camera, was already performed in 2010. This was the first step
to a low speed flight demonstrators of laminar flow wings planned on a Falcon
test aircraft for 2014. This demonstrator should lead to a production wing
design for a next-generation short- to medium range aircraft and will allow
reducing the aircraft drag and consequently the fuel consumption. 
67.         A detailed list of Clean
Sky Demonstrators per ITD is presented in Annex VII.
2.6.3.     Clean Sky is on the track to achieve its environmental
objectives
68.         During the first Interim Evaluation
the expert panel noted that although the gains achieved so far are difficult to
quantify at this early stage of the programme, technical progress has been
identified and the Clean Sky JU is successfully stimulating developments
towards environmental targets. 
69.         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). The Technology Evaluator is a simulation
tool that allows estimating the environmental impact of the Clean Sky
technologies aircraft compared to Year-2000 reference aircraft and identify the
progress towards the defined targets. The two other assessment levels (Airport
and ATS), address the cumulative environmental impact over airport-related
geographical areas and communities, and the global fleet and air transport
system respectively. 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.

2.6.4.     Challenges with respect to operations and implementation
70.         Clean Sky demonstrates the
benefits of a public private partnership and its technical content has provided
a good balance for the public and private interests. The first experience with
the programme shows that it is a good instrument to achieve ambitious goals in
greening of the aeronautics, bringing stakeholders together and achieving
jointly agreed roadmaps. Despite this success, the interim evaluation[47]
panel recommendations, experiences with the programme and stakeholders' views[48] also demonstrated that several
points need to be better addressed in the future.
·              
Improving the openness of CS activities – The possibility to have limited number of named beneficiaries is identified
in in the basic act of Clean Sky and a number of associates is identified at an
earlier stage of the programme. Currently, 50% of the budget goes to 12 Clean
Sky leaders - industrial organisations committed for the full duration of the
CSJU to perform and complete the programme. 25% of the budget is allocated to 77
associated members - private or public organisations having applied for and
been accepted through a selection process as permanent members of the Clean Sky
JU. Finally, 25% of the budget is dedicated to partners, selected following
open Calls for Proposals issued by the JU. In order to increase the accessibility
to all potential beneficiaries, it is recommended that all members are selected
through open and competitive procedure. 
·              
Increasing the share of funding through calls – Currently, 25% of EU funding for Clean Sky is dedicated for calls
for proposals while the rest is distributed to the 'named beneficiaries'. This
share needs to be increased compared to the current programme.
·              
Clear split of activities between the current and future programmes should be ensured in
order to avoid allocation of additional budget to achieve the goals of the
current programme. For this reason, the current programme should complete its
activities and future initiative should implement a clear different technical
programme.
·              
Strengthening the role of the Technology
Evaluator. The Technology Evaluator (TE) should be
kept and have a more independent role. Its governance structure should include
a more balanced involvement of all stakeholders (Industry, Academia, Research Establishments).
During the initial definitions of Clean Sky 2 the TE could be taken into
account. The role of the TE should be expanded towards the whole aviation.
·              
Streamlining of activities – The Clean Sky activities should be streamlined towards achieving
demonstrators and high TRL technologies.
2.6.5.     Challenges with respect to complexity and
cost-effectiveness
71.         JTI
JUs were set up as an innovative instrument under the 7th Research
Framework Programme. The first experiences gathered with implementing the JTI
instrument via the Joint Undertaking – own dedicated administrative structure –
have highlighted a number of challenges with respect to
complexity and cost-effectiveness, as noted by the Sherpa report[49], the JTI interim evaluation[50], and the CoA reports[51],[52] on JTIs. 
72.         These challenges are mainly
the lack of suitability of the general legal framework to the specificities of
JTI JUs, the lack of options for tailoring in the JU establishment act,
statutes, staff and financial rules and the delegation of the overall
responsibility for the day-to-day management of the JU to the Executive
Director. These identified shortcomings stem from the initial design and
constitute a starting point for an improved design for the Horizon 2020 JTI
JUs.
73.         The notable examples of the
abovementioned shortcomings are:
·              
Lack of tailoring of legal framework. The legal framework governing a JU is
essentially composed of four elements: the Council Regulation, the Statutes,
the JU’s own Financial Regulation and the EU Staff Regulations. These are
largely based on rules applicable to the European Institutions with little
regard to the size of the JUs and nature of their activities. According to the
interim evaluations of the JUs, this legal framework is not conducive to the efficient
management of a small JU.
·              
Human resources.
Due to the demanding legal and financial rules applying to the current JUs on
the one hand, and the small overall size of the current JUs on the other hand,
the structure of the JUs is one-sided when comparing administrative human
resources with operational human resources: on average 50% of the JUs’ staff is
dedicated to work on administrative tasks. This percentage is high compared to
the 22% ratio of the somewhat bigger European Agencies, also set up as union
bodies.
·              
Recruitment rules. Under current regulation, due to the fact that JTI JUs are Union bodies, their staff recruitment rules follow the EU Staff Regulation. Accordingly,
when planning recruitment, the grades and functions of new staff must be foreseen
in the multi-annual staff policy plan and the annual budget. These require
approval from the Governing Board and the European Commission as well as
compliance with the multi-annual planning cycle starting at end of year N-2.
Therefore, the recruitment procedures take a significant amount of time and
lack flexibility.
·              
Public procurement rules. The public procurement rules applied by the JU are similar to
those used by the European Institutions. Moreover, the financial regulation
does not permit a JU to conclude a Service Level Agreement (SLA) with another
JU. Consequently, this prohibits the sharing of services between JUs in order
to reduce costs (for instance, sharing the internal auditor function between
two or more JUs).
·              
Delegation rights to the Executive Directors. Under the statutes governing the JU, the Executive Director is
responsible for the day-to-day management of the JTI JU. While the financial
regulation perhaps should give the authorising officer, i.e. the Executive
Director, the overall responsibility for the financial management of the JU,
their regulations require also the approval of the Governing Board - this
delays decision-making. As a consequence, recurrent administrative decisions
are brought up to the level of the Governing board, thus hampering its focus on
strategic issues.
·              
The funding and participation rules applied to/by JTI JUs as compared to mainstream FP7 legal and
financial framework result in different and often lower funding rates for
participants in JTI JU managed projects than collaborative research, which
compromises the accessibility (new rules have to be learned) and attractiveness
(funding rates are lower) of the JTIs.
·              
Availability of resources prior to start. The Interim Evaluation panel advised that for future JTI prior to
the formal start of technical activities, the resources and administrative
tools should be essentially available and that an in-depth review of the
technical programme is carried out. 
2.7.        Baseline scenario
74.         The baseline scenario is to
implement the JTI in aeronautics renewing the current Clean Sky initiative with
the necessary adaptations to comply with the context of Horizon 2020. This
baseline scenario is based on a status quo where no specific improvements would
be made to the initiatives, neither in scope nor in governance/operating rules.
75.         The renewal of the current
initiative would continue to address the need reducing Europe's greenhouse gas
emissions in aviation in line with the new objectives by integrating,
demonstrating and validating the most promising technologies. However, this
scenario will not be able to achieve simplification in the administration and
introduce additional flexibility as foreseen by the new Horizon 2020 rules. Moreover,
it will not allow addressing integrated technology demonstrations at large
system level. Together with the later start (new technologies will be developed
once the current programme is finalised), highly performing and mature enough technologies
will not be ready for integration in next generation of aircraft by 2025-2030.
3.           Objectives
76.         The expected increase of
the air traffic and the aircraft fleet in the next 20 years would lead to more
intensive fuel use and therefore significant increase of emissions. In order to
mitigate these environmental impacts at a rate equal or outweighing the effects
of growing traffic levels additional measures are required to be taken allowing
technological improvements of aircraft fuel efficiency. 
77.         Furthermore, these measures
should allow the EU aeronautics industry to maintain its competitiveness and world
leadership in the sector. The European Industry, which accounts today for c.a.
40% of the global civil aircraft market, must maintain its competitiveness to
benefit from the global need for 70 000 new aircraft (40 000 fixed wing
aircraft and 30 000 rotorcraft) in the next 20 years[53]. 
78.         According to the current
fleet replacement strategy, the replacement for ‘single aisle’ aircraft is
likely to be in the 2025-2030 timeframe[54].
The research on new fuel-saving technologies and completion of technology
demonstrators should be synchronised in time with the expected new fleet
replacement and the results of the research phase should be completed by
2020-2025. The timely delivery of matured technologies is essential. Due to the
long and costly development cycles in aeronautics the time between two
generations of aircrafts is typically 10 to 15 years and the introduction of
the technologies, which are not mature for the entry into service of the new
aircrafts will be postponed. 
79.         In order to mitigate the
traffic increase, the new technologies should provide better environmental
performance than the usual pace. The typical improvement in fuel efficiency and
therefore in emission reduction in the sector is 10-15% for a new generation of
aircraft and all efforts should be made to accelerate this rate. A 20 to 30%
improvement could result in ‘skipping a generation’ of nominal development and
will have an important positive impact on environment.
3.1.        Overall
objective
80.         Based on the assessment of
the problem and its root causes, the general objective is to improve the
environmental impact of European aeronautical technologies in order to:
·       
contribute to the achievement of the objective
of reducing Europe's greenhouse gas emissions; 
·       
secure the future international competitiveness
of the European aeronautical industry.
81.         The main rationale is to
enhance the competitiveness and environmental performance of European
aeronautics technologies in line with the objectives of Europe 2020, Transport
White Paper and Horizon 2020 Smart, Green and Integrated transport challenge. 
3.2.        Specific objectives
82.         The aim of the proposed
initiative is to integrate, demonstrate and validate the most promising
technologies capable of:
·              
increasing aircraft fuel efficiency and reducing
CO2 emissions by 20 to 30% compared to "State-of-the-art"
aircraft entering into service as from 2014[55]

·              
reducing aircraft NOx emissions by 20 to 30% compared
to "State-of-the-art" aircraft entering into service as from 2014
·              
reducing aircraft noise emissions levels by up
to 5 EPNdB[56]
per operation[57]
compared to "State-of-the-art" aircraft entering into service as from
2014
3.3.        Operational
objectives
83.         The operational objectives
of the initiative are:
·              
To establish a strategic innovation-driven
agenda for industry aimed at tackling the problem identified
·              
To pool and coordinate R&D public and
private investment bringing together the key actors from across Europe in order to implement this agenda
·              
To enhance the exchange of knowledge between
actors and disciplines
·              
To gather the necessary critical mass of
resources needed to set-up large scale system-level demonstrators to validate
the research results
·              
To improve mechanisms and pathways for the more
rapid commercial exploitation of results
·              
To ensure the efficient and flexible management
of funds, including the systematic monitoring of progress and concrete results
·              
To ensure a high degree of SME participation
3.4.        Objectives
relation to the problem statement
84.         Next figure shows how the objectives
are mapped onto the problem statements and their drivers. 
Figure 6: Schematic
representation of the problem and objectives relationship
4.           Policy
Options
85.         Based on the problem
definition and the objectives, the three main policy options are identified in
line with the Horizon 2020 instruments, namely implementation via collaborative
research projects complemented by the Public-Private Partnerships.
(a)         
Business as usual – current Clean Sky programme
extended under Horizon 2020 (BAU)
(b)         
Establishing a contractual PPP to implement new
programme (cPPP)
(c)         
Establishing a new Joint Technology Initiative
(JTI) to implement, through an improved Joint Undertaking, a new programme
(CS2)
4.1.        Discarded
options
4.1.1.     No
EU funding option
86.         The No EU funding option
consists of discontinuing public support for research and innovation in
aeronautics at European level. 
87.         Horizon 2020 Impact
Assessment tackles already the no-EU option[58]
and recognises the need to continue with the research and innovation in
transport. The proposal for Regulation establishing the Horizon 2020 Framework
Programme proposes a Smart, Green and Integrated Transport challenge to be
addressed. Therefore, this option is contradicting the provisions of Horizon
2020 recognizing the need to include EU level research and innovation in air
transport in its framework and is not analysed further.
4.1.2.     Regulatory
option
88.         The regulatory option addresses
the elaboration of regulations setting performance levels for aircraft
emissions.
89.         The regulatory measures to
incentivise the necessary development and introduction of green aircraft
technologies are discussed in chapter 2.4.1. Such measures are proven to be
good encouragement in aviation but because of the need for global agreement
before application and the need for ambitious but appropriate and competitive
performance targets, it is considered that this option will not allow reaching
ambitious objectives in the aviation sector in a given timeframe without
extensive R&D support. Therefore the regulatory option is not addressed in
details in this document. 
4.1.3.     No
Public-Private Partnership
90.         This option uses focussed
(Level 1) and integrated (Level 2) collaborative projects[59] only. The current Clean Sky
programme defined under FP7 ends its activities in 2017 and no new
Public-Private Partnership in aeronautics is set up under Horizon 2020. All
running projects will continue to be supported in the frame of the current JU
between 2014 and 2017.
91.         The traditional instruments
of collaborative research effectively stimulate basic research and validation
at the sub-system or system level and can provide a good progress in developing
a wide range of new and greener technologies at lower TRL levels. However, in order
to stimulate industry on long term and large multidisciplinary investment, with
high risk and low profitability, it is important that the research programme
should include the demonstrators needed to validate technologies at Technology
Readiness Level 6 (TRL 6), which is the level preceding the system prototype
demonstration in an operational environment.
92.         Due to its fragmented
approach and lack of synergies between research actors as well as its absence
of long term commitment and defined research agenda, the collaborative research
is not well suited for large-scale demonstrators integrating and combining
several new technologies and systems. The sum of focussed research projects in
the Framework programme will not guarantee maturation and validation of
specific technologies on time and this would result in a significant delay in
delivering all the research results needed including the large scale
demonstrations.
93.         Implementation through a
set of smaller projects instead of with one large-scale integrated demonstrator
programme may cause at least 10 years delay in reaching final technology
maturity (TRL 6) allowing to launch new products. Such a delay will miss the
opportunity to include these technologies in the next generation of aircrafts
before their entry into service in 2025-2030. Because of this reason, the no
Public Private Partnership option was assessed as sub-optimal to pursue the
objective of accelerating the development of clean air transport technologies
in the EU for earliest possible application and therefore excluded from further
analysis. 
4.2.        Business-as-usual
option
94.         This option (BAU) considers
the continuation of the current Clean Sky Joint Technology Initiative under
Horizon 2020, managed by the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking. The Clean Sky JU will
extend its activities under the different ITDs to achieve the objectives set up
in Chapter 3. The option will use the current allocated budget to finalise the
current activities by 2017 and an overall budget from Horizon 2020 will be
allocated for the period 2018-2020.
95.         The business-as-usual
scenario (BAU) relies on the continuing of the Clean Sky JU under Horizon 2020
as it currently exists under the 7th Framework Programme, i.e.
retaining its implementation arrangements (governance, financial rules, funding
rules, etc.), in particular:
·       
Regarding the governance structure – same
division of powers and responsibilities between the Executive Director, the
Governing Board, the Commission, and the private participants;
·       
Regarding the financial rules – same (updated)
financial legal framework without additional flexibility for the needs of the
JTI JUs;
·       
Regarding the funding rules – the funding and
participation rules would continue to diverge from the mainstream rules under
Horizon 2020 
·       
Regarding the technical activities – the six Integrated
Technology Demonstrators (ITDs) will be kept, together with the Technology
Evaluator in order to deliver technology demonstrators in all segments of civil
air transport. The programme will benefit from Horizon 2020 budget and extended
timeframe (up to 2025) to mature further the initially identified technologies
beyond the status achievable in the current Clean Sky timeframe (until 2017). Technologies
developed are demonstrated at the best available integration level within Clean
Sky ITDs i.e. at component (e.g. full engine, scale one structure, etc.) and
not at aircraft level.
4.3.        Contractual
PPP option
96.         This option (cPPP) aims to
establish together with industry a common programme to achieve the objectives
set up in Chapter 3. This programme is implemented through a contractual Public
Private Partnership (contractual PPP) using the Framework Programme
collaborative research and innovation projects managed by the Commission
services or an Executive Agency. The current Clean Sky programme set under FP7
ends its activities in 2017 as initially programmed.
97.         The contractual PPP is
set-up via contractual agreements between the Commission and private partners,
following a Commission Decision. Private partners develop the multi-annual
roadmap and their own commitment is set out in the contractual agreement. The
private partners have an advisory role and they cover their own costs of
internal governance.
98.         The implementation of the
contractual PPP relies on annual budgets subject to an annual decision of the
European Parliament and the European Council. An overall tentative budget for
the period 2014-2020 is earmarked.
99.         Annual or multi annual work
programmes are proposed by the Commission and topics relevant to the objectives
set-up in Chapter 3 are developed based on the advice by the private partners
which can include proposals for the annual priorities. Member States are
consulted. The industry and research stakeholders do not formally decide on the
content of the work programmes. 
4.4.        Improved
JTI JU option
100.       Similar to cPPP, this option
(CS2) establishes a new programme in the form of Joint Technology Initiative
(JTI) implemented by a Joint Undertaking (JU) to achieve the objectives set up
in Chapter 3. An overall budget for the period 2014-2020 will be set by the
Council Regulation establishing the Joint Undertaking. In establishing the new
JTI, the current Clean Sky programme, set under FP7, will end its activities in
2017 and smooth transition of results and operations will be ensured. 
101.       The "improved JTI
JU" option builds upon the past experience and the lessons learned and it
further improves the design and suitability of the instrument to the new
challenges under Horizon 2020 by simplifying the administration, introducing
lighter financial procedures, exploring possibilities of establishing common
services/functions, and increasing stakeholder commitment to the JTI. In
technical terms, the option is centred on the continuation of Clean Sky
efforts, addressing integrated technology demonstrations at large system level,
and building upon Clean Sky achievements, including new configurations and new
vehicle demonstrations at the integrated vehicle level. The new initiative
enlarges the scope of demonstration to a wider set of technologies and
introduces further integrated demonstrations and simulations of several
aircraft systems at the aircraft platform level.
102.       The "improved JTI
JU" keeps the basic elements of an EU body: legal status, application of
the Staff Regulations, application of the Protocol on Privileges and
Immunities, liability, jurisdiction and applicable law, protection of the
financial interests of the Members, rules on confidentiality and transparency;
it also keeps basic elements of the Statutes such as the JU bodies and their
responsibilities;
103.       At the same time the "improved
JTI JU" simplifies a series of other important elements: reference to the
PPP-specific financial rules (new, tailor-made, simplified "model"
financial regulation), harmonized provisions on control and audit, application
of the Horizon 2020 rules subject to derogations where appropriate, set-up
under the responsibility of the existing JTI JUs, no mandatory host agreement,
streamlined financial and operational planning and reporting, and harmonized
approach to internal audit.
104.       In the future legal
environment tailored-made for the JTI JUs, the "improved JTI" could
contribute to: expanding the objective and activities of the JTI JUs in view of
Horizon 2020, extending the current programmes, improving their shared
governance, providing a stable long term perspective to the stakeholders and
simplifying the administration and operations of the JTI JUs.
4.5.        Analysis of the options
105.       The three remaining policy
options identified – BAU, cPPP, and CS2 – were compared along a range of key
impacts and criteria selected for their relevance in assessing public
intervention in aeronautics research and innovation. The comparison along these
parameters was carried out in an evidence-based manner using a range of
quantitative and qualitative evidence, including:
·              
ex-ante and interim evaluations,
·              
reviews of academic literature (e.g. on market
and systemic failures, the impact of research and innovation, the impact of
public funding for research and innovation) 
·              
econometric modelling and sectorial
competitiveness studies,
·              
vision papers and foresight studies,
·              
analyses of science, technology and innovation
indicators,
·              
statistical analyses of FP implementation and
participation data,
·              
public consultations and expert hearings.
4.5.1.     Methodology
106.       It is estimated that the
Clean Sky 2 option will be able to achieve the objectives set in chapter 3 by
2025. The other two options will require longer time to achieve the same
performance level. The BAU option will require 3 to 4 years more because of the
later start (in 2017, only when the current programme finishes) and because of
the need for system integration. The cPPP option will require at least 7 years
more because of the nature of its implementation (more fragmented projects, annual
budget adoptions) and because of the lower commitment from industry. However,
in order to have some positive impact on environment and competitiveness, the
developed technologies should be introduced in the next generation of aircraft.

107.       The methodology to analyse
and compare the impacts of the different options is based on the effect of the technologies
introduced in the new generation of aircraft. Only mature technologies reaching
TRL 6 at latest in 2025[60]
will be introduced. Any other technology is considered to be delayed for later
generations by 10 to 15 years and its effect will be minor for short terms. 
108.       Depending of the level of
maturity and number of technologies introduced in new generation aircraft,
every option will bring different emission reductions. The next table presents
the improvement in performance levels for each option. These levels are
computed based only on technologies developed and matured enough by 2025 and ready
to be introduced in new generation aircraft. The estimations are based on the experts'
view of technology development timescales and pragmatic current of new aircraft
timing for each option.
   || BAU || CS2 || cPPP 
 CO2 reduction || 10-15% || 20-30% || 8-10% 
 Fuel reduction || 10-15% || 20-30% || 8-10% 
 NOx reduction || 15–30% || 20-40% || 10-30% 
 Noise reduction (in cumulative EPNdB) || -2dB || -8dB   || -2dB 
5.           Analysing
the Impacts
5.1.        Critical
mass
109.       The current Clean Sky
programme has achieved critical mass bringing together all partners and
complementary knowledge resources required to achieve its objectives. In total,
more than 500 participants take part in the programme and more half of the
beneficiaries are newcomers in European funded research programmes. At the
programme level Clean Sky addresses a broad portfolio of relevant technologies
and the programme covers the full scope of activities, required to accelerate
the development and introduction of major technological advances. 
110.       Continuation of the current
programme (option BAU) will have a positive impact in terms of critical
mass. The contractual PPP option (option cPPP) has the advantages of the
PPP to strengthen the synergies between researchers and industry but due to the
annual decisions on budget and advisory nature of the multi-annual
roadmap this option does not give necessary assurance for industrial investment
and is considered less favourable than the JTI. The CS2
option, similarly to the BAU option, has the potential to assemble necessary
critical mass because it offers long-term commitment for funding and for the scope
of the programme. It presents also an advantage compared to BAU option because
of the higher degree of integration and/or increased openness and therefore
brings more actors together.
5.2.        Small
and Medium Size Enterprises
111.       The aeronautics industry
today is mainly dominated by large manufacturers but there are many smaller
companies that support the big companies and can have an important impact. The
SMEs have a significant involvement in the supply chain and may benefit from
the all different options presented. All the proposed options are in line with
the Rules of Participation for Horizon 2020 and do not introduce any distortions
that impact disproportionately on the SMEs products.
112.       Based on the experience with
the current Clean Sky programme, the option BAU will have high positive
impact on the SMEs. The natures of topics in the JTI (small enough, precisely
defined, closer to market) and its specific rules (proposals may be submitted also
by individual entities) make it easier and more attractive for SMEs to apply
than the traditional Framework Programme collaborative
projects in aeronautics requiring forming a larger consortia. As demonstrated in chapter 2.6.1, because of these particularities,
the programme involves a high number of SMEs (ca. 40% of Call for Proposals
beneficiaries are SMEs) and the budget from the open calls allocated to SMEs is
significantly higher than in the FP7 aeronautics programme. Moreover, as more
than half of these SMEs are new participants, it widens the participation, their
know-how brings additional added value and improves the exchange of knowledge
process.
113.       The cPPP
options will have also positive impact on the SME because the European
Commission is paying special attention to the funding for SMEs under the
Framework Programme collaborative projects. In average 15% funding was allocated
to SMEs in Aeronautics and Air Transport topics during the FP7 and these
options are expected to be even more beneficial for SMEs in Horizon 2020,
building on the simplification of procedures.
114.       The CS2 option is
expected to have the same impact on the SMEs as the BAU option because of the
nature of topics in the JTI and its specific rules.
5.3.        Leverage
effect
115.       Public funding is generally
expected to have a positive leveraging effect on private research budgets. This
effect is two-fold. On one hand it links to additional research carried out by
the private sector in parallel and on the other hand the additional research and
development investment private carries out alone after the programme
completion.
116.       The BAU option
produces strong leverage effects. The current Clean Sky Joint Technology
Initiative mobilises about €800 million in private in-kind contributions which
is 50% of the total budget of the initiative and roughly
represents a leverage factor of 2 on top of the Framework Programme
funding leverage effect. The total effect is higher taking
into account that the JTI triggers focused R&D activities at industrial
level complementing its activities. It encourages also investment after
its completion for technologies which are mature enough to be included in
privately funded development programmes leading to new products. The ratio of
investment between Research and Development programmes in aeronautics is
estimated to be at least 1:10. 
117.       The contractual PPP option (cPPP
option) will provide slightly lower effect than the BAU option because even
if increased by the direct private participation the lack of long-term
stability will affect negatively the private commitment. Moreover, due to the
applicability of the Horizon 2020 rules, the funding rates the private
contribution will be less than 50% and therefore the leverage effect will be
lower than the BAU option.
118.       The effect of the CS2
option is similar to the BAU option. The foreseen Clean Sky 2 budget is
complemented by higher private investment in research and acts as the catalyst
for substantial investment in new generations of green aircraft, engines, and
systems by bringing high maturity level innovative and integrated technologies.
5.4.        Coherence
5.4.1.     Coherence
with Member State Programmes
119.       In terms of coherence with Member State programmes, all the proposed options will assure such coherence because of the
participation of Member States in the activities. However, the options BAU
and CS2 permit a more stable participation because of the long-term
character of the Strategic Innovation and Research Agenda, strong industry
commitment and as the Member States are directly involved through the advisory
committee that serves as a relay for information exchange. In addition, the participation
of industrial, national and regional representatives in the definition of the
programme assures a maximum level of synergy through their contribution and
through the feedback they will provide to their national and regional
authorities. 
5.5.        Innovation
Impact
120.       The PPPs are better able to
accommodate the various aspects of implementing sustained, large-scale and complex
research and innovation activities and thus have better potential to achieve
the expected innovation impacts and the specific objectives formulated. The
unique contribution from PPPs is that they help transferring new technologies from
lab into products. It enhances the productivity of public R&D investments
and generates an increased number of lower-risk/higher-quality opportunities
for the private sector investment.
121.       The effectiveness of the
current Clean Sky programme in terms of innovation impacts is confirmed by the
results from the JTI Interim Evaluation which found that the CSJU is
successfully stimulating developments towards environmental targets. 
122.       Taking into account these
aspects, the BAU option will provide a number of technologies that will
have achieved sufficient maturity to become available for inclusion in demonstration
and development activities for future aeronautics products. The cPPP option
will have positive impact but lower than the JTI options (BAU and CS2) due to
the nature of the implementation of the objectives and because the progress on
demonstration projects is bound to the availability of annual budgets. Finally,
the CS2 option will have similar impact than the BAU option going even
further by reaching quicker novel technological advancements.
5.6.        Environmental
Impacts
123.       The environmental impact of
the different options is computed based on the assumption of readiness of the
developed technologies at the end of the programme and their maturity to be
integrated in the next generation of aircrafts. 
124.       The continuation of current
Clean Sky programme (option BAU) will have a positive impact on
environment building on the achievements in its initial phase (until 2017).
However, because of the later start of developing new technologies (after the
finalisation of the current programme) and because these technologies will
require further work on integration and maturation only some positive impacts
will be additive to each other. The benefits achieved in terms of CO2
emissions as a sum of different technologies are estimated to lead to maximum of
15% reduction of CO2 compared to “State-of-the-art” aircraft. 
125.       Executing the new
technological programme through a contractual PPP (option cPPP) will
provide a good progress in terms of developed technologies. The necessary
technological breakthrough will be more difficult and slower to achieve than
for BAU and CS2 option. The main reason is that the possibilities to launch individual
projects to implement the programme are subject to annual budget and work
programmes decision of the Commission and Member States. Each year only a
pre-defined number of projects can be launched and therefore the technological
developments are expected to be slower than needed for reaching the objectives
set in Chapter 3. In this sense, the benefits achieved in terms of emission are
estimated to be 8 to 10% reduction of CO2 compared to
“State-of-the-art” aircraft.
126.       The establishment of a new dedicated
programme (option CS2) bears the highest potential to integrate and validate
timely the novel technologies at higher, system level and therefore significantly
contribute to the environmental and societal challenges. Building, where
relevant, on Clean Sky technologies, increasing the maturity levels of technologies
up to full TRL 6 and raising them to a higher level of integration, the
expected achievements would allow to achieve at least 20% CO2
reduction and enable substantial environmental savings in the next generation. 
127.       The following table presents
the CO2 saving potential by 2050 computed using the readiness of the
developed technologies in each option at entry into service and based on experts
estimations. The improvement of each option is compared to the estimated levels
of emissions in 2050 resulting from the traffic increase and reduced only by
the usual performance improvement.
 Aviation emissions (in 2010) ||   || 700 MtCO2 
 Demand growth 2010-2050 ||   || 4.5% per annum (p.a.) 
 Assumed performance improvement || Narrowbody || 0.6% p.a. 
   || Widebody || 0.56% 
 Assumed % of fleet total fuel burn || Narrowbody || 51% 
   || Widebody || 49% 
 Normal fleet rollover period ||   || 25 years 
 Options improvement ||   || BAU || cPPP || CS2 
 Narrowbody (EIS 2025) || 14% || 8% || 20% 
   || Widebody (EIS 2030) || 18% || 10% || 25% 
 CO2 avoided (in tonnes) ||   || ~3 bn || ~1.5 bn || ~4 bn 
 NOx avoided (in tonnes)[61] ||   || ~15 mln || ~7.5 mln || ~ 20 mln 
5.7.        Economic
Impacts
5.7.1.     Macro-economic
impact
128.       On a macroeconomic scale
Clean Sky (option "business as usual") will contribute to the
economic growth of Europe as the European air transport industry generates 3.1%
of the European GDP directly and supported 5.1 million jobs in 2010 in Europe[62]. In addition, due to the
growth forecast in the air transport industry, this contribution is growing.
Therefore this option will impact not only the aviation industry, but it will
have a positive effect on the whole European economy. It also contributes to the
generation of new jobs through the better performance of the industry with more
successful products and resulting higher demand.
129.       Establishing of a
contractual PPP (option cPPP) will have a substantial economic impact,
in particular for creation of new jobs and supporting the EU growth but it is
expected to be in a lesser extent than for options CS2 and BAU. This is due to
the delay in reaching the final technology maturity (TRL 6) for needed
technologies caused by the implementation modalities of a contractual PPP –
projects leading to demonstrators are implemented consecutively depending on
the availability of annual budget and the full aircraft level demonstration is
postponed. 
130.       The impact of the CS2 option
is expected to generate more benefits for the European aeronautics industry than
the BAU option as it will also address new technologies and will reach full
system integration. Using methodology taking into account the forecast for
aircraft sales, traffic growth expectations, the age of the existing fleet and
the predicted technology improvements, the market opportunity related to these
programmes is estimated to be around €2000 Bn. The direct economic benefit is
estimated at around €350-€400bn and the associated spill-over is of the order
of €400bn. These figures are additive with respect to the remaining (although
slightly reduced) Economic Value Added still expected from Clean Sky.
5.7.2.     Competitiveness
131.       The competitiveness of the
European aviation industry strongly depends on the quality of products it
delivers and in particular on the fuel efficiency of the proposed technologies.
Today, the fuel efficiency is the major competitive differentiator and the
constant high fuel prices will drive the demand for more efficient aircraft in
the future. On the other hand, the pressure to introduce new aircraft more
frequently may rise with the increase of the competition and with other
airframers entering the market. For these reasons, the timely introduction of
new fuel efficient technologies is the main factor driving the competitive
capacity in the sector.
132.       For the purpose of this
impact assessment and due to the lack of precise data, it is considered that
the fuel efficiency and the maturity for introduction of the developed
technologies in the new generation aircraft may be used as a measure for the
impact on competitiveness.
133.       Technologies developed in BAU
option will contribute to the design of new cleaner aircraft providing
around 15% of reduction of fuel consumption for the entering of service of the
new aircraft generation. The cPPP option, on the other hand, because of the
slower development, will provide only 8 to 10% increase in fuel efficiency and
therefore its impact is expected to be lower than the BAU option. The 5 to 7
years delay in the maturation of the technologies is due to the implementation
modalities of a contractual PPP – projects leading to demonstrators are
implemented consecutively depending on the availability of annual budget and
the full aircraft level demonstration may be postponed. 
134.       The CS2 option provides
the highest performance and market potential of the validated technologies – 20
to 30% fuel efficiency – compared to 15% in BAU and 10% in cPPP. The
development of technologies integrated at system level addressing environmental
goals will greatly enhance EU industry competitiveness, since greater energy
efficiency will imply reducing operating costs and result in higher demand.
5.8.        Social
Impact
135.       The development of new less
polluting air transport has important social impacts such as positive influence
on quality of life, public health, mobility, creation of new jobs and contributes
to economic prosperity. The World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Joint
Research Centre of the Commission a report[63]
published in 2011 estimating the healthy life years lost in Europe due to
environmental noise. It shows that traffic-related noise may account for over 1
million healthy years of life lost annually in the EU Member States and other
Western European countries. It depicts the link between exposure to aircraft
noise and hypertension, ischaemic heart disease and the risk of high blood
pressure. Another report from the WHO indicates that transport-related air
pollution, affects a number of health outcomes, including mortality,
non-allergic respiratory morbidity, allergic illness and symptoms (such as
asthma), cardiovascular morbidity, cancer, pregnancy, birth outcomes and male
fertility. Transport related air pollution increases the risk of death,
particularly from cardiopulmonary causes, and of non-allergic respiratory
symptoms and disease.
136.       It is difficult to quantify
exactly the impact of the different options on public health because the accuracy
of the proportion of diseases attributable to aircraft emissions and noise is hard
to specify. However, it is clear that reduction of CO2 emissions and
noise levels will provide a direct positive effect on public health. In this
sense, the reduction of those emissions may be adopted as a measure to
understand the effect of the options on public health. 
137.       As assessed earlier, BAU
option is expected to provide 10 to 15% reduction of CO2
emissions, the cPPP option 8 to 10% less CO2 and CS2
option 20% less. Regarding the noise level reduction the BAU and the
cPPP options will bring 2 dB noise reductions while the CS2 option will
provide 8 dB. In this regard, the CS2 option may be considered as the most
favourable in terms of effect on public health.
138.       In terms of number of jobs,
the CS2 option is estimated to provide in the order of 600 000 (direct
and indirect jobs) supported by the development, manufacture and support of
Clean Sky 2 technology taking into account the accessible market opportunity.
This estimate is based on a jobs per unit of economic activity ratio developed
by the UK aerospace industry and used with the British Government. The BAU option
and the cPPP option will provide both about 100 000 to 150 000 jobs less.
5.9.        Cost
effectiveness
5.9.1.     Cost
neutrality and JTI JUs as effective means to achieve goals 
139.       The first experiences with
the JTI JUs indicate that they constitute a highly effective means of
implementing the 7th Research Framework Programme.
140.       The use of a JU to implement
the JTI has the following main benefits compared to using the standard means of
implementation of a framework programme:
·              
a clear commitment of the stakeholders;
·              
visible legal, contractual and organisational
framework to structure the
specific joint commitments to which stakeholders are ready to sign up;
·              
firm governance structure for the JU, including shared decision-making powers and management
by the public and private partners, is visible to all stakeholders;
·              
budgetary certainty via the budget ceiling for EU contribution to cost of the operations
and the private partners' financial commitment;
·              
efficient use of public resources as the Commission passes operational roles to the JU while
retaining focus on regulation and supervision.
141.       Furthermore, the use of a JU
to implement the JTI with the current small-sized body is already at least cost
neutral and probably more cost effective for the Commission because the private
partner pays 50% of the running costs of the JU. This is shown by the
cost-benefit analysis performed in-house DG RTD, by comparing JU to collaborative
research initiatives and contractual PPPs in terms of administrative,
supervision, establishment and winding up costs. Increasing the size of
operations of the JTI JUs and simplifying their functioning on the basis of
common participation rules for Horizon 2020 will make the JU a cost-effective
means of implementation (see Annex III). 
5.9.2.     Possible
improvements - efficiency
142.       The "business as
usual" scenario relies on the continuing of the JTI JUs under Horizon
2020 as they currently exist under the 7th Framework Programme. In
contrast, the CS2 option simplifies and improves the legal framework,
governance, and operational modalities of the current JUs.
143.       In particular, in order to
ensure a good balance between cost-neutrality of the JTI JUs under Horizon
2020 and increase their cost-effectiveness, the following simplification
measures are being considered:
·       
Foreseeing a single set of Rules for
Participation and Dissemination that will, subject
to derogations where appropriate, render participation easier and ensure a
single and sufficiently flexible regulatory framework, will create a more
coherent set of instruments covering both research and innovation, enhance
programme accessibility and attractiveness, and increase the scientific and
economic impact while avoiding duplication and fragmentation. 
·       
Introducing lighter financial procedures,
which in particular will provide simplified procedures for the establishment
and the adoption of the budget and corresponding reporting. This is due to
the new Financial Regulation which permits bodies like JTIs adopt lighter financial
rules based on a new, tailor-made, simplified "model" Financial
Regulation
·       
Using common IT systems, including the
proposal evaluation system for Horizon 2020 which
increases harmonisation, reduces the costs for such services and allows JU
staff members to better adapt to the common software management programme.
Moreover, by using the "commons" of the programme, the JUs coordinate
better their internal processes regarding portfolio management, as well as
monitoring and reporting towards the legislator and the Commission regarding
management of programmes and projects.
·       
Exploring different options regarding
establishing common services/functions (IT, Audit, Legal issues) for PPP/JTIs. These options are: 
(a)          
Commission provides common services to JTIs JUs
and requests from them the payment of a proportional contribution; 
(b)         
JTIs JUs set up their own common functions,
which are specific and shared among them;
(c)          
Each JTI JU organises itself individually.
·       
Sharing functions
in the context of the internal audit or for the accounting officer (the latter
case being explicitly provided for by the Rules of Application (RAP), Service
Level Agreements, common service and supply contracts and exchange of information
among JU colleagues.
·       
Continuity of staff between the current and
future JUs for the period when the current project
portfolio is closed down and the future portfolio is built up.
5.9.3.     Possible
improvements - effectiveness
144.       At the same time, the above
simplifications envisaged for the new JTI JUs to be set up under Horizon 2020
will also allow them to become more effective by: 
·       
Clear stakeholder commitment to the JTI through (1) a definition, in a dedicated annex to the regulation,
of the contribution to the JTI of industrial members, rendering their
contribution more visible, (2) improved representation of the public and
private partners in governing bodies, (3) a balance of influence between the
Commission and Industry in the appointment of the Executive Director, etc.). 
·       
Introducing more flexible budgetary and
procurement procedures through adjusted legislative framework building on
the new Financial Regulation. 
·       
Increasing the accessibility and
attractiveness of the programmes. The Horizon 2020
JTI JUs shall apply the common set of rules of the Horizon 2020 Rules for
Participation, thus providing a coherent legal framework. Any derogation
requested by the JU would have to be duly justified for specific needs and
should be cost-effective for the implementation of Horizon 2020.
6.           Comparing
the Options
6.1.        Comparison of the options
145.       The following table presents
the assessment of the different policy options compared to the option Business
as Usual. This option is chosen as reference because it presents the current
situation and has proven to be efficient means for R&D in the aeronautics
sector. 
 - || = || + 
 Disadvantage compared to reference || Same impact as reference || Benefit compared to reference 
   Option Criteria || Business as Usual   BAU || Contractual PPP   cPPP || Renewed JTI   CS2 || 
 Effectiveness ||   ||   ||   || 
 Critical mass || = || - || + || 
 Impact on SMEs || = || - || = || 
 Leverage effect || = || - || = || 
 Innovation impact || = || = || + || 
 Environmental impacts || = || = || + || 
 Economic impact || = || = || + || 
 Social Impact || = || - || + || 
 Efficiency ||   ||   ||   || 
 Administrative costs || = || - || + || 
 Administrative simplicity || = || = || + || 
 Coherence ||   ||   ||   || 
 Coherence with programmes of MSs || = || - || = || 
6.2.        Preferred
option
146.       Based on the assessment, the
CS2 option provides the best means to achieve the defined objectives. In
addition, it has very good synergy with the currently implemented research
programme and can be built up upon technologies and demonstrators developed
under Clean Sky following a smooth transition. 
147.       CS2 option allows timely
execution of the full research programme and offers a higher level of
integration with full aircraft demonstrators so as to understand the full
impact, including risks and synergies of the combination of innovative
technologies. This would allow maximising technological innovation which will help
to address more ambitious objectives for air transport regarding environmental
impact and passenger mobility, following the Europe 2020 strategy, the
Transport White Paper, Flightpath 2050 and is in line with the Horizon 2020
objectives.
148.       It helps the most to
overcome the so-called "market failure" by using public support to
reduce the development risk of non-conventional technologies to a level that is
considered to be financially viable by industry. 
149.       It aims also to move the
pre-competitive research closer to market for accelerating market introduction
of new technologies keeping Europe competitive especially under the current
economic and financial situation which makes investment in technology even more
necessary for growth and competitiveness. 
150.       In addition, a JTI with an
improved Joint Undertaking:
(a)         
Provides a stable mid to long term framework
enabling strong commitment of the participants for developing innovative design
solutions;
(b)         
Ensures focus of participants towards commonly defined
environmental and societal goals;
(c)         
Steers activities towards integration and
validation of new technologies into new aircraft configurations;
(d)         
Stimulates and enforces cooperation among major
aeronautical companies and other research stakeholders;
(e)         
Offers improved governance and legal framework
compared to the current programme;
(f)           
Enables a substantial participation of SMEs and
academia through flexible and open Call for Proposal procedures.
151.       This option is also
preferred according to the results of the public consultation. 95% of the answers
consider appropriate to set up a Public Private Partnership in aeronautics
under Horizon 2020. Most of the participants agree (39%) or strongly agree
(50%) with the fact that the PPP in aeronautics research should focus on
large-scale demonstration of new promising technologies. In addition, the
majority of the answers (41% favourable and 33% very favourable) are in support
of setting up a dedicated legal structure with a lighter approach. 
152.       In addition, this option is
supported by the industry, which has indicated its commitment for the
continuation of the activities and has signed a Letter of Intent in September
2012.
153.       Therefore it is recommended
to implement this option as the most adapted to achieve the defined objectives
in Chapter 3.
6.2.1.     Scope
154.       The CS2 will address the
most promising aircraft technologies capable of improving the environmental
performance and the EU industry competitiveness. These technology developments
will fully take into account the compatibility with potential alternative fuels
under development.
155.       CS2 will build on the successful
features of Clean Sky such as project-like character with a relatively small
number of well-focussed demonstrators and clearly set deadlines. In addition to
the development of new technologies, CS2 is also building upon technologies and
demonstrators developed under Clean Sky, FP7 and national research programmes. The
next figure demonstrates the links between Clean Sky and Clean Sky2.
Figure 7: Linkages between Clean
Sky and Clean Sky 2
156.       Most Clean Sky activities
will continue after the possible start of CS2 in 2014 and key results from
demonstrators will become available in the 2015-2016 period. Transition from
Clean Sky to CS2 is, therefore, expected to be progressive and the technical
and managerial continuity between Clean Sky and CS2 will be ensured for a
seamless transition of activities. 
6.2.2.     Structure
157.       Two complementary types of
demonstrator activities are proposed for CS2:
(a)         
Three demonstrators (Innovative Aircraft
Demonstrator Platforms - IADP) at the higher level of integration of full
vehicle platforms to carry out final testing of aircraft systems in all flying
segments (large aircraft, regional aircraft, rotorcraft) at the highest research
level (TRL6) in view of future certification.
(b)         
Three transversal Integrated Technology
Demonstrators (ITD) focussing on airframe, engine and systems and including
electrical taxing and sustainable life-cycle. 
158.       In addition, a Technology
Evaluator will assess routinely technological progress and impact while
promising knowledge spill-overs to other modes of transport.
159.       Close coordination will be
ensured with the Single Sky technology development under SESAR and also with EC
research activities on sustainable alternative fuels.
6.2.3.     Budget
160.       The current industry estimation
is that the cost of the CS2 programme is €4.05 billion. The EU will contribute
with €1.8 billion from the Horizon 2020 programme budget. The industrial
partners will contribute with €2.25 billion. €1 billion of the industrial
commitment will be through additional activities that are not included in the
work plan of the JTI but contribute to the programme objectives. The
significant increase compared to the previous programme is due to the higher
level of integration and its in-flight demonstration at full-scale level requiring
complete aircraft architectures. The private members will contribute on a 50/50
basis to all CS2 administrative cost.
161.       The indicative split between
different activities (ITDs, IADPs and Technology evaluator ), based on the
assessment of the draft technical programme, is as follows:
 Clean Sky 2 || 100% 
 IADPs ||   
 Large passenger aircraft || 32% 
 Regional aircraft || 6% 
 Rotorcraft || 12% 
 ITDs ||   
 Airframes || 19% 
 Engines || 17% 
 Systems || 14% 
 Transverse activities ||   
 Technology Evaluator || 1% of the above IADP/ITD values 
 Eco-DESIGN Transverse Activity || 2% of the above IADP/ITD values 
 Small Air Transport Transverse Activity || 3% of the above IADP/ITD values 
6.2.4.     Governance
and organisation
162.       Based on the lessons learnt
from Clean Sky, it is proposed to use the current Joint Undertaking structure
as a baseline. In particular, the Governing Board, ITD Steering Committees, National
States Representative Group, Scientific and Technology Advisory Board and the
General Stakeholders Forum will be maintained.
163.       The proposed CS2 membership,
including the Commission, Leaders and Core Partners, is also similar to that of
Clean Sky. 
164.       To
address the challenges with respect to complexity and cost-effectiveness, as highlighted
by the expert reports, the JU interim evaluation and the Court of Auditors
reports on JUs, the following key elements will simplify and improve the legal
framework, governance, and operational modalities:
(a)         
A single set of Horizon 2020 Rules for
Participation and Dissemination also applicable to JTIs will, subject to
derogations where appropriate, render participation easier and more attractive
and ensure a single and sufficiently flexible regulatory framework for the
entire Horizon 2020. 
(b)         
Introducing lighter financial procedures
will provide more flexibility and lower administrative costs for JUs. It is more trust-based implying the
adoption of financial rules closer to private sector practice and contains in particular
much needed simplified procedures for the establishment and adoption of the
budget and for corresponding reporting. As an example this approach would not
require any longer a separate decision of the budgetary authority on the staff
establishment plan of the JUs with the corresponding distribution of posts and
budgets, giving the Executive Director more flexibility in organising the staff
composition.
(c)         
Usage of common IT systems, including the
full integration of the JUs in the Research and Innovation Participant Portal,
which provides for Horizon 2020 all services for documentation and guidance,
call publication, proposal submission and evaluation, grant preparation, grant
management and reporting as well as management of experts will be proposed. This will increase harmonisation of IT systems, reduce the
costs for such services and allow JU staff members to better adapt to the
common software management programme. It improves the programme monitoring,
statistics, communication, dissemination and reporting towards the legislator
and the Commission will be simplified once all project data are integrated in
the common Horizon 2020 data bases.
(d)         
Use of common services/functions. JUs set up their common functions, which
are shared among themselves or use services provided by the Commission. This
will be done allowing the use of Service Level Agreements, common service and
supply contracts and of exchange of information leading to enhanced
coordination among JUs.
(e)         
Delegation of routine
administrative, financial and management decisions to the Executive Director to make the Governing Board a more
strategy-oriented body.
(f)           
Increase openness of the
activities by enlarging the
participation through open calls. For this reason the share of budget for dedicated to open selection will be increased to 60% - calls for
proposals will be increased to 30% compare to 25% today and additional 30% will
be dedicated to selection of core partners through open calls. Finally, the
leaders will be identified in a transparent manner, ensuring that all
industrial stakeholders will be able to join. 
7.           Evaluation
and Monitoring
165.       The monitoring and
evaluation of the progress within the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking will be
carried out both by external and internal bodies.
166.       The internal monitoring is
first executed by the Project Officers who monitor the implementation of the
ITDs, participate in the ITD Steering Committees, review the quarterly ITD
reports and follow the annual review of ITDs. They monitor the progress in both
the budget implementation and advancements in the technical work according to
the work plans submitted by ITDs and suggest corrective actions, where
appropriate. 
167.       The ITD annual reviews are
carried out in the presence of independent external experts and the
implementation of recommendations is checked at an interim annual ITD meeting.
In addition, the Scientific and Technology Advisory Board (STAB) of Clean Sky
analyses the review results across all ITDs and gives its assessment to the JU
Executive Team. Based on these assessments an Annual Activity Report is
prepared for the adoption by the Governing Board and is published. 
168.       The external evaluation for
the whole programme is organized by the European Commission and carried out by
the independent experts in different steps according to the phase of the
programme: evaluation before the programme starts (ex ante), interim
assessments and evaluation after the programme completed (ex post).
169.       In addition, assessment
studies like the present one contribute to the effort made in order to prepare
the project to satisfy all the expectation and criteria. In the preparatory
phase, but also during the programme implementation, special meetings with the
representatives of Member States, Associated States and ACARE technology
platform ensures that the Clean Sky 2 technical programme is satisfactory to
all stakeholders.
7.1.        Measurement
of progress
7.1.1.     Evaluation
levels
170.       Three different kinds of
measurement will be maintained during the programme:
·       
evaluation and forecast on whether the programme
produces the required results in terms of the benefit for the environment and
for the competitive position of the industry;
·       
continuously checking that public money invested
is well spent by following the project work plans and advancement of the
deliverables;
·       
monitoring that the selection process for
additional partners is transparent and fair.
171.       The evaluation of the
progress against the criteria above will be executed at technical, managerial
and financial levels using a limited set of headline indicators.
7.1.2.     Technical
monitoring and evaluation
172.       The measurement of the
technical impact evaluates to what extent the technologies developed in the
projects reach the technical objectives and assesses their impact. 
173.       As for the current Clean Sky
programme, the most important instrument for impact assessment in CS2 will be
the Technology Evaluator (TE). As pointed out by the Expert Panel, the Technology
Evaluator should be maintained as an essential element within Clean Sky 2 and its
role should be strengthened. The assessments of environmental impacts could be
expanded and they can include other impacts, such as the mobility benefits of
Clean Sky 2 concepts, where applicable. 
174.       The progress of each
demonstration platform (ITDs and IADPs) will be monitored against well-defined
environmental and socio-economic benefits and targets. For full vehicle-level
demonstrations in the IADPs, the core aircraft performance characteristics will
be reported and for ITDs, the TE will enable an aircraft-level synthesis of
results (via ‘concept aircraft’) allowing the ITD results be shown at aircraft
level and evaluated within the Air Transport System alongside IADP results.
175.       The management structure
will also take part in the technical monitoring. Detailed technical
sub-objectives as stated in the ITD work plans will be monitored at the level
of the ITD Steering Committees and by the JU Project Officers. Results of
higher level analysis of progress will be included in the Annual Activity
Report adopted at the Governing Board level and will be shared with the
external bodies and general public. 
176.       Before the start of the
programme, based on the detailed technical proposal from Industry, an in-depth
technical assessment will be carried out. It will aim at identifying the main
work packages in detail and to set detailed performance indicators addressing environmental
(such as reducing noise and NOx emissions) and operational (project milestones)
objectives in addition to the following ones:
(a)                   
Indicator 1 to 3 (environment) measures the contribution to reaching -30% in CO2, -30%
in NOx emissions levels and -5 dB in noise emissions compared to 2014 baseline.
7.1.3.     Managerial
monitoring
177.       The managerial monitoring is
executed by the governing bodies of Clean Sky. A clear management and
communication structure ensures the appropriate day-to-day management of the
project and helps in the strategic planning process. These bodies are also
responsible for the administrative, managerial monitoring of the project by
analysing the reports from lower management levels and measuring the progress
against the detailed project plan.
178.       The Executive Director is
the legal representative of the JU. The JU collects all the relevant
information and prepares the reports on the basis of the information received.
The Executive Director reports directly to the Governing Board. 
179.       One important element is to
ensure that a fair and transparent evaluation and selection process of
additional partners through the Calls for Proposals is in place. A
well-established selection process can guarantee that companies not yet part of
the supply chain will have equal possibilities if they have useful capabilities
for the project. In addition, continuous monitoring of involvement of SMEs and
academia is carried out and communication and dissemination events are
organized to inform and attract broad range of new partners. 
180.       The present governance
structure ensures that each important stakeholder group is informed on
progress. In addition to different kind of information events, a General Annual
Forum is organized to report on the progress made.
181.       The following indicators are
used to assess the achievement of the managerial objectives:
(b)                   
Indicator 4 (programme management) measures time-to-contract against 180 days benchmark.
(c)                   
Indicator 5 (SMEs) measures the SME participation rate in Calls for Proposals against the
20% target of Horizon 2020.
7.1.4.     Financial
monitoring
182.       Besides the technical and
managerial aspects, sound financial management is equally important to
continuously monitor that the financial and administrative Clean Sky targets
are maintained. To guarantee that funding received from the European Commission
is spent according to public interest, the European Commission has a de facto veto
right in the Governing Board.
183.       Ex-post audits to the
beneficiaries are conducted by the JU according to the common rules. 
184.       The following indicator is
used to assess the achievement of the financial objectives:
(d)                   
Indicator 6 (financial management) measures time-to-pay against 90 days target of the Financial
Regulation.
Annex I: Results
from the public consultation on the preparation of the Clean Sky Joint
Technology Initiative under Horizon 2020
1. Public consultation 
The public consultation was opened on the
11th of July 2012 and closed on the 4th of October 2012
(12 weeks). 91 responses were received. 
1.1. Respondents profile 
Respondents originate from at least 17
different countries, including 5 from associated countries. France and Spain are the most represented (23.1 % each), followed by Germany (approx. 15.4%) and
other countries (e.g. Austria, Czech Republic, UK, Belgium, Italy and Sweden). Most respondents are representative of the large business (34.1%), followed by
individual citizens (25.3%) and other (15.4% each). The number of SMSs answers
is 9.9% from the total and of the Member Stares administration is 5.5%. No
regional administration has answered the consultation.
 || 
There are 31 answers from the large companies
including the main manufacturers such as Airbus (aircraft
manufacturer), Eurocopter (helicopter manufacturing and
support company), Rolls-Royce (engine manufacturer), Safran (engine
manufacturer), Liebherr, Volvo as well as other companies such as Aernova
(aerostructures), Constellium (manufacturer of aluminium products) and others. Six
of the answers are provided by companies that have not applied for Clean Sky
funding. On the other hand, a number of the individual responses come from working
or worked in the large industries. The SMEs representatives who answered the
questionnaire are from different European countries, mainly from Spain, Germany, Italy, Austria and Belgium. One third of them have not applied for Clean Sky
funding. The opinions of the Research organisations and the Universities are
represented in the "Others" category. It includes research centres
such as ONERA (the French Aerospace research centre), DLR
(the German Aerospace Center), NLR (research institute based in
the Netherlands) and Fraunhofer (German research
organisation) as well as other centres and universities from Spain, Sweden, Poland, Czech Republic and Romania. The Member states representatives include answers
from ministries in Czech Republic, Netherlands, UK, Austria and Finland as well as from the French civil aviation authority.
Most of the respondents were familiar
(~92%) with the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking and the majority has applied for
funding (61.5%) or have received already funding (57.1%) from the JU. It is
worth to note that from those that applied for funding the majority is large
organisations (44.6%) or other (25%) including Academia, followed by SMEs
(10.7%). The order is the same and the ratio is very similar for received
funding.
From the stakeholders' answers for
application and participation in Clean Sky it can be seen that the most
participation is from others, followed by large industry and SMEs. It is worth
to note that 39% of the individual citizens have received funding from Clean Sky.
This is mainly due to the fact that those persons are working for industry
companies. 
1.2. Relevance of the sector
All respondents supported the relevance of
the aeronautical industry in addressing societal challenges in transport
(emissions, mobility, fuel consumption, congestion, etc). The majority
considers also aeronautics industry as very relevant for the European economy.
1.3. Identification of the problem
Assessment of the most relevant challenges
facing the Aeronautical sector showed strong support for all topics.
“Sustaining necessary R&D investment” and “Strong international
competition” were rated as the two most relevant challenges followed by
“Emission reduction”, “Ensuring safety and security”, “Noise reduction” and
finally the “Ability to cope with increasing traffic demand”. Specific comments
included:
·                        
management of the risk of materials availability
and use (REACH legislation)
·                        
step changes in aircraft fuel efficiency,
optimised on board energy and economic efficiency
·                        
maintain sufficient and efficient up to date
research and test infrastructure (e.g. wind tunnels, simulators, flying test
beds,…) and to educate the necessary work force at all levels
Analysing the aspects of the challenges in
aeronautical research in Europe, the majority of respondents clearly consider
the lack of public R&D funding and the lack of qualified research personnel
as an important aspect while they regard European Aeronautical research as
competitive.
1.4. European added value
When assessing European added value, the
majority of the respondents (79.1%) disagree that it is possible for the EU
aeronautics sector to rely solely on market mechanisms to achieve major
innovations without public support. Responses supported the requirement that it
is essential that public support is provided at all levels (84.6% for all
levels – regional, Member State and EU) to achieve major innovations. Comments
recognised that industry alone could not maintain Europe’s strong global
position but programmes like Clean Sky can significantly balance industries
investment to successfully mature technologies through effective demonstration.
1.5. Objectives
There was strong (88%) agreement that Europe’s new vision for aviation, Flightpath 2050, is an adequate point of departure for the
research agenda in the aeronautical sector at EU level. In addition, all vision's
areas (Reduce air transport environmental impact, Support industrial leadership
of EU in the sector, Ensure safety and security, Enhance mobility of
passengers) are regarded as important. Comments indicated that innovative
energy supply is also an important aspect, which has to be done partly outside
the aviation area.
1.6. Options and Impact
The majority of the respondents (94.5%)
considers appropriate to set up a Public Private Partnership in aeronautics
under Horizon 2020 capable to improve the competitiveness of Europe in the
aeronautics sector for both short (by 2020) and medium term (by 2035). There
are only 2 participants out of 91 that do not consider appropriate setting up a
Public Private Partnership. They represent one large business company and one
SME. The first proposes to integrate research projects in existing PPP's (Clean
Sky I, SESAR) thus in practice contradicting the original comment; The second
suggests maintaining the current scheme of FP7 with collaborative research only
capability.
In terms of types of stakeholders, all
agree on this subject with large industry, individual citizens and more than
95%. This ratio is slightly lower with SMEs (75% agree) and member states
administration (83% agree)
Concerning the focus of the established PPP
in aeronautical research most of the respondents agree (47.3% strongly agree
and 41.8% agree) that it should be on large-scale demonstration of new
promising technologies in order to address main aeronautics challenges. In
terms of results per stakeholder type, the strongest support comes from large
industry followed by SMEs, individual citizens and others. There is one large
industry representative; one SME, one of the member states and one other that
disagree with the focus on large scale demonstrators. According to them it
should focus on alternative and new fuels, small transport aircraft and
demonstrators for unmanned aircraft.
Assessing the main thrust for demonstration
revealed engines, large passenger aircraft, regional aircraft, systems &
equipment and the airframe being important (95%), rotorcraft achieved 80%
support and business jets are considered important by ~50% of respondents.
Comments included the potential use of unmanned air systems to assess lower TRL
technologies in small scale earlier in the demonstration cycle. Small transport
aircraft is also considered as important to be in the scope of the new
programme.
Respondents also considered that a PPP in
aeronautical research under Horizon 2020 should do more than the current Clean
Sky to ensure appropriate involvement and should be more focussed on large
industry before SME’s or Public Research Organisations and Universities. This
may have been a direct reflection of the participant profile. The comments
indicated that more flexibility is required for companies to engage at a later
stage of the programme and that medium sized industry should be better
involved.
Major benefits of the PPP would impact
favourably on “European aeronautics industry competitiveness” and “reducing
environmental impact” with “growth and jobs in Europe” and “efficient use of
natural resources (fuel, etc) just behind. Comments reflect significant support
for the role Clean Sky has delivered to date in maturing and de-risking
promising technologies. Clean Sky 2 objectives need to align with Flightpath
2050 and SRIA topics and continue to develop the strong participant “supply
chain” achieved in Clean Sky.
1.7. Achievements of the current Clean
Sky initiative
Most of the respondents consider that Clean
Sky provided very much value added on each of its objectives together with the
proposal evaluation system that is considered sound and transparent based on
both scientific/technological excellence and industrial relevance. There are 16
responses that disagree or strongly disagree with that representing 17% of the
total opinions. For them the Clean Sky proposal evaluation process is
considered sound, however it is less transparent than the one used for the
regular EU calls for proposal.
Areas of success of Clean Sky include,
·                        
addressing key environmental targets in
aeronautical research
·                        
increasing European competitiveness in the areas
of aeronautical research
·                        
bringing together main stakeholders in
aeronautical research
·                        
aligning the aeronautical stakeholders towards
collaboration in large scale demonstrators
·                        
effectively engaging with SME’s
·                        
effectively engaging with Public Research
Organisations and universities
Comments indicated that Clean Sky succeeded
in attracting partners (~ 500 partners) integrating further European
aeronautics players on solid grounds for many years. 
Importantly, majority of the respondents (95.6%)
agree that Clean Sky Joint Technology Initiative is an appropriate way to
address environmental targets in aeronautics and most of them (93.4%) are aware
of technological successes of Clean Sky.
Further comments on achievements show that Clean
Sky has provided an excellent focus for aeronautical research in Europe, providing strategic research leadership, ensuring that research is closely aligned
to the research agenda, and providing a mechanism to encourage cooperation
between competitors and across national boundaries. However, some areas in
which improvements can be made are mentioned. It is considered that a big part
of the activities in Clean Sky are focused on administration and therefore for Clean
Sky 2, to become a truly effective public private partnership, the rules must
be relaxed with an increased focus on risk management and much less attention
to form filling correctly.
A particular concern is raised about the
openness and the limited possibility for participation. In this sense Clean Sky
2 needs more open and transparent system of selecting members. Measures should
be taken to ensure the possibility of new interested and committed (industry
& research) stakeholders to join the new initiative openly and
transparently, be it as from the very beginning or even at a later stage.
1.8. Possibilities for set-up of a PPP
in the area of aeronautics under Horizon 2020 
Nearly 80% of respondents indicated that
they have sufficient experience with Clean Sky to be able to comment on PPP
options. Opinion was positive or neutral with the preferred option being a
dedicated legal structure similar to the current JTI but with a lighter
approach. 
In terms of stakeholder's type, the results
are as follows:
Opinions on whether activities not
primarily R&D but contributing to achievement of goals should be supported was
divided equally.
1.9. Summary
This consultation has given a clear view
that the Clean Sky JTI has been successful and should be continued under
Horizon 2020 to meet the Europe 2020 and Flightpath 2050 goals. Comments
reflect the importance of Aeronautical R&D to Europe in an increasingly
competitive global market. To support this it will be necessary to strengthen
research and development infrastructure and associated skill base to achieve
required technology advances. It will be vital to maintain and grow the SME and
technology supply chains to deliver required integrated technology solutions
for demonstration under the leadership of industry.
2. Stakeholder's view
During the consultation period three consolidated
stakeholders' position papers were received:
·                        
Informal Position[64] of Member States and Associate States based on discussion of representatives in the ACARE Member States Group
and the Clean Sky National States Representatives Group;
·                        
Association of European Research Establishments
in Aeronautics (EREA) Position paper on the successor to Clean Sky in Horizon
2020;
·                        
European Aeronautics Science Network (EASN)
Position on a successor to Clean Sky in Horizon 2020.
2.1. Member States informal position
The Member States consider that since its
inception, the Clean Sky JTI is proving to be a very effective and efficient
instrument to mature and demonstrate promising greening technologies and
innovations. While improving further and increasing the openness of Clean Sky
activities, they are supportive of the preparation of a future JTI “Clean Sky
2” within the coming Framework Programme Horizon 2020. In the preparation of
this future JTI the successes and lessons learned of the current Clean Sky
programme should be taken into account in order to improve the JTI instrument
further.
The specific recommendations cover
governance, content, initiation / set up, and processes. Summarising key points
for governance the legal framework should be in place prior to the start of
Clean Sky 2. Clusters should be promoted and accepted as viable programme
entities. The National States Representative Group (NSRG) should become more
involved. It should be given earlier insight into activity plans and should respond
with recommendations. The number of ITD’s should be increased with ITD duration
periods less than full Clean Sky 2 programme period. Higher TRL topics should
remain the main focus for calls, with one partner proposals being accepted.
Clarity on the end of Clean Sky and start of Clean Sky 2 with clear separation
of the programmes is required. The bipartite funding model (50% EC / 50%
private funding) should be considered and current JU programme management
approaches and IP rules continued. Work programmes and calls for topics should
be developed in a comparable but more interactive way. The number of associates
should be increased and a clear selection process put in place. Tier 1 and 2
companies should be allowed to drive technology demonstration in a
non-prescriptive way. With regard to costs the structure should allow for at
least 50% funding of full costs in line with Horizon 2020 rates. 
2.2. European Research Establishments in
Aeronautics (EREA) position
EREA members consider that the Clean Sky
Joint Technology Initiative has proven to be an important and efficient instrument
for demonstration and are supportive of its continuation under Horizon 2020.
The successor of Clean Sky should be foreseen reinforcing the demonstration
activities for innovative technologies and radically new configurations,
reducing the risks of new product development.
EREA supports the idea of continuing with
five main topics within the current programme and considers that the focus of
the Clean Sky JTI under Horizon 2020 should be on developing, integrating and
demonstrating high TRL technologies and considering radical (X-plane)
configurations.
The current structure is estimated as
appropriate and could continue. Regarding funding they would like the same
funding rules applied as in Horizon 2020. They suggest that having
institutionalised EREA seats in the governing board would reinforce the development
of the partnership between EREA and industry. Use of research and test
facilities and associated hardware should attract 100% (full cost) funding and
treated as a service for industry. 
2.3. European Aeronautics Science
Network (EASN) position
EASN carried out a questionnaire campaign
asking its members for their views and positions regarding a successor to Clean
Sky in Horizon 2020. The overall experience from the participation of Academic
institutions in Clean Sky is positive and a successor of Clean Sky is
supported.
Some recommendations are issued concerning
the future successor of the Clean Sky JTI under Horizon 2020. 
It is stated that current budgets appear
too low for tasks offered, which may result in insufficient innovation to
project outcomes. With respect to the funding rules, it is recommended to coincide
with the Horizon 2020 rules used as a common EC funding model. In addition,
level 1 and level 2 projects should remain separate from Clean Sky 2. 
EASN also requested representation on the
governing board to provide an academic view on issues. They would also like to
contribute to implementing lessons learnt and have an active role in
dissemination.
With respect to the submission, evaluation
and negotiation process the existing deviations from the FP rules should be examined
whether necessary and all project titles and successful abstracts should be
published. 
Annex II: European aviation key figures
Aviation[65] is an
important sector for our society and helps to meet society needs by ensuring
suitable and sustainable mobility of passengers and freight and significantly
contributing to the European economy and to the competitiveness of Europe as a region[66]. Aviation has strong social impacts as it facilitates the European
integration and contributes to sustainable development by providing essential
transport links. It impacts also business operations efficiency by stimulating
development, opening new markets, boosting international trade, encouraging
investment and allowing effective communication between regions and companies. 
Figure 8: EU jobs and GDP
generated by aviation, 2010 (source: ATAG)
In economic terms, in 2010, the EU aviation
sector contributed €475 billion to the EU GDP or 3.9% of it including direct,
indirect, induced and tourism catalytic impact. €245 billion of this
contribution or ca. 2% of the GDP are from aviation direct and indirect only
impact[67]. The
sector is also a catalyst for growth and skilled employment. The number of jobs
created directly by the industry is estimated to have reached 1.7 million in
2010. In total (direct, indirect and induced impact), aviation supported 4.6
million jobs in EU and represented around 20% of the jobs in the sector
worldwide67. For comparison, the automotive sector in EU represented
12 million direct and indirect jobs and 4% of GDP in 2011[68].
The aeronautics sector itself generated in
2011 a turnover of €70 billion[69],
and approximately 60% is exported outside the European Union[70]. It creates a trade surplus of €2.2 billion a year[71]. The sector is characterised by a large positive trade balance and high
R&D intensity (14% of their annual turnover reinvested in Research and
Development[72]), with a particular focus on lower carbon technology solutions[73]. The European aeronautics sector alone numbers around 2 000
aeronautics companies and 80 000 subcontractors including significant share of
small and medium sized enterprises[74]. It is an important employer of highly educated personnel. Around
1/3 of the employees are university graduates73. In 2009, the sector
supported 468 300 highly skilled and sustainable jobs74. The current
forecast for the sector is to grow by 4.8% average annual growth rate from 2010
to 2030[75], thus providing a stable source of job creation (1.6 million jobs
in 20 years corresponding to the growth forecast) and societal stability.
In terms of passengers, in 2010, the total
number of passengers travelling by air in the European Union was 777 million,
an increase with 3.4% compared to 2009. 41% of these travels were intra-EU and
21% were national[76]. In
terms of cargo, in 2010 more than 13 million tons of cargo was transported in
EU Member states where international extra-EU transport represents 80% of this
total76. While this represents less than 1% of the tonnage of EU
trade with the rest of the world, in terms of value-density[77] of freight the aviation cargo
transport has a significant share – nearly 23% of the value of that trade [78].
Today, the European aeronautics sector is
one of the world leaders in terms of production, employment and exports. In
2007, the aerospace sector including aeronautics had a trade surplus with
Extra-EU exports valued ad €41,450 million and trade balance of €11,183 million[79]. In 2010 Europe was the clear leader in terms of the number of
transactions announced and Airbus, with revenues of US$36.6 billion in 2009, is
the leader in the large commercial aircraft segment, closely followed by Boeing [80]. In the civil helicopter market, Europe is the global leader with
players such as Eurocopter and Agusta Westland. 
Between 2000 and 2006, EU-27 companies applied
at the European Patent Office in total for 1240 patents in the space and
aeronautics sectors. Germany and France have the highest shares, followed at
some distance by the United Kingdom. Germany and France also have the highest
share in the patents granted by USPTO in the period 1997-2003. It is worth
noting that the sector performed well in terms of innovation and scientific
performance during the global recession in 2008. In 2009 the "Aircraft;
Aviation; Cosmonautics" was one of the top technical fields by number of
publications in the European Patent Office with 573 applications (6.9% growth compared
to the previous year[81]).
By its nature the European aeronautics
industry is a cross-border industry. It is distributed geographically in several
EU Member States. The main aeronautics countries are France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy and Spain that account over three quarters of the production and 89%
of value-added. Other countries such as Sweden, The Netherlands, Poland, Belgium and Czech Republic are also established players in the sector and there is a certain
specialization within these Member States in the manufacturing of parts and
components. These manufacturers are spread equally in the supply chain and, given that 75% of the cost of aircraft is
going to suppliers, there is significant budget distributed to companies that
are outside of the five main aeronautics countries. One example could be
Poland, which is not considered as aeronautics country but there are roughly 55
aviation companies operating in Poland which employ a total of 16 000 people. A
significant share of their output is exported. Moreover, in the current Clean
Sky programme there are stakeholders from 24 Member states and associated
states. At the same time the impact from the programme goes beyond the
aeronautics companies but also to airlines, airports and therefore to all
Member States, not to mention the impact of emission and noise reduction which
applies globally.
Figure 9: Distribution of European
Aerospace and Defence Industry employment (source ASD[82]) 
European aeronautics sector in the
international context
Today, the European aeronautics sector is
one of the world leaders in terms of production, employment and exports.
Despite this leadership, the European aeronautics sector evolves in a complex
international environment and the EU aeronautics industry is increasingly
confronted with strong international competition from traditional or emerging
competitors. 
The US aviation industry is one of the main
global competitors and US government strongly invests in aeronautics R&D. NASA
conducts and administers the Aeronautics and Space Program which accounted for
2011 $18.5 billion. It represents 0.5% of the $3.4 trillion USA federal budget or 35% of total spending on academic scientific research in the United States. Space gets around 54% ($10 billion), while science $ 4.5 billion, followed
by maintenance of old and construction of new facilities $3.5 billion,
technology demonstrators $650 million, the Aeronautics Research Programme $590
million and education $146 million. More than 18,000 people work for NASA. Many
more work with the agency as government contractors.
Canada is also
investing in research in aeronautics. The statistics of 2011 state of the
Canadian Aerospace Industry show that $2.0 billion are invested in R&D. Currently,
Bombardier, the third-largest airplane manufacturer based in Canada, is developing the CSeries family of airliners, capable of carrying 110 to 130
passengers and competing directly with the smallest airliners from Airbus and
Boeing. The first deliveries are expected at the end of 2013.
The Russian Federation is also one of the
players in the market with a significant potential to challenge the current
players and expects to become the world’s third largest aircraft manufacturer
by 2015. In 2006, the Russian aircraft industry was consolidated under the
state owned joint stock company Obyedinyonnaya Aviasroitelnaya Korporatsiya
("UAC"). The government is currently supporting the aerospace
industry through the Federal Targeted Programme “Development of Civil Aviation
Technology of Russia in 2002-2010 and up to the year 2015” with a budget
estimated around 4 billion Euro[83].
Similarly, Brazil is a leader in the
aeronautics sector with the “Embraer” company producing regional aircraft.
Embraer was significantly impacted by the financial crisis and saw reductions
in orders, revenues, and employment but is gradually improving. Public sector
organisations played a critical role in creating Embraer through direct
funding, tax breaks, and other forms of support but currently there is a
reduction in direct government funding. A federally-owned bank does, however,
provide interest rates rebates for loan purchasers of exported Embraer aircraft[84].
China’s ambition to
become a force in the industry is clearly indicated by aerospace being targeted
in the 12th Five Year Plan (2011-2015) as a Priority Industry[85]. As an example, the Chinese state-owned company COMAC is expected
to become the strongest of all the newcomers “because they have more financial
firepower than anybody else”.[86] COMAC may eventually hold a monopoly on the production of jet
aircraft of over 70 seats what is projected to be the world’s second largest
aviation market by 202584. COMAC will also benefit from a large
domestic market, since over the next twenty years China is expected to be the
most valuable aircraft market. The increasing role of Chinese banks in aircraft
financing may also strengthen COMAC position.
Japan is also
becoming an important airliner player with the development of the Mitsubishi
Regional Jet passenger aircraft. The project is in manufacturing with its
maiden flight scheduled for 2013 and first delivery in 2015.

Annex III : Summary of the cost-benefit
analysis of JU
The cost-benefit analysis is provided as
input to and forms an integral part of the Impact Assessment carried out by the
Commission Services on the Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) set up on the
basis of Article 187 TFEU planned under Horizon 2020.
The cost-benefit analysis focuses on those
costs and benefits of the implementation means of the PPP - the Joint
Undertaking - that can be easily quantified and monetised. As such, it covers
exclusively the costs and benefits of the dedicated administrative structures
set up to implement the strategic research agendas of the JTIs, the Joint
Undertakings (JUs). A comprehensive analysis of the benefits and costs
associated with different policy choices, such as opting for a PPP or not, are
outside the scope of this analysis.
JUs are currently the preferred
administrative structure used to implement the JTI instrument. Five JTI JUs are
currently in operation, 3 under the responsibility of DG RTD (IMI, CLEANSKY and
FCH) and two under the responsibility of DG CNECT (ARTEMIS and ENIAC). While
JUs remain complex from a legal and administrative point of view, they have
become the instrument of choice to implement JTIs, mainly because they address
the need for visible legal, contractual and organizational structures within
which to implement joint commitments between public and private partners, as
well as for reasons that they leverage private investment in key research
areas. Therefore, Art. 187 initiatives are an important element of the
Commission's Work Program 2013.
Our comparative analysis focuses on the
administrative costs of the year 2011 of the DG RTD's JUs, the ERC-EA executive
agency and the operational/thematic directorates in DG RTD, thus covering all
three programme implementation management modes currently in use.
Costs of setting up, monitoring and winding
down a JU are explored as well. Some of the costs estimated are limited to an
order of magnitude assessment because of lack of a more appropriate detailed
input data.
Our analysis will lead us to conclude that
the use of a JU to implement a JTI of the current size is about cost neutral
for the European Commission, both in respect of the JU's creation, operation
and winding down procedure and in respect of managing any FP7 legacy, as long
as 50% of the administrative costs of the operation of the JU is 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 should be
implemented and cost-increasing derogations from Horizon 2020 provisions have
to be avoided.
The full report of the Cost-Benefits
analysis can be found at http://intranet-rtd.rtd.cec.eu.int/int_com/docs/CBA_JU.pdf

Annex IV: Executive summary of the preliminary report of the Impact
Assessment Expert Group
This summary presents the main conclusions
and recommendations of the group of experts for the Clean Sky 2 (CS2) Impact
Assessment study performed in July-August 2012. 
The Expert Group has been established by
the Commission in June 2012 in order to “Provide an expert opinion on the
content and the relevance for the establishment of the Clean Sky 2 and assess
the different scenarios for the way forward of the current Clean Sky
programme.”
The Expert Group fully supports the CS2
initiative.
·                        
The Expert Group agrees that the CS2 initiative
is justified and necessary for a full integration of Clean Sky demonstrators
and for further technology innovation towards Flightpath 2050 goals. 
·                        
The Expert Group supports the general objectives
as ambitious but realistic and consistent with Horizon 2020 guidelines and
current technological requirements.
·                        
The Expert Group considers that the Clean Sky
type of organisation gives a project-like character to the programme.
Activities are focused and awareness of objectives and deadlines is high. In
view of the satisfactory operation of the Clean Sky JU, the Expert Group
supports the establishment of a similar structure for CS2.
·                        
Whilst the general objectives are endorsed, the
Expert Group recommends quantifying the environmental targets and identifying
and justifying the societal and economic objectives.
·                        
The Expert Group considers that the detailed
technical content of CS2 should be available well before the official start of
CS2. This involves preparing a work plan with project milestones including
decision gates, such as for launching demonstrations.
·                        
The Expert Group stresses that CS2 should not
become a broad development programme constituted by the sum of all desirable
research activities. In most IADPs and ITDs, there is a need to streamline the
programme and to focus on key high priority topics. High priority topics should
be those required for IADP demonstrators or the most promising ones in terms of
environmental and socio-economic impact. The streamlining process must be an
integral and essential objective of the project definition. 
The Expert Group notes the special
requirements and constraints regarding the establishment of CS2, the overlap
between Clean Sky and CS2 and recognizes the need for technical and managerial
continuity to ensure a seamless transition of activities. 
·                        
The Expert Group considers that these
requirements are best achieved by considering CS2 as an extension of Clean Sky,
and not just as a new project. This scheme has been used successfully in a
previous Joint Undertaking. This approach would be consistent not only with the
rationale and objectives of Horizon 2020 but also with the longer term
objectives of Flightpath 2050. 
·                        
With regards to the governance, the Expert Group
supports the approach to maintain all Clean Sky instruments with a single management
structure for Clean Sky and CS2 during the transition period from 2014 to 2017.
This will provide technical and managerial continuity.
·                        
In order to clarify the management and reporting
chain, the Expert Group considers that Governing Board members and their
alternates from industry should be selected among senior aeronautical industry
technical representatives but who are not directly involved in IADP and ITD
activities. 
·                        
The role and responsibilities of the JU and its
management need to be strengthened. 
·                        
The Executive Team staff and budget resources
should be substantially increased because of the parallel management of Clean
Sky and CS2 and also because the estimated budget for CS2, 3.6b€, far exceeds
the 1.6b€ of the Clean Sky budget thus implying more extended and demanding
activities. 
The Expert Group recommends maintaining the
Technology Evaluator (TE) as an essential element within CS2, with its role
being strengthened. 
·                        
TE should develop independent simulation
capabilities in order to monitor results with the TE team coming from highly
qualified independent research / academic institutes. 
·                        
The TE budget should be raised according to the
extended scope.
In conclusion, the Experts' Panel agrees
that CS2 has the potential to play a vital role in addressing Horizon 2020
societal challenges and in moving towards the targets set by Flightpath
2050.
Annex V: Technology Readiness Levels (TRL)
 Technology Readiness Level || Description 
 1 || Basic principles observed and reported || Lowest level of technology readiness. Scientific research begins with, to be translated into applied research and development. Example might include paper studies of a technology's basic properties. 
 2 || Technology concept and/or application formulated || Invention begins. Once basic principles are observed, practical applications can be invented. The application is speculative and there is no proof or detailed analysis to support the assumption. Examples are still limited to paper studies. 
 3 || Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic || Active research and development is initiated. This includes analytical studies and laboratory studies to physically validate analytical predictions of separate elements of the technology. Examples include components that are not yet integrated or representative. 
 4 || Component and/or breadboard validation in laboratory environment || Basic technological components are integrated to establish that the pieces will work together. This is relatively "low fidelity" compared to the eventual system. Examples include integration of 'ad hoc' hardware in a laboratory. 
 5 || Component and/or breadboard validation in relevant environment || Fidelity of breadboard technology increases significantly. The basic technological components are integrated with reasonably realistic supporting elements so that the technology can be tested in a simulated environment. Examples include 'high fidelity' laboratory integration of components. 
 6 || System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment || Representative model or prototype system, which is well beyond the breadboard tested for TRL 5, is tested in a relevant environment. Represents a major step up in a technology's demonstrated readiness. Examples include testing a prototype in a high fidelity laboratory environment or in simulated operational environment. 
 7 || System prototype demonstration in a operational environment || Prototype near or at planned operational system. Represents a major step up from TRL 6, requiring the demonstration of an actual system prototype in an operational environment, such as in an aircraft, vehicle or space. Examples include testing the prototype in a test bed aircraft. 
 8 || Actual system completed and 'flight qualified' through test and demonstration || Technology has been proven to work in its final form and under expected conditions. In almost all cases, this TRL represents the end of true system development. Examples include developmental test and evaluation of the system in its intended weapon system to determine if it meets design specifications. 
 9 || Actual system 'flight proven' through successful mission operations || Actual application of the technology in its final form and under mission conditions, such as those encountered in operational test and evaluation. In almost all cases, this is the end of the last "bug fixing" aspects of true system development. Examples include using the system under operational mission conditions. 
The
following table presents graphically the TRLs and their link with the R&D
process as well as the coverage of each TRL by type of project inside the EU
framework programme.
Figure 10: Research, Technology and Product Development. (Source
EREA, EC)
Annex VI: Clean Sky
In the Clean Sky programme 12 industry
leaders, 74 associated members and more than 400 partners are working together
in a number of technology domains to address the common environmental
objectives and to demonstrate and validate the required technology
breakthroughs in a commonly defined programme. All those technology domains
have been integrated into 6 Integrated Technology Demonstrators (ITD), that
cover the broad range of R&D work and able to deliver together more
environmental friendly aircraft manufacturing and operations: 
·       
Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft, delivering active
wing technologies and new aircraft configuration
·       
Green Regional Aircraft, delivering low-weight
aircraft 
·       
Green Rotorcraft delivering, innovative rotor
blades, engine installation and advanced electrical systems.
·       
Sustainable and Green Engines, designing and
building innovative engine demonstrators
·       
Systems for Green Operations, focused on new
equipment and systems architectures to fully exploit the benefits of Single
European Sky
·       
Eco-Design focused on green design and
production, withdrawal, and recycling of aircraft
In addition, the Technology Evaluator
programme, a set of models to predict the local and global ecological impact of
the technologies developed, allows independent analysis of the projects as they
unfold and assesses the performance of the technologies developed under Clean
Sky.
Figure 11: Structure of the Clean
Sky programme
Part of the Clean Sky programme is
performed by partners selected through open calls for proposals to address
specific tasks which fit into the overall technical Work Programme and time
schedule. 
Clean Sky objectives for the whole
programme at the aircraft level are to reduce CO2 aircraft emission
by around 20-40%, NOx by around 60% and noise by up to 10dB compared to year
2000 aircraft. These objectives have been identified as a sum of different
objectives by aircraft type:
   || Widebody 2020 || Narrowbody 2015 || Regional 2020 || Corporate 2020 || Rotorcraft 2020 
   || || || || || 
 CO2 || -30% || -20% || -40% || -30% || -30% 
 NOx || -60% || -60% || -60% || -30% || -60% 
 Noise[87] || -5 to -7 dB || -4 to -7 dB || -2 to -9 dB || -2.5 to -10 dB || -3.3 dB 
During the Clean Sky JU lifecycle some
changes in aircraft fleet replacement strategy were introduced in the sector.
In 2007, when the CS objectives, key demonstrators and relevant schedules were
defined, the fleet replacement for ‘single aisle’ aircraft was scheduled for
2018-2020. Due to the steep increase of oil prices, the introduction of new
generation of single aisle aircraft was postponed to 2025 and beyond and a new
intermediate generation of aircraft is introduced bringing ca 15% fuel
efficiency over the current year 2000 generation[88]. The future R&D investment
in the sector will be benchmarked against the performance of this new
generation. This market change has also led to slight modifications in the
Clean Sky technical programme without changing the overall objectives.
Since
its establishment, the Clean Sky JU is successfully stimulating developments
towards the strategic environmental targets. The programme provides ground for
radical new technological concepts that would otherwise be beyond the
manageable risk of the private sector and gives the necessary financial
certainty and stability to the aviation sector and investors to develop and
introduce game-changing innovations in timeframes otherwise unachievable. Clean
Sky has established also links with the SESAR Joint Undertaking[89] which develops Air Traffic Management (ATM) technologies in line
with the "Single European Sky" initiative of the Commission[90].
Annex VII: List of Clean Sky Demonstrators per ITD
   ||   || Ground demonstrator || Flying demonstrator 
 SFWA || High Speed Smart Wing Flight Demonstrator || several ground-based 'feature' demonstrators from 2010 to 2013 || An Airbus A340-300 test aircraft will be used to demonstrate the laminar wing mid-2015 
 Low Speed Smart Wing Flight Demonstrator || two innovative technologies will be ground-tested: "smart flap" concept and an active vibration control system || If the ground test is successful a flight test on a Falcon F7X of the active vibration control is intended to be engaged in 2014 
 Innovative Engine Demonstrator Flying Test Bed ('CROR engine - demo FTB') || the CROR SAGE2 engine will be developed with the target to be ground and flight tested within Clean Sky in SFWA. || The first ground demonstrator engine in SAGE2 is now planned for demonstration in 2015 and will be flight tested in 2016 on an Airbus A340-600 
 Long Term Technology Flight Demonstrator || Demonstrations will be performed on ground for down selected candidate technologies contributing to the smart wing. || Dedicated flight test activities will be prepared and conducted when only very light modifications on the aircraft are necessary. 
 Innovative Empennage Demonstrator || a full scale afterbody mock up will be tested on-ground, integrating an existing turbofan || No testing activities 
 Advanced Lip Extended Acoustic Panel || No dedicated activities || flight tested with A380-800 
 GRA || Low weight configuration || Testing of Coupon Testing of Large Stiffened Panels Full Scale Ground Demo || No testing activities 
 Low Noise configuration || Low Noise & High Efficiency High Lift Devices Natural Laminar Flow Wing HLD || No testing activities 
 All electrical Aircraft || Ground Laboratory Test (copper bird and other) of main critical components. || In-flight demonstration (ATR-72)of some critical sub-systems (E-ECS, E-WIPS, EMA, etc.) 
 Trajectory & mission management || Flight Simulator on ground including FMS with optimised trajectories (in relation with SGO) || No testing activities 
 GRC || Innovative Rotor blades on Ground / in Flight || component testing (sub-systems & wind tunnel), full scale ground testing (whirl tower) || limited flight testing 
 Drag reduction on Ground / in Flight || 14 active demonstrators will be tested || Flight testing performed on 6 out of 14 demonstrators 
 Medium helicopter electrical system demonstrator including electromechanical actuation for flight controls || the demonstration will be carried out on the copper bird test bench (EDA) || No testing activities 
 Lightweight helicopter electromechanical actuation || Ground tests performed on an SW-4 helicopter || No testing activities 
 Electric Tail Rotor Prototype || Ground-test performed on an in-house test bench || No testing activities 
 Diesel powered flight worthy helicopter Demonstrator || Ground tests planed in 2013/ early 2014 on an engine test bench and on EC120 helicopter || Flight testing activities planned mid 2014 - 2015 on an EC120 helicopter (but w/o Clean Sky funding) 
 Flight paths operational Demonstrations || Flight path demonstrator and cockpit simulation tool || Flight tests planed on EC155, EC145, SW-4, AW139 and Tilt-rotor AW609 
 Rotorcraft Eco Design Demonstrators || 4 technology demonstrators || No testing activities 
 SGO || COPPER BIRD || Techno for BusiJet, Regional or Helicopter Applications will be ground tested on the EDS test bench (Copper Bird) || No testing activities in SGO 
 PROVEN (Ground test rig at Airbus Toulouse) || All major electrical equipment for Short Range Aircraft applications will be ground tested on PROVEN test bench as regards their electrical characteristics || Part of critical electrical technologies will be flight tested 
 AVANT (Thermal test rig at Airbus Hamburg) || All major electrical equipment for Short Range Aircraft applications will be ground tested on PROVEN test bench as regards their electrical characteristics || Some electrical technologies will be flight tested 
 In house electrical technologies demonstrators || All major electrical for Short Range Aircraft applications will be ground tested on PROVEN test bench as regards their thermal characteristics || No testing activities 
 AIR LAB, MOSAR & GRACE simulations || New innovative flight path trajectories will be ground tested on different trajectory simulation tools (Airlab, Mosar and GRACE) with various level of representiveness || No testing activities 
 SAGE || Geared Open Rotor Demonstrator 1 || Main critical engine parts tested at component level and the feasibility of the engine concept itself on the Rig 145 CROR Blade Testing || No testing activities within the timeframe of Clean Sky (forecast in 2018) 
 Geared Open Rotor Demonstrator 2 || Main critical components tested at component level and the first build of the open rotor demonstrator will be ground tested in 2015 || Testing activities planned in SFWA 
 Advanced Low Pressure System (ALPS) Demonstrator || The engine test vehicle will be a Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 engine || Flying test bed tests will be performed 
 Geared Turbofan Demonstrator || Components and modules with new technologies will be developed and validated through rig testing as required before implemented into a GTF donor engine || No testing activities 
 Turboshaft Demonstrator || Both main critical components and the engine itself || No testing activities 
 Lean Burn Demonstrator || Both main critical components and the engine itself || No testing activities 
 ECO || COPPER BIRD || Techno for BusiJet, Regional or Helicopter Applications will be ground tested on the EDS test bench (Copper Bird) || No testing activities in ED 
 Thermal Bench || Techno for BusiJet, Regional or Helicopter Applications will be ground tested on the EDS test bench || No testing activities in ED 
 'Clustered technologies' parts Demonstrators || Demonstrators are developed for different technologies || No testing activities in ED 
Annex VIII: Statistics on Clean Sky calls
Clean Sky Calls
for Proposals results between 2009 and 2012 (from Call 1 to Call 12), at a
glance:
 Total cost || 227 M€ 
 Total funding || 149 M€ 
 Number of partners || 446 
 Number of topics || 525 
 Average funding rate || 65.6 % 
 Applicants success rate || 35% 
 Average number of participants per topic || 1.96 
 Average SME share || 35 % in funding 
 Average Academia share || 18 % in funding 
 Average Research organisations' share || 19 % in funding 
The following pie charts present the
distribution of the applicants by type and by share of funding.
 || || 
In total – Members included – around 500
Participants take part in the Clean Sky programme. More than 50% of Clean Sky's
beneficiaries are newcomers in the European funded research programmes. 
The following graph presents a breakdown of
Clean Sky Call for Proposals "winning organisations", per country (as
Coordinators of the consortium). 
The following tables present the
distribution of the beneficiaries in the calls for proposals.
 Total winning Projects up to call 13 ||   || 405 
 Mono-beneficiary || 173 || 43% 
 Bi-beneficiaries || 125 || 31% 
 3 beneficiaries || 72 || 18% 
 4 beneficiaries || 23 || 6% 
 5 beneficiaries || 7 || 2% 
 Mono beneficiary projects || Projects || % out of total 173 mono-beneficiaries projects 
 SME || 58 || 34% 
 Research Centre (RC) || 43 || 25% 
 High Education (HE) || 69 || 40% 
 Total || 173 ||   
 Bi-beneficiaries projects || Projects || % out of total 125 Bi-beneficiaries projects 
 1 SME and HE/RC || 57 || 47% 
 Team of 2 SMEs || 15 || 12% 
 Team of RC & HE or RC&RC or HE&HE || 23 || 19% 
 Total || 125 ||   
This demonstrates that the mono and
bi-beneficiaries projects are the majority with a high participation of SMEs
and Academia. 
Annex IX: Product Timeline Assumptions
Annex X: Impact Assessment board opinion
Implementation of the IAB's comments
 Comment || Answer 
 Align the problem analysis to the remaining policy choices. 
 Given that key parameters have been already set in the "Horizon 2020" proposal the report should concentrate in its problem description on the actual scope of the intervention, i.e. finding the most suitable governance option for a joint research and development programme. || The report focuses now on the three options of Joint Initiative looking for the most suitable between them. (ch. 4) 
 The overview of market and technology developments should be reduced to a short policy context section. || Reduced. Information moved to annexes. 
 Instead the problem definition should build much stronger on the lessons learned from the evaluations that have been completed, including where relevant evaluations of similar projects in other policy areas, and corresponding Court of Auditor Reports. || Lessons learned section strengthened (ch. 2.6) 
 It should show on the basis of evidence what aspects of the current programme have been effective, with regards to achieving the objectives and regional effects. || ch. 2.6 
 It should clearly identify who has benefited from the existing programme, including an explanation that a considerable part of the benefits actually go to suppliers to the aircraft industry that are much more evenly distributed over EU Member States than the aircraft manufactures. || Ch. 2.6.1 indicates that there are 413 participants from 24 countries in Clean Sky. Explanation that a significant budget is distributed to companies outside of the five main aeronautics countries is added in Annex II 
 It should present the results of monitoring with the Technology Evaluator and better describe the benefits of demonstrators, using for example the technical results from the Sustainable and Green Engines, and the Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft demonstrators. || Ch. 2.6.2 and ch. 2.6.3 
 The report should explain the importance of stimulating the development of new higher risk technologies to ensure their availability in time for the next expected fleet renewal of 2025/2030, and clarify why (emissions) legislation is not enough to ensure that this technology will be developed sufficiently quickly. || Ch. 2.7 
 The report should also strengthen its arguments concerning the threat of international competition, and give a fair indication of public funding awarded to the aeronautics sector in competing countries. || Annex II 
 The baseline scenario (current Option 1) should be set out in sufficient detail in the problem section, with an explanation that the autonomous 1.5% p.a. reduction in CO2 emissions that is assumed for this scenario is based on expert consensus. || Baseline scenario explained in ch. 2.7. The assumption of 1.5% p.a. reduction in CO2 is for a scenario where no support is provided. The baseline scenario, if selected, will provide better reduction that the 1.5% p.a. but still not sufficient and not in time for the next generation of aircraft. 
 Better explain the objectives 
 The objectives section should clarify on what analytical and/or practical basis the CO2 and market share targets have been set. || Para. Error! Reference source not found. 
 It should also explain why setting concrete objectives for NOx or noise levels is complicated because of the trade-offs between the two. || Specific objectives for NOx and noise are introduced. Ch. 3.2 based on trade-offs and realistic estimations. 
 The reviewed report should include the targets for these two items, with a discussion of the trade-offs. || Specific objectives for NOx and noise are introduced. Ch. 3.2 
 The discussion of targets for C02 reduction should clearly explain that the aim to reach 30% reductions is consistent with the proposed development of this technology in time for the next fleet renewal. || Para. Error! Reference source not found. 
 Better assess and compare options 
 The report should explain clearly that although the options may all entail roughly the same costs, they are expected to differ in their effectiveness in stimulating and speeding up the high risk technological development, that is considered indispensable to benefit from the next round of fleet renewal to deliver on the key objectives. || Ch. 4.5.1 
 It should provide clearer evidence, for example based on comparative analysis with the EU's main competitors, how this type of funding can actually improve the competitiveness of the European aerospace industry. || Annex II 
 The Report should provide a more detailed account of the social impact of the programme, as well of its benefit across Member States. || Social impact section strengthened. 
 Procedure and presentation 
 The report should incorporate the results of available interim and ex-post evaluations, and relevant Court of Auditors reports in a more transparent way, preferably in a separate chapter in the problem description. || Results presented in ch. 2.6.4 and 2.6.5 
 Some issues, such as the benefits of demonstrators should be explained in less technical terms. || Ch. 2.6.2 
 The report should identify stakeholders (or categories thereof) rather than report percentages and incorporate and discuss where relevant critical input received. || Annex I presents stakeholders and critical inputs. 
[1]               COM/2011/0144
final http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0144:FIN:EN:PDF 
[2]               COM(2011)
572 final http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/pdf/partnering_communication.pdf 
[3]               COM(2011) 809 final http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0809:FIN:en:PDF 
[4]               Annex
X provides more details about implementation of the IAB recommendations
[5]               see Annex
IV
[6]               see
Annex I
[7]               COM(2010) 546 final http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0546:FIN:EN:PDF 
[8]               COM(2010) 614 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0614:FIN:EN:PDF 
[9]               COM(2011) 21 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0021:FIN:EN:PDF 
[10]             COM(2011) 144
final http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0144:FIN:en:PDF 
[11]             COM(2011) 112
final http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0112:FIN:en:PDF 
[12]             Flightpath 2050 – Europe’s Vision
for Aviation, European Commission 2011 
[13]             EU
contribution is maximum € 800 million. Industry contribution is at least equal
to EU contribution.
[14]             Proposal
for a Council Decision establishing the Specific Programme Implementing Horizon
2020 - The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020)
[15]             European Commission: Proposal
for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing
Horizon 2020 - The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020).
COM(2011) 809 final
[16]             European
Commission: Proposal for a Council Decision establishing a Specific Programme
Implementing Horizon 2020 - The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation
(2014-2020). COM(2011) 811 final, p. 24
[17]             For convenience in this
document Aviation refers collectively to Aeronautics and air transport.
Aeronautics and air transport comprises both: air vehicle and system
technology, design and manufacture; and also the constituent parts of the
overall air travel system (aircraft, airlines, general aviation, airports, air
traffic management, and maintenance, repair and overhaul) as well as many
non-transport applications of aircraft, such as search and rescue. 
[18]             See
annex II
[19]             International Energy Agency
(2011), CO2 emissions from fuel combustion 2011, OECD/IEA, Paris
[20]             "Climate change:
Commission proposes bringing air transport into EU Emissions Trading
Scheme" (Press release). EU press release 20 December 2006.
[21]             SEC(2011)
288 final - Impact Assessment – A roadmap for moving to a competitive low
carbon economy in 2050
[22]             Vision
2050, IATA, 2011
[23]             In
2001, the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Assembly endorsed
the concept of a "balanced approach" to aircraft noise management.
This consists of various measures to reduce noise through the exploration of
four principal elements, namely reduction at source (quieter aircraft),
land-use planning and management, noise abatement operational procedures and
operating restrictions. 
[24]             Noise
footprint is the area which is exposed to noise levels in excess of 85dB
[25]             The
standards for aircraft noise emissions are contained in Annex 16 of the ICAO
Standards and Recommended Practices. The initial standards for jet-powered
aircraft designed before 1977 were included in Chapter 2 of Annex 16.
Subsequently, newer aircraft were required to meet the stricter standards
contained in Chapter 3. Starting
1 January 2006, new, more stringent standard contained in Chapter 4 became
applicable.
[26]             Effective
Perceived Noise in dB (EPNdB) is a measure of human annoyance to aircraft noise
which has special characteristics and persistence of sounds. It accounts for
human response to spectral shape, intensity, tonal content and duration of
noise from an aircraft.
[27]             Airbus’
Global Market Forecast for 2011-2030
[28]             Revenue
passenger kilometers (RPKs) are measures of traffic for an airline flight
calculated by multiplying the number of revenue-paying passengers aboard the
vehicle by the distance travelled.
[29]             Aerospace Global Report 2011, A
  Clearwater Industrials Team Report
[30]             Leading
the way, Market forecast 2011-2030, Bombardier Business Aircraft, Bombardier
[31]             Rolls Royce Market Outlook 2009
- http://www.rolls-royce.com/civil/about/market_outlook/index.jsp
[32]             Council
Decision of 19 December 2006 concerning the specific programme “Cooperation“
implementing the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for
research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013).
OJ L 54/30-80, 22.2.2007. pp. 61 and 78
[33]             http://ec.europa.eu/research/jti/pdf/clean_sky_interim_evaluation_15-12-2010.pdf 
[34]             See
Annex IV
[35]             JTI
Sherpas’ Group: Designing together the „ideal house“ for Public Private
Partnerships in European research. Final report. January 2010
[36]             ICAO
Environmental report, 2010 – Aviation Outlook
[37]             As an
example, the Airbus A300 was launched in 1969, entered into service in 1974
with the last aircraft being delivered after 33 years in July 2007. The Airbus
A380 (a new model of aircraft put into service in 2007) has been subjected to
tests covering 25 years of use
[38]             See
Annex V on Technology Readiness Levels description
[39]             for ex.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 748/2012 laying down implementing rules for the
airworthiness and environmental certification of aircraft and related products,
parts and appliances, as well as for the certification of design and production
organisations
[40]             ICAO
Standards and Recommended Practices Annex 16
[41]             For
example, the Single European Sky (SES) legislation reforms air traffic
management organisation in Europe and aims at 10% emissions reduction per
flight. Another example is the adoption in 2008 of the necessary legislation
for bringing aviation into the EU Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) estimated to
save 183 million tonnes of CO2 per year on the flights covered.
[42]             See Annex II
[43]             FWC Sector Competitiveness
Studies - Competitiveness of the EU Aerospace Industry with focus on:
Aeronautics Industry, final report, Munich, 15 December 2009
[44]             Inter-firm
R&D partnerships: an overview of major trends and patterns since 1960, John
Hagedoorn
[45]             The indicated % share of funding for SMEs is
calculated only using the part of funding foreseen for the open calls (€200
million foreseen for the calls while €600million is foreseen for the grants to
the named beneficiaries).
[46]             See
Annex VIII
[47]             http://ec.europa.eu/research/jti/pdf/clean_sky_interim_evaluation_15-12-2010.pdf
[48]             See
Annex I, chapter 2
[49]             http://ec.europa.eu/research/jti/pdf/jti-sherpas-report-2010_en.pdf

[50]             See ref.
47 
[51]             http://eca.europa.eu/portal/pls/portal/docs/1/22482779.PDF

[52]             OJ C
342, 16.12.2010; OJ C 368, 16.12.2011 and OJ C 6, 10.1.2013
[53]             Airbus,
Alenia, Eurocopter market forecasts 2011-2030
[54]             See annex
IX
[55]             State-of-the-art
aircraft is a new baseline introduced for a future initiative. Currently, Clean
sky results are compared to year 2000 aircraft reference. The state-of-the-art
aircraft (e.g Airbus A320-NEO, Boeing 737-MAX, Boeing 787, Airbus A350 etc.)
introduces already 15% decrease of CO2 emissions compared to the
Y2000 aircraft.
[56]             Effective
Perceived Noise in dB (EPNdB) is a measure of human annoyance to aircraft noise
which has special characteristics and persistence of sounds. It accounts for
human response to spectral shape, intensity, tonal content and duration of
noise from an aircraft.
[57]             This represents around 30% of
reduction of the noise emissions levels compared to
"State-of-the-art" aircraft entering into service as from 2014.
[58]             Bring to an end EU level
R&D financing and re-nationalise R&D and innovation policies
[59]             Collaborative
projects are focused research projects with clearly defined scientific and
technological objectives and specific expected results (such as developing new
knowledge or technology to improve European competitiveness). They are carried
out by consortia made up of participants from different countries, and from
industry and academia.
[60]             Even
though all options aim at achieving the objectives of up to 30% of CO2
and NOx reduction and 5 dB noise reductions, only part of them will be ready at
the end of programme period for introduction in the next generation. The other
technologies will achieve lower maturity at the end of the programme and
although they will not be introduced in the new generation of aircraft they
will gear towards the ACARE Flightpath 2050 mid-term objectives.
[61]             NOx
emissions are computed as directly proportional to the CO2 reductions.
[62]             Aviation:
Benefits beyond borders –Air Transport Action Group, 2012
[63]             WHO-JRC, 2011; Report on
“Burden of disease from environmental noise, http://www.euro.who.int/en/what-we-do/health-topics/environmental-health/noise
[64]             This position
should not be considered as a formal opinion of any of the Member States. The
Member States will draft their positions in the formal decision process through
their national structures and this position does not therefore preclude that
process in any way.
[65]             Aviation refers collectively to
Aeronautics and air transport. Aeronautics and air transport comprises both:
air vehicle and system technology, design and manufacture; and also the
constituent parts of the overall air travel system (aircraft, airlines, general
aviation, airports, air traffic management, and maintenance, repair and
overhaul) as well as many non-transport applications of aircraft, such as
search and rescue. 
[66]             The vital importance of
Aviation for the European economy and our societies was highlighted in 2010
during the Icelandic volcanic eruption in April. 5 days of European airspace
closed, involving 100,000 flights cancelled, 2 million passengers stranded and
billions of losses for the economy show to what extent Europe depends on an
efficient and well-functioning air transport sector.
[67]             Aviation: Benefits beyond borders, European Union 27
nations – Air Transport Action Group, October 2012
[68]             European
Commission Press release - IP/12/1187 - CARS 2020: for a strong, competitive
and sustainable European car industry, 8th of November 2012
[69]             ASD,
Aerospace and Defence Industries Association of Europe – Key facts and figures,
2011
[70]             Flightpath 2050 Europe’s Vision for Aviation, p.5
[71]             European Commission (2006),
“Flying high, Aeronautics Research in the Seventh Framework Programme”
[72]             ASD Facts and Figures 2011
[73]             Competitiveness Studies -
Competitiveness of the EU Aerospace Industry with focus on: Aeronautics
Industry. EC (ENTR/06/054) - http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/aerospace/files/aerospace_studies/aerospace_study_en.pdf
[74]             Strategic Research and
Innovation Agenda Volume 1- Draft 4.0, ACARE, June 2012
[75]             Airbus GMF 2011-2030 delivering
the future - http://www.airbus.com/company/market/forecast/passenger-aircraft-market-forecast/?eID=dam_frontend_push&docID=18803 
[76]             Air transport recovers in 2010
- Statistics in focus 21/2012
[77]             Value density is the ratio of a product’s value to its
weight
[78]             Aviation:
Benefits beyond borders, European Union 27 nations – Air Transport Action
Group, October 2012
[79]             Eurostat (2009a) European
Business: Fact and Figures, Edition 2009, Luxembourg: Office for Official
Publications of the European Commission
[80]             Aerospace Global Report 2011, A
  Clearwater Industrials Team Report
[81]             European Patent Office – Annual
Report 2009
[82]             ASD Facts and Figures 2010
[83]             ERAWATCH http://erawatch.jrc.ec.europa.eu/erawatch/opencms/information/country_pages/ru/supportmeasure/support_mig_0007
[84]             Deloitt, AIAC – Global
Aerospace Market Outlook and Forecast, 2010
[85]             China's 12th
Five-Year Plan: Overview March 2011, KPMG China
[86]             Parker, A., A dogfight for the
duopoly, Financial Times, August 7, 2012. 
[87]             These
objectives were normalized in 2011 against the Y2000 aircraft baseline and
expressed in EPNdB noise reduction per average single operation. All previous
values expressed in dBcum (cumulative noise defined as the arithmetic sum of
noise levels measured at 3 certification points) were divided by 3 for the
commercial aircraft.
[88]             Airbus
introduced the Airbus A320neo family as a series of enhanced versions of the
A320 family. The A320neo is planned to enter service in 2015. Boeing introduced
the Boeing 737 MAX - a new family of aircraft based on the Boeing 737 Next
Generation family. The 737 MAX is scheduled for first delivery in 2017.
[89]             SESAR programme is the European
air traffic control infrastructure modernisation programme. One of the targets
is to contribute to the environmental objectives as a result of ATM
improvements alone. For more information www.sesarju.eu
[90]             In
order to achieve the environmental targets, both aspects should be addressed -
more efficient aircraft and engines, as well as better operational and flight
management procedures. These aspects are complementary and are addressed by
Clean Sky and SESAR programmes respectively.