COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Horizon 2020 interim evaluation: maximising the impact of EU research and innovation
Date: 2018-01-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, European Commission
Subjects: EU financing, EU research policy, Framework Programme for Research and Development, competitiveness, innovation, research and development, research expenditure (EU), scientific cooperation, technical cooperation, technology

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 11.1.2018  COM(2018) 2 final  COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS  Horizon 2020 interim evaluation: maximising the impact of EU research and innovation  
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Research  and  innovation  (R&I)  are  crucial  for  sustaining  Europe’s  socio-economic 
model and values, as well as its global competitiveness. This is increasingly the case in a 
rapidly changing world, where our success depends ever more on producing knowledge 
and swiftly converting it into innovation than on exploiting natural resources or lowering 
wages. Sustainable growth in the future can only come from investing in R&I now. 

Horizon 2020, the EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020), 
is  a  key  EU  asset  to  this  end. It  aims  to  stimulate  economic  growth  and  create  jobs  by 
coupling  R&I,  promoting  excellent  science  and  industrial  leadership,  and  tackling 
societal challenges.  

In  line  with  the  Better  Regulation  guidelines1,  Commission  services  carried  out  a 
comprehensive Interim Evaluation of the programme’s progress in its first three years of 
implementation2.  The  stakeholder  response  to  the  public  consultation  on  the  Interim 
Evaluation  was  very  strong,  with  more  than  3500  respondents  and  over  300  elaborated 
position papers.  

Three  additional,  self-standing  interim  evaluations  covered  the  European  Institute  of 
Innovation  and  Technology  (EIT)3;  the  public-public  partnerships  (P2Ps)  set  up  under 
Article  1854  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union  (TFEU);  and 
public-private  partnerships  (PPPs,  implemented  through  joint  undertakings)  launched 
under Article 1875 of the TFEU. Separate independent expert groups also performed one 
mid-term  review  of  the  nine  contractual  public-private  partnerships6,  and  one  of  the 
direct actions of the Joint Research Centre7. 

The  Interim  Evaluation  provided  the  evidence-base  for  the  report  and  forward-looking 
recommendations8  of  the  independent  High  Level  Group  on  maximising  the  impact  of 
EU R&I programmes, chaired by Pascal Lamy (Lamy High Level Group). 

As required by Article 32 of the Regulation establishing Horizon 20209, the purpose of 
this  Communication  is  to  raise  to  the  attention  of  the  EU  Institutions  the  key  findings 
(Section  2)  and  lessons  learnt  from  the  overall  evaluation  (Section  3).  This  includes 
possible  improvements  and  orientations  for  the  future,  including  first  responses  to 
recommendations made by the Lamy High Level Group on maximising impact. 

1 https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/better-regulation-guidelines_en 
2 SWD (2017) 220 In-depth interim evaluation of Horizon 2020 
3 SWD(2017)352 Final 
4 SWD(2017)340 Final 
5 SWD(2017)339 Final 
6https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/6de81abe-a71c-11e7-837e-01aa75ed71a1  
7http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC107957/jrc_implementation_review_web-
_final.pdf 
8 “LAB – FAB – APP - Investing in the European future we want”, Report of the Independent High Level 
Group on Maximising the Impact of EU Research and Innovation Programmes, 3 July 2017 
9 Regulation 1291/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 

1 

 
 
                                                 
2.  KEY FINDINGS FROM THE INTERIM EVALUATION OF HORIZON 2020 

The other EU Institutions endorsed the findings of the Interim Evaluation: the European 
Parliament  (EP)10,  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  (EESC)11,  the 
Committee of Regions (CoR)12, and more recently the Competitiveness Council through 
Council Conclusions13 of 1 December 2017. The Member States also adopted an opinion 
through the European Research Area and Innovation Committee (ERAC)14. The common 
view is that Horizon 2020's implementation is largely a success. 

Horizon  2020  is  attractive  and  relevant.  Participants  come  from  the  best  institutions 
and companies in and outside Europe, covering a wide range of disciplines. Stakeholders 
express strong satisfaction with the programme, as shown by the sustained interest in its 
highly competitive calls. More than half of Horizon 2020 participants are newcomers 
compared  to  the  previous  Framework  Programme  7  (FP7).  Industrial  participation 
has  increased,  with  23.9%  of  the  budget  for  industrial  and  enabling  technologies  and 
societal  challenges  going  to  SMEs  -  well  over  the  target  of  20%.  Horizon  2020  has 
shown  flexibility  in  responding  to  evolving  political  priorities,  such  as  migration,  and 
emergencies such as the Ebola and Zika outbreaks. 

The  programme  offers  unique  collaboration  and  networking  opportunities.  One  in 
five  Horizon  2020  scientific  publications  is  the  result  of  academia-private  sector 
collaboration. Horizon 2020 results in more interdisciplinary publications than FP7. The 
contractual PPPs, which bring together the private sector and the Commission in jointly 
defining  research  and  innovation  agendas,  have  added  value  by  strengthening  inter-
sectoral cooperation and fostering innovation. 

Horizon  2020  is  on  track  to  contribute  significantly  to  the  creation  of  jobs  and 
growth. Even if Horizon 2020 represents less than 10% of total public R&D spending in 
the EU, macroeconomic models project its socio-economic impact to be in the order of 
EUR 600 billion and 179000 jobs by 203015. Moreover, it supports achieving EU policy 
objectives  through  its  focus  on  excellent  science,  industrial  leadership  and  societal 
challenges16. 

Excellence as the core underlying principle ensures quality. Having excellence as the 
main  criterion  for  allocating  funding  has  helped  the  first  scientific  publications  of 
Horizon  2020  to  be  cited  already  at  twice  the  world  average  rate.  Patents  produced 
through  the  programme  are  of  higher  quality  and  likely  commercial  value  than  similar 
patents produced elsewhere. Horizon 2020 already has supported some 17 Nobel prize-
winners. 

10 EP T8-0253/2017, REPORT on the assessment of Horizon 2020 implementation in view of its interim 
evaluation and the Framework Programme 9 proposal  
11 EESC information report INT/807, Horizon 2020 (evaluation) 
12 CoR Opinion SEDEC-VI/026, Local and Regional Dimension of the Horizon 2020 Programme and the 
New Framework Programme for Research and Innovation 
13  From  the  Interim  Evaluation  of  Horizon  2020  towards  the  ninth  Framework  Programme  -  Council 
conclusions (adopted on 1/12/ 2017) http://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/31888/st15320en17.pdf 
14 ERAC 1207/17, ERAC Opinion on the Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020 and preparations for the next 
Framework Programme 
15 SWD (2017) 220 In-depth interim evaluation of Horizon 2020, Section 8.4, p. 141 and p. 144 
16 Still, the expenditure targets for sustainable development and climate change is not yet met, so efforts 
have been stepped up in the final Work Programme. 

2 

 
                                                 
The  leap  in  simplification  has  paid  off.  The  large-scale  simplification  measures 
introduced  (e.g.  single  set  of  rules,  electronic  signature  of  grant  agreements,  the 
Participant  Portal  as  the  one-stop-shop  for  interactions  with  participants,  single 
reimbursement  rate,  flat  rate  for  indirect  costs)  have  greatly  reduced  administrative 
burden  and  costs,  leading  to  large  decreases  in  time  to  grant  (110  days  faster  than  in 
FP7). Stakeholders  appreciate the simplified funding model, which has  not  reduced the 
level of co-funding by beneficiaries.  

Horizon 2020 has shown clear EU Added Value.  It brings economies of scale, scope 
and speed compared to national and regional-level support to R&I and thereby increases 
the  EU's  attractiveness  as  a  place  for  research  and  innovation.  The  programme's 
additionality  (i.e.  not  displacing  national  funding17)  is  very  strong.  Single-beneficiary 
programme  parts  like  the  SME  Instrument,  the  ERC  and  Marie  Skłodowska  Curie 
Actions add EU value through pan-European competition and the structuring effects they 
exert on national R&I systems. 

Horizon 2020 is delivering value for money. Horizon 2020's administrative overhead is 
lower than in FP7, thanks to  the extensive delegation  of programme implementation  to 
specialised executive agencies and the harmonised implementation through the Horizon 
2020 Common Support Centre. Administrative expenditure is below the target of 5%. It 
is particularly low for the executive agencies and the EIT. 

The  evaluations  of  Horizon  2020-supported  partnership  initiatives  show  how 
effective they are in leveraging significant additional private and public funding and 
in aligning R&I priorities across Europe.  

The interim evaluation of the EIT concluded that it contributes to addressing structural 
weaknesses  in  the  EU’s  innovation  capacity.  The  EIT's  Knowledge  and  Innovation 
Communities  (KICs)  add  EU  value  by  stimulating  close  and  effective  links  between 
education, research and innovation across a diverse set of global challenges. The EIT is 
the  platform  to  launch  and  grow  KICs,  whose  educational  programmes  combine 
technical  knowledge  with  entrepreneurial  and  innovation  education,  direct  access  to 
businesses, and international mobility.  

Public-public  partnerships  under  Article  185,  e.g.  Eurostars2,  Joint  Baltic  Sea 
Research Programme (BONUS), have created long-term R&I partnerships and networks 
between research funders and governments, thus contributing to the European Research 
Area  (ERA).  They  mobilise  significant  investment  in  transnational  research  projects  in 
important policy areas, with an increasingly global action remit. The key strength for all 
public-private  partnerships  under  Article  187,  e.g.  CleanSky2,  Bio-Based  Industries 
(BBI), is their ability to engage and leverage strategic industry partners in priority areas 
of action for the Union, across borders and business sectors, and their direct contribution 
to competitiveness and EU policy goals. They link activities across the innovation cycle, 
and help overcome fragmentation in their respective sectors by creating long-lasting pre-
competitive collaborative networks that bring together previously unrelated stakeholders. 
Contractual PPPs, e.g. Factories of the Future (FoF), Energy-efficient Buildings (EeB), 
were found to have broadly achieved their goals, being flexible and efficiently managed, 
bringing  together  major  industrial  partners  in  EU-driven  strategies,  with  mutual 

17 SWD (2017) 220 In-depth interim evaluation of Horizon 2020 section 8.2.2.3 p. 114 

3 

 
                                                 
understanding of deliverables by industry and a high level of transparency, and openness 
in participation, including of SMEs. 

3.  LESSONS  LEARNT  TO  MAXIMISE  THE 

IMPACT  OF  FUTURE  FRAMEWORK 

PROGRAMMES 

The main purpose of the comprehensive interim evaluation was to draw lessons for the 
future based on an analysis of both strengths and weaknesses. These will help improve 
the implementation of Horizon 2020 in its last three years (2018 – 2020) and of the EIT 
and Article 185 and 187 Initiatives. 

The  combined  evaluation  exercise  also  provides  longer-term  lessons  learned18,  which 
will inform the design of the successor Framework Programme for the period post-2020. 
The final Horizon 2020 Work Programme for 2018 – 2020 is already testing some of the 
solutions  designed  to  address  the  lessons  learnt  for  the  longer-term,  including  a  pilot 
phase  of  a  future  European  Innovation  Council  (EIC)  and  the  use  of  lump  sums  as  an 
alternative to cost reimbursement in some areas.  

What follows is a summary of the main lessons learnt and areas for improvement. 

3.1.  Invest more ambitiously 

Horizon  2020  is  found  to  be  underfunded  –  its  increased  attractiveness  and  continued 
relevance  has  resulted  in  large-scale  oversubscription  (a  success  rate  of  only  11.6% 
compared to 18.5% for FP7). An additional EUR 62.4 billion would have been needed to 
fund  all  proposals  independently  evaluated  above  the  stringent  quality  threshold.  This 
underfunding  represents  an  opportunity  cost  for  Europe's  promising  R&I  potential  and 
constitutes  a  waste  of  resources  for  the  applicants  (who  spent  an  estimated  EUR  636 
million a year preparing proposals19).  

In response to the Horizon 2020 interim evaluation, the European Parliament, supported 
by the Committee of Regions, similarly calls, among others, on the EU to avoid budget 
cuts  to  Horizon  2020  and  to  endow  the  successor  programme  with  at  least  EUR  120 
billion.  The  ERAC  calls  for  proportionality  between  budget  and  ambitions.  Similarly, 
Council  Conclusions  emphasise  the  need  to  prioritise  R&I  across  all  relevant  EU 
policies, and provide significant funds for the future programme. 

The Lamy High Level Group recommends prioritising R&I and allocating more funding 
to it in EU and Member State budgets. The Group suggests that doubling the budget of 
the  post-2020  programme  is  the  best  investment  the  EU  can  make  in  order  to  align 
investment  with  that  of  the  EU’s  main  competitors  and  realise  the  currently  wasted 
potential of unfunded high-quality proposals (i.e. to aim for funding for at least 30% of 
high quality proposals). 

The  Commission  takes  note  of  the  call  from  the  High  Level  Group  and  other  EU 
institutions to invest more in R&I through the future Framework Programme, in light of 
the current programme’s strengths and EU added value. EU funding for R&I should be 

18 SWD (2017) 220 In-depth interim evaluation of Horizon 2020 section 12 p. 186 
19 SWD (2017) 220 In-depth interim evaluation of Horizon 2020 section 7.3.2 p. 60 

4 

 
                                                 
matched  by  ambitious  national  and  regional  funding  in  order  to  reach  the  R&D 
investment target of 3% of EU GDP. 

3.2.  Continue simplification  

Horizon 2020 has  made great progress in terms of simplification compared to FP7, but 
simplification is an ever continuing undertaking, requiring constant improvements.  

The EU Institutions  note and appreciate the substantial  progress made  in  simplification 
and equally stress the need to continue. The EESC sees it as a way to enlarge the circle of 
applicants, while ERAC sees continued simplification as a way to design even more user-
friendly tools and rules.  

The  Lamy  High  Level  Group's  ambition  is  to  make  the  EU  the  most  attractive  R&I 
funder in the world (#7 Simplify further). This implies radically privileging impact over 
process, e.g. by minimising documentation, making calls more flexible (including on the 
choice of instrument and costing), and within R&I consortia adapting to changing trends 
and  new  opportunities.  The  Group  suggests  weighing  the  reduction  in  reporting 
obligations against having continuous and real-time data on the impacts of projects. 

The Commission is continuing the simplification drive, including through pilot actions in 
the last Work Programme of Horizon 2020, Subject to experience with these pilots, the 
Commission  will  pursue  further  simplification  to  support  faster  innovation  cycles  and 
lower  administrative  burden.  To  this  end,  the  Commission  will  explore  possibilities  to: 
simplify  the  present  real  cost  reimbursement  system;  increase  acceptance  of  usual 
accounting practices; increase the use of lump-sum project funding against fulfilment of 
activities  and  other  simplified  forms  of  funding;  reduce  the  burden  for  preparing  and 
submitting  proposals;  reduce  the  ‘time  to  grant’;  and  improve  feedback  given  to 
applicants. 

3.3.  Support breakthrough innovation 

Thanks  in  part  to  the  EU  Framework  Programmes,  Europe  is  a  global  scientific 
powerhouse.  However,  it  does  not  perform  at  the  same  level  in  innovation.  Horizon 
2020's  Interim  Evaluation  has  identified  some  potential  for  supporting  breakthrough, 
market-creating  innovation,  but  concludes  that  such  support  must  be  considerably 
strengthened;  for  example,  only  a  relatively  small  number  of  firms  receiving  grants 
benefits from financial instruments under Horizon 202020. This may hinder the scale-up 
to the European and international level of young innovative firms. 

The  European  Parliament  equally  stresses  the  importance  of  innovation  support  in 
general,  and  of  disruptive  innovation  and  scaling  up  in  particular,  while  Council 
Conclusions emphasise the importance of supporting the whole innovation value chain, 
including high-risk disruptive technologies, while the possible future EIC should support 
breakthrough innovations and the scaling up of innovative companies. The Committee of 
Regions and ERAC opinions also make this point.  

The  Lamy  High  Level  Group  recommends  supporting  innovation  (e.g.  technological, 
social, business model) across all EU policy domains. This will notably create a common 
regulatory framework that fosters entrepreneurship, European industrial competitiveness 

20 SWD (2017) 220 In-depth interim evaluation of Horizon 2020 section 8.2.2.3 p. 111 and 8.2.3.3 p. 123 

5 

 
                                                 
in the global market and its leadership in the current industrial revolution (#2 Build a true 
EU innovation policy that creates future markets). The Lamy Group suggests promoting 
and  investing  in  innovative  ideas  with  rapid  scale-up  potential  through  a  European 
Innovation Council (EIC) that is empowered to invest in entrepreneurs and businesses  - 
irrespective of size, sector or maturity  - with risky innovations that have rapid scale-up 
potential at the crossroads of different technologies and disciplines. It also recommends 
(#4 Design the EU R&I programme for greater impact) that the EIC design new proposal 
evaluation  and  selection  processes  to  better  capture  high-risk,  high-return  projects, 
introduces  greater  flexibility  in  grant  management  (stop-go  decisions)  and  tolerates 
failure. 

The  Commission  acknowledges 
importance  of  market-creating 
the  mounting 
innovation21 and will consider ways to further support it in the future building on current 
actions  in  the  area  of  the  Digital  Single  Market,  Energy  Union  and  Capital  Markets 
Union.  Venture  capital  in  Europe  is  one-fifth  the  level  of  that  in  the  US.  The  new 
generation  of  companies 
the  collaborative  and  digital  economies  originate 
predominantly in the US and Asia. The Commission has already taken action to build up 
an industrial policy, digitalise EU industry, and develop the collaborative economy22. 

in 

Building on the current achievements in innovation support through the SME Instrument, 
collaborative projects and public-private partnerships, the future Framework Programme 
should provide support faster and more flexibly. It should exploit the complementarity of 
grants  and  financial  instruments,  in  order  to  attract  and  scale  up  young  and  quickly 
growing  innovative  companies  to  international  and  European  levels,  improve  market-
uptake  of  R&I  results  and  accelerate  innovation  diffusion.  The  aim  should  be  to  put 
Europe at the forefront of market-creating innovation. To this end, a first pilot phase of a 
future European Innovation Council is launched in the last Work Programme of Horizon 
2020. The experience  gained from this first  phase,  together with  strategic support  from 
the  recently  established  High  Level  Group  of  Innovators23,  will  provide  a  basis  for 
further decision making on a fully-fledged EIC.  

3.4.  Create more impact through mission-orientation and citizen involvement 

The  Interim  Evaluation  points  to  the  need  for  greater  impact  and  more  outreach  to 
citizens24.  This  is  not  only  important  for  improving  the  communication  of  the 
contribution of R&I to tackling societal and technological challenges; involving citizens, 
customers  and  end-users  in  the  programme  agenda-setting  (co-design)  and  its 
implementation  (co-creation)  leads  to  more  innovation  by  stimulating  user-driven 
innovation  and  the  demand  for  innovative  solutions.  This  will  also  respond  to  the 
opportunity of adopting a more impact-focused, mission-oriented approach in the future25. 
The  Work  Programmes  of  Horizon  2020  already  pave  the  way  towards  mission-
orientation, using Focus Areas as a stepping-stone. 

21 SWD (2017) 220 In-depth interim evaluation of Horizon 2020 section 8.2.2.3 
 p. 111 and 8.2.3.3 p. 123 
U Industrial Policy Strategy, see COM(2017) 479 
23 https://ec.europa.eu/research/eic/index.cfm?pg=hlg  
24 This is also supported by the recommendation of the High Level Expert Group that carried out the ex-
post evaluation of FP7: “bringing science closer to citizens”; COM(2016) 5 final 
25 Idem “focus on critical challenges and opportunities in the global context” COM(2016) 5 final 

6 

 
                                                 
All  EU  Institutions  stress  the  importance  of  getting  citizens  more  involved  and 
maximising impact from the Framework Programme. The Committee of the Regions is 
very  explicit  in  encouraging  the  adoption  of  a  new,  complementary  approach  based  on 
missions.  ERAC  and  Council  Conclusions  point  to  the  need  to  deliver  better  and 
continued outreach to society, and call for exploring a mission-oriented approach.  

The Lamy High Level Group takes this analysis up in several of its recommendations. It 
suggests defining R&I missions with a transformative potential and that mobilise many 
actors and investors to realise them, including through public procurement of innovation 
(#5  Adopt  a  mission-oriented,  impact-focused  approach  to  address  global  challenges). 
The Lamy Group puts forward the UN Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) as a 
global reference framework for defining such missions. It pleads for involving the public 
in defining missions and for more citizen science (#8 Mobilise and involve citizens). It 
argues  in  favour  of  a  more  effective  branding  of  EU  R&I,  e.g.  through  wider 
communication of its results and impacts (#11 Capture and better communicate impact). 
To boost innovation, the Lamy report recommends that sectoral policies be fully engaged 
with  innovation  policy-making.  It  attaches  great  importance  to  seeing  a  programme 
driven  by  purpose  and  impact  rather  than  instruments,  with  a  fine-tuned  proposal 
evaluation system and greater flexibility (#4 Design the EU R&I programme for greater 
impact). 

The Commission, through the final Work Programme of Horizon 2020, is already taking 
up  some  of  the  lessons  learnt  in  terms  of  impact  and  outreach  to  citizens  (e.g.  through 
clearer  impact  statements  and  reinforced  dissemination  and  exploitation  of  research 
results). The future programme should be built from the onset around a clear intervention 
logic  and  differentiated  proposal  evaluation.  It  will  start  from  clear  and,  as  far  as 
practicable, quantified expected long-term impacts, medium- term results and short-term 
outputs, in support of EU policy priorities, the UN SDGs and the implementation of the 
Paris Agreement. 

Based on the results of the interim evaluation and bearing in mind the scope and thrust of 
the  Work  Programmes  for  Horizon  2020  for  2018-2020,  R&I  missions  (scientific, 
technological,  social  etc.)  in  the  next  programme  should  create  more  impact,  achieve 
better  outreach,  and  encourage  a  systemic  approach.  They  should  address  EU  policy 
objectives, capture the public’s imagination (engaging with people about values, making 
them part of the process, and proud to be European), forge links between disciplines and 
sectors, and go beyond what is currently possible.  

3.5.  Increase synergies with other EU funding programmes and EU Policies 

Synergies  already  exist  between  Horizon  2020  and  other  EU  programmes,  such  as  the 
European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds  (ESIF),  the  European  Fund  for  Strategic 
Investments (EFSI), external relations instruments, the Connecting Europe Facility, and 
the  Common  Agricultural  Policy.  Still,  they  should  be  further  strengthened  and  made 
more efficient and effective26. In particular, building on synergies with ESIF and  smart 
specialisation strategies27, R&I capacities built over the past decade in lower performing 

26 This is also supported by the recommendation of the High Level Expert Group that carried out the ex-
post evaluation of FP7: “align research and innovation instruments“; COM(2016) 5 final 
27  COM(2017)376  Strengthening  Innovation  in  Europe's  Regions:  Strategies  for  resilient,  inclusive  and 
sustainable growth 

7 

 
                                                 
regions  could  be  better  used  for  Framework  Programme-supported  projects  and  to 
increase participation in trans-national R&I networks and activities. 

The  European  Parliament  opinion  gives  high  prominence  to  synergies  between  EU 
funding  programmes,  which  it  deems  crucial  to  make  investments  more  effective, 
exploiting  in  particular  the  smart  specialisation  strategies.  The  Parliament  calls  for 
enhanced synergies between  the future Framework Programme and other dedicated EU 
funds in support of R&I. The ERAC opinion indicates that synergies between ESIF and 
the  Framework  Programme  should  be  developed  on  a  systemic  level,  already  in  the 
programming  phase.  Council  Conclusions  similarly  call  for  synergies,  coherence, 
compatibility and complementarity. 

The  Lamy  High  Level  Group  recommends  designing  future  funding  programmes  with 
complementary,  mutually  reinforcing  and  interoperable  intervention  logics  to  support 
capacity-building in regions that are catching up in terms of innovation (#6 Rationalise 
the EU funding landscape and achieve synergy with structural funds). 

The  Commission  will  capitalise  on  the  experience  gained  in  jointly  implementing  the 
current  generation  of  funding  programmes  (e.g.  the  introduction  of  the  Seal  of 
Excellence28) and will focus on enhancing synergies from the programme design stage to 
ensure that the range of instruments and programmes covers the whole innovation chain. 
This will be done by bringing priorities more in line with each other; making co-funding 
schemes  more  flexible  in  order  to  pool  resources  at  EU  level;  and  improving  the 
compatibility of rules (for example, making it possible to apply automatically the Seal of 
to 
Excellence).  The  future  programme  will  also  continue 
policymaking. 

to  provide  support 

3.6.  Strengthen international cooperation 

International cooperation in R&I is vital for ensuring access to talent, knowledge, know-
how, facilities and markets worldwide, for effectively tackling global challenges, and for 
implementing  global  commitments.  While  Horizon  2020  has  a  broad  international 
outreach and openness to the world, third-country participations declined when compared 
to  FP7,  so  international  cooperation  needs  to  be  further  intensified  in  order  to 
continuously  strengthen  Europe's  R&I  excellence  and competitiveness and  solve  global 
societal challenges.  

The  European  Parliament  calls  for  strengthening  international  R&I  cooperation, 
including  with  associate  partners  and  emerging  countries,  as  soon  as  possible  through 
concrete actions. The Parliament, in addition, highlights the value of science diplomacy. 
Council Conclusions reaffirm the importance of reciprocity. 

The  Lamy  High  Level  Group  gives  similar  prominence  (#10  Make  international  R&I 
cooperation  a  trademark  of  EU  R&I).  The  group  recommends  further  stimulating 
international cooperation activities and opening the programme to association by the best 
and support to participation by all, based on reciprocal co-funding in partner countries.  

The  Commission  endorses  the  importance  of  strengthening  international  cooperation  in 
R&I. The final Work Programme of Horizon 2020 seeks to do just that. Criteria and rules 
should  be  considered  for  associating  third  countries  based  on  excellence  in  R&I.  The 

28 https://ec.europa.eu/research/soe 

8 

 
                                                 
Impact Assessment for the future programme may consider several ways of stimulating 
international  cooperation  in  order  to  make  sure  that  EU  researchers  work  with  the  best 
and most appropriate R&I partners worldwide. 

3.7.  Reinforce openness 

There  is  a  need  to  build  on  the  great  progress  made  in  terms  of  making  the  scientific 
publications and data generated by Horizon 2020 openly accessible to the wider scientific 
community  and  public.  However,  so  far  less  than  70%  of  the  publications  produced  in 
Horizon 2020 are available in Open Access, with no clear signs of improvement. 

The European Parliament opinion is in favour of the general principle of Open Access, 
while ERAC regards the 100% Open Access policy of Horizon 2020 as a clear measure 
in  favour  of  knowledge  circulation.  Importantly,  the  Council  Conclusions  on  the 
transition towards an Open Science System29 give valuable guidance for the future, while 
the Council Conclusions on the Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020 highlight the role of 
Open Science in boosting impact and transparency. 

The  promotion  of  Open  Science  (and  Open  Access  specifically)  are  referenced 
throughout the Lamy High Level Group report as key guiding principles that should be 
rewarded (#3 Educate for the future and invest in people who will make the change). 

The  Commission  will  further  develop  its  policies  in  support  of  the  Open  Science 
Agenda30.  Building  on  the  experience  of  implementing  Horizon  2020,  all  publications 
should  be  openly  accessible  and  all  data  should  be  Findable,  Accessible,  Interoperable 
and Re-usable (FAIR). The Commission will explore ways to make the next Framework 
Programme fully embrace Open Science as a way of strengthening scientific excellence, 
benefiting  from  citizen  participation,  achieving  better  reproducibility  of  results,  and 
increasing the re-use of research data. 

3.8.  Rationalise the funding landscape 

A key area for improvement is the rationalisation of the Horizon 2020 funding landscape. 
This  applies  in  particular  to  the  landscape  for  partnership  instruments  and  initiatives31. 
Stakeholders point out that the many instruments and initiatives, with the complexity it 
entails,  are  difficult  to  understand  and  may  lead  to  overlaps.  Reforming  the  current 
partnership  landscape  should  make  it  possible  to  use  their  full  potential  in  achieving 
ambitious policy objectives. 

The  EIT  evaluation  identifies  the  need  to  develop  further  synergies  with  other  EU 
initiatives from the programming stage. There is scope for streamlining the relevant goals 
the EIT and the KICs are expected to achieve with clear and measurable objectives; the 
role  of  the KICs  in  the  EU  R&I  landscape  also  needs  to  be  better  defined.  The  Article 
185  evaluation  finds  that  the  EU  public-to-public  cooperation  (P2P)  landscape  has 
become crowded, with too many similar initiatives working with insufficient coherence 
among  the  P2Ps,  as  well  as  between  the  P2Ps  and  Horizon  2020.  The  Article  187 

29 http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9526-2016-INIT/en/pdf 
30 https://ec.europa.eu/research/openscience/  
31  Horizon  2020  supports  two  broad  categories  of  partnerships,  in  addition  to  FET  Flagships  and  KICs: 
those  mainly  involving  Industry,  i.e.  Article  187  initiatives  or  Public-Private-Partnerships  (PPPs)  and 
contractual PPPs (cPPPs); and those involving mainly Member States, i.e. Article 185 initiatives or Public-
Public-Partnerships (P2Ps), ERA-NET Cofund, EJP-Cofund and Joint Programming Initiatives. 

9 

 
                                                 
evaluation points out that Public-Private Partnership (PPP) activities need to be brought 
more into line with EU, national and regional policies, and calls for a revision of the Key 
Performance  Indicators.  The  contractual  PPPs  (cPPPs)  review  identified  challenges  of 
coherence among cPPPs and the need to develop synergies with initiatives such as KICs. 

ERAC  considers  it  particularly  urgent  to  rationalise  the  funding  schemes,  while 
considering  P2Ps  essential  for  more  coordinated  implementation  of  national  and  EU 
R&I.  Competitiveness  Council  Conclusions  similarly  stressed  that  the  current  R&I 
ecosystem  has  become  too  complex,  and  stressed  that  all  partnership  initiatives  should 
have  an  exit  strategy  from  FP  funding.  The  European  Parliaments  advocates 
‘decomplexifying’ the EU funding landscape. 

The Lamy High Level Group likewise prioritises rationalisation (#6 Rationalise the EU 
funding landscape), within and beyond the Framework Programme. It finds that the range 
of funding schemes for R&I risks diluting excellence by favouring ‘competition among 
those  in  the  know’.  It  recommends  eliminating  one  third  of  R&I  funding  schemes, 
instruments  and  acronyms.  More  specifically  on  partnerships,  the  Group  recommends 
limiting  EU  co-funding  to  partnerships  that  clearly  deliver  on  EU  missions,  with  a 
simplified  and  flexible  co-funding  mechanism  (#9  Better  align  EU  and  national  R&I 
investment).  Lastly,  the  Group  recommends  that  KICs  be  more  coherently  deployed  to 
address  global  challenges,  by  directly  incorporating  them  into  the  post-2020  EU  R&I 
programme (#3 Educate for the future and invest in people who will make the change)32. 

The  Commission  welcomes  these  assessments.  In  the  short  term,  the  Commission  will 
endeavour  to  improve  performance  within  the  current  life  cycle  through  the  Annual 
Work  Plans  and  Work  Programmes  along  the  lines  recommended  in  the  respective 
evaluations. In the longer term, it will look into how to rationalise the different EU R&I 
instruments and funding schemes to the advantage of beneficiaries, without undermining 
the achievement of its policy objectives. A future EIC could present an opportunity for 
streamlining  innovation  support  schemes.  Possible  R&I  missions  could  be  used  to 
structure  the  KICs  so  that  they  have  clearer  objectives,  communicate  better  and  have 
more impact. 

The  Commission  also  intends  to  explore  in  the  Impact  Assessment  of  the  future 
programme ways of rationalising partnerships (including KICs and Future and Emerging 
Technologies  Flagships),  improve  their  openness  and  transparency,  and  link  them  with 
future  EU  R&I  missions  and  strategic  priorities.  It  will  consider,  as  part  of  a  strategic 
process,  for  example,  the  additionality  of  capabilities,  relevance  for  political  priorities 
agreed between the EU, Member States, industry and other stakeholders, flexibility, exit 
strategies  integrated  from  the  start,  and  delivery  of  impact  that  cannot  be  achieved 
through the Framework Programme alone. 

4.  OUTLOOK 

To date, Horizon 2020 has been an EU success story with undeniable EU Added Value. 
Building on the positive findings of the Interim Evaluation, the stakeholder feedback and 

32 The report of the HLG on the EIT identified a clear need to strengthen the role of the EIT headquarters 
as 
KICs. 
expertise 
shared 
(https://ec.europa.eu/education/sites/education/files/eit-hlg-final-report_en.pdf) 

provider 

services 

and 

the 

of 

to 

a 

10 

 
                                                 
the Lamy High Level Group call for ‘an evolution, not a revolution’, a further refinement 
and optimisation rather than an overhaul of the Framework Programme is needed.  

The Commission welcomes the recommendations of the Lamy High Level Group; it will 
consider them, as appropriate, in the design of the next Framework Programme in order 
to set a new level of ambition for global leadership in science and innovation.  

11