Proposal for a DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the participation of the Union in a European Partnership on Metrology
Date: 2021-04-13
Institutions: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, European Commission
Subjects: EU research policy



IMMC.Ares%282021%292512086.ENG.xhtml.PART-2021-215804V1.docx








Open Public Consultation Synopsis


1.1.Introduction


In line with the Better Regulation Guidelines,
                  1
 an online public stakeholder consultation was conducted on the 12 candidates for institutionalised partnerships based on a structured questionnaire, between September and November 2019, gathering 1635 replies for all 12 initiatives. The replies to the common questions are summarized in the horizontal results section 1.2. A summary of the results for each specific initiative is contained in section 1.3 


1.2.Horizontal results of the Open Public Consultation


The consultation was open to everyone via the EU Survey online system
                  2
. The survey contained two main parts to collect views on general issues related to European partnerships (in Part 1) and specific responses related to one or more of the 12 candidate initiatives (as selected by participants). The survey was open from 11 September to 12 November 2019. The consultation was available in English, German and French and advertised widely through the European Commission’s online channels as well as via various stakeholder organisations. 


Profile of respondents


In total, 1635 respondents filled in the questionnaire of the open public consultation. Among them, 272 respondents (16.64%) were identified to have responded to the consultation as part of a campaign (coordinated responses). 


Figure 1 Type of respondents (N=1635) - For all candidate initiatives







Among all consultation respondents, 1303 (79.69%) have been involved in the on-going research and innovation framework programme Horizon 2020 or the preceding Framework Programme 7. In the group of campaign respondents, the share of those who were involved in these programmes is higher (245 respondents out of 272 or 90.07%) than in the group of non-campaign respondents (1058 out of 1363 or 77.62%). When respondents that participated in the Horizon 2020 or in the preceding Framework Programme 7 were asked to indicate in which capacity they were involved in these programmes, the majority stated they were a beneficiary (1033 respondents) or applicant (852 respondents). The main stakeholder categories, e.g. companies/business organisation, academic/research institutions, etc., show a similar distribution across the capacities in which they ‘have been involved in Horizon 2020 or in the Framework Programme 7’ as the overall population of consultation respondents. 


Among those who have been involved in Horizon 2020 or the preceding Framework Programme 7, 1035 respondents (79.43%) are/were involved in a partnership. The share of respondents from campaigns that are/were involved in a partnership is higher than for non-campaign respondents, 89.80% versus 77.03% respectively. The list of partnerships under Horizon 2020 or its predecessor Framework Programme 7 together with the numbers, percentages of participants is presented in Table 2, the table also show the key stakeholder categories for each partnership. 


Table 1: Partnerships in which consultation respondents participated (N=1035)





Name of the partnership




Number and % of respondents from both groups 


(n=1035)




Number and % of respondents from a non-campaign group


(n=815)




Academic/research institutions




Business associations




Company/business organisations (<250)




Company/business organisations (250+)




EU citizens




NGOs




Public authority






Fuel Cells and Hydrogen 2 (FCH2) Joint Undertaking 




354 (33.33%)




247 (30.31%)




97




9




37




43




41




8




5






Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking




195 (18.84%)




145 (17.79%)




57




2




10




27




37




1




7






European Metrology Programme for Innovation and Research (EMPIR)




150 (14.49%)




124 (15.21%)




64




0




13




9




14




2




19






Bio-Based Industries Joint Undertaking




142 (13.72%)




122 (14.97%)




39




8




20




27




14




1




6






Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking




124 (11.98%)




101 (12.40%)




31




7




5




31




14




3




7






Electronic Components and Systems for European Leadership (ECSEL) Joint Undertaking




111 (10.72%)




88 (10.80%)




42




2




7




20




12




0




5






Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research (SESAR) Joint Undertaking




66 (6.38%)




46 (5.64%)




10




3




3




20




3




2




3






5G (5G PPP)




53 (5.12%)




47 (5.77%)




20




1




6




14




5




0




1






Eurostrars-2 (supporting research-performing small and medium-sized enterprises)




44 (4.25%)




40 (4.91%)




17




0




6




1




7




0




6






Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 (IMI2) Joint Undertaking




37 (3.57%)




35 (4.29%)




18




2




3




3




2




4




3






Partnership for Research and Innovation in the Mediterranean Area (PRIMA)




28 (2.71%)




26 (3.19%)




15




0




3




1




2




0




2






European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership




25 (2.42%)




24 (2.94%)




12




0




1




2




3




3




2






Ambient Assisted Living (AAL 2)




22 (2.13%)




21 (2.58%)




11




2




1




1




3




0




3






European High-Performance Computing Joint Undertaking (EuroHPC)




22 (2.13%)




18 (2.21%)




6




0




2




3




5




0




2






Table 2: Candidate Institutionalised Partnerships for which consultation respondents provide responses (N=1613)





Name of the candidate Institutionalised European partnership




Number and % of respondents from both groups 


(n=1613)




Number and % of respondents from a non-campaign group


(n=1341)






Clean Hydrogen




506 (31.37%)




382 (28.49%)






European Metrology




265 (16.43%)




225 (16.78%)






Clean Aviation




246 (15.25%)




191 (14.24%)






Circular bio-based Europe




242 (15%)




215 (16.03%)






Transforming Europe’s rail system




184 (11.41%)




151 (11.26%)






Key Digital Technologies




182 (11.28%)




162 (12.08%)






Innovative SMEs




111 (6.88%)




110 (8.20%)






Innovative Health Initiative




110 (6.82%)




108 (8.05%)






Smart Networks and Services




109 (6.76%)




107 (7.98%)






Safe and Automated Road Transport




108 (6.70%)




102 (7.61%)






Integrated Air Traffic Management




93 (5.77%)




66 (4.92%)






EU-Africa research partnership on health security to tackle infectious diseases – Global Health




49 (3.04%)




47 (3.50%)





Characteristics of future candidate European Partnerships


This section presents in greater detail the answers provided to specific consultation questions. The questions are indicated in the title of each graph.


Figure 2: To what extent do you think that the future European Partnerships under Horizon Europe need to (N=1363) (non-campaign replies) For all candidate initiatives









Main advantages and disadvantages of Institutionalised European Partnerships


Advantages mentioned: Long term commitment, stability, and visibility in financial, legal, and strategic terms; Participation of wide range of relevant stakeholders in an ecosystem (large/small business, academics, researchers, experts, etc.); Complementarity with other (policy) initiatives at all levels EU, national, regional; Efficient and effective coordination and management; High leverage of (public) funds; Some innovative field require high levels of international coordination/standardisation (at EU/global level); Ability to scale up technology (in terms of TRL) through collaboration; Networking between members; Direct communication with EU and national authorities


Disadvantages mentioned: Slow processes; System complexity; Continuous openness to new players should be better supported as new participants often bring in new ideas/technologies that are important for innovation; Lower funding percentage compared to regular Horizon Europe projects; Cash contributions; Administrative burdens; Potential for IPR constraints.


Relevance of EU level to address problems in Partnerships’ areas


Figure 3: To what extent do you think this is relevant for research and innovation efforts at EU level to address the following problems in relation to the candidate partnership in question? (non-campaign replies) Aggregation of responses of all candidate initiatives







Horizon Europe mode of intervention to address problems


Figure 4: In your view, how should the specific challenges described above be addressed through Horizon Europe intervention? (non-campaign replies) For all candidate initiatives







When asked to reflect on their answers, respondents that pointed to the need for using institutionalised partnership mentioned the long-term commitment of collaboration, a common and ambitious R&I strategy as well as the overall collaboration between industry and research institutions. Others shared positive experiences with other modes of interventions:


·Traditional calls, because of their flexibility and integration of a wide range of actors, as long as the evaluation panels do not deviate from the policy premier. This was mentioned by 94 participants, including companies (25), academics (26) and EU citizens (25).


·Co-funded partnership, as a mechanism to ensure that all participants take the effort seriously, while allowing business partnerships to develop. This approach was deemed suitable based on previous experiences with ERANETs. This was raised by 84 participants, 36 of them academic respondents, 18 companies and 16 EU citizens.


·Co-programmed partnerships, to tackle the need to promote and engage more intensively with the private sector. This was mentioned by 97 participants, most of them companies (34), followed by academics (22), business associations (15) and EU citizens (11). 



Relevance of a set of elements and activities to ensure that the proposed European Partnership would meet its objectives


Figure 5: In your view, how relevant are the following elements and activities to ensure that the proposed European Partnership would meet its objectives - Setting joint long-term agenda with strong involvement of: (non-campaign replies) For all candidate initiatives







Figure 6: In your view, how relevant are the following elements and activities to ensure that the proposed European Partnership would meet its objectives – Pooling and leveraging resources (financial, infrastructure, in-kind expertise, etc.) through coordination, alignment and integration with: (non-campaign replies) For all candidate initiatives 







Figure 7: In your view, how relevant are the following elements and activities to ensure that the proposed European Partnership would meet its objectives – Partnership composition (non-campaign replies) Aggregation of responses of all candidate initiatives










Figure 8: In your view, how relevant are the following elements and activities to ensure that the proposed European Partnership would meet its objectives – Implementing the following activities (non-campaign replies) For all candidate initiatives







Relevance of setting up a legal structure (funding body) for the candidate European Partnerships to achieve improvements


Figure 9: In your view, how relevant is to set up a specific legal structure (funding body) for the candidate European Partnership to achieve the following? (non-campaign replies) Aggregation of responses of all candidate initiatives







Scope and coverage of the candidate European Partnerships based on their inception impact assessments


Figure 10: What is your view on the scope and coverage proposed for this candidate institutionalised European Partnership, based on its inception impact assessment? (non-campaign replies) Aggregation of responses of all candidate initiatives







Scope for rationalisation and alignment of candidate European Partnerships with other initiatives 


When asked whether it would be possible to rationalise a specific candidate European Institutionalised Partnership and its activities, and/or to better link with other comparable initiatives, nearly two thirds of respondents answered “Yes” (1000, or 62%), while over one third answered “No” (609, or 39%). Nearly no differences were found between stakeholder categories, only large companies and SMEs indicated slightly more often “Yes” in comparison to other respondents. The views of citizens are the same as for other respondents. Respondents that are/were directly involved in a current/preceding partnership, indicated “No” more often, the balance is about 50/50 between “Yes” and “No” for this group. 


Relevance of European Partnerships to deliver targeted scientific, economic/technological and societal impacts 


Figure 11: In your view, how relevant is it for the candidate European Institutionalised Partnership to deliver on the following impacts? (non-campaign replies) Aggregation of responses of all candidate initiatives







1.3.Open public consultation results for this specific initiative


Characteristics of respondents 


There are 225 respondents who have answered (part of) the consultation for the European Metrology Partnership. Of these respondents, 36 (16.0%) were citizens. The largest group of respondents were from academic and research institutions with 112 (49.8%) respondents. There were 32 (14.2%) respondents from businesses and three from business associations (1.3%). Also, 28 respondents were from public authorities (12.4%). The remaining respondents were from NGOs (3, 1.3%) or selected other (11, 4.9%). Almost 75% of respondents, namely 168 (74.7%), have been involved in the on-going research and innovation framework programme Horizon 2020 or the preceding Framework Programme 7, of which 124 respondents (73.8%) were directly involved in a partnership under Horizon 2020 or its predecessor Framework Programme 7. 


Results on general questions


Relevance of efforts of the candidate European Partnership to address problems




Figure 12: Views of the respondents in regard to the needs of future European Partnerships under Horizon Europe (N=225)







Main advantages and disadvantages of participation in the Institutionalised European Partnership


The respondents were asked what they perceived to be the main advantages and disadvantages of participation in an Institutionalised European Partnership (as a partner) under Horizon Europe. The keyword analysis showed the respondents viewed cooperation and collaboration as advantage, while mentioning the previous metrology programme in relation to a disadvantage.


Results on candidate European Partnership specific questions


Relevance of research and innovation efforts at the EU level to address problems in relation to metrology


Figure 13: Views of respondents on relevance of research and innovation efforts at the EU level to address problems in relation to metrology







Horizon Europe interventions to address problems


Figure 14: Assessment of Horizon Europe intervention







Figure 15: Assessment of Horizon Europe intervention per sub-group







Relevance of involvement of actors in setting joint long-term agenda


Figure 16: Views of respondents on relevance of actors in setting join long-term agenda


















Relevance of elements and activities in pooling and leveraging resources














Figure 17: Views of respondents on relevance of actors for pooling and leveraging resources




Relevance of elements and activities for the partnership composition


Figure 18: Views of respondents on relevance of partnership composition elements
























Relevance of implementation of activities


Respondents were asked to provide opinions on relevance of implementation of several activities for meeting objectives of the European Metrology Partnership. Among activities were listed – join R&D programme, collaborative Research & Development (R&D) projects, deployment and piloting activities, input to regulatory aspects and co-creation of solutions with end-users. Out of 222 respondents, 162 (73%) indicated that a Joint R&I programme is very relevant to ensure that the Partnership would meet its objectives, collaborative R&I projects is also seen as very relevant, with 161 respondents (73.5%) choosing this answer. Deployment and piloting activity has received the least 5 (very relevant) answers (78, 35.6%), however it has received the most 4 answers, which indicates that the respondents still find it to be relevant, although slightly less than the other options.


No statistical differences were found between the views of citizens and other respondents for most activities. Citizens found the implementation of collaborative R&I project slightly less relevant. However, respondents that are/were involved in a current/preceding partnership (Horizon 2020 or Framework Programme 7) found the implementation of collaborative R&I project slightly more relevant.


Figure 19: Views of respondents on relevance of implementation of the following activities


















Relevance of a legal structure (funding body) to achieve specific objectives


Respondents were also asked to assess the relevance of a specific legal structure (funding body) for the candidate European Partnership to achieve several activities. According to Figure 20, respondents specifically indicated that it was very relevant to set up a specific legal structure for the partnership to ensure harmonisation of standards and approaches (128, 58.5%). Ensuring better links to practitioners on the ground has received the least 5 (very relevant) responses, however it has received the most 4’s, which indicates that it is still seen as relevant by the respondents even if it is slightly less relevant than the other options.


Similar as for the previous question, citizens found the legal structure slightly less relevant for most objectives, while respondents that are/were involved in a current/preceding partnership found the legal structure slightly more relevant.


Figure 20: Views of respondents on relevance of a specific legal structure












Feedback to the inception impact assessment on candidate initiatives for Institutionalised Partnerships


Figure 21: Views of respondents on the scope and coverage proposed for the European Metrology Partnership












Aside from this multiple choice question, the respondents were also asked to provide any comment that they may have on the proposed scope and coverage for this candidate Institutionalised Partnership. The keyword analysis showed the respondents used this question to talk about the optimal and proposed scope and coverage as well as fundamental research, partner countries and non-European cooperation.


Alignment of the European Partnership with other initiatives


The respondents were also asked if it they thought it would be possible to rationalise the candidate European Institutionalised Partnership and its activities, and/or to better link it with other comparable initiatives. Almost equal number of respondents selected the answer option “Yes” (98 respondents, 48%) and “No” (102 respondents, 51%). 


No statistical differences were found between the views of citizens and other respondents.


Relevance of the Candidate European Partnership to deliver impacts




Out of 220 respondents, 124 suggest that the Partnership would be ‘very relevant’ for contributing to reliable and trusted data exchange in health, environment, social protection and cultural heritage. Among listed economic/technological impacts, a greater number of respondents, namely 144 out of 220 (65.5%), indicated that the Partnership is expected to be ‘very relevant’ for accelerating adoption of, and trade in, new technologies through trusted validation and product performance. The higher share of respondents suggest that the Partnership would have large impacts on science, in particular, on new measurement techniques and protocols for emerging technologies.


No statistical differences were found between the views of citizens and other respondents, except for the relevance of the economic/technological impacts regarding improved quality assurance for innovative commercial products and higher added-value for innovative commercial products. Respondents that are/were involved in a current/preceding partnership (Horizon 2020 or Framework Programme 7) indicate a higher relevance of most listed impacts when compared to other respondents.


Figure 22: Views of respondents on the relevance of the candidate European Institutionalised Partnership to various impacts











(1)
 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/better-regulation-guidelines-stakeholder-consultation_en



(2)
 
https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/ConsultationPartnershipsHorizonEurope