COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION Interim Evaluation of the Digital Europe Programme Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS The Digital Europe Programme: Main findings of the interim evaluation
Date: 2025-12-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, artificial intelligence, data processing, digital literacy, digital single market, digital technology, information security, information society, innovation, technological change

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 18.12.2025  SWD(2025) 420 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION  Interim Evaluation of the Digital Europe Programme     Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS The Digital Europe Programme: Main findings of the interim evaluation {COM(2025) 771 final}  
 
 
Table of Contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1 

1.1. 

Purpose and scope of the evaluation/fitness check .............................................................. 1 

1.1.1. 

1.1.2. 

Methodological approach ............................................................................................. 1 

Limitations ..................................................................................................................... 2 

2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? ........................................ 3 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3. 

Background and objectives of the intervention .................................................................... 3 

Intervention logic ................................................................................................................... 4 

Point(s) of comparison ........................................................................................................... 7 

3.  HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? ......................... 8 

3.1. 

State of play of implementation ............................................................................................ 8 

3.2.  Monitoring and performance strategy ................................................................................ 11 

4. 

EVALUATION FINDINGS................................................................................................................ 11 

4.1. 
To what extent was the intervention successful and why? An analysis of the effectiveness 
and efficiency of the programme ...................................................................................................... 11 

4.1.1. 

4.1.2. 

4.1.3. 

Achievements per Specific Objective .......................................................................... 11 

Awareness and outreach ............................................................................................. 23 

Barriers to participation .............................................................................................. 24 

4.2. 

4.3. 

Contribution to EU horizontal policy priorities .................................................................... 25 

Implementation modes ....................................................................................................... 27 

4.4.  Management of calls ............................................................................................................ 28 

4.5. 

Analysis of costs and benefits .............................................................................................. 30 

4.5.1. 

4.5.2. 

4.5.3. 

Inefficiencies ............................................................................................................... 31 

Simplification measures .............................................................................................. 32 

Cost effectiveness ....................................................................................................... 34 

4.6. 

Coherence ............................................................................................................................ 34 

4.6.1. 

4.6.2. 

4.6.3. 

4.6.4. 

4.6.5. 

4.6.6. 

4.6.7. 

Coherence with the wider policy context ................................................................... 34 

Internal coherence ...................................................................................................... 35 

External coherence...................................................................................................... 37 

RRF and ERDF .............................................................................................................. 39 

A more systematic approach....................................................................................... 42 

Coherence with national and regional initiatives ....................................................... 42 

Co-funding mechanisms with Digital Europe .............................................................. 43 

 
 
 
4.7. 

How did the EU intervention make a difference and to whom? ......................................... 44 

4.7.1. 

4.7.2. 

4.7.3. 

Financial additionality ................................................................................................. 44 

Behavioural additionality ............................................................................................ 45 

Output additionality .................................................................................................... 47 

4.8. 

Is the intervention still relevant? ......................................................................................... 48 

4.8.1. 

4.8.2. 

Alignment of the objectives with current and emerging needs ................................. 51 

Alignment with technological developments ............................................................. 53 

4.8.3. 
challenges 55 

Adaptation of the  programme with socio-economic and political developments and 

4.8.4. 

4.8.5. 

Alignment of Digital Europe with sector specific needs ............................................. 57 

Alignment of the programme to addressing the needs of stakeholders .................... 58 

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNT? .................................................... 61 

5.1. 

5.2. 

Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 61 

Lessons learnt ...................................................................................................................... 65 

6.  ANNEXES .......................................................................................................................................... 69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym  Meaning or definition 

5G 

AI 

CEF 

CfE 

Fifth-generation wireless 

Artificial Intelligence 

Connecting Europe Facility 

Call for Evidence 

Chips JU 

Chips Joint Undertaking 

CNECT 

Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology 

CoR 

CSA 

DDPP 

DESI 

DG 

European Committee of the Regions 

Coordination and support action 

Digital Decade Policy Programme 

Digital Economy and Society Index 

Directorate-General 

DG DIGIT 

Directorate-General for Digital Services 

DG GROW 

Directorate General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs 

DG JUST 

Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers 

DG RTD 

Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 

DG SANTE 

Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety 

EC 

ECCC 

EDIC 

EDIH 

European Commission 

European Cybersecurity Competence Centre 

European Digital Infrastructure Consortium 

European Digital Innovation Hub 

EDMO 

European Digital Media Observatory 

EMI 

European Monitor of Industrial Ecosystems 

ENISA 

European Union Agency for Cybersecurity 

ERDF 

EESC 

European Regional Development Fund 

European Economic and Social Committee 

EuroHPC JU 

European High-Performance Computing Joint Undertaking 

 
 
 
GDP 

Gross Domestic Product 

HaDEA 

European Health and Digital Executive Agency 

HPC 

ICT 

High-Performance Computing 

Information and Communications Technology 

IPCEI 

Important Projects of Common European Interest 

JRC 

JU 

MFF 

MS 

NCC 

R&I 

RRF 

SME 

SO 

Joint Research Centre 

Joint Undertaking 

Multiannual Financial Framework 

Member State of the European Union 

National Cybersecurity Centre 

Research and Innovation 

Recovery and Resilience Facility 

Small and Medium-sized Enterprise 

Specific Objective 

 
 
1.  INTRODUCTION 

1.1.  Purpose and scope of the evaluation/fitness check 

The Digital Europe programme (Digital Europe) provides strategic investments into the 
deployment of digital infrastructures and technologies, contributing to the EU’s digital 
transformation, and to building the EU’s digital autonomy and competitiveness on the global 
stage.  

This  evaluation  has  been  prepared  in  line  with  Article  26  of  the  Digital  Europe  Regulation 
2021/6941 which stipulates that an interim evaluation of the programme be conducted at the 
latest  four  years  after  the  start  of  implementation,  i.e.  at  the  latest  by  November  2025.  The 
interim evaluation analyses the design of the Digital Europe programme, its implementation, 
and the first results achieved from November 2021 to December 2024. It covers all specific 
objectives (SOs) implemented under direct and indirect management. Due to the recent launch 
of  the  sixth  objective  supporting  chips  and  semiconductor  technologies,  this  report  mainly 
explores the trends and developments in this area. The evaluation follows the Better Regulation 
Guidelines2 and measures  the effectiveness,  efficiency, relevance, coherence, and EU added 
value of the programme. The objective of the evaluation report is to inform stakeholders and 
policymakers  on  the  progress  achieved,  guide  the  design  of  future  initiatives  in  digital 
deployment and adjust funding priorities to maximise the impact of EU investment. 

The evaluation responds in total to 38 evaluation questions, structured around five evaluation 
criteria. The evaluation matrix can be found in Annex III.  

1.1.1.  Methodological approach  

The evaluation used a broad mix of qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis 
methods (see Annex II). The main sources of qualitative information included desk research, 
interviews, focus groups, workshops and case studies. Quantitative information was gathered 
through secondary data collection, a public consultation questionnaire and a Call for Evidence 
(CfE), as well as targeted surveys for beneficiaries, applicants, end users and stakeholders of 
the national cybersecurity centres (NCCs). The quantitative data was analysed using descriptive 
statistics and extrapolation. The main types of secondary data used for the evaluation includes 
programme data from the financial management system (eGrants), data gathered manually on 
the  implementation  of  procurements,  and  contribution  agreements,  contextual  data  (Digital 
Decade policy programme indicators3,DESI4, EMI5), and data on the progress made towards the 
key  performance  indicators  and  supporting  indicators.  Triangulation  of  evidence  gathered 
through different methods was performed for all research questions to ensure the consistency 
and relevance of the findings. 

1 Regulation (EU) 2021/694 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2021 establishing the Digital Europe         
programme and repealing Decision (EU) 2015/2240 
2 Better Regulation: guidelines and toolbox 
3 Decision (EU) 2022/2481 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 establishing the Digital Decade 

Policy Programme 2030: Decision - 2022/2481 - EN - EUR-Lex 

4 Digital Decade DESI visualisation tool 
5 What is the EMI Data Dashboard? | European +Monitor of Industrial Ecosystems 

1 

 
 
 
The evaluation leveraged the findings of an evaluation support study carried out by Technopolis 
Group and Ramboll6 (hereinafter: ‘evaluation study’ or ‘study’). In the scope of this study, over 
100 interviews, 5 surveys (1 756 participants), one public consultation (789 responses to the 
survey  and  103  general  comments  on  the  call  for  evidence),  6  focus  groups,  3  case  studies 
(Annex XIII) and a cost-benefit analysis (Annex IV) were conducted. This evaluation also takes 
into  account  stakeholder  consultations7  carried  out  by  DG  CNECT,  such  as  the  stakeholder 
workshops on the implementation of the programme at the ‘From Research to Reality – digital 
solutions  for  European  challenges’  event8  and  at  the  conference  on  the  ‘Future  of  Digital 
Investment in the EU’9,the workshop with representatives of the European Digital Innovation 
Hubs (EDIHs) at the EDIH summit10 and the policy workshop organised to validate the findings 
of this evaluation. The findings of the stakeholder consultations are analysed in the synopsis 
report (Annex V). In addition, this report refers to several other sources, such as feedback to 
policy  reports,  preparatory  documents  for  the  draft  impact  assessment  of  the  new  MFF,  a 
spending  review,  programme  performance  statements,  annual  activity  reports,  as  well  as 
beneficiary reports. The evaluation also considers feedback from diverse working groups and 
comments made by the Member States’ delegates to the Digital Europe programme Committee. 
Furthermore, it refers to two opinions on the programme conducted by the Fit4Future platform11 
and the European Economic and Social Committee12, as well as other related evaluations, such 
as the Interim Evaluation of the InvestEU programme13.  

1.1.2.  Limitations  

Even though the interim evaluation of the Digital Europe programme offers important insights 
into its implementation and progress, certain limitations need to be recognised. Firstly, it is too 
early to assess the economic and digital impacts. The full benefits from investments will take 
time  to  materialise,  with  long-term  gains  in  productivity,  innovation,  and  competitiveness 
becoming  clearer  in  subsequent  years.  Assessing  the  programme’s  full  cost-effectiveness  is 
challenging due to its early stage, as it has primarily focused on new infrastructure investments 
that are expected to generate substantial benefits only later. Secondly, there is a lack of micro-
level data on end users. Due to restrictions related to data protection rules, and a lack of formal 
obligations for beneficiaries to track data related to end users, granular micro-level data on end 
users, (e.g. SMEs, researchers, public administrations, and individuals benefiting from Digital 
Europe-supported infrastructures and services) could not be collected. To receive some insights 
into the perspectives of end users, surveys for end users in four work strands were conducted. 
Thirdly, there is limited aggregated data on procurement. The availability of detailed data 
on  procurement  outcomes,  cost-effectiveness,  and  supplier  participation  remains  limited, 
constraining  the  ability  to  evaluate  whether  procurement  processes  have  been  efficient. 
Gathering these data across different DGs and services at a granular level, requires IT tools, 
such as the ones currently used for grants. Finally, there is limited information on financial 

6 Interim Evaluation of the Digital Europe programme, Technopolis Group & Ramboll (2025). 
7 Including a Public Consultation, which was published on the European Commission’s ‘Have your say’ portal from 27 June 

to 20 September 2024. The summary report is accessible at Digital Europe programme – interim evaluation 

8 From Research to Reality – digital solutions for European challenges | Shaping Europe’s digital future 
9 Conference | The Future of Digital Investments in the EU 
10 EDIH Network Summit 2024 | European Digital Innovation Hubs Network 
11 Adopted opinions - European Commission 
12 opinions - Filtered results | EESC 
13 Interim evaluation of the InvestEU Programme - European Commission 

2 

 
 
 
instruments (debt, and equity-based financing). There is a lack of detailed information on the 
final recipients of financing and investment operations at the moment, but this information will 
become  continuously  available  as  intermediary  organisations  offer  financing  to  the  final 
recipients.  While  more  information  is  expected  to  be  available  as  the  operations  reach  the 
market,  it  is  particularly  difficult  to  assess  the  sectoral  composition  and  distribution  across 
Member States.  

2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? 

2.1.  Background and objectives of the intervention 

Numerous far-reaching hurdles in the digital transformation of the EU required the European 
Commission  to  invest  in  a  systematic  digital  deployment  programme.  In  its  2018  impact 
assessment for Digital Europe14, the Commission stressed that, to keep pace with the US and 
China,  the  Commission  urgently  needed  to  support  the  development  of  advanced  digital 
capabilities in computing, AI, cybersecurity, and digital skills. 

• 

In  2020,  the  EU  accounted  for  only  5%  of  global  HPC  facilities  while  consuming  one  third  of  HPC 
resources15.  

•  The limited availability of high-quality data restricted the development of effective AI systems, which 
were crucial for training AI models and their optimal performance. It was estimated that there was a EUR 
10 billion annual AI investment gap16. 

•  With regards to cybersecurity, in 2018, only four EU Member States were in the top tier of the ITU Global 
Cybersecurity Index, and only eight Member States reached a score higher than 8517. To be ‘cyber-ready’ 
in five years, the EU planned to co-invest in cybersecurity infrastructure and scale up existing capabilities.  

• 

In  addressing  the  digital  skills  gap,  the  Commission  aimed  to  boost  the  growth  of  ICT  specialist 
employment from 3.3%  in 2016 to 4.3% annually, increasing the total number of specialists from  8.2 
million in 2016 to 12.3 million by 202718. 

•  European businesses were slow to adopt digital innovations, leading to uneven progress across Member 

States, sectors (high-tech vs. traditional), and types of companies (large companies vs SMEs)19.  

•  The EU also faced a semiconductor shortage in 2022. While the global demand for the technology surged, 
the EU’s own capacities were not enough to meet its needs, as in 2022, the EU accounted for about 10% 
of the global market and relied heavily on third country suppliers.  

The  need  to  address  these  challenges  strategically  across  Member  States  led  to  the 
adoption  of  the  Digital  Europe  programme  Regulation20  in  April  2021.  Addressing  the 
semiconductor issue led to the introduction of the Chips Act in 2022, adding another specific 
objective to the Digital Europe intervention logic.  

14 Commission Staff Working Document: Impact Assessment Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the 

European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Digital Europe programme for the period 2021-2027 

15 Briefing European Parliamentary Research Service 
16  Commission Staff Working Document: Impact Assessment Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the 

European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Digital Europe programme for the period 2021-2027 

17 Member States among the top 10 of the Global Cybersecurity Index were France (3), Lithuania (4), Estonia (5), Spain (7) in 
2018. Member States who had scored higher than 85 were France (91.8), Lithuania (90.8), Estonia (90.5), Spain (89.6), 
Luxembourg (88.6), Netherlands (88.5), Finland (85.6), Denmark (85.2). Source: Global Cybersecurity Index (GCI) 2018, 
Studies & research, ITU Publications, International Telecommunication Union, 2018. 

18 DESI indicators - Digital Decade DESI visualisation tool 
19 Technopolis Group & Ramboll (2025) Interim Evaluation of the Digital Europe programme 
20 Digital Europe programme (2021–2027) | EUR-Lex 

3 

 
 
 
2.2.  Intervention logic  

The Digital Europe programme has a total budget of EUR 8.16 billion21 to foster the deployment 
of key digital technologies and infrastructures, their best use for critical sectors, and the related 
advanced  digital  skills  development  contributing  towards  the  overall  goal  of  achieving 
increased strategic autonomy, security and competitiveness across the EU. 

Figure  1  presents  the  intervention  logic  of  the  Digital  Europe  programme,  highlighting  the 
different SOs in terms of their main activities, outputs and outcomes. Together these outcomes 
address many of the key challenges related to the lagging and untapped potential of the digital 
transformation of SMEs, larger firms and public authorities across the EU. Digital technologies, 
as highlighted in the Draghi report22, are not only the drivers for productivity, innovation and a 
well-functioning single market but also essential to enhancing the EU’s strategic autonomy.  

For  instance,  currently  approximately  70%  of  foundational  AI  models  since  2017  were 
developed in the United States, and three major US ‘hyperscalers’ dominate over 65% of both 
the global and European cloud markets, compared with the leading European cloud providers, 
which hold less than 2% of the EU market. As highlighted in the Draghi report, the EU’s lag in 
key digital technologies is the main reason for the productivity gap between the EU and the US. 
Excluding  this  sector,  EU  productivity  growth  over  the  past  20  years  would  be  broadly 
comparable to the US.23 

Digital  technologies  are  central  to  securing  strategic  autonomy,  particularly  in  a  landscape 
marked by rising geopolitical tensions and systemic vulnerabilities. The EU’s dependence on 
third  countries  for  critical  digital  infrastructure—such  as  semiconductors,  AI  systems,  and 
cloud computing—combined with a significant ‘data value loss’ (an estimated 90% of EU data 
flowing  to  non-EU  countries)24,  underscores  the  urgent  need  to  strengthen  the  EU’s  digital 
infrastructures  and  capabilities.  The  European  Economic  Security  Strategy25  explicitly 
identifies  risks  from  technology  security  gaps  and  leakage  as  core  threats  to  economic 
resilience, with 10 critical technology areas26 listed as priorities. Notably, eight of these areas 
are  directly  tied  to  digital  technologies  and  infrastructure  (semiconductors,  AI,  quantum 
computing,  advanced connectivity, robotics and autonomous systems, and advanced sensing 
technologies), illustrating how digital sovereignty is inseparable from economic and strategic 
autonomy. By securing leadership in these domains, the EU can mitigate external risks, protect 
innovation  ecosystems,  and  ensure  long-term  competitiveness  in  a  technology-driven  global 
economy. 

21 Digital Europe programme (2021–2027) | EUR-Lex 
22 See, for instance, in The Future of European Competitiveness (‘Draghi Report’ 2024), as one of the main three transitions 
underpinning competitiveness. Digitalisation and advanced technologies are discussed as important elements to the EU’s 
open strategic autonomy.  

23 Ibid. 
24 While transfer of data can also be mutually beneficial, this argument is framed by the data value chain, and the added value 
created through data collection, processing, analysing and monetisation of the rapidly expanding volume of digital data, 
which concentrates value in a few platforms and multinational enterprises (see: Digital Economy Report). 

25 EUR-Lex - 52023JC0020 - EN - EUR-Lex 
26 C_2023_6689_1_EN_ACT_part1_v8.pdf 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 1. Intervention logic of the Digital Europe programme 

Under SO1 – High Performance Computing, Digital Europe supports the acquisition of new 
supercomputing  infrastructure,  including  exascale,  post-exascale,  and  quantum  computing 
facilities, the upgrade of the existing HPC infrastructures with AI capabilities, the establishment 
of HPC competence centres and the deployment of highly accurate digital twins of the Earth. 
As  a  result  of  these  activities,  the  EU  will  have  an  integrated  network  of  supercomputers 
providing  increased  computing  and  data  capacities  and  services  (e.g.  weather,  climate)  to 
businesses and research organisations across the EU, contributing to a full EU ecosystem that 
provides the necessary HPC and data capabilities for Europe. In addition, as an outcome of this 
SO,  the  Destination  Earth  initiative  provides  digital  models  of  the  earth  of  groundbreaking 
accuracy, making it possible for users to timely predict and simulate extreme weather events 
provoking environmental disasters. These tools, combined with AI capabilities, are likely to 
revolutionize Copernicus services and the use of Earth observations.  

The  activities  related  to  this  SO  are  implemented  through  the  EuroHPC  Joint  Undertaking,  except  for 
Destination Earth, which is implemented through contribution agreements with the European Space Agency 
(ESA), the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) and the European Operational 
Satellite Agency for Monitoring Weather, Climate and the Environment from Space (EUMETSAT). 

SO2  –AI  supports  the  deployment  of  EU-wide  common  data  spaces  in  key  areas  based  on 
federated  cloud-to-edge  infrastructure  and  services.  It  helps  with  setting  up  AI  testing  and 
experimentation facilities (TEFs) and supports the adoption of AI-based solutions in specific 
sectors. It also aims to establish an ecosystem of networked local digital twins across the EU 

5 

 
 
 
and to develop open-source language foundation models. These activities aim to improve the 
availability and exchange of data across the EU, improve the AI uptake though increased access 
to  testing  facilities and through specialised  applications  in  key sectors.  This  SO is  therefore 
expected  to  strengthen  the  EU’s  AI  capacities,  enable  better  decision-making  based  on 
combined data sources and patterns, as well as the development of new data-driven products 
and services. 

The activities related to this SO are managed directly by the Commission and implemented with the support of 
the  Health  and  Digital  Executive  Agency  (HaDEA).  The  Research  Executive  Agency  (REA)  supports  the 
agency in the contractualisation process of beneficiaries. 

SO3 – Cybersecurity and Trust builds advanced cybersecurity capabilities, including threat 
detection  and  cyber  incident  analysis  ecosystems  and  quantum  secure  communication 
infrastructure,  and  strengthens  the  uptake  of  cybersecurity  solutions  and  the  sharing  of  best 
practices.  Key  activities  include  setting  up  NCCs  to  provide  research  and  technological 
expertise, and National and Cross-border Cyber Hubs to detect and warn about cyber threats, 
also through the setting-up of the Cyber Emergency Mechanism. The increased availability and 
accessibility of advanced cybersecurity solutions and know-how and the increased capacity of 
public and private bodies to detect and respond to cyber threats improves the EU’s resilience 
against cyberattacks and helps to protect critical infrastructures. 

The  specific  objective  on  cybersecurity  is  implemented  through  the  European  Cybersecurity  Industrial, 
Technology  and  Research  Competence  Centre  (ECCC)  and  the  Cybersecurity  Competence  Network.  The 
implementation of the Incident Response Support and Preparedness of Key sectors in the area of cybersecurity 
has been entrusted to the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA). 

SO4 – Advanced Digital Skills supports the design and provision of specialised education and 
training  programmes  in  key  digital  technologies,  such  as  HPC,  cybersecurity,  and  AI, 
supporting the skilling, reskilling and upskilling of the European workforce. Specific activities 
also target the inclusion of women in ICT related courses and careers. The increased availability 
of education and training opportunities aims to improve academic excellence and give access 
to better jobs. This SO also aims to improve the access for organisations to ICT specialists and 
expertise, supporting the development and uptake of advanced digital technologies. 

The activities related to this SO are managed directly by the Commission and implemented with the support of 
the HaDEA and REA. 

SO5 – Deployment and Best Use of Digital Capacities and Interoperability covers a wide 
range  of  activities,  from  deploying  solutions  supporting  the  digital  transformation  of  public 
administrations  and  services,  through  developing  and  piloting  blockchain  infrastructures  to 
promoting an inclusive and trustworthy digital space with the help of Safer Internet Centres and 
targeted online tools, resources and services. This SO aims to accelerate the wider adoption of 
digital technologies through facilitating the digital transformation and interoperability of areas 
of public interest (e.g. public administration, health, judiciary, smart cities, or energy) while 
ensuring that the uptake of digital technologies is aligned with EU values. This SO also includes 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
the establishment of a network of EDIH providing services to support companies, ensuring the 
digital transformation of European private organisations. 

The activities related to this SO are  mainly managed directly by the Commission and implemented with the 
support of the HaDEA and REA. The development of the Joint Investigation Teams Collaboration Platform27 
(JITs CP) will be implemented by the European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale 
IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (eu-LISA) via contribution agreements. 

SO6 – Semiconductors builds up advanced design and manufacturing capacities for integrated 
semiconductor technologies by  improving  existing and developing new advanced pilot  lines 
across the EU and a design platform to enable the development and deployment of cutting-edge 
and  next-generation  semiconductor  technologies.  This  SO  builds  engineering  capacities  to 
accelerate  the  development  of  cutting-edge  quantum  chips  and  to  establish  a  network  of 
competence  centres  across  the  EU.  Through  these  activities,  it  contributes  to  European 
leadership in semiconductor technologies and applications and increases the resilience of the 
EU’s supply chain for semiconductors. 

SO6 on semiconductor technologies and applications is implemented by the Chips Joint Undertaking.  

The programme is also implemented through financial instruments. This includes financial 
support to innovative digital start-ups and SMEs through equity and quasi-equity (Investment 
Platform for Strategic Digital Technologies) and support to SMEs in the field of semiconductor 
technologies, offering venture debt and equity-based financing (Chips Fund). 

The financial instruments, the Investment Platform for Strategic Digital Technologies and the Chips Fund, are 
implemented through indirect management with the European Investment Fund under InvestEU. 

Figure 2. Management structure of Digital Europe 

2.3.  Point(s) of comparison  

The  main  points  of  comparison  for  this  analysis  are  based  on  the  Digital  Europe  impact 
assessment  of  2018  (see  Section  2.1).  The  challenges  identified  in  that  impact  assessment 

27 Joint Investigation Teams (JITs) collaboration platform - European Commission 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
represent  the  baseline  scenario  against  which  the  progress  made  within  the  Digital  Europe 
programme can be compared to. In addition, the Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI), 
Digital  Decade  policy  programme  indicator  data28,  and  Eurostat  data  provide  a  robust 
foundation for monitoring the EU’s progress towards the 2030 digital objectives. For instance: 

•  Before the launch of the Digital Europe programme, in 2021, 55% of enterprises faced 
challenges filling ICT vacancies, and 70% reported inadequate digital skills. From 2020 
to  2024,  the  EU  experienced  a  21.7%  increase  in  ICT  specialists.  The  share  of  ICT 
specialists within total employment increased from 4.3% in 2020 to 5% in 2024, with 
19.5% of ICT specialists being women in 2024. 

•  Digitalisation among businesses saw progress, with SMEs’ digital intensity increasing 
from 54.8% in 2021 to 57.9% in 2023. Moreover, AI adoption among all enterprises 
rose from 7.7% in 2021 to 13.5% in 202429. 

•  Regarding public digital services for citizens, the share of the population of the EU who 
use the internet to interact with public authorities grew from 50.6% in 2022 to 56.2% in 
202430.   

In  addition  to  these  contextual  indicators,  the  KPIs  in  the  Regulation  and  the  additional 
supporting  indicators  (see  Annex  IX)  set  out  the  baseline  in  the  main  work  strands  and  the 
expected trends, which are also taken as a point of comparison in this analysis. 

3.  HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? 

3.1.  State of play of implementation 

The  Digital  Europe  programme  has  been  implemented  through  the  following  work 
programmes31 (WPs) in the 2021-2024 period:  

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

two Main Digital Europe WPs (2021-2022 and 2023-2024); 
two Cybersecurity WPs (2021-2022 and 2023-2024); 
four High-Performance Computing WPs (2021 to 2024); 
one Chips Multiannual WP (2023-2027)32; 
one EDIH WP (2021-2023). 

These WPs have been implemented under direct and indirect management, as described in 
Section 2.2. 

The Digital Europe Regulation33 was adopted late in April 2021, leading to the subsequent late 
adoption of the first Digital Europe work programmes in November 2021. The 2023-24 work 
programmes ensured the continuity and sustainability of actions already started in the previous 

28 Source: Digitalisation dashboard 
29 Source: Digitalisation dashboard  
30 Source: Digitalisation dashboard 
31 Digital Europe Work Programmes 
32 This multiannual WP is updated via a series of annual work programmes in appendices. 
33 Regulation (EU) 2021/694 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2021 establishing the Digital Europe 

programme and repealing Decision (EU) 2015/2240 

8 

 
 
 
 
WP (notably the testing and experimentation facilities, data spaces, or the Destination Earth 
initiative). In addition, the Digital Europe programme also had to be restructured to respond to 
new  geopolitical  developments  and  to  the  related  new  EU  policies.  To  address  the 
semiconductor supply shortage following the COVID-19 pandemic, a new capacity area on 
semiconductors (SO6) was added in September 2023, which mobilised an additional EUR 1.58 
billion funding under the Chips Act. For this purpose, EUR 800 million was transferred from 
other EU programmes to Digital Europe. On the other hand, funds were transferred from Digital 
Europe to the Secure Connectivity Programme (IRIS2) and to ENISA to respond to an ever-
growing cybersecurity threat landscape and in line with the Cyber Solidarity Act put forward 
in 202334. As a result, the programme’s budget saw an overall increase from EUR 7.6 billion to 
EUR 8.16 billion. 

Most projects started during this period will end by 2025 and 2026, with all ending by 2031 at 
the  latest.  By  the  end  of  2024,  Digital  Europe  had  been  funding  a  total  of  601  grant  and 
procurement  projects  in  addition  to  several  contribution  agreements,  financial 
instruments and programme support actions35 amounting to a total committed budget of 
EUR 3.02 billion36 (37% of the total budget).  

For the full breakdown of the EU contribution and the number of beneficiaries, including per 
SO, by type of action and by type of participant see Table 1. 

Table 1. Total EU contribution and number of projects per SO under Digital Europe, as of 31 December 2024 

Grants 

SO 

N 

EU  Contribution 
(EUR) 

EU 

Av 
Contribution 
(EUR) 

SO 1 

7 

 80.664.812  

11.523.545 

SO 2 

56 

 462.430.902  

8.257.695 

SO 3 

168 

 480.479.512  

2.859.997 

SO 4 

50 

 211.171.429  

4.223.429 

SO 5 

253 

 484.571.353  

1.915.302 

SO 6 

3 

 33.609.501  

11.203.167 

%  of 
total 
fundi
ng 

3% 

15% 

16% 

7% 

16% 

1% 

Other  instruments  (procurements,  contribution 
agreements,  financial  instruments,  programme 
support actions) 

Grand total 

N37 

EU  Contribution 
(EUR) 

EU 

Av 
Contribution 
(EUR) 

of 

% 
total 
funding 

9 

17 

1 

1 

28 

8 

516.975.558 

10.136.776 

17% 

135.702.297 

 7.982.48 

45.699.668 

 9.139.934 

3.717.090 

 3.717.090 

252.173.196 

8.695.627 

230.475.310 

 20.952.301 

4% 

2% 

0% 

8% 

8% 

N 

16 

73 

169 

51 

281 

11 

EU  Contribution 
(EUR) 

EU 

Av 
Contribution 
(EUR) 

of 

% 
total 
funding 

597.640.370,01  

10.304.144,31  

20% 

598.133.198,66  

8.193.605,46  

20% 

526.179.179,63  

3.041.498,15  

17% 

214.888.518,64  

4.213.500,37  

7% 

736.744.549,49  

2.612.569,32  

24% 

264.084.811,20  

18.863.200,80  

9% 

34 The Cyber Solidarity Act 
35 In addition to the grants and procurements, in terms of other instrument types, 11 venture capitals were supported to help 
companies involved in digital activities to reduce their financial risk. There were 3 Contribution Agreements with the European 
Space Agency (ESA), the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), and the European Organisation 
for  the  Exploitation  of  Meteorological  Satellites  (EUMETSAT)  to  implement  Destination  Earth.  In  addition  there  was  a 
contribution  agreement  with  ENISA  to  support  cybersecurity  incident  and  preparedness  in  key  sectors  and  a  contribution 
agreement with eu-LISA to support cross-border investigations and prosecutions in the EU by funding an IT platform that 
supports safe and quick exchanges of information. 
36  This  figure  includes  budget  committed  for  grants,  procurements,  contribution  agreements,  support  actions  and  financial 
instruments (individual commitments). It does not include global commitments and the administrative budget.  
37 The number of projects includes grants and procurements 

9 

 
 
            
                              
                
                                
              
                                 
              
                             
              
                                
              
                              
 
NA 

0% 

78.386.334 

 6.532.194 

3% 

78.386.334,24  

6.532.194,52  

3% 

Total 

537 

1.752.927.507 

3.596.181 

58% 

64 

1.263.129.455 

10.024.837 

42% 

601 

3.016.056.962 

 4.549.106 

100% 

Source: Technopolis Group & Ramboll, 2025. 

There were in total 6 388 participations in the programme from all 27 EU Member States, three 
fully  associated  EEA-EFTA  countries  (Norway,  Iceland  and  Liechtenstein),  nine  associated 
third  countries  (Albania,  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina,  Kosovo,  Moldova,  Montenegro,  North 
Macedonia, Serbia, Türkiye and Ukraine) and eight non-associated third countries38. Most of 
the  grant  funding  (EUR  1.69  billion)  was  received  by  Member  States.  Associated  countries 
received an EU contribution for grants of EUR 63.2 million across 24 projects. 

The 50% funding rate39 for Digital Europe grants has had a significant leverage effect. The 537 
grants signed by the end of 2024 received a EUR 1.75 billion EU contribution but had a total 
cost of EUR 3.17 billion (an effective 55% EU contribution rate for the grant component, direct 
leverage ratio of 81%). Leverage is therefore much higher in Digital Europe compared with 
Horizon Europe Cluster 4 (91% EU contribution rate)40. Of the EUR 1.41 billion co-funding, 
EUR  185  million  has  been  covered  by  large  companies,  and  EUR  200  million  by  SMEs41, 
meaning that the private sector covers 27% of the total co-funding, or 12% of the total Digital 
Europe grant costs. This co-funding is sourced from both private and public funding triggered 
by Digital Europe, with some Member States setting up specialised funds to co-finance projects. 
Some projects, such as the EDIHs, also leveraged combined funding with the ERDF and RRF 
funds. In addition to the official direct co-funding, beneficiaries also report additional indirect 
leverage effects on mobilising additional internal and external funding related to the projects, 
including  during  and  (where  already  relevant)  for  the  follow-up  of  the  projects.  An 
extrapolation analysis estimates the total leverage factor of Digital Europe at 225%-305% for 
grants  through  co-funding  of  projects  and  additional  funding  at  national,  regional  or  local 
levels42.  Blended  operations  between  Digital  Europe  and  InvestEU  also  had  a  leverage  and 
mobilising effect. Through the EU guarantee support to equity investments by the European 
Investment  Fund,  EUR  83.63  million  has  been  committed  to  support  strategic  digital 
technologies and EUR 67 million for investments in semiconductor technologies. These equity 
investments are expected to mobilise 14.77 times the amount committed, facilitating access to 
finance for key companies across Europe43  

38 Among which only the UK has received funding through Digital Europe (The European Centre for Medium Range Weather 

Forecasts, one of the three implementing entities of Destination Earth, is registered in the UK). 

39 Grants under Digital Europe generally cover 50% of the total eligible costs for all beneficiaries. Certain types of grants may 
have a higher funding rate, such as the SME support grants (75%), coordination and support actions (100%) or grant for 
financial support (100% for the consortium). 

40 European Commission: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Viscido, S., Lotito, A. and Boekholt, P., Horizon 
Europe and the digital & industrial transition – Interim evaluation support study – Final report (‘Phase 2’ study), Viscido, 
S.(editor),  Lotito,  A.(editor)  and  Boekholt,  P.(editor),  Publications  Office  of 
the  European  Union,  2024, 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/845650 

41 Including EUR 17m of unknown company size, here counted as SME. Please also note that this is not necessarily private co-
funding,  as  some  companies  receive  support  through  national  or  regional  support  programmes.  Hence,  this  is  to  be 
interpreted as ‘co-funding through private actors’ rather than ‘co-funding from private actors’. 

42  Based  on  additional  funding  at  national,  regional  or  local  levels  exceeding  the  existing  co-funding  arrangements  (and 

considering the risk of double counting), including internal investments in follow-up projects.  

43 Interim evaluation of the InvestEU Programme - European Commission. 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                
                                 
 
 
 
3.2.  Monitoring and performance strategy  

In  early  2024,  CNECT  published  a  comprehensive  monitoring  and  evaluation  framework 
describing in detail different types of indicators (see Annex X):  

Figure 3. Indicator Framework 

• 14  core  performance  indicators  from 
the  Digital  Europe  Regulation  covering 
SO1 to SO5; 

• 9  indicators  in  the  Chips  Regulation 
relevant for SO6, added to the programme 
in September 2023 after the adoption of the 
Chips Act;  

• 10  additional  performance  indicators 
for the programme’s midterm and  ex post 
evaluations  that were  added after the  first 
year of implementation. 

6  contextual  indicators  provide  relevant  insight  into  Europe’s  digital  performance  and 
progress towards the high-level digital policy goals. 

4.  EVALUATION FINDINGS  

4.1.  To  what  extent  was  the  intervention  successful  and  why?  An  analysis  of  the 

effectiveness and efficiency of the programme 

4.1.1.  Achievements per Specific Objective 

In the past years, the Digital Europe programme has launched a wide range of activities to boost 
the digital transformation in Europe and has already reached numerous key milestones. Due to 
the late adoption of the legal basis and the application of some provisions for the first time in 
an EU funding programme (e.g. security-related restrictions on third-country participation), its 
implementation  was  initially  delayed  but  has  since  accelerated.  Table  2  presents  the  main 
implementation of activities and outputs, as well as the first evidence of the outcomes achieved 
by Digital Europe by the end of 2024, in line with the intervention logic. Reference has also 
been made to the monitoring and supporting key performance indicators44, which typically align 
with the materialisation of results at the beneficiary level, whereas the outcome level represents 
the  end-user  perspective.  Digital  Europe  is  on  track  or  ahead  of  schedule  with  its  main 
anticipated results in terms of activities and outputs (for more detail, see Annexes VIII and IX), 
with  the  first  benefits  at  outcome  (end-user)  level  now  emerging  as  the  infrastructures  are 
increasingly  operational.  As  Digital  Europe,  as  a  new  programme,  introduced  novel 
infrastructures, tools and services, the baseline for each indicator is zero with the exception of 
high-performance computing, as the EuroHPC JU had funded seven HPC systems before the 
launch of Digital Europe. 

44 (* is behind schedule, ** is on track or ahead of milestones, *** if target fully achieved). 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
Specific 
Objective 
/Current 
committed 
budget 
SO1: HPC 

EUR 598m 

Table 2. Effectiveness of the Digital Europe programme per SO45 

(funding, 

Activities 
procurement, 
establishment 
networks/hubs/centres). 

of 

Outputs 
level: 
services 
networks/hubs/centres) 

(beneficiary 
of 
the 

availability 
through 

First evidence of outcomes 
(end-user  level46:  use  of  and 
benefits for end-users) 

Expected 
Milestones/targets 
indicators 

of 

Acquisition and Upgrading 
of Infrastructure: 
- 19/21 HPC infrastructure 

procured**  

access 

Increased 
new/better 
infrastructure 
- HPC upgrades carried 

to 
HPC 

out 

- First exascale HPC 

JUPITER 

- 33 National Competence 

Centres 

High-impact  deployments 
of HPC capabilities: 
- Destination Earth 
launched 

- Two digital twins of the 
earth system launched 

- Destination 

Earth 
Service Platform with 20 
services 

- Destination  Earth  Data 
Lake  with  170  distinct 
data sets and 18 thematic 
areas 

cases, 

- -25  Destination  Earth 
use 
including 
visualisation  of  urban 
heat,  and  monitoring  of 
air pollutants49  
- 7 AI Factories50 
World 
facilities: 
- 4 AI TEFs  
- -TEF  for  edge  AI  are 
currently being set up 

testing 

class 

SO2:  AI, 
Cloud  and 
Data 

Co-investment  in  sites  for 
testing 
and 
experimentation: 
- EUR  189.7  m 

co-

EUR 598m 

invested*** 

Support  to  the  deployment 
of  AI-based  solutions  in 
key sectors 

- Common European data 
spaces in seven sectors 

launched 

- Simpl, the open-source 
middleware platform, 
deployed to operate data 
spaces 

- AI on demand platform 

launched 
- 27 National 

Cybersecurity 
Coordination Centres 

SO3: 
Cybersecuri
ty and Trust 

up 
 Building 
cybersecurity capabilities 

advanced 

Increased  use  of  exascale  and 
post-exascale:  
- First 

researchers 

use 

JUPITER 

- Too early to measure benefit 

for end-users 

- Over  EUR  170  million  co-
in  HPC 

invested  by  MS 
systems 

- .JEDI,  the  first  module  of 
top  of 

  ranks 

JUPITER 
Green500 list47 

- JETI,  the  second  model  of 
JUPITER  ranks  18th  in  the 
TOP 500 list.48 (2 EuroHPC 
JU  systems  funded  in  the 
previous  MFF  are  in  the  top 
10 
fastest 
supercomputers in the world) 
- 1  936  users  of  Destination 
Earth  (of  which  194  private 
sector users) 

the 

of 

- Degree  of  benefit  unknown 

so far 

Deployment of AI due to Digital 
Europe 
- 311 users supported** (out of 
which 53 SMEs supported) 

- No data yet for uptake** 

- 77 users supported to obtain 

high quality data in 
European health data space 
(mostly research 
organisations and hospitals)   

-  21  HPC  systems  by 
2026  (baseline  7  HPC 
systems) 
- 100% usage of exascale 
supercomputers by 2027 
-  10%  of  computing 
power of top 500 systems 
in EU by 2026 

-  15  distinct  categories 
or  thematic  areas  from 
which  data  are  made 
available to the DestinE 
user community by 2024 
ready-to-use 
- 
functions 
and 
applications available to 
users by 2024 
-  25  DestinE  use  cases 
by 2024 

15 

in 

-  EUR  180  million-co 
investment  in  TEFs  by 
2027 
-  100  Cases  for  which 
organisations  decide  to 
artificial 
integrate 
intelligence 
their 
product,  processes  or 
services by 2030 
- 1 600 users of common 
European 
libraries  or 
interfaces  to  libraries  of 
algorithms, 
European 
Data Spaces and TEFs by 
2030 

Better 
cybersecurity 
solutions: 

deployment 

and 

of 
trust 

- 165 cybersecurity 
infrastructure and/or 
tools deployed by 2027 

- EU Cloud Marketplace 

- 26 users to obtain verified 

cloud services** 

45 by the end of 2024 
46 For a table with the number of end users see annex VII 
47 Green500 | TOP500 
48 Home - | TOP500, data in 2024, in 2025 Jupiter enters the list of the fastest supercomputers in the world at 4th place 
49 Use Cases Catalogue Archive - Destination Earth 
50 6 further AI factories in February 2025 

12 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
EUR 526m 

SO4: 
Advanced 
Digital 
Skills 

EUR 215m 

SO5: 
Adoption 
and  use  of 
key  digital 
technologie
s 

EUR 737m 

- 26 cybersecurity 

infrastructures procured 
(cross border and 
national CyberHubs)** 

- 90 user communities getting 
access to national and cross 
border Security Operation 
Centres** 

Deployment  of  advanced 
cybersecurity solutions 

- 12 cybersecurity tools 

deployed ** 

- 13 user communities getting 
access to advanced tools** 

Design  and  delivery  of 
specialised  education  and 
training programmes 

Training 

Available 
Programmes 
- 52 master’s programmes 
- 530 short term courses 
Launch of Digital Jobs and 
Skills Platform 
Launch  of  Digital  Skills 
and  Jobs  Coalition  with 
over 15 000 stakeholders 

People  trained:  more  workers 
with better digital skills 
- 20 713 people trained**, 

perceived value 6.5k-14.4k 
per SME 

- 30,308 users of the Digital 

Skills Job Platform 

- Improved employment: no 

data collected in time 

- 400 Users and 
communities getting 
access to European 
cybersecurity facilities 
by 2028 

to 
-  65  000  persons 
receive 
in 
advanced digital skills by 
2027 

training 

Promoting  the  inclusion  of 
women in ICT 

-  Workshops and events 
to make girls interested 
in ICT related careers  

Launch of European Digital 
Innovation Hubs 

Availability of services: 
- 151 EDIHs offering Test 
before invest and other 
services.  

the 

digital 
Boosting 
transformation of the public 
sector 

Interoperability solutions 
- Interoperability Test 

Bed 

- Interoperable Europe 

Portal 

- EU Digital Identity 

Wallet 
Large-scale pilots: 4 
pilots 

- European Blockchain 
Sandbox Live, 18 
countries with 
production-grade EBSI 
nodes, 25 pilots** 

Setting  up  centres, 
IT 
systems and platforms for a 
Safer Internet 

- 25 Network of Safer 
Internet Centres Live 
- EDMO Live (14 hubs) 

- 33% of master’s students are 

- N/A 

women. Too early to 
measure impact of activities 
to attract women 

Transformation 

Digital 
European organisations: 
- 54 610 businesses and public 

of 

sector organisations use 
EDIH services51  

- Over 29 000 services offered 
- Perceived value of EUR 
8.0k-15.3k value per 
organisation 

- Over 5 700 events with more 

than 800 000 attendees 
reached 

- 12 576 participants trained 

through Interoperable 
Europe Academy 
- More than 1 million 

individuals reached on 
Interoperable Europe Portal 
offering more than 2 900 
reusable interoperable 
solutions.  

- Around 360 public and 

private organisations piloting 
11 use-cases for the EU 
Digital Identity Wallet 

- 406 organisations supported 

on blockchain 
implementation (EBSI pilots 
and sandbox)*** 

- Over 240 000 distinct data 
validations and 16 000 
conformance test sessions 
via Interoperability Testbed 
(in 2024)52 

- 65 million citizens reached 
by Safer Internet Centres, 
together with the BIK portal 
(2023-2024) and 60 million 
reached in 2021-2022 
- 390.8 thousand website 

visitors to EDMO 

- 191 400 businesses and 
public sector entities 
that have used the 
European digital 
innovation hubs' 
services by 2027 
-  19  140  Entities  that 
have  been  supported  by 
the  European  Digital 
Innovation 
Hubs 
showing  a 
significant 
increase  in  their  digital 
maturity by 2024 
- take-up of digital 
public services by 2029 
(210 projects reusing 
eTranslation by 2027, 41 
projects reusing 
eDelivery by 2026, 90 
projects reusing the 
interoperability testbed 
by 2027, 27 Member 
States connect to the 
OOTS by 2026, 28 
countries enabled to 
exchange the new digital 
identity credentials by 
2024, full completion of 
digitalisation of justice 
and eLab by 2027) 

n/a 

SO6: 
Semicondu
ctors 

Enhancing  existing  and 
developing new pilot lines 

Availability  of  Pilot  lines, 
centres, investment: 
- Chips Fund Launched 

Strengthened capabilities in the 
semiconductor sector: 
- Too early to measure results 

- The number of users or 
user 
communities 
seeking,  or  obtaining, 

51  Out  of  which  15 062 SMEs  and  1  727 public organisations  (registered  organisations),  the  remaining  is  an  estimation  of 

organisations participating in networking events (38 700).  

52 Research and reports | Better Internet for Kids 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
EUR 264m 

access 
design 
to 
capacities  and pilot lines 
under the Initiative53. 
-  The  total  amount  co-
invested  by  the  private 
sector 
design 
in 
capacities  and pilot lines 
under the Initiative54 

Building 
capacities 

engineering 

Preparation 
Platform 

of  Design 

 Expected to go live in 2025, too 
early to measure results 

Setting  up 
centres 

competence 

- European Network of 27 

Too early to measure results 

Chips Competence 
Centres launched 

developed 

-  The  number  of  design 
tools 
or 
integrated55 
-The 
of 
businesses,  which  have 
the  services  of 
used 
national 
competence 
centres56. 

number 

SO1 focused on the acquisition and upgrading of the HPC infrastructure, and on facilitating 
high-impact deployments of HPC capabilities. In terms of infrastructure, 1957 out of a total of 
30 planned procurements (by 2029) have taken place, meeting the set milestone. Among these 
is  JUPITER,  the  first  European  exascale  computer,  which  has  been  fully  installed  by 
European companies and ranks among the most powerful supercomputers in the world58. By the 
end of 2024, JUPITER had already been made available to some research labs for experimental 
use,  but  its  full  computational  power  is  expected  to  be  deployed  by  2025,  substantially 
increasing the number of its users. It is also a pioneer in energy efficiency, with its first module, 
JEDI, ranked as the most energy efficient supercomputer in the world59. Given the rapid rate of 
digitalisation, efficient computing has become increasingly essential. JUPITER uses a highly 
efficient hot water-cooling system, which requires much less energy than traditional air cooling 
while allowing the generated heat to be re-used, for instance, for heating the buildings on the 
Jülich campus.  

In  total,  33  National  Competence  Centres60  have  been  launched  to  bridge  the  existing  HPC 
skills gaps while promoting cooperation across Europe. These centres are the first entry point 
at national level across Member States for SMEs, other organisations and researchers to receive 
support and access to HPC resources in their native language. There were also activities to help 
the EU’s SMEs make the best use of advanced HPC services.  

53 The pilot lines and the Design Platform are still being set up, their grant agreements being prepared, and therefore they do 

not have any users yet.   

54 Private investment is expected once the pilot lines are operational and for several future Work programme topics on design 

capacities. 

55 The Chips Joint Undertaking Work programme 2025 includes call for the development of open-source EDA tools, results 

are expected in 2027. 

56 The Competence Centres are still being set up, their grant agreements being prepared, and therefore they do not have any 

users.   

57 First exascale supercomputer Jupiter in Germany, second exascale supercomputer Alice Recoque in France, one precursor-
to-exascale  supercomputer  in  Spain,  two  mid-range  supercomputers  in  Sweden  and  Greece,  an  upgrade  of  1  petascale  in 
Bulgaria  and  1  precursor-to-exascale  in  Italy,  six  quantum  computers  in  the  Netherlands,  Luxembourg,  Spain,  Germany, 
Czechia and France. 
58 TOP500 List - June 2025 | TOP500 
59  European  Exascale  Supercomputer  JUPITER  Sets  New  Energy  Efficiency  Standards  with  #1  Ranking  in  GREEN500  - 

EuroHPC JU 

60 EuroHPC – Our Supercomputers 

14 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
There have been two main activity lines to facilitate high-impact deployments. The first are the 
AI Factories, seven61 of which were selected in 202462 to offer start-ups and researchers cutting-
edge AI-optimised infrastructure and related services (training new AI models, programming 
and training facilities, access to large national data spaces, etc.).  

The second is the Destination Earth initiative that has launched two digital twins of the Earth 
system,  and  related  services,  such  as  a  platform63  of  20  services  (advanced  3D  rendering 
technologies), and 170 distinct data sets on the data lake64. The Destination Earth system can 
produce climate simulations with a resolution of up to five kilometres, compared to previous 
resolutions of between a few tens and one hundred kilometres. So far, 1 936 researchers have 
used  these  services.  The  EU  funded  supercomputers  LUMI,  Leonardo,  MareNostrum  5  and 
MeluXina have been instrumental to the modelling of Destination Earth’s digital twins.  

Box 1. Success Story: Destination Earth 

Due to climate change, weather-induced extreme events are becoming more frequent and intense, posing an 
increased risk to society. Digital Europe has invested over EUR 300 million into Destination Earth, which has 
developed digital models of the earth of groundbreaking accuracy, which are revolutionising the simulation and 
monitoring of natural phenomena, hazards, and related human activities thanks to unprecedented resolution and 
interactivity. It is possible for users to timely use forecast and data to predict and simulate extreme weather and 
climate  events  provoking  environmental  disasters.  This  is  essential  to  help  save  lives,  protect  property, 
infrastructure and reduce socio-economic impact. Destination Earth also supports Europe in its role as a global 
leader  in  adapting  to  and  mitigating  the  impact  of  climate  change. Destination  Earth  contributes  to  key  EU 
initiatives, such as EU Adaptation Strategy65, the related European Climate Resilience and Risk Management 
to help Member States prevent and prepare for the growing impacts of climate change, and the EU Mission on 
adaptation to climate change supporting over 150 European regions and communities. 

Overall, SO1 investments have been effective in creating more competitive HPC capacity for 
the EU. The new supercomputers funded by the programme support a wide range of European 
end-users, spanning from the scientific community to industry and the public sector, thereby 
fostering  research  and  innovation.  These  efforts  contributed  to  developing  a  world-leading, 
secure, and interconnected supercomputing ecosystem, broadening HPC usage, and cultivating 
essential skills for European science and industry. While the main user base has primarily been 
research organisations, the recently launched AI  Factories  and  competence  centers will  also 
target AI start-ups and SMEs, as well as organisations from the public sector. They will thus 
bring in more public and private sector use cases and benefits66, which will be important for 
these  investments  to  contribute  effectively  to  the  overall  objectives  of  Digital  Europe 
(competitiveness and resilience). 

Box 2. Example of project supporting HPC adoption in EU SMEs and start-ups 

Through  the  Fortissimo  FFplus  project,  SMEs  are  developing  unique  products,  innovative  business 
opportunities and becoming more competitive by using European high-end HPC services. The project supported 
the  uptake  of  HPC  by  SMEs  to  address  specific  business  challenges  and  the  adoption  of  large  scale  HPC 
resources for the development of generative AI models. 

61 An additional set of six AI Factories were selected in January 2025 and another six AI factories in October 2025 (AI Factories 

| Shaping Europe’s digital future). 

62 Further 6 were selected in February 2025 
63 DestinE Platform – Your gateway to a sustainable future 
64 DestinationEarth DataLake 
65 EUR-Lex - 52021DC0082 - EN - EUR-Lex 
66 Interim evaluation of the European High Performance Computing Joint Undertaking  

15 

 
 
 
 
 
SO2 aims to support the uptake of AI, Cloud and Data opportunities in the public and private 
sector. As in SO1, there is a dual focus on building key infrastructures as well as on concrete 
deployment  acceleration.  In  terms  of  infrastructures,  four  AI  Testing  and  Experimentation 
Facilities (TEFs) have been set up. These facilities provide large-scale, real-world environments 
to  test  and  refine  AI  models,  ensuring  that  they  are  validated,  optimised,  and  prepared  for 
deployment.  The  existing  TEFs  operate  in  the  areas  of  health,  manufacturing,  smart  cities 
(including transport and mobility), agriculture and energy67. The Agrifood TEF, for instance, 
offers  more  than  200  AI  services68  that  can  help  develop,  test  and  roll  out  AI  and  robotic 
products. So far, more than 311 users in total have been supported by TEFs. While no systematic 
data is available yet on the benefits obtained by these users, an example is provided in Box 2. 
As an example of deployment acceleration, the OpenEuroLLM project 69 will foster AI adoption 
by developing a high-performing,  open-source European large language model, covering all 
official EU languages and freely available to European industry. 

Box 3. A French SME that delivers AI based radiology solutions received support from TEF-Health70

Median  Technologies  is  a  medium-sized  French  SME  with  around  250  employees  that  combines  medical 
images and AI to provide innovative solutions to increase the accuracy of diagnosis and treatment of cancers, 
while also contributing to the emergence of new therapies for patients.  Median Technologies were looking to 
test out the quality of their AI/ML-based solutions and improve the robustness of their processes in compliance 
with the increasing level of requirements of the European Regulation on AI systems (AI Act). 

The service provided by TEF-Health partner LNE consisted of an assessment of the process used by the SME 
to  develop  and  evaluate  their  AI  data-based  systems.  The  TEF  assessed  the  documentation  describing  the 
process, such as conception documents, the risk analysis matrix or the evaluation plan. This first review allowed 
LNE  to  identify  parts  of  the process  where  information  was  lacking.  This  has  helped  the  SME  to progress 
towards the certification of their AI systems. 

Source: Testing and Experimentation Facility for Health AI and Robotics.  Success story – First Service delivered by TEF-Health to an SME 
2024: Link 

In  addition,  Common  European  Data  Spaces  have  been  deployed  in  seven  areas/sectors 
(cultural heritage, health, language, mobility, media, manufacturing and smart communities), 
while data spaces for energy, tourism, skills, agriculture, and one to support the Green Deal are 
still in development. The data spaces enable trustworthy data transactions between participants 
and allow data users to create innovate products, and services or to develop AI tools. They were 
set up in line with EU rules and values, personal data and consumer protection. The first 77 
academic, public and private user communities have benefited from the European Health Data 
Space. 

Box 4. Success story – Health Data Space 

The European Federation for Cancer  Images project71 is part of Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan to 
prevent and cure cancer. It deploys a pan-European digital infrastructure for cancer-related images 
and related clinical data. It has made available a public catalogue of 46 medical imaging datasets 
(including 200 000 images of around 20 000 patients) for nine cancer types for the development of 
AI-based solutions shaping the future of cancer diagnosis and treatment. The project feeds directly into 
the European Health Data Space (EHDS) regulatory framework by promoting the secondary use of health data 
for research, innovation, policymaking, and regulatory activities in cancer. Specifically, it provides data holders 

67 Sectorial AI Testing and Experimentation Facilities under the Digital Europe programme | Shaping Europe’s digital future 
68 Catalogue of Services 
69 Open Euro LLM 
70 Source: Testing and Experimentation Facility for Health AI and Robotics.  Success story – First Service delivered by TEF-
Health to an SME. 2024. Link 
71 EUCAIM | EIBIR 

16 

 
 
 
 
with the necessary functional, operational, and legal support to enable secure, controlled, and legally compliant 
access to data, in line with the EHDS regulation72. 

Simpl73, an open-source middleware platform, has been developed by the Commission with an 
overall budget of EUR 156 million to support the technical implementation of the data spaces 
and other data initiatives. The first version of Simpl middleware was made available to data 
spaces in late 2024. Beyond data spaces, Simpl will also underpin the technical functions of 
EuroCloud, the emerging European public sector cloud federation, allowing Member States to 
share their computing infrastructure with each other. 

By the end of 2024, 26 companies offered cloud services on the EU Cloud Marketplace (DOME 
project)74. The AI on Demand Platform (AIoD), a central toolbox for AI innovation, set up to 
empower  start-ups,  SMEs,  and  public  services  with  trusted  AI  tools,  expertise,  and  market-
ready solutions. By connecting developers with AI assets, testing capabilities, and Europe’s AI 
ecosystem through the business navigator, the platform accelerates the deployment of secure, 
sovereign  and  trustworthy  AI.  The  platform  therefore  plays/will  play  a  central  role  in  the 
implementation of the AI Continent Action Plan. 

Overall, SO2 has managed to effectively implement the planned activities and outputs and is 
on track with its milestones. With the infrastructure now starting to be in place (with further 
roll-out expected in 2025), the first end-users have started to see benefits. The final extent of 
the benefits to users and the direct effect on these users (e.g. increased productivity) will start 
to become visible in the next few years.  

SO3 is focused on building advanced cybersecurity capabilities, as well as the deployment of 
advanced  cybersecurity  solutions.  In  terms  of  capabilities,  27  NCCs  have  been  set  up,  26 
cybersecurity infrastructures successfully procured (CyberHubs), including  two cross-border 
CyberHubs, in line with the targets. Stakeholders of the NCCs indicated that the most tangible 
benefits  gained  so  far  from  EU  activities  in  cybersecurity  include  the  standardisation  of 
practices, enhanced cybersecurity and improved cross-border collaboration. By the end of 2024, 
90 organisations had gained access to these facilities, although none have been helped yet to 
strengthen their preparedness (first milestone planned for next year). In terms of the deployment 
of solutions, 12 cybersecurity tools have been deployed in line with the targets, with 13 user 
communities  in  the  health  sector  getting  access  to  these  tools  (including  seven  SME 
communities).  Benefits  for  these  participants  include  support  to  improve their  cybersecurity 
procurement practices, skills and staff awareness, while also developing key services such as 
infrastructure  and  application  vulnerability  scanning,  phishing  mitigation  services,  DDoS 
mitigator, among others. Overall, investments under SO3 have been effective in setting up the 
planned infrastructures, with the first benefits already generated for end users. 

SO4 focuses on the design and delivery of advanced education and training programmes, as 
well as promoting the inclusion of women in ICT. The activities include specialised education 
programmes,  job  placements,  short  term  training  courses,  skills  in  semiconductors,  the 
cybersecurity skills academy and activities to boost digital skills in young people, in particular 
girls.  In terms of outputs, it has  developed 52 master’s programmes and 530 short courses, 

72 Regulation - EU - 2025/327 - EN - EUR-Lex 
73 Simpl: Cloud-to-edge federations empowering EU data spaces | Shaping Europe’s digital future 
74 DOME Marketplace 

17 

 
 
 
 
launched the Digital Jobs and Skills Platform (DJSP) and the Digital Skills and Jobs Coalition 
with over 15 000 participating stakeholders. By the end of 2024, 20 713 people had been trained 
(ahead of milestones), and an additional 30 308 people had used the DJSP.  

Box 5. Success Stories: training programmes in key digital areas 

The  project  ManagiDiTH75 offers a  free online  joint master’s programme preparing students for the digital 
transformation  in  the  health  sector.  It  teaches  students  data  science  and  information  system  resources  to 
improve processes and clinical approaches (over 180 students have enrolled so far). The diploma is issued by 
three universities in Portugal, Greece and Finland.  
The REBOOT skills project76  offered 44 short courses to over 2 000 employees in the manufacturing industry. 
Examples include AI for managers, Internet of Things (IoT), in the manufacturing industry, cybersecurity for 
manufacturing, and basic programming skills.  

The  support  study  shows  that  individuals  value  these  training  activities  (beyond  user 
contributions) at EUR 650-1 000, with SMEs valuing these at EUR 6 500 – 14 400, showing 
that these courses do have a perceived value for users. In addition, specific events such as the 
EU Code Week have been organised to promote interest in ICT education and employment. No 
data are available yet on improved employment outcomes. To promote the inclusion of women 
in ICT, targeted workshops and events were organised. In the master’s programmes, 33% of 
students were women, which is higher than the percentage of women currently employed in 
Europe’s ICT sector, which stands at 20%. In addition, activities in SO4 have set up a wide 
ecosystem of more than 430 universities and training providers across Member States, paving 
the way for cross-border accreditation, industry cooperation and student and teacher mobility. 
Overall,  the  investments  have  been  successful:  the  planned  activities  were  carried  out,  the 
number of people that received training exceeds the target, and there is an indication that the 
courses are valued. However, an assessment of the actual benefits at (higher-order) outcome 
level cannot yet be made.  

Box 6. EU Code Week 

The EU Code Week77 encompassed over 70,000 activities relating to coding and algorithmic thinking in 2024. 
These attracted 2 million young participants from all over Europe,  of which 48% were girls. The EU Code 
Week also provides teachers with ample training resources they can subsequently integrate into their lessons. 

launching 

SO5 focuses on promoting the adoption and use of key digital technologies, with three main 
work  strands: 
the  European  Digital  Innovation  Hubs  (EDIHs),  boosting 
interoperability and the digital transformation of the public sector, and setting up centres, IT 
systems and platforms for a safer internet. By the end of 2024, 151 EDIHs had been set up, 
offering  test  before  investing  and  other  services.  The  EDIHs  have  reached  over  800  000 
attendees  through  5  794  events,  delivering  over  29  000  services  to  over  54  600  companies 
related  to  training  (30%),  networking  (27%),  technology  testing  (25%),  and  funding  (17%). 
Users are positive about the level and quality of the services received and perceive the value of 
these services at EUR 8 000 – 15 300 per organisation. The number of end users is expected to 
increase  rapidly  as  more  EDIHs  become  active  in  offering  their  services.  In  2023,  the  JRC 
developed  a  Digital  Maturity  Assessment  Tool  (DMAT),  which  was  made  available  to 
companies  via  the  EDIH  network  so  that  they  could  assess  their  own  level  of  digitalisation 

75 ManagiDiTH – Master of Managing Digital Transformation in the Health Sector 
76 https://shorturl.at/esEOV 
77 Join EU Code Week – Learn, Create, & Have Fun with Coding 

18 

 
 
 
 
independently. The DMAT reveals that firms' digitalisation processes follow a structured path, 
with digital business strategy driving development and human-centric digitalisation and data 
management becoming central at higher levels of maturity. The comparison of DMAT scores 
before and after EDIH activities reveals that 90% of firms showed an increase in their digital 
maturity. This is particularly true for the levels of AI adoption & automation, which had the 
largest relative increase of 35%78.  

Box 7. Example of an end-user benefit 

Established in 2022, the AI & Robotics Estonia (AIRE) EDIH has supported SMEs in the EU with their digital 
transformation and AI adoption. A good example of its impact is MindChip OÜ, a company that develops 
robotic vessels and situational awareness solutions to enhance the cost-effectiveness of the maritime industry. 
Their  robotic  vessels  are  five  times  cheaper  than  manned  ships,  require  no  onboard  crew,  and  can  operate 
continuously. MindChip OÜ faced the challenge of integrating AI systems for reliable detection of other ships 
and buoys to ensure safer navigation. 

The EDIH worked with MindChip OÜ to develop an AI model trained on high-resolution imagery captured by 
four  strategically  placed  cameras,  integrated  into  the  Robot  Operating  System  (ROS).  The  system  reliably 
detects small boats within a range of 100 to 150 metres. Consequently, MindChip OÜ has grown significantly 
in  turnover  (13-30%).  Additionally,  the  EDIH  helped  MindChip  OÜ  to  secure  funding  from  other  public 
sources and connect with other specialised EIDHs in other countries. MindChip OÜ is now collaborating with 
the  Artificial  Intelligence  Centre  Hamburg  and  the  Northern  Netherlands  EDIH  to  develop  similar  robotic 
vessels. 
Source: AI Algorithms and Sensor Integration for Robotic Vessels | European Digital Innovation Hubs Network 

Several notable achievements have been made in supporting the digital transformation of the 
European public sector. Investments in interoperability, among others through the Interoperable 
Europe Portal helped to support 12 576 participants in the Interoperable Europe Academy79 and 
disseminate  more  than  2  900  interoperability  solutions  on the  Interoperable  Europe  Portal80. 
With the help of Interoperability Test Bed81, an IT solution offering services and components 
for conformance testing and validation over 240 000 validations and 16 000 test sessions were 
conducted  (in  2024).  A  Framework  Partnership  Agreement  (FPA)  -  GovTech4all82,  was 
established,  strengthening  cross-border  collaboration,  supporting  GovTech  actors  from  the 
private sector and academia to innovate and experiment while enabling governments to develop 
interoperable,  citizen-centred  digital  public  services.  The  European  Blockchain  Sandbox 
Initiative (EBSI) set up production-grade nodes in 18 countries, and pilots in 21 countries and 
across 10 sectors, such as mobility and education, which is ahead of the planned milestones. 
Over  400  public  organisations  have  been  supported  with  the  design  of  applications  for  the 
issuance, storage, exchange, verification, traceability and property of data and information and 
a secure and stable network.  

Other notable initiatives include the EU Digital Identity Wallet83, with around 360 public and 
private organisations from 26 Member States as well as Ukraine, Iceland and Norway involved 
in testing the wallet across11 use-cases (including identification for government services and 
bank account opening, payments, mobile driving licence and electronic signatures). Over 230 
consumer protection inspectors across the EU are benefiting from eLab, an IT tool helping to 

78 European Digital Innovation Hubs Network's activities and customers / State of Play Report 2024 - JRC 
79 by the end of 2024 
80 In 2024, the Interoperable Europe Portal received more than 1 million visits 
81 Interoperability Test Bed | Interoperable Europe Portal 
82 GovTech4All | Interoperable Europe Portal 
83 EU Digital Identity 3Home - EU Digital Identity Wallet - 

19 

 
 
 
identify misleading discounts, fake reviews and other dark patterns. However, there are no data 
yet on the extent of benefits for end users arising from the support provided through these work 
strands. 

In  terms  of  creating  a  safer  internet  infrastructure  and  capabilities,  the  network  of  Safer 
Internet  Centres  (SICs)  together  with  the  Better  Internet  for  Kids  (BIK)  Portal  and  the 
European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO) work to ensure a safe digital environment for 
children and to combat disinformation. The network of SICs84 and the BIK portal continue to 
be successfully  deployed, reaching  over 125 million citizens85. Beyond  the website, the SIC 
helplines  offer  advice  and  support  to  underage  users  and  their  caregivers,  reaching  54  000 
young people in 2024 alone. In the same year, the hotlines processed over 2.5 million child 
sexual abuse reports, of which 65% were found to be illegal and were subsequently taken down 
by national law enforcement agencies. The European Digital Media Observatory, with over 
390 800 website visitors so far, has also helped to increase trust in digitalisation by monitoring 
the integrity of the information space. EDMO has started to actively monitor election campaigns 
such as those in Romania in 2024. 

Overall, SO5 has been quite effective in setting up the required infrastructures to promote the 
adoption and uptake  of  digital technologies. The number of end-users  reached in  this SO is 
already sizeable and growing fast, with the first concrete benefits provided for end-users.  

SO6 aims to strengthen the EU’s semiconductor capabilities. Under this SO, state-of-the-art 
facilities to test, experiment, and validate leading-edge chip technologies and designs were set 
up.  These  pilot  lines  represent  a  EUR  3.7  billion  investment  and  cover  a  wide  variety  of 
technologies  from  leading  edge  node  chips  to  heterogeneous  integration.  Moreover,  27 
competence centres, one per Member State, were set-up to enhance technical expertise and 
develop  a  skilled  workforce  for  the  semiconductor  sector.  They  will  provide  businesses, 
especially  SMEs and start-ups, with  essential  resources  to  develop  semiconductor solutions, 
including support, training, and access to large-scale infrastructure facilities, such as the pilot 
lines and the future design platform.  

Box 8. Success story: Pilot Lines 

Digital Europe supports the roll-out of pilot lines, or state-of-the-art facilities to test, experiment, and validate 
semiconductor  technologies  and  design  concepts.  The  FAMES  -  FD-SOI86  (Fully  Depleted  Silicon  On 
Insulator) Pilot Line is one such selected pilot line. Specifically, it will focus on improving FD-SOI technology, 
to create energy-efficient and high-performance semiconductors. This improvement will be achieved by adding 
sophisticated  power  management  capabilities  and  enhancing  the  overall  functionality  of  the  chips.  Such 
advancements  will,  for  instance,  enhance  communication  technologies  with  5G/6G  chips  and  advance  the 
Internet of Things (IoT) through improved sensors and edge AI chips. 

Finally, the Chips Fund was launched to provide financial support through equity and quasi-
equity. In total, EUR 67 million has been committed by the end of 2024 to support 19 small 
organisations and start-ups. One example is Qualinx87, a Dutch company specialised in tracking 
and connectivity solutions. 

84 A European strategy for a better internet for kids (BIK+) | Shaping Europe’s digital future 
85 cumulative figure for 2021-2024, Research and reports | Better Internet for Kids 
86 FD-SOI - FAMES Pilot Line 
87 Qualinx – High-Tech Fabless Semiconductor Company 

20 

 
 
 
 
Box 9. Example of an SME supported by the Chips Fund88 

An equity investment from Forward.One (a Dutch venture capital firm supported by the Chips Fund) enabled 
Qualinx to develop single-chip tracking solutions, which are universally applicable. Most tracking solutions 
have one chip for Bluetooth connectivity, another for satellites, another for radio etc. Compared to multi-chip 
solutions, this single-chip solution is smaller in size, has lower power consumption and is cheaper. 

A specific legal instrument, the European Digital Infrastructure Consortia (EDICs), was 
introduced by the Digital Decade Policy Programme decision, to expand the array of tools to 
implement multi-country projects. EDICs are flexible and relatively quick to set up, they help 
pool resources between Member States and the EU. The first EDICs were set up in February 
(Alliance for Language Technologies EDIC: ALT-EDIC and the local digital twins towards the 
CitiVERSE EDIC: LDT EDIC) and May 2024 (EUROPEUM EDIC).      

By the end of 2024, the Digital Europe programme had dedicated EUR 142 million in funding 
to actions for setting up, or taking into account the potential creation of EDICs, or to projects 
implemented by EDICs, for instance by the ALT-EDIC, or LDT EDIC). Efforts are underway 
for new EDICs to be set up in areas of cybersecurity skills or, digital commons, agrifood, or 
mobility and logistics data.  

Across  all  SOs,  beneficiaries  have  noted  significant  advantages  in  areas  such  as  market 
positioning,  networking  and  organisational  development.  For  instance,  58%  enhanced  their 
institutional reputation, 55% strengthened strategic partnerships at EU and international levels, 
53% gained access to new academic partners,  46% to new industry partners, 44% expanded 
their workforce, and 38% launched innovative products or services.  

Box 10. Perceived benefits of the Digital Europe programme across SOs 

SO1: Organisations have mainly benefited from new academic partners and deepening partnerships within the 
EU and beyond. 

SO2: Benefits generated include the deepening of EU and international partnerships, improving reputation, and 
acquiring new technical knowledge or skills. 

SO3:  Many  respondents  have  seen  significant  benefits  across  different  types  of  organisations,  such  as 
deepening  EU  partnerships,  improving  reputation,  and  accessing  new  academic  or  industrial  partners. 
However,  there  were  fewer  benefits  in  certain  areas,  such  as  developing  new  organisational  processes  and 
gaining a stronger international market position, notably for NGOs. 

SO4: Beneficiaries reported deepened EU partnerships, improved reputation of their organisations, and new 
technical knowledge or skills. However, limited benefits were generated in strengthening international market 
positions and improving organisational processes. 

SO5:  The  benefits  generated  included  improved  access  to  industrial  and  academic  partners,  enhanced 
reputation, and the development of technical skills and knowledge. Many beneficiaries, in particular public 
bodies  and  private  businesses  also  reported  strong  results  in  deepening  EU  partnerships  and  creating  new 
products or services. 

SO6: As the implementation has only recently started, only a few organisations have experienced benefits to 
date, primarily in areas like new partnerships and product development. 

88 Success Stories - EIF InvestEU Update 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4. Flagship projects of Digital Europe defined by the European Commission and Member States 

Source: Technopolis Group & Ramboll, 2025 

The  results  achieved  so  far  are  already  activating  the  pathways  set  out  in  the  programme’s 
intervention  logic.  With  cutting-edge  infrastructures  now  operational—ranging  from  high 
performance  computing,  AI  testing  environments  and  trusted  data  spaces  to  semiconductor 
facilities  for  industry  to  test,  experiment  and  validate  new  breakthrough  technologies  —
European public and private organisations are able to innovate more quickly89, lower the costs 
by  adopting  advanced  technologies90,  and  reduce  dependence  on  non-EU  providers91.  These 
effects  are  amplified  by  the  programme’s  integrated  approach,  which  combines  technical 
capacity with skills development, interoperability frameworks, and secure digital environments, 
which  ensures  that  new  infrastructures  are  effectively  used.  As  these  capabilities  become 
embedded  across  sectors,  they  strengthen  Europe’s  collective  innovation  potential,  help  to 
create  cross-border digital services, and build resilience against external dependencies, thereby 
moving the EU closer to the intended impact of greater competitiveness, security, and strategic 
autonomy. 

89 For instance, 56% of organisations using the services of the EDIH, and 52% of beneficiaries reported increased innovation 

and productivity growth rates. 

90  For  instance,  39.1%  of  EDIH  users  and  48.1%  of  beneficiaries  reported  lower  costs  due  to  digitalisation  as  result  of 

participating in the programme. 

91 For instance, 16% of EDIH end-user and 41.7% of beneficiaries report decreased dependencies on non-EU providers. 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
4.1.2.  Awareness and outreach 

The EESC opinion on Digital Europe92 that investigated the programme’s implementation in 
Malta, Sweden, Germany, Poland, and Portugal, concluded that awareness is still low among 
stakeholders,  and  there  is  unequal  access  to  information  in  Member  States.  For  instance, 
German  stakeholders,  in  general,  assessed  the  programme  more  positively  than  Portuguese 
stakeholders.  In  the  public  consultation,  new  beneficiaries  also  cited  lack  of  awareness  as  a 
major barrier to applying for funds (101/647 respondents). 

Awareness  is  generally  high  among  past  recipients  of  EU  funds,  such  as  beneficiaries  of 
Horizon  Europe  and  CEF.  Some  flagship  initiatives93  are  also  well  known  amongst 
stakeholders, such as EDIHs, which play a crucial role in fostering engagement at regional and 
national  levels.  However,  due  to  the  program’s  novelty,  there  is  sometimes  a  lack  of 
understanding of its full scope. 

Specific  Digital  Europe  initiatives  have  been  instrumental  in  expanding  outreach  and 
dissemination efforts, such as the National Contact Points (NCPs)94, which at the end of 2024 
already included 133 NCPs from all Member States and associated countries. These initiatives 
leverage networks with a place-based approach, engaging directly with SMEs within their local 
ecosystems. The network was set up in 2023 and has received EU funding only as of September 
2024, which could be the main reason why surveys show low overall satisfaction with the NCP 
network95, with a 42% satisfaction rate. With regards to the different support services offered 
by the NCPs, a large share of beneficiaries (40-55%) did not use or had limited knowledge of 
their services, highlighting that the NCP network needs strengthening.  The Commission has 
consistently invested in building the NCPs’ capacity through dedicated information sessions; 
therefore, wider outreach and high-quality services can be expected in the coming years.  

In contrast to the NCPs, communication activities were rated positively with a satisfaction rate 
of 55-60% for the Digital Europe website, information events organised by the Commission, 
and the Q&A on the Funding and Tenders portal. 

The  study  shows  that  Financial  Support  to  Third  Parties  (FSTP)  schemes  could  promote 
outreach to a wider range of beneficiaries and end-users but have only been incentivised to a 
limited extent under Digital Europe. Stakeholders suggested expanding its use in the next phase 
of  the  programme.  The  FSTP  scheme  is  a  mechanism  to  distribute  public  funding  to  assist 
beneficiaries,  such  as  start-ups,  scale-ups,  SMEs  and/or  mid-caps,  develop  or  adopt  digital 
innovations.  

Box 11. Examples of Digital Europe calls including FSTP 

A few calls within Digital Europe 23-24 WP encourage the use of FSTP for broader outreach. Some examples: 

•   The Common European Mobility Data Space supports cross-border use cases in mobility and logistics 
data  sharing, promoting interoperability and best practices,  especially for  innovative mobility services, 
data-driven transport planning and policy making. 

•   The  Networked  local  digital  twins  allocates  at  least  EUR  €17  m  via  cascading  grants  to  help  cities 

develop and expand local digital twin services and AI-driven use cases. 

92 Evaluation of the Digital Europe programme | EESC 
93 Large scale initiatives key to the success of Digital Europe  
94 EU Funding & Tenders Portal 
95 Note that 10-20% of respondents had no opinion, while only 5-12% were dissatisfied. 

23 

 
 
 
•   The  Alliance  for  Language  Technologies  funds  language  data  collection  and  the  adaptation  of  large 
language models, particularly assisting SMEs to adopt and customise advanced language technologies. 

Source: Technopolis Group & Ramboll, 2025 

4.1.3.  Barriers to participation  

Interviews, surveys  and focus groups,  other evaluations of Digital  Europe  (in  particular, the 
ones  of  the  Fit  for  Future  Platform  and  of  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee), 
feedback  from  HaDEA  and  regular  consultations  with  the  Digital  Europe  programme 
committee  have  provided  crucial  insights  into  the  issues  faced  during  the  first  phase  of  the 
implementation. 

Barriers pertaining to certain SOs:  

•  Security restrictions as defined by Articles 12(5) and 12(6) are key to protecting the 
EU’s security96 require a heavy workload in the implementation, leading to delays and 
changes  in  grant  agreements.  The time-consuming nature of the approval of security 
guarantees was in particular highlighted in the opinion of the Fit for Future platform on 
Digital  Europe97,  which  suggested  streamlining  the  approval  of  security  guarantees 
between  Digital  Europe  and  Horizon  Europe.  Feedback  from  the  Digital  Europe 
programme  committee  of  Member  States  representatives  and  the  evaluation  study98 
suggests that ownership control assessments constitute a high administrative burden for 
the applicants and in certain cases can lead partners to drop out of the consortia or delay 
the grant agreement signature process. Beneficiaries mentioned difficulties with regard 
to the declaration of ownership control, in particular for larger multinational companies 
and challenges with regard to receiving letters of support from Member States. 

Barriers to participation across SOs: 

•  Co-funding requirements: the widely used ‘simple grant’, with a 50% co-financing 
rate,  is  an  important  tool  to  leverage  digital  funding  from  Member  States  and 
stakeholders across the EU but has presented a challenge for some types of stakeholders, 
such  as  public  administrations,  universities  and  SMEs.  In  addition,  in  some  work 
strands,  for  instance,  the  European  Digital  Media  Observatory,  the  inclusion  of  big 
players  to  pool  the  private  co-funding  may  jeopardise  the  neutrality  of  these 
organisations when monitoring compliance with codes of practice and legal obligations 
under the Digital Services Act. 

96  Feedback  from  stakeholders  indicates  a  tension  between  strategic  autonomy  and  international  collaboration.  To  stay 
competitive, the EU must act as a global hub for talent while protecting strategic sectors. Many stakeholders find the current 
safeguards justified, however, they also highlight the need for global collaboration. 

97 Fit for Future Platform opinion on Digital Europe programme  
98 The evaluation study highlights that only a few projects were concerned, but the impact on these has been medium to high. 
From the perspective of beneficiaries, in the small number (7%) of cases where there was an impact, around half of respondents 
reported a medium or large impact on their ability to engage long-standing partners (48%) or new partners (43%). Around a 
third indicated an impact on the resources required to prepare applications. Finally, the main issue raised by beneficiaries is the 
delays involved with getting the safeguarding measures (such as getting the support of Member States).  

24 

 
 
 
 
 
•  The  combination  of  national,  regional,  and  European  funds  presents  legal 
complexities,  including  the  need  to  comply  with  different  rules,  which  creates 
uncertainty for stakeholders and hampers national co-investments.  

•  Member  States  and  other  stakeholders  also  highlighted  the  difficulties  faced  by 
applicants in the use of cumulative funding, i.e. leveraging funding from other funding 
programmes such as the ERDF or the RRF in combination with Digital Europe. The 
strict  ex ante  cost  delineation  requirement  to  implement  a  combination  of  funding 
between the RRF and other directly managed programmes has made it impossible to 
reconcile  in  practice  with  Digital  Europe,  where  the  beneficiaries  receive  a  specific 
share of the eligible costs (cost-based approach). The complexities of combining Digital 
Europe funding with the ERDF are linked to the coordination with managing authorities 
and the application of different rules under the two programmes (e.g. on the submission 
of costs). 

•  Timing and predictability: The Fit for Future platform opinion and several Member 
States advocated for more predictability under the programme, in particular as regards 
the adoption and publication of new WPs and the opening of the calls.  

•  Predictability was also emphasised in the context of national co-funding mechanisms. 
Numerous stakeholders (EU-level policy stakeholders, beneficiaries) also highlighted 
the  lack  of  alignment  of  EU  and  national  funding  instruments  (different  rules, 
timelines, etc.) making it challenging for applicants to navigate the different funding 
landscape leading to administrative burden and delays in project starts.   

The Commission has already invested considerable efforts in addressing these challenges. To 
facilitate national co-funding, it has introduced the most favourable funding rates in the 2025-
2027 WP to bring more clarity into the possible aid intensity by Member States on top of Digital 
Europe  support.  In  addition,  in  order  to  further  help  applicants  and  national  authorities 
understand  the  particularities  of  security  restrictions,  several  outreach  activities,  training 
courses and workshops including, for instance, workshops for the programme committee, NCPs 
and appointed national security experts have been organised. Due to the very strict conditions 
required for having Digital Europe and RRF pay for the costs of the same project on a pro rata 
basis99, combining Digital Europe and RRF funding will no longer be provided for. Though 
complex, combining Digital Europe and ERDF funding is possible. The Commission has been 
organising seminars for Member States and beneficiaries, and discussions with the managing 
authorities of the ERDF to make it easier to combine funding. The Strategic Technologies for 
Europe Platform (STEP) was set up by the Commission to facilitate access to funding across 11 
EU programmes, for instance, through the STEP seal, a label for high-quality projects. 

4.2.  Contribution to EU horizontal policy priorities 

Several actions in the Digital Europe programme contribute to climate change mitigation or 
adaptation. 

99 Each programme pays parts of the costs of the project up to 100% of the eligible costs. This approach is deemed to be double 
funding by the European Court of Auditors. The pro rata approach has been allowed in a few cases which have remained 
exceptional. 

25 

 
 
 
•  The  Destination  Earth  (DestinE)  initiative  provides  a  significant  contribution  by 
enabling  the  visualisation,  monitoring  and  forecasting  of  indicators  for  climate  risk 
assessment and adaptation.  

•  The  EU  Energy  Saving  Reference  Framework  will  help  conserve  electricity  when 
there are shortages of energy. It will help consumers and businesses to improve energy 
efficiency by, for example, recommending when to increase or decrease energy usage 
based on regional demand and usage patterns, and providing personalised guidance for 
eco-friendly consumption integrating data from smart meter. 

•  The  Green  Deal  Data  Space  will  offer  access  to  a  variety  of  data  related  to  the 
environment and the EU’s climate objectives, for instance, by providing detailed data 
on geospatial systems, soil and air pollution, energy supply and consumption. 

•  The Agricultural Data Space will enable the agriculture sector to transparently share 
and access data, thereby promoting its economic and environmental performance. 

•  Similarly, the Energy Data Space will provide access to data to foster the development 
of  innovative  energy  services  to  optimise  the  electricity  grids  and  improve  energy 
efficiency. 

Between 2021 and 2024, over EUR 360 million were committed for activities related to climate 
change mitigation or adaptation. A further EUR 96 million is estimated to be committed until 
end of 2027100. While these topics are expected to make a contribution, the full impact will only 
materialise once these activities are fully deployed and have reached a wider number of users 
in the course of the upcoming years.  

As demonstrated by the study, stakeholders view the contribution to environmental benefits as 
relatively modest at the moment and highlight the importance of better linking sustainability 
and digital technologies101.  

In line with Article 7 of the Digital Europe Regulation, gender balance has been taken into 
account  when  designing  actions  to  promote  advanced  digital  skills  under  SO4  (Skills).  The 
work programme 2023-2024 introduced two new actions of EUR 8 million in total whose main 
focus is to tackle the gender aspect in the ICT field by boosting the development of digital skills 
from an early age, in and investigating the reasons for the gender gap in ICT professions. 

26% of participants in the different education and training opportunities were women. The share 
of women is higher in longer and more advanced training programmes: 33% of participants in 
master’s programmes are women. Both of these shares are higher than the percentage of women 
currently employed in Europe in the ICT sector (20%).   

To ensure that these programmes are accessible, financial support has been offered in the form 
of fee waivers and scholarships. By the end of 2024, 455 participants benefitted from financial 
support in 52 master’s programmes, 39% of which were women. 

The  programme’s  contribution  to  the  UN  Sustainable  Development  Goals  is  consistently 
tracked on the basis of the Commission’s KnowSDGs Platform102. SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation 
and Infrastructure) is by far the most relevant SDG, as most projects contribute to technology 
development,  setting  up  digital  infrastructures,  promoting  innovation  and  upgrading 

100 Digital Europe Programme - Performance - European Commission 
101 The public consultation shows that all stakeholders underlined the potential of the programme to contribute to the green and 
digital transition, and 77% of the respondents believed that Digital Europe should in the future include sustainability and 
green transition. 
102 Home | KnowSDGs. 

26 

 
 
 
technological  capabilities  in  the  industrial  sector.  Other  notable  contributions  include  the 
contribution of SO4 to SDG 4 (Quality Education), specific activities to create more inclusive 
and sustainable cities contributing to SDG 11, the contribution of climate related activities, such 
as Destination Earth to  SDG 13, and the digitalisation of justice and consumer protection is 
relevant for the SDG 16. 

Figure 5. Contribution to the UN SDGs 

4.3.  Implementation modes 

The implementation bodies and their responsibilities were described in Section 2.2. The study 
has shown that the choice of management modes was strategic, flexible and appropriate for the 
first phase of Digital Europe, and enabled all activities and outputs to be achieved in line with 
the milestones in a relatively short period of time. It also enabled the programme to operate 
across a large number of work strands that are highly heterogenous in terms of stakeholders 
involved, the nature of investments, funding methods and governance. This conclusion is also 
supported by the views of stakeholders. However, continued efforts are needed to mitigate some 
of the disadvantages of the relatively complex management structure. 

The study also acknowledges the advantages of different management modes, for instance, the 
expertise  and  well-established  processes  of  HaDEA  and  REA,  or  JUs’  clear  place  in 
investments in infrastructure, where certain Member States have a higher willingness to invest. 
However, EU policy stakeholders highlighted throughout consultations the complexity of the 
arrangements of Digital Europe, which makes it difficult to have a complete overview of the 
programme. 

The actions under Digital Europe cover a wide range of instruments. Simple grants represent 
the highest share among all the instruments with 41% of the total EU contribution distributed 
across  all  specific  objectives.  They  are  followed  by  procurements  with  a  share  of  24% 
distributed across all the SOs. Contribution agreements are used only in SO1, SO3 and SO5 
with a share of 13%. 6% of funds are allocated via SME support actions, 5% via coordination 
and support actions, 3% via financial instruments. Grants for procurements represent 3%, while 
grants  for  financial  support  to  third  parties  and  programme  support  actions  represent  2%  of 
Digital Europe funding. Lump sum grants have a share of only 1% and have been used only in 
SO4. implementing bodies perceive the preparation time of calls for grants (as opposed to other 
funding instruments) to be relatively fast, and there are standard communication, selection and 

27 

 
 
 
 
management  procedures  already  in  place.  Procurement  is  typically  more  costly,  as  detailed 
terms  of  reference  need  to  be  drawn  up,  at  times  with  the  use  of  specialist  expertise,  and 
continuous  support  is  required  throughout  the  implementation.  The  sustainability  of  these 
activities also needs to be ensured. For instance, while using procurement to a greater extent 
has allowed the Commission to quickly launch a number of (soft) infrastructures, the ownership 
of all project deliverables also creates expectations and exploitation duties for the future, for 
which  currently  no  comprehensive  sustainability  strategy  exists.  Nevertheless,  the  most 
complex  arrangements  are  joint  procurements  and  contribution  agreements,  which  require 
extensive negotiations and alignment.  

Overall, stakeholders acknowledge that the Commission and the implementing bodies of the 
programme  have  made  significant  progress  in  setting  up  processes,  systems  and 
governance for managing the heterogeneous landscape of instruments.  

4.4.  Management of calls 

The overall success rate for grants (see Table 3) was around one in two (49%), which is high 
compared with the overall rates for Horizon Europe (12.9-15%103). Digital Europe partly targets 
similar  types  of  stakeholders  as  Horizon  Europe,  with  similar  grant  processes  in  place.  The 
success  rate of Digital  Europe is  more comparable to  smaller national  schemes, such as the 
Dutch Eureka funding, which has a success rate of 45%. There is significant variation across 
SOs, with SO4 having a 26% and SO6 a 91% success rate. EU policy stakeholders indicate this 
as a sign of a well-targeted programme, as well as the relatively concentrated capabilities in 
some areas such as semiconductors. However, the relatively high rates may also signal limited 
visibility for some of the calls104 and therefore possibly lower levels of competition than what 
might be desirable.  

The  success  rates  in  financial  terms,  rather  than  application  numbers,  are  even  higher.  The 
oversubscription  rate  based  on  the  budget  requested  versus  the  budget  granted  is  at  58%105, 
meaning  that  the  requested  budget  of  eligible  proposals  is  158%  of  the  budget  of  funded 
projects.  

There is a slight variation between success rates per organisation type (see Annex VI), with 
SMEs being the least successful (51%) and large companies (61%) and public organisations 
being the most successful (65%). In total, 12.5% of the proposals were inadmissible due to low 
quality  or  missing  information.  Digital  Europe  projects  are  often  large  scale  and  complex, 
requiring highly specialist expertise which can limit the number of applicants. 

With regard to procurements, on average 3-6 proposals were received, with only a small number 
of requests receiving more than 7 proposals. The success rate indicates an overall appropriate 
balance of competitiveness and applicant burden for procured projects.  

103 Evaluation support study on Horizon Europe’s contribution to a resilient Europe 
104 Based on an internal HaDEA feedback to policy report. 
105 Oversubscription rate is calculated as the ratio between the EU contribution to successful proposals over the EU contribution 

requested by eligible proposals. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 3. Success rates per SO (grants) 

Successful 
Proposals (N) 

Eligible 
Proposals (N) 

Success  Rate 
(N) (%) 

Oversubscription 
Rate (EUR) (%) 

SO 

EDIH 

SO1 

SO2 

SO3 

SO4 

SO5 

SO6 

147 

9 

68 

171 

45 

86 

32 

320 

12 

158 

318 

176 

118 

35 

46% 

75% 

43% 

54% 

26% 

73% 

91% 

49% 

47% 

86% 

66% 

58% 

36% 

83% 

91% 

58% 

Av EU 
Funding 
(EUR) 

2,128,835 

9,609,421 

8,324,022 

2,820,751 

4,123,017 

1,737,319 

3,999,662 

3,424,265 

Grand Total 

558106 

1,137 

Source:  Technopolis  Group  &  Ramboll,  2025.  Based  on  Digital  Europe  Dashboard  Data  (reference  date 
08/01/2025). 

The time-to-grant (TTG) is calculated by subtracting the project signature date and the call 
deadline  date.  Digital  Europe  commits  itself  to  a  9-month  maximum  TTG,  which  the 
Commission has reached for all SOs on average, with the only exception being a call to launch 
the EDIH in 2023 followed by a TTG of 11 months (341 days)107. Overall, EDIH and SO6 have 
the highest TTG of 9 months (272 and 271 days, respectively), while SO1 has the lowest TTG 
of 6 months (185 days).  The TTG for the first EDIH calls was affected by the complex co-
funding situation (new possibilities for the use of synergy funds) and the many issues and 
questions it raised, relating in particular to how funds with differing eligible cost rules could be 
successfully combined as well as questions on State aid rules108. Consequently, the share of 
calls  that  did  not  meet  the  TTG  target  was  rather  high  at  first  (48%  in  2022)  but  steadily 
decreased to 26% in 2024 following the resolution of these issues. In CEF109, the average was 
249 days and for Horizon Europe, 273 days in the first two years (with 41% within target). This 
shows that Digital Europe is performing as well as comparable programmes on this indicator. 
The related administrative costs are discussed in Section 4.5. In Terms of Time to Inform, the 
average ranged from 110.6 days in 2022, 93 days in 2023, to 99 days in 2024.  

The  level  of  satisfaction  of  beneficiaries  varies  across  different  aspectsError!  Reference 
source not found.. The clarity of the scope and description of the calls for proposals/invitations 
for tender received the widest satisfaction (71% of respondents reported being satisfied or very 
satisfied). The clarity of rules of participation and eligibility criteria and clarity of application 
instructions  and  administrative  requirements  also  scored  well  in  terms  of  (high)  satisfaction 
(66%  and  64%  respectively).  The  timing  and  scheduling  of  calls  for  proposals  was  also 
considered appropriate by 59% of respondents. The areas that attracted fewer positive responses 
relate to the proportionality of the effort required compared with funding levels with 29% being 

106 The time period had more proposals than grants. These were the projects that had already been awarded but had not yet 

signed. 

107 EDIH call for associated countries requiring a longer contractualisation due to unfamiliarity of processes 
108In the final policy event stakeholders mentioned among others the difficulties of applying ‘de minimis’ in cross-
border  initiatives,  of  assessing  whether  free  services  can  be  offered  to  companies,  and  of  applying  the 
appropriate  GBER  articles.  For  EDIHs,  in  particular,  there  was  unclarity  on  how  to  determine  the  costs  to 
include in aid calculation, and how to calculate the aid element for the services. 

109 Midterm evaluation of the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF)  

29 

 
 
 
(very)  dissatisfied  with  the  funding  rate  available.  Higher  education  institutes  and  research 
organisations were relatively more negative on these aspects compared to companies, as such 
organisations benefit from 100% funding rates in other programmes such as Horizon Europe. 
Unsuccessful applicants showed a similar pattern across the different process aspects, albeit 
about  twice  the  share  of  respondents  reported  that  they  were  dissatisfied  about  the 
proportionality between the effort and chances of securing funding compared with successful 
applicants (with 41% being (very) dissatisfied). Additionally, 29% of applicants were (very) 
dissatisfied  with 
the  clarity  of  feedback  and  evaluation  compared  with  9%  of 
beneficiaries.  More  information regarding specific bottlenecks  is  provided in  the section on 
cost-effectiveness  (Section  4.5).  There  was  only  one  procedural  European  Ombudsman 
complaint on Digital Europe (2023/1434), which was settled and not ruled on, highlighting an 
absence of substantial complaints on Digital Europe's processes. 

Error! Reference source not found.Overall, most of the beneficiaries (58-70%) was satisfied 
with the administrative arrangements of Digital Europe, from reporting requirements to audit 
principles. In most cases, a minority (10-20%) was critical of the implementation arrangements. 
In terms of the clarity of the cost calculation rules, responses were more mixed. While 60% of 
respondents (strongly) agreed that the rules are clear, 18% (strongly) disagreed and 18% neither 
agreed nor disagreed. About 60% of beneficiaries felt that the project reporting requirements 
are reasonable in terms of effort and cost. The standard templates provided for project reporting 
were generally seen as helpful, with 58% of respondents (strongly) agreeing that they facilitate 
the reporting process. The user-friendliness of IT tools and resources received mixed reviews. 
While  50%  of  respondents  (strongly)  agreed  that  these  tools  are  user-friendly,  a  significant 
proportion, 19%, expressed dissatisfaction.  

4.5.  Analysis of costs and benefits  

To analyse the benefits and costs of the programme, the following different cost categories were 
factored in (detailed cost calculations110 available in the Annex IV): 

• 

funding amounts: a committed EU contribution of EUR 3.016 billion111 (37,5% of total 
budget) between 2021 and 2024;  

•  administrative  costs  and  expenses:  EUR  41.7  million  related  to  studies,  IT  tools, 

communication, meetings and experts;   

•  administrative staff costs112 (preparation): estimated EUR 18.3 million related to policy 

strategy and programme preparation;  

•  administrative staff costs113 (implementation): estimated EUR 93.9 million related to the 
implementation  of the initiatives, contracting  and performance monitoring, including 
the  implementation  of  security  restrictions  and  the  drawing  up  of  association 
agreements;  

110 Note that cost effectiveness is carried out at programme-level, as administrative cost data at SO-level is not fully available 
111 Including grants, procurements, support actions, financial instruments and contribution agreements (actual commitments of 
implementing  entities  are  considered  and  not  commitments  from  DG  CNECT  to  implementing  entities,  which  can  be 
committed by the implementing entities within a certain time frame) 

112 Costs related to EC staff and staff of all implementing bodies of Digital Europe 
113 Costs related to EC staff and staff of all implementing bodies of Digital Europe 

30 

 
 
 
 
For applicants/beneficiaries  

•  extrapolated costs and expenditures for preparing an application for all successful and 

unsuccessful applicants (by the end of 2024): EUR 520 million;   

• 

total co-funding amounts by beneficiaries of grants to complement the Digital Europe 
co-funding: EUR 1.41 billion. 

In total, the administrative costs for the Commission and implementing bodies amount to 4.9% 
of  the  total  programme  costs.  Annex  IV  presents  the  overview  of  total  funding  and 
administrative costs for Digital Europe between 2022 and 2024. It also shows the distribution 
of the administrative costs (HR costs) among the different implementing bodies, highlighting 
that HaDEA and the EuroHPC JU faced the highest implementation costs.   

In  terms  of  administrative  costs  for  stakeholders,  the  analysis  distinguishes  between  the 
application  phase  (borne  by  both  successful  and  unsuccessful  applicants),  and  the 
implementation  phase  for  successful  applicants.  For  the  application  phase,  based  on 
extrapolated  results  of  the  beneficiary  survey114,  applicants  spend  between  1.86-2.5  person-
months and around EUR 7,100 for additional expenses (e.g. consulting fees, travel) for each 
proposal, with coordinators spending between 3.12-3.85 person months and EUR 31 100 for 
additional  expenses  (see  Annex  IV,  for  more  details)115.  This  compares  to  0.6-1.2  person 
months  for  partners  and  1.8-2.2  person  months  for  coordinators  in  Horizon  Europe.  This 
suggests that Digital Europe is relatively burdensome in terms of application costs compared 
with Horizon Europe. This is also reflected in the beneficiary survey, where only 41% of the 
respondents feel that their efforts in the grant or procurement process are proportional with their 
chance of securing Digital Europe funding. It must be considered that Horizon Europe is a well-
established programme, and applicants might invest less time due to their likely familiarity with 
the programme. 

For the implementation phase, the analysis of costs and benefits also included an extrapolation 
of total management costs for beneficiaries116. This ranged from an average of 2.7-3.5 person 
months for partners to 9.4-10.4 person months for the coordinator. In total, this represents a 
sum of EUR 147 million to 184 million for the total project implementation period, representing 
a beneficiary-level overhead of between 7-9% of grant costs (see Annex IV for more calculation 
details). This is similar to the 6-10% for Horizon Europe117. However, given the lower funding 
rate  compared  with  Horizon,  beneficiaries  see  the  administrative  costs  as  relatively  high. 
Beneficiaries  often  seek  additional  EU,  national,  or  regional  funds  to  complement  the  50% 
funding rate of Digital Europe, resulting in duplicated administrative effort. 

4.5.1.  Inefficiencies 

While projects reported several unexpected positive outcomes, such as greater-than-anticipated 
demand  for  basic  generative  AI  training,  widespread  interest  in  AI  across  business  sectors, 
lucrative  synergies  with  national  and  regional  programmes  or  new  partnerships,  several 

114 Limited to grants only. 
115 Note that preparation costs for tenders are not included, as the commercial logic of the market dictates that these costs are 
reflected on average in the tenderer’s final price. Preparation costs for other types of instruments (contribution agreements, 
financial instruments) are covered by the staff expenses of the implementing bodies. 

116 As these costs are eligible project costs and therefore funded, they are not listed separately in the benefits and cost table. 
117 Evaluation support study on Horizon Europe’s contribution to a resilient Europe, Section 6.6 

31 

 
 
 
 
inefficiencies were also reported. Based on interviews, open questions in surveys, as well as 
observations by HaDEA based on their direct experience managing Digital Europe grants118, 
the following main implementation inefficiencies were identified. 

•  The  application  process  itself  was  described  as  challenging  due  to  the  extensive 
administrative requirements by some applicants. A small minority (14%) highlighted 
the difficulty of navigating the Commission’s IT tools. In particular the EU Funding 
and Tenders Portal119 was described as user-unfriendly, by some respondents, such as  
first-time applicants and small organisations.  

•  The lack of alignment between EU and national funding led to considerable delays. 
Many organisations struggled to secure national co-funding, citing changes in rules, 
scope, and responsible authorities as significant obstacles. Several respondents reported 
long  delays  in  obtaining  approval  for  national  co-funding,  in  rare  cases  up  to  22 
months. Furthermore, many respondents  pointed to  the need for  double reporting – 
both to the European Commission and to national authorities.  

•  Eligibility  requirements,  such  as  covering  at  least  some  EU  Member  States,  are 
sometimes  perceived  as  too  specific,  requiring  particular  combinations  of  consortia, 
which  takes  time  to  form.  This  has  led  to  lower  submission  rates  (e.g.  in  SO4)  or 
extensions of call deadlines (EU Digital Identity Wallet in SO5)120. 

•  Stakeholders  report  uncertainty  concerning  the  funding  rules  linked  to  the  SME 
status,  with  some  organisations  assuming  that  SME  status  always  results  in  higher 
funding rates, while this is only the case for specific SME support actions. 

•  Challenges  in  working  with  partners  were  frequently  mentioned.  Large  consortia 
struggled  to  maintain  consistent  communication  and  governance  and  beneficiaries 
suggested limiting the size of project consortia. Furthermore, the need for more flexible 
rules for project teams (including subcontracting and the use of financial support to third 
parties) was voiced, as changes in consortia are often burdensome. 

•  Many organisations, particularly non-profit and research organisations, reported that the 
7%  indirect  cost  allocation  was  insufficient  to  cover  actual  administrative  and 
operational costs.  

4.5.2.  Simplification measures 

In terms of simplification measures, Digital Europe has implemented several simplification 
measures for grants. These include the use of unit costs for certain personal cost categories, a 
7% flat-rate for indirect cost rate, as well as a single audit principle. More recently, lump sum 
actions  were  introduced.  First  launched  in  2024,  they  represent  only  1%  of  actions  but  are 
expected  to  increase  in  the  future.  These  simplification  measures  were  perceived  by  a 
substantial share of beneficiaries (43-54%) as being effective in reducing the burden. 

The  Commission  is  also  introducing  other  types  of  simplification  by  providing  better  user 
experiences in the online applications environment (EU Funding and Tenders Portal). At this 

118 HaDEA (2024). Feedback to Policy Report 2024 Digital Europe programme 
119 EU Funding & Tenders Portal 
120 HaDEA (2024). Feedback to Policy Report 2024 Digital Europe programme 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
time no quantitative assessment can be made regarding the potential monetary benefits of these 
measures. 

In terms of further suggestions for simplification121, stakeholders argue that the use of unit costs 
and lump sum funding should be further extended in Digital Europe, and to investigate a further 
simplification of the safeguarding measures. Another important aspect of simplification would 
be  to  align  and  consolidate  monitoring  and  reporting  requirements  with  national  funding 
schemes.  Moreover,  the  increased  use  of  digital  tools,  such  as  for  budget  preparation, 
application entry and real-time tracking of reports would reduce the administrative burden on 
beneficiaries. 

Box 12 Stakeholder Feedback Digital Europe programme simplification 

Application Process  

•  Use  lump-sum  funding  with  clearer  reporting  requirements  and  a  one-page  Lump-Sum  Reporting 

• 

Guide focused on deliverables (Beneficiaries)122. 
Introduce  voucher-based  mechanisms  as  a  way  to  lower  entry  barriers  for  SMEs,  particularly  in 
service-oriented projects (e.g. EDIHs). Vouchers would allow SMEs to access services  or funding 
more flexibly, with reduced administrative overhead compared to full participation in large, complex 
consortia (Policy Workshop). 

•  Automate and digitise the process: budget auto-builder, application auto-fill, automated error checks, 
live  report  tracker,  standardised  forms,  electronic  signatures,  and  a  fully  digital  application  flow 
(Beneficiaries; Applicants). 

•  Adapt the Funding & Tenders Portal to the programme’s specifics: reduce duplicate data entry and 

improve onboarding for newcomers (Policy workshop). 

•  Simplify applications and reviews: reduce the maximum number of pages in the application form and 

simplify the review process (Applicants). 

•  Make  call  texts  more  homogeneous  and  precise:  define  eligible  activities  and  funding  conditions 

consistently across calls (Policy workshop). 

•  Reassess 50% funding rate and indirect-cost rates (7% flat rate) to reflect real overheads—especially 

where national co-funding is not available (Policy workshop). 

•  Coordinate  better  between  national  and  EU  rules,  especially  regarding  co-financing,  and  provide 
clearer guidance on co-funding opportunities; coordinate with national authorities to speed up Seal of 
Excellence follow-up (Beneficiaries; Applicants). 

•  Coordinate with Member States to identify and publicise the responsible ministry/authority for Digital 

Europe co-funding and their rules up-front (Policy workshop). 

•  Clarify Ownership Control Assessment (OCA) up-front: publish required documentation, eligibility 

criteria, and indicative timelines to reduce 2–3-month delays (Policy workshop). 

Project management: 

•  Reduce  the  frequency  and  complexity  of  reporting  with  clearer  guidelines  and  better  use  of 

• 

standardised templates (Beneficiaries). 
Improve stability and usability of Sygma/Funding & Tenders during implementation; reduce data re-
entry and ambiguity in instructions (Policy workshop). 

•  Enable  data  re-use  between  proposals,  grant  agreements,  and  reporting;  add  a  live  status/progress 

tracker to cut cycle time (Policy workshop). 

•  Allow more flexibility in amending grants and restructuring projects to adapt to fast-moving digital 
technologies (amendments are often lengthy); streamline processes and keep the work programme 
flexible to respond quickly to new needs (Beneficiaries; Focus Group SO1; Focus Group SO3). 

121 Question 21 of the beneficiaries’ survey: Do you have any suggestions for how the administrative burden for applicants and 

participants could be further reduced (regarding application process, reporting requirements, cost calculation etc.)? 

122 Lump sum funding also represents challenges, for instance, SMEs may be discouraged from participating as payments are 
only made once (often lengthy) tasks are completed. It also tends to discourage the inclusion of newcomers, as -- if such 
partners fail to deliver on a task-- the entire payment is jeopardised. As a result, consortia are more inclined to work only 
with established partners. 

33 

 
 
 
•  Apply  proportionality  to  change  management:  fast-track  minor  administrative  changes  (e.g.  vetted 

partner legal-name updates) without triggering full OCA (Policy workshop). 

•  Mitigate SME cash-flow exposure under lump-sum schedules by using shorter milestones and staged 
acceptance procedures (SMEs join at a later stage). Create agile structures that allow SMEs to exit or 
adjust roles without destabilising consortia. Use shorter tasks, milestones, hybrid models (lump sum 
+ unit cost), and vouchers to lower risks and barriers for SMEs (Policy Workshop).  
•  Align EU and national reporting where feasible and align timelines (Policy workshop). 
•  Clearly articulate the distinct missions and impacts of HE (research) and Digital Europe (deployment). 
Develop  joint  calls  or  phased  mechanisms  that  integrate  both  streams  and  simplify  participation 
(Policy workshop). 

•  Strengthen NCP capacity and training to Horizon-like levels to improve early-stage support. (Policy 
workshop. NCPs should be equipped with specific training on Digital Europe’s legal and financial 
aspects so they can provide more comprehensive support to beneficiaries during the project lifecycle 
(Beneficiaries). 

Source: Technopolis Group & Ramboll, 2025 

4.5.3.  Cost effectiveness  

Overall, the analysis (see relevant cost categories, including funding amounts, in Section 4.5) 
showed  that  the  total  cost  of  Digital  Europe  (including  direct  co-funding)  in  the  evaluation 
period  until  the  end  of  2024  was  EUR  4.9  billion123.  In  terms  of  benefits,  only  very  few 
indicators could  be  monetised, limiting the  comparison  of costs and benefits  at  this stage124. 
Furthermore,  Digital  Europe  is  a  relatively  new  programme,  which  has  for  now  primarily 
focused on investments in new infrastructures, with use and deployment and related benefits 
being  expected  only  in  the  years  ahead.  A  strongly  positive  cost-effectiveness  result  can  be 
expected if the medium to long-term technology productivity spillovers materialise, as assumed 
by  the  Rhomolo  model.  As  such,  a  picture  emerges  of  a  programme  that  is  delivering 
meaningful  but  limited  early  economic  impacts  with  the  potential  to  generate  much  greater 
value for users and the economy as a whole, which could be realised in the coming years as 
user engagement reaches scale.  

4.6.  Coherence 

4.6.1.  Coherence with the wider policy context  

Digital Europe is embedded in the broader framework of the Digital Decade125, contributing to 
the priorities set by the Digital Decade Policy Programme (DDPP)126. Key achievements of the 
programme127 contribute directly to the four pillars of the DDPP, namely digital skills, digital 
transformation of business, secure and sustainable digital infrastructures and digitalisation of 
public  services128,129
.  Additionally,  Digital  Europe  contributes,  for  instance,  to  the  EU’s 

123 Excluding the EUR 1.1billion budget committed by DG CNECT to implementing agencies, which has not yet been allocated 

to economic actors via grants or procurement. 

124 This includes EUR 115 million-222 million perceived values by the private sector, and EUR 6.4 million-13.3 million by 
public end-users. The JRCs Rhomolo GDP model shows a projected EUR 11-25 billion of cumulated GDP impact by 2030 
with the most likely scenario amounting to 18 billion of cumulated GDP impact. 

125 Europe’s digital decade: 2030 targets | European Commission 
126 Decision - 2022/2481 - EN - EUR-Lex 
127 SWD (2024) 260 final, Digital Decade in 2024: Implementation & Perspective, July 2024 
128 The Digital Decade Framework. Available here. 
129 https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC134647  

34 

 
 
 
 
Digitalisation  of  Energy  Action  Plan130,  European  Skills  Agenda  and  the  Digital  Education 
Action Plan (2021–2027) and the EU’s environmental sustainability objectives, such as those 
outlined in the European Green Deal, through projects like the Destination Earth initiative. 

Digital Europe supports the implementation of EU Regulations adopted in recent years. The 
programme’s actions support an array of regulatory measures aiming to eliminate barriers in 
several  critical  technological  areas,  for  instance,  to  incentivise  business-to-business  and 
business-to-government  data  sharing  across  the  EU  (Data  Governance  Act,  Data  Act),  the 
creation of a safer and fairer online environment for users and businesses (Digital Services Act, 
Digital  Markets  Act),  the  improvement  of  the  level  of  security  of  network  and  information 
systems  across  the  Union  (NIS2  directive),  and  the  application  of  cybersecurity  standards 
safeguarding consumers and businesses buying software or hardware products with a digital 
component  (Cyber  Resilience  Act).  Furthermore,  the  programme  strengthens  public  sector 
interoperability  (Interoperable  Europe  Act)  and  ensures  that  AI  in  the  EU  is  safe,  respects 
fundamental  rights  and  democracy  (AI  Act).   Actions  under  SO5  contribute  to  the 
implementation  of  regulatory  frameworks  and  to  the  simplification  and  burden  reduction 
agenda, including the European Digital Identity Wallet, the Once Only System under the Single 
Digital Gateway Regulation, and Regulation (EU) 2022/850 of the European Parliament and 
Council, which establishes the e-CODEX system for the cross-border electronic exchange of 
data  in  judicial  cooperation  for  civil  and  criminal  matters.  In  SO6  the  programme  has  been 
supporting the implementation of the Chips Act131 through large-scale technological capacity 
building  across  the  semiconductor  value  chain.  The  programme  has  contributed  to  the 
deployment  of  the  Cybersecurity  and  Cyber  Solidarity  Acts  through  the  development  of 
Security  Operation  Centres/Cyber  Hubs.  It  has  facilitated  compliance  with  the  AI  Act  by 
advancing  AI  testing  and  experimentation  facilities  and  by  supporting  an  innovation 
accelerator, an EU database on stand-alone high-risk AI systems and innovation regulatory and 
testing  mechanisms  (regulatory  sandboxes  and  Union  testing  facilities).  The  alignment  of 
Digital Europe with, and support for, relevant EU Regulations was generally viewed positively, 
with 37.8% of beneficiaries indicating that the programme was fully coherent. 

4.6.2.  Internal coherence  

The  study  has  shown  that  the  programme  demonstrates  strong  internal  synergies  and 
complementarities,  both  within  individual  work  strands  and  specific  objectives  (SOs),  and 
across different SOs. Several types of synergies by design were identified: 

1.  Explicit links between initiatives by design in the work programmes 

Links among work strands and SOs in the work programmes to promote synergies, 
for instance, among blockchain and EU Digital Identity Wallet, EDMO and Safer 
Internet Centres and EDMO and EDIH 

2.  Sequencing of actions within a portfolio of projects ensuring that technological 

deployment is supported by the necessary expertise and infrastructure 

130 COM/2022/552 final - Digitalising the energy system - EU action plan 
131 Regulation - 2023/1781 - EN - EUR-Lex 

35 

 
 
 
 
For instance, in SO1, infrastructure acquisition and deployment were followed by 
the  setting  up  of  competence  centres,  the  establishment  of  support  services, 
continuous training initiatives, and recently the AI Factories. This phased approach 
ensures that technology deployment is accompanied by the necessary expertise and 
capacity-building efforts 

3.  Technological  integration  across  SOs,  with  synergies  emerging  as  different 

digital technologies interact and strengthen one another 

For instance, HPC as an essential building block for Destination Earth, which needs 
intensive use of high -performance computing to run highly complex simulations of 
the earth, the integration of the smart middleware into the data spaces to support data 
access and the interoperability and upgrade of HPC to include AI and AI Factories. 

4.   Function of networks to foster bridges between technology blocks 

For  instance,  the  EDIHs  have  created  cross-SO  synergies,  particularly  with 
competence  centres  in  SO1  (HPC),  in  SO3  (Cybersecurity),  and  in  SO6 
(Semiconductors). EDIHs also collaborate with TEFs and data spaces under SO2. 

5.  Function of instruments to exploit synergies 

Several  coordination  and  support  actions  (CSA),  such  as  the  Data  Space  Support 
Centre  ensure  alignment  and  coordination  among  data  spaces,  set  common 
requirements and establish best practices. The Testing and Experimentation facilities 
CSAs  create  synergies  among  all  sectorial  testing  facilities  and  support  the 
ecosystem’s sustainability connecting them to other relevant initiatives, such as the 
EDIH, data spaces, AI on demand platform, etc. In SO4, a CSA supports the roll-out 
of skills initiatives by gathering inputs on the existing education offers/gaps in digital 
areas  and  the  related  needs  of  the  labour  market.  The  digital  transformation 
accelerator supports the synergies of the EDIHs with other relevant initiatives and 
the monitoring of their activities.   

In addition, several collaboration mechanisms are in place to ensure coherence among actions 
implemented in direct and indirect management mode.  

Direct management  

The work programmes are coordinated and discussed by a dedicated senior management forum 
inside  DG  CNECT  and  with  representatives  of  Member  States  in  a  dedicated  (comitology) 
committee, the Digital Europe Programme Committee. Furthermore, coherence is ensured by 
means  of cross-unit  working  groups  (such  as  the  Digital  Europe  Implementation  Group 
(DEIG)), cross-DG working groups (such as collaborations with DG DIGIT, DG JUST and DG 
GROW  to  ensure  strategic  alignment  of  the  work  programme,  with  DG  DIGIT  on  the 
interoperability work strand, with DG SANTE and DG RTD for health-related initiatives, or 
with several DGs and services, such as DG GROW, DG MOVE, DG AGRI, DG EAC, SCIC 
and DGT for sectorial data spaces). HaDEA also played a role in fostering synergies, acting as 
a coordinator and orchestrator to improve alignment. For example, in SO3 (Cybersecurity) and 
SO5  (in  the  context  of  the  digitalisation  of  public  administration  work  strand),  HaDEA 

36 

 
 
 
 
facilitated collaboration between projects addressing digital identity, security frameworks, and 
public sector digitalisation132. 

Indirect management  

Indirect management modes foster specific types of synergies in Digital Europe by leveraging 
domain-specific capabilities and networks of specialised organisations, providing a more direct 
engagement  with  the  relevant  industrial,  research  and  public  sectors  community.  Specific 
coordination mechanisms ensure coherence within all Digital Europe work programmes, such 
as the participation of DG CNECT in working groups with the Joint Undertakings and ECCC, 
the representation of DG CNECT in the Governing Boards of the EuroHPC JU, Chips JU and 
the ECCC and in the InvestEU steering board133. 

Indirect management modes introduce a certain degree of complexity and fragmentation, and 
stakeholders have raised concerns about the challenges posed by the combination of direct and 
indirect management modes, when the same SOs are implemented under different structures. 
For example, while HaDEA manages the advanced digital skills component  of SO3 and the 
Cybersecurity  Skills  Academy,  the  ECCC  oversees  other  cybersecurity-related  activities, 
leading to potential fragmentation. Similarly, the coordination of financial instruments under 
SO6  with  the  Chips  JU  remains  limited,  as  InvestEU/EIF  operate  outside  the  standard 
governance framework of the Chips JU, making structured collaboration more challenging. 

4.6.3.  External coherence 

Synergies  with  Horizon  and  CEF  Digital  are  anchored  into  the  design  of  the  work 
programmes as shown in the overview of synergies between funding calls of Digital Europe 
and funding calls of Horizon and CEF Digital that support multi country projects (see Annex 
XI). Synergies by design are specifically evident in SO1 (HPC), SO2 (cloud to edge solutions, 
data spaces, AI), SO5 (technologies/solutions to support circularity) and SO6 (semiconductors). 
For instance, all sectorial data spaces benefit from Horizon funded projects, that among others 
support  digital  technologies,  methods,  architectures  and  processes  for  safe,  trustworthy, 
transparent, and environmentally sustainable collection, storage, and processing of data. 

Box 13. Example of the synergies with Horizon 2020 

•   The  EUCAIM  (Europe  Cancer  Imaging)  project  funding  under  Digital  Europe  makes  cancer  imaging 
datasets available on a secure platform to boost the development and testing of new tools for diagnostics 
and treatment.  The project builds on the outputs of several linked projects funded under Horizon 2020 in 
the ‘AI for Health Imaging’ (AI4HI) cluster. These projects brought together over 80 institutions in 20 
countries that develop Artificial Intelligence algorithms to detect cancer from imaging134. 

132  A  concrete  illustration  of  this  approach  is  the  EU  Digital  Identity  Wallet  pilots,  where  large-scale  testing  of  use  cases 
generated valuable feedback for the Architecture Reference Framework and the reference wallet implementation. Regular 
meetings coordinated by the European Commission, in  cooperation with HaDEA, enabled projects to collectively tackle 
technical challenges and ensured the coherence of the portfolio 

133 DG CNECT collaborates with DG  GROW, which is coordinating the implementation of the financial instruments, on a 

bilateral basis and under the framework of InvestEU governance structures. 

134 https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/cancer-imaging 

37 

 
 
 
   
 
 
In addition, the Digital Europe work programmes clearly indicate possible complementarities 
with other actions and projects as well as key outcomes, networks or stakeholder communities 
supported under other initiatives. 

In SO1 and SO6, these synergies are magnified by the governance structure of the programme. 
The  EuroHPC  JU  draws  funds  from  Digital  Europe,  Horizon  Europe,  and  the  Connecting 
Europe  Facility  (CEF-2),  which  have  been  exploited  to  be  complementary  and  mutually 
reinforcing. For instance, the recently launched AI Factories135 are funded by Digital Europe, 
which supports the acquisition and upgrade of AI specialised computational resources, and by 
Horizon Europe, which funds not only the set-up and operation of the AI Factories, but also the 
alignment of European and national initiatives in this area. The combined support from Digital 
Europe and Horizon Europe is expected to drive the growth of AI Factories, enabling the EU 
to  become a leader in  AI innovation.  Similarly, the Chips  JU pools resources from  Horizon 
Europe  and  Digital  Europe,  ensuring  the  transfer  of  research  to  innovation  platforms  in 
semiconductors, such as pilot lines. This will enable European companies to prototype devices 
on cutting-edge semiconductor manufacturing processes. 

In  addition,  several  working  groups  have  been  set  up  to  ensure  coherence  across  funding 
schemes. For instance, the Digital Europe programme Sherpa Group gathers representatives 
from the relevant Commission services and HaDEA. 

The study also showed that at European level,  Digital Europe is seen as  fully coherent  with 
other EU funding instruments by 38.9% of respondents and about 30% of respondents indicated 
that it was at least partially coherent. It also shows that Digital Europe-funded infrastructures 
such as the EDIH, TEFs, data spaces, and pilot lines (for semiconductors) play an important 
role  in  linking  research  outcomes  with  practical  applications.  These  initiatives  facilitate 
collaboration  across  varying  technology  readiness  levels  and  offer  valuable  feedback  to 
researchers based on industry needs. 

Box 14: Example of synergies between Digital Europe and Horizon Europe 

The DEEP project series136 is a prominent example, beginning with the initial DEEP and extending through 
DEEP-ER,  DEEP-EST,  and  DEEP-SEA.  Funded  under  Horizon,  these  projects  contributed  to  innovative 
software components, such as ‘software bricks’, which enable dynamic modularity of applications on multi-
partition systems. These components are being deployed in EuroHPC systems, including JUPITER at Jülich 
financed through Digital Europe. Similarly, there are synergies between R&I activities related to data spaces 
and data sharing under Horizon 2020 and Digital Europe and the sectorial data spaces deployed under Digital 
Europe. 
Source: Technopolis Group & Ramboll, 2025 

Digital  Europe  benefits  from  established  networks,  where  beneficiaries  have  previously 
collaborated  on  other  EU-funded  initiatives  or  worked  as  consortium  partners.  There  is 
substantial overlap of beneficiaries between Digital Europe, Horizon Europe and Horizon 
2020,  with  1  601  organisations  (representing  46%  of  all  unique  Digital  Europe  grant 
beneficiaries)  participating  in  both  Digital  Europe  and  Horizon  Europe,  and  1,763  (51%) 
participating  in  Digital  Europe  and  Horizon  2020.  The  overlap  of  beneficiaries  does  not 
necessarily indicate the existence of synergies. A closer look into 130 Digital Europe projects, 
which shared beneficiaries with Horizon Europe, Horizon 2020, CEF or Erasmus+ and which 

135 AI Factories | Shaping Europe’s digital future. 
136 DEEP – DEEP-Projects 

38 

 
 
 
 
had  applications  with  links  to  these  programmes,  revealed  that  40%  of  them  indeed  created 
concurrent or sequential synergies with one of these programmes. Similarly in the beneficiary 
survey, 41% (n=477) of respondents mentioned that their activities directly build on activities 
funded  in  other  EU  funding  programmes.  Respondents  also  indicated  that  previous 
collaboration had led to the use of the acquired knowledge in Digital Europe projects as well as 
the exchange of findings and best practices. Moreover, at proposal stage, 90% of respondents 
stated that they explicitly indicated how their project would foster synergies, and about 40% of 
the respondents to the targeted synergy survey communicated with the Commission or other 
authorities on ways to exploit synergies before the start of the project. This figure increases to 
63% during the project implementation.  

Digital  Europe  also  has  complementarities  with  CEF  Telecom137  and  CEF2  Digital,  as  the 
latter  supports  the  high  capacity  broadband  and  5G  corridors  necessary  to  deploy  digital 
services and technologies across the EU138. A cross-participation analysis indicates existent but 
more  limited  overlap  of  targeted  stakeholders.  Only  3%  of  all  individual  organisations  that 
participate in Digital Europe participate also in CEF-funded projects. Some complementarities 
between  activities  can  be  observed  between  the  programmes  as,  for  instance,  the  first  eight 
EDMO regional hubs (under SO5) and operations were initially funded and supported by the 
CEF before receiving Digital Europe funding.  

Digital Europe also complements Erasmus+ which supports education and training, and which 
has concrete synergies with SO4. Cross-participation analysis shows an overlap of targeted 
stakeholder  groups  between  Digital  Europe  and  Erasmus+  with  about  856  individual 
organisations  (representing  25%  of  the  individual  Digital  Europe  beneficiaries)  in  common. 
Participants  in  the  focus  groups  pointed  to  potential  avenues  for  further  collaboration  by 
exploring  synergies  with  Erasmus+  Centres  of  Vocational  Excellence  (CoVE).  Many 
CoVEs are involved in digital projects, and combining these efforts through joint calls could 
increase the involvement of VET institutions in shaping Europe's digital future. 

To  avoid  any  potential  overlaps  that  could  exist  with  digital  skills  initiatives  supported  by 
Erasmus+  and  other  programmes,  Digital  Europe  integrated  more  specialised  trainings  in 
specific areas of significant advanced skills gaps to increase competencies in cybersecurity and 
semiconductor technologies.  

In  the  field  of  quantum  communication,  Digital  Europe  also  has  synergies  with  the  Secure 
Connectivity  programme.  This  programme  is  setting  up  an  Infrastructure  for  Resilience, 
Interconnectivity and Security by Satellite (IRIS²), a multi-orbital constellation of 290 satellite 
providing ultra-fast and highly secure communication services. The first work programme of 
Digital Europe (WP 2021-2022) funded activities to build the foundation for a a fully functional 
and harmonised quantum communication infrastructure for the EU (EuroQCI). 

4.6.4.  RRF and ERDF 

137 Several projects funded under SO5 are the continuation of projects funded by CEF Telecom in the previous MFF. 
138 SWD (2024) 37 Final Performance and Evaluation Framework for Digital Europe 

39 

 
 
 
 
The RRF supports the digital transition as one of its main pillars. By the end of 2024, EUR 
296.6 billion in RRF funding was disbursed as grants and loans139. The RRF Regulation requires 
that at least 20% of the total allocation support digital objectives. The reforms and investments 
proposed by Member States have exceeded the target, with around 25% of the total allocation 
of the plans contributing to the digital transformation. 21.37% of funding (EUR 64.1 bn EUR) 
supports  the digital transition  as a primary pillar, a further 4.04% (EUR  12.0 bn EUR) as a 
secondary pillar140. 

A mapping141 of the distribution by economic activity of the reforms and investment measures 
of  the  RRF  across  the  27  Member  States  (taking  into  account  EUR  655.5  billion,  the  RRF 
budget  for  the  whole  2020-2026  implementation  period)  shows  that  the  reforms  target 
numerous  sectors  supporting  the  digital  transformation.  These  include  investments  in  IT 
software services (10% of overall investments), telecommunication infrastructure, electronic 
products,  and  electrical  equipment.  These  sectorial  distributions  vary  significantly  among 
Member States with Germany, Greece and Matla investing higher amounts in digitalisation and 
IT software.  

Figure 6: Overall Distribution of investment measures by key sectors, in % of total RRF budget 

Source: Economic Impacts of the RRF: New Insights at Sectoral Level and the Case of Germany142 

The RRF funding in the area of digitalisation has typically been used for specific, nationally 
oriented  infrastructures  and  tools  in  areas  such  as  e-health,  e-government  services,  and 
connectivity roll-out, frequently at a smaller or medium scale, tailored to each Member State’s 
context. The projects are generally focused on achieving immediate and medium-term national 

139 Half-yearly report on the implementation of borrowing, debt management and related lending operations pursuant to Article 

13 of Commission Implementing Decision C(2023)8010, 1 July to 31 December 2024.  

140https://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/recovery-and-resilience-scoreboard/index.html?lang=en, 

‘Share  of  RRF 

funds 

contributing to policy pillars’, retrieved 20 August 2025 

141 Economic Impacts of the Recovery and Resilience Facility: New Insights at Sectoral Level and the Case of Germany  - 

Economy and Finance 

142Economic  Impacts  of the  Recovery  and  Resilience  Facility:  New  Insights  at  Sectoral  Level  and the  Case  of  Germany  - 

Economy and Finance  

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
recovery  objectives,  modernising  public  services,  and  bridging  domestic  capability  gaps.  In 
contrast,  Digital  Europe  takes  a  strategic,  cross-border  perspective,  focusing  on  EU-wide 
infrastructures  and  capacities  that  require  Member  States  to  collaborate  and  pool  resources. 
Digital  Europe  investments  are  designed  to  enable  secure,  interoperable,  and  globally 
competitive  digital  capabilities,  funding  specialised  large-scale  deployment  projects  such  as 
high-performance  computing, 
facilities, 
cybersecurity networks, semiconductor pilot lines, and European data spaces. Unlike the RRF, 
which has a broader national and regional impact, Digital Europe specifically supports strategic 
sectors essential for technological sovereignty and competitiveness on the global stage while 
ensuring that the EU's essential security interests, strategic autonomy, and critical infrastructure 
are protected from threats, including technology leakage and control by non-EU entities. 

testing  and  experimentation 

large-scale  AI 

There have also been instances where RRF and Digital Europe funding was combined. In these 
cases, the RRF supported individual national infrastructure or services, while Digital Europe 
set up a cross-border network as well as facilities to coordinate and monitor these infrastructures 
in the EU and beyond.  

For  example,  RRF cumulative funding was received  by the  EDIHs (48 grants  in 9  Member 
States),  as  well  as  other  digital  areas,  such  as  TEFs  (5  grants),  the  Network  of  National 
Coordination  Centres  (1  grant),  and  European  Quantum  Communication  Infrastructure  – 
EuroQCI (6 grants). Despite these synergies, the strict ex-ante cost delineation requirement to 
implement the combination of funding between RRF and other funding instruments has been 
challenging. Some of the projects above chose to combine funding from the two instruments 
based on the pro-rata approach (included in the updated guidance on the recovery and resilience 
plans C/2024/4618).   

From 2024 onwards, synergy funding of a given action between RRF and Digital Europe will 
not be supported anymore under the Digital Europe WP. This marks a shift where RRF and 
Digital Europe can no longer combine funding for specific actions, separating RRF’s focus on 
broad  digital  transformation  from  Digital  Europe’s  focus  on  EU-wide  digital  capabilities  in 
strategic technologies. 

Digital activities also have a strong presence in the Member States’ national and regional Smart 
Specialisation Strategies (S3) that form the basis for support from the ERDF under SO1.   In 
contrast to combination with RRF funding, Digital Europe funding can still be combined with 
the ERDF support. For example, due to the very strong regional dimension of the EDIHs, 8 
Member  States  opted  to  co-fund  in  total  38  EDIHs  using  funds  from  ERDF,  in  some  cases 
combined  with  national  funds.  Support  for  EDIH  from  the  ERDF  was  also  in  line  with  the 
objectives of the ERDF programmes (such as competitiveness, uptake of digital technologies, 
or  smart  growth)  for  a  number  of  Member  States.  Nevertheless,  the  implementation  of  this 
cumulative  funding  has  been  burdensome  mostly  due  to  differences  between  cost  eligibility 
rules and complex coordination with the shared management side143. Challenges also arise from 
the  perception  among  ERDF  managing  authorities  that  co-funding  with  programmes  like 
Digital  Europe  reduces  their  control  over  budgets  of  their  respective  programmes, 
creating resistance.  The Commission has  been organising seminars for  Member States  and 

143 Specificities of the relevant Member States operational programmes need to be understood and considered, coordination 

with the managing authorities and timing of the calls 

41 

 
 
 
beneficiaries,  and  discussions  with  the  managing  authorities  recently  linked  to  STEP144  to 
facilitate the combination of funding. One example of the simplification of procedures is the 
opportunity  to  directly fund projects  awarded with  a STEP  seal  without additional selection 
procedures.  

4.6.5.  A more systematic approach  

As highlighted in stakeholder consultations, systematic synergies and development trajectories 
can only fully emerge through the development of a strategic vision across programmes. Better 
alignment  and  coordination  between  funding  instruments,  such  as  Digital  Europe,  Horizon 
Europe,  and  the  Horizon  Europe’s  European  Innovation  Council  is  necessary  to  ensure  a 
seamless  pathway  of  projects  from  research  to  deployment.  In  addition,  beneficiaries 
highlighted the mismatch between the long duration of EU programming and the rapid pace of 
technological advancement when it comes to the uptake of digital applications and the scaling 
up of innovative solutions.  

4.6.6.  Coherence with national and regional initiatives  

Some initiatives co-funded through the Digital Europe programme show by design a greater 
alignment  with  national  and  regional  priorities  and  strategies.  This  is  notably  the  case  for 
EDIHs  and  Competence  Centres,  such  as  the  European  Cybersecurity  Competence 
Centres  and  National  Coordination  Centres  (SO3)  which  are  being  implemented  at  the 
Member State level and contribute to promoting alignment between European, national, and 
regional  priorities.  Extensive  efforts  are  deployed  in  the  set-up  phase  to  draw  up  national 
roadmaps,  ensuring  that  competence  centres  operate  with  a  national  mandate  from  their 
respective countries.  

Several  structural  specifications  support  coherence  with  national  initiatives.  Besides  the 
Digital Europe programme Committee composed of representatives of the Member States 
and  Digital  Europe  associated  countries,  numerous  other  groups  support  the  dialogue  with 
national and regional stakeholders, for instance: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

the Destination Earth Coordination Group, which gathers  representatives  of Member 
States to discuss their needs regarding the implantation of Destination Earth; 

the  European  Alliance  for  Industrial  Data,  Edge  and  Cloud,  which  brings  together 
businesses, Member States’ representatives and relevant experts; 

the  EuroQCI  Sherpa  Group,  which  represents  the  Member  States’  views  on  the 
implementation of EuroQCI; 

the  ‘AI  and  digitalisation  of  businesses’  expert  group,  which  monitors  the  level  of 
digitalisation of businesses in Europe and decides how the network of EDIHs should 
develop to best meet the Digital Decade targets; 

• 

the European Blockchain Partnership for investments in blockchain; 

144 Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform - European Union (STEP) 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
• 

• 

the Interoperability expert group, which advises DG DIGIT on issues related to public 
sector interoperability; 

the eIDAS expert group, where representatives from the Member States and European 
Economic  Area  exchange  good  practices  and  initiatives  in  the  area  of  electronic 
identification and trust services. 

Furthermore,  networks  and  European  partnerships  play  a  role  in  ensuring  alignment 
between  European,  national  and  regional  priorities.  The  tripartite  nature  of  the  JUs  and  the 
presence of representatives of participating states within the governing board of the JUs as well 
as  during  the  elaboration  of  the  Strategic  Research  and  Innovation  Agenda  (SRIA)  also 
contribute to ensuring that European initiatives are aligned with national priorities.  

As  part  of  SO3,  organisations  such  as  the  (private)  European  Cyber  Security  Organisation 
(ECSO)  foster  partnerships  between  companies  and  regions.  Nevertheless,  the  need  for  a 
comprehensive cybersecurity industrial roadmap to clarify Europe’s strategic goals and align 
efforts across various cybersecurity initiatives was highlighted. 

4.6.7.  Co-funding mechanisms with Digital Europe  

In practice, co-funding mechanisms for Digital Europe vary significantly among EU Member 
States  (see  Annex  V).  While  some  countries  have  structured  frameworks  in  place  to 
complement Digital Europe funding, others rely on ad hoc measures or do not have specific 
systems for Digital Europe support. In four countries, the Netherlands, Denmark and Austria 
and  Norway,  there  are  established  mechanisms  specifically  tailored  to  align  with  Digital 
Europe  priorities,  offering  clear  pathways  for  applicants  to  secure  complementary  national 
funding. These mechanisms often set priorities that are aligned with their national priorities. In 
contrast,  numerous  countries  provide  ad  hoc  support  through  ministries  or  existing 
programmes.  For  example,  in  Belgium,  funding  decisions  are  made  on  an  ad  hoc  basis  by 
ministries and agencies (e.g. for HPC projects and semiconductor related initiatives). Variation 
in  co-funding  availability  at  the  national  level  underscores  the  differing  levels  of  readiness 
among Member States to co-fund Digital Europe initiatives.  

Box 15. Danish National Fund provides co-funding for Danish beneficiaries in Digital Europe 

The Danish National Fund was set up in April 2024 as part of a national digitalisation strategy; The total budget 
amounts to DKK 30 million (EUR 4 million) in 2024-2025. It co-funds up to 25% of the total costs. It is possible 
to apply for co-funding for all Digital Europe calls, however in 2024 priority was given to projects in EU data 
spaces,  cybersecurity  and  AI.  The  Danish  Board  of  Business  Development145  co-  finances  EDIHs.  A 
decentralised effort for business growth and development will ensure a more focused effort, e.g. by concentrating 
on the needs of the enterprises and the regional differences in order to increase business growth and development 
in Denmark. The Board also has the task of ensuring that the decentralised business initiatives are coherent across 
different sectors, states and municipalities. 

Source: Digital National Fund  

The targeted survey for beneficiaries showed that most respondents were not aware of the level 
of  complementarity  of  Digital  Europe  with  similar  activities  in  their  country.  In  addition, 
alignment between Digital Europe and national/regional strategies remains a key challenge.  

145 Danish Board of Business Development | Danmarks Erhvervsfremmebestyrelse 

43 

 
 
  
 
Box 16. SO-specific differences in coherence 

- SO1, SO2, SO5 and SO6 showed particular external coherence with Horizon and CEF Digital. 

- SO4 through its focus on Digital Skills is by design highly cross-cutting and synergistic, but implementation 

of this synergy and avoiding overlaps of parallel skills initiatives in other SOs deserves attention. 

- EDIHs (SO5) have substantial synergy with the ERDF. 

4.7.  How did the EU intervention make a difference and to whom?  

EU added value is an intrinsic element of the programme as its actions aim to improve digital 
competitiveness  and  boost  strategic  autonomy  across  the  EU.  Digital  Europe  has 
demonstrated strong added value by supporting complex large-scale deployments that Member 
States could not bring about on their own, ensuring cooperation across Member States to tackle 
cross-border  challenges  and  by  offering  comprehensive  services  across  the  EU  through  its 
networks. There are numerous examples of such investments.  

• 

Investment in supercomputing has allowed the EU to become one of the top regions in 
the world in terms of available high-performance computing power. By collaborating 
across Member States, Europe has achieved pre-exascale and exascale systems much 
faster  than  individual  Member  States  could  have  done  independently.  Further 
investments in quantum computing will enable a first European computer with quantum 
acceleration by 2025, paving the way for cutting edge quantum capabilities in the Union 
by 2030.  

•  Marking a significant step towards creating a robust AI ecosystem, the EU and Member 
States have invested around EUR 1.5 billion into seven AI Factories in 2024, which 
will  offer  access  to  AI-optimised  high-performance  computers,  AI  training,  and 
technical expertise to promote cutting-edge research and applications in Europe. 

•  Digital Europe provides funding to mechanisms for coordination and investment across 
the EU. The above mentioned European Digital Infrastructure Consortium (EDIC) 
helps  deploy  joint  infrastructure  and  deliver  services  by  bringing  together  public 
entities, private entities, final users and industry. Through EDICs, Member States invest 
in scale in key digital issues of general and common interest and remove barriers for 
organisations to  collaborate on solutions  that require  a  large scale or that need to  be 
cross-border. 

•  EDIHs are present in 90% of the European regions but cover 100% of the EU, bringing 
together  public  and  private  entities,  including  research  organisations,  universities, 
industry associations, regional development agencies, and private sector companies. 

•  TEFs offer their services to technology providers from across the EU to test at scale, 
improve solutions and bring them to the market, thereby increasing AI uptake in Europe.  

•  Access  for public  administrations across Europe  to  critical  interoperability solutions, 

enables user-centric cross-border digital public services to be built.  

The study examined EU added value via financial, behavioural and output additionality.  

4.7.1.  Financial additionality  

Digital  Europe  most  prominently  provides  financial  additionality  by  addressing  gaps  in 
national funding. It pools and leverages resources at a scale that is neither readily available to 

44 

 
 
 
 
Member States nor prioritised at the national level, particularly for cross-border initiatives and 
large-scale projects. This is particularly pertinent to the investments that were made to promote 
HPC capacities, the deployment of a quantum network, and the co-investment in EDIHs. By 
creating  interlinked  EDIHs,  TEFs,  HPC  and  quantum  infrastructures,  investments  are 
centralised and scaled up to increase the EU’s competitiveness vis-à-vis global leaders. 

With regard to  the  financial instruments,  the crowding-in  effect,  mobilising  both  public and 
private investment under InvestEU, also adds to this aspect. EUR 1 of the budgetary guarantee 
is  able  to  mobilise  14.7  times  of  the  investment  made  facilitating  access  to  finance  to  key 
companies  across  Europe.  The  applicant  survey  shows  that  a  large  number  of  participants 
(65.5%) believe to a large or very large extent believe that Digital Europe provides financial 
means at a scale that is not provided by national and regional schemes. The public consultation 
supports this, with respondents indicating Digital Europe’s greatest added value is due to the 
financing of projects that could not otherwise be supported at national or regional level146. 

Box 17. Case study on the combination of funding  

The dual-funding approach – combining EU and national contributions – is an effective way of pooling resources, 
enabling large-scale investments in strategic technologies and digital ecosystems that benefit all Member States. 
Investments  such  as  in  EuroHPC  supercomputers  and  Chips  pilot  lines  represent  significant  financial 
commitments  that  individual  Member  States  would  unlikely  undertake  independently.  The  dual-funding 
approach  adds  a  strong  European  dimension,  while  ensuring  that  Member  States  can  retain  ownership  over 
identifying  infrastructure  needs  by  acting  as  ‘problem  owners’.  This  allows  Member  States  to  adapt 
infrastructures  to  their  ecosystems  and  provide  services  tailored  to  the  specific  demands  of  their  industries, 
particularly benefiting SMEs and start-ups. At the same time, this model promotes broader access to European 
collaborations, enabling researchers and stakeholders across Europe to access these infrastructures. 

Source: Technopolis Group & Ramboll, 2025 

4.7.2.  Behavioural additionality 

The behavioural additionality147 of Digital Europe is taking shape and is expected to increase 
as the programme’s activities are implemented further. 

EDICs are by definition focused on cross-border cooperation, as at least three Member States 
must submit an application to set up an EDIC. The EDICs also have a clear aim to coordinate 
funding,  promote  common  standards  and  interoperability.  Besides  EDICs,  several  activities 
funded under the programme have cross-border collaboration as their primary objective. For 
instance, the Network of National Coordination Centres (NCCs) which is being built up with 
the  aim  of  boosting  research  excellence  and  the  competitiveness  of  the  EU  in  the  field  of 
cybersecurity.  

While EDIHs are designed first and foremost to serve the needs of customers in their region, 
having a regional specialisation, through their networking, it is hoped that customers with other 
needs can be supported by hubs in other regions and countries with the necessary expertise. 
However, hubs are unable to a large extent to provide services to customers in other countries 
as  it  is  prohibited  by  national  funding  rules.  Reflecting  this,  while  those  EDIHs  that  were 
interviewed  value  the  potential  for  collaboration  with  hubs  from  other  countries,  current 

146 43% rate these benefits as having high or very high EU added value, while 20% perceive medium added value, and only 

8% see them as having low EU added value. 

147 The positive impact of Digital Europe on the behaviour of the supported organisations.  

45 

 
 
 
 
 
exchanges  are  relatively  limited  and  mostly  take  place  within  the  same  country  or  with 
neighbouring regions. 21% of EDIHs’ customers receive services from hubs located outside of 
the  customers’  region.  Cross-border  service  delivery  accounts  for  2%  of  both  services  and 
customers148.  In  the  future,  EDIH  projects  from  both  EU  Member  States  and  associated 
countries that receive the STEP seal - under the Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform 
(STEP)  –  will  be  eligible  to  access  EU  cohesion  funding,  enabling  strategic  investments  in 
critical  technologies  and  value  chains  beyond  EU  borders,  without  additional  selection 
procedures. The STEP seal’s mechanism is specifically designed, among other aims, to boost 
collaboration  across  frontiers.  Additionally,  the  focus  group  on  the  implementation  of  the 
EDIHs  held  during  the  EDIH  annual  summit  in  2024  recommends  adopting  a  unified 
communication  approach  at  both  national  and  EU  level  and  fostering  future  collaboration 
with other AI-focused initiatives to enhance their AI services.  

Joint Undertakings also play a significant role as network builders. They adopt a long-term 
structural approach to bring stakeholders together across the value chains, sectors and countries, 
going beyond what would be possible at the level of Member States. Joint Undertakings also 
provide a single legal and financial instrument to coordinate and pool resources from public 
and private actors in a specific field of technology or application in the EU, which can help 
shape entire ecosystems and value chains.  

Box 18. Example of initiative supporting cross border collaboration 

The EU Digital Identity Wallet is a good example of cross-border cooperation and pooling resources. Large-
scale pilot projects have been launched across 11 important use cases (including identification for government 
services and bank account opening, payments, mobile driving licence and electronic signatures) involving over 
360 public authorities and private entities. The EU Digital Identity Wallet aims to offer a universal, trustworthy 
and secure way for citizens to identify themselves when accessing public and private services, digital documents 
and have  control over how their data  is handled by both private  and public organisations. Thus, cross-border 
interoperability and collaboration are required to ensure the smooth implementation of the EU Digital Identity 
Wallet. Digital Europe enables the pooling of resources for this purpose. For example, the EU Digital Identity 
Wallet (EWC) Consortium is a  collective  of stakeholders from across the EU, each contributing their unique 
strengths to driving the development and implementation of the EU Digital Identity Wallet. 

In addition, Safer Internet Centers  (SICs) and the European Digital Media Observatory 
ensure that  the  digital  environment  is  safe  for  children and  fight  disinformation.  Their  hubs 
have been set up in a network spanning the whole EU providing their services to all citizens. 
SICs collaborate among one another but also with likeminded organisations around the world 
in  a  dedicated  programme  supporting  capacity  building  and  the  exchange  of  ideas  and 
resources.  

In the field of interoperability, behavioural additionality has been in focus from the start, and 
interviewees  highlight  the  added  value  of  dealing  with  cross-border  issues  in  a  coordinated 
manner, harmonising and ensuring that solutions can be reused by Member States.  

The case study on technology infrastructures highlights an existing example of behavioural 
additionality, namely the development of EU-level strategies in strategic sectors that ensure that 
the  participation  of  major  players  while  influencing  smaller  countries  to  prioritise  the  same 
objectives.  Larger  Member  States  and  key  industrial  players,  often  with  already  existing 
strategies and infrastructure in place, align with European initiatives (e.g. Belgium IMEC’s and 
Germany’s  Fraunhofer  participation  in  the  Chips  for  Europe  Initiative),  leverage  legal 

148 JRC Publications Repository - European Digital Innovation Hubs Network's activities and customers. 

46 

 
 
 
frameworks such as the  European Chips  Act  to  strengthen their national  goals.  At the same 
time, smaller Member States are influenced by these European frameworks to make specific 
critical technologies a priority. For instance, in the context of the Chips Act, Croatian and Greek 
Competence Centres for Semiconductors were initiated by Croatia and Greece respectively in 
2023,  aligning  their  efforts  with  the  EU’s  semiconductor  targets149.  Similarly,  Czechia 
implemented the European Chips Act by setting up the Czech National Semiconductor Cluster, 
which has led to significant progress, such as producing 3 million wafers annually150. Malta, 
through Malta Enterprise, has set up a microchips competence centre to attract industry players 
and innovators in this strategic sector151. 

Furthermore, the stakeholder consultations (Annex V) showed that the programme has helped 
to boost cooperation among Member States, with over 60% of beneficiaries stating that Digital 
Europe improves access to and cooperation with partners from other countries across the 
EU and beyond to a large or very large extent. Similarly, over 60% affirm that Digital Europe 
supports the creation of European ecosystems for digital technologies. The same holds true 
for applicants (65.5% and 63.8% respectively). 

A  study  on  Digital  Europe  conducted  on  behalf  of  the  Swedish  Agency  for  Digital 
Government152 has shown that the programme has demonstrated EU added value by enabling 
new activities that beneficiaries would not have carried out otherwise and by enabling initial 
data  exchanges  among  countries.  It  also  concluded  that  benefits  are  materialising  at  system 
level  rather  than  at  the  level  of  beneficiaries,  and  that  the  programme  is  increasing  the 
competitiveness and digital transformation of companies. 

4.7.3.  Output additionality  

Since  beneficiaries  set  up  services,  tools  and  infrastructure  that  benefit  citizens  and 
organisations across the EU, the benefits widely transcend the organisations receiving funds 
from the Commission. This output additionality is taking shape, but since in the first project 
phase beneficiaries have invested mainly in setting up and making large-scale infrastructures 
and services operational, or in designing new master’s courses in key technological areas, the 
bulk of end users still needs to be reached in the upcoming years. 

While participants have reported numerous benefits for their organisation (see Section 4.1.), the 
benefits  of the  activities of the programme  are experienced primarily not  at  the level  of the 
beneficiaries but by the organisations and individuals across the EU (and beyond), which are 
benefiting from the infrastructure, tools and services developed under the programme, such as 
the  over  20 000  individuals  taking  part  in  one  of  the  training  courses  designed  within  the 
programme to increase advanced ICT skills. 

A survey for end users covering four work strands (EDIH, TEF, skills trainings and HPC) shows 
that 54% of end users (strongly) agree that the services they received are unique in terms of 
their  scope/quality  in  the  EU  and  moderately  agree  they  are  unique  in  their  country  (65%) 
compared with similar international, national or regional initiatives. Similarly, end users agree 

149 DESI Report 2024 – Country Report Croatia. 
150 DESI Report 2024 – Country Report Czechia. 
151 DESI Report 2024 – Country Report Malta. 
152 Halvtidsutvärdering av det svenska deltagandet i Programmet för ett digitalt Europa. 

47 

 
 
 
 
that  services  are  more  affordable  (61%)  or  that  services  are  more  accessible  (53%)  than 
alternative options. EDIH users mirror these average numbers, while participants and students 
in  Digital  Europe-funded  skills  trainings  and  HPC  end  users  are  (much)  more  positive.  For 
instance,  around  47%  of  respondents  strongly  agree  that  the  advanced  digital  skills  training 
courses funded by Digital Europe are unique within the EU and 64% strongly agree they are 
more affordable than the alternatives. 

Box 19: SO specific differences in EU added value 

Financial additionality is quite prominent in large-scale infrastructures, such as HPC (SO1), where individual 
MS would be slower in achieving results. 

EUDI, SICs and EDMO (SO5) are good examples of behavioural additionality, where cross-border cooperation 
is intrinsically performant. However, EDIHs (SO5) are still mostly focused on their own regional or national 
clients. 

4.8.  Is the intervention still relevant? 

In  the  course  of  the  implementation  of  the  programme,  the  sociopolitical  and  technological 
landscape  has  undergone  significant  transformation,  amplifying  the  criticality  of  economic 
security and technological sovereignty in addition to competitiveness. 

The current context is shaped by three interwoven factors: 

•  post-COVID digital acceleration, which has embedded digital transformation into the 

• 

• 

fabric of economic and societal resilience; 
rising  geopolitical  tensions,  including  renewed  warfare  in  Europe,  shifting  US-EU 
relations, and the weaponisation of dependencies in global supply chains; 
the  emergence  of  generative  AI,  which  has  unlocked  unprecedented  technological 
capabilities but also introduced complex policy challenges, from ethical governance to 
workforce disruption. 

In this new context, the imbalances highlighted in the 2021 Impact Assessment153 have become 
more  critical.  Key  areas  like  supercomputing,  artificial  intelligence,  semiconductors,  and 
cybersecurity are no longer optional priorities but existential imperatives for securing the EU’s 
strategic autonomy. 

The  recent  Generative  AI  and  Large  Language  Model  (GenAI/LLM)  revolution  has 
underscored the strategic importance of the digital infrastructure investments made by the EU’s 
Digital  Europe  programme:  Supercomputing,  Cloud  and  Data  spaces,  and  AI  testing  and 
experimentation facilities.  

In addition, developing a collective cybersecurity resilience, capacity to anticipate, identify and 
react to increasingly more sophisticated cyberattacks has become essential to our future in the 
new geopolitical context.  

However, the EU is still lagging behind. As highlighted in the Draghi report154, the EU depends 
on  foreign  countries  for  over  80%  of  its  digital  products,  services,  infrastructures  and 

153 EUR-Lex - 52018SC0305 - EN - EUR-Lex 
154 The Draghi report on EU competitiveness 

48 

 
 
 
 
intellectual property. While the US and China have been transitioning their economic models 
towards ICT since the early 2000s, Europe has not kept pace. The EU’s share of the global ICT 
market, for instance, dropped by 11 percentage points (from 21.8% to 10.8%) between 2013 
and 2023, while the US’ global ICT market share increased from 26.8% to 38% over the same 
period155.   

The  EU  is  significantly  behind  the  US  and  China  in  terms  of  industrial  investment  in  ICT 
research and development in both ICT software and hardware156. The US invests 12 times more 
than  the  EU  in  ICT  software.  The  US  also  leads  in  terms  of  numbers  of  companies  in  ICT 
software, with 54.3% US companies, 22.7% of Chinese companies and only 8% of companies 
based in the EU157. 

As highlighted in the impact assessment accompanying the proposal for a regulation of the 
European Competitiveness Fund (ECF)158, the EU suffers from a ‘financing and investment 
gap  in  the  latter  stages  of  innovation,  development  and  scaling  up  of  companies159  in 
strategic sectors essential for supporting the competitiveness of the EU economy, including the 
‘valley  of  death’  scaling-up  problem160.’  European  start-ups  frequently  face  two  critical 
‘valleys of death.’ The first arises when innovations cannot transition into marketable products, 
and the second, which is especially challenging in Europe, occurs when companies struggle to 
scale161. 

Europe has a flourishing early-stage start-up ecosystem with the number of founders starting 
companies  even  surpassing  the  US.  In  2015,  there  were  less  than  8 000  early-stage  tech 
companies  in  Europe,  while  in  2024,  this  number  has  more  than  quadrupled  to  35 000+162, 
highlighting  a  dynamic  entrepreneurial  landscape.  However,  this  growth  coexists  with 
structural challenges. Complex regulations, bureaucratic hurdles, and a fragmented EU market 
continue to undermine Europe’s attractiveness as a place to start and scale a tech company163. 
In  the  start-up  phase,  companies  in  the  EU  are  slightly  more  likely  to  obtain  funding  than 
companies in the US. However, as companies acquire more capital, the investment gap widens 
drastically. US companies are twice as likely as their European counterparts to secure funding 
of USD 15 million or more164. This disparity is reflected in unicorn165 numbers: Europe had 286 
unicorns in 2024, compared with nearly 400 in China and over 1 600 in the US. Across Europe, 

155  Global market share of the ICT market from 2013 to 2024 | Statista. 
156 JRC Publications Repository - The 2024 EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard 
157 JRC Publications Repository - The 2024 EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard 
158 The EU Startup and Scaleup Strategy Choose Europe to start and scale: EUR-Lex - 52025SC0555 - EN - EUR-Lex. 
159 For example, pilot production lines for advanced chips. 
160 The ‘valley of death’ is commonly known as a market failure. Here we refer to the ‘second valley of death’ where companies 
find it hard to obtain the required growth finance. Private investors are deterred by unproven ability to scale up rapidly 
and generate cash flow. The ‘first valley of death’ is associated with the pre-commercial development of a product, with 
still high technical  risks  and  unproven  ability  to generate  revenue.  In both  cases  investments  are  seen  as  too risky by 
private investors, and are, therefore, often not funded. 

161 The EU Startup and Scaleup Strategy Choose Europe to start and scale, COM(2025) 270 final. 
162 State of European Tech 24: soet2024_report.pdf. 
163 Ibid. 
164 Ibid. 
165 A privately owned start-up company, which has reached a valuation of USD 1 billion or more. 

49 

 
 
 
there are also substantial disparities in the concentration of unicorns, with Germany, France, 
Sweden, and the Netherlands having the highest concentrations166. 

The  EU’s  financial  markets,  marked  by  fragmentation  coupled  with  a  general  risk-averse 
culture, continue to impede investment in sectors with high growth potential and innovation. 
Furthermore, the EU’s precautionary approach based on ex-ante regulation may also hamper 
innovation.  The  Draghi  report  states  that  there  are  around  100  tech-focused  laws  and  270 
regulators involved in digital networks. These put European companies at a disadvantage in a 
technology  market  driven by ‘winner-takes-most  dynamics’167. However, the EU’s proactive 
stance  on  regulatory  standards  in  emerging  fields  like  AI  and  data  governance  presents  a 
strategic opportunity. By harmonising rules and fostering globally recognized frameworks, the 
EU could position itself as a leader in shaping the future of technology, turning regulatory rigor 
into a competitive advantage rather than a constraint. 

Another challenge to tackle is the growing dependence of the EU’s digital future on consistent 
energy supply. Data centre electricity use is projected to nearly double to 945 terawatt-hours 
(TWh)  by  2030,  slightly  exceeding  Japan’s  current  total  electricity  consumption,  primarily 
driven  by  AI  and  rising  demand  for  digital  services168.  Europe’s  elevated  energy  expenses 
impede  expansion  in  specific  digital  sectors,  increasing  the  costs  of  digital  infrastructure 
investments and delaying the pace of digital transformation.  

In addition, the rising complexity of the challenges we confront — such as criminal abuse of 
digital  technologies,  disinformation,  cyberattacks,  deepfakes,  and  manipulation  through 
algorithms — underscores the urgent need for widespread digital literacy and a competent ICT 
workforce.  Only  slightly  more  than  half  of  Europeans  (55.6%)  possess  basic  digital  skills, 
which  are  critical  for  competitiveness  and  societal  resilience  against  online  threats,  such  as 
those targeting information integrity, mental health, and the safety of minors. The supply of 
ICT professionals with advanced expertise remains limited, exacerbated by a significant gender 
disparity169. 

Consequently, a ‘transformative shift in investment landscape’170 is required to meet the EU’s 
digital  objectives.  For  the  next  MFF,  the  investment  gap  in  digital  technologies  has  been 
estimated in the Draghi report at EUR 150 billion per year. The report emphasises that such a 
gap can only be addressed with a much higher leverage of private investment. This also raises 
the  challenge  of  taking  into  consideration  economic  security  and  technological  sovereignty 
challenges in more market-driven financing. 

While digital technologies are key to unlocking the EU’s competitiveness, digitalisation also 
presents  potential  systemic  risks.  These  risks  include  the  impact  on  the  climate  and  the 
environment,  the  violations  of  citizens’  and  workers’  rights  and  privacy,  the  protection  of 
children, the impact of digitalisation on the physical and mental health, as well as a corrosion 
of a fair, well informed and unified society.  

166 State of the Digital Decade 2025 report | Shaping Europe’s digital future. 
167 E.g. The Draghi report on EU competitiveness 
168 Energy and AI – Analysis - IEA 
169 2025 State of the Digital Decade package | Shaping Europe’s digital future 
170 State of the Digital Decade 2025 report | Shaping Europe’s digital future 

50 

 
 
 
For instance, people’s perspectives are increasingly shaped by personalised sources based on 
algorithms, which increases division and limit collective democratic debate171. 

With the EU's goal of becoming an AI continent and its planned investments to stay competitive 
in the global AI race, the demand for energy is growing rapidly, outpacing the advancement of 
sustainable energy systems along with robust grid capacity throughout the EU. This not only 
presents an obstacle for companies in scaling key digital technologies as mentioned above but 
this colossal electricity demand also comes at a steep cost for the environment.  

The swift implementation of wireless, mobile, and advanced technologies — coupled with their 
expanding use in professional settings — calls for a more thorough investigation into workers’ 
exposure to optical radiation and electromagnetic fields, as well as the potential health  risks 
linked to the increasing power of such devices172. At the same time, it needs to be ensured that 
children and adolescents can use digital tools in a safe way and that negative impacts on mental 
health are mitigated.  

In  addition,  new  and  comprehensive  risks  linked  to  data  privacy  need  to  be  addressed.  For 
instance, new advancements in neurotechnology, which process highly sensitive neural data -
information from the brain and nervous system - pose significant threats to data privacy.  

To address these potential systemic risks, the EU needs to adopt leadership guided by ethics 
and scientific evidence in developing thoughtful, cautious strategies for emerging technologies 
with the goal of empowering people to harness technology to reach more autonomy, prosperity 
and control.  

4.8.1.  Alignment of the objectives with current and emerging needs 

The  six  specific  objectives  of  the  Digital  Europe  programme  remain  well  aligned  with  the 
challenges that emerged during this period and that continue to pose difficulties for the EU’s 
digital transformation. The importance of investment in a more competitive HPC ecosystem 
remains relevant as the global supercomputer market is projected to grow at a compound annual 
rate of 7.5% between 2023 and 2030173 and market turnover is expected to rise from USD 41 
billion in 2020 to USD 66.5 billion by 2028174, while the aggregate performance of European 
machines still remains below the US175. HPC capacities are key for the establishment of the 
AI Factories and of the AI Gigafactories recently announced, which will support the training 
and finetuning of advanced foundation models176. This is essential, as Europe’s share of cutting-
edge AI resources remains limited in comparison with the US and China with roughly 70% of 
foundational AI models since 2017 having been developed in the US177. In 2024, AI adoption 
in EU companies increased from 8.1% to 13.5%, yet remains far below the 2030 Digital Decade 

171 Strategic Foresight Report 2025 - European Commission 
172 eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52021DC0323 
173 Draghi M., The future of European Competitiveness, Part B, a competitiveness strategy for Europe, September 2024 
174 Europe’s Quest for Technological Power. Available here. 
175 Top 500 – Development over time – continents performance share, available online 
176 Second wave of AI Factories set to drive EU-wide innovation 
177 Large AI Models for Germany – Feasibility study 2023 

51 

 
 
 
 
target of 75%. Large firms (41.2%) far outpace SMEs (12.6%) in AI use, reflecting a 29-point 
gap178.  

Access to cloud computing and big data is critical for training advanced models, yet Europe 
remains dependent on limited and expensive cloud computing resources. Several factors still 
hinder  the  EU’s  data  economy,  such  as  the  availability  of  data  for  re-use  (including  for  the 
development of AI systems), data interoperability or the imbalances in market power179. The 
Draghi report180 highlights the untapped potential of health data as a main root cause for the 
competitiveness gap in the pharma sector. Digital Europe has been funding the deployment of 
European health data spaces to ensure secure exchange, use and reuse of health data to benefit 
patients, health professionals, researchers, regulators, and innovators. 

Digital Europe’s focus on cybersecurity through a dedicated SO remains highly relevant in the 
face of the increased cyber risks and threats stemming from recent geopolitical tensions, the 
emergence  of  new  technologies,  such  as  AI  or  quantum,  the  reliance  of  society  on  digital 
services and the dependence of essential services and infrastructures in the EU on ICT181 and 
the reliance of the EU on foreign technologies. According to ENISA’s analysis of cybersecurity 
incidents and cyber threats from 2023-2024, there is a significant cybersecurity threat in the 
EU: cyberespionage campaigns, foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI) in 
particular  targeting  elections  and  including  disinformation  with  AI  content,  are  persistent 
threats. Regarding cybercrime, ransomware remains the most relevant threat targeting SMEs 
more frequently recently182. 

Niinistö’s recommendations push for elevating cybersecurity as a common EU priority, scaling 
up cyber workforce development183.  

The shortage of a skilled workforce184 remains a barrier also for the widespread uptake of digital 
technologies. ICT job skill shortages have risen to 4% of total job posts over the past decade. 
Nearly 60% of EU companies report a lack of skills as a major investment barrier, and many 
struggle  to  recruit  ICT  specialists185.  The  support  study  found  that  besides  investing  in 
specialised courses for the long-term (e.g. master’s programmes), there are acute digital skills 
shortages to be addressed (e.g. short courses). This suggests that the challenges on digital skills 
identified at the creation of the programme remain relevant and that continued support for 
skilling, upskilling and reskilling the workforce will be of utmost importance.  

To accelerate the best use of technologies, the uneven use and access to digital solutions by 
citizens and businesses remains to be addressed. The rapid recent technological developments 
and  rising  international  tensions  underscore  the  need  for  actions  aimed  to  increase  the 
confidence  in  the  digital  transformation  in  the  EU.  Disinformation  campaigns  and  foreign 
interference threaten public trust and the integrity of democratic processes, often exacerbated 

178 2025 State of the Digital Decade package | Shaping Europe’s digital future 
179 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52020DC0066  
180 ec1409c1-d4b4-4882-8bdd-3519f86bbb92_en : (see part 2 p.191)  
181 Council Recommendation of 8 December 2022 on a Union-wide coordinated approach to strengthen the resilience of critical 

infrastructure (Text with EEA relevance) 2023/C 20/01 

182 2024 Report on the State of the Cybersecurity in the Union.pdf 
183 Digital Decade – EU Trajectories 2024. Available here 
184 Digital Decade – EU Trajectories 2024. Available here 
185 ICT specialists - statistics on hard-to-fill vacancies in enterprises - Statistics Explained - Eurostat 

52 

 
 
 
by new technologies that enable the creation of increasingly convincing fake content that can 
be disseminated at scale. 

Finally, the COVID-19 pandemic, recent trade tensions and geopolitical conflicts have exposed 
the EU’s vulnerability in semiconductors186. In 2024, the EU’s portion of global value chain 
revenues stood at 10.5%, remaining significantly below the 2030 target of 20%187. Continued 
investment  in  research,  innovation,  and  capacity-building  is  needed  to  reduce  Europe’s 
dependency and secure the supply of semiconductors for the digital economy188. 

Overall,  stakeholder  consultations  signalled  that the  critical  role  of  the  six  SOs  in  driving 
Europe’s digital transformation and maintaining its global competitiveness are recognised, 
with all objectives being either very relevant or mostly relevant both for current and future 
needs. This is particularly the case for SO 3 (cybersecurity) and SO4 (digital skills), which are 
perceived as very relevant across consultations. Beneficiaries also expect all SOs to be very 
relevant  to  their  future  needs  with  73%  of  beneficiaries  finding  SO3  as  very  relevant,  72% 
rating SO2 as very relevant and 70% perceiving SO4 as highly relevant to their future needs.  

4.8.2.  Alignment with technological developments 

The strategic programming of Digital Europe ensured that the first work programme already 
laid  the  ground  for  the  deployment  of  technologies  that  could  later  support  emerging 
technological trends, for instance the development of smart middleware for a European cloud 
federation and data spaces or HPC systems that could support the development of AI189. The 
2023-24  WP  continued  the  actions  started  under  the  2021-22  WP,  but  also  introduced  new 
actions, mainly in the field of AI, to follow the latest developments aligning the programme 
with technological challenges of stakeholders. 

Digital Europe has facilitated the development and deployment of AI technologies by activities 
such as: (i) providing data resource to the AI community via the European Data Spaces; (ii) 
procuring new exascale supercomputers and making them accessible to the European research 
community and AI start-ups190; (iii) setting up TEFs for AI innovators to test and experiment 
state-of-the art AI solutions; and (iv) setting up EDIHs to further diffuse AI technologies across 
Europe.  The  EuroHPC  JU  also  launched  the  AI  Factories  initiative191  using  its  network  of 
supercomputers to deliver computing capacity for AI and support a host of different services 
for the AI start-ups and the broader AI ecosystem in the training and large-scale development 
of  AI  models.  The  Commission  also  announced  an  expansion  of  this  initiative  through  the 
creation of AI Gigafactories192, which will specialise in training the most complex, very large, 
AI models. They will be the largest public-private partnership in the world for the development 
of trustworthy AI. 

In alignment with the major technological developments during the period in question, Digital 
Europe funded actions supporting skills development in emerging key technologies, such as 

186 European Chips Act - Questions and Answers, 30 Novembre 2023. You can access it here 
187 State of the Digital Decade 2025 report | Shaping Europe’s digital future 
188 Ibid.  
189 EuroHPC Multiannual Strategic Programme 2021-2027 
190 Commission opens access to EU supercomputers to speed up AI (europa.eu). 
191 EU boosts European AI developers with the AI Factories call for proposals | Shaping Europe’s digital future (europa.eu). 
192 EU launches InvestAI initiative to mobilise EUR 200 billion of investment in artificial intelligence. 

53 

 
 
 
quantum, AI, semiconductors and cybersecurity and for the use of advanced digital technologies 
(e.g.  AI  in  healthcare).  By  the  end  of  2024,  the  total  EU  contribution  to  SO4  under  Digital 
Europe amounted to EUR 214 million or 7% of the total funding committed. 

The rapid pace of technological development that characterised the period under evaluation has 
brought about an increase in the number and complexity of cyber threats. Digital Europe has 
invested in strengthening the cybersecurity capabilities of the EU, including improving the 
prevention,  detection,  analysis  and  response  to  cyber  threats  and  incidents.  A  notable 
contribution is the EuroQCI initiative: a secure terrestrial and satellite quantum communication 
infrastructure spanning the whole EU. By the end of 2024, the total EU contribution to SO3 
under Digital Europe amounted to EUR 512.7 million, or 17% of the total funding committed. 

In  terms  of  alignment  with  future  technological  developments,  the  study  found  that  both 
beneficiaries and applicants placed AI technologies at the forefront, with 80% of beneficiaries 
and 78% of applicants identifying AI as a top priority. Advanced connectivity, navigation, and 
digital technologies emerged as significant for both groups (prioritised by 62% of beneficiaries 
and 66% of applicants), followed by robotics and autonomous systems (considered important 
by  45%  of  beneficiaries  and  40%  of  applicants).  This  signals  that  while  the  programme  is 
sufficiently aligned with technological developments on the short term, stakeholders would also 
like to see other priorities, such as robotics, emerge as a funding priority. 

The preliminary findings of two other studies on the future investment needs in digital research 
and deployment193 also stress the need for investments in technologies critical for resilience, 
such as:  

➢  AI, data, cybersecurity (in particular in trustworthy and explainable AI, agentic AI, AI 
applications,  for  example,  in  smart  healthcare,  data  driven  public  sector,  data  driven 
connected mobility and related cybersecurity solutions),  

➢  microelectronics  and  photonics  (in  particular, ’More-than-Moore’,  RISC-V,  Chiplet 
and modular architectures, 3D stacking and wafer-level packaging, advanced packaging 
and 3D integration and green electronics),  

➢  the future deployment of quantum technologies (quantum key distribution),  
➢  the next generation internet,  
➢  extended reality (for simulation in science, training, education and digital twins),  
➢  technologies for interoperability (for example, for secure cross-border data exchange), 

and   

➢  cross-technology  deployment,  for  example  combining  HPC,  AI  and  quantum 

computing or Cloud-Edge-IoT, AI and data in automotive applications.  

Stakeholders  also  emphasise  that  Digital  Europe  must  reduce  its  reliance  on  non-European 
technologies  to  maximise  its  strategic  benefits.  They  suggested  further  harnessing  the  full 
power of open-source, a public good that allows free use, modification, and redistribution of 
technologies, and activating the potential of the vibrant open-source community, which could 
enhance tech sovereignty and reduce reliance on third countries. 

193 To be published in Q1 2026 

54 

 
 
 
 
While highlighting the economic benefits of the programme, across consultations, stakeholders 
stress  the  importance  of  activities  that  contribute  to  the  green  transition,  addresses  the 
environmental impact of advanced digital technologies and supports the optimisation of 
their  energy  efficiency.  EU  citizens,  companies,  and  NGOs  also  advocated  for  a  more 
accessible and inclusive programme fostering citizen trust and enhancing digital literacy. In 
their views, prioritising inclusivity, ethical practices, accessibility and the twin transitions could 
increase Digital Europe’s impact, and further consolidate its role as a key driver of Europe’s 
digital future.  

A  conference  on  the  future  of  digital  investments  in  the  EU  organised  in  the  context  of  the 
Danish  presidency  of  the  Council  of  the  European  Union194  also  stressed  the  importance  of 
public procurements and concluded that future investments in digital deployment need to be 
more unified, which can be achieved by merging current programmes and applying simplified 
rules.  The  event’s  conclusions  echoed  the  importance  of  increased  private  investment 
highlighted in the Draghi report and emphasised the role of public funding in de-risking private 
investments. 

On 16 July 2025, the European Commission published its proposals for the next MFF. Several 
of  the  shortcomings  identified  in  this  evaluation  were  addressed  in  the  design  of  the  future 
European  Competitiveness  Fund195.  One  of  the  four  policy  windows  of  the  ECF  proposal 
(Digital  Leadership)focuses  on  digital,  from  research  to  scale  up  and  deployment.  Digital 
activities will also be supported in different sectors through the other policy windows. The ECF 
proposal addresses the identified challenges by: 

➢  simplifying the investment lifecycle: ensuring a seamless transition from research and 

innovation to manufacturing and large-scale deployment; 

➢  enhancing  adaptability:  providing  flexibility  to  respond  to  emerging  priorities  and 

evolving technological landscapes; 

➢  mobilizing  private  capital:  leveraging  loans  and  equity  instruments  to  attract  private 

sector investment alongside public funds; 

➢  streamlining  governance:  reducing  administrative  complexity  through  a  unified 
rulebook and harmonised funding rules for applicants (e.g. for alternative, combined, 
and cumulative support). 

Furthermore, to support the combination of funding, the ECF proposal permits actions that 
have received a contribution from another programme to also receive a contribution under 
ECF funds196.  

4.8.3.  Adaptation  of  the  programme  with  socio-economic  and  political 

developments and challenges 

Since its design in 2019, the programme was shaped by a poly-crisis and shifting competitive 
dynamics,  demonstrating  the  need  for  long-term  capacity-building  in  digital  technologies  to 
enhance  preparedness  and  economic  recovery  in  the  EU  and  to  reduce  dependencies  in  key 

194 Conference | The Future of Digital Investments in the EU, final report to be expected in October 2025 
195 EUR-Lex - 52025PC0555 - EN - EUR-Lex 
196 Ibid.  

55 

 
 
 
 
digital  sectors.  Digital  Europe  adopted  an  approach  that  ensures  the  continuity,  progressive 
development, and long-term viability of the funded actions, while also maintaining sufficient 
flexibility to address emerging needs. In response to the semiconductor supply shortage, which 
was intensified by the pandemic, the programme integrated a new objective (SO6) to promote 
leadership  in  semiconductor  technologies,  driven  by  the  adoption  of  the  Chips  Act197.  In 
addition, the increased cybersecurity threats resulting from Russia’s aggression against Ukraine 
led  to  the  introduction  of  the  Cyber  Emergency  Mechanism  to  improve  preparedness  and 
response  to  large-scale  incidents.  An  action  was  introduced  to  support  the  development  of 
consumer  applications  addressing  urgent  needs  in  energy  consumption  (EU  Energy  Saving 
Reference  Framework)  in  response  to  Russia’s  full-scale  invasion  of  Ukraine  and  the 
accompanying  increase  in  energy  prices.  In  addition,  new  training  initiatives  were  launched 
under the main 2023-24 WP to address skills shortages in cybersecurity, semiconductors and 
HPC. 

In light of the intensifying global tensions, the measures introduced in the programme, namely 
Article 12(5)  and  12(6)  of  the  Digital  Europe  Regulation,  remain  relevant  to  safeguard  the 
Union’s digital security interests. The 2025-27 WP continued to apply participation restrictions 
to those actions that involved infrastructures with an impact on key sectors. 

Digital  Europe  also  incorporates  socio-economic  considerations  in  its  design.  Technologies 
deployed  under  digital,  notably  AI,  are  required  to  follow  principles  of  human  centricity, 
transparency  and  trustworthiness.  Activities  under  SO5  specifically  cover  the  application  of 
digital technologies to increase accessibility, enhance safety (especially for children) or fight 
disinformation.  

The review of online contributions in the context of the study showed that the efforts under 
Digital  Europe  to  integrate  energy-efficient  technologies,  ethical  AI  practices  and  digital 
accessibility  were  perceived  to  sufficiently  address  current  and  future  societal  challenges. 
Interviewed stakeholders generally acknowledged the programme's  flexibility and alignment 
with emerging trends. At the same time, responses to the public consultation suggest that there 
is a still a strong demand (77% of respondents, mostly EU citizens, companies and NGOs) for 
the programme to further address additional areas, including socio-economic aspects such as 
digital inclusion and the green transition. This was underlined by the results of the applicant 
survey,  emphasising  the  importance  of  addressing  key  societal  challenges,  such  as  digital 
inclusion, climate change, and health.  

197 Regulation - 2023/1781 - EN - EUR-Lex 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.8.4.  Alignment of Digital Europe with sector specific needs 

Across all SOs, computer programming and consultancy and education emerged as key sectors 
(see  Table  4).  The  strong  presence  of  industries  and  the  public  sector,  such  as 
telecommunications  and  public  administration,  highlights  Digital  Europe’s  role 
in 
strengthening  Europe’s  digital  infrastructure  and  the  uptake  of  digital  solutions.  The  study 
found that SOs show distinct sectoral composition aligned with their focus, although the overall 
involvement of non-digital sectors is still limited, with the exception of education. SO2 and 
SO5  engage  with  a  broader  range  of  industries  (e.g.  manufacturing,  construction, 
telecommunication,  financial  services,  healthcare,  cultural  industries)  illustrating  the  cross-
cutting  application  of  AI  &  data.  SO1’s  sectorial  composition  reflects  its  focus  on 
computational  advancement  more  strongly,  while  SO3  focuses  on  sectors  critical  for  digital 
infrastructure protection (e.g. telecommunication, public administration). SO4 relies mostly on 
the education sector, reinforcing its role in workforce development.  

Table 4. Sectorial distribution of beneficiaries across the 6 SOs of Digital Europe 

Source: Technopolis Group & Ramboll, 2025. Self-declared sectorial affiliation based on participant survey results (n=1044) 

In addition to this analysis of beneficiary organisations’ sectors, the study also mapped the main 
work strands of Digital Europe to the targeted sectors. The mapping shows that there is a strong 
sectoral and application orientation embedded into the strategic programming. It found that 
while  a  significant  part  of  the  programme  has  focused  primarily  on  ICT  sectors,  specific 
attention has also been given to critical sectors of the economy (e.g. communication, energy) 
and broader application sectors (e.g. health & personalised medicine, manufacturing, agrifood, 
mobility) that are essential for the wider EU economy and their digital transformation. Digital 
Europe supports the digital transformation in specific sectors, insofar as the horizontal tools and 
approaches  promoted  by  Digital  Europe  (e.g.  data  spaces)  are  fit  for  the  specific  sectoral 
requirements.   

The study found a high degree of perceived alignment between the programme’s sectorial 
focus and the needs of participating organisations, with 64% of beneficiaries considering 
Digital Europe to be very relevant to their sector’s needs. The satisfaction was even higher for 
applicants to the programme, with a significant majority, 75%, considering the Digital Europe 
to be very relevant to their own organisational focus.  

57 

SectorsSO1 (n=45)SO2 (n=189)SO3 (n=222)SO4 (n=213)SO5 (n=362)SO6 (n=13)Grand TotalA - Agriculture, forestry and fishing0,0%1,1%0,0%1,4%1,9%0,0%1,2%C - Manufacturing0,0%4,8%1,4%3,8%4,4%7,7%3,5%D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply0,0%0,0%1,4%0,0%0,8%0,0%1%F - Construction2,2%1,1%0,5%1,4%1,1%0,0%1,1%H - Transporting and storage0,0%0,5%1,8%0,5%1,1%0,0%1,0%J.60 Programming and broadcasting activities2,2%0,0%0,0%0,0%0,0%0,0%0%J.61 Telecommunications6,7%1,6%11,7%0,5%2,2%0,0%4%J.62 Computer programming, consultancy and related activities26,7%16,4%22,5%8,5%10,8%15,4%15%J.63 Information service activities11,1%5,3%8,1%6,6%5,5%0,0%6%K - Financial and insurance activities0,0%1,1%0,9%0,5%0,6%0,0%0,7%M.70 Activities of head offices; management consultancy activities0,0%1,6%0,9%1,9%2,8%0,0%2%M.72 Scientific research and development26,7%23,3%12,2%15,0%18,0%30,8%18%M.74 Other professional, scientific and technical activities4,4%11,6%5,0%9,4%13,0%7,7%10%N - Administrative and support service activities0,0%3,7%2,3%7,0%6,6%0,0%4,9%O.84 Public administration and defence; compulsory social security2,2%2,6%11,3%0,9%7,5%7,7%6%P.85 Education15,6%7,9%12,2%34,7%11,9%23,1%16%Q - Human health and social work activities0,0%7,9%4,5%1,4%3,9%0,0%4,0%R - Arts, entertainment and recreation0,0%2,1%0,0%1,9%0,8%0,0%1,1%S - Other services activities2,2%4,2%1,8%3,8%4,1%0,0%3,4%Grand Total100%100%100%100%100%100%100% 
 
4.8.5.  Alignment of the programme to addressing the needs of stakeholders 

Table 5: Participation per organisation type 

Source: based on data from support study by Technopolis Group and Ramboll 2025 

Higher or secondary education organisations make up the largest share of beneficiaries in 
the  programme,  with  a  relatively  balanced  participation  across  SOs,  but  with  SO4  being 
particularly relevant for these stakeholders. Together with research organisations (16%), they 
represent important stakeholder groups in capacity building especially related to infrastructures 
such  as  HPC,  Cloud,  Data  &  AI  (TEFs).  Most  of  the  beneficiaries  in  SO6  also  come  from 
research organisations, with interviewees confirming the strong alignment of the calls for pilot 
lines  and  design  platform  with  RTO  needs.  However,  the  study  also  found  that  there  were 
barriers  for  the  participation  of  industry  players  in  the  pilot  lines  due  to  the  complexity  of 
compliance with State aid rules. 

Private for-profit organisations (both large enterprises and SMEs) are well represented in the 
programme,  together  accounting  for  36%  of  the  total  number  of  beneficiaries  and  1 320 
individual beneficiaries. They also receive the most funding, especially as funding goes to large 
enterprises.  While  SMEs  make  up  19%,  the  design  of  the  programme  (25-50%  co-funding 
requirement)  did  not  fully  align  with  their  needs  (see  Section  4.1.3),  thus  hindering  their 
engagement. 

Public organisations accounted for 13% of beneficiaries, with a significant role in SO3 and 
SO5, where areas of public interest are clearly established. They are also strongly represented 
in SO1, as the acquisition of public infrastructures makes up most of the EuroHPC budget198. 

198 Interim evaluation of the European High Performance Computing Joint Undertaking. 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
Stakeholders  considered  the  programme  very  relevant  to  addressing  the  needs  of  their  own 
organisation  in  terms  of  focus  and  sectors  (Table  5).  Higher  relevance  was  reported  among 
research organisations (71%) and SMEs (70%). In contrast, large enterprises (63%) and public 
sector organisations (59%) expressed relatively lower levels  of satisfaction, indicating some 
variation in the perceived alignment with organisational priorities. 

Table 6.  Relevance of the programme for organisations across SOs (n=1044, results for very relevant) 

Source: Technopolis Group and Ramboll 2025, only based on respondents declaring their affiliation to an SO (n=1044) 

All 27 EU Member States participate in the programme, with most grant199 beneficiaries coming 
from Spain (643), followed by Italy (626), France (560) and Germany (472). A small number 
of beneficiaries also come from EEA-EFTA countries (128), associated third countries (264) 
and  non-associated  third  countries  (45).  Based  on  the  share  of  beneficiaries  per  1 000 
population, Sweden stands out with a participation rate of 151 per million inhabitants, followed 
by Luxembourg (125) and Cyprus (100). Other smaller Member States, such as Estonia, Latvia 
and Slovakia also have a participation rate of around 50 (per million inhabitants). 

Four  Member  States  received  a  significant  part  of  the  grant  funding:  Germany  (EUR 237 
million), followed by France (EUR 171 million), Italy (EUR 159 million) and Belgium (157 
million). This is to be expected due to their strong participation in the programme and their 
involvement in large-scale infrastructure projects (e.g. pilot lines in IMEC for Belgium, HPC 
centres  etc.).  When  weighted  by  population,  Luxembourg  has  the  highest  Digital  Europe 
funding per capita, followed by Sweden, Belgium, Cyprus and Poland. 

Figure 7 shows the participation of Member States across SOs. Overall, SO1 has the lowest 
number of beneficiaries’ actions under this SO, mainly consisting of infrastructure deployments 
with high-investment needs and a limited number of direct beneficiaries but with large numbers 
of expected users across the whole Europe. The participation in EDIHs and in SO5 is relatively 
stable  and  significant  across  Member  States,  while  more  variations  can  be  observed  in  the 
participation in SOs 2-4. 

199 No MS funding allocation is available for procurements, financial instruments, contribution agreements and programme 

support actions. 

59 

HESRTOPRC-LEPRC-SMEPUBOTH % Very relevantSO162%50%0%40%100%80%60%SO270%85%80%80%68%66%75%SO357%69%55%67%48%50%58%SO475%55%100%67%62%55%68%SO561%69%60%73%61%62%64%S0667%75%100%75%100%77%% Very relevant67%71%63%70%59%61%66% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 7: Participation of Member States across SOs 

Source: Technopolis Group and Ramboll, 2025, reference date 31/12/2025 

To  increase  engagement  with  the  programme,  stakeholders  highlighted  changes  to  Digital 
Europe’s funding mechanisms. For example, tailored funding mechanisms (e.g. wider use of 
the SME grants or alignment with industry priorities) and more flexibility in the funding and 
implementation  rules  could  improve  accessibility  and  participation,  especially  by  the  public 
sector.   

Box 20. SO specific differences in relevance 

All SOs remain relevant in terms of the alignment of the  objectives with current and emerging needs, with 
advanced computing (SO1), AI (SO2), Digital Skills and Capabilities (SO4 and SO5) as well as Cybersecurity 
(SO3) having similarly high levels of prioritisation by end-user needs 

SO2  and  SO5  engage  with  a  broader  range  of  industries  than  the  other  SOs,  illustrating  the  cross-cutting 
application of AI & data. SO1 is more focused on R&D, ICT and the education sector. The telecoms sector is 
involved to a significant extent in SO3, whereas SO4 relies mostly on the education sector. 

Overall, SO1 has the lowest number of beneficiaries, as actions under this SO mainly consist of infrastructure 
deployments with high investment needs and a limited number of participants. The participation in EDIHs and 
in SO5 is relatively stable and significant across Member States 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNT? 

5.1.  Conclusions 

Effectiveness  

In the first years of its implementation, the Digital Europe programme has made good progress 
towards  meeting  the  objectives  set  out  in  its  Regulation.  The  programme  has  achieved  key 
milestones in each specific objective. At midterm, Digital Europe is already delivering tangible 
benefits  across  several  priority  areas.  The  deployment  of  HPC  capabilities,  such  as  the  first 
exascale system JUPITER and the launch of Destination Earth with its two digital twins and 
service  platform,  has  significantly  expanded  Europe’s  computational  capacity  for  research, 
innovation, weather climate modelling, big data exploitation and derived services. In artificial 
intelligence,  the  establishment  of  TEFs  and  the  launch  of  the  AI  on  Demand  platform  are 
accelerating the uptake of trusted AI solutions across sectors. In cybersecurity, the creation of 
27  National  Cybersecurity  Coordination  Centres  and  the  roll-out  of  advanced  tools  are 
strengthening  Europe’s  resilience  against  cyber  threats.  Under  the  advanced  digital  skills 
objective,  over  20  000  people  have  been  trained  through  master’s  programmes  and  short 
courses, supporting  workforce  readiness  for emerging digital jobs.  Similarly, the EDIHs are 
already  serving  more  than  54  000  businesses  and  public  sector  organisations,  enabling 
thousands of ‘test-before-invest’ services and supporting innovation adoption. 

Key Performance Indicators are mostly on track or are exceeding the expected milestones. A 
promising number of end-users (citizens and organisation using the infrastructures, tools and 
services set up by Digital Europe funded projects) have been reached including approximately 
55  100  companies  and  25  800  public  organisations.  These  achievements  demonstrate  that 
Digital Europe is on track to meet many of its strategic objectives and is already generating 
benefits for EU citizens, businesses, and public administrations. Beneficiaries and end users 
have reported concrete benefits such as increased innovation and productivity gains for their 
organisations and have high expectations concerning future benefits.  

Digital  Europe  has  unlocked  substantial  co-funding  (direct  leverage  EUR  1.41  billion), 
leveraged by other funding programmes, mainly from participating organisations and funding 
programmes at  national  or regional level.  Including follow-up investments  from  private and 
public sources, the total leverage amounts to EUR 2.3-7.0 billion. In terms of expected wider 
impacts, Digital Europe is contributing to the digital transformation and has had some impact 
on  digital  competitiveness  and  autonomy,  which  is  expected  to  increase  in  the  future  but  is 
hampered by the programme’s relatively small budget.  

The  programme  contributes  to  EU  horizontal  priorities  and  most  UN  sustainability  goals. 
Nonetheless, the environmental trade-offs of digital technologies, such as significant water and 
energy  demands  of  data  centres,  need  further  exploration  and  prioritisation.  Despite  the 
manifold  activities  to  promote  the  programme,  the  complexity  of  its  structure  has  reduced 
awareness amongst wider stakeholders. The main hurdle for implementing includes the 50% 
co-funding rate, which has required organisations to obtain co-funding from other sources. The 
programme has pioneered the option to combine funding at EU level (Digital Europe and the 
RRF  and  ERDF),  which  has  proven  to  be  cumbersome.  In  addition,  hurdles  exist  regarding 
national co-funding mechanisms (with regards to divergent national rules, the misalignment of 
timelines and double reporting burden). The implementation of security restrictions, which are 

61 

 
 
necessary to protect the security of the EU, has proven to be burdensome for a limited number 
of beneficiaries. To remedy this, the Commission has invested considerable effort in trainings 
and information material, facilitating its implementation. 

The current monitoring and evaluation framework is well suited to monitor the outcome, and 
results of the programme. However, some indicators, require beneficiaries to gather data from 
end users via surveys creating additional administrative burden. In addition, the currently used 
impact indicators measure trends in the digitalisation of the EU in the wider sense and a clear 
link  between  activities  related  to  the  programme  and  these  trends  cannot  be  established.  To 
better measure the impact of the programme for the final evaluation, IT tools could be deployed 
to gather data to conduct a counterfactual analysis (see Annex I.). 

Efficiency and cost-effectiveness 

The management model combined direct and indirect management models. While this increases 
the complexity of the programme, this combination of management modes has allowed Digital 
Europe to take advantage of established networks and communities of practice, broadening the 
programme’s  reach  and  leverage  to  a  degree  that  would  not  have  been  possible  in  a  more 
centralised implementation model. 

Digital Europe has seen a relatively high success rate for applicants, due not only to its targeted 
and  highly  specialised  calls  but  also  to  the  lower  levels  of  awareness  of  the  programme 
compared with longer-established programmes. Stakeholders are relatively satisfied with the 
management of calls (including the timing and clarity of documents), however, they are less 
satisfied with funding conditions (e.g. funding rate in relation to effort). Applicants currently 
face relatively high application costs, compared with the scale of the financial support available. 

The Commission and its implementing bodies have substantially improved adherence to TTG 
deadlines, increasing the efficiency of call management. Digital Europe has been implemented 
relatively efficiently by the Commission with a 4.9% overhead rate. An analysis of the cost-
effectiveness of the programme shows that the programme has been implemented at a total cost 
of  EUR 4.9  billion  (EU  funding  and  co-funding  from  beneficiaries).  It  has  been  possible  to 
monetise only a few benefits at this stage. As the implementation phase so far has focused on 
setting up infrastructures, the number of end users is expected to rise significantly against more 
limited marginal costs in the upcoming years. 

Relevance 

The programme has remained highly relevant in the face of rapidly evolving political, social, 
and  technological  conditions.  This  is  mainly  due  to  the  strategic  planning  underlying  the 
programme, but also to the certain level of flexibility that allowed Digital Europe to respond to 
emerging  challenges.  The  digital  capacities  covered  by  the  six  SOs  have  provided  a  good 
framework to addressing the deployment of key technologies that remained or became relevant 
for the EU’s digital transformation, particularly the investments made in HPC capacities, AI, 
data,  deployments  of  digital  solutions  (for  instance,  the  EU  Digital  Identity  Wallet)  or 
semiconductors. 

62 

 
 
 
 
The  programme’s  SOs  show  a  clear  sectoral  alignment,  with  digital  sectors  having  been 
engaged  more.  While  non-digital  sectors  (except  education)  are  less  present,  the  impact  of 
targeted  sectoral  applications  of  digital  technologies,  such  as  healthcare  or  public 
administration, can still be identified in the pattern of sectoral participation. Digital Europe has 
reached  a diverse mix of stakeholders covering  all  Member States  and associated countries, 
with the private sector, and in particular SMEs. 

Coherence 

The  Digital  Europe  programme  is  embedded  within  the  broader  framework  of  the  Digital 
Decade  Policy  Programme,  supporting  numerous  other  EU  initiatives  and  priorities.  It  also 
supports the implementation of an array of regulatory measures, such as the AI Act, the NIS2 
Directive as well as the  Digital  Services Act and Digital  Markets  Act. Internal  coherence is 
ensured  through  explicit  links  between  initiatives  by  design  in  the  work  programmes,  the 
sequencing  of  actions  within  a  portfolio  of  project,  technological  integration  across  specific 
objectives,  and  networks  and  instruments,  such  as  the  EDIH  or  Coordination  and  Support 
Actions.  Several  collaboration  mechanisms  (e.g.  working  groups)  are  in  place  to  ensure 
coherence among actions implemented in direct and indirect management mode.  

Specific mechanisms have been set up to better foster synergies and ensure complementarities 
with  other EU  funding programmes.  For instance, this  can be achieved through the specific 
governance structure (the role of DG CNECT in preparing the work programmes in different 
programmes,  the  role  of  Joint  Undertakings  in  pooling  resources  from  different  EU  funds), 
working groups across DGs, and interconnected infrastructures with a wide outreach, such as 
EDIHs.  The  programme  also  benefits  from  established  networks,  as  the  number  of  shared 
beneficiaries, in particular with Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe is considerable. While not 
necessarily  evidence  for  collaboration,  there  is  some  evidence  linking  cross  participation  to 
increased information sharing among concurrent projects and the continuation of achievements 
under the research programmes in Digital Europe (sequential synergies).  

Synergies with national and regional programmes are less pronounced. There is a wide variation 
in  co-funding  mechanisms  complementing  Digital  Europe  at  national  level,  which  could 
increase the digital divide.  

EU added value 

The programme delivers substantial EU added value by pooling resources from several Member 
States and enabling investments at a scale that surpasses national capabilities. Key examples 
include investments in high-performance computing (HPC), quantum networks, and European 
Digital Innovation Hubs (EDIHs). These efforts scale up critical infrastructure, allowing Europe 
to better compete globally while addressing shared challenges. 

The  co-funding  model  —  combining  EU  and  national  contributions  —  has  been  effective 
overall,  notwithstanding  certain  implementation  challenges,  such  as  long  timelines  of 
preparation due to the negotiations with Member States and legal requirements (e.g. related to 
taxation). Large-scale initiatives like EuroHPC supercomputers and Chips Pilot Lines illustrate 
the benefits of this approach, enabling Member States to co-invest in projects they would not 
undertake independently. This model supports strategic technologies and ecosystems, fosters 
innovation, and enhances industrial competitiveness while reducing reliance on foreign testing 
infrastructures.  

63 

 
 
The programme promotes cooperation among Member States by fostering pan-European digital 
ecosystems and advancing digital transformation. Multi-country initiatives such as European 
Digital  Infrastructure  Consortiums  (EDICs),  EDIHs,  and  cross  border  SOCs/Cyber  Hubs 
exemplify this  effort.  Initiatives, such as  the EU  Digital  Identity  Wallet,  showcase  effective 
cross-border cooperation to create interoperable solutions.  

In  conclusion,  the  benefits,  while  noticeable  at  the  level  of  the  organisations  receiving  EU 
funding,  transcend  the  beneficiaries  of  the  programme  as  the  large-scale  infrastructures, 
services and tools created by the beneficiaries serve individuals as well as public and private 
organisations in the EU and (in some areas) beyond.  

Key conclusions regarding SMEs 

Relevance: SMEs are a core target group of the Digital Europe programme’s efforts to tackle 
capability gaps through targeted support measures and to provide access to advanced, shared 
EU-level infrastructures that individual SMEs could not develop or afford on their own. It also 
fosters cross-border collaboration and market  access,  helping SMEs integrate into European 
value chains  and  compete globally.  While initial participation  was skewed towards research 
organisations, the growing role of EDIHs and sectoral facilities is expanding SME engagement 
and offering direct benefits to them. 

Effectiveness:  Digital  Europe  has  begun  to  deliver  tangible  benefits  for  SMEs,  particularly 
through the network of EDIHs and targeted sectoral facilities, such as TEFs. SMEs have been 
effectively  reached in  the programme, with  over 99% of the 55 100 private end users being 
SMEs.  Evidence  from  initial  monitoring  of  end  users  shows  improvements  in  their  digital 
maturity  –  most  notably  in  AI  adoption  and  automation  –  alongside  business  growth,  new 
product development, and access to additional funding opportunities. The programme’s EU-
wide infrastructures have enabled SMEs to test and deploy advanced technologies they would 
not  have  been  able  to  access  otherwise.  SMEs  indicated  a  value  of  EUR 8.0k-15.3k  for  the 
services  of the EDIH and those benefiting from  digital skills  training courses value them  at 
EUR 6.5k-14.4k.  While  early  results  are  promising,  with  infrastructures  now  set  up  and 
operational, the next phase of the programme should prioritise increasing SME participation in 
future  calls  to  fully  maximise  its  reach  and  impact  in  this  target  group.  The  main 
recommendations  from  the  end-user  survey  include  the  need  for  more  public  awareness 
activities to ensure that SMEs are informed about available training and resources, as well as 
simplifying the complexity of application, reporting, and access processes to encourage wider 
participation.  Training  programmes  should  cater  to  all  skill  levels,  including  beginners,  and 
should better address the specific needs of SMEs. 

Efficiency/cost-effectiveness: SMEs also play an important – but relatively modest – role in 
the implementation  of the programme, with  only  17% of grants  funding allocated to  SMEs. 
While  the  success  rate  for  SMEs  is  high  (51%),  their  participation  is  considered  below  the 
potential for a deployment-oriented programme. This may be due to the phase of the programme 
(building large-scale infrastructures, networks etc.) and practical barriers for SMEs to engage 
in  the  programme,  in  particular  the  co-funding  requirements  and  the  perceived  high 
administrative burden and lack of flexibility in consortium models (such as the ease of using 
subcontracting,  or  adding  partners  later  on).  The  analysis  of  the  position  papers  during  the 
stakeholder consultation confirms that SME participation was limited due to complex funding 
structures (e.g. funding conditions vary between topics and often require a detailed review of 

64 

 
 
WPs and tender documents, with  key information  sometimes only available in  English), the 
administrative burden and the 50% co-funding rate. 

5.2.  Lessons learnt 

The  Commission  has  already  invested  considerable  effort  in  addressing  some  of  the  main 
challenges  in  the  implementation  of  Digital  Europe.  For  instance,  the  Commission  has 
introduced the most favourable funding rates in the 2025-2027 WP 200 to help Member States 
comply with State aid rules. The Commission has also conducted numerous outreach activities 
to ensure the smooth application of security restrictions. Furthermore, it has been organising 
seminars for Member States and beneficiaries, and discussions with the managing authorities 
of the ERDF to make it easier to combine funding. In addition, the STEP was set up by the 
Commission to facilitate access to funding across 11 EU programmes, for instance, through the 
STEP seal, a label for high-quality projects. 

Further effort may be made in the medium to long term to increase the future impact of the 
programme on the EU’s digital competitiveness and strategic autonomy. These lessons are also 
relevant for the preparation of the next MFF. 

•  Further vertical alignment of digital initiatives. Firstly, there is the need to align EU, 
national and regional digital initiatives further to ensure that activities at different levels 
build on and strengthen each other. Secondly, initiatives need to be aligned in such a 
way  that  applicants  and  other  stakeholder  can  easily  navigate  the  complex  funding 
landscape  when  searching  for  co-funding,  and  can  apply  for  and  receive  national 
funding without creating an unnecessary administrative burden. 

•  Further  horizontal  alignment  and  streamlined  programming  processes.  Potential 
synergies across EU funding programmes need to be addressed in a more systematic 
manner.  For  instance,  skills  initiatives  should  be  aligned  with  both  hard  and  soft 
infrastructure  investments,  scaled  up  and  refocused  to  prioritise  targeted  training  for 
stakeholders and operators of critical infrastructures, rather than broad, citizen-focused 
initiatives. There is also the need to invest in further collaborations across Directorates 
to increase the potential for synergies, in particular in research and deployment. 

•  Continued  efforts  to  increase  the  visibility  of  the  programme.  WPs  and  calls  for 
proposals could be disseminated beyond the usual communication platforms to reach 
relevant stakeholders not previously engaged in EU funding programmes. Stakeholders 
must also be able to see the programme ‘as a whole’ (rather than its most prominent 
aspects) to ensure wider participation and foster interconnected activities. Incentives to 
attract industry stakeholders need to be thoroughly examined. 

•  Addressing the obstacles hindering the participation of additional stakeholders. 

o  The need to create a legal framework that will reduce the current complexities 

with regard to combining EU funding (e.g. with the ERDF and RRF). 

o  The need for continuous efforts to help Member States adhere to State aid rules 

in co-funding the projects (50% funding rate of the programme). 

200 The Digital Europe Europe Programme – Work Programmes | Shaping Europe’s digital future. 

65 

 
 
 
 
o  The need to consider an increased co-funding rate (75%), in particular to support 

SMEs’ participation in the programme. 

•  More flexible and streamlined funding mechanisms. An effort must be made to reduce 
the  administrative  burden,  in  particular  on  small  and  medium  size  enterprises,  and 
barriers to applying for funds. 

o  The  efficiency  and  relevance  of  simplified  funding  mechanisms,  such  as  unit 
costs and lump sum, need to be assessed. To enhance flexibility, the relevance 
of the increased use of cascade models of funding needs to be explored. 

o  The  need  to  accommodate  uncertainties  in  early-stage  projects  (where  exact 
needs and partnerships are evolving), for instance, by permitting flexibility to 
adjust goals, partners, and methodologies as the project progresses. 

o  The need to  assess the relevance of new mechanisms or to increase currently 
used  funding  mechanisms,  such  as  financial  instruments  and  budgetary 
guarantees,  to  decrease  the  administrative  burden,  increase  participation  and 
insure the (financial) sustainability of projects. These funding mechanisms need 
to  consider  the  specific  application-driven  challenges  that  organisation  are 
facing. 

•  Fast track from research to deployment. Mechanisms need to be put in place to ensure 
relevant cutting-edge results are deployed and brought to the market without any further 
administrative complexities for the companies applying those results, or any delays in 
subsequent funding. 

•  Applying  security  restrictions  in  an  even  more  homogeneous  manner  across 
programmes  while  keeping  the  administrative  burden  for  the  Commission  and 
beneficiaries at a minimum. In addition, there is the need to restrict end user access to 
some of the critical infrastructures, in particular those deployed under restricted calls 
(Articles 12(5) and 12(6)), which need to be restricted to European entities. 

•  Ensuring long-term environmental, economic and social sustainability. This includes 
measures  to  guarantee  the  sustainability  of  infrastructures,  including  robust  financial 
planning, capacity utilisation strategies, and frameworks for ongoing  maintenance.  It 
also  includes  ensuring  a  more  significant  contribution  to  environmental  benefits  and 
climate goals, thereby turning sustainability into a competitive advantage. 

•  Developing pan-European incentives to enable companies, in particular SMEs, and 
public organisations to access  and fully benefit from the developed infrastructures 
while  respecting  any  constraints  linked  to  strategic  autonomy.  This  could  include 
simplified access mechanisms, tailored and easily accessible funding opportunities and 
support frameworks for capacity building. 

•  Continuing  to  align  with  the  latest  technological  developments,  such  as  AI,  and  to 
adapt the programme’s structure to socio-economic developments and challenges while 
keeping implementation simple and functional. Furthermore, there is the need to better 
cover relevant non-digital sectors. 

•  Further enhancing the monitoring and performance framework to better measure the 
impact of the programme with the help of updated indicators and IT tools (see Annex I) 

66 

 
 
 
 
and to assess whether current milestones and targets need to be updated. To assess the 
impact on competitiveness, business IDs (Organisation Name, VAT number Photonic 
Integrated Circuits (PIC) number if relevant) need to be collected for end users for a 
number of high-profile work strands with a large number of expected private end users 
(EDIH,  TEFs,  AI  Factories  etc.).  These  business  IDs  could  then  be  combined  with 
registry data to run an econometric analysis, ideally against a benchmark group source 
via propensity score matching, which would make it possible to analyse the impacts on 
turnover, profits and productivity. 

•  To  assess  the  impact  on  strategic  autonomy,  end-user  surveys  (asking  about 
dependencies,  European  alternatives  etc.)  could  be  used,  or  novel  methods  of 
webscraping and text-based supply chain classification (using LLM techniques). Such 
an  analysis,  ideally  carried  out  at  several  different  intervals,  could  track  whether 
companies  (and  public  organisations)  refer  more  often  on  their  website  to  EU-based 
suppliers,  EU-based  infrastructures  (including  those  directly  supported  through  the 
Digital Europe programme) rather than to alternatives. 

Box 21: Elements from the stakeholder consultations in the lessons learnt201 

Funding priorities & portfolio 

•  Focus  more  on  the  basic  digital  transformation  needs  of  smaller  institutions  and  regions,  not 

exclusively on advanced technologies (beneficiaries). 

•  Consider  sector-specific  funding  for  healthcare,  education,  manufacturing;  renewable  energy  and 

information-sharing technologies (beneficiaries, applicants). 

•  Be more forward-looking, supporting projects with long-term impact (beneficiaries). 

Skills, inclusion & awareness 

•  Expand digital literacy programmes to equip all citizens, regardless of age or background (applicants). 
• 
Increase public awareness in underrepresented regions (e.g. outreach via newspapers, TV, radio; for 
EDIHs) (beneficiaries). 
SMEs, start-ups & market uptake 

•  Greater involvement of the private sector and clearer business development opportunities to turn EU-

funded innovations into market-ready solutions (beneficiaries). 

•  More  support  for  start-ups,  especially  in  the  deployment  phase;  foster  digital  entrepreneurship  via 

start-up ecosystems and digital innovation labs (beneficiaries; applicants). 

•  Dedicated  funding  for  digital  transformation  in  SMEs  and  tailored  support for  AI  and blockchain; 

(beneficiaries, end users). 

•  Low-barrier access to testing environments (end users). 

Coordination, co-funding & collaboration 

•  Alignment with national funding schemes to reduce duplication and ensure coherence (beneficiaries). 
•  Revisit the co-funding model: the 50% rate is a barrier (esp. NGOs/SMEs) and better alignment with 

Member States with regard to co-funding (beneficiaries, applicants). 

•  Cross-border  cooperation  and  synergies  between  Member  States  and  industries;  public-private 

partnerships; international collaboration (beneficiaries, applicants, end users). 

•  Better  communication  among  the  European  Commission,  national  authorities,  and  participants; 
newsletters/call calendar; guides with practical examples; clearer State aid rules; funding for travel in 
cross-border collaborations (beneficiaries, applicants). 

Governance, monitoring & continuity 

•  Recruit  and  involve  long-term  expert  panels;  improve  monitoring  and  evaluation;  coaching 
specialists/programme  managers;  timely  feedback  from  project  officers;  increase  the  number  of 
evaluators (applicants, beneficiaries). 

•  Better integrate existing results and knowledge from previous projects; ensure continuity of initiatives 

(e.g. EDIHs) (beneficiaries). 

201 Process simplification suggestions are included in Box 12 

67 

 
 
 
 
•  Long-term funding and collaboration frameworks to sustain and grow the community of users and 

stakeholders (end users). 

•  Calibrate risk appetite: the programme is too risk-averse; over-emphasis on risk prevention (privacy, 

cybersecurity) can overshadow productivity gains and service innovation (beneficiaries).  

68 

 
 
 
 
 
6.  ANNEXES 

Table of Contents 

ANNEX I.   PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ....................................................................................... 70 
ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED BY THE CONTRACTOR . 75 
ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX .................................................................................................... 84 
ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS ...................................................................... 100 
ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION – SYNOPSIS REPORT...................................... 109 
ANNEX VI. STATE OF PLAY OF PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION ...................................... 129 
ANNEX VII. NUMBER OF END-USERS REACHED BY THE PROGRAMME ............................. 146 
ANNEX VIII. PROGRESS MADE ON VARIOUS INDICATORS ..................................................... 148 
ANNEX IX. ADDITIONAL INDICATORS ........................................................................................... 152 

ANNEX X. MONITORING AND EVALUATION FRAMEWORK FOR THE DIGITAL EUROPE 

PROGRAMME................................................................................................................................ 161 

ANNEX  XI.  OVERVIEW  OF  SYNERGIES:  DIGITAL  EUROPE/HORIZON  EUROPE/CEF 

DIGITAL IN SUPPORT TO MULTI-COUNTRY PROJECT ................................................... 211 
ANNEX XII. RHOMOLO ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 233 
ANNEX XIII. CASE STUDY REPORT ................................................................................................. 249 

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX I.   PROCEDURAL INFORMATION  

This interim evaluation (DECIDE reference: PLAN/2023/1495) was prepared by DG CNECT. D1 under the guidance of an interservice steering 
group (ISG). The ISG gathered the following DGs and services: AGRI, BUDG, CLIMA, COMP, DEFIS, DIGIT, DGT, EAC, EMPL, ENER, 
ENV, FISMA, GROW, ECHO, HOME, JUST, MARE, MOVE, REGIO, RTD, SANTE, SCIC, SG, SJ, TRADE, TAXUD as well as HaDEA and 
the JRC. 

The group was consulted to get feedback on all main milestones:  

•  The first meeting with the interservice steering group was organised on 20 June 2023 to discuss the intervention logic, Call for 

Evidence and Evaluation Questions.  

•  The group provided feedback on the draft Terms of Reference for the external study to support the evaluation in September 2023 

via written procedure.  

•  The second meeting took place on 15 April 2024 to discuss the inception report of the study.  
•  The third meeting took place on 16 September 2024 to provide feedback on the interim report.  

The final report was discussed in the fourth ISG meeting 14 April 2025. Subsequently, the report was approved by the ISG on 21 April before its 
submission to the Regulatory Scrutiny Board on 20 June 2025. A public consultation was published on the Commission’s Have your Say portal 
on 27 June 2024 and remained open until 20 September 2024. A questionnaire was published simultaneously with the Call for Evidence.   
An external study contracting Technopolis and Ramboll and launched in February 2024, provided key input to this report.  
This evaluation was selected for scrutiny by the Commission Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB). An upstream meeting took place on 20 January 
2025 to discuss with the Regulatory Scrutiny Board how to deliver the best possible report. Table 1 below demonstrates how RSB comments were 
addressed: 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 1. RSB upward meeting minutes and study team response 

RSB points  

Evaluation team response  

RSB members advised to reconstruct a thorough intervention logic for the programme, which should 
guide the analysis, help establish causal links between its components, which in turn should allow for the 
contribution/attribution analysis. They acknowledged its complexity given the programme’s breadth but 
insisted on the importance of putting all the elements coherently together. 

The concepts behind the specific objectives, general objectives (i.e. technological sovereignty and 
competitiveness vis-à-vis Europe’s main competitors such as the US and China), the causal links 
between the elements should be operationalised in order to prepare the ground for applying appropriate 
methodology and harvesting the necessary data. 

RSB members acknowledged that given the interim nature of the programme’s evaluation, it would be 
difficult to collect evidence to assess the programme’s effectiveness and efficiency.  They advised 
against using the expected values from the JRC model as evaluations should be based on observable data 
(also implementation data) and results already generated. The values corresponding to the elements 
(outputs, results, impacts, objectives) of the intervention logic should serve as a baseline to 
assess/measure the programme’s actual progress and expected achievements (what the success looks 
like). In the same vein, the Board members advised to be clear on the funds already spent and analyse 
the risks associated with implementation of the remainder of the programme. 

Regarding the analysis of costs and benefits, RSB members considered that it may not be feasible to do 
a complete analysis because the benefits have not materialised to be compared against the costs. They 
advised that the efficiency analyses to be focused on the administrative costs and savings (simplification) 
be quantified and monetised. It could be useful to compare them with other programmes. All metrics 
should be consistently used. 

A thorough intervention logic with clear causal pathways had already been designed.  

A more detailed narrative has been added to the intervention logic graph. 

Evaluation findings are based on observable data. Only a reference is made to the JRC model given that 
at this stage it is still too early to assess large-scale economic benefits through alternative methods. 

It has been ensured that the conclusions do not rely on JRC model for expected benefits, but it is 
presented as a potential range of the size of economic benefits. 

Quantification of simplification measures for key initiatives (such as lump sum grants) was not possible 
at this stage since these have only been recently launched. Benchmarking with other programmes has 
been included. To ensure that in the final evaluation benefits are consistently monetised the following 
steps need to be taken: 

1. 

2. 

It needs to be ensured that data on the 
businesses and public entities benefiting from 
Digital Europe’s infrastructures and services 
(e.g. EDIHs, AI Factories, cybersecurity 
centres) includes business identifiers (e.g. 
VAT numbers, national company registers, 
legal entity identifiers) to enable better 
tracking of outcomes over time. 

It needs to be ensured that protocols for 
linking programme participation with key 
business performance indicators are 
established (e.g. turnover, employment, 
productivity growth) while ensuring 
compliance with GDPR and data protection 
standards. 

The analysis should also discuss the simplification and support for the SMEs, identifying the potential as 
well for further simplification and reduction of burdens. 

A list of simplification measures has been compiled, but no monetisation analysis has been conducted at 
this stage. Simplifications, such as Lump sum have been so infrequently applied that it was not possible 

71 

 
 
 
 
RSB points  

Evaluation team response  

RSB members stressed the importance of a comprehensive analysis of the programme’s internal and 
external coherence. The former would be important given the programme’s broad scope and 
implementation mechanisms while the latter should capture the programme’s positioning amongst other 
EU funding instruments and programmes, such as the Horizon Europe, the Recovery and Resilience 
Facility or the structural funds which all have strong digital components. The analysis needs to go 
beyond declaring coherence, e.g. demonstrating which Horizon outputs or results were scaled.   

The analysis should be supported by the robust data and avoid feeding on opinions of the stakeholders 
and beneficiaries solely. RSB members insisted that the sample for opinion data should be statistically 
representative with regard to all the key stakeholder groups. opinion-data evidence should be 
triangulated with observational-data evidence and related limitations correctly reported (e.g. 
beneficiaries bias, self-reported subjective perceptions, etc.). 

For the analysis of the programme’s relevance, RSB members indicated the importance of going beyond 
the stakeholders’ views, and insisted on assessing the founding needs behind the programme based on 
available evidence and foresight studies and analyse their evolution in the period under evaluation, 
venturing also in the future as to their continuous relevance and possible adjustments to the programme 
(e.g. in terms of the budget distribution, technological and political developments).  

RSB members advised to describe roles and responsibilities of the implementing bodies and their 
complementarities, risks of redundancies, overlaps, etc. 

to gauge their impact at this stage. To do so in the future, these simplifications need to be applied more 
systematically, and consultations need to specifically probe for efficiency gains. It also needs to be 
assessed to what degree these simplifications lead to less administrative burden for the Commission, for 
instance when assessing staff costs.  

This analysis of the governance structure has been conducted and included in the report.  

The evaluation does not rely solely on beneficiaries’ data. The report triangulates findings with end users 
and other secondary data and supporting indicators.  

The outcomes have been documented, showing what has have achieved, beyond the KPIs.  

The evolution of problems is covered under Relevance section. 

Such an analysis has been carried out in the context of the Intervention Logic.  

The analysis should clarify the leverage effect of the EU funding. It should also cover the effects on 
non-beneficiaries such as the push-out effects. 

This is covered under Effectiveness and Relevance section. 

Push out effects are discussed in the State of Play in the SWD and annexes in the section on participation 
patterns, highlighting the involvement of major players.  

For the analyses of the EU added value, RSB members advised that it uses the counterfactual analysis 
to the extent possible to demonstrate what would have not happened without the programme.   

Please see the suggestions below and in the State of Play section 

RSB members advised to use and, where necessary, further develop the indicators already defined in the 
programme regulation. They recommended to thoroughly discuss whether the current monitoring system 
is sufficient to collect and assess the evidence needed with the view to the final evaluation.  

Given the programme’s implementation stage, RSB members advised against using strong conclusions 
if they are not firmly based on the evaluation findings. Instead, the evaluation should assess to what 
extent the framework in place is conducive and on track to achieve the programme’s objectives by its 
completion. 

This has been reflected upon in the lessons learnt section.  

This has been taken into consideration.   

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The analysis of the performance and monitoring framework concluded that the Commission needs to pave the ground for a more thorough analysis 
of impact for the final evaluation. The following measures have been taken into consideration:  

• 

• 

• 

In SO1 & SO2: A specific code could be included in patents, product specifications and publications, if the infrastructure funded by the 
Digital Europe programme has been used by the researchers and innovators. This would allow the Commission to track the impact 
achieved through the use of HPC infrastructure, data spaces, TEFs and the AI on demand platform. To ensure that these codes are applied 
consistently, specific contractual obligations need to be included in the grant agreements and procurement contracts. 
In SO3, data of registries of cyberattacks and threats could be linked to actions that financed cybersecurity (staggered roll-out of 
investment). 
In SO4, data of students taking part in training funded by the Digital Europe programme could be shared with social security services. 
The JRC could run a script to compare the graduates of the trainings with students with similar backgrounds measuring the impact of 
these trainings. To ensure compliance with data protection rules, beneficiaries need to collect consent from students to transfer this data 
to social security services. Due to the high administrative burden of such an exercise, this analysis could be performed as a case study for 
a limited number of Member States.  

•  Furthermore, DG CNECT should collaborate with colleagues monitoring and evaluating Erasmus+, ESF+, and other programmes 

• 

• 

• 

implementing skills trainings to work on common graduate tracking mechanisms. 
In addition, DG CNECT could compare companies’ financial situation (firm turnover or other balance sheet data) of those that used 
services of the European Digital Innovation Hubs with organisations, which did not use the services. 
In order to assess the impact on competitiveness, DG CNECT could facilitate the collection of business IDs (Organisation Name, VAT 
number, PIC number if relevant) for end-users for a number of high-profile work strands with expected large number of private end-users 
(EDIH, TEFs, AI Factories etc.). These business IDs could then be combined with registry data to run an econometric analysis, ideally 
against a benchmark group source via propensity score matching and would allow for an analysis of impacts on turnover, profits and 
productivity.    
In order to assess the impact on strategic autonomy, DG CNECT could either extend the use of end-user surveys (asking about 
dependencies, European alternatives etc.), or use novel methods of webscraping and text-based supply chain classification (using LLM 
techniques) if end-user website URLs could be made more systematically available (linking to the registry point before). Such an 
analysis, ideally carried out at multiple intervals, could track whether companies (and public organisations) refer more often to EU-based 
suppliers, EU-based infrastructures (including those directly supported through the Digital Europe programme) compared to alternatives.  

73 

 
 
 
For this purpose, an expert group needs to be established including the JRC, to define additional impact indicators and lay out a clear data collection 
strategy. 

The RSB issued a positive opinion with reservation on the SWD on 20 June 2025. Consequently, the SWD was revised based on the opinion and 
the checklist sent by the RSB.  

Table 2. Revisions based on RSB opinion 

RSB opinion 

Revisions 

The report should operationalise the intervention logic to track the progress of the programme towards 
the programme’s overall goal to increase the Union’s strategic autonomy, security and competitiveness. It 
should assess whether the current performance monitoring framework allows to capture these effects and 
draw related lessons. 

The link between the outcomes and impacts of the programme as described in the intervention logic was 
set out in more detail. 

More details were included to assess the suitability of the current monitoring and evaluation framework 
to capture these impacts 

The report should assess the potential to use systematically administrative and other observational data 
related to beneficiaries and end-users to improve the evidence base and reduce reporting costs 

The report should more thoroughly discuss the leveraging potential of the programme, in particular 
participation of private finance. 

The use of administrative data and observational data to measure impact was described in more detail.  

The leverage effect of the programme has been set out in more detail.  

The report should assess the coherence of the programme with other major EU funding supporting 
digitisation, in particular the Recovery and Resilience Facility. 

Further information on the different scopes and interlinkages of RRF and Digital Europe have been 
added.  

The report should analyse the programme’s continuing relevance in the light of recent technological and 
market developments. 

One additional section has been added discussing the relevance of the programme in the current context.  

Additional changes based on RSB checklist  

A  column  was  added  in  table  2  including  the  targets  of  indicators.  Furthermore,  the  baselines  of  the 
indicators were added. 

The evaluation questions discussed in the annex, were integrated into the main SWD.  

More examples of how the programme could be simplified were added.  

Another example of synergies with HE was added. 

The  evaluation  (SWD  and  synopsis  report)  was  updated  with  findings  from  the  final  policy  workshop 
which took place on 11 September 

An analysis of the performance of SMEs was included 

The conclusions include more outputs and results of the programme 

74 

 
 
  
 
 
 
Furthermore, it was discovered in summer 2025, that there was a problem with duplicates in CORDA at the end of 2024, when the data for the 
interim evaluation was retrieved from the online dashboard linked to CORDA. This issue was fixed on 6 January, however, it affected the data 
used for the interim evaluation, which reported a higher amount of EU funding than it was actually the case. Consequently, the data analysis was 
updated using the correct amounts from the dashboard from 2021-2024.  

ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED BY THE CONTRACTOR 

The evaluation follows the Better Regulations Guidelines (2023) and measures the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence, and EU added 
value of the programme.  

The study assesses the programme at a holistic level, identifying key differences between specific objectives (SOs) and instrument types, where 
relevant, without delivering a detailed evaluation for each SO. While conclusions and recommendations are formulated at the SO level, SO-specific 
assessments of areas such as efficiency, cost analysis, and EC cost structures could not be performed due to their inherent complexity. Thus, a 
programme-wide perspective has been provided which addresses nuances between specific objectives. 
The assessment of effectiveness considers not only formal KPIs but also broader current and expected benefits for beneficiaries, end-users, and 
the wider economy.  Contributions  to  horizontal priorities, such as stakeholder assessments and alignment with  Commission priorities, further 
enrich the analysis. By integrating a cost-benefit approach, the evaluation explores both direct costs and qualitative benefits. However, the interim 
stage of the programme necessitates reliance on future projections. Additionally, the creation of digital ecosystems, programme awareness, and 
barriers to implementation are discussed. 
In terms of efficiency, the evaluation highlights key processes such as the time-to-grant for selections, retention rates, and stakeholder satisfaction 
with  management  practices.  It  also  emphasises  the  implementation  of  simplification  measures  and  evaluates  communication  activities. 
Additionally,  the  analysis  was  enhanced  through  extensive  manual  reconstruction  efforts,  providing  a  more  detailed  understanding  of 
procurements, financial instruments, and contribution agreements. 
Addressing relevance, the evaluation considers how the programme’s design has evolved to meet the needs of the EU digital ecosystem while 
addressing past and current challenges. A combination of backward-looking assessments and forward-looking foresight exercises provides insights 
into the alignment of programme objectives with technological, political, and socio-economic needs. Through stakeholder consultations, surveys, 
expert focus groups, and desk-based analyses, the report captures key dynamics, although its reliance on stakeholder input limits the granularity 

75 

 
 
 
 
of the analysis beyond programme/SO level. 
The programme’s coherence is assessed by examining internal and external synergies. Internal coherence explores alignment within and between 
SOs  and  management  modes  through  desk-based  reviews  and  portfolio  analyses,  while  external  coherence  investigates  integration  with  EU 
policies, other  funding programmes,  and national  initiatives.  Stakeholder  consultations, case studies, and mapping exercises reveal  actionable 
insights  and  highlight  successful  synergies,  particularly  with  Horizon  Europe.  The  report  also  covers  coherence  with  national  initiatives  and 
provides an overview of national co-funding mechanisms complementing the Digital Europe programme.  
The assessment of EU added value explores how the programme complements national and regional efforts, fostering cooperation among Member 
States  to  promote  the  digital  transition.  The  analysis  distinguishes  between  financial  additionality,  behavioural  additionality,  and  output 
additionality, examining resource pooling, stakeholder behaviour changes, and tangible outcomes. Although financial additionality is assessed 
using a proxy for leverage and lacks granularity at the Member State level, the findings emphasise the unique contributions of EU interventions 
and their overarching impact. 
Finally, the evaluation adopts a holistic lens, capturing differences between SOs and instrument types without delving into detailed SO-specific 
assessments. Conclusions and recommendations are structured at the SO level, but the absence of quantified indicators limits the granularity of 
efficiency  and  cost  analyses.  This  overarching  approach  enables  the  identification  of  cross-cutting  themes  and  interconnections  across  the 
programme, offering strategic insights while addressing the inherent complexity of the evaluation. 

Methodological Approach  
The evaluation findings summarised in this report build upon a broad mix of qualitative and quantitative data collection and  analysis methods, 
listed in Table 1 below. The coloured cells indicate the relevance of a method for the evaluation questions in the criteria categories (darker shadings 
stand for a higher degree of relevance). 

Table 1. Methods used to address the questions under the evaluation criteria 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Qualitative methods 

Quantitative methods 

h
c
r
a
e
s
e
R
k
s
e
D

s
p
u
o
r
G
s
u
c
o
F

s
e
i
d
u
t
s

e
s
a
C

s
w
e
i
v
r
e
t
n
I

a
t
a
d
y
r
a
d
n
o
c
e
S

s
i
s
y
l
a
n
a

s
e
s
y
l
a
n
a

o
i
l
o
f
t
r
o
p

&
n
o
i
t
i
s
o
p
m
o
C

A
B
C

C
P
O

y
e
v
r
u
S

Topics for 
investigation 

State of Play 

Effectiveness 

Attainment of 
objectives 

Intended effect & 
benefits 

Enabling factors & 
barriers 

Efficiency 

Efficiency in 
implementation 

Cost-effectiveness 
& simplification 

Coherence 

Internal coherence  

External 
coherence  

Relevance 

77 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Alignment with 
emerging needs 

Alignment with 
technological 
developments, 
political & socio-
economic needs 

Alignment with 
stakeholder needs 

EU added value 

Added value 
compared to 
national & 
regional support 

Added value to 
promote digital 
transformation 

In the context of the evaluation study, the contractor performed a variety of activities and data collection tools. These includes the following: 

- 
- 

exploit existing programme and relevant contextual data 
technical workshop, a process of data gathering, and validation was set up following the submission of the inception report. This entailed 
a survey questionnaire to operational units in charge of the work strands, to assess and aggregate topic-specific monitoring data.  

The study team collected, collated, analysed, and used four major types of secondary data directly related to the programme: 

programme data, which predominantly came from  the programmes’  financial management systems  (eGrant). This  data  was instrumental for 
better understanding of the portfolios of supported projects under both programmes, and informed several evaluation tasks, such as sampling 
approaches for primary data collection, final approach to the in-depth evaluations, etc.  

Contextual data, which set the evaluation into a relevant policy context, and provided additional information on both policy environment and on 
economic sectors targeted by the programme. The context was important to better calibrate the evaluation findings. Contextual data included 
contextual indicators providing detailed information on the wider context and trends related to the higher policy objectives set in the 6 SOs of 

78 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the programme. In addition to existing contextual indicators, other contextual data stemming from the DESI monitoring, the Digital Decade, 
but  also  the  European  Monitoring  of  Industrial  Ecosystem  (EMI,  DG  GROW),  allowed  to  complement  existing  information  and  provide 
sufficient granular data on the status quo of the different technological areas covered by the different SOs. 

Core performance indicators and additional indicators measured whether the programme is delivering on the expected results as outline in the 
regulation, with a set of 14 KPIs and 10 additional indicators. These served as the basis to assess the progress of the programme set against the 
targets.  

Topic  level  indicators,  which  measure  detailed  progress  towards  the  Digital  Europe  programme  objectives  at  the  level  of  each  work  strand, 

captured the specificities of the activities currently ongoing.  

The external contractor, together with the Commission, undertook an in-depth analysis of complementarities, synergies and potential overlaps 
between the Digital Europe programme and other EU funded programmes & initiatives.  
In the absence of ex ante flagging of topics (indicating potential synergies identified in the calls) and ex post project flagging (indicating potential 
use of synergies during the project), the contractor relied on:  

1. 

2. 

3. 

The analysis of cross-participation between Digital Europe programme participants & other programmes. While cross-
participation of organisations does not ensure synergies, it provides a useful proxy of the potential knowledge flow between major 
funding programmes. It also allows to identify potential stakeholder groups responsible for bridging programmes, hence more able to 
deploy solutions developed elsewhere. In some cases, it also gives an indication on the adequacy of the targeting of funded actions 
which address specific stakeholder groups. Among the key limitations is that the cross-participation analysis relies on data at the 
organisation level (PIC number), which might encompass different departments or units.  

The existing mapping of synergies or potential synergies carried out under specific studies (e.g. Framework programme/Digital 
Europe) often pointed out potential synergies stemming from projects such as the Quantum Flagship/EuroQCI, and has been 
considered. Similarly, the study team has looked at infrastructures funded under Joint Undertaking (EuroHPC/Chips JU) and also at 
the overall instrument landscape level (e.g. EDIHs and TEFs as part of the Technology Infrastructure Study, or EDICs as part of the 
digital decade monitoring).  

Stakeholder consultations were conducted during interviews (including with implementing bodies) to identify good practices and 
processes set up during the first period of implementation of Digital Europe. This effort was complemented by a Public Consultation 

79 

 
 
and a targeted survey to understand the specific use of other programmes to complement Digital Europe (including 
cumulative/sequential funding, etc.). The study team placed a strong emphasis on further identifying examples of synergies and 
relevant processes put in place to ensure complementarities between actions.  

4. 

In addition, the Commission identified Digital Europe projects that involve beneficiaries previously or currently engaged in Horizon 
2020, Horizon Europe, CEF, or Erasmus+ projects. These Digital Europe project applications were then ranked with the help of 
CORTEX, based on factors such as the frequency of mentions of the four other EU funding programmes in their applications. After 
an initial screening of these project applications and identifying the 130 most relevant project pairs, the study team conducted a 
detailed analysis of these pairs and surveyed the beneficiaries to validate identified synergies. 

The contractor consulted a wide range of stakeholders. Four main groups were targeted by the consultation throughout the study: implementing 
bodies, beneficiaries, end users, and the wider stakeholder community active in the digital field (see Table 2).  

Table 2. Overview of stakeholder categories consulted during the evaluation 

Stakeholder category 

Interviews 

Surveys 

Public 
Consultation 

Focus Groups 

Monitoring data 

Implementing bodies 

Wider EU stakeholders 

Beneficiaries 

End-users 

Applicants 

NCC 

28 

14 

52 

8 

XX 

X 

X 

XX 

XX 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

XX 

The consultation activities conducted included:   

5. 

Public Stakeholder Consultation: An online survey, ran for 12 weeks on the European Commission’s website, gathered the views of 
a broad spectrum of stakeholders, including EU Social partners interested in the evaluation and development of Digital Europe.  

80 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6. 

Targeted consultation of specific stakeholders: Here the contractor employed three methods – targeted surveys, interviews, and 
focus group discussions.  

•  Targeted Surveys: Stakeholders were consulted via survey questionnaires sent to the beneficiaries of Digital Europe funding, 

including applicants, end users, and the National Coordination Centres.  

•  Interviews: The study team conducted over 100 interviews with various groups of programme stakeholders, including Digital 

Europe implementing bodies, EU-level stakeholders, and a subset of beneficiaries and end users.  

•  Focus Group Discussions: Six focus group discussions were prepared to consult stakeholders, aligned with the specific 

objectives (SOs) of the programme. This approach gathered opinions and collected information on the implementation process 
at both EU and national levels. 

The main elements of the stakeholder consultation strategy were aligned with the evaluation questions and covered the six mandatory criteria (state 
of play, effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence, and EU added value). 

To complement the work of the external contractors, this evaluation also considered stakeholder consultations carried out by DG CNECT. This 
included the stakeholder workshop on the implementation of the programme at the ‘From Research to Reality  – digital solutions for European 
challenges’ event202, as well as the workshop with representatives of the European Digital Innovation Hubs (EDIHs) at the EDIH Summit203. In 
addition, this report references a number of other sources, such as internal analysis and performance reviews, including Feedback to Policy reports, 
preparatory documents related to the draft impact assessment for the new MFF, a spending review, programme performance statements204, annual 
activity reports, and beneficiary reports, such as those from coordination and support actions (CSAs). This report also considers feedback from 
diverse  working  groups  and  comments  from  delegates  to  the  Digital  Europe  Programme  Committee  regarding  the  implementation  of  the 
programme. It also  refers  to  two opinions  on the programme conducted  by the Fit4Future platform205 and the European Economic and Social 
Committee206, as well as other related evaluations, like the Interim Evaluation of the InvestEU programme207, the evaluation of the EuroHPC JU208,  

202 From Research to Reality – digital solutions for European challenges | Shaping Europe’s digital future 
203 EDIH Network Summit 2024 | European Digital Innovation Hubs Network 
204 Digital Europe programme - Performance - European Commission 
205 Adopted opinions - European Commission 
206 opinions - Filtered results | EESC 
207 Interim evaluation of the InvestEU programme - European Commission 
208 Interim Evaluation of the Horizon Europe Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2021-2024) - forthcoming 

81 

 
 
 
and the ongoing evaluation of EDIH. Moreover, on behalf of the Commission, the JRC conduced a macroeconomic analysis of the impact of the 
programme on GDP and exports. 

Limitations  

While the interim evaluation of Digital Europe provides valuable insights into its implementation and progress, several methodological limitations 
must  be  acknowledged.  These  constraints  primarily  relate  primarily  to  the  early  stage  of  the  programme,  data  availability,  and  challenges  in 
measuring impact on end users. 
Too Early to Measure Economic and Digital Outcomes: As an interim evaluation, this assessment is conducted midway through the programme’s 
lifecycle, meaning  that many expected economic and digital transformation  impacts  are not  yet  fully observable. Investments  in HPC, AI, 
cybersecurity,  digital  skills,  and  interoperability  require  time  to  manifest  their  effects.  Thus,  long-term  productivity,  innovation,  and 
competitiveness gains will become clearer in subsequent years. There are significant limitations in terms of the ability to assess the full cost-
effectiveness of a relatively new programme, which has for now primarily focused on investments in infrastructure, with expected use and 
deployment and related benefits being expected in the years ahead. Furthermore, while costs are relatively easily monetised, some benefits are 
hard to quantify or monetise. 

No  Micro-Level  Data  on  End  Users:  The  evaluation  primarily  relies  on  aggregated  programme-level  data,  stakeholder  consultations,  and 
secondary sources, lacking granular micro-data on end users such as SMEs, researchers, public administrations, and citizens benefiting from 
Digital Europe-supported infrastructures and services. Without this detailed end-user data, it is difficult to assess the practical uptake, usability, 
and effectiveness of Digital Europe-funded initiatives at the individual and organisational level. 

No Control Group: Unlike controlled experiments, where an intervention group is compared to a non-participating control group, Digital Europe 
does not have a structured framework to isolate its impact from other external factors. Many of the areas of intervention—such as AI, cloud, 
and  digital  skills  development—are  also  supported  by  national  initiatives,  Horizon  Europe,  and  private  sector  investments.  This  makes  it 
challenging to attribute observed changes specifically to Digital Europe interventions rather than the broader digital policy ecosystem. 

Limited Aggregated Data on Procurements: Digital Europe relies on joint procurement mechanisms (e.g. for HPC, cybersecurity, and AI testing 
facilities). However, the availability of detailed data on procurement outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and supplier participation remains limited 

82 

 
 
 
at  this stage. This  constrains  the ability to  evaluate whether procurement  processes have been efficient, competitive, and aligned with  EU 
strategic priorities. 

Limited  Information  on  Contribution  Agreements  and  Financial  Instruments:  Several  funded  initiatives  operate  through  Contribution 
Agreements with EU bodies, Joint Undertakings, and national entities (e.g. Destination Earth) and through financial instruments. However, the 
lack  of  detailed  information  on  which  economic  actors  have  received  funding  makes  it  difficult  to  assess  outreach,  sectoral  impact,  and 
distribution among member states.   

83 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX 

#EVQ 

Evaluation questions 

Topics for 
investigation  

Focus of the analysis 

Indicators 

Tools  

EFFECTIVENESS 

Attainment of the objectives 

EFFECT.01.1  What has been the progress towards 

achieving the expected outcomes, 
results and impacts, of each specific 
objective?  
Have there been any unexpected and 
unintended outcomes or results? 

Attainment of 
objectives  
Main outcomes & 
(expected) results 

• Main outcomes & Expected 
results and impacts of each 
specific objectives 
• Progress towards the objectives, 
in terms of outputs, outcomes, 
results 
• Unexpected outcomes or results 
of the programme funding 
activities 

EFFECT.01.2 

In case intermediate targets have not 
been met or the expected progress has 
been delayed, what were the causes? 
Will it be possible to achieve the 
objectives on time? Were there any 
mitigating measures taken? 

Attainment of 
objectives Underlying 
factors for delays 
Progress outlook 

• Important differences and delays 
compared to target set 

• Mitigation measures and 
processes in place & lessons 
learnt  

84 

• Output indicators from Performance and 
Evaluation Framework for each of five 
specific objectives; 
• Result indicators from Performance and 
Evaluation Framework for each of five 
specific objectives; 
• Impact indicators from Performance and 
Evaluation Framework for each of five 
specific objectives  
• Additional supporting indicators and 
contextual indicators from Performance and 
Evaluation Framework 
• Share of stakeholders who agree that the 
objectives have been achieved / been being 
achieved; 
• Share of stakeholders who agree that 
expected outputs, outcome/results, and 
impacts have been observed for specific 
objectives; 
• Qualitative evidence on outputs, 
outcomes/results and impacts which can be 
observed which were not expected; 

• Output, result and impact indicators from 
Performance and Evaluation Framework for 
each of five specific objectives• Share of 
stakeholders (EU and implementing level) 
who agree on the causes for observed delays• 
Share of beneficiaries who agree on the 
causes for observed delays• Qualitative 
evidence of mitigating measures being 
implemented 

• Desk study: programme documentation 
and data  
• Secondary data analysis 
• In-depth interviews: Strategic level, EU 
implementation actors, beneficiary level 
• Survey: beneficiaries and NCPs and 
national coordination centres 
• Public Consultation 

• Desk research: programme 
documentation and monitoring data.• 
Secondary data analysis • Interviews: 
Strategic level, EU implementing actors, 
beneficiaries. 

 
 
EFFECT.01.3 

 To what extent does the programme 
attract the adequate target groups?  

Attainment of the 
objectives 
Adequate targeting of 
the programme 

• programme design responding 
to stakeholder needs 

• Secondary data analysis  
• Survey EU implementing level, 
beneficiaries 
• Interviews EU strategic level 
• Desk research: programme 
documentation and reporting 

• Secondary analysis of programme 
documentation on the distribution of use of 
Digital Europe amongst different target 
groups 
• Qualitative evidence of barriers to 
participating in Digital Europe for specific 
target groups (Member States, sectors, types 
of organisations) 
• Share of stakeholders (EU strategic and 
implementing level) who feel that target 
groups are sufficiently reached, 
• Share of stakeholders (EU strategic and 
implementing level) who feel that more 
action is needed to include specific groups in 
Digital Europe 

Intended effect and benefits 

EFFECT.02.1  Have any concrete benefits of Digital 

Europe for public and private 
organisation and citizens already 
materialised?  

Intended (and 
unintended) effects 
Benefits for public & 
private organisation 
& citizens 

EFFECT.02.2  Could concrete benefits for users of 

HPC facilities, Testing and 
Experimentation facilities, Data Spaces, 
cloud to edge marketplaces, activities to 
increase cybersecurity, advanced digital 
skills training initiatives, the European 

• Drivers for participation of 
beneficiaries and expected 
benefits 

•  Type of (expected) benefits 
identified for end-users (public & 
private organisations, citizens) 

Unexpected benefits 

• programme documentation describing 
activities and outputs along the specific areas 
which are used directly by: • citizens, • 
public organisations, • and private 
organisations • Stakeholder perspectives: 
beneficiary and user level) on concrete 
benefits generated by Digital Europe 
activities for:• citizens, • public 
organisations,• and private organisations• 
Stakeholder perspectives: representatives of 
public organisations, private organisations, 
and citizens 

• Desk research: programme 
documentation• Secondary data analysis• 
Public Consultation• Surveys: NCP & 
national coordination centres• In-depth 
interviews: EU implementation actors, 
beneficiary level• Case studies 

85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Digital Innovation Hubs, digital 
solutions, and services in the public and 
private sectors) already be identified? 

EFFECT.03 

To what extent has Digital Europe 
already contributed to accelerating the 
digital transformation, increasing the 
digital competitiveness of Europe, or 
reinforcing strategic autonomy? 

Intended effect 
Results and impacts 
on digital 
transformation, 
competitiveness & 
strategic autonomy 

• Intended results and impact of 
the programme on digitalisation, 
competitiveness, and strategic 
autonomy 

EFFECT.04.0
1 

How do Digital Europe actions 
contribute to horizontal priorities, in 
particular to climate action and 
environmental sustainability and 
gender? 

Intended effect 
Contribution to 
horizontal priorities 

• Contribution to climate actions 
and Sustainable Development 
Goals• Contribution Gender 
equality 

• Impact and contextual indicators from 
Performance and Evaluation Framework for 
each of five specific objectives 
• Share of stakeholder perspectives at EU 
level who see Digital Europe contribution 
along these dimensions 
• Share of stakeholder perspectives: 
beneficiaries, users, and wider society who 
see Digital Europe contribution along these 
dimensions 

• Desk research: programme 
documentation; broader internationally 
comparative policy literature and 
documentation. 
• Interviews: EU stakeholders, EU 
implementing actors 
• Survey: NCPs, national contact centres 
• Case studies 
• Focus groups 
• Public Consultation 

• Desk research: programme 
documentation, other policy 
documentation• Secondary data analysis• 
Interviews: EU strategic level• Case 
studies• Focus groups 

programme documentation and strategies for 
Digital Europe• EU programmes, strategies 
and documentation which contribute to 
gender priorities• EU programmes and 
strategies Data on indicators from 
Performance and Evaluation Framework for 
each of five specific objectives,• Data on 
Digital Europe actions relevant to horizontal 
priorities (via Digital Europe Performance 
data),• Stakeholder perspectives (strategic, 
EU implementing) on how Digital Europe 
contributes to EU 1) sustainability and 2) 
gender priorities 

EFFECT.04.0
2 

Are there any, and if yes which, spill-
over effect of actions funded under 
Digital Europe? (Please identify, 
describe and quantify (if possible)  

Intended effect 
Intended spillover 
effect of actions 
funded under Digital 
Europe 

• Contribution to ecosystem 
creation and support 
• Contribution to market creation 
• Leverage effect of Digital 
Europe 
• Positive and negative 
externalities of the programme 

• programme documentation and reporting 
• Policy, research, or academic 
documentation 
• Qualitative information demonstrating 
spill-over effects from Digital Europe 

• Desk research 
• Interviews: EU strategic level, EU 
implementing actors, beneficiaries 
• Focus groups 
• Case studies 

Enabling factors & barriers 

EFFECT.05.0
1 

Have there been any positive or negative 
external (outside of the implementation 
of the programme of the Commission 
and its implementing bodies) factors 
that have influenced the progress 

Enabling factors and 
barriers 

• Internal and external enabling 
factors and barriers to the 
attainment of the objectives 
• programme design and policy 

• programme documentation citing external 
factors as a reason for delayed 
implementation of Digital Europe supported 
activities  
• Share of stakeholder perspectives (EU, 

• Desk research: programme 
documentation, other policy 
documentation 
• Interviews EU strategic level, EU 
implementing actors 

86 

 
 
towards achieving the objectives of 
Digital Europe? How have these factors 
impacted the programme? 

mix allowing for the deployment 
of digital technologies 

implementing and beneficiary levels) who 
feel external factors have affected 
implementation and progress of Digital 
Europe 

• Surveys: NCPs, national contact centres. 
• Focus groups 
• Public Consultation 

EFFECT.05.0
2 

What is the awareness in the public and 
private sectors and among citizens of the 
programme, the solutions and services 
developed under Digital Europe? What 
is the level of awareness in the public of 
the synergies and complementarities 
among Digital Europe and other EU 
funded programmes with similar 
objectives? 

Enabling factors and 
barriers• 
Effectiveness of 
programme 
communication and 
dissemination 
measures  

EFFECT.05.0
3 

To what extent are the activities and 
implementation arrangement suited to 
protect the EU’s security interest and 
help reinforce the EU’s strategic 
autonomy? 

Enabling factors and 
barriers 
• Effectiveness of 
measures and 
arrangements to 
safeguard EU' 
security interest and 
reinforce strategic 
autonomy 

• Awareness of the programme, 
solutions and services developed 
among public, private 
organisations and citizens• 
Awareness of the beneficiaries of 
the synergies and 
complementarities of the 
programme with other EU 
funding programme 

• Adequacy of measures put in 
place to safeguard EU's interest 
(Art. 12) 
• International participation  
• programme design allowing to 
reinforce EU's strategic autonomy 

• Interviews EU implementing actors• 
Public Consultation• Surveys NCPs and 
national contact centres• Interviews: EU 
strategic level, EU implementing actors, 
beneficiaries• Focus groups 

• Desk research 
• Survey NCPs and national contact 
centres, beneficiaries 
• Interviews: EU strategic level, EU 
implementing actors, beneficiaries 
• Focus groups 
• Case studies 

• Share of stakeholders (beneficiaries and 
users) who are aware of Digital Europe• 
Share of stakeholders (beneficiaries and 
users) who are aware of the solutions 
generated via Digital Europe• Share of the 
wider society who are aware of Digital 
Europe • Share of wider economy 
participants who are aware of Digital Europe 

• Share of stakeholders (EU implementing 
and beneficiary levels) who consider current 
implementation modes as sufficient to 
protect EU security interests 
• Share of stakeholders (EU implementing 
and beneficiary levels) who consider current 
implementation modes as sufficient to 
protect EU strategic autonomy 
• Policy, research, or academic reporting on 
Europe’s digital strategic autonomy across 
the areas of: HPC, AI, CS, digital skills, 
deployment in economy and society, and 
chips. 
• Policy, research, or academic reporting on 
Europe’s security interest across the areas of: 
HPC, AI, CS, digital skills, deployment in 
economy and society, and chips. 

87 

 
 
EFFECT.05.0
4 

What are the drivers for participation in 
the programme? What are the barriers to 
participation? In case some target 
groups/ sectors are not reached, what 
factors are limiting their access and 
what actions could be taken to remedy 
this? 

Enabling factors and 
barriers• Drivers and 
barriers to 
participation 

• programme design responding 
to stakeholder needs & addressing 
failures• Enabling factors & 
barriers to participation, 
additional measures needed  

• Secondary data analysis • Survey EU 
implementing level, beneficiaries• 
Interviews EU strategic level• Focus 
groups (selections of EU or national 
implementing organisations?)• Desk 
research: programme documentation and 
reporting 

• Secondary analysis of programme 
documentation on the distribution of use of 
Digital Europe amongst different target 
groups• Qualitative evidence of barriers to 
participating in Digital Europe for specific 
target groups (Member States, sectors, types 
of organisations)• Share of stakeholders (EU 
strategic and implementing level) who feel 
that target groups are sufficiently reached,• 
Share of stakeholders (EU strategic and 
implementing level) who feel that more 
action is needed to include specific groups in 
Digital Europe 

EFFICIENCY 

Efficiency in implementation 

EFFIC.01 

In which way do the different 
management modes of the programme 
allow for an efficient implementation 
(i.e. direct and indirect management by 
different implementing bodies) and an 
efficient achievement of the 
programme’s objectives? How efficient 
is the implementation of the 
programme? 

Efficiency in 
implementation  

Efficiency in implementation 
across management modes 

88 

 
 
  
  
EFFIC.01.1 

How efficient is the design of calls for 
proposals and calls for tender or joint 
procurement?  

Clarity & 
completeness of the 
calls design 

• Adequacy of processes to design 
for calls of proposals and calls for 
tenders or joint procurement 

• Secondary data analysis• Desk research: 
programme documentation, work 
programmes, guidelines for applicants & 
calls specifications • Public Consultation• 
Interviews with EU strategic level, EU 
implementing actors, beneficiaries• 
Surveys: NCPs, national contact centres, 
beneficiaries 

• Satisfaction of applicants with the 
frequency, clarity & completeness of the 
information provided in the calls for 
proposals and tenders or joint procurement• 
Satisfaction of applicants with search 
function and publications of calls• 
Satisfaction of applicants with clarity of rules 
for eligibility, timeline & administrative & 
technical requirements of calls for proposals 
and tenders or joint procurements• 
Proportion of eligible/non eligible 
applications across the programme, the main 
work strands & calls• Average frequency of 
calls• Proportion of low-quality applications 
(clarity of calls) 

89 

 
 
EFFIC.01.2 

How efficient is the application process? 
(19) How efficient is the management of 
calls? (20) 

Application & 
selection processes 
programme design  

• Application processes and time 
to inform & grant  

• Funding distribution and success 
rates over objectives, strands of 
activities and action types 

• programme monitoring data• Review of 
programme documentation, work 
programmes, guidelines for applicants & 
calls specifications, review of complaints 
to EU ombudsman• Public Consultation• 
Interviews with EU strategic level, EU 
implementing actors, beneficiaries• 
Surveys: NCPs, national contact centres, 
beneficiaries• Secondary data analysis• 
Interviews with EU strategic level, EU 
implementing actors, beneficiaries• 
Surveys: NCPs, national contact centres, 
beneficiaries 

• Satisfaction of applicants and participants 
with application & selection processes, 
including tools and resources• Mapping of 
the application & selection processes• 
Average Time-to-Inform across strands of 
work/calls• Average Time-to-Grant/Contract 
across strands of work/calls (time- elapsed 
between call deadline & contract)• 
Satisfaction of applicants with feedback from 
evaluator, appeal procedures • Case of 
complaints for maladministration to 
ombudsman• Level of budget appropriation 
of the programme • Funding distribution over 
specific objectives, main strands of work, 
stakeholder types, geographical areas & 
Member States• Funding distribution over 
implementation modes (action types, funding 
modalities), stakeholder types, geographical 
areas & Member States• Funding distribution 
over the Commission policy priorities and 
cross- cutting issues (policy flags)• Average 
funding per project, actions/measures, 
stakeholder types• Success rate of high-
quality proposal vs funded proposal 

90 

 
 
EFFIC.01.3 

How efficient are the implementation 
modes (grants, procurement, 
contribution agreements) to reach the 
objectives? 

management of calls, 
projects, monitoring 
& reporting 

• Responsiveness to flexibility 
needs in implementation 
processes 

• Satisfaction with project 
management, monitoring & 
reporting processes and 
proportionality of requirements 

• Satisfaction with tools and 
support provided 

EFFIC.01.4 

How have the various communication 
activities contributed to increasing the 
visibility of the programme at EU level 
and supporting potential applicants? 
How have National Contact Points been 
supporting the participation in the 
programme? 

Information & 
communication flow 

• Contribution to communication 
activities to the programme 
visibility and uptake 
• Support of EU implementing 
actors to programme participation 

• Average time-to-pay across strand of work• 
Satisfaction of programme participants and 
beneficiaries with project management, 
monitoring & reporting processes, including 
support provided by Commission services, 
tools and resources• Frequency and severity 
of fraud detected and corrected• opinion of 
managing bodies on the effect of specific 
implementation modes• opinion of 
Commission and managing bodies on the 
level of transparency of specific delegated 
management modes such as contribution 
agreements or FSTP funding 

• Mapping of communication and 
information channels of the programme 
available at EU level 
• Mapping of communication activities and 
support actions organised by National 
Contact Points 
• Satisfaction of applicants and participants 
with the level of information provided about 
the programme 
• opinion of participants on the support and 
information received by National Contact 
Points 
• Identified factors to facilitate and improve 
information and communication flow. 

• Secondary data analysis• Desk research: 
review of programme documentation, 
work programmes, guidelines for 
applicants & calls specifications • Public 
Consultation• Interviews with EU strategic 
level, EU implementing actors, 
beneficiaries• Surveys: NCPs, national 
contact centres, beneficiaries• Focus 
groups 

• Secondary data analysis 
• Desk research: review of programme 
documentation, work programmes, 
guidelines for applicants & calls 
specifications  
• Public Consultation 
• Interviews with EU strategic level, EU 
implementing actors, beneficiaries 
• Surveys: NCPs, national contact centres, 
beneficiaries 
• Focus groups 

Cost-effectiveness & simplifications 

EFFIC.02 

To what extent has the programme been 
cost-effective for the different 
stakeholders involved and implementing 
bodies? How can the programme be 
further simplified? (new umbrella 
question) 

Cost-effectiveness  

Cost-effectiveness of the 
programmes for EC, 
implementing bodies, applicants 
and participants 

 See below 

 See below 

91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
EFFIC.02.1 

What is the extent of the administrative 
and financial burden on the Commission 
(including costs for eGrants and other IT 
tools, procurement-related costs, costs 
of external experts, costs related to 
contribution agreements, reporting 
requirements) and its implementing 
bodies (HaDEA, EuroHPC, ECCC and 
(future) ChipsJU)? Has any unnecessary 
administrative burden for the 
Commission been identified? 

Cost-effectiveness of 
Digital Europe for the 
EC and implementing 
bodies 

• Administrative and operational 
cost for EC and implementing 
bodies 
• Measures to reduce unnecessary 
burden  

• Desk research: mapping existing 
information on other programme costs 
• CBA 
• Interviews with EU strategic level, EU 
implementing actors,  
• Desk research: mapping existing 
information on other programme costs 

• Identified factors that facilitate and hinder 
programme implementation 
• Administrative vs. operational budget of 
the EC and implementing bodies and 
comparison with other EU programmes 
(Horizon Europe, KDT JU, SNS JU) 
• Share of administrative budget in the total 
programme budget 
• Share of administrative budget in total 
agency budget 
• Ratio of actual administration budget to 
actual operational budget of the programme 
• Operational and administrative budget per 
FTE 
• cost of external experts and evaluators 
• opinion of commission officials and 
implementing bodies on potential measures 
for the reduction of administrative burden   

EFFIC.02.2 

Were the administrative costs and level 
of financial investment for the 
Commission justified given the 
changes/effects which have been 
achieved? 

Proportionality of 
costs 

• Proportionality of administrative 
costs and financial investment 
versus programme benefits  • 
Direct leverage effect of the 
programme 

• Mapping of benefits/changes achieved (or 
expected too) vs costs• opinion of 
commission officials and implementing 
bodies on the adequacy of the level of 
financial investment compared to the 
changes/effects achieved• Direct leverage 
effect of project including in-kind 
contribution to operational objectives of   

• Desk research: mapping existing 
information on other programme costs• 
CBA• Interviews with EU strategic level, 
EU implementing actors, • Desk research: 
mapping existing information on other 
programme costs 

92 

 
 
  
EFFIC.02.3 

What is the extent of the administrative 
costs and financial burden on the 
different stakeholders involved in the 
implementation? What are the costs of 
applying to the programme and of 
participating in the programme 
(including reporting requirements)? Are 
these costs proportionate to the 
associated benefits? 

Cost-effectiveness of 
Digital Europe for 
applicants and 
beneficiaries 

• Cost for applicants and 
beneficiaries  
• Proportionality of  costs of 
application and implementation 
versus programme benefits 

EFFIC.02.4 

Have any inefficiencies in the overall 
implementation of the programme been 
identified? How could the programme’s 
management be further simplified? How 
could costs and burdens be reduced? 

Measures for cost and 
burden reduction 

• Potential measures to decrease 
management and application costs 
and burdens 

RELEVANCE 

Alignment of objectives with technological, political & socio-economic needs 

REL.01.1 

How well do the original objectives of 
the programme correspond to the past 
current and emerging needs (21) within 
the EU? Is the programme future-proof? 

Alignment of Digital 
Europe with current 
and emerging needs 

• Alignment with failures and 
needs  
• Flexibility in the design of the 
programme 

93 

• Mapping of administrative requirements 
(incl. security screening, financial reporting 
etc.) 
• Satisfaction of applicants and participants 
with the simplification measures (e.g. lump 
sum funding) 
• Application writing costs (resources 
spent/time) for applicants & participants  
• Direct costs for administration & project 
management of participants and beneficiaries 
(FTEs) 
• opinion of participants regarding the 
proportionality of costs of project 
management, monitoring & reporting 
compared to programme benefits  
• opinion of stakeholders on simplification 
measures related to application process, 
project management, monitoring & reporting 

• Mapping of benefits/changes achieved (or 
expected too) vs costs and burdens• opinion 
of commission officials and implementing 
bodies on the adequacy of the level of 
financial investment compared to the 
changes/effects achieved• Mapping of 
benefits/changes achieved (or expected too) 
vs costs and burdens 

• Secondary data analysis 
• Desk research: mapping existing 
information on other programme costs 
• CBA 
• Interviews with EU strategic level, EU 
implementing actors, beneficiaries 
• Surveys: NCPs, national contact centres, 
beneficiaries 

• Desk research: mapping existing 
information on other programme costs• 
CBA• Interviews with EU strategic level, 
EU implementing actors 

• Policy, research, or academic report and 
documentation which describe past, current 
and future needs in Europe across 9evolving 
needs):  HPC, AI, CS, digital skills, 
interoperability and uptake, and chips 
• Share of beneficiaries who feel that Digital 
Europe supports their current and future 
needs 
• Share of stakeholders (EU implementing 
level) who feel that the Digital Europe 

• Desk research 
• Secondary data analysis of monitoring 
data 
• Interviews: EU implementing actors, 
beneficiaries 
• Surveys: NCPs, National Contact 
Centres, beneficiaries 
• Focus groups 
• Public Consultation 

 
 
REL.01.2 

To what extent has Digital Europe 
adapted to recent technological 
developments that have occurred during 
the implementation of the programme? 

Alignment of Digital 
Europe with 
technology 
development  

• Trends in Technological 
development  
• Flexibility of Digital Europe 
versus technology developments 
occurring during the 
implementation of the programme 

REL.01.3 

To what extent has the programme 
responded to relevant political, 
economic, and societal developments? 

Trends in political, socio-
economic challenges 

Alignment of Digital 
Europe with political, 
socio-economic 
developments and 
challenges 

Alignment with stakeholder needs 

REL.02.1 

Which sectors or areas (based on NACE 
codes) are benefiting from Digital 
Europe? Should other sectors/areas also 
be addressed? 

Alignment with 
stakeholder needs 

• Alignment of Digital Europe 
with sector specific needs 
• Demand articulation & cross-
sectorality of the programme 

programme support current and future needs 
in the EU 

• Stakeholder agreement (EU strategic level, 
EU implementing level) on the most 
important technological developments have 
been affecting Digital Europe programme 
implementation 
• Policy, research, or academic reports and 
documentation on key technological 
developments  
• Share of beneficiaries who feel Digital 
Europe has adapted well to key technological 
challenges 

• Policy, research, or academic reports and 
documentation on key political, economic, 
and societal developments• programme 
documentation, data and reports describing 
how Digital Europe and supported projects 
reacted to relevant developments• Share of 
beneficiaries and users who feel Digital 
Europe adapted well to relevant challenges.• 
Share of stakeholders (EU strategic and EU 
implementing actors) who feel the Digital 
Europe programme adapted well to relevant 
challenges. 

• Quantitative data on which sectors make 
most use of Digital Europe 
• Share of stakeholders (EU strategic level, 
EU implementing level) who feel that other 
sectors can make more use of Digital Europe. 
• Share of stakeholders who feel other 
sectors should be more actively addressed to 
use Digital Europe. 

• Desk research 
• Secondary data analysis of monitoring 
data 
• Interviews: EU implementing actors, 
beneficiaries 
• Surveys: NCPs, National Contact 
Centres, beneficiaries 
• Focus groups 

• Desk research• Secondary data analysis 
of monitoring data• Interviews: EU 
implementing actors, beneficiaries• 
Surveys: NCPs, National Contact Centres, 
• Focus groups  

• Secondary data analysis programme data 
• Interviews EU strategic level, EU 
implementing actors 
• Focus groups 

REL.02.2 

What are the main stakeholder groups 
benefiting from Digital Europe? Should 
other stakeholder groups also be 
addressed? 

• Stakeholder profile of 
beneficiaries and applicants 
• Appropriate stakeholder groups 
involved in Digital Europe 

• Quantitative data on which stakeholder 
groups make most use of Digital Europe 
• Share of stakeholders (EU strategic level, 
EU implementing level) who feel that other 

• Secondary data analysis programme data 
• Interviews EU strategic level, EU 
implementing actors, beneficiaries 
• Focus groups 

94 

 
 
REL.02.3 

How does Digital Europe address the 
needs of its main stakeholders? 

REL.02.4 

What is the level of participation in the 
programme (What is the level of 
participation of Member States and 
public authorities in the programme? 
What is the budget consumption and 
level of subscription to calls?) 

• Adequacy of the targeting of the 
programme in view of objectives• 
Adequacy of Digital Europe 
programme activities & tools in 
view of stakeholder groups needs 

stakeholders can make more use of Digital 
Europe. 
• Share of stakeholders who feel other 
stakeholder groups should be more actively 
addressed to use Digital Europe. 

• Participation patterns and 
budget absorption across EU27 

• Quantitative and qualitative data on the 
participation of Member States and their 
budget share when using Digital Europe 

• Secondary data analysis of programme 
data 

REL.03.1 

What could be improved to ensure wide 
participation of relevant stakeholders? 

Measures to ensure 
broad stakeholder 
participation  

hindering factors and barriers to 
participation  

COHERENCE 

Internal coherence 

COH.01 

To what extent are Digital Europe topics 
complementary or overlapping and what 
synergies have been created within the 
programme? Is there any potential for 
further complementarity within the 
programme? 

Internal coherence in 
& between Digital 
Europe parts 

• Complementarities & synergies 
in & between programme parts• 
Measures and mechanisms to 
foster complementarities & avoid 
duplications  

95 

• programme documentation, data, and 
reports providing insight on the use and the 
reasons for not using Digital Europe 
• Share of stakeholder perspectives (EU 
strategic level, EU implementing level) who 
agree on main reasons for main stakeholders 
not using Digital Europe 
• Share of beneficiaries who agree on the 
main obstacles preventing stakeholders from 
using Digital Europe 
• Stakeholder perspectives on how identified 
obstacles could be remedied to improve 
participation 

• Desk research programme 
documentation and reports. 
• Surveys: NCPs, national contact centres, 
beneficiaries 
• Interviews: EU implementing actors, 
beneficiaries  
• Survey national implementing level  
• Focus groups 

• Secondary data analysis• Desk research: 
programme strategy, calls and monitoring 
reports• Public Consultation• Interviews 
EU strategic level, EU implementing 
actors 

• Mapping of objectives and assessment of 
the policy mix in relation with the 
programme intervention logic• Identified 
good practices to foster synergies• Identified 
gaps, overlaps and duplication & processes 
to address them• Mapping of the processes 
for strategic programming allowing for the 
identification of complementarities across 
topics• opinion of participants & 
stakeholders on synergies created within the 
programme  

 
 
  
  
COH.02 

To what extent are the actions 
implemented under direct and indirect 
management complementary and have 
created synergies? 

Internal coherence in 
& between Digital 
Europe parts under 
direct & indirect 
management modes 

"• Complementarities & synergies 
in & between programme parts 
under different management 
modes 
• Measures and mechanisms to 
foster complementarities & avoid 
duplications " 

• Secondary data analysis 
• Desk research: programme strategy, calls 
and monitoring reports 
• Public Consultation 
• Interviews EU strategic level, EU 
implementing actors 

• Mapping of synergies between different 
work strands under specific management 
modes 
• Identified processes to ensure the 
identification of complementarities and the 
creation of synergies across different 
management modes 
• Identified gaps, overlaps or duplication 
across activities funded under different 
management modes 
• Assessment of the division of labour 
between different management modes 
• Mapping of the portfolio of Multi-Country 
Projects 
• Identified processes to foster a coherent 
portfolio of multi-country projects 

External coherence 

COH.03 

To what extent is Digital Europe 
coherent with wider EU policies and 
priorities? 

External coherence 
with wider EU 
policies & priorities 

External coherence - alignment 
with EU policy priorities 

• Mapping of objectives assessment of the 
intervention logic against main EU priorities 

• Identified synergies & overlaps between 
policy framework (Research & Innovation, 
Single Market, Cohesion policy, Digital 
decade) 

• Views of participants and programme 
beneficiaries on the alignment of the 
programme with EU policy priorities 

• Secondary data analysis• Desk research: 
programme strategy, calls and monitoring 
reports• Public Consultation• Interviews 
EU strategic level, EU implementing 
actors• Case studies 

96 

 
 
COH.04 

To what extent is Digital Europe 
coherent with actions funded under EU 
programmes listed in Annex III of the 
Digital Europe Regulation, the 
Recovery and the Resilience Facility, 
the Digital Decade Policy programme 
objectives, and targets (22) and other 
EU programmes with similar 
objectives? Have synergies 
materialised? In which areas should 
synergies be fostered? 

External coherence 
with actions funded 
under other EU 
programmes 

Alignment with other EU 
programmes and funded actions 

• Secondary data analysis 

• Desk research: programme strategy, calls 
and monitoring reports 

• Public Consultation 

• Interviews EU strategic level, EU 
implementing actors 

• Surveys NCPs, national contact centres 

• Case studies 

• Mapping of EU funding programmes and 
initiatives with similar objectives and their 
foreseen links with Digital Europe and their 
sequencing, downstream and upstream 
potential synergies• Share of project 
identified throughout the programme 
monitoring as synergetic with other EU 
programmes 

• Identified processes to ensure the 
identification of complementarities and the 
creation of synergies across different 
programmes• Identified rules and 
instruments facilitating the creation of 
synergies (funding rules & co-funding rates, 
rules of participation, identification of 
promising results, joint programming 
activities) 

• Assessment of the division of labour 
between different EU programmes 

• Mapping of the portfolio of Multi-Country 
Projects 

• Identified synergies with other EU 
programmes through MCPs 

• opinion of stakeholders on synergies 
between specific work strands and other EU 
programmes (Horizon, Space programme, 
CEF etc.) 

• opinion of participants & stakeholders on 
synergies created with other EU programmes 

97 

 
 
COH.05.1 

To what extent is Digital Europe 
coherent with other national or regional 
initiatives with similar objectives? To 
what extent have synergies been 
achieved? 

External coherence 
with national & 
regional initiatives 

Alignment with national or 
regional initiatives with similar 
objectivesPotential synergies 
achieved with MS & regional 
initiatives 

COH.05.2 

What could be done to improve the 
coherence with other related national or 
regional initiatives to better contribute 
to EU digital policy objectives? 

Measures to improve 
coherence with 
related national & 
regional initiatives 

Measures to improve coherence 
with other related national or 
regional initiatives contributing to 
EU digital policy objectives 

EU ADDED VALUE 

EAV.01 

Which benefits were achieved so far that 
go beyond what Member States could 
achieve on their own? Which concrete 
benefits does Digital Europe offer that 
go beyond the benefits of other existing 
national or regional initiatives with 
similar objectives? (23) 

EU added value 
compared to national 
and regional support 

• Public & private contribution for 
EU priorities mobilised (expected 
leverage effect) 

• Additionality of the FP 
compared to national and regional 
support (input, output, and 
behavioural additionality) 

• Identification of main regional and national 
funding programmes and initiatives with 
similar objectives and their foreseen links 
downstream and upstream potential links 

• Identified processes to ensure the 
identification of complementarities and the 
creation of synergies at different level 

• Identified rules and instruments facilitating 
the creation of synergies (cumulative 
funding, synergy grants etc. ) 

• Assessment of the division of labour and 
sequencing with regional and national 
programmes 

• Identified synergies with other national and 
regional programmes through MCPs• 
opinion of stakeholders on synergies 
between specific work strands and regional 
and national programmes and policy 

• opinion of participants & stakeholders on 
synergies at regional and national level 

• Policy documentation and reports 
describing national or regional initiatives 
regarding digital technologies • Stakeholders 
(EU implementation level) indicate that 
comparable national or regional instruments 
exist and provide evidence on the concrete 
benefits these initiatives yield.• Perspectives 
of beneficiaries and users indicating that the 
Digital Europe programme has helped to 
achieve more concrete benefits than 
comparable national or regional initiatives 

• Secondary data analysis 

• Desk research: programme strategy, calls 
and monitoring reports 

• Public Consultation 

• Interviews EU strategic level, EU 
implementing actors 

• Surveys NCPs, national contact centres 

• Case studies 

• Desk research: national level policy 
documentation on comparable initiatives• 
Secondary data analysis• Surveys NCPs, 
national contact centres, beneficiaries• 
Interviews EU implementing actors, 
beneficiaries• Case studies 

EAV.02 

To what extent does Digital Europe 
promote cooperation among Member 
States to achieve its objectives? 

Added value to 
promote the digital 
transition 

• Policy directionality  
• Creation and support to digital 
ecosystems 
• mechanisms and actions 

• Policy documentation on the Digital Europe 
programme and the cooperation mechanisms 
it facilitates 
• Secondary analysis of programme data on 
size and nationalities in project consortia 

• Desk research: national level policy 
documentation on comparable initiatives 
• Secondary data analysis 
• Surveys NCPs, national contact centres, 
beneficiaries 

98 

 
 
promoting cooperation among 
MS 

• Interviews EU implementing actors, 
beneficiaries 
• Case studies 

• Share of stakeholders (EU strategic and EU 
implementing level) who confirm that the 
Digital Europe programme cooperation 
mechanisms contribute to achieving 
programme objectives 
• Share of beneficiaries who indicate that the 
Digital Europe programme has promoted 
more cooperation between Member States 
than if they had not used it. 

99 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS 

Overview of Costs and Benefits 
Methodology 
In order to arrive at a systematic overview of costs and benefits, the Better Regulation Toolbox #18 was followed to identify the main costs and 
benefits from the programme’s logic – considering different objectives and expected impacts - and from a stakeholder perspective. These identified 
benefits and costs were structured in line with BR Tool #56, taking into account the Digital Europe-specific programme logic, with benefits falling 
into three levels: beneficiaries, end-users, and wider benefits, and costs in two levels: the European Commission (EC) and applicants/beneficiaries.  
For each type of benefit and costs, relevant monetised, quantitative and qualitative evidence was gathered. Due to the nature of the programme, 
the  relatively  recent  start  of  the  activities  (in  engagement  with  end-users  still  being  to  some  degree  limited)  and  the  interim  character  of  the 
evaluation,  monetised  indicators  were  only  available  for  a  select  number  of  benefit  categories.  In  contrast,  as  expected,  costs  were  relatively 
straightforward to monetise. A direct like-for-like comparison between costs and benefits is challenging, particularly because Digital Europe has 
largely consisted of infrastructure investments, whose benefits will emerge later, when end-users start to engage in larger numbers. As such, it is 
important to bear into account also the qualitative evidence, which has been incorporated along the quantitative evidence into a final judgement 
by the evaluator. The table below provides the main overview, with subsequent sections providing more detail regarding specific calculations. 
Cost Table 
Costs (see Table 1 below) were calculated by a number of different sources. 

•  Funding Costs: Calculated as actual until December 2024 (grants until 2 December 2024), based on EC’s monitoring of budget 

commitments.  

•  Staff Costs: All implementation units estimated the total number of person-years over four years, dedicated to the preparation and 
implementation of Digital Europe, segmented by staff category. These staff costs were multiplied by the average staff cost per staff 
category to derive a total.    

•  Expenses: Provided directly in EUR. 

•  Funding Costs Participants: Based on project data. 

100 

 
 
•  Applicants: Staff cost & Expenses for preparing the application: Based on the beneficiary survey combined with grant data. In the 

beneficiary survey, all participants were asked how many person months the preparation of their proposal took, as well as any additional 
expenses (e.g. travel, consultancy cost). Staff time was converted to total cost in EUR by multiplying with an assumed average staff rate 
of 125% of the EU average wage (EUR 31.8 per hour * 1.25 = EUR 39.75 per day, with 22 days making EUR 6,998 per month). Ranges 
were obtained from the lowest to the highest responses received for each question. Separate estimates were calculated for coordinators 
and partners. The total cost was achieved by multiplying the cost by the total number of applicants to date, for both partners and 
coordinators209. Additional details are provided later in this annex under ‘administrative cost analysis’.  

209 Note that the analysis does not include application costs for procurement, financial instruments, or contribution agreements. For procurements, these application costs are generally integrated 
into the total price/cost of an offer through market forces. For financial instruments and contribution agreements, ‘application costs’ are accounted for as staff preparation time within the costs 
incurred by the European Commission or implementing bodies. 

101 

 
 
 
Table 1. Overview of Costs 

102 

CategoryType Total CostShareTotal spent on Grants (EC)1.752.927.507€                                          55,30%Contribution Agreement382.716.200€                                              12,07%Financial Instrument91.693.750€                                                 2,89%Procurement720.796.561€                                              22,74%Programme Support Actions67.922.943€                                                 2,14%Total3.016.056.962€                                         95,14%Experts741.800€                                                          0,02%Studies2.017.783€                                                     0,06%IT Tools28.477.522€                                                  0,90%Communications9.487.508€                                                     0,30%Meeting/Committee Representations1.009.849€                                                     0,03%Total41.734.462€                                                 1,32%Policy strategy formulation Policy/programme strategy preparation costs 17.003.230€                                                  0,54%Programme implementation preparation costs: Designing application procedures for funding calls (including assessment criteria and processes); establishing DEP website etc.1.337.328€                                                     0,04%Total18.340.558€                                                 0,58%Implementation of direct funding calls (Grants & Procurements): design of calls, communication of calls, application assessment, contracting, management of implementing bodies54.757.625€                                                  1,73%Implementation management: Performance management, Compliance, Audit and Control, Monitoring and Reporting, agency supervision33.473.070€                                                  1,06% Programme management overheads: programme-level monitoring & management, IT-costs, IT developers,  general communication costs etc 1.626.000€                                                     0,05%Costs associated with Articles 12.5 and 12.6 (LE of associated countries under SO1, 2, 3 & 6) and other restrictions2.667.333€                                                     0,08%Costs associated with association agreements1.375.633€                                                     0,04%Total93.899.661€                                                  2,96%Total EC Cost3.170.031.642€                                          100,00%Total Overhead %4,857%Co-Funding Costs: BeneficiariesTotal co-funding costs for grants1.413.458.579€                                          Staff Costs for preparing an application/proposal414.593.813€                                               21%Expenditure for preparing an application/proposal105.082.878€                                               5%Total Beneficiaries / ApplicantsTotal Beneficiary Costs1.933.135.270€                                         39%Grand TotalGrand Total Costs4.949.192.232€                                          100%Total ECAdministrative Cost of Application & Participation:Accessing and using the DEPFunding CostsAdministrative Costs - ExpensesAdministrative Costs- Staff Costs - PreparationAdministrative Costs - Staff Costs - Implementation 
 
Benefits 
The benefits are presented in table 2 below. Information regarding the calculation method is 
provided in the calculation notes table. 

Table 2. Overview of benefits 

Stakeholder 
Benefit type 

and 

Benefit 

programme beneficiaries 

Type of Benefit 

Qualitative 
overall 
judgement 

Key  Quantitative 
KPIs 

Calculation Notes 

Beneficiaries: 
Leverage 
Funding 

of 

Co-funding 
unlocked 
other funders 

from 

Economic 

(++) 

to 

(++) EUR 1.41 billion 
direct  leverage;  EUR 
2.3-7.0  billion  total 
leverage from Digital 
Europe  funding  on 
grants 
(including 
direct leverage) 
Access 
industry 
(36.7% 
beneficiaries), 
academic 
(28.2%) 
Products/services 
already 
developed 
(38.6%),  or  expected 
(38.0%) 

new 
partners 
of 
new 
partners 

See Leverage Analysis 

Beneficiary survey data 

Beneficiary survey data 

Stronger networks 

Economic 

(+-++) 

New 
products/services 

Economic 

(+-++) 

Beneficiaries: 

Stakeholder 
Benefit type 

and 

End-users 

Activities 

Type of Benefit 

Qualitative 
overall 
judgment 

Key  Quantitative 
KPIs 

Calculation Notes 

Firms: 
total 
perceived  value  of 
services 

Willingness to pay 

Economic 

(+-++) 

EUR  115m  –  EUR 
222m 

Higher productivity  Economic 

(++) 

10.5k- 

11.1k 
indicating 
high 
or 

est. 
firms 
medium 
impact 

Firms: 
Productivity 

Increased 

Lower costs 

Economic 

(++) 

est.  7.8k-9.6k  firms 
indicating medium or 
high impact 

value 

8.0k-15.3k 
per 
organisation (EDIH mini-
survey);  14289  EDIH 
firms  supported  so  far; 
Digital  Skills: 6.5k-14.4k 
per  SME;  219  SMEs 
supported  so  far;  2.7k-
3.7k per Large Company; 
157 
companies 
supported 

large 

47.9%  (EDIH  end-user), 
(beneficiary 
55.6% 
assessment);  19910  firms 
supported so far 
(EDIH  mini-
39.1% 
survey); 
48.1% 
(beneficiary  assessment); 
19910 firms supported so 
far 

of 
Number 
employees 
trained 
in  the  organisation 
(by gender) 

Increased quality of 
work 

Economic 

(+) 

20  713 
trained 

individuals 

From Performance 
Indicators 

Societal/Economic 

(++) 

est.  9.8k-11.4k  firms 
indicating medium or 
high impact 

49.7%  (EDIH  end-user); 
57.0% 
(beneficiary) 
19910 firms supported so 
far 

103 

 
 
 
 
 
Increased 
for 
products/services 

exports 
affected 

Economic 

(+) 

Faster  scale-up  of 
start-ups 

Economic 

(+) 

Wider 
Offering 

Service 

Economic 

(++) 

Avoided  costs  of 
cybersecurity 
damages 

Economic 

(+) 

Willingness to pay 

Economic 

(+) 

Better 
services 

public 

Economic/Societal 

(+) 

Lower 
service 

cost 

of 

Economic/Societal 

(+) 

Firms: 
Market Position 

Better 

Governments/public 
organisations: 
perceived  value  of 
Digital Europe 

Governments/public 
organisations: 
better  and 
public 
delivery 

safer 
service 

est.  4.1k-4.5k  firms 
indicating medium or 
high impact 

est  5.3k  -  6.6k  firms 
indicating medium or 
high impact 

est. 
firms 
7.8k 
indicating medium or 
high firms 

est  3.0k-6.9k  firms 
indicating  medium-
high impact 

EUR  6.4m    -  EUR 
13.3m  

20.71%  (EDIH  end-user 
mini-survey), 
22.7% 
(beneficiary  assessment); 
19910 firms supported so 
far 

26.6%  (EDIH  end-user 
mini-survey); 
32.9% 
(beneficiary assessment) 

39.1% 
firms 
of 
responding to EDIH end-
user  mini-survey;    19910 
firms supported so far.  

15.0% 
firms 
of 
responding to EDIH end-
user  mini-survey;  34.4% 
of beneficiaries 

3.96k  -  8.21k  value  per 
organisation  (EDIH-mini 
survey) 
public 
1621 
organisations supported 

of 

37.7% 
beneficiaries 
indicated  a  medium 
or high impact 
28.6% 
beneficiaries 
indicated  a  medium 
or high impact 

of 

Stakeholder 
Benefit type 

and 

Activities 

Type of Benefit 

Qualitative 
overall 
judgment 

Key  Quantitative 
KPIs 

Calculation Notes 

Wider society and economy 

Wider 
benefits 

economic 

Increased 
innovation 
and 
productivity growth 
rates 

Increased 
productivity 
wages 

labour 
and 

reliance 
Reduced 
on 
international 
suppliers  /  higher 
strategic autonomy 

Increased resilience 
of 
strategic  EU 
sectors 

Economic 

(++) 

Economic/Societal 

(+) 

Economic 

(0/+) 

Economic 

(+) 

Wider 
environmental 
benefits 

Faster 
Transition 

Green 

Environmental 

(+) 

56.8%  (EDIH  end-
mini-survey) 
user 
52.4% 
(beneficiary 
assessment);  12-22bn 
EUR cumulated GDP 
impact 
2030 
by 
(Rhomolo) 
20.71%  (EDIH  end-
user  mini-survey); 
26.9% 
(Beneficiary 
assessment) 
16%  (EDIH  end-user 
mini-survey),  41.7% 
(Beneficiary 
Assessment);  0.010-
in 
0.025% 
exports 
2030 
(Rhomolo) 
35.5%  (EDIH  end-
user  mini-survey); 
43.4% 
(Beneficiary 
Assessment) 
30.8%  (EDIH  end-
user  mini-survey); 
36.5% 
(Beneficiary 
Assessment) 

increase 
by 

104 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
Leverage analysis 
The co-funding and leverage ratios for Digital Europe projects are based on grant data and the 
beneficiary survey. The grant data provides information on direct co-funding ratios within the 
total  project  cost  envelope.  The  beneficiary  survey  data  (see  Table  3)  offers  insights  into 
leveraged  funding  beyond  the  originally  identified  project  costs  (indirect  leverage).  This 
funding includes both internal as well as external investment to increase the scope, scale or 
duration of the project activities, and are a measure of perceived effectiveness and investment 
sustainability. This indirect leverage, based on the survey data is calculated per SO, is then 
extrapolated to the total portfolio using the grant data per SO (see Table 4).  
Please note that leveraged funding (including direct leverage co-funding or indirect leverage) 
does not directly translate to insight on the ultimate source of the funding. For instance, SMEs 
or  public  authorities  providing  direct  co-funding  to  Digital  Europe  may  have  been  able  to 
source some of that funding through national co-funding schemes. 
Note  that  we  excluded  the  limited  responses  received  for  SO6  (which  has  only  recently 
launched) from this calculation. When respondents indicated uncertainty or found it too early 
to provide data, we assumed 0 leverage/co-funding for that specific category, as we are aiming 
to  measure  the  currently  known  co-funding,  and  it  is  highly  unlikely  that  task  leaders  are 
unaware of substantial co-funding for their organisation for a specific project.  
To  address  potential  double  counting  of  external  leverage  and  an  organisation’s  own  co-
funding to the project, we report two leverage calculations: one including full double counting 
and one without it, presenting the final result as the ranges between them. We also reviewed 
the  sensitivity  to  outliers.  A  distribution  analysis  reveals  that  there  are  no  clear  statistical 
outliers  for  each  of  the  categories.  We  do  note  that  the  top  three  values  for  MS/Regional 
funding account for a large share (~16%) of the total, but from the desk research it is understood 
that some projects indeed have substantial local co-funding. We therefore elect to not remove 
outliers from the analysis.  
Table 3. Aggregated responses from the beneficiary survey, per SO, on co-funding 

Table 4. Calculations to extrapolate total co-funding/leverage 

105 

Row LabelsCount of National/Regional/Local Public Funding:Average of Int. Add. Leverage (min)Average of Int. Add. Leverage (max)Average of MS/Regional/Local (max)Average of MS/Regional/Local (min)Average of Int Pub Leverage (min)Average of Int Pub Leverage (max)Average of Private Leverage (min)Average of Private Leverage (max)Average of EU Leverage (min)Average of EU Leverage (max)SO1459,9116,78450.000,00€       175.000,13€  11.111,13€   € 24.444,444.444,49€       26.666,67€        68.888,89€     144.444,44€      SO218914,0623,25703.816,79€       296.183,30€  2.645,51€     € 14.285,7122.222,30€     66.137,57€        94.179,93€     249.735,45€      SO322213,0821,33605.161,29€       257.419,41€  450,46€        € 3.153,151.801,83€       12.162,16€        50.450,46€     120.270,27€      SO421311,0618,73559.440,56€       211.188,92€  23.474,20€   € 60.563,3835.680,80€     89.671,36€        57.746,50€     129.107,98€      SO536212,3620,40503.891,05€       201.556,56€  11.049,74€   € 29.005,5212.154,76€     46.685,08€        72.375,73€     183.701,66€      Grand Total103112,4520,62570.891,36€       231.615,70€  9.796,33€     € 27.061,1116.294,92€     50.824,44€        68.477,23€     169.156,16€      SOEU Contribution (Av)Direct :Av Participant Co-fundingIndirect:Additional (follow-up) leverageIndirect:MS/Local/ Regional LeverageIndirect: Other EU Funding LeverageIndirect: Int. Pub. LeveragePrivate LeverageTotal LeverageSO 1504.155€                    285.412€                   67.277€                312.500€            106.667€               17.778€      15.556€    805.189€     SO 2362.976€                    294.577€                   67.727€                500.000€            171.958€               8.466€        44.180€    1.086.907€  SO 3492.295€                    367.967€                   84.688€                431.290€            85.360€                 1.802€        6.982€      978.089€     SO 4267.306€                    197.056€                   39.820€                385.315€            93.427€                 42.019€      62.676€    820.312€     SO 5153.637€                    140.800€                   25.168€                352.724€            128.039€               20.028€      29.420€    696.177€     Average274.710€                    221.511€                   45.427€                401.254€            118.817€               18.429€      33.560€    838.996€      
 
 
 
 
 
 
of 

of 

cost 

daily 

125% 

average 

Administrative costs analysis 
In order to estimate the administrative costs both during the application phase and the project 
implementation  (the  latter  not  added  to  the  CBA  as  it  overlaps  with  funding  costs  but  is 
included for efficiency analysis), we rely on data from the beneficiary survey. This data is then 
projected across the entire portfolio using grant data. We start with the reported average person-
months spent on proposals and project administration as presented in the beneficiary survey, 
which  had  a  high  coverage  of  all  beneficiaries.  These  efforts  are  monetized  based  on  an 
assumed 
wage 
(https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Wages_and_labour_costs) 
translating  to  EUR  6  998  per  month.  This  estimate  was  chosen  as  it  is  assumed  that  staff 
working on Digital Europe proposals are typically more skilled and paid higher wages than the 
EU average. We then multiply  these costs by the total  number of  applicants,  separately  for 
coordinators and other partners, after which we present a total aggregate.  
From  a  point  of  sensitivity,  we  observe  linear  sensitivity  to  the  labour  rate  assumption. 
Moreover, we note sensitivity to outliers in the data. When removing the three highest values 
for  each  type  of  indicator,  we  note  a  particular  sensitivity  in  application  expenses  (cash), 
whereas the other values stay within a 5% range of the original estimate. We recognise that 
some proposals might have incurred very large application expenses due to the size of some of 
the grants, though there is a risk of overreporting. We therefore present the original values for 
all estimates, except for application expenses. For these, we present the middle value between 
the  value  without  and  including  outliers.  The  adjusted  value  for  application  expenses  is 
therefore EUR 12.9k for Coordinators and 31.3k for other Participants. 

minimum 

the 

Table 5. Background Data

Table 6. Analysis of Cost for Applicants (Partners) 

Table 7. Analysis of Cost per Applicants (Coordinators) 

106 

SOLeverage Factor 1Total leverage (excluding double-countingTotal leverage (excluding double-countingNumber of ParticipationsTotal Total (excluding double counting)SO 1160%519.777€    103%160128.830.251€     83.164.286€         SO 2299%792.330€    218%1.2741.384.719.116€  1.009.428.318€    SO 3199%610.122€    124%977955.593.306€     596.089.673€       SO 4307%623.257€    233%791648.867.142€     492.995.971€       SO 5453%555.378€    361%3.1592.199.224.604€  1.754.438.070€    Average305%617.486€    225%63615.336.855.371€  3.927.827.002€    Cost per month6996Total AdminPartners5839Total number of applicants9758Total Admin Coordinators549Total number of coordinators1137Total6388Average of ApplicationCostPMLowAverage of ApplicationCostPMHighAverage of AdminCostMinAverage of AdminCostMaxAverage of ApplExpensesPerson Months1,862,502,713,529732,77Monetised13.036,72€                                                                   17.506,90€                                                           18.957,41€                                    24.619,10€                                     9.732,77€                                     Estimated total127.212.362€                                                             170.832.316€                                                     113.687.606€                              147.640.735€                               94.972.376€                                
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
Table 8. Totals Summed across coordinators and applicants (without outliers) 

Willingness to Pay Analysis 
In order to calculate the value delivered for end-users, a willingness to pay analysis was carried 
out based on the end-user survey data, in particular for EDIH and Digital Skills. For HPC, the 
number of users so far supported under Digital Europe is too low (and as such the value cannot 
be attributed to Digital Europe but rather to predecessor programmes), for TEFs the number of 
responses was too low to generate reliable estimates. The number of users comes from the end-
user  data  provided  by  the  EC. The  results  are  presented  in  the  table  below.  Note  that  these 
represent the total value perceived, subtracted by any payments made to receive the service (as 
asked  for  in  the  survey  to  the  end-users),  thus  representing  the  surplus/additional  value 
generated by Digital Europe.  

Table 9 below shows the extrapolation of the total willingness to pay based on the end-user 
surveys for EDIHs and the digital skills training. In line with the sensitivity analysis principles 
(see below), the range of benefit per user is based on the average of survey responses, where 
the low estimate corresponds to the situation where all responses are on the lower end of the 
answer ranges presented in the questionnaire, whereas the higher range responds to the higher 
range. The average is the midpoint between these two. The figures are multiplied with the total 
number of users (per 1 Jan. 2025) in order to arrive at the total estimates (for the three different 
estimates) in order to arrive at portfolio-level figures.  

107 

Average of ApplicationCostPMLowAverage of ApplicationCostPMHighAverage of AdminCostMinAverage of AdminCostMaxAverage of ApplExpensesPerson Months3,123,859,4910,4249837,05Monetised21.825,68€                                                                   26.925,39€                                                           66.407,83€                                    72.905,50€                                     49837,04938Estimated total237.790.772€                                                             293.352.176€                                                     35.063.332€                                 38.494.102€                                  542.974.653€                            Total ApplicLow365.003.134€                                                     Total Applic High464.184.492€                                                     Average Application cost total414.593.813€                                                     Total Apll Expenses637.947.029€                                                     Total Appl Expenses (adjusted for outliers)105.082.878€                                                     Total Admin Low147.150.231€                                                     Total AdminHigh183.776.034€                                                      
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 9. Willingness to pay analysis 

Robustness and Sensitivity Approach 
In  order  to  ensure  the  robustness  of  the  estimates  produced  in  the  cost-benefit  analysis,  we 
implemented the following approaches: 

1.  Reported Data Ranges: When data is collected in ranges (in particular in the 

surveys), we report the aggregate upper and lower bounds, as well of the middle of 
the range.  

2.  Scenario Testing for Key Assumptions: For key assumptions, such as the level of 

spillover in the Rhomolo-analysis, the study team/JRC worked with multiple 
scenarios to test the sensitivity of outcomes to various parameters. These ranges are 
transparently reported in the report.   

3.  Addressing Survey Overreporting Risks: For areas where there was a risk of 

misinterpretation or overreporting by the survey respondents (in particular in the 
leverage analysis), we reported both the aggregated direct results and a conversative 
estimate that accounts for maximal overreporting. This provides a comprehensive 
total result range.  

108 

EDIH Added ValueTotal UsersMinimum RangeAverage RangeMaximum RangeLower TotalAverage Total Higher TotalPublic Organisations16213.960€                         6.085€                8.210€                   6.419.290€       9.863.461€       13.307.632€     SMEs142897.972€                         11.638€              15.304€                 113.913.600€  166.292.703€  218.671.806€  Total15910120.332.890€  176.156.164€  231.979.437€  Total Contribution/Total Cost322.902.157619.699.238Digital Skills Training Added ValueMinimum RangeAverage RangeMaximum RangeLower TotalAverage Total Higher TotalIndividuals20713656€                             836€                   1.015€                   13.596.790€     17.311.537€     21.026.284€     SMEs2196.464€                         10.422€              14.380€                 1.415.689€       2.282.501€       3.149.314€       Large Companies1572.675€                         3.212€                3.749€                   419.975€          504.315€          588.656€          Academic Institutes3291.342€                         1.684€                2.026€                   441.587€          554.019€          666.450€          Total2141815.874.041€     20.652.373€     25.430.704€     Total Contribution/Cost273.787.470421.056.311€              
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION – SYNOPSIS REPORT 

Introduction  

This  document  summarises  and  analyses  the  key  findings  from  all  consultation  activities 
carried out for the interim evaluation of the Digital Europe programme (hereafter referred to as 
Digital Europe).  

Overview and method of stakeholder consultation strategy  
The consultation strategy encompasses numerous activities targeting stakeholders, applicants 
and beneficiaries of Digital Europe, as well as end users of infrastructures, tools, and services 
funded by Digital Europe. 
The following consultation activities took place:  

•  Public Consultation on the Commission’s ‘Have your Say’ Portal, alongside the 

simultaneous publication of the Call for Evidence. 

•  Targeted stakeholder surveys with beneficiaries, applicants, end users and 
stakeholders of the cybersecurity National Coordination Centres (NCCs). 

•  Interviews with implementing bodies of the programme, beneficiaries, end users and 

other stakeholders. 

•  Focus groups and workshops  

•  A policy event with stakeholders to validate and concretise the findings of the 

evaluation.  

Triangulation  was  performed  across  all  consultation  activities  to  ensure  consistency  and 
relevance of the findings from stakeholder views. 

Call for Evidence and Public Consultation  
The Commission published a Call for Evidence from 27 June to 20 September 2024 on the 
‘Have your say’ portal to gather citizens’ and stakeholders’ views on the scope and planned 
methodology of the interim evaluation. A public consultation was launched simultaneously210. 
A total of 103 online contributions and 35 position papers were submitted in response to the 
Call for Evidence, and 790 questionnaires were received in response to the public consultation. 
A report summarising the findings of this public consultation is available on the ‘Have your 
Say’ portal (Digital Europe programme – interim evaluation). 

Through  the  analysis,  a  campaign  by  the  Free  Software  Foundation  Europe  was  identified 
promoting the use of free and open-source software. Manual review of these individual answers 
revealed that several messages were either duplicated or very similar, repeatedly emphasising 

210  This  survey  included  11  identification  questions,  64  closed  questions  with  branching  sub-questions,  and  17  open-text 

sections. 

109 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
funding challenges and community support. 

Targeted Stakeholder Surveys  
All surveys were launched on the EU Survey portal211. 

Survey 

Date 

Responses 

Beneficiary Survey 

July 12 – Sept.13, 24 

1 159 

Applicant Survey 

NCC Survey 

July 12 – Sept.13, 24 

July 30 – Sept. 30, 24 

End User Survey212 

Oct. 10, 24 – Jan. 10, 25 

Synergy Survey 

Nov. 13- Dec. 4, 24 

58 

78 

431 

30 

Interviews 
A total of 102 interviews were conducted, categorised as follows: 

•  Beneficiaries: 52 interviews, 

• 

Implementing Bodies: 28 interviews 

•  EU Level Stakeholders: 14 interviews 

•  End Users: 6 interviews 

•  Other: 1 interview 

The interviews included the following categories of stakeholders:  

Types of organisation  

public bodies 

research organisations 

private businesses 

Number of Interviews 

40 

23 

14 (13 SMEs and 1 large enterprise) 

higher education institutions 

non-governmental organisations (NGOs) 

intergovernmental organisations 

non-profit organisations 

international financial institution  

other  

10 

8 

3 

2 

1 

1 

211 EUSurvey - Welcome 
212  The  survey  covered  four  services  (Advanced  Digital  Skills,  Testing  and  Experimentation  Facilities,  European  Digital 

Innovation Hubs, and High-Performance Computing). 

110 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
Focus groups 
In November 2024, six focus groups were conducted, each focusing on one of the six objectives 
of  the  Digital  Europe  programme.  Participants  were  identified  through  desk  research, 
stakeholder mapping, scoping interviews, surveys, and expert recommendations. In total, 49 
participants contributed to these focus groups.  

Workshops 
The Commission gathered input on the programme’s performance through several workshops 
with overall more than 100 participants:   

•  A workshop at the conference on the future of digital investments in the EU organised 
in the context of the Danish presidency of the Council of the European Union213,  
•  a  stakeholder  workshops  on  the  implementation  of  the  programme  at  the  ‘From 
Research to Reality – digital solutions for European challenges’ event214 in the context 
of the Belgian presidency and  

•  a workshop with representatives of the European Digital Innovation Hubs (EDIHs) at 

the EDIH summit215.  

Policy workshop  

On  11  September  2025,  a  final  online  policy  workshop  was  held  to  concretise  the 
recommendations of this evaluation. The workshop focused on three recommendations where 
input from beneficiaries and Member States representatives was beneficial:    

1.)  vertical  alignment between the Digital  Europe programme with  Member States with 

regards to co-funding mechanisms,   

2.)  clarification of state aid rules,  
3.)  simplification measures at both the application and project management phases.  

Participants included Member States’ representatives as well as beneficiaries, representatives 
of network organisations and National Contact Points. In total, 60 participants contributed to 
the policy workshop. 

To analyse the feedback numerous quantitative and qualitative methods were applied. The 
data was, for instance, synthesised and analysed with the findings coded and categorised using 
the text analysis software NVivo and the analysis of individual responses was conducted using 
RamGPT, an AI proprietary tool developed by Ramboll. Profiling of respondents, including 
geographic  distribution  and  stakeholder  types,  as  well  as  analysis  of  closed  questions,  was 
completed through descriptive statistics.  

213 Conference | The Future of Digital Investments in the EU, final report to be expected in October 2025 
214 From Research to Reality – digital solutions for European challenges | Shaping Europe’s digital future 
215 EDIH Network Summit 2024 | European Digital Innovation Hubs Network 

111 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Participating stakeholder groups  

This  section  provides  an  overview  of  the  stakeholder  groups  involved  in  the  various 
consultation activities216. Error! Reference source not found. and Error! Reference source 
not found. below illustrate the distribution of responses by country of origin. 
The majority of respondents (96%) came from EU countries. The most represented country 
was Germany (15%), followed by Spain  (12%) and Italy  (10%). Among non-EU countries, 
Norway had the highest  representation  (24%),  followed by United Kingdom  (10%) and the 
United States (9%). Both Liechtenstein and Turkey participated with 8% of participants each.  

. Figure 1. Distribution of responses by country of origin (EU) (n=2640)217 

216 Participant data was not collected at the workshops organised by the Commission as participants could move freely among 

different sessions.  

217 Includes data from surveys and policy workshop. The 22 participants who selected the option ‘Other’ are specific to the 
end-user  survey,  where  further  specification  of  their  geographical  origin  was  not  possible.  Additionally,  the  label 
‘EU/international’  refers  to  stakeholders  operating  across  multiple  Member  States  or  within  European/international 
institutions and agencies.  

112 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2. Distribution of responses by country of origin (non-EU) (n=118)218  

The stakeholder groups involved in the consultation included private businesses (both SMEs 
and  large  enterprises),  academic  or  research  institutions,  public  bodies219,  civil  society 
organisations, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and intergovernmental organisations. 
Additionally,  in  the  context  of  the  NCC  survey,  participants  included  other  stakeholder 
categories, such as industry players in cybersecurity. 
As shown in Error! Reference source not found., the most represented stakeholder categories 
were academic or research institutions (26%), followed by EU citizens (22%), and private 
businesses (SMEs) (19%)220.  

218 Includes data from surveys and policy workshop 
219 Excluding research organisations and education establishments. 
220 In the Public Consultation, EU citizens were the largest group of respondents. Therefore, the distribution of the responses 
was mainly driven by the perspectives of EU citizens, rather than by those of businesses and other groups of stakeholders. 

113 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3. Distribution of responses per type of respondent (n=2680221) 

Main findings of the consultations 

Effectiveness  

The public consultation showed that Digital Europe has already been effective in boosting the 
EU’s global competitiveness and in digitally transforming public organisations. In the future, 
Digital  Europe  is  expected  to  contribute  even  more  to  enhancing  the  EU’s  global 
competitiveness  and  driving  the  digital  transformation  of  EU  governments  and  public 
organisations. Initial results show increases in the EU’s competitiveness on a global scale 
and digitally transforming EU governments and public organisations. On the other hand, 
inadequate  knowledge  of  the  programme  and  a  lack  of  resources  to  prepare  proposals 
hindered participation.  

•  61% of respondents in the public consultation (mostly research institutions, companies 
and  NGOs)  were  aware  of  the  programme  but  lacked  detailed  knowledge  of  its 
objectives and priorities. Meanwhile, 26% had in-depth knowledge (mostly EU citizens 
and companies), and 14% were not very familiar with the programme or its objectives.  

•  Beneficiaries particularly valued the programme’s dual focus on SMEs and the public 

221 The total is higher than the total of participants per country of origin (including both EU and non-EU countries) because 
the questionnaire for Advanced Digital Skills (as part of the end user survey) was open to a broader group of participants, 
including individuals who are not currently employed. Respondents had the opportunity in an earlier question to specify 
whether  they  were  individuals  not  currently  employed  (e.g.  full-time  students,  individuals  between  jobs),  company 
managers/owners  whose  employees  benefited  from  the  training.  Not  all  respondents  were  directly  affiliated  with 
organisations or institutions.   

114 

 
 
 
 
 
 
sector, however, highlight several challenges, such as coordination between partners 
and Member States, clarity on implementation modalities, and the 50% funding rate. 
These  issues  particularly  affect  publicly  funded  organisations  (higher  education  and 
research organisations) and SMEs without access to additional co-funding at national 
levels.  
Furthermore,  beneficiaries  have  noted  significant  advantages  in  areas  such  as 
networking,  organisational  development,  and  market  positioning.  For  instance,  53% 
gained access to new academic partners, 58% enhanced their institutional reputation, 
53%  strengthened  strategic  partnerships  at  the  EU  and  international  levels,  44% 
expanded their workforce, and 35% launched innovative products or services.  
Respondent who selected the option ‘other’ mentioned benefits such as building a large 
network, 
increased  awareness  of  current 
capabilities. 

increased  competitiveness  and 

• 

Interviewees noted that universities and research organisations struggle to co-finance 
the  50%  co-funding  rate,  as  not  all  Member  States  have  established  co-funding 
mechanisms  in  place.  Companies  are  also  sometimes  hesitant  to  co-finance  Digital 
Europe projects due to uncertainties regarding market readiness and the potential long-
term value of the supported technologies. 

•  EU-level  stakeholders  saw  the  programme  as  an  important  enabler  of  cross-border 
ecosystem  development  and  highlighted  progress  in  the  use  of  advanced  digital 
infrastructure.  

•  Implementing  bodies  pointed  to  the  successful  rollout  of  initiatives  such  as  the 
extensive  EDIH  network  as  evidence  of  the  programme’s  effectiveness  in  laying  a 
strong operational foundation.  

•  Stakeholders in the policy workshop reported difficulties securing national co-funding, 
due to unclarity regarding the identification of responsible authorities at national level, 
and duplicated burden to apply and report at EU and national levels. Beneficiaries in 
Member States with structured co-funding frameworks experienced smoother project 
starts, while fragmented or ad hoc arrangements in some Member States constrained 
accessibility. 

•  The  analysis  of  the  position  papers  highlights  that  the  programme  has  significant 
potential  for  driving  the  digital  transformation  and  fostering  skills  development. 
However,  its  effectiveness  is  hindered  by  limited  participation  of  SMEs,  due  to 
complex funding structures (e.g. funding conditions vary between sub-programmes and 
often require a detailed review of work programmes and tender documents, with key 
information  sometimes  only  available  in  English),  administrative  burden,  and 
insufficient  funding  rates.  Public  bodies  also  face  barriers,  further  limiting  the 
programme's reach. Furthermore, aligning Digital Europe with national co-funding 
mechanisms could enhance efficiency, reducing  delays and leading to better overall 
outcomes.  

•  An  analysis  of  the  online  contributions  to  the  Call  for  Evidence  highlighted  the 
programme’s  effectiveness  in  fostering  innovation  and  sectoral  transformation, 
particularly  in  areas  such  as  agriculture,  health,  and  manufacturing.  While  the 

115 

 
 
 
programme's focus on digital literacy and accessibility has helped to bridge the digital 
divide, supporting free and open-source solutions could further promote technological 
autonomy222. 

•  The  surveys  for  end-users223  revealed  several  benefits  for  users  of  infrastructures, 

services, and IT tools funded by Digital Europe, including:  

•  Strengthened Collaboration and Networking Opportunities with 69% of respondents rating it as 

having at least a medium impact. 

• 

Improved Access to Technology Testing and Innovation Support with 68% of respondents rating 
it as having at least a medium impact. 

•  Respondents  who  selected  the  option  ‘other’,  mentioned  additional  benefits,  such  as  improved 
research infrastructure, improved knowledge of new technologies, and increased awareness of 
how digital technologies can optimise day-to-day operations and give strong insights for future 
decisions. 

•  When  asked  about  how  much  end  users  would  be  willing  to  pay  for  the  services 
provided  by  the  programme,  responses  varied  significantly.  The  most  highly  valued 
work strand was High-Performance Computing (HPC), with a maximum willingness to 
pay  EUR 39 504,  and  a  minimum  of  EUR 14 942,  whereas  the  European  Digital 
Innovation  Hubs  have  a  maximum  value  for  SMEs  of  EUR 11 936  and  a  minimum 
value of EUR 7 972. Students benefiting from advanced digital skills trainings value 
these trainings between EUR 656 and EUR 1 015. 

Many  stakeholders  consulted  rated  the  ease  of  accessing  the  services  and 
infrastructures  positively,  with  87%  considering  them  at  least  moderately  easy  to 
access. In contrast, 5% found the services difficult or very difficult to access. Access 
difficulties  were  attributed  to  administrative  barriers,  registration  challenges, 
unclear roles in certain situations, as well as difficulties in accessing and utilising 
HPC systems, technical failures, language barriers, and lack of experience. 

Different drivers and bottlenecks for the implementation of Digital Europe were identified 
during the focus groups, as summarised in the table below.  
Table 1. Drivers and bottlenecks identified during the focus groups   

Focus group 

HPC  

Drivers and bottlenecks 
Need for streamlined processes and flexible funding due to lengthy 
timelines of EU programmes  

Participants 
Academic or research institutions 

Cloud, Data, and AI 

The need for: 

• 

creating  best-in-class  products  and  platforms  to 
generate a ‘fear of missing out’ among companies. It is 
challenging  for  the  industry  to  engage  with  Digital 
Europe without a specific market pull embedded in the 
programme as companies usually are risk averse. 

Academic or research institutions 
Civil Society Organisations 

222 Insight produced by a concerted campaign of stakeholders. 
223  The  results  presented  here  primarily  focus  on  aggregate  responses  across  all  four  services.  A  more  detailed  analysis, 
segmented by service type, is available as an annex to the SWD (Digital Europe interim evaluation), including selected 
insights from individual surveys where noteworthy findings emerge. 

116 

 
 
 
 
 
 
• 

• 

reinforcing  capabilities  and  partnerships  between 
the public and private sectors. 

 reducing consortium size to two to three players with 
high execution power, as large consortiums comprising 
multiple  partners  do  not  necessarily  lead  to  expected 
outcomes. 

Cybersecurity and Trust 

The need for: 

• 

• 

• 

enhanced  coordination  and  strategic  alignment 
among  Member  States,  industries,  and  institutions, 
particularly  regarding  talent  retention,  infrastructure 
development, and cross-border collaboration. 

enhanced collaboration among companies and regions 
(among others with the help of the  European Cyber 
Security Organisation (ECSO)) 

better  alignment  between  the  European  Defence 
Fund and Digital Europe. 

Advanced Digital Skills 

The need for:  

• 

• 

• 

• 

a unified help desk at the European level to centralise 
relevant information for easier use access. 

synergies  between 
Vocational Excellence (CoVE) and Digital Europe. 

the  Erasmus+  Centres  of 

development of ‘AI for Good’ initiatives to establish a 
positive EU brand around AI for education. 

Digital  transformation  training  for  SMEs  and  long-
term initiatives for skills development224. 

Private businesses (SMEs), 
Academic or research institutions, 
Civil Society Organisations 

Academic or research institutions, 
Civil Society Organisations 

Deployment and Best Use of 
and 
Digital  Capacities 
Interoperability 

The need for: 

• 

• 

coherence 
objectives. 

in 

legal 

frameworks  and  policy 

aligning 
objectives225. 

actions  with 

long-term 

strategic 

Semiconductors 

The need for: 

• 

• 

• 

the EU Semiconductor’s Board to align national and 
EU priorities. 

streamlined  processes  and  lump-sum  funding  for 
SMEs. 

long-term and proactive planning. 

Academic or research institutions, 
Civil Society Organisations, Public 
bodies 

Academic or research institutions, 
Public bodies, Private businesses 
(large), Civil society organisations 

During the focus group on HPC, representatives from a Joint Undertaking suggested the need 
for more agility and increased funding for high-risk, high-gain projects, including support 
for  disruptive  ideas  through  cascade  funding.  Additionally,  they  criticised  traditional 
procurement practices that take 8-10 years, instead of adopting off-the-shelf solutions.  

224 Participants from civil society organisations and academic or research institutions agreed on the role of the ERASMUS+ 

programme, while the need for training for SMEs was suggested by academic and research institutions.  

225  Although  participants  were  representatives  of  civil  society  organisations,  public  bodies,  and  academic  or  research 

institutions, these suggestions were provided mainly by civil society organisations. 

117 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Efficiency  

• 

Interviewees  mentioned  delays  in  application  processes,  attributed  to  negotiations 
with Member States, security restrictions, and due diligence requirements related to the 
mutual insurance mechanism.  

•  From  the  perspective  of  the  Commission,  interviewees  noted  that  procurement 
processes were lengthy due to the need to source external expertise. The long selection 
and contractualisation process is particularly challenging for fast-moving technology 
areas, such as AI. 

•  Several  stakeholders  commented  on  the  lack  of  instruments  specifically  focused  on 
exploiting results, such as vouchers or Financial Support for Third Parties (FSTP) and 
criticised the relatively standardised co-funding approach. They instead advocate for a 
shareholder model, commonly used in research infrastructures, where multiple partners 
jointly  invest  in  and  govern  an  initiative,  enabling  long-term  sustainability,  shared 
ownership  and  more  effective  exploitation  of  outcomes  beyond  the  typical  project 
lifecycle.  

•  The beneficiary and applicant surveys revealed satisfaction with process-related aspects 

of grant and procurement management, but dissatisfaction with the conditions. 

o  Among beneficiaries, 71% reported being satisfied or very satisfied with the clarity 
of the scope and description of calls, a sentiment echoed by 64% of applicants. 
Similarly,  66%  of  beneficiaries  and  69%  of  applicants  were  satisfied  with  the 
clarity of rules and eligibility criteria. Satisfaction with the clarity of application 
instructions  was  slightly  higher  among  applicants  (69%),  compared 
to 
beneficiaries  (64%).  Timing  and  scheduling  were  also  approved  by  59%  of 
beneficiaries and 58% of applicants. 

o  Dissatisfaction levels were generally aligned for both beneficiaries and applicants, 
with  some  exceptions. There  was  a  notable  discrepancy  regarding  the  clarity  of 
feedback received and level of detail of the evaluation of the proposal, with 9% 
for  applicants.  Higher 
dissatisfaction  among  beneficiaries  versus  29% 
dissatisfaction rates were observed in the perceived adequacy of the funding rate 
proposed  in  relation  to  the  scope,  objectives  and requirements  of  the  call  of 
proposals (29% for both beneficiaries and applicants), proportionality between 
the  costs  and  the  volume  of  funding  requested  in  the  proposal  (23%  for 
beneficiaries;  31%  for  applicants),  and  the  proportionality  between  the  efforts 
and the chances of securing Digital Europe funding (21% for beneficiaries; 41% 
for applicants).  

o  Feedback on the support services provided by the National Contact Points (NCPs) 
during  the  planning,  application,  and  implementation  phases  was  mixed. 
Assistance with finding partners through matchmaking events  was generally 
underutilised  by  beneficiaries  (27%),  with  only  21%  being  satisfied.  Among 

118 

 
 
 
  
 
 
applicants, 24% remained neutral, while 22% were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. 
Notably,  beneficiaries  expressed  higher  dissatisfaction  rates  (dissatisfied/very 
dissatisfied) with guidance on legal, financial, and implementation issues, with 
13% of beneficiaries and 24% of applicants reporting dissatisfaction. Both groups 
valued the NCPs’ explanations on the scope and modalities of Digital Europe 
actions, with 47% of applicants and 34% of beneficiaries expressing satisfaction. 
However, high  percentages of neutrality  were observed across both  groups, with 
more  than  20%  reporting  neutrality  in  every  aspect.  The  policy  workshop 
participants observed inconsistent interpretations of rules and slow turnaround for 
clarifications,  resulting  in  delays.  NCPs  have  limited  knowledge  on  legal  and 
financial aspects and in turn cannot advice beneficiaries effectively.  

o  Many beneficiaries emphasised the need for flexibility in project implementation 

to accommodate technological advances or market changes. 

o  Applicants, on the other hand, expressed discontent with the lack of transparency 
in  evaluation  processes  and  the  application  of  state  aid  rules,  including  the  de 
minimis regulation, which created uncertainty. They also noted a lack of support for 
Seal of Excellence projects at the national level. Both beneficiaries and applicants 
shared  concerns  over  high  administrative  burdens  and  emphasised  the  need  for 
simplified procedures and greater funding flexibility.  

•  The workshop held at the conference on the future of digital investments in the EU226 
stressed the importance of public procurements and concluded that future investments 
in  digital  deployment  need  to  be  more  unified  merging  current  programmes  and 
applying simplified rules. The event’s conclusions echoed the importance of increased 
private investment highlighted in the Draghi report and emphasised the role of public 
funding in de-risking private investments.  

•  The  workshop  at  the  EDIH  summit  called  for  a  unified  communication  strategy 
involving national players and the opportunity to share best practices across EDIHs.  

•  During  the  policy  workshop  participants  stated  that  in  case  of  national  co-funding,  
duplicated  reporting  to  the  EU  and  national  authorities,  the  additional    State  aid 
assessment and unclear points of contact at national level led to delays. This was also 
emphasised at the workshop at the EDIH summit.  

•  Specific suggestions from all stakeholders included the development of ensured access 
for  smaller  organisations  and  underserved  regions  to  fully  benefit  from  the 
programme’s initiatives, alignment with national co-funding mechanisms, enhanced 
awareness raising at national levels (EDIH),  increased predictability in call planning, 
faster implementation of security restrictions, more flexibility in project planning and 
implementation (e.g. faster amendments), reduced duplicated data entry in the portal, 
and a more user-friendly application portal.   

226 Conference | The Future of Digital Investments in the EU, final report to be expected in October 2025 

119 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
•  With  regards  to  cost-effectiveness,  procurement  processes  were  described  as 
particularly resource-intensive, and establishing security restriction processes required 
a heavy learning curve for all parties involved. 

•  The beneficiary survey results indicated that application costs typically require between 
1.86-2.5  person  months,  with  approximately  EUR  7.1k  in  additional  expenses  per 
proposal.  Coordinators  spend  between  3.12  and  3.85  person  months  and  incur  EUR 
31.3k in additional expenses.  

Relevance  

• 

In  the  public  consultation,  respondents  widely  agreed  that  Digital  Europe  is  highly 
relevant  for  addressing  current  and  future  challenges,  particularly  in  the  areas  of 
cybersecurity and advanced digital skills. 

•  Additionally, 77% of respondents believed that Digital Europe should cover additional 
areas  in  the  future.  Some  of  the  most  frequently  mentioned  aspects  included:  a 
concerted approach to a free and open-source software227, the promotion of digital 
skills and inclusion and the sustainability and green transition.  

•  The analysis of the position papers highlighted that the programme aligns closely with 
Europe’s  strategic  priorities,  such  as  improving  digital  skills,  supporting  SMEs, 
promoting  digital  sovereignty,  and  driving  the  green  transition.  To  increase  its 
relevance, business associations suggested that the programme should become  more 
accessible and inclusive. Stakeholders, mostly NGOs and associations, emphasised the 
need for more  accessible training opportunities for underserved groups  and smaller 
organisations. They also called for a stronger focus on  basic digital skills alongside 
advanced  skills,  to  bridge  the  digital  divide.  Open-source  initiatives,  which  EU 
citizens and business associations see as promoting innovation and sovereignty, remain 
underrepresented, and the programme is urged to prioritise technologies ‘made in the 
EU’. 

•  The review of online contributions in the public consultation228 showed that efforts to 
integrate energy-efficient technologies, ethical AI practices, and digital accessibility in 
the programme address current and future societal challenges. Contributors furthermore 
suggested involving underrepresented groups in shaping digital policy to ensure diverse 
stakeholder needs across sectors and communities are better addressed.  

•  Across the six specific objectives (SOs) of Digital Europe, there is a broad recognition 
of the role of the programme in driving Europe’s digital transformation and maintaining 
its global competitiveness, with all objectives being either mostly or very relevant both 
for current and future needs in both beneficiary and application surveys. Interviewed 
stakeholders support this view.  

o  Both the beneficiary and applicant surveys highlight the relevance of Cybersecurity and Trust 

227 Insight produced by a concerted campaign of stakeholders. 
228 NB. although this section relates to the Call for Evidence, none of the responses specifically addressed the methodology of 
the Digital Europe. Stakeholders focused on providing general feedback on the programme through position papers and 
online contributions. 

120 

 
 
 
 
 
(SO3), with 91% of applicants and 86% of beneficiaries rating it as mostly/very relevant for 
current needs. In terms of sectoral and technological relevance, 64% of beneficiaries found the 
programme very relevant, and 31% moderately relevant. Applicants showed an even stronger 
alignment, with 75% rating it as very relevant and 23% as moderately relevant.  

•  When  considering  technical  priorities  for  the  future,  AI  technologies  were  at  the 
forefront both groups, with 80% of beneficiaries and 78% of applicants identifying AI 
as  the  top  priority.  Advanced  connectivity,  navigation  and  digital  technologies  were 
prioritised by 62% of beneficiaries and 66% of applicants, followed by robotics and 
autonomous  systems,  considered  important  by  45%  of  beneficiaries  and  40%  of 
applicants.  

•  Interviewed stakeholders recognise the importance of data  and data infrastructures 
and find the programme’s design relevant, though some stakeholders, such as SMEs, 
Edtech  and  VET  providers,  have  not  been  as  sufficiently  engaged.  They  generally 
acknowledge the programme’s flexibility and alignment with emerging trends, such as 
adapting to AI’s growing prominence and introducing initiatives like the AI Factories. 
Stakeholders  also  acknowledge  the  importance  of  integrating  quantum  technologies 
into Digital Europe initiatives. However, they also highlight future complexities, such 
as  adapting  HPC  infrastructures  for  AI  use  cases  and  addressing  security,  data 
management,  and  energy  efficiency.  Public  bodies  emphasise  the  programme’s 
alignment  with  governance  goals,  interoperability  needs,  and  broader  political 
objectives. Research organisations see Digital Europe as relevant for advancing cutting-
edge technologies like AI and quantum computing but identify gaps in the coordination, 
accessibility, and integration of digital infrastructure. NGOs and SMEs focus on Digital 
Europe’s  relevance  to  practical  deployment,  accessibility,  and  the  establishment  of 
clear standards. Interviewed stakeholders also expressed concerns that persisting skill 
gaps hinder the exploitation of HPC infrastructure for AI. 

•  Many  end-users  perceived  the  role  of  the  service  funded  by  Digital  Europe  in 
addressing  the  needs  of  the  respondents  or  their  organisation  as  at  least  somewhat 
effective (89%). Meanwhile, 6% found it not effective at all or considered it as not very 
effective. With regards to the main obstacles organisations that took part in the end-
user survey currently are facing or expect to face, 88% of respondents highlighted the 
lack  of  access  to  advanced  computing  resources  and  AI  applications  which  can 
drive  innovation  and  improve  services  in  various  sectors  as  somewhat  or  highly 
relevant.  Lack  of  advanced  digital  skills  and  capabilities,  and  cybersecurity  and 
trust in digital systems follow closely, with 86% of respondents for each, identifying 
them as somewhat or highly relevant. When asked to specify, those who selected the 
option  ‘other’  cited  a  lack  of  skilled  personnel,  insufficient  funding  for  code 
development, the need for clear and practical programmes, the digital impact in 
daily work routines, and reliance on open-source-minded consortia229.   

•  The workshop at the EDIH summit highlighted the need for more flexibility of EDIHs 
to  adapt  to  new  technological  challenges,  and  a  more  holistic  perspective  on  the 
different  types  of  services  offered.  The  workshop  at  the  ‘Research  to  Reality’  event 
suggests aligning local, regional, and EU strategies for coherent digital governance. 

229 Insight produced by a concerted campaign of stakeholders.  

121 

 
 
 
 
•  The  focus  groups  highlighted  key  future  developments  and  recommendations,  as 

summarised in Table 2 below.  

Table 2. Insights from the focus groups  

Future developments and recommendations 

Focus 
group 

HPC  

Need for: 

Cloud, data and AI  Need for:  

- a holistic approach to sovereignty, encompassing the entire value chain rather 
than advancements in isolated technologies. Europe needs to develop integrated 
systems to reduce reliance on external suppliers 

 -  mechanisms  to  scale  education  and  training,  to  increase  the  number  of 
skilled professionals 

-  structured,  industry-aligned  programmes  that  can  deliver  sustained 
expertise 

- more inclusivity, with calls to increase female representation 

- investments in high-speed storage solutions230 

-  investments  in  areas  such  as  agentic  AI  for  human  labour  augmentation, 
augmented  reality,  shared  and  synthetic  data,  interoperable  data  spaces, 
automated material design through experiment and computation 

-    improvement  of  EU  competitiveness  through  availability  of  regulatory 
sandboxing,  access  to  testing  and  experimenting  facilities,  innovative  public 
procurement and pre-commercial procurement 

- an update of the GDPR and EU copyright regulation 

Cybersecurity  and 
Trust 

Need for: 

- a highly skilled workforce 

Advanced  Digital 
Skills 

Need to: 

- centralised identity solutions through ‘zero architecture’ approaches  

alignment  of  Digital  Europe  with  Horizon  Europe 
-  better 
- ‘certificates of provenance’ for software libraries to improve software quality, 
including  dependency  on  external  libraries  and  the  lack  of  understanding 
regarding their origin and usage 

- introducing more flexible project scopes to accelerate innovation231  

-  include training promoting cross-domain competence but 

- avoid excessive focus on multidisciplinary approaches, which could dilute 
the unique characteristics of individual disciplines232 

- broaden participation (e.g. women), through dedicated measures and KPIs 

- establish industry-education partnerships 

Need to: 

Deployment 
and 
Best Use of Digital 
and 
Capacities 
Interoperability 

- assess and address the environmental impact of advanced digital technologies 

- increase accessibility, citizen trust, and digital literacy 

-  raise awareness and foster a cultural shift towards digital-first approaches 

Stakeholder 
categories 
participating 
or 
Academic 
research institutions 

Academic 
or 
research institutions, 

Civil 
organisations 

Society 

Private 
(SMEs) 

businesses 

Academic 
or 
research institutions 

Civil 
organisations 

Society 

or 
Academic 
research institutions 

Civil 
Organisations 

Society 

Academic 
or 
research institutions 

Civil 
organisations 

Society 

230 As nearly all participants in the Focus Group on HPC were from academic or research institutions, insights primarily reflect 

the perspectives of these types of stakeholders. 

231  While  the  majority  of  insights  came  from  academic  or  research  institutions  and  civil  society  organisations  without 
substantial differences in terms of perspectives, the need for more flexibility and efficiency in project management  was 
suggested by private businesses specifically. 
232 The majority of insights came from academic or research institutions, and no substantial differences in perspectives across 
stakeholder categories were identified.  

122 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Semiconductors 

Need for: 

-  accelerate innovation and foster collaboration between public and private 
top-down 
stakeholders,  along  with  a  balanced  approach  combining 
coordination with bottom-up innovation233  

Public bodies 

- quantum computing as a long-term strategic priority 
- a highly skilled workforce across diverse industries  
-  strengthening  EU  competencies  in  areas  like  advanced  functionality, 
semiconductor-based photonics and new memory architectures 

- reducing fragmentation and focusing on market-driven research 

-  ensuring  the  effective  application  of  new  technologies  by  addressing 
software quality and security234 

-  addressing  sustainability  concerns  related  to  the  growing  demand  for 
processing power and high-volume production. 

Academic 
or 
research institutions 

Public bodies 

Private 
(large) 

businesses 

Civil 
organisations 

society 

•  During the HPC focus group, representatives from EuroHPC JU also provided insights. 
In terms of future developments and recommendations, a key theme was the need for a 
robust  software  stack  in  tandem  with  hardware  advancements  such  as  GPU-QPU 
integration. Additionally, there was a call for consistent support for start-ups, better 
alignment  of  quantum  initiatives,  and  pan-European  collaboration  to  maintain 
competitiveness  in  skills  and  innovation  and  reach  critical  mass.  In  terms  of 
understanding  current  stakeholder  needs,  the  representatives  from  EuroHPC  JU 
advocated  for  a  holistic  approach,  including  training  on  energy  efficiency,  user 
support  and  efficient  software.  Additionally,  energy  efficiency  was  suggested  as  a 
unique  selling  point  promoting  ‘energy-efficient  cycles’.  A  recommendation  was  to 
focus on fewer, high-quality models rather than high quantities.  

Coherence 

• 

Interviewed  stakeholders  highlighted  the  complementarities  and  synergies  within 
Digital  Europe’s  different  Specific  Objectives  (SOs)  and  within  work  streams. 
Complementarities  are  evident  in  areas  like  AI,  cybersecurity,  HPC  and  skill 
development,  with  EDIHs  playing  a  key  role  in  connecting  organisations  to  other 
services  funded  by  Digital  Europe,  such  as  TEFs  and  data  spaces.  However,  some 
stakeholders pointed out the lack of systematic structural collaboration. 

•  According to more than 50% of respondents in the public consultation, including EU 
citizens, companies and research institutions, Digital Europe is partially coherent with 
other national and regional funding instruments, with Horizon Europe being the most 
complementary. This view was also confirmed by interviewees.  

• 

In  the  consultation,  mostly  EU  citizens  and  small  companies  identified  a  lack  of 
alignment  with  regional/local  funding  opportunities  and  international  instruments, 
while  39%  of  respondents  (e.g.  academic  institutes,  businesses,  and  EU  citizens) 
funding 
acknowledged 

coherence  with 

international 

partial 

least 

at 

233 Such balanced approach was suggested by public authorities, as well as the challenges related to co-financing, with some 

suggesting 100% financing from public funds.  

234  More  specifically,  private  businesses  suggested  having  a  long-term  vision,  while  academic  or  research  organisations 

stressed that the Digital Europe should try to diminish fragmentation. 

123 

 
 
 
 
 
 
opportunities/instruments.  

•  The  analysis  of  the  position  papers  highlighted  challenges  related  to  fragmented 
funding  processes  and  inconsistent  eligibility  rules  across  funding  programmes. 
These  issues  hinder  collaboration,  complicate  long-term  planning,  and  make  it 
especially difficult for resource-constrained stakeholders- such as SMEs and smaller 
research organisations- to understand the requirements for participation. Mostly small 
businesses  and  industry  associations  emphasised  the  need  to  align  timelines.  They 
noted  that  late  changes  to  work  programmes-  such  as  shifting  call  deadlines  or 
modifying  priorities  after  planning  had  begun-—combined  with 
insufficient 
coordination between EU and national funding structures have disrupted predictability 
and undermined effective planning.  

•  Other recommendations include the better integration with related initiatives, such as 
the Digital Education Action Plan and the use of tools, such as the Local and Regional 
Digital  Maturity  Assessment.  Strengthening  cross-sectoral  partnerships  and  clearer 
coordination between EU and national funding structures can maximise synergies and 
increase the overall impact. 

•  The  review  of  online  contributions235  highlighted  gaps  in  the  coherence  of  Digital 
Europe  funding  mechanisms  with  other  EU  funding  programmes.  Mismatched 
deadlines,  different  co-financing  requirements,  were  reported  mainly  by  some 
academic 
fragmentation. 
Recommendations to harmonise funding conditions, simplify application procedures, 
and  align  objectives  across  EU  programmes  could  improve  the  integration  and 
effectiveness of the programme. 

institutions  and  business  associations, 

lead 

to 

•  When assessing the extent to which Digital Europe was perceived as complementary 
and  synergistic  with  other  instruments,  35%  of  beneficiaries  indicated  that  Digital 
Europe is fully coherent with other Digital Europe projects. However, perceptions of 
coherence  were  more  mixed  in  relation  to  regional  and  national  funding 
opportunities  aimed  at  building  capacity  and  skills  in  key  digital  areas,  with 
respondents seeing the programme as only partially aligned (32% for regional and 36% 
for national funding). At the European level, Digital Europe was seen as fully coherent 
with  other  EU  funding  instruments  by  34%  of  respondents.  Alignment  of  Digital 
Europe with relevant EU regulations was generally positive, with 38% indicating full 
coherence, while coherence with national regulation was perceived differently, with 
28%  of  respondents  indicating  partial  coherence.  A  significant  share  of  respondents 
(41%) reported that their Digital Europe-funded projects directly built upon activities 
previously supported by other European funding instruments, highlight strong potential 
for continuity and synergy across EU programmes.  

•  Participants in the policy workshop described coherence gaps when combining Digital 
Europe  with  national  and  regional  co-funding.  They  reported  fragmented  national 
arrangements  (from  structured  frameworks  to  ad  hoc  solutions),  producing  uneven 
beneficiary experiences across Member States and regions. Examples raised included 

235 N.B. although this section relates to the Call for Evidence, none of the responses specifically addressed the methodology 
of the Digital Europe. Stakeholders focused on providing general feedback on the programme through position papers and 
online contributions. 

124 

 
 
 
 
combination  of  funding  with  the  ERDF,  which  is  challenging,  misaligned  calendars 
between  Digital  Europe  calls  and  national  budgeting  cycles,  and  inconsistent  rates, 
eligible cost rules, and templates. On the legal side, divergent State-aid interpretations 
(de minimis/GBER vs notification) created timeline variability and uncertainty. 

•  The synergy survey suggests that Digital Europe holds a strong position in fostering 
collaboration and integration with other programmes within the R&I landscape. Its 
projects  often  build  on  prior  efforts  funded  by  Horizon  2020,  Erasmus+,  the 
Connecting  Europe  Facility  (CEF),  and  various  national  or  regional  initiatives. 
Additionally, projects under Digital Europe incorporate knowledge and results from 
other programmes, such as analysis methods, metadata, data sources, and skills gap 
analyses,  with  higher  or  secondary  education  institutions  and  research  organisations 
being  primary  users.  Capacity-building  programmes  or 
(digital/research) 
infrastructures  developed  under  other  initiatives  are  similarly  leveraged  by  Digital 
Europe projects, with public bodies and education or research organisations leading the 
way. 

•  Digital Europe project managers agreed that the programme is well-placed within the 
knowledge  network,  with  93%  indicating  they  had  collaborated  with  their  current 
partners  in  previous  projects-  partnerships  that  now  inform  and  strengthen  ongoing 
initiatives.  Many  projects  also  operate  within  networks  of  similar  efforts,  sharing 
findings and best practices. Beneficiaries suggested that organising more meetings to 
exchange results and experiences could further enhance these synergies. 

EU added value  

The public consultation showed that Digital Europe has provided significant added value by 
financing projects, leveraging public funding for digital activities, and fostering international 
cooperation.  

• 

Interviewed  stakeholders  confirmed  that  collaborative  efforts  across  Europe  have 
accelerated the development of pre-exascale  and exascale HPC systems  much  faster 
than individual Member States could have done independently.  

•  Among  the  factors  contributing  to  the  development  of  large  cross-border  digital 
ecosystems  under  the  programme,  19%  of  respondents-  most  of  them  EU  citizens- 
indicated the importance of fostering cross-border partnerships and increasing overall 
funding.  Additionally,  18%  of  respondents-  mainly  companies  and  research 
institutions)  emphasised  the  value  of  funding  interconnected  activities,  mutually 
reinforcing projects, and/or multi-country projects (MCPs).   

•  Digital Europe has also played a crucial role in promoting the EU’s digital autonomy, 
yet  more  targeted  efforts  are  needed  to  increase  participation,  particularly  among 
smaller organisations, and to streamline administrative procedures.  

•  Position  papers  highlighted  significant  added  value  by  fostering  pan-European 
collaboration  in  critical  digital  areas,  such  as  AI,  cybersecurity,  HPC,  and  cloud 
computing.  These  investments  enhance  Europe’s  competitiveness,  resilience  and 

125 

 
 
 
 
strategic  autonomy,  while  supporting  societal  and  economic  goals.  However, 
stakeholders (mostly business associations and NGOs) emphasise the need for Digital 
Europe to reduce reliance on non-European technologies to maximise its strategic 
benefits.  Prioritising  inclusivity,  accessibility  and  the  twin  transitions  can  increase 
Digital Europe’s impact, and further consolidate its role as a key driver of Europe’s 
digital future.  

• 

Interviewed stakeholders from  the EDIHs also  pointed out  the value in  cross-border 
collaboration but highlight that the limited existing exchanges are mostly intra-country 
rather than across Member States.  

•  The  review  of  online  contributions236  showed  that  the  programme's  contributions  to 
digital sovereignty, sustainability and cross-border collaboration bring significant 
added  value  to  the  EU.  Aligning  sustainability metrics  and  ethical  practices  with 
digital innovation will further strengthen Digital Europe’s role in creating a resilient 
and inclusive digital ecosystem. 

•  Among  beneficiaries,  64%  indicated  that  Digital  Europe  improved  access  to  and 
cooperation with partners from other countries in the EU and beyond to a large or 
very  large  extent,  compared  to  66%  of  applicants.  In  addition,  the  creation  of  a 
European ecosystem for digital technologies  was seen as  bringing added value by 
62% of beneficiaries and 64% of applicants. A total of 52% of beneficiaries indicated 
that Digital Europe delivered EU added value in terms of Digital Europe’s provision 
of financial means on a scale and consistency not available in national and regional 
schemes. This perception was even more pronounced among applicants (66%).  

•  Conversely,  the  programme  was  not  viewed  as  having  better  funding  conditions 
compared to national/regional instruments by both applicants and beneficiaries. 
•  When asked whether there were other funding schemes or programmes at national or 
international  level  with  similar  objectives  to  Digital  Europe,  65%  of  NCCs  survey 
respondents  said  that  there  were  no  such  programmes,  while  35%  confirmed  the 
existence  of  other  similar  funding  schemes.  Those  who  recognised  other  funding 
opportunities  mentioned  initiatives  such  as  the  National  Innovation  Funds,  Horizon 
Europe and the Cohesion Fund. National Cybersecurity Coordination Centres identified 
standardisation of practices, enhanced cybersecurity capabilities (22%), improved 
cross-border collaboration and access to funding and resources (both selected by 
21-21%) as tangible benefits gained from EU interventions in cybersecurity (28%)237. 
A  smaller  portion  (7%)  identified  other  benefits,  including  networking  and  new 
collaborations and more information about cases and solutions.  

•  However, lack of communication channels (35%), funding constraints (29%), and 
regulatory differences (26%) were seen as significant challenges, with one respondent 
specifically noting that different legal and regulatory frameworks in different countries 
can create complexity and make it difficult to identify appropriate points of contact. 

236 N.B. Although this section relates to the Call for Evidence, none of the responses specifically addressed the methodology 
of the Digital Europe. Stakeholders focused on providing general feedback on the programme through position papers and 
online contributions. 

237 The sum of benefits (33+31+31+41+11=147) exceeds the number of respondents because respondents had the option to 

select more than one answer. 

126 

 
 
 
 
Among the challenges identified, some participants from the NCCs survey highlighted 
a lack of human resources and difficulties in sharing information about incidents 
involving classified systems or items. 

•  Furthermore, NCCs emphasised the need for increasing efforts to educate the public 
about  cybersecurity  threats  and  best  practices,  as  well  as  creating  more  job 
opportunities  in  the  public  sector.  They  also  suggested  that  NCCs  should  focus  on 
reaching  out  to  CEOs  to  raise  awareness  of  the  importance  of  cybersecurity  and 
encourage  a  top-down  approach,  rather  than  relying  solely  on  bottom-up  initiatives. 
Additionally, there was a call to make it easier for community members to access 
opportunities  in  cybersecurity.  More  focus  should  be  placed  on  AI  and  its 
associated risks and threats, while exploring ways to increase efficiency using AI.  

•  86%  of  respondents  to  the  NCCs  survey  rated  cross-border  collaboration  in 
cybersecurity efforts as very important/important. To better support to cross-border 
cooperation,  recommendations  included  the  exchange  of  information,  the  need  for 
public  authorities  to  initiate  or  improve  cross-border  communication  with 
companies  within 
the  establishment  of  efficient 
communication channels among teams in different locations.  

the  same  sector  and 

•  The end-user survey revealed that around 65% of respondents at least moderately agree, 
that  the  services  are  unique  in  terms  of  their  scope/quality  in  their  country 
compared to similar national/regional initiatives. More positively, around 74% of 
respondents at least moderately agree that the services are unique in terms of their 
scope/quality in the EU. These figures drop to 22% and 24% respectively when we 
consider those who strongly agree that the facilities are unique. 

•  There is more widespread support for the notion that these services offer other types of 
added value, specifically relating to costs and ease of access. 319 respondents (74%) at 
least  moderately  agree  that  Digital  Europe  services  are  more  affordable  for  their 
organisation than alternative options, while 296 (69%) at least moderately agree that 
they  are  more  accessible.  For  those  who  selected  the  option  ‘other’,  the  services 
provide  added  value due  to  their  ability  to  foster  collaboration,  innovation  and 
business  growth.  Respondents  suggested  that  clearly  communicating  how  these 
services  compare  with  alternative  options-  alongside  involving  a  broader  range  of 
participants- could further increase their perceived value. 

•  Main recommendations from the end-user survey included the need for more public 
awareness  activities  to  ensure  that  people  and  SMEs  are  informed  about  available 
training  and  resources,  as  well  as  simplifying  the  complexity  of  application, 
reporting, and access processes to encourage wider participation. Programmes should 
cater to  all skill  levels,  including beginners, and better address  the specific needs of 
SMEs. Training should include practical examples, hands-on sessions, and industry-
specific  applications.  Continuous  learning  opportunities,  post-training  resources, 
personalised  plans,  and  supporting  materials  were  also  highlighted  as  essential  for 
retention and practical implementation.  

•  Harmonising HPC-use policies and interfaces across EuroHPC sites would enhance 
usability,  and  more  opportunities  for  cross-industry  and  cross-border  collaboration, 
such as through EIT Manufacturing, should be created. Furthermore, respondents called 

127 

 
 
 
for long-term funding and collaboration frameworks to sustain user communities, 
improved  technical  support  for  HPC  streamlined  infrastructure  and  offering  low-
barrier access to testing environments and small-scale R&D projects. To remain 
competitive  with commercial cloud services, HPC should reduce administrative 
burden, standardise documentation, and  tailor initiatives  to  the needs of specific 
industrial  sectors.  Finally,  tracking  productivity,  certifying  participation  and 
ensuring transparent use of funds were seen as essential to maximise impact. 

Conclusion 

The consultation process for the interim evaluation of the Digital Europe programme engaged 
a wide range of stakeholders, and provided a detailed assessment of the programme’s progress. 
Stakeholders confirmed the programme’s relevance in addressing Europe’s digital priorities. 
Nevertheless, there remains scope for improvement in streamlining administrative processes 
and refining funding structures. While Digital Europe is fostering collaboration and delivering 
added value  at  EU level, improvements in  coherence,  accessibility, and support for smaller 
organisations could enhance its impact further.  
Insights gathered through this process will inform the design of a future digital deployment 
programme,  ensuring  that  future  initiatives  are  more  inclusive,  efficient  and  aligned  with 
evolving digital needs. 

128 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX VI. STATE OF PLAY OF PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION 

Glossary  

Abbreviation 

Definition  

CA 

CSA 

GP 

GFS 

HES 

OTH 

PRC 

Contribution Agreement 

Coordination and Support Action 

Grant for Procurement 

Grant for Financial Support to third parties 

Higher or Secondary Education organisations 

Other types of organisations 

Private organisation 

PRC_LE 

Private For-Profit Large Enterprises 

PRC_SME 

Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises 

PSA 

PUB 

REC 

Programme and Support Action 

Public organisation 

Research organisations 

SIMPLE 

Simple Grant 

SME (grant) 

SME support grant 

This annex provides an overview of the implementation of Digital Europe activities. It includes 
grants, procurements, financial instruments, Contribution Agreements (CAs), and Programme 
Support Actions. The analysis is based on data on Digital Europe projects and proposals as of 
the cut-off date, 31 December 2024. 

The  activities  are  categorised  by  Specific  Objectives  (SO),  with  the  European  Digital 
Innovation Hubs (EDIHs) reported as a separate category. Programme Support Actions that do 
not fall under any SO, are presented as an additional category in the different analyses. 

A total of 601 projects, have been funded through grants and procurements. In addition, other 
instruments (Contribution Agreements, Financial Instruments and programme support actions) 
were used. These projects account for total EU funding of EUR 3.02 bn, spanning from 2022 
to  2025.  Most  projects  are  expected  to  conclude  by  2025  and  2026,  with  reaming  projects 
ending by 2031 at the latest. 

129 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 1: Ending dates of projects 

Source: Technopolis Group 2025, based on data received from the client (cut-off date 31/12/2024). 

Distribution across SOs 

In  terms  of  SOs,  the  main  EU  contribution  –  from  both  grants  and  other  instruments 
(procurement, CA, financial instruments, and Programme Support Actions) – has been made 
to SO5 with a total EU funding of EUR 736.7 m. The lowest contributions were assigned to 
SO4  with  EUR  214.9m.  Four  Programme  Support  Actions  relevant  for  different  specific 
objectives summed up to EUR 78.4 m. The total committed amount sums up to EUR 3.016b. 

Figure 2: EU contributions per SO 

Source: Technopolis Group 2025, based on data received from the client (cut-off date 31/12/2024).

130 

 
 
 
 
 
The number of funded projects varies significantly from one SO to the other. SO5 has mainly due to the EDIHs the highest number of projects with 281 projects, 
followed by SO3 with 169. Next, there are 73 projects in SO2, and 51 projects in SO4. SO1 and SO6 present the lowest number of projects with 16 and 11 
projects, respectively. In addition to the grants and procurements, in terms of other instrument types, 11 venture capitals were supported to help companies 
involved in digital activities to reduce their financial risk. There were 3 Contribution Agreements with the European Space Agency (ESA), the European Centre 
for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), and the European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT) to implement 
Destination  Earth.  In  addition  there  was  a  contribution  agreement  with  ENISA  to  support  cybersecurity  incident  and  preparedness  in  key  sectors  and  a 
contribution agreement with eu-LISA to support cross-border investigations and prosecutions in the EU by funding an IT platform that supports safe and quick 
exchanges of information.  

Table 1: Distribution of projects and funding across the SOs 

SUM OF EU CONTRIBUTION BY INSTRUMENT TYPE 

SO 

Cros-s 
cutting 

SO 1 

SO 2 

SO 3 

SO 4 

SO 5 

SO 6 

Grand 
Total 

Contribution 
Agreement (EUR) 

Financial 
Instrument (EUR) 

Grant (EUR) 

Procurement 
(EUR) 

     26.693.750,00  

Programme 
Support  Actions 
(EUR) 

     51.692.584,24  

   351.108.200,00  

    80.664.811,58  

 164.636.999,51  

1.230.358,92  

28.000.000,00  

  480.479.511,63  

        2.699.668,00  

     15.000.000,00  

  462.430.902,33  

 135.702.296,33  

       3.608.000,00  

   484.571.352,61  

  248.565.196,88  

   211.171.428,64  

       3.717.090,00  

65.000.000,00  

     33.609.500,70  

 165.475.310,50  

     382.716.200,00  

       91.693.750,00  

 1.752.927.507,49  

  720.796.561,22  

        67.922.943,16  

7 

56 

168 

50 

253 

3 

537 

131 

TOTAL  SUM  OF 
EU 
CONTRIBUTION 
(EUR) 

TOTAL 
OF 
# 
PROJECTS 

SUM 
OF 

Number of Grants  Number 

of 

Procurements 

78.386.334,24  

597.640.370,01  

598.133.198,66  

526.179.179,63  

214.888.518,64  

9 

17 

1 

1 

28 

      736.744.549,49  

8 

     264.084.811,20  

64 

    3.016.056.961,87  

16 

73 

169 

51 

281 

11 

601 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
           
 
 
                      
           
 
 
 
                          
         
 
             
 
 
 
                
 
 
 
           
 
 
Distribution across Types of Action 

When looking at the funding distribution across types of action, Simple Grants (SIMPLE) represent 
the highest share of the total Digital Europe EU contribution with 41% (EUR 1 227 m) distributed across 
all SOs. It is followed by Procurement with a share of 24% (EUR 721 m) distributed across all the SOs. 
Meanwhile, Contribution Agreements (CAs) are distributed only in SO1, SO3 and SO5 with a share of 
13%  (EUR 383 m).  DIGITAL-SME,  DIGITAL-CSA  and  Financial  Instruments  have  a  share  of  6% 
(EUR 191 m), 5% (EUR 154 m) and 3% (EUR 92 m) respectively. These are followed by DIGITAL GP 
(3%, EUR 78 m) DIGITAL-GFS (2%, EUR 69 m) and Programme Support Actions (2%, EUR 68 m). 
DIGITAL-LS had the least share of funds (1%, EUR 34 m), directed only to SO4, while DIGITAL-FPA 
was not used across any SO. 

In terms of other instruments, 11 venture capitals were supported to help companies involved in digital 
activities to reduce their financial risk. There were 3 Contribution Agreements with the European Space 
Agency  (ESA),  the  European  Centre  for  Medium-Range  Weather  Forecasts  (ECMWF),  and  the 
European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT) to implement 
Destination Earth. In addition, there was a contribution agreement with ENISA to support cybersecurity 
incident and preparedness in key sectors and a contribution agreement with eu-LISA to support cross-
border investigations and prosecutions in the EU by funding an IT platform that support safe and quick 
exchanges of information.  

Figure 3: 

Distribution of funding across types of actions over the SOs 

Source: Technopolis Group 2025, based on data received from the client (cut-off date 31/12/2024). 

132 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Distribution across types of beneficiaries 

In terms of stakeholders, there has been a total of 6 388 participants in Digital Europe grants. Higher 
or Secondary Education Organisations (HES) accounted for the highest number of participants238 with 1 
331  participations  (21%  of  the  total  number),  followed  by  other  organisations (1  226  participations, 
19%).  While  SMEs  (PRC_SME)  account  for  1  101  organisations  (17%),  private  for-profit  Large 
Enterprises research organisations (REC) accounted for 987 participants (15%). (PRC_LE) accounted 
for 13% (842 participations) of the total participations. Public Organisations (PUB) accounted for 12% 
(792 participants). Finally, A remaining share of 2% (109 participations) corresponds to PRC entities 
where information on whether they are SMEs or LE was not identified. 

In  terms  of  project  coordination  (excluding  procurements),  HES  organisations  (together  with  OTH 
organisations) accounted for the highest number of coordinated projects, with 121 projects (20%). PUB 
and REC follow with 119 and 106 coordinated projects (20% and 17%), respectively. Meanwhile, PRC-
SME and PRC-LE accounted for 13 and 9% of the total projects (82 and 57 projects). The remaining 
1% (4 projects) are PRCs where information on whether they are SMEs or LE was not identified. 

In terms of funding distribution across the beneficiaries, HES were the highest receiver of EU funding 
with a share of 23% (EUR 397.0 m), closely followed by REC organisations with 22% (EUR 390.1 m). 
PRC_SME organisations had 17% (EUR 295.0 m), and PRC_LE and PUB had 11% (200.3 m) and 11% 
(184.4 m) respectively. OTH organisations have attracted 15% (269.0 m) of the funding. The remaining 
1% (EUR 17.1 m) corresponds to the PRC entities where information on whether they are SMEs or LE 
was not identified. 

Table 2: Distribution of funding across different types of organisations 

Row Labels 

Sum of EU Contribution (EUR)  Average of EU 

Sum of Participants 

Contribution (EUR) 

HES 

OTH 

PRC 

PRC_LE 

PRC_SME 

PUB 

REC 

397.041.308 

269.029.544 

17.131.142 

200.262.396 

294.987.367 

184.398.253 

390.077.497 

€ 298.751,92 

€ 219.975,10 

€ 157.166,44 

€ 237.841,33 

€ 267.926,76 

€ 233.120,42 

€ 395.616,12 

1.331 

1.226 

109 

842 

1.101 

792 

987 

Grand Total 

1.752.927.507 

274.710 

6 388 

*NA: ‘Type of Stakeholder’ information not available for ‘Other’ instruments. 
Source: Technopolis Group 2025, based on data received from the client (cut-off date 31/12/2024). 

Distribution of funding per type of beneficiary across the SOs 

238 Participants refer to the number of unique participants. The number of participations take into account  also 

when an organisation takes part in multiple projects.  

133 

 
 
 
 
 
 
When looking at the distribution of funding per type of beneficiary across the SOs, it is noticeable that 
all beneficiary groups are participating and receiving EU funds in all SOs for grants. Differences are 
nevertheless wide. HES organisations received the highest amount of EU funding across all SOs than 
any other beneficiary group, with a significant share allocated to SO4 (31% of the total funding received 
by this stakeholder group). REC organisations received the highest amount of EU contribution in an 
individual SO – in SO2 with EUR 192.3 m (40% of the total funding allocated to the stakeholder group). 
PRC_SME  received  the  highest  contribution  in  SO3  (EUR 146.5 m  or  50%  of  the  total  stakeholder 
group’s  allocation),  while  HES  received  the  highest  one  in  SO4  (EUR 117.4 m  or  28%  of  the  total 
stakeholder group’s allocation). OTH received 22% of their share on SO5 (EUR 122.1 m). Finally, in 
SO6, funding was directed to HES and REC, being this last group, the one receiving the highest share 
(EUR 31.4 m). 

Table 3: Distribution of funding across types of beneficiaries over the SOs (grants only) 

Type of Stakeholder 

SO 1 

SO 2 

SO 3 

SO 4 

SO 5 

SO 6 

Grand Total 

HES 

OTH 

PRC 

PRC_LE 

PRC_SME 

PUB 

REC 

Grand Total 

52.533.902 

69.635.217 

57.790.199 

117.432.230 

97.449.214 

2.200.546 

397.041.308 

7.052.898 

64.466.720 

49.205.111 

26.210.088 

122.094.727 

2.108.050 

954.144 

236.079 

13.832.869 

2.430.700 

55.402.380 

78.432.365 

11.815.219 

52.181.732 

4.384.319 

56.395.278 

146.482.343 

35.509.283 

52.216.143 

1.918.686 

21.729.992 

92.849.406 

3.102.458 

64.797.710 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

269.029.544 

17.131.142 

200.262.396 

294.987.367 

184.398.253 

12.344.306 

192.693.265 

54.765.944 

16.866.071 

81.998.957 

31.408.955 

390.077.497 

80.664.812 

462.430.902 

480.479.512 

211.171.429 

484.571.353 

33.609.501 

1.752.927.507 

PRC: PRC entities where information on whether they are SMEs or LE was not identified 
Source: Technopolis Group 2025, based on data received from the client (cut-off date 31/12/2024). 

Figure 4: Distribution of funding across types of beneficiaries over the SOs (grants only) 

134 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source: Technopolis Group 2025, based on data provided by the client (reference date 31/12/2024). 

Evolution of share of funding per type of beneficiary over time 

 When looking at the evolution of EU funding per type of beneficiary over time, it is evident that at 
the starting stages of the programme, in 2022, REC received the most Digital Europe funding of that 
year, this share getting gradually smaller in the subsequent years, reaching 12% in 2025. PRC_SME 
started receiving funding in 2022 with a share of 8%, increasing up to 23% in 2024 and decreasing again 
to 16% in 2025. HES started receiving funding in 2022 with a share of 21%, and remained around this 
percentage in the subsequent years. PUB funding started in 2022 with merely 6% of the funds allocated 
that year, but rose steadily to 17% in 2025. The PRC entities for which information on whether they are 
SMEs or LE is not identified still represented 3% of the funding in 2022, but decreased to 0% from 2024 
onwards. 

Table 4. Share of EU funding across type of stakeholder over time 

Type of Stakeholder 

HES 

OTH 

PRC 

PRC_LE 

PRC_SME 

PUB 

REC 

Grand Total 

2022 

21% 

20% 

3% 

5% 

8% 

6% 

38% 

100% 

2023 

23% 

13% 

1% 

13% 

18% 

11% 

20% 

2024 

24% 

12% 

0% 

13% 

23% 

12% 

16% 

2025 

19% 

23% 

0% 

13% 

16% 

17% 

12% 

Grant total 

23% 

15% 

1% 

11% 

17% 

11% 

22% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

PRC: PRC entities for which information on whether they are SMEs or LE is not identified. 
Source: Technopolis Group 2025, based on data received from the client (cut-off date 31/12/2024). 

135 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 5: Evolution of share of funding per type of stakeholder over time

Source: Technopolis Group 2025, based on data provided by the client (reference date 31/12/2024) 

Distribution across countries (grants) 

Not  surprisingly,  Member  States  have  participated  by  far  the  most  in  Digital  Europe,  receiving 
EUR 1 687.8 m  of  the  total  programme  funding  across  5 951  participating  organisations. Associated 
Countries have a more prominent role than Non-Associated Third Countries, with an EU contribution 
of EUR 63.3 m across 392 participations, while the latter received and EU contribution of EUR 1.9 m 
across 45 participations. 

Table 5: Distribution across country groups 

Country Group 

Associated Countries 

Member States 

Non-Associated-Third Countries 

N 

392 

5.951 

45 

Grants 

EU Contribution (EUR) 

63.260.406 

1.687.752.837 

1.914.265 

1.752.927.507 
Source: Technopolis Group 2025, based on data provided by the client (reference date 31/12/2024) 

Grand Total 

6.388 

Distribution of funding across country groups over the SOs 

When looking at the distribution of funding across participating countries per SO, overall Member 
States have a varied distribution over the SOs. SO3 is the one with the highest share of EU funding with 
28%. Although  individual Member  States present  also  a  varied  distribution,  some  of  them  present a 
higher concentration of EU funding in specific SOs. Slovakia presents the highest concentration of EU 
funding in a specific SO; 68% in SO3. It is followed by Malta, Cyprus, and Croatia which concentrate 
60% or more of their funding also in SO3. Germany stands out in SO1 concentrating 16% of the total 
funding allocated to the country. Similarly, France and Belgium have over 45% of their funding in SO2.  

136 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Regarding, SO4, 25% of Portugal’s Digital Europe funding and  28% of Ireland’s funding is directed 
towards this SO, while regarding SO5, Hungary holds 47% of its total funding on this SO. SO6 funding 
has only been distribute to Belgium (7%), Germany (6%), France (4%), Ireland (3%), Austria (1%) and 
Finland (1%). 

In terms of associated countries, 51% of their funding is directed to SO5, distributed mainly between 
Kosova, Liechtenstein (both 100%), Albania (90%) and Ukraine (80%). SO3 follows with 25% of the 
total associated countries’ funding, specifically for Iceland (45%) and Norway (40%). 22% of Türkiye’s 
funding is for SO4, while for SO1, the totality of the funding for Bosnia & Herzegovina is for this SO. 
Finally,  the  only  two  Non-Associated  Third  Countries  receiving  funding  are Aruba  and  the  United 
Kingdom with a 100% share directed to SO2. 

Table 6. Funding distribution across participating countries over the SOS 
SO 3 

Country Group / Country 

SO 1 

SO 2 

Associated Countries 

Albania 

Bosnia and Herzegovina 

Iceland 

Kosova 

Liechtenstein 

Montenegro 

North Macedonia 

Norway 

Serbia 

Türkiye 

Ukraine 

Member States 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czechia 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

7% 

0% 

100% 

10% 

0% 

0% 

35% 

26% 

3% 

24% 

8% 

0% 

5% 

3% 

1% 

5% 

2% 

3% 

4% 

3% 

8% 

4% 

3% 

16% 

1% 

4% 

3% 

2% 

3% 

3% 

9% 

0% 

5% 

10% 

0% 

1% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

8% 

0% 

6% 

1% 

27% 

28% 

47% 

12% 

4% 

5% 

16% 

35% 

13% 

40% 

45% 

32% 

14% 

10% 

13% 

23% 

6% 

4% 

23% 

3% 

137 

25% 

0% 

0% 

45% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

40% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

SO 4 

11% 

0% 

0% 

6% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

10% 

12% 

22% 

20% 

SO 5 

51% 

90% 

0% 

38% 

100% 

100% 

65% 

74% 

38% 

64% 

64% 

79% 

SO 6 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

28% 

12% 

27% 

2% 

28% 

16% 

34% 

60% 

66% 

36% 

16% 

33% 

14% 

12% 

14% 

47% 

28% 

34% 

30% 

37% 

31% 

44% 

67% 

11% 

12% 

10% 

10% 

11% 

6% 

20% 

18% 

22% 

10% 

8% 

17% 

11% 

28% 

16% 

17% 

23% 

3% 

1% 

29% 

17% 

39% 

23% 

14% 

38% 

25% 

28% 

20% 

27% 

24% 

20% 

47% 

18% 

29% 

36% 

40% 

21% 

28% 

1% 

7% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

1% 

4% 

6% 

0% 

0% 

3% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

 
 
 
Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

Non-Associated-Third Countries 

Aruba 

United Kingdom 

Grand Total 

1% 

3% 

2% 

2% 

3% 

8% 

3% 

3% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

20% 

33% 

8% 

19% 

3% 

8% 

14% 

36% 

31% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

20% 

28% 

38% 

18% 

56% 

68% 

51% 

17% 

24% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

18% 

8% 

4% 

25% 

7% 

3% 

4% 

15% 

8% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

8% 

30% 

46% 

35% 

32% 

19% 

23% 

29% 

33% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

24% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

9% 

Source: Technopolis Group 2025, based on data provided by the client (reference date 31/12/2024) 

Table 7. Funding (EUR)/1000 citizens across Member States 

Member States 

Digital Europe Funding 
(EUR) 

Population (N) 

Digital Europe Funding / 
1000 Citizens (EUR) 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czechia 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

48.414.631 

157.275.860 

20.641.792 

29.242.234 

36.306.783 

34.224.654 

39.944.679 

15.229.833 

48.793.868 

171.776.509 

236.695.163 

85.839.185 

26.879.917 

52.689.827 

159.485.733 

16.149.910 

18.948.684 

27.606.316 

11.484.226 

78.769.089 

58.762.979 

37.861.802 

48.458.828 

37.495.834 

22.106.419 

9.120.813 

11.738.763 

6.757.689 

3.875.325 

1.358.282 

10.735.859 

5.977.412 

1.360.546 

5.617.310 

66.548.530 

84.552.242 

10.047.817 

9.676.135 

5.255.017 

59.342.867 

1.871.871 

2.859.110 

673.036 

539.607 

18.228.742 

38.539.201 

10.425.292 

19.015.088 

5.506.760 

2.118.697 

138 

5.308 

13.398 

3.055 

7.546 

26.730 

3.188 

6.683 

11.194 

8.686 

2.581 

2.799 

8.543 

2.778 

10.027 

2.688 

8.628 

6.627 

41.018 

21.283 

4.321 

1.525 

3.632 

2.548 

6.809 

10.434 

 
 
 
 
Spain 

Sweden 

118.984.844 

47.683.238 

47.910.526 

1.060.699 

2.483 

44.955 

Source: Technopolis Group 2025, based on data provided by the client (reference date 31/12/2024) 

Distribution of participations across participating countries 

Table 8. Distribution of participations across country groups 
SO2 

Country Group 

SO1 

Associated Countries 

Member States 

Non Associated-Third Countries 

28 

132 

- 

22 

1.237 

15 

- 

SO3 

25 

952 

SO4 

40 

738 

13 

SO5 

277 

2.865 

17 

Grand Total 

160 

1.274 

977 

791 

3.159 

SO6 

Grand Total 

- 

27 

- 

27 

392 

5.951 

45 

6.388 

Source: Technopolis Group 2025, based on data provided by the client (reference date 31/12/2024) 

With regards to the number and distribution of participations across participating countries, within 
Member States, Spain and Italy stand out as the countries with the highest number of participations with 
643 and 626 participations, respectively. They are followed by France and Germany with 560 and 472 
participations,  respectively.  Regarding  associated  countries,  Norway  has  the  highest  number  of 
participations  of  this  country  group  (89  participations),  while  for  Non-Associated  Third  Countries, 
Switzerland, United Kingdom, and United States reported 20, 10, and 8 participations, respectively. 

Figure 6: Number and distribution of participations across countries 

Source: Technopolis Group 2025, based on data provided by the client (reference date 31/12/2025). 

Table 9: Participation per 1 million citizens across Member States 

Row Labels 

Sum of Participation 

Population (N) 

Participations per 1000000 
citizens 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

187 

404 

103 

99 

9.120.813 
11.738.763 
6.757.689 
3.875.325 

20,50 

34,42 

15,24 

25,55 

139 

 
 
 
 
 
Cyprus 

Czechia 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

136 

107 

125 

70 

194 

560 

472 

339 

96 

121 

626 

93 

101 

84 

23 

280 

295 

195 

227 

103 

108 

643 

160 

1.358.282 
10.735.859 
5.977.412 
1.360.546 
5.617.310 
66.548.530 
84.552.242 
10.047.817 
9.676.135 
5.255.017 
59.342.867 
1.871.871 
2.859.110 
673.036 
539.607 
18.228.742 
38.539.201 
10.425.292 
19.015.088 
5.506.760 
2.118.697 
47.910.526 
1.060.699 

100,13 

9,97 

20,91 

51,45 

34,54 

8,41 

5,58 

33,74 

9,92 

23,03 

10,55 

49,68 

35,33 

124,81 

42,62 

15,36 

7,65 

18,70 

11,94 

18,70 

50,97 

13,42 

150,84 

Source: Technopolis Group 2025, based on data provided by the client (reference date 31/12/2025). 

140 

 
 
 
 
 
Success and oversubscription per SO (grants) 

Table 10 below gives an overview of the success rate of proposals and oversubscription rates 
(i.e. amount of funding requested vs amount granted) per SO. SO6 has the highest success rate 
among  all  the  SOs  (91%),  followed  by  SO1  and  SO5  with  a  75%  and  73%  success  rates, 
respectively. SO4 has the lowest success rate (26%) and, not surprisingly, it also has the lowest 
oversubscription rate (36%), meaning that this SO received the least percentage of funding that 
was  requested  by  eligible  proposals.  SO6  has  also  the  highest  oversubscription  rate  (91%), 
followed by SO1 (86%) and SO5 (83%). 

Table 10: Success rates per SO 

SO 

Successful 
Proposals (N) 

Eligible 
Proposals (N) 

Success  Rate 
(%) 

Oversubscription 
Rate (%) 

Av  EU  Funding 
(EUR) 

EDIH 

147 

SO 1 

SO 2 

SO 3 

SO 4 

SO 5 

SO 6 

Grand 
Total 

9 

68 

171 

45 

86 

32 

558 

320 

12 

158 

318 

176 

118 

35 

46% 

75% 

43% 

54% 

26% 

73% 

91% 

47% 

86% 

66% 

58% 

36% 

83% 

91% 

1.137 

49% 

58% 

2.128.835 

9.609.421 

8.324.022 

2.820.751 

4.123.017 

1.737.319 

3.999.662 

3.424.265 

Source: Technopolis Group 2024, based on data provided by the client (reference date 08/01/2025) 

Success and oversubscription rates per Types of Action (grants) 

When looking at the success and oversubscription rates per types of action (Table 11), proposals 
under Framework Partnerships and Specific Grants have both  an average success  rate of 
100%, meaning that all the eligible proposals were retained. This could be expected given that 
these types of action received only one and two eligible proposals, respectively. On the other 
hand, proposals for budget-based grants have an average success rate of 50%, while proposals 
for lump sum grant have the lowest success rate (22%). 

Table 11:  

Success rates per types of action 

Row Labels 

DIGITAL  Action  Grant  Budget-
Based 

DIGITAL 
Partnership 

Framework 

Eligible 
Proposa
ls 

Successful 
Proposals 

Unsuccessf
ul 
Proposals 

Succe
ss 
Rate 

1.111 

551 

560 

50% 

Av  EU 
Fundin
g (EUR) 

3.414.98
2 

Oversubscripti
on Rate (%) 

59% 

1 

1 

0 

100% 

- 

NA 

141 

 
 
 
 
DIGITAL Lump Sum Grant 

23 

DIGITAL Specific Grant 

2 

5 

2 

19 

0 

22% 

100% 

Grand Total 

1.137 

558 

579 

49% 

5.695.81
8 

3.150.73
4 

3.424.26
5 

19% 

100% 

58% 

Source: Technopolis Group 2024, based on data provided by the client (reference date 08/01/2025) 

Success rates per Type of Applicants (grants) 

If  we  look  at  Table  12,  we  see  that  there  are  some  notable  differences  of  the  success  rates 
between stakeholder groups over the SOs. Overall, Public Organisations (PUB) and Research 
Organisations  (REC)  have  the  highest  success  rates  across  all  SOs;  with  PUB  having  a 
particularly higher rates for SO1 (100%) and SO5 (91%), and REC for SO5 (98%) and SO6 
(94%). Other (OTH) type of organisations has higher success rates for SO5 (90%) and SO6 
(89%), and same is the case for Higher or Secondary Education  Institutions (HES) for SO1 
(89%) and SO5 (88%). Private For-Profit Organisations (PRC) follow the same pattern with 
higher rates in SO5 (88%) and SO1 (86%). Finally, it is noteworthy that SO4 has the lowest 
success rates across all the stakeholder groups, being particularly low in PUB (30%). 

Table 12:Success rates over the SOs per Type of Applicants 

SO 

HES 

OTH 

49% 

89% 

62% 

73% 

37% 

88% 

87% 

49% 

83% 

66% 

54% 

30% 

90% 

89% 

EDIH 

SO 1 

SO 2 

SO 3 

SO 4 

SO 5 

SO 6 

Grand 
Total 

PRC 
(SME) 

37% 

80% 

55% 

60% 

32% 

81% 

55% 

PRC 
(LE) 

43% 

89% 

64% 

51% 

29% 

92% 

100% 

PRC 
(Unknown) 

PUB 

REC 

Grand 
Total 

38% 

46% 

100% 

100% 

70% 

69% 

38% 

91% 

80% 

73% 

76% 

30% 

91% 

83% 

51% 

88% 

75% 

79% 

34% 

98% 

94% 

46% 

88% 

66% 

67% 

33% 

90% 

89% 

56% 

55% 

61% 

54% 

65% 

65% 

57% 

51% 

Overall success rate is different given that we count all the applicants participating in proposals and not unique proposals.  

Source: Technopolis Group 2024, based on data provided by the client (reference date 08/01/2025) 

Success rates per Geography of Applicants (grants) 

Lastly,  Table  13  indicates  the  success  rates  per  SO  over  the  geography  of  applicants. All 
registered countries are Member States, from which France has the highest success rate (76%) 
– with particularly higher rates for SO5 (96%) and SO1 (92%)  – followed by Denmark and 

142 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Latvia  (each  with  a  success  rate  of  72%).  SO1  presents  success  rates  of  100%  for  several 
countries  including  Bulgaria,  Croatia,  and  Cyprus,  and  so  is  the  case  for  SO6  for  countries 
including Austria, Czechia, Finland, and Hungary. In congruence with the previous analyses, 
all  the  countries  report  the  lowest  success  rate  for  SO4,  with  Latvia  being  the  lowest  of  all 
(15%). 

Table 13: Success rates per SO over the geography of applicants 

Country 

EDIH 

SO 1 

SO 2 

SO 3 

SO 4 

SO 5 

SO 6 

Total 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czechia 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

40% 

56% 

31% 

73% 

46% 

81% 

65% 

91% 

83% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

80% 

100% 

66% 

73% 

19% 

85% 

100% 

67% 

72% 

39% 

93% 

94% 

45% 

47% 

20% 

48% 

100% 

37% 

71% 

18% 

65% 

100% 

50% 

93% 

44% 

67% 

NA 

64% 

64% 

32% 

75% 

100% 

76% 

84% 

50% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

61% 

48% 

20% 

95% 

100% 

71% 

84% 

50% 

24% 

76% 

37% 

22% 

80% 

92% 

86% 

100% 

100% 

75% 

87% 

81% 

71% 

35% 

100% 

100% 

82% 

62% 

39% 

96% 

78% 

67% 

43% 

90% 

86% 

85% 

46% 

85% 

27% 

95% 

100% 

54% 

59% 

30% 

90% 

100% 

57% 

86% 

50% 

85% 

64% 

60% 

32% 

93% 

86% 

71% 

100% 

100% 

75% 

42% 

15% 

100% 

100% 

Lithuania 

100% 

100% 

62% 

69% 

34% 

82% 

100% 

Luxembourg 

89% 

100% 

59% 

76% 

33% 

81% 

NA 

Malta 

100% 

NA 

20% 

43% 

40% 

57% 

100% 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

97% 

54% 

18% 

58% 

51% 

62% 

53% 

33% 

89% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

93% 

80% 

66% 

64% 

25% 

98% 

100% 

58% 

53% 

20% 

100% 

69% 

68% 

76% 

48% 

96% 

100% 

46% 

60% 

26% 

100% 

75% 

35% 

71% 

28% 

88% 

100% 

53% 

81% 

37% 

91% 

100% 

68% 

53% 

32% 

94% 

70% 

56% 

63% 

38% 

55% 

65% 

66% 

72% 

57% 

67% 

76% 

66% 

50% 

63% 

61% 

39% 

72% 

71% 

67% 

51% 

69% 

54% 

43% 

54% 

57% 

67% 

58% 

143 

 
 
 
Sweden 

43% 

57% 

72% 

48% 

43% 

91% 

100% 

Grand Total 

46% 

88% 

66% 

67% 

33% 

90% 

89% 

58% 

57% 

Overall success rate is different given that we count all the applicants participating in proposals and not unique proposals. 
Source: Technopolis Group 2024, based on data provided by the client (reference date 08/01/2025) 

Time to Grant per SO over time (based on Signature Year) 

The  time-to-grant  (TTG)  is  calculated  subtracting  the  project  signature  date  and  the  call 
deadline date. Digital Europe commits itself to a 9-month maximum TTG. On average, all SOs 
are  within  this  maximum  commitment  on  average,  demonstrating  that  Digital  Europe  is 
reaching is TTG target. The only exception was EDIH in 2023 when its TTG was 11 month 
(341 days). Over time, EDIH and SO6 have the highest TTG of 9 months (272 days and 271, 
respectively), while SO1 has the lowest TTG of 6 months (184 days). The rest of SOs (SO2, 
SO3, SO4 and SO5) have on average a TTG of 8 months (226 – 249 days).  

Table 14: Time-To-Grant (TTG) per SO over time 

2022 

2023 

2024 

SO 

Av  TTG 
(Days) 

TTG 

Av 
(Months) 

Av  TTG 
(Days) 

TTG 

Av 
(Months) 

Av  TTG 
(Days) 

TTG 

Av 
(Months) 

Total  Av  TTG 
(Days) 

Total  Av  TTG 
(Months) 

EDIH 

264 

175 

223 

244 

228 

240 

SO 1 

SO 2 

SO 3 

SO 4 

SO 5 

SO 6 

Grand 
Total 

246 

9 

6 

7 

8 

8 

8 

8 

341 

237 

249 

239 

222 

261 

262 

11 

8 

8 

8 

7 

9 

9 

216 

177 

270 

243 

227 

232 

271 

243 

7 

6 

9 

8 

8 

8 

9 

8 

272 

184 

242 

241 

226 

249 

271 

250 

9 

6 

8 

8 

8 

8 

9 

8 

Table 15: Number of projects TTG > 9 months 

2022 

2023 

2024 

Grand Total 

% of Total 

N 

% of Total 

SO 

EDIH 

SO 1 

SO 2 

SO 3 

SO 4 

SO 5 

SO 6 

N 

82 

6 

22 

4 

14 

% of Total 

64% 

0% 

22% 

49% 

18% 

36% 

N 

12 

1 

3 

55% 

50% 

43% 

26 

30% 

5 

5 

38% 

38% 

144 

0% 

0% 

44% 

29% 

8% 

28% 

100% 

7 

5 

1 

11 

1 

N 

94 

1 

16 

53 

10 

30 

1 

% of Total 

59% 

17% 

32% 

36% 

21% 

33% 

100% 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Grand Total 

128 

48% 

52 

36% 

25 

26% 

205 

41% 

145 

 
 
 
ANNEX VII. NUMBER OF END-USERS REACHED BY THE PROGRAMME 

Citizens 

No. 
Academia/ 
Research 
Org Users 

No. Public 
Organisation 
Users 

No. Private 
Company 
Users 
(SMEs)239 

No. Private 
Company 
Users (Large 
Companies) 

No 
information 
on type of 
organisation  

Website 
Users 

Website Visitors 

Total 
(excl. website users/ visitors) 

HPC 

Digital Skills 

20 713 

329 

25 

366 (218 
SMEs) 

157 

30 308 

1.13 m 

Destination Earth 

Data Space 
(health) 

TEF 

Cybersecurity 

European Digital 
Innovation Hubs 

600 

59 

226 

5 

329 

5 

20 

1 

194 

10 

53 

7 

1 621 

14 289 

813 

3 

90 

4240 

21 590 

1 936 

77 

311 

103241 

15 910242 

239 In 101 instances there was no company size classification available. We assumed companies were SMEs.  
240 Type of users unknown. Note that the HPC infrastructure funded by CEF, Horizon 2020, Horizon Europe and Digital Europe has more users. Jupiter is the first HPC system directly funded by Digital 
Europe (not taking into consideration the Digital Europe funded upgrades of HPC systems), and this system was open to researchers for experimental use in 2024 and is expected to substantially extend 
usage to more stakeholders in 2025 

241 Data on types of organisations available for 13 users.  
242 An additional estimated 38 700 people participated in events (unknown distribution per user type). This explains the difference between the 54,610 value for the legal indicator on EDIH participants. 

146 

 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Digitalization of 
Public Services 

Safer Internet 

EDMO 

Blockchain 

Justice 

Interoperability 

Cloud to Edge 

Total 

1 027 
392 

1 048 
105 

360 

21 884 

125 million243 

390 816 

36 

0 

0 

406 

10 774 

40 643 

33 

1.1 m 

1 078 809 

12 576 

26 

1 m 

12 576 

26 

998 

25 815 

55 169 

157 

939 

115.2 m 

127.5 m 

1 119 208 

243 A substantial part of this figure includes citizens supported by the activities of the Safer Internet Hubs 

147 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX VIII. PROGRESS MADE ON VARIOUS INDICATORS 

SO 

Indicator (DESI LINK) 

Baseline 

Final Target   Milestone 

for 

end of 2024 

21 in 2026 

19 

10% in 2025 

7% 

Current  Status  (end  of 
2024) 

Progress against final 
target and milestones  

19  

7% 

90.4%  (on  track  with 
milestones) 

70%  (on  track  with 
milestones) 

EUR 50 million 

EUR 189,7 million 

>100%  

EUR 
million 
2027 

180 
in 

1 600 in 2030 

140 

414 

26%  (on  track  with 
milestones) 

7 

0 

0 

0 

Output:  HPC  infrastructures  jointly  procured 
(DESI  Connectivity:  Gigabit  for  everyone 
(VHCN connectivity)) 

Result: Usage of the exascale and post-exascale 
computers  in  total  and  by  various  stakeholder 
(DESI 
(universities,  SMEs  etc.)  
groups 
Connectivity: 5G coverage) 

Co-investment 

Result: 
for 
experimentation and testing (DESI Integration 
of Digital Technology: Cloud & AI adoption) 

sites 

in 

Result: Usage of common European libraries or 
interfaces  to  libraries  of  algorithms,  usage  of 
common European data spaces and usage of sites 
for  experimentation  and 
to 
activities 
(DESI 
this 
Integration of Digital Technology: AI, Cloud, 
Big data adoption) 

testing  related 
regulation 

under 

1* 

1* 

2* 

2* 

2* 

Result: Cases for which organisations decide to 
integrate  AI  in  their  product,  processes  or 
services,  as  a  result  of  the  programme  (DESI 
Integration of Digital Technology: AI, Cloud, 
Big data adoption) 

0 

100 by 2030 

0 

No data yet 

(on 
with 
track 
milestones, first results 
expected in 2025) 

148 

 
 
 
SO 

Indicator (DESI LINK) 

Baseline 

Final Target   Milestone 

for 

Current  Status  (end  of 
2024) 

Progress against final 
target and milestones  

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Output: Cybersecurity infrastructure and/or tools 
jointly  procured  (DESI  Human  Capital:  ICT 
specialists) 

Output: Cybersecurity infrastructure and/or tools 
ICT 
deployed 
specialists) 

(DESI  Human  Capital: 

Result: Users and communities getting access to 
European cybersecurity facilities  

Result:  People  who  have  received  training  to 
acquire  advanced  digital  skills  (DESI  Human 
Capital: Advanced digital skills) 

Result:  People 
improved 
reporting 
employment  situation  after  the  end  of  the 
training  supported  by  the  programme  (DESI 
Human Capital: ICT (female) specialists) 

an 

Impact:  Enterprises  having  difficulty  recruiting 
ICT  specialists  (DESI  Human  Capital:  ICT 
specialists) 

3* 

3* 

3* 

4* 

4* 

4* 

5* 

end of 2024 

15 by 2027 

0 

165 by 2027 

0 

0 

38 

400 in 2028 

0 

103 

65  000 
2027 

26  200 
2027 

in 

11 880 

20 713 

in 

125 

No data 

55.4% (2020)  NA 

66.4% 

57.5% 

(on 

0% 
milestones) 

track  with 

23%  (on  track  with 
milestones) 

26%  (on  track  with 
milestones) 

31.9%  (on  track  with 
milestones) 

No  data  collected  in 
time244 

on 
track 
milestones245 

with 

Result: Take-up of digital public services (DESI 
Digital  Public  Services:  Public  services  for 
citizens and businesses) 

0 

1 
scale 

progress 

0.25 

0 

(on track) 

244 The data received from training participants was incomplete. No data could be reported on time. 
245 In the evaluator’s view this indicator is not a good proxy for direct programme at this stage of the programme, given the scale of the current implementation vs. the scale of the EU 

economy. However, as an official legal indicator this has been included for sake of completeness. 

149 

 
 
 
 
SO 

Indicator (DESI LINK) 

Baseline 

Final Target   Milestone 

for 

end of 2024 

Current  Status  (end  of 
2024) 

Progress against final 
target and milestones  

5* 

5* 

6 

6 

6 

6 

Enterprises  with  a  high  digital  intensity  score 
(DESI  Integration  of  Digital  Technology: 
Digital intensity in businesses) 

15.9% (2021) 

21% by 2029 

17.6% 

34.3% 
methodology) 

(32.2% 

old 

(on track) 

Result: Businesses and public sector entities that 
have  used  the  European  digital  innovation  hub 
(EDIH)  services  (DESI  Integration  of  Digital 
Technology: Digital intensity in businesses) 

0 

191,400 
2027 

in 

47,400 

54 610  

28,5%  on  track  with 
milestone 

legal  entities 

involved 
The  number  of 
(subdivided  by  size, 
type  and  country  of 
establishment)  in  the  actions  supported  by  the 
Initiative246. 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

19 legal entities of which 
12  are  RTOs  and  7  are 
Universities 

N/A 

The  number  of  design  tools  developed  or 
integrated under the Initiative247. 

N/A 

The  total  amount  co-invested  by  the  private 
sector in design capacities and pilot lines under 
the Initiative248. 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

The number of users of semiconductors or user 
communities seeking, and the number of users of 
semiconductors or  user  communities  obtaining, 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

0 

0 

0 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

246 More beneficiaries are expected until 2027 with new calls and the signature of a number of grant agreements. 
247 The Chips Joint Undertaking Work programme 2025 includes call for the development of open-source EDA tools, results are expected in 2027. 
248 Private investment is expected once the pilot lines are operational and for several future Work programme topics on design capacities. 

150 

 
 
 
 
 
 
SO 

Indicator (DESI LINK) 

Baseline 

Final Target   Milestone 

for 

end of 2024 

Current  Status  (end  of 
2024) 

Progress against final 
target and milestones  

6 

6 

6 

access to design capacities and pilot lines under 
the Initiative249.  

The number of businesses, which have used the 
services  of  national  competence  centres 
supported by the Initiative250. 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

The number of active competence centres in the 
Union in the context of the Initiative.251 

N/A 

The  number  of  start-ups,  scale-ups  and  SMEs 
that have received venture capital from the Chips 
Fund  activities  and  the  total  amount  of  capital 
investments made. 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

0 

0 

top-up 
leading 
by 

Digital  Europe  EUR  67 
of 
million 
to 
InvestEU 
investment 
EIF 
financial  partners  in  19 
EU 
semiconductor 
start-up companies. 

249 The pilot lines and the Design Platform are still being set up, their grant agreements being prepared, and therefore they do not have any users yet.   
250 The Competence Centres are still being set up, their grant agreements being prepared, and therefore they do not have any users.   
251 Grant agreements for the Competence Centres are still being prepared. It is expected that by end 2025 Competence Centres will be in place in all Member States and Norway. 

151 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX IX. ADDITIONAL INDICATORS 

2. HPC: Percentage of computing power of top 500 systems installed in the EU252 (SO1) 
Indicator Type 
Definition 

Result 
Share of the total computing power of top 500 
systems corresponding to systems installed in the 
EU. 
Percentage of total computing power (expressed 
as a fraction) 
www.top500.org 
CNECT.C2 
Biannually (June and November) 
0. The indicator is strictly linked to the 
implementation of Digital Europe 
10% by 2026 (for supercomputers funded by 
Digital Europe) Estimation is based on the fact 
that EuroHPC supercomputers made 10.77% of 
the total TOP500 list (Rmax performance) in 
November 2022.  
The Top500 list uses as a yardstick of 
performance the `best' performance as measured 
by the LINPACK Benchmark. LINPACK was 
chosen because it is widely used and performance 
numbers are available for almost all relevant 
systems. 

More information on: 
https://www.top500.org/project/linpack/ 
10.87% in Rmax for all EuroHPC funded 
computers (9.66% in Rpeak) 

 0% for Digital Europe funded supercomputers 

First Rank, Name, Site 

3, LUMI, EuroHPC/CSC 
4, Leonardo, EuroHPC/CINECA 
8, MareNostrum 5 ACC, EuroHPC/BSC 
19, MareNostrum 5 GPP, EuroHPC/BSC 
36, MeluXina - Accelerator Module, LuxProvide 
100, Leonardo-CPU, EuroHPC/CINECA 

Unit of Measurement 

Data Source  
Data provider and responsible for data collection 
Frequency of Data Collection  
Baseline  

Target  

Underlying definitions and concepts 

Milestone September 2024 

252 Funded by Digital Europe credits. 

 
 
 
      
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
71, Karolina, GPU partition, IT4Innovations 
National Supercomputing Center, VSB-Technical 
University of Ostrava 
76, LUMI-C, EuroHPC/CSC 
91, Discoverer, Consortium Petascale 
Supercomputer Bulgaria 
189, JEDI, EuroHPC/FZJ 
219, Deucalion, FCT 
106, VEGA HPC CPU, IZUM 
134, VEGA HPC GPU, IZUM 
149, Karolina, CPU partition, IT4Innovations 
National Supercomputing Center, VSB-Technical 
University of Ostrava 
230, MeluXina - Cluster Module, LuxProvide 

Output 
DestinE Core Service Platform services are ready-
Output 
to-use functions and applications with reliable 
Number of distinct categories or thematic areas 
performance levels (formal service-level 
from which data are made available to the 
agreement), available for users. Examples include 
DestinE user community. This refers to the 
modelling, visualisation and collaboration 
number of data types belonging to different 
services. 
categories / domains / fields. 
Absolute Number (services) 
The data are collected and reported from the 
The indicator is used to demonstrate the diversity 
DestinE Core Service Platform Registry 
of data resources available for end users.  

European Space Agency (ESA) 
Absolute Number (data types) 
DestinE Data Lake Data Portfolio and DestinE 
Annually  
Core Service Platform Service Portfolio 

0. The indicator is strictly linked to the 
European Organisation for the Exploitation of 
implementation of Digital Europe. 
Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT) 
15 at the end of Phase 1253 (June 2024).  
Annually  

The indicator is used to measure the coverage of 
0. The indicator is strictly linked to the 
DestinE services, their attractiveness and adoption 
implementation of Digital Europe 
by users. 
15 at the end of Phase 1  
The number of services includes those operated 
on the DestinE Core Service Platform and those 
The indicator is used to measure the level of 
funded by third-parties or other EU programmes. 
diversity of the categories of data available to end 
users. The objective is to measure the variety of 
20 services 
data resources to be used, and the list will grow as 
DestinE moves to new areas and fields. The value 

3.  Number of operated services available on the Destination Earth (DestinE) Core Service Platform 
(SO1)   
4. Number of different data types available from the DestinE Core Service Platform (measures data 
Indicator Type 
providers) (SO1) 
Definition 
Indicator Type 
Definition 

Unit of Measurement 
Data Source  

Data provider and responsible for data collection 
Unit of Measurement 
Data Source  
Frequency of Data Collection  

Baseline  
Data provider and responsible for data collection 

Target  
Frequency of Data Collection  

Underlying definitions and concepts 
Baseline  

Target  
Other methodological comments  
Underlying definitions and concepts 

Milestone February 2025 

253 Destination Earth is to be implemented in 3 phases.   

153 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Milestone September 2024 

expressed in this indicator refers to and includes 
multiple categories or thematic areas. 
18 thematic areas (weather, satelite, Eurostat etc.), 
170 distinct data sets/types (Services – DestinE 
Platform). 

5. Number of agreed Destination Earth partnership project plans and use cases (SO1) 
Indicator Type 

Output 

Definition 

Unit of Measurement 
Data Source  

A partnership project plan is a document 
describing the planned work of the third party 
(partner) and the contributions of the European 
Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts 
(ECMWF), the European Space Agency (ESA) 
and/or the European Organisation for the 
Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites 
(EUMETSAT). It is agreed via the process 
described in the Joint Partnership Plan. 

A use case is outsourced work on a specific 
application contracted by one of the three 
implementing entities under DestinE. This can be 
a specific contract or a work package under a 
larger contract.   

The indicator measures the progress of user 
uptake at different levels and in various 
formations and setups. 

Absolute Number (project plans and use cases) 
DestinE Partnership Plan (updated annually) 

Reports by ECMWF and ESA and EUMETSAT 
on partnership activities. 

Data provider and responsible for data collection 

ECMWF, ESA, EUMETSAT 

Frequency of Data Collection  

Annually  

Baseline  

Target  

0. The indicator is strictly linked to the 
implementation of Digital Europe 
20 at the end of Phase 1, including partnerships or 
use cases with institutions at national, EU, and 
possibly local levels. Partnerships and use cases 
should demonstrate the added value of DestinE 
and cover a variety of high impact sectors, e.g. 

154 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
energy, water and public health management, and 
corresponding stakeholders and workflows.  

Estimates are based on Phase 1 planning and 
interest received in user engagement activities. 
Phase 2 estimates are contingent on budget 
availability for Phases 2 and 3.  

DestinE User Partnerships are structured work 
relations with policy institutions from EU 
services, EU Member State services (national, 
regional, local levels) and, possibly, global 
institutions. They aim to help design and 
implement sustainable services throughout the 
lifetime of DestinE in a way that corresponds to 
the specific needs of the users.  

Use Cases are an effective way of involving 
stakeholders in the development and initial 
operations of DestinE. They serve to: 

a.  demonstrate key features of DestinE 

capabilities,  

b.  address a key challenge affecting a user of 
DestinE with a view to improving the 
situation substantially.  

c. 

involve active domain users in exploring 
and contributing to advanced features of 
DestinE.  

Such use cases may concern a variety sectors, 
including forestry, water management, air quality 
management, urban development, maritime or air 
transport, biodiversity and disaster risk mitigation. 

25 use cases (Link: Use Cases Catalogue Archive 
- Destination Earth) and 2 partnerships  

Underlying definitions and concepts 

Milestone September 2024 

6. Number of entities supported in strengthening preparedness for and response to major cybersecurity 
incidents (SO3) 
Indicator Type 
Definition 

Result 
The indicator measures the number of penetration 
tests, incident response support actions and 
mutual assistance support actions provided. 
Absolute number (of entities participating in 
preparedness actions, and entities supported in the 

Unit of Measurement 

155 

 
 
 
 
Data Source  
Data provider and responsible for data collection 

Frequency of Data Collection  
Baseline  

context of incident response and mutual assistance 
actions) 

ECCC 
ECCC and CNECT.H1 will collect this data when 
conducting preparedness actions and responding 
to requests for mutual assistance and incident 
response. 

Annually 
0. The indicator is strictly linked to the 
implementation of Digital Europe 

Milestones and Target  

300 (2025) 

Underlying definitions and concepts 

‘Preparedness actions’ are collective and 
individual actions to prepare for and tackle 
cyberattacks or security breaches. Such actions 
include coordinated collective testing, penetration 
tests, individual exercises, risk monitoring and 
training. 

‘Incident response’ is an organised approach to 
addressing and managing the aftermath of a 
security breach or cyberattack. 

‘Mutual assistance’ means addressing and 
managing the aftermath of a security breach or 
cyberattack with the help of the authorities of 
another country. 

Milestone  

Data not yet available  

7. Number of cities and communities developing smart digital solutions as a result of Digital Europe 
funding (SO2) 
Indicator Type 
Definition 

Result 
Number of cities, towns, villages, and 
communities that have developed a digital 
strategy or have developed smart digital solutions 
like local digital platforms or local digital twins as 
a result of Digital Europe funding. 

Unit of Measurement 
Data Source  
Data provider and responsible for data collection 

Absolute number (cities and communities) 
Reporting by beneficiaries 
Reporting by beneficiaries, figure computed by 
unit CNECT.C3 

Frequency of Data Collection  
Baseline  

Biannually (June and November) 
0. The indicator is strictly linked to the 
implementation of Digital Europe 

156 

 
 
 
 
 
Target  
Underlying definitions and concepts 

Other methodological comments (if relevant) 

Milestone February 2025 

20 by 2027 
This indicator covers cities, towns, villages and 
communities that (i) have a strategy in place to 
develop a local digital platform, (ii) have 
developed a platform, and (iii) use a Local digital 
Twin with associated visualisation, modelling and 
prediction capabilities.  
Numbers arrived at using this methodology will 
exclude those projects involving cities developing 
data and modelling solutions unless they associate 
these solutions to EU algorithmic registers and 
EU data spaces. The number arrived at may not 
reflect all contributing projects as some will be 
difficult to track. 
66 cities so far have been provided with 
implementation roadmaps for Local Digital 
Platforms and/or Local Digital Twins (i) 

5 cities/communities have been involved in 2 
pilots from the DS4SSCC-DEP cascading fund 
action funded by Digital Europe (European Data 
Space for Smart Communities)  

8. Usage of the European Blockchain Service Infrastructure and of the European Blockchain 
sandbox (SO5) 
Indicator Type 
Definition 

Result 
Number of users (including public and private 
organisations and members of the public)  
participating in the EBSI ecosystem and accessing 
and using services provided through the European 
blockchain service infrastructure (EBSI). The 
indicator will further include the number of 
sectors/areas covered and of countries using the 
EBSI. Finally, it will include the number of users 
(including start-ups and other projects) accessing 
and engaging with the European blockchain 
sandbox. 
Absolute number (estimated organisations and 
individuals) Further breakdown: Type of 
beneficiary (member of public, enterprise, SME, 
public administrations), sector or areas, location. 
European Blockchain Partnership (2024) and 
Europeum-EDIC monitoring combined with EC 
funded projects and external input 
European Blockchain Partnership (till 2024) and 
Europeum-EDIC, facilitator of the European 

157 

Unit of Measurement 

Data Source  

Data provider and responsible for data collection 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Frequency of Data Collection  
Baseline  

Target  

Underlying definitions and concepts 

Other methodological comments (if relevant) 

Milestone February 

Blockchain sandbox, data computed by CNECT. 
E3 
Every two years (2023, 2025, 2027) 
0. The indicator is strictly linked to the 
implementation of Digital Europe. 
EBSI: Number of countries hosting an EBSI node 
(25 by 2027) 
Number of sectors/areas covered: 15 (2027) 
Estimated number of organisations benefiting 
from EBSI services: 500 (2027) 
Number of individuals benefiting from EBSI 
services: 200 000 (by 2025) 
Number of projects involved in the regulatory 
sandbox: 60 (by 2025). 
Digital Europe actions will support the further 
development and deployment of the infrastructure 
and of use cases or applications to be 
implemented as part of EBSI. This will include 
services used by individuals, businesses and 
public administrations. Special attention will be 
paid to cross-border applications supported by 
Digital Europe, but local applications will also be 
supported where appropriate (as EBSI can 
contribute to them). For instance, sharing 
validated diplomas on EBSI can involve 
individuals, enterprises and universities, and can 
be cross-border for mobility purposes but also 
local in individual Member States. EBSI should 
help track the number of transactions for reporting 
purposes.  

For the European blockchain sandbox, the number 
of start-ups or projects participating in its 
activities will be monitored. (The sandbox 
activities will be organised in cohorts with a 
specific number of participants). Other aspects, 
e.g. the participation of regulators from a given 
number of countries, number of guidelines 
developed, etc., can be easily monitored.  
There may be difficulties in obtaining relevant 
data as well as discrepancies in data collection in 
various Member States when EBSI is used for 
local services. 
EBSI: Number of countries hosting an EBSI node: 
21 in pilot network and 18 for the production 
grade network.   
Number of sectors/areas covered: (at pilot level): 
10     

158 

 
 
 
9. Number of European Digital Innovation Hubs, their geographical distribution and their 
specialisations (SO5)  
Indicator Type 
Definition 

Unit of Measurement 

Data Source  
Data provider and responsible for data collection 

Frequency of Data Collection  
Baseline  

Target and how the target was estimated 
Underlying definitions and concepts 

Milestone February 2025 

Estimated number of organisations benefiting 
from EBSI services: more than 346 organisations 
contributing to or participating in pilots  
Number of individuals benefiting from EBSI 
services: n/a at this stage  
Number of projects involved in the EU blockchain 
regulatory sandbox: 60   

Output 
Number of EDIHs that have received a Digital 
Europe grant and an overview of their 
specialisation and geographical distribution 
(according to the NUTS 2 classification). 
Absolute number, with associated features, made 
visible through an interactive map (catalogue). 
https://www.edihnetwork.eu - EDIH catalogue 
EDIH, Responsibilities for data collection: Digital 
Transformation Accelerator (procurement 
contract), figure computed by DG CNECT.A4 
At time of contracting 
0. The indicator is strictly linked to the 
implementation of Digital Europe 

EDIHs provide technological expertise and 
experimentation facilities to enable the digital 
transformation of the industry and the public 
sector 

151 EDIHs, in addition 18 hubs from associated 
countries from Albania, Montenegro, North 
Macedonia, Serbia, Türkiye, Ukraine and Kosovo 
(set up in 2025).   

Main technologies covered: Artificial Intelligence 
& Decision Support 90%, Cybersecurity 70%, 
Internet of Things 64%, High performance 
computing 54%, Big data 53%, etc. 

Main sectors covered: Manufacturing 64%, 
Health 47%, Public Administration 44%, Energy 
38%, Transport and Mobility 37% (among others) 

159 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
10. Entities that have been supported by the European Digital Innovation Hubs showing a significant 
increase in their digital maturity (SO5)  
Indicator Type 
Definition 

Result 
Cumulative number of entities having benefited 
from EDIH services that have increased their 
digital maturity score from 0 to 1 in the Digital 
Maturity Assessment  tool (DMAT) representing 
significant progress.  
Absolute number (unique entities) 
https://www.edihnetwork.eu - DMAT 
questionnaire 
EDIH, Unit A4/ Digital Transformation 
Accelerator (procurement contract) 
Annually  
0. The indicator is strictly linked to the 
implementation of Digital Europe 
19.140 – cumulative number of entities that until 
2024 that have used EDIHs’ services and have 
increased their digital maturity score 
Digital maturity will be determined through the 
DMAT questionnaire, which assesses digital 
business strategy; digital readiness; human-centric 
digitalisation; data management; automation & 
intelligence; and green digitalisation254. 
90% of firms having used one of the four services 

Unit of Measurement 
Data Source  

Data provider and responsible for data collection 

Frequency of Data Collection  
Baseline  

Target and how the target was estimated 

Underlying definitions and concepts 

Milestone Feburary 2025 

254 JRC (2023). Digital Maturity Assessment Framework & Questionnaires for SMEs/PSOs. A guidance document for 

EDIHs. JRC133234. 

160 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX  X.  MONITORING  AND  EVALUATION  FRAMEWORK  FOR  THE  DIGITAL  EUROPE 
PROGRAMME 

Introduction 

This  Monitoring  and  Evaluation  Framework  sets  out  the  monitoring  and  evaluation 
strategy  for  the  2021-2027  Digital  Europe  Programme.  It  is  mainly  based  on  core 
performance indicators listed in the Digital Europe Programme Regulation (EU) 2021/694 
255. Additionally, supporting, contextual256 and topic-level indicators are also used when 
gathering  data  for the interim and final  evaluations,  as they provide information  on the 
wider policy landscape in which actions carried out under the Digital Europe Programme 
take place or to help measure progress made on specific actions.  

This framework, which sets out in detail the monitoring and evaluation strategy for the 
Digital  Europe  Programme,  is  intended  to  be  used  as  a  tool  to  better  account  for  the 
programme’s spending, as requested by the European Court of Auditors and the European 
Parliament, provide evidence for the evaluation of the programme, inform policymaking 
and facilitate communication on the programme’s achievements.  

The data collected will ensure that progress towards the objectives outlined in the Digital 
Europe  Programme  Regulation  is  continuously  monitored.  It  will  also  enable  regular 
assessment as to whether the programme is on track to deliver its expected results. 

The  Monitoring  and  Evaluation  Framework  provides  indicators  to  monitor  the  inputs, 
outputs, results and impact of the Digital Europe Programme: 

- The core performance indicators set out in the Regulation aim at providing information 
on progress towards the Digital Europe Programme objectives. Such information is to be 
included in obligatory reporting activities, such as the Programme Performance Statement 
annexed to the draft annual budget.  

- Additional supporting indicators are designed to collect additional data for the midterm 
and  final  evaluations.  They  provide  data  to  measure  the  effectiveness  of  specific  work 
strands of the programme.   

- Other indicators: Contextual indicators set out by the Digital Decade Policy programme 
in January 2023257 are aimed at providing information on progress towards wider policy 
objectives, in particular the Digital Decade targets (e.g. the number of ICT specialists in 
the EU). Topic-level indicators provide detailed insight into progress made on a specific 
topic.  

255 Regulation (EU) 2021/694 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2021 establishing the Digital 
Europe  Programme  and  repealing  Decision  (EU)  2015/2240  (Text  with  EEA  relevance):  Publications  Office 
(europa.eu) 

256 See Better Regulation Toolbox, EUR-Lex - 52021DC0219 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu), which states that ‘contextual 
information should also be collected. Contextual information refers to developments that are not intentionally related 
to the individual initiative, although they may influence it or be influenced by it, such as the economic growth, break-
through (emerging) technologies, new behavioural patterns etc.’ (p. 361). 

257  Decision  (EU)  2022/2481  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  14 December  2022  establishing  the 

Digital Decade Policy Programme 2030: EUR-Lex - 32022D2481 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu). 

161 

 
 
 
 
All indicators described above will inform the interim and final evaluations of the Digital 
Europe Programme, based on the evaluation criteria effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, 
coherence and EU added value. These evaluation criteria and the general principles for 
monitoring and evaluation are described in the Commission’s Better Regulation guidelines, 
which inform this document. The data gathered on these five evaluation criteria will help 
analyse whether EU funds are efficiently managed, whether the Digital Europe Programme 
is coherent with other EU funding programmes, and whether it is still relevant in this time 
of  rapid  technological  change.  This  insight  will  inform  the  design  of  future  work 
programmes and the adjustment of funding priorities, if necessary, to maximise the impact 
of EU investment. 

This  document  also  introduces  a  mechanism  to  consistently  provide  data  on  progress 
towards  Digital  Europe  Programme’s  objectives,  which  will  highlight  any  potential 
bottlenecks  or  challenges  to  its  implementation.  In  doing  so,  it  functions  as  an  early 
warning system signalling any deviations from the objectives and ensuring that mitigating 
measures can be taken on time.  

The gathered data will contribute to identifying the concrete benefits of this EU initiative 
for  individuals,  companies  and  society  at  large  and  will  inform  communication  on  the 
success of the programme.  

The framework significantly contributes to EU digital policy as it helps to: (i) deliver on 
reporting requirements; (ii) provide evidence in support of policy decisions; and (iii) ensure 
visibility of the role EU investments play in meeting EU digital policy goals and providing 
concrete benefits to people across the EU. The gathered data will guide policymaking and 
help  ensure  that  investment  under  the  Digital  Europe  Programme  remains  effective, 
efficient, relevant, coherent and adds EU value.  

The  Digital  Europe  Programme  should  remain  flexible  and  respond  to  technological, 
societal,  or  economic  developments  and  address  pressing  challenges.  Milestones  and 
targets  of  indicators  need  to  reflect  these  changes  in  priorities.  The  Digital  Europe 
Programme has already demonstrated its flexibility responding to several  urgencies, for 
instance, by reacting swiftly to the major supply shortage of semiconductors exacerbated 
by the COVID 19 pandemic by introducing a new specific objective to promote leadership 
in  semiconductor technologies. In addition,  Russia’s war of  aggression against Ukraine 
and the ensuing heightened risk of large-scale cybersecurity threats led to the support for 
the EU Cyber Solidarity Act, which introduced the Cyber Emergency Mechanism into the 
Digital  Europe  Programme  to  increase  preparedness  and  response  to  large-scale 
cybersecurity incidents. This framework reflects changes in priorities of budget spending 
due to immediate urgencies or recent developments.  

Legal provisions  

The provisions for monitoring, reporting, and evaluation of the Digital Europe Programme 
are set out in Articles 25 and 26 of Regulation (EU) 2021/694 of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 29 April 2021 establishing the Digital Europe Programme:  

Article 25 requires the monitoring and reporting of the programme based on measurable 
indicators, a methodology to assess progress towards the achievements of the objectives 

162 

 
 
and a reporting system to ensure that data are collected ‘efficiently, effectively and in a 
timely manner’.  

Article  26  requires  an  interim  evaluation  ‘no  later  than  four  years  after  the  start  of  the 
implementation of the Programme’ and a final evaluation of the programme by the end of 
2031 as well as an efficient and effective evaluation reporting system.  

Annex  II  lists  the  14  key  performance  indicators  to  monitor the  implementation  and  to 
report on the progress of the programme towards the achievement of its specific objectives.  

Intervention Logic of the Digital Europe programme (2023) 

The  Digital  Europe  Programme  shapes  the  digital  transformation  of  Europe.  It is 
based on the Regulation (EU) 2021/694 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
29 April 2021  establishing  the Digital  Europe programme and repealing  Decision (EU) 
2015/2240. The programme’s objective is to support the digital transformation of industry 
and  public  administration 
the  EU’s  open  strategic  autonomy  and 
competitiveness and to reinforce EU critical digital capacities. It focuses on the key areas 
of (i) high performance computing, (ii) cloud-to-edge infrastructure, (iii) data spaces and 
artificial  intelligence,  (iv)  cybersecurity,  (v)  the  necessary  upskilling  to  provide  a 
workforce for these advanced technologies; (vi) the deployment of these technologies and 
their best use for critical sectors like energy or climate; (vii) and support to industry, small 
and medium-sized enterprises and public administrations in their digital transformation. 

to  enhance 

The programme is complemented by an array of regulatory measures aimed at eliminating 
barriers to digital innovation in several critical areas. These measures aim, for example, at 
incentivising  business-to-business  and  business-to-government  (B2B  and  B2G)  data 
sharing across the EU (Data Governance Act258, Data Act259), creating a safer and fairer 
online  environment  for  users  and  businesses  (Digital  Services Act260,  Digital  Markets 
Act261) and increasing the level of security of network and information systems across the 
EU (NIS2 Directive)262. 

258  Regulation  (EU) 2022/868  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  30 May  2022  on  European  data 
governance and amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 (Data Governance Act): EUR-Lex - 32022R0868 - EN - EUR-
Lex (europa.eu) 
259 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on harmonised rules on fair access to and 

use of data (Data Act): EUR-Lex - 52022PC0068 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu) 

260 Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market 
For  Digital  Services  and  amending  Directive 2000/31/EC  (Digital  Services  Act):  EUR-Lex - 32022R2065  -  EN  - 
EUR-Lex (europa.eu) 

261 Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2022 on contestable and 
fair markets in the digital sector and amending Directives (EU) 2019/1937 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Digital Markets 
Act): EUR-Lex - 32022R1925 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu) 

262 Directive (EU) 2022/2555 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 on measures for a 
high common level of cybersecurity across the Union, amending Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 and Directive (EU) 
2018/1972, and repealing Directive (EU) 2016/1148 (NIS 2 Directive): EUR-Lex - 32022L2555 - EN - EUR-Lex 
(europa.eu) 

163 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Main challenges and needs 

The EU has been facing harsh global competition and needs to continue to act to invest in 
digital  technologies  and  ensure  Europe’s  strategic  autonomy  and  competitiveness.  The 
impact assessment of the Digital Europe Programme263 published in June 2018, identified, 
in particular, the following challenges:  

The investment gap of the EU in digital by comparison to the US and China hampered 
deployment  of  digital  capacities  and  uptake  of  advanced  digital  technologies.  In  2016, 
Europe invested 3 to 4 billion USD into Artificial Intelligence while Asia invested 8 to 12 
billion USD and North America 15 to 23 billion USD264. Investments in HPC in the EU 
represented 60% of US investment265. The same lack of investment has been identified in 
the area of cybersecurity, with a study for the Dutch government estimating that the US 
invested 10 times as much as the EU in cybersecurity266.  

This investment gap was linked to inadequate capacities in key technological areas. High 
Performance Computing (HPC) capacity, for instance, was described as ‘fragmented and 
underdeveloped’267, not meeting the high demand for these advanced computing systems. 
This lack has impeded EU’s success in the data economy. Similarly, the lack of high-quality 
data,  limited  AI  competences,  and  absence  of  AI  competence  centres  hampered  the 
development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) ‘ecosystems’ bringing together AI developers, 
users and financers.  

The impact statement further highlights the EU’s unpreparedness to tackle cybersecurity 
attacks  on  its  critical  infrastructure.  In  2017  the  ITU  Global  Cybersecurity  Index268 
revealed  that  only  2  EU  member  states,  Estonia  and  France,  were  among  the  top  10 
countries with regard to their cybersecurity commitment. In particular, main weaknesses 
existed with regard to cybersecurity in the areas of HPC and quantum technologies.  

Another important challenge identified before the implementation of the Digital Europe 
Programme, was the slow and uneven uptake of digital solutions in the public sector by 
member states. A factor impacting the slow uptake was the lack of interoperability. In the 
field of judiciary, for instance, the absence of electronic communication between courts 
and legal authorities hampered law enforcement across EU.  

Equally,  the  uneven  and  inadequate  digitalisation  of  businesses  represented  a  main 
challenge, with SMEs lagging behind large enterprises and significant divergence among 
member states.  

263 Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment, Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation 
of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Digital Europe programme for the period 2021-2027: 
EUR-Lex - 52018SC0305 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu) 

264 Artificial intelligence the next digital frontier?, McKinsey Global Institute, 2017 
265 IDC study: HPC in the EU, SMART 2014/0021 
266 Dutch investments in ICT and cybersecurity: putting it in perspective, The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies, Dec 

2016 

267 Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment, Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation 
of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Digital Europe programme for the period 2021-2027: 
EUR-Lex - 52018SC0305 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu) 

268 Global Cybersecurity Index 2017: https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-d/opb/str/D-STR-GCI.01-2017-PDF-E.pdf 

164 

 
 
 
 
Furthermore, in stakeholder consultations conducted prior to the implementation of Digital 
Europe, the most cited obstacle for lack of investment in digital was the lack of staff with 
the needed skills269. In 2017, 47.5 % of companies stated that they found it hard to recruit 
ICT specialists270. 

Challenges 

•  Meet  growing  demand  for  access  to  world-class  digital  infrastructures  -  European  businesses,  public  sector  and 

researchers are forced to access and process the computing, data, or AI resources outside the EU. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Overcome legal and technical barriers to data sharing by establishing secure, accessible, interoperable and privacy-
preserving data spaces in key sectors/areas respecting EU rules and values. 

Enhance cybersecurity in view of frequent and complex cyberattacks on critical infrastructures. 

Narrow  the  digital  skills  gap,  especially  in  the  area  of  advanced  digital  skills  through  training  and  reskilling  and 

upskilling of the workforce. 

Tackle the inadequate uptake of digital solutions in areas of public interest, uneven adoption of digital solutions among 
Member States and lack of their interoperability. 

Ensure the  digital  transformation  leaves  no  one  behind; foster  the take-up  of  digital  skills and digital  solutions  by 
businesses (in particular SMEs). 

In recent years several achievements in the areas mentioned above have been made. The 
EuroHPC pre-exascale supercomputer LUMI, for instance, has been ranked in first place 
as the fastest supercomputer in Europe for the third time in a row and has been ranked third 
fastest in the world. The pre-exascale supercomputer Leonardo, another EuroHPC system, 
also made the list of world’s most powerful supercomputers.  

Recent  development,  however,  have  further  stressed  the  importance  of  accelerating  the 
digital transformation. The COVID-19 pandemic, for instance, has highlighted the critical 
role  of  data,  digital  technologies  and  infrastructures  and  has  demonstrated  how  our 
societies  and  economies  can  further  benefit  from  digital  solutions.  Data  has  an  ever-
growing impact on how we produce, consume and how we live our lives. To speed up the 
development of the European economy and to harness the value of data for the benefit of 
European  society,  common  European  data  spaces  in  strategic  economic  sectors  and 
domains of public interest are necessary. Indeed, data and its socio-economic potential play 
an essential role both in Europe’s digital transformation and in economic recovery plans. 
EU-wide  common,  interoperable  data  spaces  in  strategic  sectors  will  contribute  to 
overcoming  technical  barriers  to  data  sharing  by  combining  the  necessary  tools  and 
infrastructures and addressing issues of trust by way of common rules271.  

Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine has further highlighted the importance of being 
able to protect the EU’s critical infrastructures and the public services that depend on them. 

269 Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment, Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation 
of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Digital Europe programme for the period 2021-2027: 
EUR-Lex - 52018SC0305 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu) 

270 Eurostat 2017 survey on ICT usage and e-commerce in enterprises  
271 See Staff working document on data spaces | Shaping Europe’s digital future (europa.eu) 

165 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Malicious cyber activities threaten our economies, our way of life, and our freedoms and 
values, and can even potentially undermine the cohesion and functioning of our democracy.  

The rapid acceleration of digitalisation has exacerbated the systemic gap between market 
needs and available skills on the use of advanced digital technologies in the workplace. 
Currently,  the  EU  faces  a  shortage  of  digital  experts  who  can  develop  cutting-edge 
technologies. In 2022, 62.8% of enterprises that recruited or tried to recruit ICT specialists 
reported difficulties in  filling vacancies272. In key areas,  such as cybersecurity  and data 
analysis, there are constantly hundreds of thousands of vacancies. A strong digital economy 
powered  by  workers  with  digital  skills  is  vital  for  innovation,  growth,  jobs,  and 
competitiveness  in  the  EU,  in  particular,  in  the  context  of  the  twin  green  and  digital 
transitions.  

Over the past ten years, online public services have become more and more frequent, a 
trend which has been accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Digital Decade’s target 
is for public services to pr.vide all key services for businesses and individuals online by 
2030. A few Member States, such as Estonia, Finland and Malta, are already on a good 
track to achieving this target. However, several other Member States, such as Romania, 
Greece, Bulgaria and Slovakia are still lagging behind. While Member States are steadily 
increasing  their  offer  of  basic  digital  service,  further  investment  is  needed  in  areas  of 
advanced public services using AI, robotics and  big  data273. Furthermore,  a satisfactory 
level of interoperability has not yet been achieved, which impedes the potential for wider 
adoption. 

In the private sector, the uptake of digital solutions by businesses remains uneven among 
Member States, sectors (particularly between high-tech and traditional areas), and between 
large  companies  and  SMEs.  The  ‘Digitalisation  in  Europe  2022-2023’  report by  the 
European Investment Bank shows that the digitalisation gap between the US and Europe 
has been decreasing in the past four years. Investment in digital as a response to the Covid 
19 pandemic has been higher in  the US, however, mainly  due to the low investment  in 
digital of EU micro and small enterprises274.   

Eurostat data confirm that 29.7% of the EU’s large enterprises275 had a very high Digital 
Intensity  Index  (DII)  and  54%  a  high  level,  while  only  10.2%  of  medium-sized 
companies276 registered a very high-intensity level and 46% a high DII. Only 2.3% of small 
enterprises277 reached a very high digital intensity, with only 24.1% scoring a high DII278. 

In addition, European Union is engaged on its path towards climate neutrality by 2050, and 
the  digital  transition  plays  an  important  role  in  achieving  this  objective.  For  instance, 
digital  technologies  allow  for  higher  efficiency  and  productivity  across  industries, 
including  within  the  area  of  green  technologies,  with  positive  effects  on  growth  and 
competitiveness. They also help change the energy and environmental stance, by reducing 

272 Analyse one indicator and compare countries — Digital Scoreboard - Data & Indicators (digital-agenda-data.eu) 
273 Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) 2022, Thematic Chapters: The Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI)  
274 Digitalisation in Europe 2022-2023: Evidence from the EIB Investment Survey 
275 Large enterprises = 250 and more employees and self-employed persons 
276 Medium-sized enterprises = 50-249 employees and self-employed persons 
277 Small enterprises = 10-49 employees and self-employed persons 
278 Statistics | Eurostat (europa.eu) 

166 

 
 
 
 
dependence on foreign fossil fuels and supporting the deployment of renewable energies. 
Digital  technologies  further  open  new  opportunities  for  social  progress  and  economic 
development in the context of the twin green and digital transitions. 

Objectives  

To  address  the  above-mentioned  challenges  in  a  systematic  way,  the  Digital  Europe 
Programme  is  designed  to  boost  the  digital  transformation  of  the  economy  and  society 
bringing much needed benefits to individuals and businesses. The programme focuses on:  

•  building essential capacities and advanced skills in key digital technology areas, 

contributing to Europe’s technological sovereignty;  

•  accelerating their deployment and best use in areas of public interest and the 

private sector. 

To pursue these goals, the Digital Europe Programme comprises five specific objectives. 
An  additional  specific  objective  to  boost  Europe’s  competitiveness  and  resilience  in 
semiconductor  technologies  and  applications  was  proposed  in  February  2022279.  The 
European  Chips  Act  that  complements  the  Digital  Europe  Programme  with  this  new 
specific objective on semiconductors, entered into force on 21 September 2023280. 

Specific Objective 1- High Performance Computing (HPC) 

This specific objective will pursue the following operational objectives: 

•  deploy, coordinate at EU level and operate an integrated demand-oriented and 

application-driven world-class exascale supercomputing and data infrastructure 
that shall be easily accessible to public and private users, in particular SMEs, 
irrespective of the Member State in which they are located, and easily accessible 
for research purposes, in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2018/1488281; 

•  deploy ready to use operational technology resulting from research and 

innovation in order to build an integrated EU HPC ecosystem, covering various 
aspects in the scientific and industrial value chain segments, including hardware, 
software, applications, services, interconnections and digital skills, with a high 
level of security and data protection; 

•  deploy and operate post-exascale infrastructure, including integration with 

quantum computing technologies and research infrastructures for computing 
science and encourage the development within the EU of the hardware and 
software necessary for such deployment. 

279 Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION amending Regulation (EU) 2021/2085 establishing the Joint Undertakings 

under Horizon Europe, as regards the Chips Joint Undertaking. 

280  Regulation  (EU) 2023/1781 of  the  European  Parliament  and  of the  Council  of 13 September  2023  establishing  a 
framework  of  measures  for  strengthening  Europe’s  semiconductor  ecosystem  and  amending  Regulation 
(EU) 2021/694 (Chips Act): EUR-Lex - 32023R1781 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu). 

281 Council Regulation (EU) 2018/1488 of 28 September 2018 establishing the European High Performance Computing 

Joint Undertaking: EUR-Lex - 32018R1488 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu). 

167 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Specific Objective 2 - Artificial Intelligence 

The EU’s financial contribution  under this specific objective shall pursue the following 
operational objectives: 

•  build up and strengthen core AI capacities and knowledge in the EU, including 

building up and strengthening quality data resources and corresponding exchange 
mechanisms, and libraries of algorithms, while guaranteeing a human-centric and 
inclusive approach that respects EU values. 

• 

•  make the capacities referred to in point above accessible to businesses, especially 
SMEs and start-ups, as well as civil society, not-for-profit organisations, research 
institutions, universities and public administrations, in order to maximise their 
benefit to the European society and economy; 
reinforce and network AI testing and experimentation facilities in Member States; 
develop and reinforce commercial application and production systems in order to 
facilitate the integration of technologies in value chains and the development of 
innovative business models and to shorten the time required to pass from 
innovation to industrial production and foster the uptake of AI-based solutions in 
areas of public interest and in society. 

AI-based  solutions  and  data  made  available  shall  respect  the  principle  of  privacy  and 
security by design and shall fully comply with data protection legislation. 

Specific Objective 3 - Cybersecurity and Trust 

The  financial  contribution  from  the  EU  under  this  specific  objective  shall  pursue  the 
following operational objectives: 

•  support the building-up and procurement of advanced cybersecurity equipment, 
tools and data infrastructures, together with Member States, in order to achieve a 
high common level of cybersecurity at European level, in full compliance with 
data protection legislation and fundamental rights, while ensuring the strategic 
autonomy of the EU; 

•  support the building-up and best use of European knowledge, capacity and skills 
related to cybersecurity and the sharing and mainstreaming of best practices; 
•  ensure a wide deployment of effective state-of-the-art cybersecurity solutions 

• 

• 

across the European economy, paying special attention to public authorities and 
SMEs; 
reinforce capabilities within Member States and private sector to help them 
comply with Directive (EU) 2016/1148 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council282 including through measures supporting the uptake of cybersecurity best 
practices; 
improve resilience against cyberattacks, contribute towards increasing risk-
awareness and knowledge of cybersecurity processes, support public and private 
organisations in achieving basics levels of cyber security, for example by 
deploying end-to-end encryption of data and software updates; 

282 Directive (EU) 2016/1148 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2016 concerning measures for a 
high common level of security of network and information systems across the Union (OJ L 194, 19.7.2016, p. 1). 

168 

 
 
 
 
•  enhance cooperation between the civil and defence spheres with regard to dual-

• 

use projects, services, competences and applications in cybersecurity, in 
accordance with a Regulation establishing the European Cybersecurity Industrial, 
Technology and Research Competence Centre and the Network of National 
Coordination Centres (the 'Cybersecurity Competence Centre Regulation'). 
increase the preparedness (ex ante) and response (ex post) to large-scale 
cybersecurity incidents through the testing of essential entities and the gradual 
set-up of an EU-level cyber reserve with services from trusted private providers 
that would be ready to intervene at Member States’ request in cases of significant 
cross-border incidents. These activities will support the EU Cyber Solidarity 
initiative proposed in April 2023. 

Specific Objective 4 - Advanced Digital Skills 

The  financial  contribution  from  the  EU  under  this  specific  objective  shall  support  the 
development  of  advanced  digital  skills  in  areas  covered  by  the  programme  in  order  to 
contribute to increasing Europe’s talent pool, bridge the digital divide and foster greater 
professionalism, especially with regard to high performance and cloud computing, big data 
analytics,  cybersecurity,  distributed  ledger  technologies  (e.g.  blockchain),  quantum 
technologies,  robotics, AI,  while  taking  gender  balance  into  account.  In  order  to  tackle 
skills mismatches and to encourage specialisation in digital technologies and applications, 
the financial contribution shall pursue the following operational objectives: 

•  support the design and delivery of high-quality, long-term training and courses, 

including blended learning, for students and for the workforce; 

•  support the design and delivery of high-quality, short-term training and courses 

for the workforce, in particular in SMEs and in the public sector; 

•  support high-quality on-the-job training and work placements for students, 

including traineeships, and the workforce, in particular, in SMEs and in the public 
sector. 

Specific Objective 5 - Deployment and Best Use of Digital Capacities and Interoperability 

The  financial  contribution  from  the  EU  under  this  specific  objective  shall  pursue  the 
following operational objectives: 

•  support the public sector and areas of public interest, such as health and care, 
education, judiciary, law enforcement, consumer protection, single market, 
customs, transport, mobility, energy, environment, cultural and creative sectors, 
including relevant businesses established within the EU, to effectively deploy and 
access state-of-the-art digital technologies, such as HPC, AI and cybersecurity; 
•  deploy, operate and maintain trans-European interoperable state-of-the-art digital 

service infrastructures across the EU, including related services, in 
complementarity with national and regional actions; 

•  support the integration and use of trans-European digital service infrastructures 
and of agreed European digital standards in the public sector and in areas of 
public interest to facilitate cost-efficient implementation and interoperability; 

169 

 
 
 
 
• 

facilitate the development, update and use of solutions and frameworks by 
citizens,  public administrations and businesses, including of open-source 
solutions and the re-use of interoperability solutions and frameworks; 

•  offer the public sector and the industry, in particular SMEs, easy access to testing 
and piloting of digital technologies and increase the use thereof, including in 
particular their cross-border use; 

•  support the uptake by the public sector and the EU industry, in particular SMEs 

and start-ups, of advanced digital and related technologies, including in particular 
HPC, AI, cybersecurity, other leading edge and future technologies, such as 
distributed ledger technologies (e.g. blockchain);  

•  support the design, testing, implementation, and deployment and maintenance of 
interoperable digital solutions, including digital government solutions, for public 
services at EU level which are delivered through an open data-driven reusable 
solutions platform aiming to foster innovation and establish common frameworks 
in order to unleash the full potential of the public administrations’ services for 
citizens and businesses; 

•  ensure the continuous capacity at EU level to lead digital development, in 

addition to observing, analysing and adapting to fast-evolving digital trends, and 
share and mainstream best practices; 

•  support cooperation towards achieving a European ecosystem for trusted data 

sharing and digital infrastructures using, inter alia, distributed ledger services and 
applications, including support for interoperability and standardisation and by 
fostering the deployment of cross-border applications based on security and data 
protection and privacy by design, and by default complying with consumer and 
data protection legislation; 

•  build up and strengthen the European Digital Innovation Hubs and their network. 

Specific Objective 6: Semiconductors 

This new specific objective was integrated into the Digital Europe Programme with the 
adoption  of  the  Chips  Act  Regulation283  and  will  promote  Europe’s  leadership  in 
semiconductor technologies and applications.  

Input 

Financial Resources  

The proposed financial allocation for the Digital Europe Programme stands at EUR 8 638 
million. This amount covers all specific objectives, including a new specific objective to 
promote  EU  leadership  in  semiconductor  technologies  and  applications.  The  budget  is 

283  Regulation  (EU) 2023/1781 of  the  European  Parliament  and  of the  Council  of 13 September  2023  establishing  a 
framework  of  measures  for  strengthening  Europe’s  semiconductor  ecosystem  and  amending  Regulation 
(EU) 2021/694 (Chips Act): EUR-Lex - 32023R1781 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu). 

170 

 
 
 
 
 
 
implemented in multiannual work programmes. The Digital Europe funds are allocated in 
the  form  of  grants  or  procurements  and  through  Contribution  Agreements  as  well  as 
financial support through equity and quasi-equity by combining funding with the InvestEU 
guarantee, such as the Investment Platform for Strategic Digital Technologies or the Chips 
Fund.  

The Commission directly manages the activities related to specific objectives on artificial 
intelligence, advanced digital skills and widening the best use of digital technologies. The 
European Health  and  Digital  Executive  Agency  (HaDEA)  has  been  entrusted  with 
implementing  part  of  the  Digital  Europe  Programme’s  budget.  The  activities  related  to 
specific  objective  on  HPC  are  mainly  implemented  through  the  EuroHPC  Joint 
Undertaking  and  the  specific  objective  on  cybersecurity  will  be  mainly  implemented 
through  the  European  Cybersecurity  Industrial,  Technology  and  Research  Competence 
Centre  and  the  Cybersecurity  Competence  Network.  The  new  SO6  –  semiconductor 
technologies  and  applications  –  will  be  implemented  by  the  Chips  Joint  Undertaking. 
Actions related to ‘Destination Earth’ (a flagship initiative in SO1 with the aim to develop 
a  digital  twin  of  the  earth),  are  implemented  through  contribution  agreements  by  the 
European Space Agency, the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts and 
the  European  Operational  Satellite  Agency  for  Monitoring  Weather,  Climate  and  the 
Environment from Space. The Investment Platform for Strategic Digital Technologies is 
implemented  through  indirect  management  with  the  European  Investment  Fund  under 
InvestEU.  

The  Digital  Europe  Programme  complements  several  other  funding  programmes,  in 
particular Horizon Europe. While Digital Europe Programme focuses on large-scale digital 
capacity  and  infrastructure  building  to  support  the  uptake  and  deployment  of  critical 
existing  or  tested  innovative  digital  solutions  across  the  EU,  Horizon  Europe  supports 
research,  technological  development,  demonstration,  piloting,  proof-of-concept,  testing 
and  innovation  -  including  pre-commercial  deployment  -  for  innovative  digital 
technologies.  The  Connecting  Europe  Facility  (CEF2)  also  complements  the  Digital 
Europe Programme as it supports the high capacity broadband and 5G corridors necessary 
to deploy digital services and technologies across the EU.  

The  activities  under  indirect  management  by  the  EuroHPC  Joint  Undertaking  and  the 
European  Cybersecurity  Competence  Centre  will  also  reinforce  the  innovation  actions 
supported  by  Horizon  Europe  and  the  Connecting  Europe  Facility.  The  EuroHPC  Joint 
Undertaking will also implement Horizon Europe and CEF2 supported activities in high 
performance computing. Horizon Europe will provide support for research and innovation 
underpinned  by  cybersecurity 
testing, 
infrastructures  and 
experimentation  and  demonstration  across  all  sectors  and  disciplines  impacted  by 
cybersecurity. In addition, Horizon Europe will support research and innovation on cyber-
secure  components  and  software  relevant  for  areas  such  as  protecting  infrastructure  or 
privacy and data protection. 

including 

facilities, 

There are numerous other synergies and complementarities with EU funding programmes. 
For instance, Erasmus+, supports excellence in education and training and contributes to 
the  digital  transformation  of  education  and  training  systems,  and  thus  has  concrete 
synergies with specific objective 4 of the Digital Europe Programme (Advanced Digital 

171 

 
 
Skills). Creative Europe promotes the digital transition of the cultural and creative sectors 
and aims to promote skills for audiovisual professionals in support of the digital transition. 
EU4Health supports the deployment of health dataspaces and digital tools and services to 
accelerate the digital transition in health care. Furthermore, the Single Market programme 
fosters  the  digitalisation  of  SMEs  and  industry,  the  Justice  programme  funds  e-Justice 
projects,  which  aim  to  improve  the  effectiveness  of  the  justice  system.  The  European 
Regional  Development  Fund  promotes innovative  and  smart  economic  transformation 
and  regional  ICT  connectivity.  The  European  Social  Fund+  aims  to  mainstream  and 
upscale innovative technologies and solutions in the areas of employment, social security 
coordination, social inclusion and supports education and training for digital skills. In the 
context of the Recovery and Resilience Facility each Member State must dedicate at least 
20%  of  its  recovery  and  resilience  plan  to  the  digital  transition.  InvestEU  promotes 
investments in numerous digital areas, such as AI, quantum technology, IoT, blockchain. 
Another example are the Fiscalis and Customs programmes, which support IT capacity 
building and innovation with regard to the European Electronic Systems for customs and 
taxation.  

Most  actions  planned  under  the  programme  require  co-investments  by  the  public  and 
private sectors. The forms of these co-investments are described in the relevant parts of the 
various  Digital  Europe  work  programmes.  For  co-investment  from  other  EU  funding  
programmes, in particular the cohesion policy funds, the Commission published a notice 
on the synergies between Horizon Europe and the European Regional Development Fund 
(ERDF). This  notice  also  provides  a  practical  example  of  cumulative  funding  between 
ERDF  and  the  Digital  Europe  Programme. (284) The  European  Digital  Innovation  Hubs 
(EDIH) are financed by the Digital Europe Programme with a maximum of 50% of eligible 
costs,  the  other  part  may  be  financed  by  the  ERDF  (or  can  come  from  other  public  or 
private funding).  

The graph below shows the current programme structure of the Digital Europe Programme:  

284  Commission  Notice,  Synergies  between  Horizon  Europe  and  ERDF  programmes  (2022):  Publications  Office 

(europa.eu) 

172 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Main Activities 

The programme includes activities in the following main areas: 

•  High Performance Computing (HPC): Deployment of world-class exascale, post-
exascale supercomputing and quantum computing capacities to ensure the widest 
access to and use of these capacities;  

•  Artificial Intelligence (AI): Deployment of EU-wide common data spaces based 
on a cloud-to-edge federated infrastructure and promote testing and adoption of 
Artificial Intelligence-based solutions;  

•  Cybersecurity: Building up of advanced cybersecurity capabilities (including a 

quantum secure communication infrastructure for Europe); promote the sharing of 
best practices and ensure wide deployment of the state-of-the-art cybersecurity 
solutions across the European economy;  

•  Advanced digital skills: Boosting of academic excellence, by increasing the 
education offer and training in key digital technologies, such as HPC, 
cybersecurity, robotics, data, extended reality, cloud computing and AI; in 
various economic sectors and conversion programmes for non-ICT workers.  

Adoption  and  best  use  of  key  digital  technologies:  Reinforcing  the  European 
blockchain  capacities  and  the  digital  transformation  of  public  administrations 
and services through interoperability solutions, deploying a network of European 
Digital  Innovation  Hubs  supporting  the  digital  transformation  of  European 
public  and  private  organisations285;  addressing  key  societal  challenges  (e.g. 
environment and climate change) via high impact deployments; and promoting 
an inclusive and trustworthy digital space. 

Expected outputs, results and impact 

The outputs emcompasse the main short-term outputs of Digital Europe projects for each 
Specific  Objective.  Key  outputs  include  an  integrated  network  of  world-class  HPC 
including  exascale  and  post-exascale,  EU  wide  open  and  interoperable  common  data 
spaces in key areas (e.g. Skills, Health, Finance, Agriculture, Mobility, Tourism, Culture 
and  Green  Deal  data  spaces)  based  on  cloud-to-edge  federated  infrastructure,  advanced 
cybersecurity  tools,  infrastructures  and  know-how  across  the  EU  economy,  specialised 
education programmes, a network of European Digital Innovation Hubs and interoperable 
state-of-the-art  digital  service  infrastructures  across  the  EU  and  related  public  sector 
services and services of public interest.  

The main expected results encompass the mid-term effects of Digital Europe projects, 
directly  linked  to  the  activities  in  each  specific  objective.  These  include  significantly 
increased  processing  capacities  excellence  in  HPC  applications,  the  availability  and 

285 JRC (2023). Characteristics and regional coverage of the European Digital Innovation Hubs network. JRC Technical 

Reports, JRC134620. 

173 

 
 
 
 
 
exchange  of  data  across  the  EU  in  a  trustworthy  and  secure  manner  to  foster  the 
development of new data driven products and services, EU wide deployment of the state-
of-the  art  cybersecurity  solutions,  access  to  advanced  digital  skills  and  the  digital 
transformation of European private organisations and the public sector.  

The expected impact encompass the long-term effects on businesses, public organisations 
and society. In particular, Digital Europe actions are expected to ensure the EU’s digital 
strategic  autonomy  through  the  reinforcement  of  its  digital  capabilities  in  HPC,  AI, 
cybersecurity  and  advanced  digital  skills  and  their  wide  use  across  the  economy  and 
society.

174 

 
 
 
TYPES OF INDICATORS  

This framework focuses on the core performance indicators listed in the Regulation. It also 
presents supporting indicators that will close monitoring gaps that became visible after the 
first  year  of  implementation. Two  other  types  of  indicators  -  contextual  and  topic-level 
indicators - will in some areas complement these performance indicators in order to collect 
contextual information and obtain detailed data on progress in specific actions. 

Contextual Indicators

Core Performance 
Indicators (in legal base)

Supporting Indicators 

Topic-Level Indicators

Contextual indicators provide information on Europe’s digital performance and progress 
towards the higher-level digital policy goals. They have a much wider scope than the other 
indicators  and  there  is  no  direct  causality  between  programme-specific  actions  and  the 
measured  changes.  While  Digital  Europe  actions  and  the  contextual  data  are  not 
intentionally  linked,  Digital  Europe  actions  may  have  an  influence  on  these  data  or  be 
influenced by them.  

Core  performance  indicators  are  indicators  listed  in  the  Digital  Europe  Programme 
Regulation.  They  are  representative  of  the  programme  in  that  they  measure  progress 
towards  the  objectives  of  the  main  work  strands  across  the  multiannual  financial 
framework and inform annual reporting on EU spending.  

Supporting indicators are designed to ensure that essential information on the progress 
of specific work strands is collected for the interim and final programme evaluation.  

Topic-level indicators have been developed in some specific areas. Data on the progress 
of  specific  actions  within  a  specific  timeframe  is  particularly  useful  in  areas  where  the 
higher-level  performance  indicators  measure  the  impact  of  several  work  strands  in  one 
single indicator. These indicators will provide detailed performance information available 
in the first years of programme implementation. 

175 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
LIST OF INDICATORS 

This chapter provides details on the data and indicators outlined in the previous chapter, 
supporting evidence for monitoring the implementation of the Digital Europe Programme 
and  progress  in  achieving  its  objectives,  in  accordance  with  the  Commission 
Communication on Better Regulation. 

Core performance indicators 

Annex  II  of  the  Digital  Europe  Programme  Regulation  lists  the  14  core  performance 
indicators that measure progress in achieving the specific objectives of the Digital Europe 
Programme.  This  progress  is  reported  annually  in  the  context  of  the  Programme 
Performance Statement annexed to the Annual Management and Performance Report for 
the  EU  budget  (AMPR).  In  the  interim  and  final  evaluations,  which  will  cover  the 
effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance and EU added value of the Digital Europe 
Programme,  these  indicators  will  be  mainly  used  to  report  on  the  effectiveness  of  the 
programme. Some of these indicators (1.2, 2.2, 2.3, and 4.3) in addition will indicate how 
relevant the actions are to the main stakeholder groups. The targets of these indicators have 
been estimated in the context of a DG CNECT corporate decision-making process based 
on  committed  budget,  targets  defined  in  the  impact  assessment,  an  extrapolation  of 
requirements  in  the  first  work  programmes  or  call  texts.  Targets  depend  on  financial 
allocation and funding priorities in the Work Programmes, and for this reason may require 
revision.  

See also Annex IIIX, which sets out the progress made on all indicators below.  

1.1.  The number of jointly procured HPC infrastructures (SO1) 

Indicator Type 
Definition 

Unit of Measurement 
Data Source  
Data provider and responsible for data collection 

Frequency of Data Collection  
Baseline  

Target  

Underlying definitions and concepts 

Output 
Number of mid-range (pre-exascale), exascale and post-
exascale  computers,  as  well  as  quantum  computers 
procured  with  Digital  Europe  funding  under  joint 
procurement 
Absolute Number 
EuroHPC Joint Undertaking 
EuroHPC  Joint  Undertaking,  data  computed  by  DG 
CNECT.C2 
Annual  
7  Supercomputers  (2  precursors  to  exascale  and  5 
petascale supercomputers have been acquired during the 
2014-2020 MFF) 
 21 (2026) 

Exascale computing refers to computing systems 
capable of at least one exaFLOP, or a billion billion 
(i.e. a quintillion) calculations per second. Pre-exascale 
systems have close to exascale performance. Post-
exascale have performance superior to exascale 
computers. 

176 

 
 
 
 
1.2 The usage of the exascale and post-exascale computers in total and by various stakeholder groups (universities, 
SMEs etc.) (SO1) 
Indicator Type 
Definition 

Unit of Measurement 

Data Source  
Data provider and responsible for data collection 

Frequency of Data Collection  
Baseline  

Target  

Underlying definitions and concepts 

Result 
The  indicator  measures  the  share  of  totally  available 
computing time in % 
%  of  totally  available  computing  time  in  minutes 
(expressed as fraction) 
EuroHPC Joint Undertaking 
Euro  HPC  Joint  Undertaking,  data  computed  by  
CNECT.C2 
Annual 
0. The indicator is strictly linked to the implementation 
of Digital Europe 
10% by 2025 

Totally  available  time  is  the  time  for  which  the 
infrastructures  could  theoretically  be  used.  SMEs  are 
enterprises  with  fewer  than  250  employees.  Large 
enterprises  have  250  employees  or  more.  Industry 
corresponds to the NACE sectors. 

2.1. Total amount co-invested in testing and experimentation facilities (SO2) 

Indicator Type 
Definition. 

Unit of Measurement 
Data Source  
Data provider and responsible for data collection 
Frequency of Data Collection  
Baseline  

Target  

Underlying definitions and concepts 

Input 
The  indicator  measures  the  total  spending  on  sites  for 
experimentation and testing by Digital Europe and other 
funding  providers,  which  include  Member  States,  and 
the private sector. 

Euro 
Reporting of beneficiaries 
CNECT.A1 
Annual 
0. The indicator is strictly linked to the implementation 
of Digital Europe;  
EUR 180 000 000 by 2027  

A Reference Testing and Experimentation Facility is a 
technology infrastructure that has specific expertise 
and experience in testing mature technology in a given 
sector, under real or close- to-real conditions. 

2.2. The usage of common European libraries or interfaces to libraries of algorithms, usage of common European 
data spaces and usage of testing and experimentation facilities related to actions under this Regulation (SO2) 

Indicator Type 
Definition 

Result 
Comprises four indicators for the three AI high impact 
deployments: Usage of the Cloud-to-edge marketplace 
(2.1.3);  Usage  of  the  European  AI  platform  (2.2.1); 

177 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Unit of Measurement 
Data Source  
Data provider and responsible for data collection 

Frequency of Data Collection  
Baseline  

Target  

Underlying definitions and concepts 

Usage of European Data Spaces (2.2.2); and Usage of 
Testing and experimentation facilities (2.2.3).   

2.1.3 Usage of Cloud-to-Edge marketplace: number of 
user organisations on the ecosystem. 2.2.1. Usage of the 
European AI on demand platform: Usage of the platform 
resources (e.g. number of resources put on the platform, 
downloads  of  software,  linking  of  end-users  and 
solutions  providers).    2.2.2.  Usage  of  European  Data 
Spaces:  Number  of  organisations  involved  as  data 
providers and data users.  2.2.3. Usage of Testing and 
experimentation  facilities:  Number  of  entities  having 
used the testing and experimentation facilities' services. 

Absolute number 
Reporting of beneficiaries  
CNECT.G1 (data spaces), CNECT.A1 (AI on demand, 
TEF), CNECT.E2 (marketplace) 
Annual 
0. The indicator is strictly linked to the implementation 
of Digital Europe  
1600 users by 2030  

The  cloud-to-edge  marketplace  will  be  an  online 
platform  providing  businesses  (notably  SMEs)  and 
national  public  authorities  with  the  means  to  access 
trusted data processing services, notably cloud and edge 
services.  The  European  AI  on  demand  platform  is  a 
single access point to high quality tested AI resources 
(e.g.  safe,  robust  and  transparent  AI  algorithms;  new 
generation  hardware  computing;  smart  robots)  Data 
spaces organise access to and use of data including IT 
systems, governance frameworks, standards and cloud-
based 
and 
services.  A  Reference  Testing 
Experimentation Facility is a technology infrastructure 
that  has  specific  expertise  and  experience  in  testing 
mature technology in a given sector, under real or close-
to-real conditions. 

2.3. The number of cases for which organisations decide to integrate AI into their products, processes or services, 
as a result of the programme (SO2) 

Indicator Type 
Definition 

Unit of Measurement 
Data Source  

Data provider and responsible for data collection 

Result 
Number  of  new  customers  acquiring  solutions  offered 
by the technology providers having used the Testing and 
Experimentation Facilities, or the resources from the AI 
on demand platform. 
Absolute number 
Monitoring  by  the  European  Commission  (e.g.  survey 
sent to users of the services offered by the programme 
and the EDIHs) 
CNECT.A1 

178 

 
 
 
Frequency of Data Collection  

Baseline  

Target  

Underlying definitions and concepts 

Annually  during  project  implementation  and  at  least 
once  after  its  completion  but  could  be  repeated  three 
years later. 
0. The indicator is strictly linked to the implementation 
of Digital Europe 
100 by 2030 

A Reference Testing and Experimentation Facility is a 
technology infrastructure that has specific expertise 
and experience of testing mature technology in a given 
sector, under real or close to real conditions. 

3.1.a The number of cybersecurity infrastructure, or tools, or both jointly procured (SO3) 

Indicator Type 
Definition 

Unit of Measurement 
Data Source  
Data provider and responsible for data collection 
Frequency of Data Collection  
Baseline  

Target  

Underlying definitions and concepts 

Output 
This  indicator  measures  the  number  of  different 
categories of cybersecurity infrastructure, and tools (e.g. 
data  resources for cybersecurity; situational awareness 
tools) jointly procured at EU level with Digital Europe 
funding. 
Number of infrastructures and tools 
Monitoring by European Commission 
CNECT.H1 
Annually 
0. The indicator is strictly linked to the implementation 
of Digital Europe. 
15 by 2027 

This indicator measures the number of different 
categories of cybersecurity infrastructure, and tools 
(e.g. data resources for cybersecurity; situational 
awareness tools) jointly procured at the EU level with 
Digital Europe funding. 

The above indicator measures the cybersecurity infrastructures and tools jointly procured. 
As the majority of Cybersecurity actions will be implemented via other implementation 
modes  than  joint  procurement,  the  complementary  indicator  3.1.b  has  been  created  to 
demonstrate  the  full  extent  of  infrastructures  and  tools  deployed  under  SO  3  (via  joint 
procurement and other implementation modes). 

Indicator 3.1b286 (): Cybersecurity infrastructure and/or tools deployed (SO3) 
Indicator Type 

Output 

286  This  indicator  is  not  in  the  Digital  Europe  Regulation  but  will  be  reported  on  in  the  context  of  the  Programme 
Performance  Statement.  As  the  majority  of  Cybersecurity  actions  will  be  implemented  via  other  implementation 
modes than joint procurement measured by indicator 3.1a, the complementary indicator 3.1.b has been created to 
demonstrate the full extent of infrastructures and tools deployed under SO 3. 

179 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Definition 

Unit of Measurement 
Data Source  
Data provider and responsible for data collection 
Frequency of Data Collection  
Baseline  

Target  

Underlying definitions and concepts 

This  indicator  measures  the  number  of  different 
categories  of  cybersecurity  infrastructure,  and/or  tools 
(e.g.  data  resources  for  cybersecurity;  situational 
awareness  tools)  deployed  at  EU  level  with  Digital 
Europe funding. 

Number of Infrastructures, and tools 
Reporting of Beneficiaries 
CNECT.H1 
Annually 
0. The indicator is strictly linked to the implementation 
of Digital Europe 
165 by 2027 

An  'Infrastructure'  is  a  research  or  experimentation 
infrastructure  such  as  a  testbed,  cyber  range  or 
computing/communication facility. This could be either 
data and/or software only or involve physical facilities. 
A ‘Tool' is a physical device and/or software/algorithm 
used to increase the security of ICT systems. Examples 
would be intrusion detection software or data resources 
allowing 
critical 
infrastructures.  

situational 

awareness 

of 

3.2. The number of users and user communities getting access to EU cybersecurity facilities (SO3) 

Indicator Type 
Definition 

Unit of Measurement 
Data Source  
Data provider and responsible for data collection 
Frequency of Data Collection  
Baseline  

Target  

Underlying definitions and concepts 

indicator  measures 

Result 
The 
the  number  of  unique 
companies/organisations/entities  using  cybersecurity 
facilities  (cybersecurity  infrastructure,  services  and/or 
tools as in indicator 3.1b) notably to meet requirements 
under relevant EU legislation (NIS Directive or other) 
or  to  contribute  to  the  European  Commission’s  cyber 
policy goals. 
Unique companies/organisations/entities 
Reporting of beneficiaries 
CNECT.H1 
Annually 
0. The indicator is strictly linked to the implementation 
of Digital Europe 
400 by 2028 

An 'Infrastructure' is a research or experimentation 
infrastructure such as a testbed, cyber range or 
computing/communication facility. This could be 
either data and/or software only, or involve physical 
facilities. A 'Tool' is a physical device and/or 
software/algorithm used to increase the security of ICT 
systems. Examples include intrusion detection software 
or data resources allowing situational awareness of 
critical infrastructures. A 'service' is the provision of 
expertise to help organisations deploy, manage and 
optimise or access cybersecurity solutions.  This 
indicator is based on an estimate of the number of 
cybersecurity infrastructures in the pure sense (e.g. 
cyber ranges or new security operation centres), and 

180 

 
 
 
also on an estimate of tools that strengthen existing 
infrastructures, such as electricity networks, 
communication networks, transport infrastructures, etc. 

4.1.  The  number  of  persons  who  have  received  training  to  acquire  advanced  digital  skills  supported  by  the 
programme (SO4) 

Indicator Type 
Definition 

Unit of Measurement 
Data Source  
Data provider and responsible for data collection 
Frequency of Data Collection  

Baseline  

Target  

Underlying definitions and concepts 

Output 
Number of individuals taking part in training activities 
supported by the Digital Europe programme 
Absolute number 
Reporting of beneficiaries 
CNECT.G2 
Annually  or  biannually  (depending  on  the  type  of 
courses). 
0. The indicator is strictly linked to the implementation 
of Digital Europe 
65 000 by 2027 

The indicator measures the number of individuals 
enrolled in training activities supported by the Digital 
Europe, at the start of the training activities under 
consideration and as reported by the grant 
beneficiaries. 

4.2. The number of enterprises, in particular SMEs, having difficulty in recruiting ICT specialists (SO4) 

Indicator Type 
Definition 

Unit of Measurement 
Data Source  

Data provider and responsible for data collection 
Frequency of Data Collection  
Baseline  
Target  

Underlying definitions and concepts 

Impact 
Enterprises reporting hard-to-fill vacancies for jobs 
requiring ICT specialist skills, as percentage of 
enterprises that recruited/tried to recruit personnel for 
jobs requiring ICT specialist skills 
Percentage 
EU survey on ICT usage and e-commerce in 
enterprises 
DG CNECT.B2 from Eurostat (unit G4) 
Biannually 
55,43% (2020) 
No target, estimate is 68,4% in 2029 based on the 
current skills gaps and without taking into account EU 
action287. 

The indicator is related to hard-to-fill vacancies 
reported by enterprises during the previous calendar 
year. Hard-to-fill vacancies refer to a range of 
situations in which enterprises find it difficult to find 

287 As this is a contextual indicator, its scope is much wider than solely measuring the impact of Digital Europe. There 
is therefore no defined target. This indicator serves as a compass for monitoring progress towards the digital policy 
goals. 

181 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Risks and Limitations 

individuals with specific skills (hard-to-fill vacancies 
due to skills shortage). 

The indicator is only indirectly linked to the 
implementation of Digital Europe. It can be assumed 
that Digital Europe will contribute to improving the 
trend observed, but the extent of this contribution 
cannot be estimated. In addition, and importantly, 
external factors (including business digitalisation, 
labour market and demographic dynamics) will affect 
the current trend and could result in deviations from 
the milestones and targets presented above.  

4.3. The number of people reporting an improved employment situation after the end of the training supported by 
the programme (SO3) 

Indicator Type 
Definition 

Unit of Measurement 
Data Source  
Data provider and responsible for data collection 

Frequency of Data Collection  
Baseline  

Target  

Underlying definitions and concepts 

Result 
Number  of  participants  enrolled  in  training  activities 
that  found  employment  or  report  an 
improved 
employment  situation  six  months  after  completion  of 
those activities. 
Absolute number 
Reporting of Beneficiaries 
Survey  sent  to  participants  in  training  courses,  final 
figure computed by CNECT.G2 
Biannually 
0. The indicator is strictly linked to the implementation 
of Digital Europe 
26 200 by 2027 

The definition of the indicator depends on the 
employment status of the participants at the time of 
enrolment to the training activities supported by Digital 
Europe. Therefore, two cases can be distinguished: 1. 
Participants unemployed, inactive or in education at the 
beginning of the training:  improved employment 
situation means that the participants find employment, 
including self-employment, six months after 
completing the training. 2. Participants employed at the 
beginning of the training:  improved employment 
situation means that the participants transited from 
precarious to stable employment, and/or from 
underemployment to full employment, and/or have 
moved to a job requiring higher 
competences/skills/qualifications, entailing more 
responsibilities, and/or received a promotion six 
months after completing the training. 

5.1. The take-up of digital public services (SO5) 

Indicator Type 

Result 

182 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Definition 

This  is  a  composite  indicator  measuring  progress 
towards  the  uptake  targets  for  selected  digital  public 
services supported by the programme  used as proxies. 
For  each  solution  used  as  a  proxy,  sub-indicators  will 
measure  its  uptake.  These  sub-indicators  use  different 
metrics.  One  of  the  sub-indicators,  for  instance, 
measures  the  number  of  projects  reusing  eDelivery. 
Another  sub-indicator related  to digital  services  in  the 
area  of  justice  and  consumer  protection,  on  the  other 
hand,  measures  the  percentage  of  the  work  completed 
(100% (1) means full completion of work). To compute 
the  average  progress  on  this  composite  indicator,  all 
sub-indicators  are  measured  in  terms  of  percentage  of 
completed  work  (for  sub  indicators  using  absolute 
numbers, 
follows: 
milestone/target*100). To calculate the overall progress, 
each  sub-indicator  is  taken  into  consideration  to  the 
same degree.  

is  measure 

progress 

as 

This indicator is composed of the following sub-
indicators:  

•  Common services platform measuring the 
number of projects reusing eTranslation,  

•  Number of projects reusing eDelivery,  
•  Number of projects reusing the 

Interoperability testbed 

•  Once-only principle (OOP) implementation 
measuring the Schedule Performance Index 
and Cost Performance Index (If score is˃1, 
the performance is on track) 

•  Number of Member States connected by the 

end of the action to OOP 

•  Support to an EU electronic identity system 
measuring the number of countries enabled by 
the funded activities to exchange the new 
digital identity credentials  

•  Digital services in the area of justice and 
consumer protection measuring the 
achievement of key milestones for three 
actions (i.e. Maintenance and development of 
the core EU justice and consumers systems, e-
CODEX and EU eLab). Target evaluated 
against the successful completion of the 
planned work under each component. A value 
of 1 = 100% of the objectives were met. Each 
area of focus has a 25% weight to compute the 
overall score. 
Normalised 0-1 progress scale 
Monitoring by the European Commission 
Common Service Platform (CNECT.G3/H4, DIGIT.B2 
and DG DGT for eTranslation) 
OOP and Digital Wallet (CNECT.H4) 
Justice and Consumer Protection (JUST.H4)  
Annually 

183 

Unit of Measurement 
Data Source  
Data provider and responsible for data collection 

Frequency of Data Collection  

 
 
 
 
Baseline  

Target  

Underlying definitions and concepts 

5.2. Enterprises with high digital intensity score (SO5) 

Indicator Type 
Definition 

Unit of Measurement 
Data Source  
Data provider and responsible for data collection 
Frequency of Data Collection  
Baseline  
Target  

Underlying definitions and concepts 

Risks and Limitations 

0. The indicator is strictly linked to the implementation 
of Digital Europe 
1 (full implementation of all work strands) by 2026  

For this indicator, digital public services are activities, 
infrastructures and tools supporting the provision of 
electronic public services to individuals or businesses, 
typically over the internet. A public service is an 
activity of general interest defined, created and 
monitored by the public authorities (e.g. health and 
care, justice, etc.). Take-up can refer to several 
elements, such as the deployment, sectoral coverage 
and use of services. 

Impact 
Percentage  of  enterprises288  in  the  EU  with  a  digital 
intensity score of ‘high’ or ’very high’, as measured by 
the  digital  intensity  index.  ‘High’  means  that  the 
company  reports  to  be  using  at  least  7  out  of  12  pre-
defined digital technologies. 
% of EU enterprises (expressed as a fraction) 
EU survey on ICT usage and e-commerce in enterprises 
CNECT. B2 from Eurostat (unit G4) 
Annually 
155% (2020) 
No target, estimate is 21% by 2029289 

The  Digital  Intensity  Index  (DII)  measures 
the 
availability  at  firm  level  of  12  different  digital 
technologies. The value of the index ranges from 0 to 
12. An index of 7 to 9 is considered high, and of 10 to 
12 very high. The list of technologies partially changes 
every year since 2015. 
This indicator is based on a representative sample of all 
EU  enterprises  with  10  or  more  employees  and  self-
employed person in NACE Rev. 2290 sections C to J, L 
to N and group 95.1 and thus has a much larger scope 
than 
the  programme.  The 
contribution of  the programme  is  therefore  difficult  to 
isolate. Multiple external factors lead to changes in the 
Index  (including  the  economic  context,  and  other 
policies).  The  list  of  technologies  has  been  adjusted 
every  year  since  2015 
technological 
developments  and  policy  priorities.  This  reduces 
comparability between years, with expected fluctuations 
across years, making projections on future trends very 
challenging. 

the  beneficiaries  of 

reflect 

to 

288 See definition of ‘enterprise’: Glossary: Enterprise - Statistics Explained (europa.eu) 
289 As this is a contextual indicator, its scope is much wider than solely measuring the impact of Digital Europe. There 
is therefore no defined target. This indicator serves as a compass for monitoring progress towards the digital policy 
goals. 

290 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex%3A32006R1893  

184 

 
 
 
 
 
 
5.3. The extent of the alignment of the National Interoperability Framework with the European Interoperability 
Framework (SO5) 

Indicator Type 
Definition 

Unit of Measurement 
Data Source  

Data provider and responsible for data collection 
Frequency of Data Collection  
Baseline  
Target  

Underlying definitions and concepts 

implementation.  The  data 

Result 
Average  level  of  implementation  of  the  European 
Interoperability Framework (EIF) at EU level. 
1-4 continuous scale 
The  indicator  is  calculated  from  the  current  EIF 
monitoring mechanism, showing the mean value of EU 
level 
collected 
consistently and exhaustively through a detailed survey 
covering  the  27  Member  States,  combined  with 
measurements  from  the  Commission’s  secondary  data 
sources such as open data portal indicators. 
DIGIT.B.2 
Annually 
3.750 (2020) 
3.775 (2025) 

are 

The EIF supports European public administrations in 
their effort to design and deliver seamless European 
public services to businesses and individuals, which are 
digital-by-default, cross border-by-default and open-
by-default. It is key to establishing the Digital Single 
Market in that it supports cross-border and cross-
sectoral interoperability for the delivery of digital 
public services in the EU. The methodology is based 
on the EIF Monitoring Mechanism and consists of a set 
of meaningful and measurable KPIs to assess the level 
of implementation of the 47 EIF recommendations. 
These 47 recommendations are organised under the 
EIF’s three pillars, and 25 thematic areas, each of 
which is related to at least one EIF recommendation. 
The results of the 25 thematic areas are then 
aggregated into the three pillars, which are then 
aggregated into a single average score per Member 
State giving an overall indication of the level of 
implementation of the EIF in that particular country. 
The mean value of the single score of the individual 
Member State is the single indicator that will be used. 

5.4. Number of businesses and public sector entities that have used the services of European Digital Innovation 
Hubs (SO5) 

Indicator Type 
Definition 

Unit of Measurement 
Data Source  
Data provider and responsible for data collection 

Result 
Cumulative  number  of  users  of  the  European  Digital 
Innovation Hubs (EDIH), by user category (businesses 
of different sizes, public sector entities, etc.), sector, and 
location  and  by  technology  involved.  This  indicator 
refers to all types of services offered by the EDIHs: test 
before  invest,  funding  support,  skills  and  training  and 
ecosystem and networking services. 
Absolute number (unique entities) 
Digital Transformation Accelerator  
CNECT.A4 

185 

 
 
 
Frequency of Data Collection  
Baseline  

Target  

Underlying definitions and concepts 

Annually 
0. The indicator is strictly linked to the implementation 
of Digital Europe 
191 400 by 2027 

EDIH provide technological expertise and 
experimentation facilities to enable the digital 
transformation of the industry and the public sector. 

Progress on these indicators is reported in the annual Programme Performance Statement 
published on Digital Europe programme - Performance (europa.eu).  

SO 6 

Indicators related to the new SO6 on semiconductors, were introduced by the Chips Act 
Regulation291. Annex II of the Regulation lists the indicators below. These will be defined 
in more detail once the related work programmes will be available.  

1.  The  number  of  legal  entities  involved  (subdivided  by  size,  type  and  country  of 
establishment)  in  the  actions  supported  by  the  Initiative.  In  relation  to  the  Initiative’s 
operational objective 1:  

2. The number of design tools developed or integrated under the Initiative. In relation to 
the Initiative’s operational objective 2:  

3. The total amount co-invested by the private sector in design capacities and pilot lines 
under the Initiative. In relation to the Initiative’s operational objective 3:  

4. The number of users of semiconductors or user communities seeking, and the number 
of users of semiconductors or user communities obtaining, access to design capacities and 
pilot lines under the Initiative. In relation to the Initiative’s operational objective 4:  

5. The number of businesses, which have used the services of national competence centres 
supported by the Initiative.  

6.  The  number  of  persons  who  have  successfully  concluded  training  programmes 
supported  by  the  Initiative  to  acquire  advanced  skills  and  training  on  semiconductor 
technologies and quantum technologies.  

7. The number of active competence centres in the Union in the context of the Initiative. 
In relation to the Initiative’s operational objective 5:  

8. The number of start-ups, scale-ups and SMEs that have received venture capital from 
the Chips Fund activities and the total amount of capital investments made.  

291  Regulation  (EU) 2023/1781 of  the  European  Parliament  and  of the  Council  of 13 September  2023  establishing  a 
framework  of  measures  for  strengthening  Europe’s  semiconductor  ecosystem  and  amending  Regulation 
(EU) 2021/694 (Chips Act): EUR-Lex - 32023R1781 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu). 

186 

 
 
 
 
 
9. The amount of investment by companies operating in the Union, including by segment 
of the value chain in which they operate. 

Additional supporting indicators 

After the first year of implementation of the Digital Europe Programme, an assessment of 
the  monitoring  strategy  concluded  that  additional  indicators  are  necessary  to  ensure  a 
‘deeper analysis of performance in the interim and ex post evaluations of the programme’, 
as requested in the Communication on the Monitoring Framework for the EU budget under 
the 2021-2027 MFF292. A mapping of the indicators from the legal basis onto the Digital 
Europe  actions,  revealed  certain  monitoring  gaps  and  led  to  10  additional  performance 
indicators  being  developed.  The  10  additional  indicators,  outlined  below,  will  provide 
valuable input for the programme’s mid-term and ex post evaluations. 

See annex IX of this document for the full list of additional indicators.  

Contextual Indicators  

Contextual indicators will provide relevant insight into Europe’s digital performance and 
progress  towards  the  high-level  digital  policy  goals. The  contextual  information  should 
provide  insight  into  ‘developments  that  are  not  intentionally  related  to  the  individual 
initiative,  although  they  may  influence  it  or  be  influenced  by  it’293.  The  contextual 
information relevant for the Digital Europe Programme will be gathered through a few Key 
Performance  Indicators  (KPIs)  from  the  Digital  Decade  Policy  programme  (DDPP)294, 
which entered into force on 8 January 2023. This programme sets objectives and targets 
for  2030  for  the  EU  in  four  key  areas  (‘Digital  Compass’):  digital  skills, digital 

Figure 4: The Digital Decade Compass 

292 Communication on the performance framework for the EU budget under the 2021-2027 MFF 
293 Better Regulation Toolbox. 2021: p.361: br_toolbox-nov_2021_en.pdf (europa.eu). 
294  Decision  (EU)  2022/2481  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  14 December  2022  establishing  the 

Digital Decade Policy Programme 2030: EUR-Lex - 32022D2481 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu). 

187 

 
 
 
 
infrastructures, digitalisation of businesses and digitalisation of the public sector to boost 
the EU’s digital transformation.  

The observed trends will help to evaluate the relevance of the programme in terms of 
progress achieved towards the digital transformation, and to identify potential gaps or 
needs, which could influence future work programmes. Among the DDPP’s KPIs, the 
following are considered to be particularly relevant contextual indicators for the Digital 
Europe Programme and will be closely monitored: 

Percentage  of  ICT  specialists  in  total  employment:  ICT  specialists,  measured  as  the 
number  of  individuals  aged  15-74  who  are  employed  as  ICT  specialists;  and  gender 
convergence,  measured  as  the  percentage  of  women  and  men  among  those  individuals 
employed  as  ICT  specialists.  In  accordance  with  the  ISCO-08  code  classification.  ICT 
specialists are workers who have the ability to develop, operate and maintain ICT systems, 
and for whom ICT constitutes the main part of their job, including but not limited to ICT 
service managers, ICT professionals, ICT technicians, ICT installers and servicers. 

Semiconductors, measured as value generated, in the form of revenues, by semiconductor 
activities in the EU, in all stages of the value chain, with respect to the global market value. 
For the first year, reporting will be done on the basis of those activities in the EU. 

Percentage  of  European  Enterprises  adopting  Artificial  intelligence  technologies: 
Artificial intelligence, measured as the percentage of enterprises using at least one artificial 
intelligence technology. 

SMEs with at least a basic level of digital intensity, measured as the percentage of SMEs 
using at least 4 of 12 selected digital technologies. 

Online  provision  of  key  public  services  for  citizens,  measured  as  the  share  of 
administrative steps that can be done fully online for major life events. The following life 
events are considered: moving; transport; starting a small claims procedure; family; career; 
studying; health.  

Access  to  eID  measured  as  the  number  of  Member  States  that  have  issued  a  wallet  in 
accordance  with  the  Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council amending Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 as regards establishing a framework for 
a  European  Digital  Identity295,  once  a  regulation  based  on  the  proposal  is  adopted  and 
enters into force. In the  first  2 years, it will also  be monitored based on  the number of 
Member  States  that  have  notified  at  least  one  national  eID  scheme  in  accordance  with  
Regulation (EU) No 910/2014.   

Topic-level indicators 

For 27 topics in the first work programme (2021-2022)296 and 18 topics planned in 2023 
in the 2023-2024 Work Programme297, the Commission defined data that will be gathered 
to  comprehensively  monitor  the  performance  of  specific  topics,  in  particular  where  the 

295 COM/2021/281 final. 
296 The DIGITAL Europe Programme – Work Programmes | Shaping Europe’s digital future (europa.eu) 
297 The DIGITAL Europe Programme – Work Programmes | Shaping Europe’s digital future (europa.eu) 

188 

 
 
 
 
performance indicators cover several work strands and are too wide in scope to capture 
technical  details,  or  where  individual  topics  are  not  directly  covered  by  higher  level 
indicators. These indicators provide detailed information for the analysis of the evaluation 
criterium effectiveness (of the interim evaluation). They may also play a role in this context 
when  the  analysis  focuses  on  concrete  examples  where  data  gathered  through  these 
indictors could point to specific challenges, achievements, or best practice. The full list of 
topic-level indicators can be found in Annex A.  

The full design of these indicators (definition, unit of measurement, data source, frequency 
of data collection, baseline and target and any other relevant information to facilitate data 
sharing,  use  and  reuse,  and  aggregation)  and  their  monitoring  will  be  managed  by  the 
Commission’s operational units in charge. The list will be continuously updated as new 
topics are being implemented following the adoption of Work Programmes.  

Additional benchmarks, indicators and data collection tools for the evaluation  

As  detailed  in  Tool  #47  of  the  Better  Regulation  Toolbox298,  the  interim  and  final 
evaluations  cover  five  main  evaluation  criteria:  effectiveness,  efficiency,  coherence, 
relevance and EU added value. The indicators in Section 5 mainly provide data to assess 
the  evaluation  criterium  effectiveness  and  to  some  degree  the  criterium  relevance. An 
evaluation  matrix,  with  evaluation  questions  and  all  relevant  indicators  including 
additional  indicators  or  benchmarks  covering  the  other  evaluation  criteria  (EU  added 
value,  coherence,  and  efficiency)  will  be  developed  during  the  evaluation  period  and 
published in the interim evaluation report.  

Part of the data on the programme activities implemented through grants will be collected 
by the Commission through tools in the eGrants IT system that supports the project’s entire 
lifecycle (see Section 6.2 for details). Evidence will also be collected through public and 
targeted stakeholder consultations, from beneficiaries’ reports feedback-to-policy reports, 
project portfolio analyses and other sources to be identified during the preparation of the 
interim evaluation.  

For  the  part  of  the  programme  activities  implemented  through  procurements,  the 
Commission will gather the data from the contractors. In the case of Destination Earth, the 
data  will  be  collected  from  the  implementing  entities,  as  specified  in  the  Contribution 
Agreements. Other significant data sources will include a study and surveys obtained from 
third parties (see Chapter 6. data management for details). 

DATA MANAGEMENT  

This chapter provides an overview of the main actors in the data collection process, their 
responsibilities and how data are collected in the online tool eGrants. It also details the 
responsibilities of the operational units in DG CNECT and topic owners in other DGs in 
collecting and monitoring data for the performance indicators.  

298 Better Regulation Toolbox, Tool #47, Evaluation Criteria and Questions, br_toolbox-nov_2021_en_0.pdf (europa.eu), 

p. 402-413. 

189 

 
 
 
 
Main actors 

As the lead DG for the Digital Europe Programme, DG CNECT is the main actor involved 
in data collection. Other DGs are also involved as topic owners of specific work strands. 
Furthermore, the implementing bodies (HaDEA, the High-Performance Computing Joint 
Undertaking,  the  European  Cybersecurity  Competence  Centre  and  the  three  entities 
implementing  Destination  Earth)  play  a  crucial  role  in  the  collection,  aggregation  and 
monitoring of performance information.  

Operational  units  in  DG  CNECT  are  tasked  with  carrying  out  sanity  checks  on  all  the 
performance information obtained from implementing bodies, and with providing the data 
in aggregated form along with a narrative outlining the progress achieved. DG CNECT 
will  provide  clear  justifications  for  delays  and  are  responsible  for  putting  in  place 
appropriate mitigating measures in case of bottlenecks or delays.  

Directorate Generals 

As  the  lead  DG,  DG  CNECT  coordinates  the  strategic  planning,  delegation  and 
implementation  of  the  programme’s  budget.  Several  other  DGs  are  involved  in  the 
implementation of specific work strands:  

DG DIGIT is a key partner for actions related to interoperability. DIGIT.B2 contributes to 
the performance reporting within the annual budget cycle and is in charge of monitoring 
progress  on  the  Digital  Europe  Programme  Regulation  indicator  that  measures  the 
alignment of the National Interoperability Framework with the European Interoperability 
Framework. The unit also provides input to the Programme Performance Statement and 
participates in the budget hearing for the interoperability budget line.  

DG JUST (A1) coordinates the actions related to digitalisation of justice and consumer 
protection. The  unit  provides  data  for  the  composite  indicator  in  the  Regulation  on  the 
update  of  digital  public  services  and  regular  updates  on  the  performance  of  this  work 
strand. 

DG  HOME299,  DG  FISMA  (unit  C1,  financial  data  space)  and  DG  GROW  (unit  G4, 
public procurement data infrastructure) are involved in the implementation and monitoring 
of the programme as topic owners. These units are in charge of developing the monitoring 
framework at topic level and for monitoring the topics under their responsibility. They will 
provide aggregated data on progress on their work strands upon request.  

DGs associated to specific topics, e.g. to sectoral data spaces, will be consulted on topic-
specific indicators. 

DG ENV (unit 01), for instance, is coordinating the definition of use-cases regarding the 
Green Deal Data Space in cooperation with DG ENV policy departments as well as other 
concerned  DGs.  DG  MOVE  contributes  to  the  mobility  data  space  and  DG  DGT  is 
responsible for providing services and resources for the Language Data Space.  

Executive Agency (direct management) 

299 Currently no Digital Europe actions are being implemented by DG HOME 

190 

 
 
 
HaDEA is entrusted with implementing part of the Digital Europe Programme’s budget. In 
particular, it implements selected topics under Specific Objective 2 (artificial intelligence), 
Specific Objective 4 (advanced digital skills) and Specific Objective 5 (deployment, best 
use of digital capacities and interoperability). HaDEA is responsible for monitoring and 
reporting on projects falling under its responsibility. It will provide contributions to the 
programme’s midterm and ex post evaluations upon request.  

Other implementing bodies (indirect management) 

The  High-Performance  Computing  Joint  Undertaking  (EuroHPC-JU)  is  responsible  for 
implementing a set of tasks in the areas of HPC and quantum computing under specific 
objective  1.  The  JU  monitors  actions  for  topics  under  its  responsibility.  It  reports 
performance information on the progress of these actions (legal, additional and topic-level 
indicators) to CNECT.C2 for annual reports as well as the midterm and ex post evaluations. 
CNECT.C2 is the main interface with the JU and closely follows its work. 

the  single 
The  European  Cybersecurity  Competence  Centre  (ECCC)  will  be 
implementation  body  for  selected  work  strands  under  the  Digital  Europe  Programme’s 
specific objective 3 on cybersecurity. This EU body will become autonomous in 2024. The 
ECCC  will  be  responsible  for  collecting  information  and  monitoring  progress  on  the 
Digital  Europe  Programme’s  performance  indicators,  and  for  providing  input  to  its 
midterm and final evaluations. Unit CNECT.H1 will be the main interface with the ECCC 
for the programme and will ensure that they apply appropriate monitoring activities.  

The  European  Space Agency  (ESA),  the  European  Centre  for  Medium-Range  Weather 
Forecasts (ECMWF) and the European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological 
Satellites (EUMETSAT) are independent entities entrusted with implementing the topics 
underpinning  the  Destination  Earth  initiative  through  the  signature  of  Contribution 
Agreements. CNECT.C1 is the topic owner, and in this capacity, it liaises with the relevant 
stakeholders and implementing bodies. These entities are in charge of monitoring progress 
on  Destination  Earth  based  on  a  range  of  technical  KPIs  detailed  in  the  Contribution 
Agreements. CNECT.C1 is responsible for providing aggregated data for the evaluation of 
the programme. 

The Investment Platform for Strategic Digital Technologies (indirect management)  

The  Investment  Platform  for  Strategic  Digital  Technologies  (IP-SDT)  is  a  financial 
instrument  intended to  provide financial  support  to  eligible projects  through equity and 
quasi-equity by combining funding from the Digital Europe Programme with the InvestEU 
guarantee.  The  IP-SDT  is  implemented  in  indirect  management  under  the  InvestEU 
programme,  more  specifically,  by  the  European  Investment  Fund  (EIF).  The  DG 
responsible for setting up a monitoring strategy for the platform is DG ECFIN, who is in 
charge of financial and organisational matters, as well as monitoring and reporting tasks, 
including financial reporting.  

191 

 
 
 
 
 
Overview of main actors and flow of performance information 

Figure 5: Actors responsible for data collection, legal basis and flow of information 

DATA COLLECTION  

Data  linked  to  the  performance  indicators  set  out  in  this  Monitoring  and  Evaluation 
Framework are in principle collected from beneficiaries or from contractors. In addition, 
some of the data for the mid-term and ex-post evaluations will be collected through surveys 
or acquired from third parties.  

For  procurements,  the  monitoring  and  reporting  requirements  and  responsibilities  are 
specified in the contracts signed by the winning tender. For procurements not managed by 
DG CNECT, the topic owners in other DGs and the implementing bodies are responsible 
for gathering the data from the contractors, aggregating them and reporting on them to DG 
CNECT. For procurements managed by DG CNECT, the operational units in charge will 
provide the data to CNECT.D.1.  

For  grants,  beneficiaries  are  the  main  source  of  data.  They  provide  data  for  the  core 
performance  indicators  and  additional  indicators  as  part  of  their  mandatory  reporting 
obligations.  These  include  regular  technical,  progress  and/or  interim  as  well  as  final 
reports.  Their  reporting  obligations  are  detailed  in Article  21  of  the  grant  agreements. 
These  include  the  continuous  reporting  on  the  progress  of  an  action  and  the  related 
deliverables. In addition, prefinancing reports (if prefinancing payments are requested) and 
periodic reports (to request interim and final payments) must be provided. These reports 
contain  a  technical  and  financial  part.  The  technical  part  provides  an  overview  of  the 

192 

 
 
 
 
 
implementation of an action. The financial part includes a financial statement, explanation 
on the use of resources and certificates on the financial statements.  

The data are collected through submission forms and reports are gathered in the corporate 
‘eGrants’ IT system,  which is  a single gateway  for all exchanges with  the beneficiaries 
throughout the project lifecycle. The project officers/call coordinators in the involved DGs 
and  the  implementing  agency  will  check  the  reliability  of  data  and  verify  that  the 
information  provided  by  the  beneficiaries  is  coherent  across  all  submission  forms  and 
corresponds to the produced deliverables.  

To  collect  information  related  to  some  of  the  core  performance  indicators,  a  specific 
submission form (form C) has been designed and is available to beneficiaries in eGrants. 
Beneficiaries are obliged to complete form C when submitting reports, as specified in their 
grant  agreements. This  form  will  gather  data  for  the  following  indicators  in  the  Digital 
Europe Programme Regulation:  

o  2.2. The usage of common European libraries or interfaces to libraries of 

algorithms, usage of common European data spaces and usage of testing and 
experimentation facilities related to actions under this Regulation 

o  3.1. The number of cybersecurity infrastructure, or tools, or both jointly procured.  
o  3.2. The number of users and user communities getting access to European 

cybersecurity facilities 

o  4.1. The number of persons who have received training to acquire advanced 

digital skills supported by the programme. 

o  4.3. The number of people reporting an improved employment situation after the 

end of the training supported by the programme. 

The submission form C will also collect data for the following additional indicator: 

o  9. EBSI: Usage of the European Blockchain Service Infrastructure and of the 

European Blockchain sandbox  

The submission form C will take the gender dimension into account with regard to Specific 
Objective 4 and will collect,  where possible, sex aggregated data on participants  of the 
training courses funded by the Digital Europe Programme and the completion rate.  

In addition to data for core performance indicators, relevant management data and statistics 
will be collected through eGrants as well. Several interlinked IT tools have been integrated 
into the eGrants portal, each coming into play at a different stage of the project lifecycle. 
For example: SEP for experts to evaluate and rank project proposals; REDRESS to manage 
complaints on the evaluation procedure; SYGMA to manage grants and monitor funded 
projects  during  their  entire  life  cycle,  including  capturing  information  and  data  on  the 
dissemination and use of their results; and COMPASS to manage grants, experts and audit 
management. Some of this data will be visible on the Digital Europe Dashboard, which 
allows users to explore and visualise data to prepare statistics on funding implementation 
and  outcomes,  for  reporting,  analysis,  monitoring  or  decision-making  purposes.  The 
Digital  Europe  Dashboard  has  been  made  available  to  members  of  the  Digital  Europe 
Programme  Committee,  gathering  representatives  of  all  member  states  and  associated 
countries.  

193 

 
 
 
Responsibilities in DG CNECT  

The data on the core performance indicators is needed for the annual reporting (Programme 
Performance Statement to be attached to the annual draft budget). Data on all indicators as 
well as management data, will feed into the Digital Europe Programme’s midterm and final 
evaluations. For all indicators, the responsibility for the timely collection, aggregation and 
quality checks lies with the operational units in charge. An overview of the responsibilities 
for monitoring the different types of indicators in DG CNECT is provided below. 

Level 

Purpose 

Scope 

Lead 

Tasks 

Contextual 
Indicators 

Core 
performance 
Indicators 

Additional 
indicators  

Provide detailed 
information on the wider 
context and trends related 
to the higher-level digital 
policy goals 

Measure whether Digital 
Europe is delivering the 
expected results, remains 
relevant and meets the 
objectives outlined in the 
Regulation. 

Supplement the core 
performance indicators and 
provide important data on 
the progress of the 
programme for the interim 
and final evaluations 

6 contextual indicators 
relevant for the specific 
objectives of Digital 
Europe  

14 KPIs in the legal base 

10 additional indicators 

B2( ( ( )) 

B2: monitoring of and reporting on 
contextual indicators 

D1 and 
operational 
units  

D1: coordination  

Operational units: Continuous 
monitoring of and reporting on 
KPIs in legal base  

D1 and 
operational 
units 

D1: coordination  

Operational units: Continuous 
monitoring of and reporting on 
additional indicators 

R5 and R3:  Provision of statistical 
data on the implementation of 
projects and other relevant data 
retrieved mainly from eGrants to 
gather input to respond to the 
evaluation criteria, in particular, 
efficiency and relevance. 

Topic-Level 
indicators 

Measure detailed progress 
towards Digital Europe 
objectives at topic-level  

 27 topics for the first 
work programmes 

Operational 
units  

Operational units: design and 
monitoring of indicators  

TOPIC LEVEL INDICATORS 

SO1 

Topic  

Indicator (title) 

194 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
National 
Centres 
Performance Computing 

Competence 
High 

for 

Topics  related  to  quantum 
computing  

Destination  Earth-  Core 
Service  Platform  and  Data 
Lake 

Number of SMEs that have been supported by EuroHPC CCs  
Number  of  companies  (not  SMEs)  that  have  been  supported  by 
EuroHPC CCs 
Number of academic and public research institutions that have been 
supported by EuroHPC CCs 
Number of projects involving at least 2 EuroHPC CCs  
Number of training projects involving collaboration among NCCs, 
Centres of Excellence and/or between the NCC and CoE networks  
Number  of  exploitation  and  dissemination  projects  involving 
collaboration among NCCs, Centres of Excellence and/or between 
the NCC and CoE networks  
Number  of  HPC  application  projects  involving  collaboration 
among NCCs, Centres of Excellence and/or between the NCC and 
CoE networks 

Several KPIs were published to monitor and evaluate the progress 
of quantum technologies in Europe for the following technological 
pillars:  Ecosystem,  Quantum  Communication,  Quantum 
Computing,  Quantum  Simulation,  Quantum  Sensing  and 
Metrology,  and  Education.  The  KPIs  measure  impact  of  Digital 
Europe funding but also other funding programmes, most notably, 
Horizon Europe:  
https://qt.eu/about-quantum-flagship/newsroom/key-performance-
indicators-2030/ 

Indicators defined in the Contribution Agreements and provided by 
the three implementing bodies: 
•  Number  of  operated  services  available  on  the  DestinE  Core 
Service Platform 
•Number of data types available for retrieval from the DestinE Core 
Service Platform 
• Number of participants in the DestinE open reviews 
• Number of agreed partnership project plans involving ESA 
• Number of active users in the last 3 months (active is defined as 
‘having  established  a  connection  to  the  DestinE  Core  Service 
Platform’) 
•Number of users having retrieved Digital Twin generated data 
•Overall user satisfaction 
•Number of applications in the DESP marketplace making use of 
Al Technology 
•DestinE Core Service Platform data retrieval API availability 
•DestinE Core Service Platform data volume retrieved at the user 
side 

195 

 
 
 
Destination  Earth  -  Digital 
Twins 

•DestinE  Core  Service  Platform  Services  Performance  (Average 
percentage  of  time  of  the  DESP  services  within  the  maximum 
performance range interval) 
•First-call resolution rate 
•Incident response time 
•SLA compliance rate 
•Overall user satisfaction from help desk and support activities 
•Number  of  operated  data  retrieval  APIs  towards  external  data 
sources 
•Volume of data retrieved from external sources 
•Overall availability of Data Lake infrastructure 
•Overall availability of Data Lake access services 
•Data set timeliness  
•Amount of data sets available in Data Lake 
•Number and volume of datasets ingested 
•Volume  of  data  circulated  within  the  DestinE  Data  Lake 
infrastructure 
•Ingestion, data access & retrieval information on Data Lake 
•Ingestion performance of data sets stored in the Data Lake 
•end-to-end  data  availability  in  Data  Lake  (amount,  content, 
completeness) 

Number of: 
• Hydrology applications  
•Energy applications  
•Food applications 
•Health applications 
•Trans-continuum 
km/area: 
•Spatial  resolution/coverage  of  monitoring  and  prediction  DT 
Extremes datasets 
•Spatial  resolution/coverage  of  monitoring  and  DT  improvement 
over prediction DT Climate datasets 
hours: 
•Temporal  availability/timeliness  of  DT  output  for  continuous 
production mode 
•Temporal  availability/timeliness  of  DT  output  for  on-  demand 
production mode 
per cent:   
•Availability  of  decision-  ready  information  derived  from  DT 
output 

196 

 
 
Number or CPU hours 
•Number of (service level) applications using DT-Extremes output 
•Number of (service level) applications using DT-Climate output 
•Number of (service level) applications using full-resolution, high 
frequency output 
•Number of (service level) applications using critical-path output 
•Number of applications producing candidate models to be added 
to DT Engine 
•Number of new datasets created from DT output 
Number: 
•Amount of data sets pushed into the Data Lake(s) 
•Ingestion, access & usage of Earth observation data 
Node-hours/day: 
•Actual HPC node allocation for continuous production mode 
•Actual HPC mode allocation for on-demand product mode 
Per cent: 
•Sustained vs peak performance 
Number: 
•Extreme-scale software component uptake 
•machine learning software component uptake 
Per cent: 
•HPC efficiency gains in DT production 
•Data exploitation gains in DT production and use in application 

Indicator (title) 

•Design and offer an EU marketplace for federated cloud-to-edge 
based services: 
•Number of European cloud-to-edge based services offered on the 
marketplace. 
•Number  of  functionalities  offered  by  the  marketplaces:  (a) 
catalogue,  (b)  brokerage,  (c)  transaction  and  (d)  delivery  of 
federated cloud-to-edge based services).  
•Number of unique user organisations on the marketplace.   
•Average  frequency  of  use  of 
organisations.  
•Diversity  of  stakeholders  involved:  (i)  public  entities,  (ii) 
companies, (iii) SMEs and (iv) actors of Common Data Spaces.  
•User satisfaction 

the  marketplace  by  client 

197 

S02 

Topic 

Marketplace  for  federated 
cloud-to-edge 
based 
services 

 
 
 
Secretariat for the Alliance 
and 
Processors 
on 
Semiconductor 
technologies 

Preparatory  actions  for  the 
Green Deal data space 

Preparatory  actions  for  the 
data 
smart 
space 
communities 

for 

space 

Data 
smart 
communities (deployment) 

for 

Preparatory actions for data 
spaces for manufacturing 

spaces 

Data 
manufacturing 
(deployment) 

for 

•Number of Alliance members engaged and active in the network 
and  contributing  to  the  thematic  working  groups  as  well  as 
attending  the  General  Assembly,  and  their  satisfaction  level  as 
measured 
survey; 
by 
•Number  of  Member  States  covered  by 
the  Alliance; 
•Number  of  alliance  members  engaging  in  strategic  activities  in 
Alliance 
objectives 
relation 

the 

the 

of 

to 

of 

spaces/ecosystems/communities 
•Number 
 contributing  to  the  roadmap  for  the  future  EU  Green  Deal  data 
space 

data 

the 

established 

•Number  of  cities  or  communities  (geographical  coverage) 
involved/supporting 
scheme 
•Number  of  priority  data  sets  agreed  as  part  of  the  data  space 
•Number of validation workshops including a wide range of EU and 
Member  States  organisations  representing  smart  cities  and 
communities,  EU  standardisation  bodies  as  well  as  public  and 
private data owners at local level 

governance 

in 

•Number  of  cities  or  communities  (geographical  coverage) 
involved 
pilots 
•Number of priority data sets validated as part of the cross-sectoral 
pilots 
•Number of reusable services made available to wide range of cities 
and communities in the EU 

the 

up 

set 

involved/supporting 

relevant  stakeholders 
scheme 

the 
•Number  of 
governance 
CSA  
•Number  of  validation  workshops  with  industry  decision  makers 
•Number of technology  and data space service providers offering 
the 
middleware  based  on 
network/supporting 
blueprint. 
•Number of data providers offering data sets based on the standards 
and conditions identified by the network. 

solutions 
the 

identified  by 

the 

the 

by 

•Percentage increase in number of organisations participating in the 
Data  Space  based  on  shared  governance  since  project  start 
•Number, and geographic distribution, of connected data providers 
offering data sets based on the standards and conditions identified 
by 
network. 
•Data  volume  shared  in  the  network,  volume  of  data  effectively 
used 
times 
multiple 
•Number  of  data  generating  assets  effectively  connected  to  data 
spaces 

the 

•Number of data space service providers  offering analytics based 

198 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
the 

on 
the 
•Share of SMEs among data providers and data users 

identified 

solutions 

by 

network. 

 Preparatory actions for the 
data space for agriculture 

Data 
space 
(deployment) 

for  media 

Preparatory  actions  for  the 
financial data space 

•Effectiveness of the participatory approach in terms of appropriate 
representativeness  of  associations  of  farmers  and  other  private 
‘third  parties’300  public 
sector  actors,  advisers,  potential 
administration 
bodies 
•Quality and credibility of the proposed design approaches for the 
data  space  (as  confirmed  by  stakeholders  and  external  experts) 
•Soundness  of  the  multi-stakeholder  governance  scheme  (as 
confirmed by stakeholders and external experts) 

governmental 

and/or 

data 

• Number of relevant media stakeholders, including SMEs, coming 
from  different  EU  and  associated  countries  participating  in  the 
media 
initiative  
• Number of media sub-sectors represented by stakeholders (target 
should 
2)  
at 
•  Number  of  datasets  (content,  data  and  metadata)  available  to 
produce new products and formats, in different EU languages and 
EU markets 

space 

least 

be 

Indicators in ESAP regulation: 
(a) the number of visitors, searches and downloads; 
(b) the types of information viewed and downloaded by percentage; 
(c)  the  fees  referred  to  in  Article  8(2)  and  amounts  charged  by 
ESMA; 
(d) the percentage of searches that lead to a view or a download per 
type of information and access; 
(e)  the  amount  and  percentage  of  machine-readable  information 
accessible  on  ESAP  and  the  amount  and  percentage  of  machine-
readable views and downloads; 
(f)  the  proportion  of  notifications  pursuant  to  the  automated 
validations referred to in Article 10(2); 
(g) any significant malfunction or incident affecting the operation 
or overall performance of ESAP; 
(h) an assessment of the accessibility, quality, usability, reliability 
and timeliness of the information on ESAP; 
(i) an assessment of whether ESAP meets its objectives, taking into 
account the evolution of its use and information flows within the 
Union; 
(j) an assessment of end-user satisfaction; 

300 ‘third parties’ in the context of the Common European Data Spaces 

199 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Spaces 

Support 

Data 
Centre 

SO 4 

Topic 

Promoting 
innovation in education 

European 

SO 5 

Topic 

Governance of the Living-
in.eu community  

(k) a comparison with similar systems in third countries. 

of 

the 

engaged 

stakeholders 

network.  
standards.  

of 
Number 

in 
identified 

(a)Number 
(b): 
(c): Number of identified technical specifications.  
(d): Number of identified building blocks.  
(e):  Number  of  technology  providers  offering  new  middleware 
based on the solutions identified. 
(f) Satisfaction of preparatory actions for sectorial data spaces with 
the coordinating role of the DSSC 

Indicator title 

• Effectiveness of the pan-European network to: 
• maximise the number of EdTech stakeholders coming from at least 
14  Member  States  actively  involved  in  the  pan-European  network 
connected with all relevant actors and linked with other existing pan-
European networks, initiatives and programmes;  
•  exchange  good  practices,  market  trends  and  insights  of  the  EU 
EdTech start-up/SME landscape identified in each Member State;  
• set up relevant network activities to increase the opportunities of 
the EdTech companies on the European and global EdTech market 
in the long run;  
•promote European excellence in educational innovation. 
•Quality and relevance of the support provided to EdTech companies 
by offering them relevant business and educational mentoring and 
training services.  
•Quality and robustness of the developed guidelines, roadmap and 
skills toolkit. 

Indicator (Title) 

(using 

the  EU  Survey 

•Number  of  signatory  cities  and  communities  that  sign  the  Join 
Boost  Sustain  Declaration 
tool); 
•Number of new supporters joining the movement; 
•Number of specifications and assets further developed or created 
and 
communities; 
• Number of plenary meetings with signatories and with supporters 
per 
sub-groups; 
•Number of commitments in the ‘Join Boost Sustain’ Declaration 

of  meetings 

cities 

reuse 

year; 

their 

and 

and 

all 

by 

of 

200 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Digital solutions in support 
of 
the  New  European 
Bauhaus initiative 

Core  EU 
Consumers IT Systems 

Justice 

and 

implemented; 
•Number  of  events  organised  by  Living-in.eu  movement; 
•Number 
visits 
•Number  of  events  relating  to  smart  and  sustainable  cities  and 
communities to which living-in.eu contributed. 

living-in.eu 

web 

site 

of 

in 

of 

the 

involved 

stakeholders 

•Number 
network; 
•Number of best practices/ use cases/ digital tools/lessons learnt/, 
presented for reuse and upscaling though the means identified in the 
‘scope’ 
section; 
•Number of meetings, workshops and conferences organised by the 
Network 
year;  
•Number  of  events  relating  to  smart  and  sustainable  cities  and 
communities to which the Network on digital solutions for the New 
European 
contributed 
•Number and nature of gaps and challenges identified. 

Bauhaus 

has 

per 

search 

engine 

•Number of simple searches in BRIS through the European Access 
Portal 
on 
Point 
•Number of deployments of the eEvidence Digital Exchange system 
(eEDES) 
•Number  of  visitors  to  the  ODR  platform/consumer  redress  web 
space  

e-Justice 

the 

Digitalisation of justice 

•Number of requests/cases handled via the decentralised IT system 
in  the  context  of  the  Regulations  on  Service  of  Documents  and 
Taking of Evidence (recast) (as of the date of entry into force) 
•Number of requests submitted through the decentralised IT system, 
in accordance with Article 3(1) of the Regulation on digitalisation 
of judicial cooperation (as of the date of entry into force) 
•The number of submissions made through the European electronic 
access point hosted by e-Justice Portal in accordance with Article 
4(1) of the Regulation on digitalisation of judicial cooperation  

platform 

Common 
for 
online  investigations  and 
law 
(EU 
enforcement 
eLab) 

•Number  of  onboarded  public  authorities  for  the  purposes  of 
surveillance 
consumer  protection 
•Number 
users 
•Number  of  authorities  and  businesses  reached  through  the 
supporting activities 

cooperation  or  market 

individual 

of 

(law 
Security 
enforcement):  AI-based 
pilots 

•Number of tools made available to Member State law enforcement 
agencies through Europol repository for tools or through EACTDA 
repository for tools   

201 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Better  Internet  for  Kids 
-  EU 
(BIK)  platform 
coordination  

Number of EU and EEA countries associated with the programme 
participating in each Safer Internet Day (SID)  
Number of people reached through events and training activities: 
Capacity building:  
number of trainings organised for the network;  
number of MOOCs organised and number of participants. 
Youth participation: 
number of children involved divided by age group and gender; 
number of events with youth participation; 
number  of  awareness-raising  activities  targeting  children  in 
vulnerable situations. 
Cooperation with international partners: 
number  of  non-EU  countries  and  international  organisation 
participating in the Safer Internet Forum (SIF); 
number of countries involved in exchanges and mentoring. 

Internet  Centres 

Safer 
(SICs) 

IT  system  supporting  the 
removal  of  online  child 
sexual 
abuse  material 
(CSAM) 

•Number of new or updated online resources made available by the 
Safer Internet Centres (e.g. training courses, videos, online events, 
online  tools  and  apps).  The  minimum  target  is  1,100  resources 
uploaded combined by all EU co-funded Safer Internet Centres per 
year.             
•Number  of  requests  handled  by  the  co-funded  helpline  services. 
The minimum target is 63,000 requests every year combined by all 
EU co-funded helplines.                                      
•Number  of  reports  received  by  the  co-funded  hotlines.  The 
minimum target is 200,000 reports every year combined by all EU 
co-funded hotlines. 

•Average number of days per year to take down illegal content (e.g. 
child sexual abuse material) by Internet service providers and Law 
Enforcement Agencies upon reporting from hotlines.  

Network 

Initial 
European 
Innovation Hubs 

of 
Digital 

•Number of businesses and public sector entities that have used the 
European  Digital  Innovation  Hubs’  services,  by  user  category 
of  
(businesses 
different sizes, public sector entities, etc.), sector, location and type 
of support received. Where relevant, this will include a description 
Europe  
of 
used. 
programme 

Digital 
have 

capacities 

which 

been 

202 

 
 
 
 
 
through 

to  finance:  amount  of  additional 

investments 
•For  access 
triggered  
successfully 
(e.g. 
etc.) 
•Number  of  collaborations  planned  with  other  EDIHs  and 
stakeholders  outside  the  region  at  EU  level,  and  description  of 
joint  
jointly 
EDIH.  
investments 

infrastructures 

venture 

capital, 

shared 

other 

loan, 

bank 

with 

/ 

of 

the 

Digital 

support 

Transformation 

A set of additional impact indicators will be collected and analysed 
of  
with 
the 
Accelerator: 
•Increase  in  digital  maturity  of  organisations  that  have  used  the 
the  
services 
EDIH network. Digital maturity will be defined on the basis of a 
questionnaire  
assessing the categories digital strategy and readiness, intelligence 
and  
automation,  data  and  connectedness,  green  and  human-centric 
digitalisation.  
The  green  digitalisation  category  will  focus  on  the  use  of  digital 
to  
technologies 
inclusion  of 
improve  environmental  sustainability  and 
circularity 
value  
chains.  

the 

in 

•Market maturity301 and market creation potential of innovations302, 
as 
the  
JRC’s  Innovation  Radar  methodology:  https://joint-research-
centre.ec.europa.eu/innovation-eu-funded-research-innovation-
projects-innovation-radar_en  

defined 

in 

2023 topic level indicators 

SO1  

Topic 

Destination Earth 

Indicator (title) 

•Number  of  agreed  partnership  project  plans  and  use 
cases. 

•Number  of  operated  services  available  on  the  DestinE 
Core Service Platform. 

301 JRC (2018). Innovation Radar: Identifying the maturity of innovations in EU-funded research and innovation projects. 

JRC111160. 

302 JRC (2020). Market Creating Innovations in the EU Framework Programme. Methodology behind the Innovation 

Radar’s Market Creation Potential Indicator. JRC Technical Reports, JRC121066. 

203 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
•Number  of  different  data  types  available  from  the 
DestinE Core Service Platform. 

SO2 

Topic 

Indicator (title) 

Cloud  IPCEI Exploitation 
Office 

•Yearly number of IPCEI cloud-to-edge results exploited.  

•Number  of  yearly  IPCEI  Exploitation  Office’s  social 
media campaigns and content produced.  

•Number of total participants in events, activities organised 
by the IPCEI Exploitation Office per: (a) IPCEI participants 
and (b) non IPCEI-participants.  

•Yearly  environmental 
aggregated level. 

impact  of 

the  IPCEI-CIS  at 

•Successful management of Restricted EU information 
•Number of proof-of-concept / use-cases 

•number of participants of the data space  
•amount of data available via the data space 
•number of data sharing transactions 

the 

technical 

•Maturity,  reliability  and  security  of 
infrastructure deployed.  
•Number  of 
relevant  stakeholders 
participating actively in the data space. 
 •Amount and variety of data types accessible through the 
data space. 
•Geographical coverage of the available data sets. 
 •Number 
of 
accomplished. 

including  SMEs 

successfully 

launched 

pilots 

and 

•number  of  different  ICU  databases  connected  to  the 
European ICU data infrastructure – at least 15 from at least 
10 different eligible countries by the end of the project; 
•number  of  registered  users  (including  for  example 
researchers, 
clinicians, 
innovators)  actively  accessing  the  European  ICU  data 

professionals, 

healthcare 

204 

Highly 
Secure 
Collaborative Platform for 
Aeronautics  and  Security 
Industry 

Data space for Skills 

Data Space for Tourism 

European 
Federated 
Infrastructure 
for 
Intensive  Care  Units’ 
(ICU) data 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Genome of Europe 

The  European  Single 
Access  Point  (ESAP)  for 
EU capital markets (303) 

infrastructure  in  operation  and  utilising  its  resources  –  at 
least 100 by the end of the project; 
•volume and number of data points, as well as types of ICU 
datasets  and  corresponding  patient  information  accessible 
through the European ICU infrastructure by the end of the 
project; 
•demonstration  of  ICU  datasets  integration  and  use  with 
‘virtual  human 
twin’  multi-scale,  multi-disciplinary 
computational models in at least 4 (four) different clinical 
domains, including for example infectious diseases, cancer, 
cardiovascular disease, brain disorders, with clear evidence 
of  enabling  computational  model-based  tool  development 
and validation in these domains by the end of the project. 

•number of different national reference genome databases 
connected  –  at  least  10  from  at  least  10  different  eligible 
countries; 
•number  of  whole  genome 
the 
corresponding  phenotypic  information  included  in  the 
European reference genome – for at least 100.000 citizens; 
•European reference genome established and supported by 
appropriate software – in at least two different use cases. 

sequences  with 

Indicators in ESAP regulation: 
(a) the number of visitors, searches and downloads; 
(b)  the  types  of  information  viewed  and  downloaded  by 
percentage; 
(c) the fees referred to in Article 8(2) and amounts charged 
by ESMA; 
(d)  the  percentage  of  searches  that  lead  to  a  view  or  a 
download per type of information and access; 
(e)  the  amount  and  percentage  of  machine-readable 
information  accessible  on  ESAP  and  the  amount  and 
percentage of machine-readable views and downloads; 
(f) the proportion of notifications pursuant to the automated 
validations referred to in Article 10(2); 
(g)  any  significant  malfunction  or  incident  affecting  the 
operation or overall performance of ESAP; 
(h)  an  assessment  of  the  accessibility,  quality,  usability, 
reliability and timeliness of the information on ESAP; 

303 Consolidated text: Regulation (EU) 2023/2859 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 
2023 establishing a European single access point providing centralised access to publicly available information 
of  relevance  to  financial  services,  capital  markets  and  sustainability:  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02023R2859-20240725 

205 

 
 
 
 
 
Digital Product Passport 

AI 
of 
Coordination 
sectorial  Testing 
and 
Experimentation Facilities  

Developing CitiVerse 

(i)  an  assessment  of  whether  ESAP  meets  its  objectives, 
taking into account the evolution of its use and information 
flows within the Union; 
(j) an assessment of end-user satisfaction; 
(k) a comparison with similar systems in third countries. 

•Identifications  of  further  needs  for  standardisation  and 
specifications  to  ensure  interoperability,  security,  and 
acceptance by all the stakeholders  
•Concrete and experienced benefits and challenges in using 
DPP for each of the stakeholders  
•Number  of  value  chain  actors  including  the  number  of 
actors including consumers. 
•Number of interactions, speed and usability of the system, 
in  particular  for  SMEs,  interoperability  performance  and 
cyber security tests;  

There will be a survey to measure consumer satisfaction. 

To be confirmed by consortium 

•Impact  of  common  communication  campaigns  across  all 
relevant sectors.  
•Number/size  of  the  mentoring/twinning  programs  for 
innovators  
•Number  of  common  resources  and  services  across  the 
TEFs, and impact on the overall TEFs’ offer.  
•Efficiency  gain  (qualitative  or  quantitative)  in  TEFs  in 
offering centralised support for common activities.  
· Number of exchanges with other relevant initiatives (e.g.: 
EDIHs, national competence centres).  
· Number of regulatory sandboxes set up by sectorial TEFs 
that received support by the CSA.  
·  Number  of  total  assets  enabled  in  the  AI-on-demand 
platform. 

•Number  and  identification  of  CitiVerse  solutions  using 
MIMs Plus-compatible solutions.  
•Number  and  identification  of  the  different  use  cases 
addressed.  
•Number  and  identification  of  the  different  Local  Digital 
Twins expanded.  
•Number  and  identification  of  recommendations  for  an 
interoperable and open CitiVerse platform.  

206 

 
 
 
 
 
•Number  and  identification  of  cities/regions/communities 
involved in the use cases.  
•Number of citizens potentially involved in each use case 
and in total.  

SO 4  

Topic 

Indicator (title) 

Advanced  digital 
analysis 

skills 

Reinforcing 
Semiconductors 

Skills 

in 

Cybersecurity 
Academy 

Skills 

•Number of analyses, surveys conducted; 
•Number  of  collaboration  and  support  activities  for 
DIGITAL-SO4 actions conducted; 
•Number  of  recommendations  provided  on  how  to  best 
support education and training opportunities in the area of 
advanced  digital  skills  (related  to  specific  technologies 
and specific sectors); 
•Number  of  communication  and  dissemination  activities 
carried out. 

•Number  of  communication  initiatives  delivered  toward 
the public.  
•Number of persons attending physical events and number 
of visitors or dimension of the audience for online events. 
•Number of events targeting secondary schools’ students, 
including 
for  example  a  summer/winter  schools, 
introductory seminars, on-the-job experiences, and visits 
to business facilities and number of involved students.  
•Number of training events for secondary school teachers.  
•Number 
countries  where 
semiconductors  skills  levels  are  low,  according  to  the 
Digital Economy and Society Index. 

partners 

from 

of 

•Number of relevant players cooperating in support of the 
Cybersecurity  Skills  Academy  and  contributing  to  its 
goals; 
•Relevant initiatives to promote cyber skills identified;   
•Number of promotion activities for relevant cyber skills 
initiatives;  
•Degree of reach out of awareness campaigns conducted;  
•Number of respondents (target audience) reached through 
the communication performed; 
•Degree  of  support  to  strategies  on  cybersecurity  skills 
from  public  and  private  players  and  contribution  to 

207 

 
 
 
 
 
Boosting  digital  skills  of 
young  people,  in  particular 
girls 

alignment of these strategies achieved by the cooperation 
network. 

Indicators for scaling up EU Code Week: 
•Number  of  activities  registered  on  the  EU  Code  Week 
website  (minimum  target  in  year  1:  70  000,  minimum 
target in year 2: 100 000);  
•Number  of  participants  (minimum  target  in  year  1:  2.5 
million,  minimum  target  in  year  2:  3  million),  share  of 
female participants, and age of participants reported on the 
EU Code Week website;  
•Number  of  teachers  and  school  leaders  successfully 
completing  a  Code  Week  training  (minimum  target  per 
year: 2 000);  
•Number  of  teachers  in  the  EU  Code  Week  Facebook 
group for teachers (minimum target: 35 000);  
•Number of EU Code Week ambassadors (minimum 1 in 
each  EU  Member  State)  and  active  leading  teachers 
(minimum 500);  
•Number  of  community  events  at  EU  level,  including 
number of participants (minimum 1 in-person meeting per 
year  taking  place  in  Brussels  and  at  least  1  in-person 
meeting  per  year  taking  place  in  another  EU  Member 
State, as well as a minimum of 2 online events per year);  
•Number of events at national level, including number of 
participants,  strengthening  the  national  collaboration 
between 
and 
correspondents  in  Ministries  of  Education  or  other 
educational authorities and organisations. 
Indicators  for  increasing  the  pool  of  young  people, 
particularly  girls,  who  would  be  interested  in  studying 
STEM and ICT and/or embarking on a digital career: 
•Number  of  Member  States  reached  with  the  different 
activities,  ensuring  inclusivity  by  putting  the  focus  on 
those Member States that lag behind regarding the number 
of women in ICT and percentage of female ICT students;  
•Number of courses or camps delivered during holidays, 
evenings or weekends;  
•Number of extracurricular activities organised; 
•Number of career days organised;  
•Number of study guidance/information events organised;  
•Number of pupils visiting higher education institutions, 
e.g.  state-of-the-art  laboratories,  experiencing  campus 
facilities and/or following seminars;  
•Number of awareness raising campaigns conducted 

ambassadors, 

teachers 

leading 

208 

 
 
Network  of  Safer  Internet 
Centres (SICs) 

IT  system  supporting  the 
removal  of  online  child 
abuse  material 
sexual 
(CSAM) 

Support  to  Dissemination 
and Exploitation (D&E) 

•Number  of  new  or  updated  online  resources  made 
available  by  the  Safer  Internet  Centres  (e.g.  online 
trainings, videos, online tools, apps, etc.). The minimum 
target is 1,100 resources uploaded combined by all EU co-
funded Safer Internet Centres per year.  
•Number  of  people  reached  through  events  and  training 
activities. The minimum target is 500,000 people reached 
through events and trainings per year combined by all EU 
co-funded Safer Internet Centres. 
•Number of awareness-raising activities targeting children 
in vulnerable situations. The minimum target is 20% of the 
total  awareness  raising  activities  organised  every  year 
combined by all EU co-funded Safer internet  Centres  to 
target children in vulnerable situations. 
•Number of active youth participants. The minimum target 
is 1,250 youth participants per year combined from all EU 
co-funded  Safer  Internet  Centres.  The  turnover  rate  of 
youth  participants is  at  least  30% per year,  compared to 
the previous year. 
•Number  of  requests  handle  by  the  co-funded  helpline 
services.  The  minimum  target  is  63,000  requests  every 
year combined by all EU co-funded helplines. 
•Number  of  reports  received  by  the  co-funded  hotlines. 
The  minimum  target  is  200,000  reports  every  year 
combined by all EU co-funded hotlines. 

•number of reports inserted:  
•number of classified files per year. 

actions 

framework 

for  D&E 

• Clarity of the conceptual and operational framework for 
D&E. 
•  Feasibility  for  the  EC  to  put  the  conceptual  and 
operational 
into  practice. 
•  Feasibility  for  stakeholders  to  buy  into  the  framework 
proposed. 
and 
• The degree to which the diversity of the programme has 
specific  objectives, 
been  considered 
implementing 
instruments, 
stakeholders) 
and 
technologies 
• Number of actors actively involved in the delivery of the 
framework 
•  Number  of  activities  from  the  framework  delivered 
within the lifetime of the project. 

implementing 

(Programme 

bodies, 

209 

 
 
 
 
 
Supporting  the  Network  of 
National  Contact  Points 
(NCPs) 

•  Number  of  NCPs  support  services  provided 
to 
stakeholders  in  each  participating  country  and  specific 
objective; 
•  Variation  in  total  number  of  applicants  in  proposals 
broken down per countries and specific objective respect 
to  work  programme  2021/22  calls  for  proposals; 
• The number of dedicated promotion events overall and 
the  distribution 
country. 
• The participation in dedicated promotion events overall 
and for each participating country. 

each  participating 

for 

210 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX XI. OVERVIEW OF SYNERGIES: DIGITAL EUROPE/HORIZON EUROPE/CEF DIGITAL IN SUPPORT TO MULTI-COUNTRY PROJECT 

Overview of synergies: Digital Europe/Horizon Europe/CEF Digital in support to multi-country projects  

– 2021-2022 

Multi-country-
projects 

European  Common 
infrastructure 
data 
and services 

Digital Europe WP 2021-2022  

Horizon Europe WP 2021-2022 

CEF Digital WP 2021-2023 

Activities and Budget under EU Programme 

EF-DIG-2021-TA-PLATFORMS: 
Preparation  of  works  for  Operational 
digital platforms (CSA, 4M€)  

Backbone  networks  for  pan-European 
Cloud federation 

2.1.1 Smart middleware for a European cloud 
federation and for the European data spaces  

2.1.2  Large  scale  pilots  for  cloud-to-edge-
based services  

2.1.3 Marketplace for federated cloud-to-edge-
based services 

2.2.2.1 Data Spaces Support Centre  

2.2.2.2  Public  Sector  Open  Data  for  AI  and 
Open Data Platform 

2.2.1 All the topics in section data spaces (i.e. 
all sectorial data spaces covered by this Work 
Programme) 

DIGITAL-2021-CLOUD-AI-01-PREP-
DSMOB Data Space for Mobility (CSA, 1 M€)  

HORIZON-CL4-2021-DATA-01-01: Technologies and 
solutions  for  compliance,  privacy  preservation,  green 
and responsible data operations (AI, Data and Robotics 
Partnership) (RIA, 52 M€)  

HORIZON-CL4-2021-DATA-01-03:  Technologies  for 
data  management (AI,  Data  and  Robotics  Partnership) 
(IA, 30 M€)  

HORIZON-CL4-2021-TWIN-TRANSITION-01-08 
Data-driven Distributed Industrial Environments (Made 
in Europe Partnership) (IA: 24 M€) 

HORIZON-CL4-2022-DATA-01-04: Technologies and 
solutions  for  data  trading,  monetizing,  exchange  and 
interoperability  (AI,  Data  and  Robotics  Partnership) 
(IA, 52 M€)  

HORIZON-CL4-2022-DATA-01-01:  Methods 
for 
exploiting  data  and  knowledge  for  extremely  precise 
outcomes  (analysis,  prediction,  decision  support), 
reducing  complexity  and  presenting 
in 
understandable way (RIA, 33 M€)  

insights 

211 

 
 
Multi-country-
projects 

Digital Europe WP 2021-2022  

Horizon Europe WP 2021-2022 

CEF Digital WP 2021-2023 

Activities and Budget under EU Programme 

DIGITAL-2021-PREPACTS-DS-01-AGRI 
Preparatory  actions  for  the  data  space  for 
Agriculture (CSA, 2 M€)  

HORIZON-CL4-2022-DATA-01-05:  Extreme  data 
mining,  aggregation  and  analytics  technologies  and 
solutions (RIA, 30 M€) 

DIGITAL-2022-CLOUD-AI-
DEPLOYMENT-DS-MOB  Data  Space  for 
Mobility (Simple Grant, 8 M€) 

HORIZON-CL4-2021-HUMAN-01-06:  Innovation  for 
Media, including extended Reality (IA, 26 M€)  

HORIZON-CL4-2021-DATA-01-05:  Future  European 
platforms for the Edge: Meta Operating Systems (RIA, 
54 M€)  

HORIZON-CL4-2021-DATA-01-07: Coordination and 
Support of the ‘Cloud-Edge-IoT’ domain (CSA, 3 M€)  

HORIZON-CL4-2021-DATA-01-08: Roadmap for next 
generation computing and systems technologies (CSA, 
2 M€) 

HORIZON-CL4-2022-DATA-01-02: Cognitive Cloud: 
AI-enabled computing continuum from Cloud to Edge 
(RIA, 50 M€)  

Programming 
HORIZON-CL4-2022-DATA-01-03: 
tools for decentralised intelligence and swarms (RIA, 40 
M€)  

HORIZON-CL5-2021-D3-01-12: Establish the grounds 
for a common European energy data space (IA 32 M€)  

212 

 
 
Multi-country-
projects 

Digital Europe WP 2021-2022  

Horizon Europe WP 2021-2022 

CEF Digital WP 2021-2023 

Activities and Budget under EU Programme 

HORIZON-CL5-2021-D3-01-13: 
digitalisation  related  know  how  of 
ecosystems (CSA 4 M€) 

Reinforcing 
local  energy 

HORIZON-CL6-2021-GOVERNANCE-01-20  –  Data 
economy  in  the  field  of  agriculture  –  Effects  of  data 
sharing and big data (4 M€) 

HORIZON-CL3-2021-FCT-01-04: Improved access to 
fighting crime and terrorism research data (IA: 16 M€) 

TOTAL WP 2021-22: 330 M€ 

TOTAL WP 2021-22: 416 M€ 

TOTAL WP 2021-23: 140 M€ 

3.1.1 Create a European Industrial Ecosystem 
for Secure QCI technologies and systems 

HORIZON-CL4-2021-DIGITAL-EMERGING-02-19: 
Framework  Partnership  Agreements 
in  Quantum 
Communications (FPA) 

quantum 

Secure 
communication 
infrastructure 
(EuroQCI) 

3.1.2  Deploying  advanced  national  QCI 
systems and networks  

3.1.3  Coordinate  the  first  deployments  of 
national  EuroQCI  projects  and  prepare  the 
large-scale Quantum Key Distribution (QKD) 
testing and certification infrastructure 

large-scale 

testing  and 
3.1.4  Deploy  a 
certification  infrastructure  for  QKD  devices, 
technologies  and  systems  enabling 
their 
accreditation and rollout in EuroQCI 

‘OTHER ACTION’: 12. HORIZON-CL4-QUANTUM-
04-SGA  -  Quantum  encryption  and  future  quantum 
network technologies (SGA, 25 M€) 

European  Quantum  Communication 
Infrastructure (call 2022)  

Interconnection space segment  

•  Cross-border connections  
• 
•  Links with SOCs  
•  Management  of  encryption 

• 

keys  
(procurement  of 
first 
generation  of  satellites  –  via 
ESA) 

the 

213 

 
 
Multi-country-
projects 

Digital Europe WP 2021-2022  

Horizon Europe WP 2021-2022 

CEF Digital WP 2021-2023 

Activities and Budget under EU Programme 

TOTAL WP 2021-22: 170 M€ 

TOTAL WP 2021-22: 25 M€ 

TOTAL WP 2021-2023: 200 M€ 

2.2.1.7.1  Health  data  space  -  Federated 
European Infrastructure for Genomics data 

HORIZON-HLTH-2022-STAYHLTH-01-04-two-
stage:  Trustworthy  artificial  intelligence  (AI)  tools  to 
predict the risk of chronic non-communicable diseases 
and/or their progression (60 M€) 

N/A 

Genome of Europe 

Processors 
semiconductors 
chips 

and 

Clinical 
HORIZON-HLTH-2021-DISEASE-04-04: 
validation  of  artificial  intelligence  (AI)  solutions  for 
treatment and care (60 M€) 

HORIZON-HLTH-2021-DISEASE-04-07 Personalised 
medicine  and  infectious  diseases:  understanding  the 
individual host response to viruses (e.g. SARS-CoV-2) 
(60 M€) 

TOTAL WP 2021-22: 20 M€ 

TOTAL WP 2021-22: 180 M€ 

2.1.5 Testing and Experimentation Facility for 
Edge AI 

1) KDT JU: 460 M€ in 2021-2022  

2) Cluster 4 WP: 

N/A 

N/A 

HORIZON-CL4-2021-DIGITAL-EMERGING-01-01: 
Ultra-low-power, secure processors for edge computing 
(RIA, 26M€) 

214 

 
 
Multi-country-
projects 

Digital Europe WP 2021-2022  

Horizon Europe WP 2021-2022 

CEF Digital WP 2021-2023 

Activities and Budget under EU Programme 

HORIZON-CL4-2021-DIGITAL-EMERGING-01-05: 
Open-Source  Hardware  for  ultra-low-power,  secure 
processors (CSA, 2M€) 

HORIZON-CL4-2021-DIGITAL-EMERGING-01-31: 
Functional  electronics  for  green  and  circular  economy 
(RIA, 35M€)  

HORIZON-CL4-2022-DIGITAL-EMERGING-01-38: 
International  cooperation  in  semiconductors  (CSA, 
3M€) 

HORIZON-CL4-2022-DIGITAL-EMERGING-01-03 
Advanced multi-sensing systems (RIA, 48 M€)  

HORIZON-CL4-2021-DIGITAL-EMERGING-01-07 
Advanced Photonic Integrated Circuits (RIA, 39 M€) 

HORIZON-CL4-2021-DIGITAL-EMERGING-01-06 
Advanced  optical  communication  components  (IA,  26 
M€) 

TOTAL WP 2021-22: 77 M€ 

TOTAL HE WP 2021-22: 460€M+179 M€ 

Connected 
administration 

public 

5.3.1  European  Digital  Government  Eco 
System (EDGES)  

N/A 

5.3.2 Justice and consumer protection  

215 

N/A 

N/A 

 
 
Multi-country-
projects 

Digital Europe WP 2021-2022  

Horizon Europe WP 2021-2022 

CEF Digital WP 2021-2023 

Activities and Budget under EU Programme 

2.2.1.12 
Administrations 

Data 

spaces 

for 

Public 

TOTAL WP 2021-22: 184 M€ 

the  European 

EBSI has the ambition to become an EDIC to 
strengthen 
nature,  MS 
cooperation  and  co-financing  as  well  as 
supporting  its  legal  framework  for  operating 
services in a pan-European network with public 
and  private  organisation  managing  and 
operating nodes. 

N/A 

N/A 

European 
Blockchain  Services 
Infrastructure 

European 

5.2 
Services 
Infrastructure (EBSI) and Regulatory Sandbox  

Blockchain 

Pilot  project(s)  are  also  expected  to  leverage 
EBSI as part of the 5.4. EuID topic (toolbox) 

TOTAL  WP  2021-22:  at  least  38  M€  (5.2 
budget) 

N/A 

High-tech 
partnerships 
digital 
specialized 
education 

for 
skills  and 

4. Advanced Digital Skills 

TOTAL WP 2021-22: 166 M€ 

N/A 

N/A 

216 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

 
 
Multi-country-
projects 

Digital Europe WP 2021-2022  

Horizon Europe WP 2021-2022 

CEF Digital WP 2021-2023 

Activities and Budget under EU Programme 

Jointly investing in acquiring and operating:  

EuroHPC JU - cf WP EuroHPC for details 

Tbc 

Supercomputing 
and Quantum 

•  Petascale Supercomputer  
•  Pre-exascale 

and/or 

Exascale 

supercomputers  

•  Quantum  computers  (as  standalone 
machines  or  as  accelerators  of 
supercomputers)  

•  Connecting  with 
extreme-bandwidth 
network 

the  EuroHPC 
communication 

Investing  and  cooperating  in  HPC  national 
competence centres and HPC & Quantum skills 

TOTAL WP 2021-22: 566 M€ 

TOTAL 243 M€ from Horizon in 2021-2022 

N/A 

5G corridors 

The SNS JU is the main vehicle to coordinate the MCP 
on  5G  Corridors.  While  there  is  no  funding  from 
Horizon Europe for corridor deployment (see column on 
CEF), the SNS JU is tasked to provide guidance to and 
coordination of 5G deployment activities funded under 
CEF and other EU and national programmes such as the 
RRF.  This  will  contribute  to  consistency  and  best 
practice exchange among the projects, setting-up project 
pipelines and community building in particular for CEF 
and RRF. A dedicated SNS Working Strategic Group is 
currently delivering this task and it will be supported by 
a CSA funded under CEF Digital. 

5G  coverage  along  transport corridors: 
Priority set on cross-border sections of 
5G corridors under the 1st WP covering 
the early wave (2022) and first big wave 
(2023-24) of deployment works. 

Proposals  to  be  endorsed  by  Member 
States  concerned,  and  support  may 
include  as  well  regional  and  local 
authorities. 

Public  bodies  can  participate  in  the 
project  consortium,  e.g.  public  road 

217 

 
 
 
Multi-country-
projects 

Digital Europe WP 2021-2022  

Horizon Europe WP 2021-2022 

CEF Digital WP 2021-2023 

Activities and Budget under EU Programme 

authorities, 
companies.  

road  operators  or 

rail 

Under  Call  1,  ‘Early  wave’  8  projects 
co-funded  under  CEF  Digital  kick-
started  at  the  beginning  of  2023,  7 
Works and 8 Inception studies projects, 
for a combined amount of EUR 41.6 M€ 
(grants).  

The  consumed  budget  for  the  2021-
2023 period, depending on the outcome 
of  Call  2  (7  projects  selected,  final 
validation  pending)  and  Call  3  –  that 
will be based on the 8 Inception Study 
projects under Call 1 and possibly more 
under  Call  2,  currently  stands  at  EUR 
229.6 M€. 

TOTAL WP 2021-23: 346 M€ 

N/A 

The  establishment  of  the  network  will  be 
supported from the Digital Europe Programme, 
to  be  matched  by  a  similar  investment  from 
Member States. 

HORIZON-CL4-2022-TWIN-TRANSITION-01-06, 
ICT  Innovation  for  Manufacturing  Sustainability  in 
SMEs  (I4MS2)  (Made  in  Europe  Partnership)  (IA:  30 
M€) 

European 
Innovation Hubs 

Digital 

TOTAL WP 2021-23: 329,3 M€ 

TOTAL HE WP 2021-22: 30 M€ 

N/A 

N/A 

218 

 
 
 
Multi-country-
projects 

Digital Europe WP 2021-2022  

Horizon Europe WP 2021-2022 

CEF Digital WP 2021-2023 

Activities and Budget under EU Programme 

creation, 

response 

interconnection 

faster  detection  and 

and 
The 
strengthening  of  Security  Operations  Centres 
(SOC)  can  improve  cybersecurity  resilience 
with 
to 
cybersecurity  incidents  at  national  and  EU 
level by leveraging disruptive technologies and 
sharing  of  information  leading  to  increased 
situational  awareness  and  stronger EU  supply 
chains.  A  key  element  will  be  capacity 
artificial 
building, 
intelligence and dynamic learning of the threat 
landscape. 

leveraging 

e.g. 

by 

HORIZON-CL3-2021-CS-01-03  AI  for  cybersecurity 
reinforcement (RIA, 11M€)  

HORIZON-CL3-2022-CS-01-01  Improved  monitoring 
of threats, intrusion detection and response in complex 
and  heterogeneous  digital  systems  and  infrastructures 
(RIA, 21M€)  

HORIZON-CL3-2021-CS-01-04  Scalable  privacy-
preserving  technologies  for  cross-border  federated 
computation  in  Europe  involving  personal  data  (RIA, 
17M€) 

TOTAL WP 2021-22: 110 M€ 

TOTAL WP 2021-22: 49 M€ 

N/A 

Testing  and  Experimentation  Facilities  on  AI 
(WP21-22  in  sectors:  healthcare,  agri-food, 
manufacturing, smart cities and communities). 

(AI, Data and Robotics topics developing solutions that 
can be tested and validated in the TEFs) 

N/A 

Deployment  of  the  AI  on  Demand  Platform 
(one-stop  shop  to  access  AI  tools  for  the 
European 
public 
administrations). 

industry 

and 

for 

AI  on  Demand  Platform  -  maintenance  and  necessary 
developments  and  services  provision  for  the  AI-on-
demand-platform,  with  a  focus  on  supporting  the 
research community. 

Security  Operation 
Centres (SOC) 

[AI  synergies  –  not 
an MCP] 

TOTAL WP 2021-2022: 1139 M€ 

TOTAL WP 2021-22: 9M€ 

N/A 

219 

 
 
 
Multi-country-
projects 

Digital Europe WP 2021-2022  

Horizon Europe WP 2021-2022 

CEF Digital WP 2021-2023 

Activities and Budget under EU Programme 

The  Access  to  Finance  standard  (one  8  “EU 
Start-up  nation  standards”  that  ESNA  will 
support  EU  countries  in  implementing)  will 
benefit  from 
the  €50m  Strategic  Digital 
Technologies  (SDT)  that  Digital  Europe  is 
supporting.  SDT  will  provide  an  investment 
Platform focusing on aims to mobilize private 
co-investment  on  a  scale  that  addresses  the 
financing gap in the market. The SDT will also 
be  accompanied  by  an  investment  support 
programme for this purpose. 

Europe 
Nations 
(ESNA) 

Start-ups 
Alliance 

The  Europe  Start-up  Nations  Alliance  (ESNA)  was 
established in Dec 2021 under Portuguese law to support 
the 27 countries (26 EU MS & Iceland) that signed the 
Europe  Start-ups  Nations  Standard  declaration 
(declaration launched in March 2021 at Digital Day 4). 
ESNA will support these countries in implementing the 
best  practices 
friendly 
environment  for  start-ups.  ESNA  has  the  ambition  to 
become an EDIC and so strengthen the European nature 
of  its  vocation.  ESNA  is  financed  by  the  European 
Commission  (€1m  Horizon  Europe  grant)  and  the 
Portuguese Resilience and Recovery Plan (€7,5m). 

that  underpin  a  growth 

ESNA’s  goals  are  also  supported  by  the  €4m  HE 
funding  for  a  tech  due  diligence  and  venture  building 
pilot (launching Q1 2022). This is highly relevant to the 
tech  transfer  standard  of  the  EU  Start-up  Nations 
Standard for which ESNA is also supporting MS. 

TOTAL WP 2021-22:  

N/A 

•  ESNA: 1 M€  
•  Tech  Due  Diligence  and  venture  Building 

pilot: 4 M€ 

220 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
– 2023-2024 

Multi-country-
projects 

Digital Europe WP 2023-2024 – actions in 
2023304 

Horizon Europe WP 2023-2024  

CEF Digital WP 2021-2027 

Activities and Budget under EU Programme 

4.2  Backbone  networks  for  pan-
European Cloud federation  

CEF-DIG-2022-TA-PLATFORMS. 
Preparation  of  works  for  Operational 
digital  platforms.  (CEF-PJG  CEF 
Project Grants: 4 M€) 

2.1.1 Cloud IPCEI Exploitation Office 

DIGITAL-2023-CLOUD-AI-04-IPCEI-
EXPLOIT (CSA: 3 M€) 

HORIZON-CL4-2023-DATA-01-02:  Integration  of  data 
life  cycle,  architectures  and  standards  for  complex  data 
cycles  and/or  human  factors,  language  (AI,  data  and 
robotics partnership) (RIA: 45 M€) 

2.1.2 Highly Secure Collaborative Platform for 
Aeronautics and Security Industry  

DIGITAL-2023-CLOUD-AI-04-AEROSEC 
(SG: 22 M€) 

European  Common 
data 
infrastructure 
and services 

2.2.1.1 Data Space for Cultural Heritage 

DIGITAL-2023-CLOUD-DATA-AI-05-
CULTHERITAGE (Simple Grant: 4 M€) 

2.2.1.2 Data Space for Tourism 

DIGITAL-2023-CLOUD-DATA-AI-05-
DATATOURISM (Simple Grant: 8 M€) 

2.2.1.3 Language Data Space (Procurement: 5 
M€) 

2.2.1.4.1 Federated European Infrastructure for 
Intensive Care Units’ (ICU) data 

HORIZON-CL4-2023-DATA-01-04: 
Cognitive 
Computing  Continuum:  Intelligence  and  automation  for 
more  efficient  data  processing  (AI,  data  and  robotics 
partnership) (RIA: 28 M€) 

HORIZON-CL4-2023-DATA-01-06:  Coordination  and 
Support of Cognitive Computing Continuum research and 
policy (CSA: 2 M€) 

HORIZON-CL4-2024-DATA-01-01:  AI-driven  data 
operations  and  compliance  technologies  (AI,  data  and 
robotics partnership) (Innovation Action: 38 M€) 

HORIZON-CL4-2024-DATA-01-03:  Piloting  emerging 
Smart IoT Platforms and decentralized intelligence (IA:45 
M€) 

HORIZON-CL4-2024-DATA-01-05:  Platform  Building, 
standardisation  and  Up-scaling  of  the  ‘Cloud-Edge-IoT’ 
Solutions (Horizontal Activities – CSA: 2 M€) 

304 Only actions for 2023 have been considered regarding Digital Europe Programme.  

221 

 
 
 
 
Multi-country-
projects 

Digital Europe WP 2023-2024 – actions in 
2023304 

Activities and Budget under EU Programme 

Horizon Europe WP 2023-2024  

CEF Digital WP 2021-2027 

DIGITAL-2023-CLOUD-AI-04-ICU-DATA 
(Simple Grant: 5 M€) 

HORIZON-CL4-2024-DIGITAL-EMERGING-01-21: 
Open Source for Cloud/Edge to support European Digital 
Autonomy (RIA: 20 M€) 

2.2.2 Digital Product Passport 

DIGITAL-2023-CLOUD-DATA-04-
DIGIPASS (SG: 6 M€) 

HORIZON-CL4-2024-TWIN-TRANSITION-01-05: 
Technologies/solutions 
for 
to 
manufacturing  (Made  in  Europe  Partnership)  (RIA:  36 
M€) 

circularity 

support 

2.2.3.1 Open Data Portal (Procurement: 6 M€) 

2.2.3.2  The  European  Single  Access  Point 
(ESAP) for EU capital markets (Procurement: 
3 M€) 

5.4 EU Energy Saving Reference Framework 

HORIZON-CL4-2024-TWIN-TRANSITION-01-38: 
Hubs  for  circularity  for  industrialised  urban  peripheral 
areas (Processes4Planet partnership) (IA: 40 M€) 

HORIZON-CL4-2023-RESILIENCE-01-39: 
Coordination  and  knowledge  sharing  across  materials 
development communities (CSA: 2 M€) 

DIGITAL-2023-DEPLOY-BESTUSE-TECH-
04-ENERSAVING 
-  EU  Energy  saving 
reference framework 

KDT JU Coordination of the European software-defined 
vehicle  platform  (CSA)  -HORIZON-KDT-JU-2023-3-
CSA-Topic-3 , (Horizontal Activities – CSA: 2 M€) 

(SG: 5 M€) 

Towards 
HORIZON-HLTH-2023-DISEASE-03-06: 
structuring brain health research in Europe (CSA: 1 M€) 

HORIZON-HLTH-2023-TOOL-05-09:  Developing  a 
Data  Quality  and  Utility  Label  for  the  European  Health 
Data Space (CSA: 4 M€) 

HORIZON-HLTH-2023-IND-06-02:  Expanding 
the 
European Electronic Health Record Exchange Format to 

222 

 
 
 
 
Multi-country-
projects 

Digital Europe WP 2023-2024 – actions in 
2023304 

Activities and Budget under EU Programme 

Horizon Europe WP 2023-2024  

CEF Digital WP 2021-2027 

improve interoperability within the European Health Data 
Space (RIA: 8 M€)  

HORIZON-CL2-2023-HERITAGE-ECCCH-01-01:  A 
European Collaborative Cloud for Cultural Heritage (IA: 
25 M€) 

HORIZON-CL2-2023-HERITAGE-ECCCH-01-02:  A 
European  Collaborative  Cloud  for  Cultural  Heritage  – 
Innovative  tools  for  digitising  cultural  heritage  objects 
(RIA: 10 M€) 

HORIZON-CL5-2023-D3-01-15:  Supporting  the  green 
and  digital  transformation  of  the  energy  ecosystem  and 
enhancing  its  resilience  through  the  development  and 
piloting of AI-IoT Edge-cloud and platform solutions (IA: 
18 M€) 

HORIZON-CL6-2024-BIODIV-01-2:  Digital  for  nature 
(IA: 16 M€) 

HORIZON-CL6-2023-GOVERNANCE-01-17: 
Data-
driven  solutions  to  foster  industry’s  contribution  to 
inclusive and sustainable food systems (RIA: 8 M€) 

HORIZON-INFRA-2024-EOSC-01-01:  FAIR  and  open 
data  sharing  in  support  of  the  mission  adaptation  to 
climate change (RIA: 16 M€) 

223 

 
 
Multi-country-
projects 

Digital Europe WP 2023-2024 – actions in 
2023304 

Activities and Budget under EU Programme 

Horizon Europe WP 2023-2024  

CEF Digital WP 2021-2027 

HORIZON-INFRA-2023-EOSC-01-04:  Next  generation 
services  for  operational  and  sustainable  EOSC  Core 
Infrastructure (RIA: 10 M€) 

EOSC 
HORIZON-INFRA-2023-EOSC-01-05: 
Architecture  and  Interoperability  Framework  (CSA:  3 
M€) 

HORIZON-INFRA-2023-EOSC-01-06: 
Trusted 
environments  for  sensitive  data  management  in  EOSC 
(RIA: 15 M€) 

HORIZON-INFRA-2024-EOSC-01-05:  Innovative  and 
customizable services for EOSC Exchange (28 M€) 

TOTAL WP 2023-24: 67 M€  

Total 2023-24: 422 M€  

TOTAL WP 2021-23: 26 M€ 

N/A 

Secure quantum and 
space-based 
communication 
infrastructure 
(EuroQCI) 

HORIZON-CL4-2023-SPACE-01-62: 
Quantum 
Communication Technologies for space systems (RIA: 5 
M€) 

ESA.2  2023-2024  Secure  Connectivity/GOVSATCOM 
Space  infrastructure:  Development  and  Validation  (CA: 
28 M€ for EuroQCI) 

Quantum 

4.1 
infrastructure 
initiative  

communication 
-  The  EuroQCI 

N/A 

Total 2023-24: 33 M€ 

Total 2021-27: 90 M€ 

224 

 
 
Multi-country-
projects 

Digital Europe WP 2023-2024 – actions in 
2023304 

Activities and Budget under EU Programme 

Horizon Europe WP 2023-2024  

CEF Digital WP 2021-2027 

2.2.1.4.2 Genome of Europe  

Genomics 

DIGITAL-2023-CLOUD-AI-04-GENOME 
(Simple Grant: 20 M€) 

HORIZON-HLTH-2023-TOOL-05-04: Better integration 
and  use  of  health-related  real-world  and  research  data, 
including  genomics,  for  improved  clinical  outcomes 
(RIA: 35 M€) 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

TOTAL WP 2023-24: 20 M€ 

Total 2023-24: 35 M€ 

2.3.2 Developing CitiVerse  

DIGITAL-2023-CLOUD-AI-04-
DEVELOPCITI (SG: 15 M€) 

CitiVerse 

HORIZON-MISS-2023-CIT-02-01: 
Associating 
Ukrainian  cities  to  the  Climate-neutral  and  smart  cities 
Mission (CSA: 5 M€) 

HORIZON-CL6-2024-BIODIV-02-2-two-stage: 
Demonstrating the potential of Naturebased Solutions and 
the New European Bauhaus to contribute to sustainable, 
inclusive and resilient living spaces and communities (IA: 
10 M€) 

HORIZON-MISS-2023-CLIMA-CITIES-01-01:  Urban 
regeneration, 
re-naturing 
greening  and 
resilience and climate neutrality (IA: 40 M€) 

for  urban 

HORIZON-CL5-2024-D4-01-02: 
buildings (IA: 10 M€) 

Smart 

grid-ready 

225 

 
 
 
Multi-country-
projects 

Digital Europe WP 2023-2024 – actions in 
2023304 

Activities and Budget under EU Programme 

Horizon Europe WP 2023-2024  

CEF Digital WP 2021-2027 

HORIZON-CL6-2024-CircBio-01-1:  Circular  Cities  and 
Regions  Initiative’s  project  development  assistance 
(CCRI-PDA) (CSA: 6 M€) 

TOTAL WP 2023-24: 15 M€ 

Total 2023-24: 71 M€ 

Digital  Europe’s  contribution  to  Chips  JU305: 
756 M€ in 2023-24 

HORIZON-CL4-2023-DIGITAL-EMERGING-01-11: 
Low  TRL  research  in  microelectronics  and  integration 
technologies for industrial solutions (RIA: 35 M€) 

N/A 

N/A 

4.2 Reinforcing Skills in semiconductors 

and 

DIGITAL-2023-SKILLS-04-
SEMICONDUCTORS (SG: 10 M€)306 

Processors 
semiconductors 
chips 

HORIZON-CL4-2023-DIGITAL-EMERGING-01-40: 
Quantum Photonic Integrated Circuit technologies (RIA: 
12 M€) 

HORIZON-CL4-2023-DIGITAL-EMERGING-01-41: 
Investing 
simulation platform technologies (RIA: 20 M€) 

in  alternative  quantum  computation  and 

HORIZON-CL4-2023-DIGITAL-EMERGING-01-43: 
Framework Partnership Agreement for developing large-
scale quantum Computing platform technologies (FPA) 

305 The contribution to the Chips Joint Undertaking includes capacity building activities on a design platform, pilot lines, quantum chips and associated semiconductor technologies, and 

competence centres. The contribution to “processors and semiconductors chips” is part of the overall Digital Europe contribution. 

306  This  action  also  contributes  to  the  “High-tech  partnerships  for digital  skills  and  specialized  education” MCP; its  corresponding budget has  only  been  considered  in  the  High-tech 

partnerships for digital skills and specialized education section, to avoid double representation in the total budget. 

226 

 
 
 
 
Multi-country-
projects 

Digital Europe WP 2023-2024 – actions in 
2023304 

Activities and Budget under EU Programme 

Horizon Europe WP 2023-2024  

CEF Digital WP 2021-2027 

HORIZON-CL4-2023-DIGITAL-EMERGING-01-51: 
Pervasive  photonics  –  multi-technology  integration  for 
digital infrastructure, sensors, and internet of things (RIA: 
18 M€) 

HORIZON-CL4-2023-DIGITAL-EMERGING-01-57: 
Advanced imaging and sensing technologies (IA: 20 M€) 

HORIZON-CL4-2024-DIGITAL-EMERGING-01-21: 
Open Source for Cloud/Edge to support European Digital 
Autonomy (RIA: 20 M€)307 

HORIZON-CL4-2024-DIGITAL-EMERGING-01-31: 
Pilot line(s) for 2D materials-based devices (RIA: 33 M€) 

HORIZON-CL4-2024-DIGITAL-EMERGING-01-54: 
Smart photonics for joint communication & sensing and 
access everywhere (RIA: 18 M€) 

Horizon Europe contribution to KDT JU and Chips JU308: 
877 M€ in 2023-2024 

307  This  action  also  contributes  to  the  “European  Common data  infrastructure  and  services”  MCP;  its  corresponding budget  has  only  been  considered  in the  European  Common  data 

infrastructure and services section, to avoid double representation in the total budget. 

308 The HE contribution to the Chips JU (and its predecessor the KDT JU) includes research and innovation activities on advanced design capacities, pilot lines, quantum chips and associated 
semiconductor technologies, competence centres, and R&I activities not covered under the Chips for Europe Initiative. The contribution to “processors and semiconductors chips” is 
part of the overall HE contribution. 

227 

 
 
 
Multi-country-
projects 

Digital Europe WP 2023-2024 – actions in 
2023304 

Activities and Budget under EU Programme 

Horizon Europe WP 2023-2024  

CEF Digital WP 2021-2027 

TOTAL WP 2023-24: 759 M€ 

Total 2023-24: 1033 M€ 

N/A 

HORIZON-CL2-2024-DEMOCRACY-01-07:  Digital 
democracy (RIA: 9 M€) 

N/A 

HORIZON-CL3-2023-CS-01-02: Privacy-preserving and 
identity management technologies (IA: 15.7 M€) 

Connected 
administration 

public 

5.2.1.1  European  Digital  Identity  and  Trust 
Ecosystem 
Sample 
(Standards 
Implementation) (Procurement: 20 M€)  

and 

5.2.1.2  Support  to  the  implementation  of  the 
Once Only Technical System under the Single 
Digital Gateway Regulation (Procurement: 7.5 
M€) 

5.2.1.3 
(Procurement: 3 M€) 

eProcurement 

and 

eInvoicing 

5.2.2  Interoperable  Europe  -  Interoperability 
for the public sector (Procurement: 24.5 M€) 

TOTAL WP 2023-24: 52 M€ 

Total 2023-24: 24.7 M€ 

5.1 Blockchain (Procurement 10 M€) 

European 
Blockchain  Services 
Infrastructure 

Although not directly contributing to the development of 
EBSI,  multiple  actions  under  HE  encourage 
the 
deployment  of  innovative  blockchain  technologies  in 
areas such as corruption prevention and detection (CL 2), 
energy  sharing  (CL  5),  forest  monitoring,  value  chain 
circularity in tourism, manufacturing, waste management 

N/A 

N/A 

228 

 
 
Multi-country-
projects 

Digital Europe WP 2023-2024 – actions in 
2023304 

Activities and Budget under EU Programme 

Horizon Europe WP 2023-2024  

CEF Digital WP 2021-2027 

and  recycling  (CL  6),  sensitive  data  management 
(INFRA). 

N/A 

N/A 

TOTAL WP 2023-24: 10 M€ 

- 

HORIZON-CL4-2023-DIGITAL-EMERGING-01-56: 
Photonic  Strategies  and  Skills  Development  (Photonics 
Partnership)  –  Type  2  fostering  careers  in  photonics 
(CSA: 1 M€) 

HORIZON-CL4-2023-HUMAN-01-54: Green and digital 
skills  and  training  needs  for  a  just  transition  (CSA:  2.4 
M€) 

4.1 Specialised Education Programmes in Key 
Capacity Areas 

DIGITAL-2023-SKILLS-05-SPECIALEDU 
(LumpSum: 30 M€) 

High-tech 
partnerships 
digital 
specialized 
education 

for 
skills  and 

DIGITAL-2023-SKILLS-05-SPECIAL-
PROGEDU (CSA: 2 M€) 

4.2 Reinforcing Skills in semiconductors 

DIGITAL-2023-SKILLS-04-
SEMICONDUCTORS (SG: 10 M€) 

4.3 Cybersecurity Skills Academy (SG: 10 M€) 

4.4 Boosting digital skills of young people, in 
particular girls 

DIGITAL-2023-SKILLS-04-
BOOSTINGDIGIT (CSA: 6 M€) 

229 

 
 
 
Multi-country-
projects 

Digital Europe WP 2023-2024 – actions in 
2023304 

Activities and Budget under EU Programme 

Horizon Europe WP 2023-2024  

CEF Digital WP 2021-2027 

TOTAL WP 2023-24: 58 M€ 

Total 2023-24: 3.4 M€ 

N/A 

EuroHPC WP – Infrastructure actions: 

• 

2nd  Exascale  system  procurement 
(WP23: 300 M€) 

•  Access IT Platform (WP 23: 600 K€) 
• 
2nd  Quantum  CFEI  (Capex  +Opex) 
(WP23: 20 M€) 
Industrial  HPC  CFEI  (WP23:  12.2 
M€) 

• 

Supercomputing 
and Quantum 

HORIZON-CL4-2023-DIGITAL-EMERGING-01-43: 
Framework Partnership Agreement for developing large-
scale quantum Computing platform technologies (FPA) 

4.4  Terabit  connectivity  for  High 
Performance 
– 
implemented through EuroHPC JU  

Computing 

HORIZON-CL4-2023-DIGITAL-EMERGING-01-41: 
Investing 
simulation platform technologies (RIA: 20 M€) 

in  alternative  quantum  computation  and 

HORIZON-CL4-2024-DIGITAL-EMERGING-01-42: 
Stimulating  transnational  research  and  development  of 
next  generation  quantum  technologies,  including  basic 
theories and components (Cascading grant with FSTP: 15 
M€) 

EuroHPC WP – Technology & application actions: 

•  Experimental Platform for European Technology 

(PCP) (WP23: 24 M€) 

•  HPC  Energy  efficiency  R&I  Call  (WP23:  29 

• 

M€) 
Interconnect  technologies  (Innovation  Action) 
(WP23: 30 M€) 

•  HPC Centres of Excellence (2nd call) (WP23: 20 

M€) 

•  Quantum Excellence Centres (WP23: 10 M€) 

230 

 
 
 
Multi-country-
projects 

Digital Europe WP 2023-2024 – actions in 
2023304 

Activities and Budget under EU Programme 

Horizon Europe WP 2023-2024  

CEF Digital WP 2021-2027 

•  Quantum application prizes (WP23: 300 K€) 

Total 2023: 332.8 M€ 

Total 2023-24: 148.3 M€ 

Total 2021-23: 200 M€  

5G deployment 

N/A 

N/A 

HORIZON-CL4-2023-HUMAN-01-65:  Support  facility 
for digital standardisation and international cooperation in 
digital partnerships (CSA: 1.5 M€) 

3.1  5G  coverage  along 
corridors (WP 21-23) (229,6 M€) 

transport 

HORIZON-CL4-2023-HUMAN-01-66:  Promoting  EU 
standards globally (CSA: 2.5 M€) 

5.6 5G Strategic Deployment Agenda 
coordination (WP 21-23) (1 M€) 

Total 2023-24: 4 M€ 

Total WP 2021-23: 230,6 M€ 

(EDIH WP 2021-2023)  

N/A 

N/A 

European 
Innovation Hubs 

Digital 

1.1  Expression  of 
candidate European Digital Innovation Hubs 

to  designate 

Interest 

1.2  Initial  Network  of  European  Digital 
Innovation Hubs (SG: 321.2 M€) 

1.3 Digital transformation accelerator (4 M€) 

231 

 
 
Multi-country-
projects 

Digital Europe WP 2023-2024 – actions in 
2023304 

Activities and Budget under EU Programme 

Horizon Europe WP 2023-2024  

CEF Digital WP 2021-2027 

N/A 

N/A 

TOTAL WP 2023-24: 325,2 M€ 

(CS WP 23-24)  

1.1.1   National SOCs (Joint procurement with 
Member States: 35 M€ and SG: 15 M€) 

1.1.2      Cross-Border  SOC  Platforms  (Joint 
procurement with Member States: 20 M€ and 
SG: 10 M€) 

1.1.3      Strengthening  the  SOC  ecosystem 
(CSA: 4 M€) 

Security  Operations 
Centres 

N/A 

N/A 

Total WP 2023-24: 84 M€ 

N/A 

N/A 

232 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX XII. RHOMOLO ANALYSIS 

The RHOMOLO assessment of the macroeconomic impact of the Digital 
Europe Programme  
(2021-2025 data) 

Pablo Casas, Tryfonas Christou, Abián García Rodríguez, Nicholas Lazarou, and Simone 
Salotti 

European Commission, Joint Research Centre Sevilla 

Abstract 

This  paper  presents  an  assessment  of  the  macroeconomic  impact  of  the  Digital  Europe 
Programme, a cornerstone of the EU's commitment to drive digital transformation. Using the 
RHOMOLO spatial dynamic computable general equilibrium model, the analysis quantifies the 
effects of the programme's investments on EU economies. The results show a positive impact 
on  GDP,  with  significant  returns  on  investment,  and  improved  EU  competitiveness.  The 
modelling simulations consider different scenarios, including digital spillovers, which enhance 
the programme's impact. The findings suggest that the programme can have a substantial effect 
on EU economies, with cumulative GDP multipliers increasing over time. The analysis provides 
valuable insights  for policymakers, highlighting  the potential benefits  of investing in  digital 
transformation and the importance of considering digital spillovers in policy evaluations. 

Keywords: Digital Europe Programme, digital investment, general equilibrium modelling. 

JEL Codes: C68, H54, R1 

Acknowledgments: We  thank Anca  Scortariu,  Sabrina Thom  and  Stefan  Hahn  for  valuable 
comments. All remaining errors are our own. 

Disclaimer:  The  views  expressed  are  purely  those  of  the  authors  and  may  not  in  any 
circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission.  

Executive summary 

The  Digital  Europe  Programme  is  a  cornerstone  of  the  EU's  commitment  to  drive  digital 
transformation, with a total budget of over €8.1 billion. The programme aims to unlock new 
opportunities  for  economic  growth,  social  progress  and  environmental  sustainability  by 
investing in key areas such as infrastructure, innovation and human capital. The programme's 
objectives are diverse and wide-ranging, covering strategic priorities that will shape the future 
of Europe's digital economy and society. 

233 

 
 
 
 
 
 
An assessment of the macroeconomic impact of the Digital Europe Programme has been carried 
out using the RHOMOLO model, a spatially dynamic computable general equilibrium model. 
The  results  show  that  the  programme  can  have  a  positive  impact  on  EU  economies,  with 
significant effects on GDP and high returns on investment. The model simulations suggest that 
the programme can improve EU competitiveness as measured by EU exports to the rest of the 
world. 

The assessment highlights the importance of considering digital spillovers, which can enhance 
the impact of the programme by facilitating the diffusion of digital innovations and increasing 
overall economic productivity. The results of the evaluation provide valuable insights for policy 
makers,  highlighting  the  potential  benefits  of  investing  in  digital  transformation  and  the 
importance of considering digital spillovers in policy evaluations. Overall, the Digital Europe 
Programme is expected to have a significant impact on EU economies, with cumulative GDP 
multipliers increasing over time. 

234 

 
 
1. Introduction   

The Digital Europe Programme (now DIGITAL) is a cornerstone of the EU's commitment to 
drive the digital transformation of its Member States, focusing on strategic areas that are vital 
for technological progress and economic resilience. DIGITAL has a total budget of over €8.1 
billion,  underlining  the  EU's  commitment  to  the  sector.  By  investing  in  key  areas  such  as 
infrastructure, innovation and human capital, the programme aims to unlock new opportunities 
for  economic  growth,  social  progress  and  environmental  sustainability.  The  programme's 
objectives are diverse and wide-ranging, covering a number of strategic priorities that will shape 
the future of Europe's digital economy and society. 

The  programme's  supercomputing  initiatives  aim  to  boost  Europe's  high-performance 
computing  infrastructure,  providing  the  computing  power  needed  for  advanced  scientific 
research, weather forecasting and complex data analysis. Artificial Intelligence is another pillar, 
where the programme will not only promote the adoption of AI across different industries, but 
also its ethical application, ensuring that European values are embedded in the digital future. 
Cybersecurity is a major focus, as the programme works to strengthen the EU's defences against 
cyber  threats,  which  are  crucial  to  ensuring  the  integrity  and  reliability  of  digital  services. 
Recognising the importance of human capital, the programme invests in advanced digital skills 
to prepare the workforce for the demands of a rapidly evolving labour market. It also promotes 
the widespread use of digital technologies to boost productivity and innovation in all sectors of 
the economy and society. In addition, the recent prioritisation of semiconductors addresses the 
urgent  need  to  strengthen  the  EU's  manufacturing  and  technological  sovereignty  in  this  key 
sector, in line with the Chips Act and the Chips for Europe initiative to mitigate the impact of 
global shortages and supply chain dependencies. 

DIGITAL also aims to provide support through a network of European Digital Innovation Hubs 
(EDIHs).  EDIHs  act  as  multipliers  in  the  dissemination  of  digital  innovation  to  businesses 
(especially SMEs) and public administrations. The programme is in line with the EU's broader 
digital policy objectives, including the Digital Compass 2030 and the Roadmap to the Digital 
Decade. These frameworks set out the EU's vision and objectives for digital transformation by 
2030. DIGITAL does not operate in a vacuum; it works with other EU funding mechanisms 
such as Horizon Europe for research and innovation, the Connecting Europe Facility for digital 
infrastructure,  the  Recovery  and  Resilience  Facility  for  post-pandemic  recovery,  and  the 
Structural Funds for regional development. DIGITAL is part of the EU's long-term budget for 
2021-2027, which provides a structured financial plan to achieve the EU's long-term goals. 

This paper presents an attempt to quantify the macroeconomic impact of the investments made 
under the DIGITAL programme, using data on actual disbursements from 2021 to end of 2024. 
This  is  done  using  the  spatial  dynamic  computable  general  equilibrium  (CGE)  model 
RHOMOLO (built and managed by the European Commission's Joint Research Centre - JRC). 
RHOMOLO is adept at assessing the impact of EU policies on different regions and sectors, 
taking  into  account  the  intricate  web  of  linkages  within  European  economies.  For  the 
mathematical  description  of  the  RHOMOLO  model,  see  Lecca  et  al.  (2018),  and  for  an 
overview of the underlying data used to calibrate the model, see García-Rodríguez et al. (2025). 

235 

 
 
When assessing the impact of DIGITAL funding through the lens of the RHOMOLO model, it 
is  important  to  recognise  the  model's  ability  to  capture  spatial  spillovers  and  interregional 
linkages,  which  are  important  components  of  the  EU's  integrated  economic  landscape. 
Crucially,  the  results  depend  on  the  assumptions  made  to  model  the  impact  of  DIGITAL 
investment, in particular those related to the geographical spread of the effects (spillovers). 

The  rest  of  the  paper  is  organised  as  follows.  Section  2  presents  the  data  on  the  policy 
interventions and the simulation strategy adopted to study their macroeconomic impact. Section 
3 contains the results of the analysis, and Section 4 concludes. 

2. DIGITAL fund data and modelling simulation strategy 

At  the  time  of  writing,  the  DIGITAL  Fund  has  not  been  fully  deployed.  Between  2021  and 
2024, the total investment in the EU27 + other countries amounts to almost EUR 5,162 million. 
This includes funding from DIGITAL (EU-funded) and, in cases where the funding does not 
cover  the  full  cost  of  a  project,  funding  from  other  EU  funds  (the  Recovery  and  Resilience 
Facility  – RRF, and the European Regional  Development  Fund  - ERDF), Member States or 
privately invested capital from beneficiaries to make up the difference. This analysis focuses 
on the EU27 only, and therefore the total amount used in the modelling exercise is EUR 5,037 
million.  Table 1 shows the investment data by country and by category of expenditure (source: 
DG CNECT).  

These  investments  are  modelled  through  four  specific  shocks  in  the  model,  meaning  that 
different economic channels are activated by the different types of spending. The shocks are the 
following:  public  investment,  private  investment,  training  in  digital  skills  for  workers,  and 
technical assistance. Table 2 shows the breakdown of the shocks used to simulate the impact of 
the  DIGITAL  funds  in  the  RHOMOLO  model.  In  short,  private  investment  temporarily 
increases the private stock of capital used by firms in production. Public investment temporarily 
increases the public capital stock available to all firms and generates increasing returns to scale 
in  the  production  function  (in  its  absence,  the  combination  of  private  capital  and  labour  is 
characterised by constant returns to scale). Training in digital skills is modelled as an increase 
in public current expenditure and an increase in labour productivity. Finally, technical assistance 
is modelled as a pure demand shock with an increase in public current expenditure.  

RHOMOLO is a spatial  CGE model and is therefore characterised by interregional linkages 
that  favour  the  existence  of  spillovers  related  to  trade  flows  and  the  mobility  of  production 
factors. However, given the nature of the investment under analysis, it is reasonable to assume 
that there are additional spillovers that need to be modelled. The reach of digital technologies 
extends well beyond the information and communication technology (ICT) sector, permeating 
a wide range of industries (Auboin et al., 2021). Although there is little evidence on the diffusion 
of digital technologies, we can draw on evidence on the diffusion of ICT, which suggests that 
as a country improves its ICT capabilities, the productivity of workers in neighbouring countries 
also  increases  (Shahnazi,  2021).  We  refer  to  these  additional  spillovers  arising  from  the 
intrinsically  digital  nature  of  the  policy  as  digital  spillovers,  to  distinguish  them  from  the 
spillovers generated endogenously in the model. 

236 

 
 
Table 1. DIGITAL investment per category and country (millions of euros) 

Country  Public 

Investment 

Private 
investment/subsidies 

Digital skills for 
workers 

Technical 
Assistance 

Total 

AL 

AT 

BA 

BE 

BF 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

GH 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IL 

IS 

IT 

KE 

LI 

LT 

LU 

LV 

ME 

MK 

MT 

MY 

NL 

0.3 

92.5 

0.0 

207.8 

0.0 

25.0 

36.6 

58.6 

913.6 

67.3 

16.4 

94.7 

145.3 

81.4 

297.5 

0.0 

21.5 

29.8 

46.3 

0.0 

13.6 

245.3 

0.0 

3.3 

18.1 

62.9 

18.0 

0.0 

1.0 

13.4 

0.0 

0.0 

32.9 

0.0 

58.7 

0.3 

21.4 

5.2 

14.8 

145.0 

7.3 

6.0 

19.6 

66.9 

12.9 

97.9 

0.3 

11.0 

11.2 

12.1 

0.5 

4.2 

91.1 

0.0 

0.0 

14.2 

0.0 

6.4 

0.0 

1.1 

5.3 

0.0 

0.0 

16.7 

0.0 

28.9 

0.0 

4.8 

10.9 

6.0 

49.4 

17.2 

5.4 

33.2 

29.4 

16.0 

40.3 

0.0 

5.1 

4.2 

29.8 

0.0 

1.2 

45.2 

0.9 

0.0 

9.3 

1.7 

4.9 

0.0 

0.0 

0.2 

0.0 

1.1 

4.9 

0.9 

536.9 

0.0 

2.2 

15.0 

8.9 

57.4 

3.2 

7.2 

8.4 

33.0 

12.7 

33.5 

0.0 

9.6 

3.4 

8.8 

0.0 

0.1 

24.0 

0.0 

0.0 

2.7 

33.0 

6.8 

1.1 

2.5 

3.7 

0.1 

1.3 

147.0 

0.9 

832.2 

0.3 

53.3 

67.6 

88.4 

1165.4 

94.9 

34.9 

156.0 

274.6 

123.0 

469.1 

0.3 

47.2 

48.5 

96.9 

0.5 

19.2 

405.6 

0.9 

3.3 

44.2 

97.6 

36.2 

1.1 

4.6 

22.5 

0.1 

112.1 

60.2 

10.4 

46.2 

228.9 

237 

 
 
NO 

PL 

PT 

RO 

RS 

SE 

SI 

SK 

TR 

UA 

UK 

US 

27.1 

60.4 

48.3 

43.4 

0.0 

75.7 

17.6 

45.7 

0.0 

6.6 

1.3 

0.1 

12.6 

56.8 

16.9 

25.4 

0.0 

18.2 

10.6 

12.0 

0.0 

1.0 

0.0 

0.9 

7.7 

4.1 

19.1 

8.3 

0.2 

6.8 

1.5 

1.0 

2.1 

2.3 

0.0 

0.0 

8.5 

4.5 

3.3 

7.6 

4.5 

17.4 

2.9 

7.0 

2.0 

4.0 

0.2 

0.0 

55.8 

125.7 

87.6 

84.6 

4.7 

118.0 

32.5 

65.8 

4.2 

13.9 

1.5 

1.0 

Total 

2,948.5 

860.9 

424.2 

929.2 

5,161.8 

Source: DG CNECT. 

Table 2. Breakdown of the modelling shocks  

Description 
of the 
intervention 

RHOMOLO 
Model 
Shock 

Raw 
Amount 
(EUR 
million) 

Simulated 
Amount 
(EUR 
million) 

Demand-
side effects 

Supply-side 
effects 

Public 
investment  

Public 
Investment 

Private 
investment  

Total  Factor 
Productivity 

2948 

2889 

Digital  skills 
for workers 

Labour 
Productivity 

Technical 
Assistance 

Public 
Current 
Expenditure 

Total 

861 

835 

424 

409 

929 

5,162 

904 

5,037 

Source: DG CNECT (data) and JRC RHOMOLO (modelling assumptions). 

238 

in 

Increase 
public 
investment 

Reduction  in 
the 
risk 
premium 
stimulating 
private 
investments 

Temporary 
increase 
in 
public capital 
stock 

in 

Temporary 
increase 
private 
capital stock; 
in 
increase 
total 
factor 
productivity 

in 

Increase 
government 
consumption 

in 

Increase 
labour 
productivity 

in 

Increase 
government 
consumption 

in 

Increase 
government 
consumption 

 
 
 
 
 
General  assumptions  about  digital  spillovers  include  the  concept  that  digital  services  and 
products created in one region have the potential to be consumed in other regions with minimal 
additional  costs.  This  facilitates  widespread  benefits  across  the  EU  market.  In  addition, 
innovations created in one region can be quickly adopted by firms in other regions, a process 
that is increasingly common in a market characterised by digital interconnectivity. Investments 
in general purpose technology (GPT) infrastructure are also thought to generate network effects, 
meaning that the value of the investment increases as more users join the network (Syverson, 
2011), potentially bringing benefits to multiple regions. Furthermore, as a public good, digital 
information is non-competitive and can be reproduced at very low marginal cost (Brynjolfsson 
and McAfee, 2014), facilitating its widespread global use at minimal cost. 

The inclusion of digital spillovers in this RHOMOLO analysis reflects the growing body of 
evidence highlighting the far-reaching effects of digital investments. As shown by Ren and Lin 
(2024) in their study of digital spillovers in the internet industry, digital spillovers are multi-
dimensional,  enhancing  production,  practices,  internal  and  external  competitiveness,  and 
supply chain efficiency. These findings suggest that the diffusion of digital innovations is not 
confined  to  the  regions  where  investment  takes  place;  rather,  these  technologies  permeate 
interconnected industries and regions, increasing overall economic productivity. 

The role of spatial spillovers is particularly important in the context of digital technologies. Zou 
et  al.  (2024)  identify  strong  spatial  spillovers  of  the  digital  economy  on  urban  total  factor 
productivity, showing that digital progress in one city can significantly increase the productivity 
of  neighbouring  cities.  Such  evidence  justifies  the  modelling  of  digital  spillovers  in  this 
RHOMOLO analysis, ensuring that the impact of digital investment extends beyond regional 
boundaries, as observed in EU-wide markets. 

Moreover,  digital  knowledge  spillovers  and  local  skill  endowments  are  crucial  for  fostering 
entrepreneurship and innovation. Colombelli et al. (2024) show that regional digital knowledge 
and  skill  endowments  drive  the  creation  of  innovative  digital  start-ups.  These  findings  are 
consistent  with  the  assumption  that  digital  investments  generate  additional  spillovers  that 
stimulate regional entrepreneurial ecosystems, strengthening the case for modelling supply-side 
digital spillovers. 

For this reason, we present the results of three different scenarios: 

1.  No digital spillover effect; 
2.  0.5% supply-side digital spillover effect; 
3.  1% supply-side digital spillover effect. 

In  the  second  and  third  scenarios,  we  model  an  additional  supply-side  digital  spillover  that 
reflects the impact of the investments in all regions, independently of the investments directly 
targeted  at  the  regions  (the  spillover  effect  is  net  of  the  direct  supply-side  impact  of  the 
investment  itself).  In  the  absence  of  evidence  on  the  exact  magnitude  of  supply-side  digital 
spillovers from funds such as the DIGITAL programme, we assume either a 0.5% or 1% digital 
spillover in Scenarios 2 and 3 respectively. Recognising the limitations of these assumptions, 
we offer a range of potential impacts across three scenarios, as there is no reliable evidence on 
the size of these spillovers and the exact mechanism that governs them. 

239 

 
 
Therefore, the results obtained under the digital spillover scenarios must be treated with caution, 
as the impact of the policy increases exponentially as we consider higher digital spillovers. The 
scenario without digital spillovers serves as a baseline, in which the funds are modelled without 
taking into account the specific digital characteristics of the intervention. The choice of 0.5% 
and  1%  digital  spillovers  is  to  illustrate  how  this  baseline  assessment  changes  when  digital 
spillovers are introduced. 

The shock-specific assumptions regarding the digital spillover effects are as follows. 

In the case of public investment, it is assumed that public spending on digital infrastructure or 
services in one region will increase productivity (through an increase in the public capital stock 
-  freely  available  to  all  firms,  although  subject  to  congestion)  within  that  region,  leading  to 
increased output and income. There are also expected to be digital spillovers to other regions 
due to improved connectivity and efficiency gains. These effects are represented as increased 
efficiency of public capital (essentially increasing firm productivity). 

In the case of private investment, it is expected that private investment made as a result of the 
DIGITAL programme will stimulate innovation and productivity gains in the region where the 
investment  takes  place.  Digital  spillovers  to  other  regions  could  occur  if  digital  investment 
facilitates better market access or the diffusion of innovation through supply chains, thereby 
increasing total factor productivity.  

Finally, in the case of digital skills training for workers, it's thought that improving the skills of 
workers in a given region could improve the overall stock of human capital and increase labour 
productivity. Digital spillovers in this context could include the transfer of knowledge and best 
practices across regions, which could occur when workers relocate or collaborate remotely. 

Technical assistance, modelled as a shock increasing government current expenditure, has no 
supply-side digital spillovers since this is a pure demand shock.   

Finally,  the  policy  is  assumed  to  be  financed  by  a  lump  sum  contribution  that  reduces  the 
disposable income of households. The  contribution  to  EU-funded investment  is  modelled to 
mimic the functioning of the EU budget, so that regions pay in proportion to their GDP weight 
in the EU, irrespective of the funds received. This means, for example, that richer regions pay 
more  than  poorer  regions.  On  the  other  hand,  the  contribution  to  finance  Member  States’ 
investment is modelled in such a way that regional investment is fully covered by contributions 
in the specific region. Thus, for example, the amount needed to finance an intervention in a less 
developed  region  has  to  be  financed  by  a  lump  sum  contribution  taken  from  the  income  of 
households in that region (hence the regional macroeconomic impact of the policy should be 
expected to be lower than an investment largely paid by richer regions contributing to the EU 
budget). 

240 

 
 
 
 
 
3. Results 

Table 3 shows the impact on GDP at EU level in EUR million for the three scenarios described 
above. The table includes both the annual and cumulative impact.  

Table 3. GDP impact (in million EUR) over 10 years – three scenarios 

Year 

No digital spillover 

0.5% digital spillover 

1% digital spillover 

Year-specific  Cumulated 

Year-
specific 

Cumulated  Year-specific  Cumulated 

2021 

2022 

2023 

2024 

2025 

2026 

2027 

2028 

2029 

2030 

73 

373 

1406 

1567 

1402 

1334 

1307 

1288 

1272 

1254 

73 

446 

1852 

3419 

4821 

6154 

7461 

8750 

10022 

11276 

78 

527 

1952 

2293 

2206 

2196 

2219 

2245 

2267 

2283 

78 

605 

2557 

4850 

7056 

9252 

11471 

13715 

15982 

18265 

Source: RHOMOLO simulations. 

84 

680 

2496 

3018 

3010 

3056 

3129 

3199 

3260 

3310 

84 

765 

3261 

6279 

9288 

12345 

15474 

18673 

21932 

25242 

Table 4 shows the cumulative GDP multiplier, calculated as the cumulative GDP impact divided 
by the cumulative DIGITAL investment in each year. This can be interpreted as the amount of 
EUR  generated  by  one  EUR  invested  in  the  fund.  For  example,  this  means  that  in  2026, 
according to the no spillover scenario, every euro invested in the policy will have generated 
1.22 euros of GDP. Over time, the return on investment (measured as the cumulative impact on 
GDP) increases, reaching 2.24 in 2030 according to the same scenario. When digital spillovers 
are simulated (scenarios 2 and 3), the multiplier increases: it is higher than 3.6 in 2030 in the 
0.5% spillover scenario and higher than 5 in the same year in the 1% spillover scenario. 

The results of the scenario without digital spillovers and the scenario with spillovers limited to 
0.5% are closer to previous analyses of other comparable EU funds. For example, Christou et 
al. (2024), using the same model used here to assess the impact of Horizon 2020 investments, 
find a nine-year GDP multiplier of 2.46, which is between the 1.99 of the first scenario and the 
3.17 of the second scenario of DIGITAL.  Of course, the funds analysed are different, but the 
range of macroeconomic impacts is compatible with the results presented here. On the other 
hand, the 9-year multiplier of 4.35 in the case of the 1% digital spillover seems high compared 
to previous analyses. 

241 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 4. EU cumulated GDP multipliers in 10 years – three scenarios 

Year 

No digital spillover 

0.5% digital spillover 

1% digital spillover 

2021 

2022 

2023 

2024 

2025 

2026 

2027 

2028 

2029 

2030 

0.42 

0.42 

0.48 

0.69 

0.96 

1.22 

1.48 

1.74 

1.99 

2.24 

0.45 

0.57 

0.67 

0.98 

1.40 

1.84 

2.28 

2.72 

3.17 

3.63 

0.49 

0.72 

0.85 

1.27 

1.84 

2.45 

3.07 

3.71 

4.35 

5.01 

Source: RHOMOLO simulations. 

Figure 1 shows the impact of the funds on EU GDP in the three different scenarios. The impact 
is expressed as a percentage difference from the base year value of EU GDP. Figure 1 shows 
that the larger the supply-side digital spill-over assumed in the simulation, the larger and more 
persistent is the impact of the DIGITAL Fund on GDP. 

Figure 1. EU-wide GDP Impact (% deviations from baseline) and size of interventions (% of GDP) 

Source: RHOMOLO simulations. 

Figure  2  shows  the  impact  of  the  funds  on  EU  exports  in  the  three  different  scenarios. The 
impact is expressed as a percentage difference from the base year value of EU exports. Figure 

242 

 
 
 
 
 
 
2 shows that, after an initial decline in exports during the implementation phase of the policy, 
the policy improves the EU's competitiveness, with lower prices boosting exports to the rest of 
the world. These effects are sustained over time thanks to the supply-side effects of the policy 
intervention. 

The initial decline in exports reflects the temporary loss of competitiveness due to the price 
increase caused by the demand shock. At the same time, the increase in household consumption 
and investment leads to an increase in imports (since not all the demand is satisfied by domestic 
production ). This changes as the demand injection ends and the supply-side effects of the policy 
begin  to  take  hold,  improving  competitiveness  and  eventually  lowering  prices.  Productivity 
gains  increase  the  efficiency  of  production,  reduce  production  costs  and  allow  exporters  to 
regain  their  global  competitiveness.  The  robust  rebound  in  exports  reflects  the  economy's 
capacity to adjust and reap the longer-term benefits of the policy. 

Digital spillovers reinforce this dynamic. Scenarios with higher digital spillovers show stronger 
recoveries  compared to  the no-spillover case. These spillovers are likely  to  facilitate greater 
technology adoption, streamline production processes and reduce costs.  

Figure 2. EU Exports Impact (% Deviations from baseline)  

Source: RHOMOLO simulations. 

4. Conclusions 

The results presented are a modelling assessment of the potential macroeconomic impact of the 
Digital  Europe  Programme.  They  show  that  the  policy  can  have  a  positive  impact  on  EU 
economies,  with  significant  effects  on  GDP  and  high  returns  on  investment  (measured  by 

243 

 
 
 
cumulative  GDP  multipliers).  The  modelling  simulations  also  suggest  that  the  policy  can 
improve EU competitiveness, as measured by EU exports to the rest of the world. 

As with any modelling analysis, limitations should be acknowledged. For example, the lack of 
evidence  measuring  the  exact  diffusion  and  magnitude  of  digital  spillovers  related  to  the 
investments under analysis makes it difficult to construct a scenario that can accurately estimate 
the  impact,  and  therefore  we  rely  on  three  scenarios  to  demonstrate  the  uncertainty  of  the 
analysis. Moreover, the positive economic impact of the funds could be greater if we take into 
account their complementarity with other EU policies. The Digital Europe Programme does not 
address  challenges  in  isolation,  but  complements  the  funding  available  through  other  EU 
programmes such as Horizon Europe (for research and innovation) and the Connecting Europe 
Facility  (for  digital  infrastructure),  the  Recovery  and  Resilience  Facility  and  the  Structural 
Funds, to name but a few. 

244 

 
 
 
 
References 

Armington, P. S. (1969). A theory of demand for products distinguished by place of production. 
Staff Papers-International Monetary Fund, 159-178. 

Auboin, M., Koopman, R., and Xu, A. (2021). Trade and innovation policies: Coexistence and 
spillovers. Journal of Policy Modeling, 43(4), 844-872. 

Brynjolfsson,  E.,  and  McAfee,  A.  (2014).  The  second  machine  age:  Work,  progress,  and 
prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. WW Norton & Company. 

Colombelli, A., Paolucci, E., Raguseo, E., and Elia, G. (2024). The creation of digital innovative 
start-ups: the role of digital knowledge spillovers and digital skill endowment. Small Business 
Economics, 62(3), 917-937. 

Crucitti, F., Lazarou, N. J., Monfort, P., and Salotti, S. (2024). The impact of the 2014–2020 
European Structural Funds on territorial cohesion. Regional Studies 58(8), 1568-1582. 

Christou,  T.,  Crucitti,  F.,  Garcia  Rodriguez,  A.,  Lazarou,  N.  and  Salotti,  S.  (2024).  The 
RHOMOLO ex-post impact assessment of the 2014-2020 European research and innovation 
funding programme (Horizon 2020). JRC Working Paper Series on Territorial Modelling and 
Analysis no. 01/2024, JRC133690. 

García-Rodríguez, A., Lazarou, N., Mandras, G., Salotti, S., Thissen, M., and Kalvelagen, E. 
(2025).  Constructing  interregional  social  accounting  matrices  for  the  EU:  unfolding  trade 
patterns and wages by education level. Spatial Economic Analysis, 1-24. 

Németh, G., Szabó, L., and Ciscar, J.C. (2011). Estimation of Armington elasticities in a CGE 
economy–energy–environment model for Europe. Economic Modelling 28, 1993–1999. 

Olekseyuk, Z., and Schürenberg-Frosch, H. (2016). Are Armington elasticities different across 
countries and sectors? A european study. Economic Modelling 55, 328–342. 

Ren,  C.,  and  Lin,  X.  (2024).  Research  on  digital  spillover  effect  of  internet  enterprises–an 
exploratory study based on grounded theory. Applied Economics, 56(40), 4776-4790. 

Shahnazi, R. (2021). Do information and communications technology spillovers affect labor 
productivity?. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 59, 342-359. 

Syverson,  C.  (2011).  What  determines  productivity?.  Journal  of  Economic  literature,  49(2), 
326-365. 

Zou, S., Liao, Z., & Fan, X. (2024). The impact of the digital economy on urban total factor 
productivity: mechanisms and spatial spillover effects. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 396. 

245 

 
 
 
 
  
Appendix 

Table A1. DIGITAL investment EU funded per category and country (millions of euros) 

Country  Public 

Investment 

Private 
investment/subsidies 

Digital  skills  for 
workers 

Technical 
Assistance 

Total 

AL 

AT 

BA 

BE 

BF 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

GH 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IL 

IS 

IT 

KE 

LI 

LT 

LU 

LV 

ME 

MK 

MT 

MY 

0.1 

55.2 

0.0 

139.7 

0.0 

12.9 

19.7 

30.0 

641.1 

35.9 

8.9 

52.5 

79.3 

45.9 

183.5 

0.0 

11.6 

14.9 

26.5 

0.0 

7.5 

0.0 

14.1 

0.0 

45.0 

0.1 

11.4 

2.7 

7.4 

74.5 

3.3 

3.0 

9.3 

46.6 

6.5 

41.9 

0.1 

5.3 

5.7 

8.5 

0.1 

2.1 

178.5 

39.9 

0.0 

1.5 

9.8 

42.1 

9.5 

0.0 

0.7 

6.7 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

6.5 

0.0 

3.5 

0.0 

0.5 

2.6 

0.0 

0.0 

8.4 

0.0 

19.6 

0.0 

2.9 

7.5 

3.0 

26.8 

8.8 

2.7 

22.2 

17.5 

8.8 

22.3 

0.0 

2.7 

2.5 

16.6 

0.0 

0.6 

25.3 

0.5 

0.0 

4.8 

1.2 

2.6 

0.0 

0.0 

0.2 

0.0 

246 

0.5 

2.9 

0.5 

0.7 

80.5 

0.5 

265.0 

469.3 

0.0 

1.2 

8.2 

4.6 

41.4 

1.9 

5.6 

5.7 

19.9 

9.0 

28.1 

0.0 

5.3 

2.0 

5.7 

0.0 

0.1 

21.1 

0.0 

0.0 

1.4 

17.9 

5.4 

0.6 

1.4 

1.9 

0.1 

0.1 

28.3 

38.0 

45.0 

783.8 

49.9 

20.3 

89.6 

163.4 

70.1 

275.8 

0.1 

24.9 

25.1 

57.3 

0.1 

10.3 

264.8 

0.5 

1.5 

22.4 

61.3 

21.0 

0.6 

2.7 

11.5 

0.1 

 
 
NL 

NO 

PL 

PT 

RO 

RS 

SE 

SI 

SK 

TR 

UA 

UK 

US 

53.4 

15.5 

34.8 

23.4 

23.2 

0.0 

39.8 

10.0 

25.9 

0.0 

3.1 

1.0 

0.1 

27.9 

6.1 

29.5 

8.5 

12.8 

0.0 

8.5 

5.5 

6.0 

0.0 

0.5 

0.0 

0.4 

5.8 

4.4 

2.2 

9.6 

5.0 

0.2 

3.9 

0.9 

0.6 

1.3 

1.3 

0.0 

0.0 

28.7 

115.8 

7.2 

2.6 

1.7 

5.4 

2.4 

8.8 

1.7 

3.5 

1.3 

2.0 

0.2 

0.0 

33.3 

69.1 

43.3 

46.4 

2.6 

60.9 

18.1 

36.0 

2.5 

6.8 

1.3 

0.5 

Total 

1844.2 

446.3 

242.7 

522.9 

3 056.1 

Source: DG CNECT. 

Table A2. DIGITAL investment MS/Privately funded per category and country (EUR millions) 

Country  Public 

Investment 

Private 
investment/subsidies 

Digital skills for 
workers 

Technical 
Assistance 

Total 

AL 

AT 

BA 

BE 

BF 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

GH 

HR 

0.1 

37.3 

0.0 

68.1 

0.0 

12.1 

16.8 

28.6 

272.5 

31.4 

7.4 

42.2 

65.9 

35.5 

114.0 

0.0 

9.9 

0.0 

18.9 

0.0 

13.6 

0.1 

10.1 

2.5 

7.5 

70.5 

4.0 

3.0 

10.4 

20.3 

6.4 

56.0 

0.1 

5.7 

0.0 

8.3 

0.0 

9.4 

0.0 

1.9 

3.4 

3.0 

22.6 

8.4 

2.7 

11.0 

11.9 

7.2 

18.0 

0.0 

2.4 

247 

0.5 

2.0 

0.4 

0.7 

66.5 

0.4 

271.8 

362.9 

0.0 

0.9 

6.8 

4.3 

16.0 

1.3 

1.5 

2.7 

13.1 

3.8 

5.4 

0.0 

4.3 

0.1 

25.0 

29.6 

43.4 

381.6 

45.0 

14.6 

66.4 

111.2 

52.9 

193.3 

0.1 

22.3 

 
 
HU 

IE 

IL 

IS 

IT 

KE 

LI 

LT 

LU 

LV 

ME 

MK 

MT 

MY 

NL 

NO 

PL 

PT 

RO 

RS 

SE 

SI 

SK 

TR 

UA 

UK 

US 

14.9 

19.8 

0.0 

6.1 

66.8 

0.0 

1.8 

8.3 

20.8 

8.5 

0.0 

0.2 

6.6 

0.0 

58.7 

11.5 

25.5 

24.8 

20.2 

0.0 

35.9 

7.6 

19.8 

0.0 

3.5 

0.2 

0.1 

5.5 

3.6 

0.4 

2.1 

51.2 

0.0 

0.0 

7.7 

0.0 

2.9 

0.0 

0.5 

2.6 

0.0 

32.3 

6.5 

27.2 

8.4 

12.6 

0.0 

9.7 

5.0 

6.0 

0.0 

0.5 

0.0 

0.4 

1.7 

13.2 

0.0 

0.6 

19.9 

0.5 

0.0 

4.5 

0.4 

2.3 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

4.6 

3.3 

1.9 

9.5 

3.3 

0.0 

2.9 

0.6 

0.4 

0.8 

1.1 

0.0 

0.0 

1.3 

3.1 

0.0 

0.0 

2.9 

0.0 

0.0 

1.3 

15.1 

1.4 

0.4 

1.1 

1.8 

0.1 

23.4 

39.6 

0.4 

8.8 

140.8 

0.5 

1.8 

21.8 

36.3 

15.1 

0.4 

1.9 

11.1 

0.1 

17.5 

113.1 

1.3 

2.0 

1.6 

2.2 

2.1 

8.6 

1.2 

3.5 

0.8 

2.0 

0.0 

0.0 

22.6 

56.6 

44.3 

38.2 

2.1 

57.1 

14.4 

29.7 

1.6 

7.1 

0.2 

0.5 

Total 

1103.4 

414.2 

181.7 

406.1 

2105.5 

Source: DG CNECT

248 

 
 
ANNEX XIII. CASE STUDY REPORT 

Introduction 

This  report  presents  three  case  studies  from  the  Interim  Evaluation  of  the  Digital  Europe 
programme  (from  now  on  Digital  Europe).  These  case  studies  provide  in-depth,  qualitative 
insights into how specific activities under Digital Europe contribute to achieving its objectives. 
The report highlights the effectiveness, coherence, and added value of programme at the EU 
level. 
The report is structured into three key sections: 

•  Case Study 1: Support of digitalisation in SMEs and public administrations 

•  Case Study 2: Technology Infrastructures as drivers of technological deployment and 

innovation 

•  Case Study 3: Synergies  

Case Studies 1 and 2 employ impact pathways to trace the links between programme activities 
and outcomes, offering a clear view of their contributions. Each case study includes detailed 
descriptions of the methodologies and sources used.  

Case Study 1: Support of digitalisation in SMEs and public administrations 

Description  

This  case study explores the initiatives undertaken by the Digital  Europe programme (from 
now on Digital Europe) to support digitalisation in SMEs and public administrations. The case 
study highlights the actions of the European Digital Innovation Hubs, EU data spaces, and 
the Deployment of public services  using selected projects: EDIH AIRE, Data spaces for 
manufacturing and the health data infrastructures and EU Digital Identity Wallet Large 
Scale Pilots. The case study assesses the effectiveness and EU-added value of these actions in 
relation to the digital transformation of SMEs and public administrations, using the selected 
projects as examples. The case study is based on desk research, interviews with beneficiaries 
and surveys with end users.  
Table  presents an overview of specific objectives, actions, and projects the case study cover 
and the key data sources. 

249 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 1. Support of digitalisation of SMEs and public administrations 

Support of digitalisation of SMEs and public administrations 

Specific objectives 

Action 

European Digital Innovation 
Hubs 

European Digital Innovation 
Hubs  

▪  Project  
EDIH AIRE 

Key Data Sources 

Desk research and survey with 
EDIH end users 

Desk research  

SO2 

S05 

EU Data Spaces  

Data spaces for manufacturing 
and the health data 
infrastructures 

Deployment of public services  

EU Digital Identity Wallet 
Large Scale Pilots 

Desk research, interviews with 
Digital Europe beneficiaries  

Source: Technopolis Group, 2024 

The digitalisation of SMEs and public administrations in Europe  
The digital transformation of SMEs and public administrations is key to enhancing the EU’s 
economic competitiveness, increasing technological independence, improving public service, 
and  infrastructure  development.  There  is  a  slow and  uneven  progression  of  digitalisation 
among  SMEs  with  only  20%  of  SMEs  being  highly  digitised  (compared  to  58%  of  large 
enterprises).309 The goal of the EU is to have more than 90% of Small and Medium Enterprises 
(SMEs) reach at least a basic level of digital intensity by 2030 and 75% of companies using 
Cloud, AI or Big Data by 2030.310  
SMEs face several challenges when it comes to digitalisation, with common obstacles relating 
to insufficient digitally skilled workers, finance and access to digital technologies.  Finance is 
a  challenge  as  SMEs  may  face  difficulties  in  accessing  finance  for  intangible  digital 
investments that cannot be used as collateral to secure loans. 24% of small EU non-digital firms 
mention a lack of available finance as a major obstacle.311 Another important challenge to 
SMEs  is  access  to  digital  technologies  and  technical  infrastructure  that  enable  digital 
transformation. SMEs may not have the resources to invest in the infrastructure required for 
the use of the advanced technologies such as big data processing and AI. 15% of EU small 
firms report that securing access to infrastructure is an obstacle.312  
Similarly, there is a slow and uneven uptake of digital solutions in the public sector. Less 
than half of cross-border services are available online.313 The EU has set three key targets 
to improve the digitalisation of public services by 2030. The targets are making 100% of key 
public services digitally accessible, enabling 100% of citizens to have access to medical 
records  and  100%  of  citizens  to  have  access  to  digital  identity  solutions.314  The  EU’s 
strategy for the digital transformation of public services is centred on enhancing accessibility, 
efficiency,  and  user-centricity  and  aims  to  promote  interoperability  among  Member  States, 
fostering seamless cross-border interactions. For public administrations, a major challenge 
for  digital  transformation  is  interoperability,  which  is  required  to  ensure  the  seamless 
functioning of public services across territorial, sectoral, and organisational boundaries, while 
preserving  the  sovereignty  of  administrations  at  all  government  levels.  In  particular,  the 
promotion  of  cross-border  and  interoperable  public  services,  (the  EU  Digital  Identity 
Wallets, the Once Only Principle, blockchain), inclusiveness and accessibility. For example, 

309 See https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=SWD%3A2018%3A305%3AFIN 
310  See  https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/europes-digital-decade-

digital-targets-2030_en   

311 See https://www.eib.org/attachments/publications/economic_investment_report_2021_chapter05_en.pdf 
312 See https://www.eib.org/attachments/publications/economic_investment_report_2021_chapter05_en.pdf  
313 See https://www.capgemini.com/gb-en/news/press-releases/20th-edition-of-the-egovernment-benchmark-report-less-than-

half-of-cross-border-services-available-online-due-to-language-and-electronic-identification-challenges/  

314  See  https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/europes-digital-decade-

digital-targets-2030_en  

250 

 
 
 
digital identification systems offered by governments in the EU are not available to the whole 
population; they are often limited to online public services and do not allow for seamless access 
cross-border. Only 14% of key public service providers across all Member States allow cross-
border authentication with an e-Identity system.315  

Activities 

EU actions for SMEs and Public administrations 
Digital Europe offers support for SMEs and public administrations to uptake new technologies. 
It aims to boost the digital transformation through strategic initiatives to build capacity in skills, 
data infrastructure and technologies, and innovation support through various actions including 
EDIHs, EU Data Spaces, and the deployment of public services. These actions are briefly 
explained below.  
•   EDIHs316 provide companies with access to technical expertise and testing and innovation 
services such as financing advice, training, and skills development needed to improve 
business/production processes, products, or services using digital technologies. EDIHs 
play a central role in the Digital Europe to stimulate the broad uptake of artificial 
intelligence, high performance computing (HPC) and cybersecurity as well as other 
digital technologies by industry (in particular SMEs and midcaps) and public sector 
organisations in Europe. There are 227 European Digital Innovation Hubs, of which 151 
are funded through the Digital Europe. In addition, 18 new EDIHs offering a wide range 
of specialised digital transformation services joined in late 2024 the EDIH network from 
the associated countries Albania, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia, Türkiye, Ukraine 
and Kosovo. As the EDIH catalogue shows there are currently 69 EU funded hubs with a 
focus on public administrations, and 83 hubs with a focus on industry. This case study 
covers the example of the AI and Robotics Estonia (AIRE) EDIH.317  

The AIRE EDIH aims to increase the competitiveness of Estonian enterprises by providing 
a range of services to businesses in the field of AI and robotics. AIRE EDIH offers services 
such as testing of new technology or software, digital maturity assessments, and AI and 
robotics trainings. 

•   European Data spaces aim to facilitate data pooling and sharing across Europe in a 

trustworthy and secure manner, eliminating existing technical barriers. The data spaces 
will enable EU businesses and public administrations to control their data and unlock 
data-driven innovation. Digital Europe aims to develop 14 EU data spaces in strategic 
economic sectors such as health, agriculture, energy, transport and environment 318. The 
European Data Spaces is an action under Specific Objective 2 which is directly managed 

315 See https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/european-digital-

identity_en#:~:text=Benefits%20of%20the%20EU%20Digital%20Identity&text=identify%20online%20and%20offline,p
rovided%20by%20trusted%20private%20sources  

316 See https://european-digital-innovation-hubs.ec.europa.eu/edih-catalogue 

https://www.industriaconectada40.gob.es/Documents/Digital_Innovation_Hubs_in_Digital_Europe_programme.pdf  
317 See https://european-digital-innovation-hubs.ec.europa.eu/knowledge-hub/success-stories/ai-algorithms-and-sensor-

integration-robotic-vessels#solutions  

318 Agriculture, cultural heritage, energy, finance, green deal, health, language, manufacturing, media, mobility, public 

administration, research and innovation, skills and tourism 

251 

 
 
 
 
 
by the Commission through grants and procurement and supported in some areas by the 
European Health and Digital Executive Agency (HaDEA). This case study covers the 
example of the UNDERPIN Data Space for manufacturing319 and the projects 
contributing to the European Health Data Space (EHDS).320 

UNDERPIN  Data  Space  for  Manufacturing  promotes  cross-organisational  data  sharing 
while  prioritising  data  sovereignty.  The  European  Health  Data  Space  (EHDS)  is  a 
structured environment where health-related data, including both open data and restricted 
data, can be securely stored, accessed and shared among authorised stakeholders.  

•   Deployment of public services supports the digitalisation of government and public 

administrations, piloting of AI applications in the law enforcement domain, as well as the 
digital transformation of justice, health and consumer protection. Work is ongoing to 
support interoperability of digital public services within the EU including the deployment 
of the European Digital Identity framework. The deployment of public administration is 
linked to SO5 which is directly managed by the Commission through grants and 
procurement and supported by HaDEA. This case study covers the example of 4 large 
scale pilots being delivered under the EU Digital Identity Wallet.  

The EU Digital Identity Wallet is a convenient and secure method for European citizens 
and  businesses  to  authenticate  their  identity,  using  their  digital  ID  for  both  public  and 
private sector interactions. Four large scale pilots have been launched to test the EU Digital 
Identity wallet in different use-case scenarios. 

Impact pathway 

This case study presents specific impact pathways for the digital transformation of SMEs and 
public administrations based on the actions funded under Digital Europe. The impact pathway 
serves as the foundational intervention logic, guiding the analysis and in this case, shows the 
contribution  of  each  of  the  actions  covered  in  this  case  study.    Figure  6  gives  a  visual 
representation of the impact pathway. 
Figure 6 Impact pathway for the digital transformation of SMEs and public administrations under Digital Europe 

319 See 

https://underpinproject.eu/#:~:text=Data%20Space%20for%20Manufacturing%20Excellence,innovation%20in%20produ
cts%20and%20services.   

320 See https://health.ec.europa.eu/ehealth-digital-health-and-care/european-health-data-space-regulation-ehds_en  

252 

 
 
 
Source: Technopolis Group, 2025 

In  summary,  two  impact  pathways  exist  for  the  digital  transformation  of  SMEs  and  public 
administrations under Digital Europe: the digital transformation of SMEs and the second is for 
the digital transformation of public administrations. 
In summary, for the digital transformation of SMEs, EDIHs provide SMEs with access to AI 
infrastructure,  skills  and  finance  to  uptake  of  AI  technologies  in  developing  products  and 
improving  business  processes.  EDIHs  will  also  provide  a  platform  for  engagement  and 
collaboration  between  SMEs  and  industry  players  in  the  EU  that  is  required  for  ecosystem 
development.  Data spaces are structured environments designed to enable the efficient, secure 
and sovereign data exchange and interoperability among diverse stakeholders. They provide 
data, the infrastructure and governance frameworks required to enable SMEs share and access 
high quality data for better decision-making and the development of innovative products and 
services.  Ultimately,  the  intention  is  that  the  combination  of  the  services  provided  by  the 
EDIHs, and the data spaces will improve the ability of   SMEs to uptake technologies such as 
AI  and  improve  their  digital  capabilities.  This  will  result  in  strengthening  the  EU’s 
competitiveness and its digital strategic autonomy through reinforced digital capabilities.  
For  the  digital  transformation  of  public  administrations,  the  four  large  pilots  will  test  the 
implementation  of  the  EU  Digital  Identity  Wallet  in  payments,  travel,  accessing  digital 
credentials and public services. The successful pilot deployment will enable interoperability of 
public  administrations  and  ensure  smooth  cross-border  identity  authentication  for  citizens, 
resulting in improved digital identity, which will reduce administrative barriers and easy access 
to  online  services.  Still  in  the  area  of  the  public  sector’  digital  transformation,  the 
interoperability chapter of Digital Europe supports the development of interoperability enablers 
(e.g. solutions, specifications, Interoperable Europe solutions), including innovative solutions, 
skills  and  capacity  building  activities  for  public  administrations,  alongside  a  structured 
interoperability governance at Union level, thus paving the way towards a reinforced public 
sector interoperability in the EU321 and seamless digital public services for the benefit of both 

321 As outlined in Letta’s report, full interoperability could boost EU GDP by 0.4% and would increase the number of citizens 

using online public services by 15%. It would also help businesses to save up to EUR 568 billion. 

253 

 
 
 
citizens  and  businesses.   This  digital  transformation  of  public  administrations  will  result  in 
strengthening the EU’s competitiveness and its digital strategic autonomy through reinforced 
digital capabilities.  

The  main  assumptions  that  have  to  be  fulfilled  to  arrive  at  the  intended  impact  of  digital 
transformation  for  SMEs  and  public  administrations  are  presented  in  Table.  The  table  also 
presents external, barriers and drives to the intended outcomes and impact for SMEs and public 
administrations.  
Table 2. Main Assumptions, barriers and drivers   

Action 

EDIH 

European Data spaces  

Main Assumptions  

External barriers 

Drivers 

•  EDHIs stimulate the uptake 
of AI technologies as a one-
stop-shop for technology 
services 

•  EDIH services are provided 

at no cost to SMEs 

•  EDIHs combine the 

benefits of a regional 
presence with the 
opportunities available to a 
pan-European network, 
providing easy access for 
SMEs to get support to help 
them adopt digital 
technologies 

•  Data spaces in strategic 

sectors aimed at serving the 
EU without restrictions to 
participation  

•  Common standards for 
interoperability and 
automation 

•  Data spaces support centre 
supports SMEs that want to 
create sovereign data spaces 

•  SMEs require regional 

•  The complex AI regulatory 

support to develop more 
competitive 
business/production 
processes, products, or 
services using digital 
technologies 

•  Services such as test before 

investing activities, 
training, and access to 
finance are essential for 
SME digitalisation 

•  AI Infrastructure, access to 
finance and a digitally 
skilled work force are 
important factors for SME 
digital transformation of 
SMEs 

•  SMEs are willing to invest 

in the use of AI 
technologies and tools 

•  SMEs are willing to invest 
in the upskilling of staff  

• 

Increased data accessibility 
and sharing will drive 
innovation and 
competitiveness for SMEs 

•  The data spaces will 

provide SMEs with access 
to high quality data assets 
for developing innovative 
services and products 

•  SMEs will be able to 

participate in data spaces 
and benefit from the data 
value chains 

•  Data spaces will provide a 
secure and trustworthy 
environment for data 
exchange, addressing 
privacy and security 
concerns 

•  Data spaces will provide a 
secure and trustworthy 
environment for data 
exchange, addressing 
privacy and security 
concerns 

•  SMEs have the data literacy 

and skills required to 
understand the value of data 

landscape can create 
compliance issues with 
varying standards and 
regulations in Member 
States and sector specific 
regulations 

•  Limited resources available 
to EDIHs may hinder their 
capacity to support of 
SMEs especially in regions 
with fewer financial 
resources. 

•   EDIHs may lack 

infrastructure required for 
the uptake of AI 
technologies such as high-
speed internet and data 

• 

Inconsistencies in data 
protection laws and 
regulations across Member 
States can create obstacles 
for cross-border data 
sharing. 

•  Complex regulatory 

landscape and lack of 
harmonisation across the 
EU may create obstacles for 
SME participation 

•  SMEs may face difficulties 
in accessing and sharing 
data due to technical and 
legal barriers 

•  Data confidentiality in 
healthcare requires 
advanced methods and 
complex frameworks 
enabling data sharing 
 Ensuring seamless data 
exchange across different 
systems and countries may 
be a hurdle 

• 

•  Low-quality data can lead 

to Inaccurate analytics, and 
poor decision-making  

254 

 
  
 
 
Action 

Main Assumptions  

External barriers 

Drivers 

and how it can be used in 
their businesses 

Deployment of public services 
(EU Digital Identity Wallet) 

•  Digital identity 

authentication will support 
the digital transformation of 
public administrations and 
improve public services 

•  Ensuring interoperability 
across different national 
systems and existing 
infrastructure is a challenge 
for cross-border services 

• 

Interoperable infrastructure 
will facilitate cost-effective 
and implementable 
interoperability across the 
EU 

•  EU citizens may not adopt 
the EU Digital Identity 
Wallet due to privacy and 
security concerns and 
usability issues 

•  The consortiums leading 

the large-scale pilots have 
expertise in digital identity 
solutions deployment   

•  The EU Digital Identity 
Wallet is being tested in 
real world scenarios 

• 

Incompatibility with 
existing regulations across 
different EU member states 
could hinder 
implementation 

•  Some EU Members states 
may lack the technological 
infrastructure to support the 
EU Digital Identity wallet 

•  Open-source solutions are 
beneficial, and Member 
Stated will use the open-
source solutions  

•  Large scale pilots are 

effective for testing the EU 
Digital Identity Wallet 
functionality  

•  Cross-sector and cross-

border collaboration will 
lead to comprehensive 
testing 

•  EU citizens have the digital 
skills required to navigate 
the EU Digital Identity 
Wallet 

Source: Technopolis Group, 2025 

Effectiveness  

This  section  provides  an  overview  of  selected  projects  and  initiatives  related  to  digital 
transformation that have been implemented to date, highlighting their potential to contribute to 
the anticipated direct outcomes and wider impacts of Digital Europe. It is important to note that 
most of the actions under Digital Europe are being implemented and first outputs are still being 
achieved. The Staff Working Document on Common European Data Spaces reports that the 
data spaces are in different stages of development. Similarly, for the action on Deployment of 
public  services,  pilot  projects  are  being  implemented  for  EU  Digital  Identity Wallet.322 The 
EDIHs are still in varying stages of being set up. However, some of them have begun to deliver 
services to SMEs.  Considering this, the effects of the actions towards the digital transformation 
of SMEs and public administrations highlighted in this case study are currently limited.  

SMEs across the EU have access to EDIHs and support for the uptake of AI technologies   

The  AI  &  Robotics  Estonia  (AIRE)  EDIH  was  established  in  2022  and  is  dedicated  to 
enhancing innovation in AI and robotics. The mission of AIRE is to support the digitalisation, 
automation and competitiveness of Estonian manufacturing companies through the adaptation 
of AI & robotics-based solutions. AIRE's goal is to foster digital transformation across the EU, 
aiming to boost digital literacy and create new value chains within Europe, while supporting 
SMEs' technological and economic readiness for AI investments.  AIRE is run by a consortium 
led by the Tallinn University of Technology, and its partners are the University of Tartu, the 
Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tehnopol Science and Business Park, Tartu Science Park, 

322 See https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/second-staff-working-document-data-spaces  

255 

 
 
 
and the competence centre IMECC. The hub is supported by other key stakeholders as associate 
partners. AIRE  is  co-funded  by  the  European  Commission  through  Digital  Europe  and  the 
Estonian State through the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications. 

The AIRE EDIH supports the European mission of advancing digital transformation across the 
EU by bringing cutting-edge tech (AI, Cloud, Big Data) to European companies and ensuring 
that companies have a basic level of digital know-how. Table   below provides an overview of 
the services AIRE provides to SMEs. 

Table 3. Overview of AIRE services   

AIRE Services 

Description of services 

Digital maturity assessments 

AIRE offers digital maturity assessments to help companies evaluate their ability to implement new 
technologies, evaluate process productivity and organisational capacity 

AI suitability assessments 

AIRE offers AI consulting services to assess a company’s ability to implement artificial intelligence 
(AI)solutions.  

Robotics suitability assessment  A central analysis of a company’s processes to assess the feasibility of robotization.  

Trainings and courses 

Demonstration projects  

AIRE pre-accelerator 

AIRE partners with universities (the University of Tartu, Tallinn University of Technology, the 
Estonian University of Life Sciences, and the IMECC Development Centre) to offer trainings to 
industrial enterprises. The trainings and courses are aimed at expanding knowledge and skills in AI 
and robotics.  

Demonstration projects enable companies to test, experiment or validate AI and robotics technologies 
before investing.  These demonstration projects are targeted at SMEs with up to 250 employees and a 
turnover of 50m euros.  

The pre-accelerator provides companies with mentorship and training to enable them launch of a new 
product or service based on the technological solution tested in the demo project. The pre-accelerator 
also provides support for entering foreign markets through direct contacts and knowledge-building. 

Financial sources of funding – 
Public measures    

Financial advisory services to help industrial companies secure additional funding through public 
measures 

Financial sources of funding – 
Private capital   

AIRE club 

A market-based consulting service to help companies access capital through private equity investment  

A series of events for those interested in the field of robotics and AI to share experiences, 
communicate and network  

International partnerships 

AIRE promotes collaboration opportunities between industrial companies, researchers, IT and 
electronics companies, and innovation project funders 

Source: AIRE EDIH website, 2024  

Based  on  the  evidence  available  to  the  evaluation  team,  the AIRE  EDIH  has  been  able  to 
support  SMEs  in  Estonia  in  their  digital  transformation  journey  through its  digital  maturity 
assessments, test-before-invest services, demonstration projects and training. 

The  AIRE  EDIH  initiates  test-before-invest  demonstration  projects  with  manufacturing 
companies  to  enable  companies  to  test  AI  technologies  before  investing  in  them.  The 
demonstration  projects  run  from  6-9  months  and  are  implemented  in  collaboration  with 
enterprise and R&D institutions. The enterprise brings forward problem to be solved or an idea 
to be implemented, and the AIRE Development Team offer a solution and implements it.  The 
demonstration projects also support knowledge transfer from universities to companies. The 
AIRE  EDIH  Development  Team  is  comprised  of  researchers  from  AIRE  partner  R&D 
institutions (the University of Tartu, Tallinn University of Technology, the Estonian University 
of  Life  Sciences,  and  the  IMECC  Development  Centre).  The  AIRE  Development  Team 
provides extensive support for selected demonstration projects, which justifiably leverage AI 
and AI-enabling technologies. The technical solution used in the demonstration project is either 
an AI prerequisite323 or AI technology324. Ideas eligible for the demonstration projects include 

323 AI prerequisite technologies - context-aware technologies that create or process data automatically. There is a degree of 

uncertainty - the technical solution will emerge as the work progresses.  

324 AI technologies - technologies which apply generally accepted AI algorithms and methods 

256 

 
 
testing  and  validating  automatic  guided  vehicles  in  a  complex  warehouse  setup, AI-based 
prediction  models, collaborative robots with  some never-before-tested application, AI-based 
employee  training,  algorithmic  or  decision  tree-based  approaches  to  customer  support  and 
novel computer vision solutions.  

The  outcome  and  impact  of  each AIRE  demonstration  project  is  outside  the  scope  of  this 
evaluation.  However,  it  is  expected  that  the  technical  solutions  developed  should  lead  to 
positive  business  impacts  such  as  increased  sales  and  efficiency  and  the  results  from  the 
demonstration projects conducted by AIRE can be reused by other companies in any sector. So 
far, AIRE  has  launched  and  conducted  30  tests  before  invest  demonstration  projects  with 
SMEs.325 These projects include the testing of audio-based and user experience-driven content 
based  on  artificial  intelligence  technology  for  the  time-critical  support  of  children’s  mental 
health and testing of efficient AI models for cost reduction of drone navigation modules. 

Furthermore, AIRE holds monthly  events  known as  ‘Clubs’ which  are aimed at  creating an 
environment  for  those  interested  in  the  field  of  robotics  and  AI  to  share  experiences, 
communicate and network with each other.326 The AIRE club events also serve as a platform 
to connect with other EDIHs.327 Over 1000 participants have taken part in the Clubs about AI 
and robotics use-cases and best practices.328 

AIRE offers two trainings, which vary in terms of content and duration are tailored to industry 
needs. First is an intensive course that provides in-depth learning and practical development of 
skills in AI and robotics. Second are webinars that enable participants listen to expert lectures, 
ask questions, and share experiences with other attendees. Around 600 people have participated 
in AIRE trainings. In future, AIRE plans to offer Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) that 
will provide a deeper understanding of AI and robotics principles, applications, and practical 
skills.    

Based  on  the  review  of  the  completed  demonstration  projects  which  aimed  at  testing  and 
validating  the  use  of AI  techniques  such  as  machine  learning  and  neural  networks  to  help 
businesses  in  areas  such  increasing  efficiency  and  safety  in  production  processes329  and 
ensuring quality control330, AIRE has been able to make some progress in enabling SMEs in 
Estonia to leverage AI. This is in line with the experience of users of the EDHIs. Respondents 
to the EDIH end-user survey highlighted that the use of EDIH services had a high impact on 
the innovation, productivity and growth of their company (35% n = 249) and 22% stated EDIHs 
has a medium impact.  Additionally, 80% of end-users responded that EDIHs were effective in 
addressing their needs.  

In the next section, the collaboration between AIRE and Mindchip OÜ as an exemplar of the 
impact of this EDIH is presented 

325See  https://aire-edih.eu/2023/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/aire-visioon.pdf  
326 See https://aire-edih.eu/2023/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/aire-visioon.pdf  
327  See  https://aire-edih.eu/en/at-start-up-day-aire-hosted-european-partners-and-shared-inspiring-artificial-intelligence-case-

studies/  

328  See  https://aire-edih.eu/en/at-start-up-day-aire-hosted-european-partners-and-shared-inspiring-artificial-intelligence-case-

studies/ 

329  See  https://aire-edih.eu/en/project/2024-testing-of-machine-vision-based-workpiece-misplacement-detection-and-quality-

check-of-a-collaborative-robot/   

330 

See 

https://aire-edih.eu/en/project/2024-validation-of-a-multi-purpose-quality-control-system-operated-by-artificial-

intelligence-for-food-industry-production-lines-at-noo-lihatoostus/  

257 

 
 
AIRE  EDIH  collaborates  with  Mindchip  OÜ  to  develop  an AI  vision  system  for  autonomous 
navigation   

Mindchip  OÜ  is  an  Estonian  technology  company  that  specialises  in  the  design  and  development  of 
autonomous  navigation  technology  for  the  marine  industry.  The  main  challenge  Mindchip  OÜ  faced  was 
integrating an AI system to allow reliable identification of other ships and buoys and ensure safer navigation. 
The  AIRE  EDIH  worked  with  Mindchip  OÜ  to  develop  an  AI  model  trained  on  high-resolution  imagery 
captured  by  four  strategically  positioned  cameras,  seamlessly  integrated  into  the  robust  Robot  Operating 
System (ROS). 

AIRE EDIH provided Mindchip OÜ with access to technical expertise and its test-before-invest service which 
enabled the company to resolve its challenges and advance their product. As a result of working with AIRE, 
Mindchip  OÜ  were  able  to  develop  an  AI-based  machine  vision  system  that  enhanced  the  company’s 
capabilities in autonomous navigation.  

Mindchip  OÜ  is  an  Estonian  technology  company  that  specializes  in  the  design  and 
development  of  autonomous  navigation  technology  for  the  marine  industry.  The  company 
makes the maritime industry cost-effective by developing autonomous self-adaptive captains 
that adjusts to different sea vessels. The main challenge Mindchip OÜ faced was developing 
and  integrating  its AI-based  machine  vision  system  for  autonomous  ships  to  allow  reliable 
identification of other ships and buoys and ensure safer navigation. To solve this challenge, 
AIRE  EDIH  provided  Mindchip  OÜ  with  access  to  technical  expertise  and  the  test-before-
invest service which enabled the company to resolve its challenges and advance their product. 
The AIRE EDIH worked with Mindchip OÜ on two test-to-invest demonstration projects to 
develop  an  AI  model  trained  on  high-resolution  imagery  captured  by  four  strategically 
positioned cameras, seamlessly integrated into the robust Robot Operating System (ROS).  A 
tailored data set was developed to enhance buoy detection accuracy and enabled the AI system 
to meet the safety standards required for autonomous ship navigation. The system’s validation 
was tested at sea and able to reliably detect small boats from 100 to 150 metres away and larger 
vessels from farther distances. As a result of working with the AIRE EDIH, Mindchip OÜ was 
able to develop an AI-based machine vision system with enhanced its AI detection capabilities 
and the operational efficiency of its autonomous ships. The potential benefits of the project for 
Mindchip OÜ include a cost-effective autonomous navigation system that reduces operation 
expenses  and  enhances  maritime  safety  and  efficiency  through  the AU-based  vision  system 
which reduces the likelihood of accidents.331   

In  terms  of  wider  benefits,  the  ROS  used  in  the  project  has  potential  applications  beyond 
maritime including land-based robotics and smart city infrastructure, underscoring the potential 
of  the  project  to  drive  innovation  across  domains.332  In  terms  of  digital  transformation,  the 
AIRE EDIH reports that as a result of this project, Mindchip OÜ has evolved in 3 categories: 
Green  Digitalisation  (up  30%),  Digital  Strategy  and  Investments  (up  23%),  Human-Centric 
Digitalisation (up 13%).333 Furthermore, the MindChip team noted that the AIRE EDIH has 

331See 

https://european-digital-innovation-hubs.ec.europa.eu/knowledge-hub/success-stories/ai-algorithms-and-sensor-

integration-robotic-vessels#solutions  

332 

333 

See 

https://european-digital-innovation-hubs.ec.europa.eu/knowledge-hub/success-stories/ai-algorithms-and-sensor-

integration-robotic-vessels#solutions 

See 

https://european-digital-innovation-hubs.ec.europa.eu/knowledge-hub/success-stories/ai-algorithms-and-sensor-

integration-robotic-vessels#solutions  

258 

 
 
 
been  helpful  in  supporting  them  to  source  funds  through  its  public  funding  service  and 
introducing them to other EDHIS for collaborations.334  

SMEs leverage data spaces for better decision-making and product development 

The  UNDERPIN  Data  Space  for  manufacturing  project  aims  to  develop  and  deploy  a  data 
space in critical manufacturing sectors for dynamic asset management as well as predictive and 
prescriptive maintenance. The project is being delivered by a consortium of 11 organisations335 
from 5 EU countries and is expected to run from December 2023 to November 2025. 

UNDERPIN  Data  Space  for  Manufacturing  project  aims  to  develop  and  deploy  a  data  space  in  critical 
manufacturing sectors for dynamic asset management as well as predictive and prescriptive maintenance. The 
project  is  piloting  two  use  cases  in  the  oil  refinery  and  wind  farm  domain.  Upon  the  completion,  the 
UNDERPIN Data Space for Manufacturing project is expected to produce cross-organisational and cross-use-
case data sharing and exchanging solution that ensures data sovereignty for SMEs and large industry players 
to improve products and services. 

The UNDERPIN project is currently implementing use cases for the data spaces through two 
real  world  demonstrators  in  the  oil  refinery  and  wind  farm  domains.336  The  refinery 
demonstration aims to improve maintenance processes and decision-making to determine the 
best time for preventive maintenance scheduling. Thereby minimising downtime and effects 
on production capabilities.  The wind farm demonstration aims to implement a robust predictive 
maintenance system for wind turbines by developing an advanced Machine Learning model 
capable of predicting equipment failures and identifying abnormal behaviour trends.337 These 
two use cases are expected to validate the benefits of industrial data sharing especially in the 
area of enhancing operations for SMEs in these sectors.  After the demonstrations, the next 
steps  include  demonstrating  the  ability  to  scale  up  the  UNDERPIN  Data  Space  during 
production phase, creating a pilot for the first digital product passports (DPPs) and planning 
the deployment of DPPs for new stakeholders. The consortium is also expected to develop the 
legal framework for the UNDERPIN data space, a feasible and sustainable business model for 
the UNDERPIN Data Space and develop actions for commercializing the dataspace service.338 
UNDERPIN Data Space is expected to provide a cross-organisational and cross-use-case data 
sharing  and  exchanging  solution  that  ensures  data  sovereignty,  with  a  strong  focus  on  the 
interplay of SMEs and large industry players to improve products and services. The benefits of 
the manufacturing data space for SMEs include optimised operations, enabling industries to 
leverage  data  spaces  to  gain  insights  into  their  operations,  predict  maintenance  need  and 
optimize processes. This proactive approach could reduce downtime, cut  costs and improve 
overall efficiency.  

SMEs leverage health data for research and development of AI solutions for personalised 
health treatments 

334 

See 

https://european-digital-innovation-hubs.ec.europa.eu/knowledge-hub/success-stories/ai-algorithms-and-sensor-

integration-robotic-vessels#solutions  

335 Motor Oil, Athena, Innov-acts, More energy, Water Meaon Blue Innovation, Tikopro, Semantic Web Company, Ontotext, 

Austrian Institute of Technology, SPACE and Harokopio University 

336 See https://underpinproject.eu/use-cases/  
337 See https://underpinproject.eu/use-cases/  
338 See https://underpinproject.eu/work-packages/  

259 

 
 
 
The European Health Data Space (EHDS) will promote digital transformation and widen the 
use of health data by making it easier to exchange and access health data at the EU level. The 
EHDS  aims  to  create  a  federated,  EU-wide  data  infrastructure  for  health-related  data  and 
address key challenges facing healthcare systems in Europe resulting from lack of access to 
health data. Digital Europe supports specific aspects of the EHDS through the Genomic Data 
Infrastructure (GDI) and European Federation for Cancer Images (EUCAIM).   

Table gives an overview of the projects. 

Table 4. Overview of health data related projects  

Digital Europe 
Action 

Federated 
European 
infrastructure for 
genomics data 

Project 

Objective 

Consortium 

Genomic Data Infrastructure 
(GDI) 

To enable access to genomic 
and related phenotypic and 
clinical data across Europe by 
establishing a federated, 
sustainable and secure 
infrastructure to access the 
data.  

70 project partners across 24 countries and 
two international organisations 

European Federation for 
Cancer Images (EUCAIM)  

Federated 
European 
infrastructure for 
cancer images data 

To build a pan-European 
digital federated infrastructure 
of FAIR, de-identified, cancer 
imaging data from daily 
clinical practice (real world 
data) that will be used to 
develop, validate and 
benchmark AI tools towards 
precision medicine 
Source: Digital Europe programme Work Programme (2021/2022 and 2023/2024), GDI and EUCAIM websites, 
2024 

79 organisations from 14 countries  

The GDI project aims to enable secure cross-border access to genomic and related clinical data 
to improve research, policymaking and healthcare across Europe in at least 15 countries by the 
end of 2026. The GDI project began in 2022 and is expected to be completed in 2026.  So far, 
the  GDI  project  has  delivered  a  GDI  Starter  Kit,339  which  gives  countries  the  technical 
capability to access more than 2,500 synthetic genomics and phenotypic data sets (including 
cancer, rare diseases and population genomics) across-borders, and several demonstrators of 
specific  use  cases.  It  is  expected  that  insights  from  the  data  will  support improved  clinical 
diagnostics,  treatments  and  predictive  medicine for  European  citizens.  The  project  is  also 
expected to lead to better public health measures for citizens, benefit healthcare systems and 
the  economy  and  create  opportunities  for  personalised  medicine,  notably  through  synergies 
with and infrastructural support for the Genome of Europe project under the Work Programme 
2023-2024 of DIGITAL, which was launched in October 2024 and will establish a European 
reference genome.340  

The EUCAIM project aims to deploy  a pan-European digital federated infrastructure which 
will  facilitate  access  to  cancer  images  data  and  related  patient  data  and  provide  a  trusted 
framework for researchers, innovators and clinicians to develop and benchmark trustworthy AI 
tools based on imaging data. In terms of outputs, the first version of the Cancer Image Europe 
Platform launched in September 2023 and featured public catalogue of 46 datasets containing 
over  200,000  images  covering  9  cancer  types  (breast,  colon,  lung,  prostate,  rectum,  liver, 

339 See https://github.com/GenomicDataInfrastructure  
340 See https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/genome-europe-project-launched-first-step-towards-european-reference-

genome  

260 

 
 
 
glioma, neuroblastoma and glioblastoma).341 The project’s goal is to have at least 30 distributed 
data providers from 15 countries, more than 100,000 cases and 60 million images available, 
and at least 50 AI algorithms and prediction models for cancer care by 2026. A first version of 
the  rules  for  data  providers  and  users  and  the  operational  procedures  for  the  Cancer  Image 
Europe  platform have  been  also  published  on  the  EUCAIM  project  website. The  EUCAIM 
project began in 2023 and is expected to be completed in 2026.  

The  GDI  and  EUCAIM  projects  are  still  in  their  development  phases  and  delivering  early 
outputs. One EU level stakeholder, mentioned that EUCAIM is enabling the translation from 
research to deployment with the establishment of state-of-the-art digital infrastructure in cancer 
imaging  leveraging  the  use  of  data  and  AI.  Overall,  it  is  expected  that  the  successful 
implementation of the GDI and EUCAIM projects will help transform healthcare delivery and 
healthcare research in the EU by providing SMEs with access to large scale data that can be 
used to develop and test innovative AI tools and solutions in areas such as cancer treatment and 
diagnosis. In addition, the projects are expected to make it easier for SMEs to access secondary 
data for research aimed at driving healthcare innovation forward. 

In order to create safe and efficient ways to develop and use artificial intelligence as medical 
devices, the SHAIPED project maps the regulatory landscape for AI medical devices. It also 
builds  practical  regulatory  sandboxes  and  methodologies  for  Health  Data  Access  Bodies 
(HDABs), developers, authorities and data holders to facilitate the integration and deployment 
of AI medical devices in clinical settings and healthcare infrastructures. The expected outcomes 
are operational  pathways and guidance for conformity assessment of AI  medical  devices in 
alignment with the European health data spaces, AI Act and regulatory standards, feeding into 
COMPASS-AI342 and the Medical Device Coordination Group’s working groups343. 

Cross-border digital identification through the EU Digital Identity Wallet 

The EU Digital Identity Wallet initiative aims to provide European citizens with a secure and 
interoperable  digital  identity  solution.  In  2023,  four  large-scale  pilots  (LSP)  pilots  were 
launched  to  evaluate  the  EU  Digital  Identity Wallet  implementation  in  travel,  payment  and 
education and social security prior to its official introduction to Member States. The LSPs are 
the EU Digital Identity Wallet Consortium (EWC), POTENTIAL, NOBID and DC4EU. Each 
pilot is structured as a consortium that merges expertise from both the public and private sectors 
within the EU, with co-funding provided by grants from the European Commission. Table gives 
an overview of the LSPs. 

Table 5.. Overview of LSPs for the EU Digital Identity Wallet  

Large scale pilot 

Objective 

Consortium 

EU Digital Identity Wallet 
Consortium (EWC) 

The European Digital Wallet Consortium aims to leverage 
benefits of digital identity for travel across the EU 

27 EU member states and 76 partners 
and associated partners 

POTENTIAL 

To foster innovation, collaboration and growth in six digital 
identity sectors: governmental services, banking, 

19 EU member states and 140 public 
and private partners 

341 

See 

https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/europes-beating-cancer-plan-first-prototype-cancer-image-europe-

platform-goes-live  

342 Commission launches flagship initiative to increase use of AI in healthcare | Shaping Europe’s digital future 
343 Medical Device Coordination Group Working Groups - Public Health 

261 

 
 
 
 
Large scale pilot 

NOBID 

DC4EU 

Objective 
telecommunications, mobile driving licenses, electronic 
signatures, and health 

Consortium 

NOBID pilots the use of the EU Digital Identity Wallet for 
payments of products and services  

6 countries (Denmark, Germany, 
Iceland, Italy, Latvia and Norway) 

Digital Credentials for Europe provides support to public and 
private sectors in education and social security 

22 EU member states, 43 public 
organisations and 49 private entities 

The 4 LSPs are currently in various stages and are assessing the usability of the EUID. EWC 
is piloting travel use cases to demonstrate how eIDAS will transform the safety, security and 
convenience  of  eCommerce.  The  EWC  will  create  two  common  building  blocks  that  will 
support  the  travel  use  case  in  payments  and  organisational  digital  identity. The  EWC 
consortium  has  been  able  to  build  and  design  three  travel  scenarios  into  the  technical 
specifications;  using  the  EU  Digital  Identity  Wallet  for  the  automation  of  the  collection  of 
Advanced Passenger Information (APIS) during airline check-in, register for workshops and 
booking of tickets and for online verification when buying tickets. In addition, two payment 
scenarios were developed for the use of the EUDI wallet  for age verification during online 
shopping and QR code vending machine age verification when buying products of age344.   

NOBID focuses on digital payments, one of the top priority use cases in the EU Digital Identity 
Wallet.  Its  objective  is  to  test  the  authorisation  of  payments  by  wallet  holders,  as  well  as 
examine the issuance of wallets and financial institutions’ provision of payment. The NOBID 
consortium has been able to identify Qualified Electronic Attestations of Attributes (QEAAs)345 
to be tested and is currently planning tests that will demonstrate the ability to issue and revoke 
QEAAs of national and international interest. This involves ensuring that these attributes are 
interoperable across-borders and can be used effectively within the European Digital Identity 
Wallet.346 QEAAs are required in the EU Digital Identity Wallet to ensure secure, standardised 
and legally recognised digital attestations.  The DC4EU project focuses on the development 
and  implementation  of  four  use  cases  of  the  EU  Digital  Identity  Wallet  for  educational 
credentials,  professional  qualifications,  Portable  Documents  and  the  European  Health 
Insurance  Card  (EHIC)  in  the  fields  of  Education  and  Social  Security.347 According  to  the 
project timeline, the DC4EU consortium is currently launching LSCs scenarios, which will be 
followed by a user journey roll out in 2025348. POTENTIAL seeks to test use cases for the EU 
Digital Identity Wallet particularly in access to digital public services, opening a bank account 
online,  creating  a  telephone  line  using  SIM  cards,  paperless  driving  licenses,  electronic 
signatures, and digital medical prescriptions. This will allow citizens to quickly and securely 
prove their identity as part of their online citizenship procedures. The POTENTIAL consortium 
is  now  working  on  the  national  implementations  of  the  EU  Digital  Identity  Wallet  across 
Member States and at the beginning of next year will initiate a proof of concept to demonstrate 
the feasibility and efficiency of the wallet ecosystem on a broader scale.349 It challenging to 
determine the effectiveness of the four LSPs as they are in their implementation and testing 
phase.   However,  it  is  expected  that  the  successful  piloting  of  the  four  LSPs  will  support 

344  See    https://eudiwalletconsortium.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/EWC-P1-Overview-Citizen-feedback-and-end-user-

piloting-202410.pdf  

345 QEAAs are issued by a qualified trust service provider that meet specific requirements laid down in eIDAS 2.0 regulation 
346 See https://www.nobidconsortium.com/meet-the-work-packages-discover-wp6s-work-on-qeaa-issuance/  
347 See https://dm158x9fyyzgp.cloudfront.net/wp-

content/uploads/2024/02/DC4EU_D1.1_Project_Management_Handbook_v.01.pdf  

348 See https://www.dc4eu.eu/outputs/  
349 See https://www.digital-identity-wallet.eu/assets/files/Potential%20-%20Press%20Release%202.pdf 

262 

 
 
 
Member States in meeting their obligation under the upcoming EU Digital Identity Framework 
Regulation to make an EU Digital Identity Wallet available to citizens and businesses by the 
end of 2026.  An interview with one of the partners involved in the EWC project highlighted 
that  the  LSPs  provide  public  administrations in  EU  members  states  with  the  opportunity  to 
collaborate  with  private  companies  and  build  the  technical  capacity  required  to  test  and 
implement the EU Digital Identity Wallet.350  

It is intended that the four LSPs will help drive the provisions of EAA/QEAAs to the EU Digital 
Identity  Wallet  by  providing  support  for  Member  States  entities  taking  on  the  role  of 
EAA/QEAA  providers  and  support  public  and  private  replying  parties  in  adapting  the  EU 
Digital Identity Wallet as a means for users to authenticate themselves to access public and 
private  services.  Furthermore,  LSPs  are  expected  to  provide  feedback  on  the ARF  as  they 
develop  and  interact  with  Relying  Party  services,  Qualified  or  non-qualified  Electronic 
Attestations of Attributes (Q)EAA Providers, Person Identification Data (PID) Providers and 
Users in meaningful transactions under the proposed use cases.351 

Coherence 

In  terms  of  internal  coherence,  the EDIHs are  supporting  the  roll-out  of  the  technologies 
relevant to the EUCAIM, for example, by informing innovators about the legal requirements 
and  testing  facilities,  offer  test  before  invest  services,  networking  events  and  training 
opportunities in advanced digital skill.  When the data spaces are completed, they are expected 
to have synergies with the AI Testing and Experimentation Facilities (TEFs).  For example, 
EUCAIM plans to make cancer image data available to the AI Testing and Experimentation 
Facility for Health AI and Robotics and enable SMEs who have developed AI solutions  for 
cancer care to test them in real-life environments. Some synergies are expected between the 
Once-Only-Technical  System  (OOTS)  and  the  EU  Digital  Identity  Wallet.  The  EU  Digital 
Identity Wallet provides an additional means for citizens and businesses for authentication and 
identification  purposes  when  using  the  OOTS,  facilitating  and  enriching  the  procedure  in  a 
cross-border context.  

In terms of external coherence, the actions in this case study have synergies with wider EU 
policy priorities and projects. For example, the EUCAIM project is coherent with the Europe 
Beating  Cancer  Plan,  which  aims  to  improve  the  prevention,  detection,  treatment  and 
management  of  cancer  in  the  EU  while  reducing  health  inequalities  between  and  within 
Member  States.  Furthermore,  the  EUCAIM  project  builds  on  the  outputs  of  Artificial 
Intelligence  for  Health  Imaging  (AI4HI)  project  cluster.  AI4HI  is  a  network  of  multiple 
Horizon  2020  research  projects  currently  working  on  developing  cancer  imaging  data 
repositories and AI solutions based on medical imaging to improve clinical practice.352 

Similarly, the GDI builds on the outputs of the Beyond 1 million Genomes (B1MG) project, 
which was funded by European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation programme353 
and the EU’s flagship 1+ million Genomes (1+MG) initiative354 which aims to enable secure 
access to genomics and the corresponding clinical data across Europe to support research and 

350 Interview with EWC project partner  
351 See https://ai4hi.net/  
352 AI4HI | Ai for Health Imaging 
353 Beyond One million Genomes (B1MG) project 
354 European '1+ million Genomes' Initiative | Shaping Europe’s digital future 

263 

 
 
health policy making and incentivise personalised healthcare treatments with the potential to 
improve disease prevention.  

As this is an interim evaluation, the impact of the projects covered in this case study in relation 
to the digital transformation of SMEs and public administration are yet to emerge. Considering 
this, we highlight the expected EU-added value of the actions and projects where possible.  

EDIH 

It is important to note that the EDIHs are in varying stages of being set up, therefore, it is too 
early to state their EU added value to member states. However, in the case of AIRE EDIH, the 
Digital Europe may complement the country’s efforts to provide enterprises with access to AI 
technologies. Only 5.2% of Estonian enterprises have adopted AI against an EU average of 
8%.355    In  this  context,  the AIRE  EDIH  is  expected  to  provide  SMEs  with  technological 
resources to uptake AI.  For example, the AIRE EDIH will act as a one-stop-shop in Estonia 
that provides SMEs with the technical infrastructure and expertise required for the uptake of 
AI technologies through the test-before-invest service, which reduces risks in adopting new 
technologies, and trainings on AI to enhance the skills and competency of SMEs.   

In terms of finance, Digital Europe allows Member States and the EU to co-invest jointly in 
the  same  EDIH,  thus  stimulating  the  pooling  of  resources.  The AIRE  EDIH  is  co-funded 
through Digital Europe and the Estonian government through the Ministry of Economic Affairs 
and Communication. This funding model allows AIRE to provide its services for free to SMEs 
in Estonia and contribute to accelerating their digital transformation efforts, thereby helping to 
bridge the digitalising gap among SMEs in Estonia.  

Data spaces 

The data spaces are expected to address the unique needs of SME in the manufacturing and 
health sector by bringing together relevant data infrastructures and governance frameworks to 
facilitate data pooling, access and sharing. This will enable SMEs in the EU to access and use 
data  for  the  development  of  innovative  products  and  services.  Digital  Europe  supports  the 
development  of key digital infrastructures for use by EU Member states which can only  be 
achieved  at  the  EU  level.  For  example,  stakeholders  interviewed  commented  that  the 
development of digital infrastructures in cancer imaging which permits cross-border access to 
high  quality  imaging  data  requires  stakeholders  across  Europe  to  develop  of AI  models  for 
improving  detection  and  screening  diagnostics.  Similarly,  stakeholders  commented  that  the 
developing  a  GDI  and  a  representative  reference  genome  set  of  the  European  population 
(Genome of Europe) is again something that can only be achieved at EU level.356  

EU Digital Identity Wallet 

The EU Digital Identity Wallet aim to offers a universal, trustworthy and secure way for citizens 
to identify themselves when accessing public and private services, digital documents and have 
control  over  how  their  data  is  handled  by  both  private  and  public  organisations.  This 
implementation  of  the  EU  Digital  Identity Wallet  requires  cross-border  interoperability  and 
collaboration at the EU level to ensure smooth implementation. Digital Europe enables pooling 
of resources for this. For example, the EWC Consortium is a collective of stakeholders from 

355 See https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/factpages/estonia-2024-digital-decade-country-report  
356 Interview with EU implementing organisation 

264 

 
 
across  the  EU,  each  contributing  their  unique  strengths  to  driving  the  development  and 
implementation of the EU Digital Identity Wallet.  

Conclusions 

Most projects currently funded under Digital Europe are in their implementation phase, with 
key activities underway and initial outputs being delivered. The effectiveness of the EU Digital 
Identity wallet in relation to improving citizens and business access to services, requires further 
analysis.  At this point in time and based on the evidence available, Digital Europe has started 
to contribute in numerous ways to the digital transformation of SMEs. For example, Digital 
Europe has provided a platform to enable SMEs to access and leverage AI technologies., e.g. 
The  test-before-invest  services  have  contributed  to  enabling  SMEs  address  technological 
challenges and improve their product offering, as can be seen in the examples of MindChip and 
AIRE EDIH. 

Digital Europe has primarily contributed to the digital transformation of public administrations 
by enabling the development and testing of key technical infrastructure required for the digital 
authentication of citizens in travel, online payment, verification of educational credentials and 
accessing public services. Based on the evidence collected in this case study, Digital Europe 
funded  projects  are  contributing  to  the  development  and  piloting  of  tools  to  ensure  open, 
efficient,  user-friendly,  end-to-end  digital  public  services  to  citizens  and  businesses  across-
borders. For example, Digital Europe is enabling the procurement and technical infrastructure 
to support interoperability and implementation of the EU Digital Identity Wallet through the 
EWC. The EU Digital Identity Wallet framework is open source, ensuring that resources will 
be accessible to the public, allowing Member States to develop their own wallet. Also, pilot 
projects  have  been  launched  for  the  deployment  of  digital  identity  authentication  in  public 
services, in line with the Digital Decade target of ensuring interoperable public services across-
borders.  Through  these  projects,  public  administrations  in  members  states  are  building  the 
necessary expertise and infrastructure to facilitate provision of the EU Digital Identity Wallet 
by the end of 2026.  

Sources and methodology  

This  case  study  was  developed  using  desk  research,  interviews  and  the  Digital  Europe 
beneficiary survey. 

European Commission. (n.d.). Europe's digital decade: 2030 targets. Retrieved 17 November 
2024, 
from https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-
fit-digital-age/europes-digital-decade-digital-targets-2030_en 

European Commission. (2024). Digital Europe work programmes. Digital Strategy. Retrieved 
17 November, 2024, from https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/activities/work-programmes-
digital 

change 

European Investment Bank. (2021). Investment Report 2021/2022: Recovery as a springboard 
for 
digital 
transformation. https://www.eib.org/attachments/publications/economic_investment_report_2
021_chapter05_en.pdf 

Investing 

Europe's 

Chapter 

5: 

in 

- 

265 

 
European  Commission.  (2021).  Annex  to  the  Commission  Implementing  Decision  on  the 
financing of the Digital Europe programme and adoption of the multiannual work programme 
–  European  Digital  Innovation  Hubs  for  2021  –  2023.  Retrieved  17  November  2024, 
from https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/repository/document/2021-
45/C_2021_7911_1_EN_annexe_acte_autonome_cp_part1_v2_d4ygL3fB7OJrEhLGIXBaC5
w0X0_80907.pdf  

AI algorithms and sensor integration for robotic vessels. European Digital Innovation Hubs. 
Retrieved 
from https://european-digital-innovation-
2024, 
hubs.ec.europa.eu/knowledge-hub/success-stories/ai-algorithms-and-sensor-integration-
robotic-vessels#solutions  

November 

17 

Survey of Digital Europe beneficiaries  

Interview with CIRPASS Consortium Coordinator, 10 October 2024 

Interview with EU Digital Identity Wallet Coordinator, 24 October 2024; Interview with EDIH 
coordinators 

Case  Study  2:  Technology  Infrastructures  as  drivers  of  technological 
deployment and innovation 

Description  

The  European  Innovation Agenda,  released  in  2022  with  the  ambition  to  support  deep  tech 
innovation  and  the  innovation  capacity  across  EU  regions,  recognises  the  capacity  of 
Technology Infrastructures ‘to underpin national and regional innovation ecosystems’. Specific 
attention is given to TIs or TI-related activities under a specific ‘Flagship on enabling deep tech 
innovation through experimentation spaces and public procurement’357. This notably included 
the  launch  of  testing  and  experimentation  facilities  for AI  innovation  at  a  European  scale, 
designed  to  allow  innovators  to  trial  state-of-the-art  solutions  and  products  in  real-world 
environments established through Digital Europe and among the activities covered in this case 
study.  

The European strategy on research and technology infrastructures358 adopted on 15 September 2025 sets 
out a comprehensive approach to strengthen that infrastructures remain world-class, more accessible, 
and better aligned with the needs of scientists, innovators and industry.  

Furthermore, the European Commission will develop in 2025 a Charter of Access for industrial users 
to research and technology infrastructures, as planned in the EU start-up and scaleup strategy359, with 
the objective to facilitate access for industry including start-ups and scaleups to cutting-edge research, 
technology facilities, and expertise to rapidly test, scale, and validate new products, accelerating time-
to-market  and  boosting  commercialisation  success.Insufficient  investments  in  Digital,  Research, 
and  Technology  Infrastructures  have  resulted  in  significant  gaps  across  various  digital 
ecosystems. As an illustration, the Digital Europe Impact Assessment360 identifies significant 

357 

https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/strategy/support-policymaking/shaping-eu-research-and-innovation-

policy/new-european-innovation-agenda_en 

358 A European strategy on research and technology infrastructures EUR-Lex - 52025DC0497R(01) - EN - EUR-Lex 
359 The EU start-up and scaleup strategy EUR-Lex - 52025DC0270 - EN - EUR-Lex 
360 

https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-budget/performance-and-reporting/programme-performance-

statements/digital-europe-programme-performance_en 

266 

 
 
challenges in Artificial Intelligence development in Europe, These challenges include the lack 
of  large-scale  datasets  and  advanced  facilities  for  testing  and  validating  cutting-edge 
technologies in real-world settings. While programs, such as Horizon 2020 have achieved 
some progress, reaching pilot-phase advancements, they remain inadequate for scaling up to 
fully  deploy  shared  capacities  and  infrastructures  across  Europe.  Similarly,  the  EuroHPC 
Declaration361  highlights  Europe’s  reliance  on  global  High-Performance  Computing  and 
data infrastructures to sustain  its scientific excellence and industrial  competitiveness. The 
European  Chips  Act362  stresses  the  urgent  need  to  strengthen  Europe’s  semiconductor 
ecosystem  by  bridging  the  gap  between  research  and  production  to  remain  competitive. 
Achieving this goal necessitates coordinated action among Member States and EU financial 
backing to establish essential infrastructures, such as Pilot Lines, to drive large-scale capacity 
building and foster ecosystem growth. 

Technology  infrastructures  lie  at  the  heart  of  this  case  study,  as  they  play  a  pivotal  role  in 
supporting  the  digital  transformation  by  offering  tailored  services,  advanced  technical 
expertise, and specialised facilities. They enable industry players, including SMEs and start-
ups, to engage in essential activities, such as research, innovation, technology development, 
testing, and scaling up. 

Box 1 Definition of Technology Infrastructure according the 2019 SWD 

Technology Infrastructures can be defined as: ‘facilities, equipment, capabilities and support services required to 
develop, test and upscale technology to advance from validation in a laboratory up to higher Technology 
Readiness Levels prior to competitive market entry. They can have public, semi-public or private status. Their 
users are mainly industrial players, including SMEs, which seek support to develop and integrate innovative 
technologies towards commercialisation of new products, processes and services, whilst ensuring feasibility and 
regulatory compliance’. 

This  case study will focus on the role of  technology  infrastructures in  scaling up digital 
technologies  from  validation  in  the  testing  facilities  to  early-stagemarket  entry  across 
three  key  digital  fields:  High-Performance  Computing,  semiconductors,  and  artificial 
intelligence. By enabling technological capacity building, these infrastructures play a crucial 
role in supporting the development of European digital ecosystems. The case study will look 
at  the  coherence  of  TIs  funded  under  the  Digital  Europe  with  other  EU  programmes  and 
initiatives  and  will  explore  how  these  infrastructures  integrate  with  national  strategies. The 
analysis  will  highlight  the  added  value  of  funding  TIs  at  the  European  level.  By  pooling 
resources  and  fostering  collaboration  across  Member  States,  these  investments  enable  the 
development of pan-European capabilities that no single country could achieve independently. 

Activities  

Digital  Europe  over  the  period  2021-2024  provided  financial  support  for  both  capital 
expenditures (CapEx) and operational expenditures (OpEx) to the acquisition and operations 
of  supercomputers,  testing  and  experimenting  facilities  and  pilot  lines  (among  other 
infrastructures). While sharing common characteristics, these infrastructures differ in nature as 
they  address  the  requirements  of  various  digital  ecosystems.  These  differences  include  the 
technologies  they  support,  the  targeted  technology  readiness  levels,  the  specific  digital 

361 https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/european-declaration-high-performance-computing 
362 https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/european-chips-act_fr 

267 

 
 
 
ecosystems they target  and their varying degrees of structuration, and the different  types of 
end-users they cater to. More specifically:  

•  The acquisition of supercomputing infrastructure, including mid-range, exascale, 
post-exascale, and quantum computing facilities intends to foster the development of 
an innovative and widely distributed supercomputing ecosystem across Europe. 
Through the EuroHPC JU, Digital Europe funding has supported the deployment of 
Europe’s first and second exascale supercomputer at the Jülich Supercomputing 
Centre in Germany and at CEA in France. Other contributions include the 
procurement of six quantum computers, the development of mid-range 
supercomputers, upgrades to enhance AI capabilities in existing systems, and the 
procurement of an industrial supercomputer.  

•  The establishment of Testing and Experimentation Facilities. These facilities serve 
as specialised large-scale reference sites, enabling technology providers from across 
Europe to test and experiment with cutting-edge AI solutions at scale. TEFs 
encompass both software and hardware products and services, including robotics, 
and are designed to simulate real-world environments for comprehensive testing and 
validation. 

•  The establishment and operational activities of five pilot lines as critical 

infrastructures for the semiconductor industry. These pilot lines are designed to enable 
the testing, experimentation, and validation of semiconductor technologies and 
system design concepts at higher Technology Readiness Levels. SO6 is implemented 
through the Chips JU. As of 2024, Digital Europe has provided funding for five Pilot 
Lines aimed at advancing semiconductor and photonic technologies.  

Table 6. Technology Infrastructures covered under this case study 

Digital Ecosystem  

Implementing 
body  

Infrastructure 

TRL Levels 

Main users 

Specific 
Objective 

SO1  

SO2 

Scientific Research 
& Academia  

Artificial 
Intelligence & 
Machine Learning  

Artificial 
Intelligence & 
Robotics  

SO6 

Microelectronics / 
Semiconductor 

Source; Technopolis 2025  

EuroHPC JU  

Supercomputers 

TRL 1-8  

Mid-range 

Exascale 

Post-exascale 

Quantum  

Scientific community 
(main users) 

AI start-ups and SMEs   

Quantum start-ups and 
SMEs  

European 
Commission  

Testing and Experimentation 
Facilities 

Health 

Manufacturing  

Agrifood  

Smart Cities & Communities 

TRL 6-8 

AI start-ups and SMEs   

SMEs leveraging AI and 
robotics to innovate / scale 
operations  

Large enterprises  

Chips JU 

Pilot Lines  

TRL 3-7 

Research Institutions  

Semiconductor 
Manufacturers  

Start-ups and SMEs  

Large enterprises  

Advanced semiconductors at 
sizes of 2 nm and below 

Advanced Fully Depleted 
Silicon on Insulator 
technologies targeting 7 
nanometres 

Advanced semiconductor 
devices based on Wide 
Bandgap materials 

Heterogenous application 

Photonic Integrated Circuits 
(PICs) 

268 

 
 
Impact pathway 

The case study develops specific impact pathways for technology infrastructures funded under 
Digital Europe. pathways serve as the foundational intervention logic, guiding the analysis of 
the evaluation.  

Figure 7 Impact pathway for Technology Infrastructures funded under Digital Europe 

Source: Technopolis Group, 2025 

The impact pathways for these infrastructures must consider that each of them serves 
distinct  and  highly  specialised  ecosystems,  catering  to  unique  technological  and 
operational  needs.  Their  varying  states  of  deployment  also  play  a  critical  role,  as  the 
assumptions influencing their outcomes differ significantly depending on the maturity of the 
technology the infrastructures serve. As a result, their assumptions around service relevance, 
user accessibility, and long-term sustainability are tailored to their unique operational contexts:  

Table 7. Main assumptions identified as part of the Impact Pathway 

Main assumptions:  

Supercomputers 

TEFs 

Pilot Lines 

Infrastructures services  

Services aligned with demand-
driven application 

Services aligned with specific 
sectoral needs (e.g. health, 
manufacturing, agrifood, smart 
cities) 

Services are tailored to 
meet demand-driven 
applications, finding a 
balance between 
traditional computing, 
AI, and quantum 
computing. 

Services are designed to 
meet the needs of both the 
scientific community and 

269 

Services are aligned with demand-
driven applications in the 
semiconductor industry  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ecosystems such as AI, 
quantum as well as wide 
range of industrial 
application sectors. 

Access modes are 
designed to cater to both 
the scientific community's 
needs for high-demand, 
large-scale computational 
projects and the specific 
requirements of the AI 
community, including 
SMEs and start-ups. 

Competence Centres play 
a pivotal role in providing 
services to SMEs, acting as 
key connectors to the 
broader infrastructure 

Competence Centres and 
Hubs play a vital role in 
supporting SMEs and start-
ups by connecting them 
with the services offered 
by HPC Centres.  

AI Factories contribute 
significantly to fostering 
innovation among AI start-
ups and facilitating access 
to HPC service 

HPC User Forum further 
strengthens community 
building and ensures a 
user-oriented evolution of 
HPC resources and 
application 

Robust application 
support needed for AI 
and QC integration 

Accessibility  

Community Building  

Application support  

The added value of services 
provided to SMEs by the TEFs is 
well-recognised by start-ups and 
small and medium-sized 
enterprises.  

Access modes and tariffs are 
designed to be efficient and 
incentivising, ensuring broad 
participation and engagement. 

Competence Centres and Hubs 
play a vital role in supporting SMEs 
and start-ups by connecting them 
with the services offered by the 
TEFs.  

Cross-sectoral initiatives and 
events play a crucial role in 
fostering community building 
across TEFs, enabling 
collaboration, knowledge sharing, 
and innovation among diverse 
stakeholders. 

Access modes and tariffs are 
designed to be efficient and 
incentivising, ensuring broad 
participation and engagement across 
various ecosystems. Mechanisms 
facilitate access to cutting-edge pilot 
lines and testing facilities, allowing 
start-ups, SMEs, and other 
stakeholders to leverage advanced 
resources and drive innovation. 

Competence Centres play a pivotal 
role in providing services to SMEs, 
acting as key connectors to the 
broader infrastructure.  

Competence Centres and Hubs play 
a vital role in supporting SMEs and 
start-ups by connecting them with the 
services offered by the Pilot Lines.  

Collaboration across pilot lines and 
alignment with user needs foster a 
strong community around different 
semiconductor ecosystems and 
members of the value chain. 
Collaboration also allows for the 
realisation of innovative solutions that 
combine the different technologies.  

Application support needed for 
industries especially with SMEs 

Application support needed on the 
Pilot Lines for industry  

Workforce Development  

Steady talent pipeline 
with upskilling initiatives 

Skilled workforce to handle TEF 
operations 

Steady talent pipeline with 
upskilling initiatives 

Visibility and 
communication  

Strategy development  

Outreach to scientific 
community and AI SMEs 
and start-ups  

Effective integration of 
R&I outputs into 
supercomputing systems 

Source; Technopolis 2025  

Effectiveness  

Effective outreach to SMEs, Start-
ups.  

Effective outreach to SMEs, Start-ups. 

Long-term viability beyond initial 
funding 

Defined pathway from lab innovations 
to industrial-scale adoption 

This  section  is  structured  around  key  areas  and  the  assumptions  influencing  the  impact 
pathways of these infrastructures. It provides an overview of selected projects and initiatives 
implemented to date, highlighting how these assumptions contribute to outcomes and overall 
impact. 

Access to European world-class infrastructures services  

Technology  Infrastructures  funded  under  the  Digital  Europe  intend  to  provide  a  European 
access  to  world-class  infrastructures  enabling  wide  range  of  use  both  from  the  scientific 
community and industrial ecosystem. 

270 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 8. Access modalities of Tis co-funded under Digital Europe 

Name of the TI 

Access Modes  

Countries  

User Base 

EuroHPC supercomputers 

50% of access granted through 
EuroHPC 

50% of access granted by the 
Hosting Entity 

FR, LX, IT, DE, NL, 
FI, PT, SI, CZ, ES, 
BG  

Scientific community (main users) 

AI start-ups and SMEs   

Quantum start-ups and SMEs  

Chips JU Pilot Lines 

Access through a Single-Entry 
Point organised by the main 
pilot lines.  

Access is also facilitated by the 
Chips Competence Centres.  

Testing and Experimenting Facilities   Access through a Single-Entry 

Point    

FR, DE, FI, IE, AT, 
ES, PL, BE  

Semiconductor start-ups and SMEs   

SMEs leveraging AI and robotics 
to innovate / scale operations  

DK, LU, SK, BE, 
NL, SE, CZ, ES, PT, 
IT, AT, FR, GR, DE, 
PL, FI  

Large enterprises such as 
Foundries, Integrated Device 
Manufacturers (IDMs) 

Research Institutions  

Semiconductor Manufacturers  

Start-ups and SMEs  

Large enterprises  

Source: Technopolis 2025 

EuroHPC’s  supercomputers  offer  different  access  modes,  extending  beyond  the  scientific 
community  to  include  industry,  SMEs,  start-ups,  and  public  sector  entities  requiring 
supercomputing  resources  for  artificial  intelligence  and  data-intensive  activities.  Access 
models  have  been  adapted  to  meet  these  evolving  demands,  with  innovations  such  as  the 
modification  of  ‘queue-based’  systems  to  better  serve  the AI  community.  To  support  this 
transition, access policies have recently been fine-tuned, with 20% of system capacity now 
reserved for AI-driven applications, including SMEs/start-ups. Between 2022 and 2024, 
the Extreme Scale Access consumes 70% of the total node hours, followed by Regular Access 
(29%) and AI/Data Access (1%)363. EuroHPC's access modes and node hour allocation reflect 
a prioritisation of high-demand, large-scale computational projects, underscoring a strong 
commitment to fostering groundbreaking research and delivering excellence in scientific 
achievements. 

AI and Data-Intensive Applications Access had the smallest share of both proposals and 
node  hours.  While  this  mode  had  the  lowest  allocation,  it  is  specialised  for AI  and  data-
intensive  tasks,  which  often  require  more  rapid  computation  over  shorter  durations. 
Nevertheless, to ensure equitable and effective AI access, attention must be given to designing 
tailored  access  models  that  meet  the  unique  needs  of AI  users. As  it  stands,  EuroHPC 
provides a bi-monthly cut off for the AI and Data intensive application access. Further analysis 
and evaluation should be conducted to ensure that the access model effectively provides the 
appropriate opportunities for the community. 

363 Important to note that the data only considers AI / Data Access for the period April-June 2024 while the rest access modes 
data spans from Dec 2021 to March 2024 for Regular Access and Dec 2022- Apr 2024 for the Extreme Scale Access 

271 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 9. EuroHPC Access Call Statistics 

Access Call  

Extreme Scale Access364 (Dec 2022- Apr 2024) 
Regular Access365 (Dec 2021-Mar 2024) 
AI And Data Intensive Applications Access366 (Apr 2024-Jun 2024) 

Total 

Source: EuroHPC User Days 2024. PPT Day 1. Link 

Proposal 
Awarded  

Node Hours Awarded  

75 

189 

25 

289 

63,113,698 

25,698,394 

1,033,500 

89,845,592 

The Destination Earth (DestinE) EU flagship initiative launched in 2021 has been developing 
a highly accurate digital model of the Earth (a digital twin of the Earth) to model, monitor and 
simulate natural phenomena, hazards and the related human activities. Destination Earth is one 
of the initiatives identified as strategic for the Union in the preamble of the EuroHPC JU 
Regulation367. 

DestinE provides groundbreaking features assisting users in designing accurate and actionable 
adaptation strategies and mitigation measures, unlocking the potential of digital modelling of 
the Earth system at a level that represents a real breakthrough in terms of accuracy, local detail, 
access-to-information speed and interactivity. 

During its first implementation phase (Q4 2021 – Q2 2024), DestinE established the required 
synergies  with  EuroHPC,  harnessing  its  world-leading  supercomputing  capabilities  and 
pushing  the  limits  of  computing,  ML/AI,  weather  and  climate  sciences,  and  leveraging  the 
‘path to the Digital Decade’ with hundreds of European research and computational scientists 
from industry, academia and many European and national institutions involved. 

During this period, one of the main achievements was the deployment of the overall DestinE 
infrastructure  and  the  initial  release  of  its  first  two  Digital  Twins,  demonstrating  their 
production capabilities at unprecedented scale on the available EuroHPC systems. 

Box 2. Destination Earth access to EuroHPC supercomputers 

The first two high-priority digital twins (DT) are the Weather-Induced Extremes Digital Twin (Extremes DT) and 
the Climate Change Adaptation Digital Twin (Climate Adaptation DT), powered by the first pre-exascale 
EuroHPC supercomputers. 
The Climate DT is setting a unique capability to produce bespoke, cutting-edge numerical simulations addressing 
‘what-if’ questions related to the impact of certain scenarios or policy decisions on the evolution of our planet, 
generating km-scale simulations of climate scenarios from global to regional and national levels at a multi-decadal 
timescale. 
The Extremes DT will give tailored access to an information system including, e.g. scenarios, forecasts and 
visualizations of extreme weather events, natural disaster evolution and climate adaptation approaches. The 
Extremes DT aims to provide an on-demand workflow with co-design of high-resolution predictions about extreme 
weather events combined with decision-making support for impact sectors, including hydrology, air quality and 
energy meteorology.  

LUMI is used for the development of the Climate DT and it’s also one of the two EuroHPC supercomputers 
currently used for the Extremes DT’s physics-based and data driven model system and computationally intensive 

364  For high-impact and high gain innovative research applications, with very large compute time, data storage and support 

needs 

365 For research and public sector applications requiring large-scale resources or frequent access to substantial computing and 

storage resources 

366 For industry, SMEs, start-ups, and public sector entities requiring access to supercomputing resources to perform artificial 

intelligence and data-intensive activities. 

367 Council Regulation (EU) 2021/1173 of 13 July 2021 on establishing the European High Performance Computing Joint 

Undertaking and repealing Regulation (EU) 2018/1488 

272 

 
 
 
dataflow. As part of DestinE and its digital twins, LUMI’s computing power will facilitate technological solutions 
that make societies safer and more resilient against extreme weather events and the impacts of climate change. 

Source: Selected LUMI Use Cases. May 2024.  

As highlighted in interviewees, the Destination Earth initiative has accelerated advancements 
in weather forecasting and climate modelling. Tasks that previously required access to US 
supercomputers can now be performed on a daily basis using European systems.  

The Destination Earth System was inaugurated by the former European Commission Executive 
Vice-President for a Europe Fit for the Digital Age Margrethe Vestager, on Monday, 10 June 
2024 in an official launch event hosted in the LUMI Supercomputer Center in Kajaani, Finland. 
The  work  continues  in  Phase  II  of  DestinE  through  a  network  of  powerful  EuroHPC 
supercomputer infrastructures (CSC (LUMI), CINECA (Leonardo), BSC (Mare Nostrum 5), 
LuxProvide (MeluXina)). 

Accessibility of Infrastructures services to users  

User access is further facilitated through the establishment of Competence Centres under both 
SO6 and SO1 for access to the Chips Pilot Lines and the EuroHPC supercomputers.  

Box 3. Finnish Chips Competence Centre 

The Finnish Chips Competence Centre is based on a coordinated national network of access points in different 
regions including Tampere (strong tradition of designing large and complex system-on-chips and optoelectronics), 
Espoo (leveraging research expertise from VTT and Aalto University, particularly in material science and silicon 
wafer processing), Oulu (known for its strong history in radio technology, tracing back to Nokia's peak years) and 
eastern Finland (expertise in specialised knowledge in optics and photonics, which complements chip technology 
development) is being developed to ensure ease of access for end-users. The Competence Centres serve as a key 
interface for end-user industries, prioritising demand-driven actions tailored to meet their specific needs. Their 
primary focus is to support end-user industries while occasionally extending assistance to technology developers.  
The Finnish Chips Competence Centre is still in the preparation phase, but its operations are expected to begin in 
early 2025. The centre aims to recruit the best experts in the field and to excellent support structure for the entire 
industry in Finland and pushing end-user industries to make greater use of advanced technological resources. 

Source: Business Tampere, 2024. An enthusiastic drive accelerated swift cooperation in Finland – Recruitments for the Chips 
Competence Centre begins. Accessed December 2024. Link 

Testing  and  Experimentation  Facilities  are  structured  around  ‘Nodes’,  which  offer  the 
infrastructure and services in their areas of expertise and a network of ‘Satellites’, which are 
smaller  testing  facilities  than  nodes  to  complement  the  nodes’  testing  services  and/or 
geographical coverage. Funding supports the creation of one large TEF per sector, typically 
composed of 4-6 nodes that provide private and public organisations both remote and in-person 
access  to  their  services.  In  the  context  of  setting  up  the  TEFs,  a  single-entry  point  was 
established to simplify accessibility. Regarding access, defining an accessible pricing model 
for SMEs presents a significant challenge due to the complexity of parameters, varying node 
overheads, and the influence of State Aid Rules on final pricing (further reinforced in the case 
of  cross-border  access). To  ensure  broad  accessibility  of TIs  to  users  it  is  also  important  to 
understand the needs and constraints faced by different users, particularly SMEs and start-ups 
with limited resources. 

Tailored Application Support and Sector-Specific Requirements 

Technology infrastructure plays a crucial role in bridging research and innovation with practical 
applications,  ensuring  sector-specific  needs  are  met  while  driving  the  development, 
application, and commercialisation of future technologies.  Technology Infrastructures offer a 
range of services encompassing both technological activities and business support services. 

273 

 
These  include  conducting  technology  feasibility  studies  and  proof-of-concept  development, 
demonstration and prototyping, technology validation, and product testing (e.g. experimenting 
with  new  materials  or  validating  innovative  processes)  but  also  incubator  or  accelerator 
programs, legal and compliance assistance, and facilitating access to financial resources (e.g. 
grant application support, investor matchmaking).  

Examples of specific services delivered to SMEs and start-ups by the TIs covered in this 
case study include: 

Box 4 Quantscient prepares for quantum future with LUMI supercomputer = NCC 

Founded in 2021, Quanscient ‘s technology combines advanced cloud computing and quantum integration. It is 
expected to bring significant benefits to industrial applications based on, for example, computational fluid 
dynamics. Quanscient’s vision is to make simulations matching reality by building a next-generation Simulation-
as-a-Service platform utilising cloud and quantum computing.  
Quantum computing has the potential to revolutionise the way businesses process data in a more profound way 
than AI is currently doing. Quanscient is already preparing for future business needs and developing quantum 
software with the help of the LUMI supercomputer. The LUMI supercomputer is used to study how the software 
being developed can be scaled to the more powerful quantum computers of the future.  

Source: Selected LUMI Use Cases. May 2024.  

Box 5. Median Technologies - a French SME that delivers AI based radiology solutions – received the first TEF-Health service. 

Median Technologies were looking to test out the quality of their AI/ML-based eyonis solutions and improve the 
robustness of their processes in compliance with the increasing level of requirements of the incoming European 
regulation on AI systems.  
The service provided by TEF-Health partner LNE consisted of an assessment of the process used by the SME to 
develop and evaluate their AI data-based systems. This assessment is based on the study of the documentation 
describing the process, such as conception documents, risk analysis matrix or the evaluation plan. This first review 
allowed LNE to identify parts of the process where information is lacking and to better prepare the questions and 
specific topics to be discussed during meetings with the team developing the AI system. 

Source: Testing and Experimentation Facility for Health AI and Robotics.  Success story – First Service delivered by TEF-
Health to an SME. 2024. Link 

Without the adequate support mechanisms, even the most advanced infrastructures risk being 
underutilised,  as  users  may  struggle  with  integration,  adaptation,  or  workflow  optimisation. 
Comprehensive support structures are essential not only to improve accessibility but also 
to maximise the impact of these infrastructures. Support is required across multiple domains 
and  specialists  must  be  integrated  within  user  communities  to  drive  progress.  Interviewees 
underlined  that  it  should  be  ensured  that  existing  infrastructures  are  fully  operational, 
effectively supported, and capable of delivering their intended outcome. In the context of 
SO1, application support is particularly vital for AI and QC, with users emphasising the 
need for improved future support. This is especially important to facilitate the transition to 
hybrid  systems  that  integrate  HPC, AI,  and  Quantum  Computing,  ensuring  that  users  can 
effectively  leverage these cutting-edge technologies. In addition  to  Horizon-funded projects 
like  Excellerat  and  EPICURE,  Digital  Europe  has  launched  specific  initiatives  focused  on 
application support for infrastructures financed under the Digital Europe framework including 
MINERVA which aims to which aims to enable AI communities to harness the full potential of 
EuroHPC systems, accelerating AI research,368  

Community Building, Communication and Dissemination activities  

Community  building  is  essential  for  making  Technology  Infrastructures  visible  and 
attracting  new  users.  It  plays  an  important  role  in  ensuring  that  these  infrastructures  are 

368 EuroHPC Minerva project. https://eurohpc-ju.europa.eu/research-innovation/our-projects/minerva_en 

274 

 
 
tailored  to  the  needs  of  their  users  by  fostering  regular  dialogue  and  interaction  among 
stakeholders, including researchers, industry representatives, and infrastructure operators. In 
the context of High-Performance Computing, the newly established HPC User Forum aims 
to  serve  as  a  platform  for  users  and  infrastructure  providers  to  exchange  insights,  share 
challenges, and identify emerging needs. The forum seeks to ensure impactful representation 
of current and potential users in the years to come. 

As part of the TEFs initiative, over the past two years, substantial progress has been made in 
community  building.  This  is  notably  exemplified  through  the  AI.  Matters  project  which 
developed  a  comprehensive  service  catalogue369  across  the  different  nodes.  This 
comprehensive  repository  provides  a  centralised  source  of  services  accessible  to  any 
company.  It  not  only  offers  detailed  information  and  publishes  available  services  but  also 
streamlines  the  process  of  service  requests  among  community  members,  fostering 
collaboration  and  accessibility.  Community  building  was  further  reinforced  through  cross-
sectorial TEF events, such as the xTEF 2024 event titled ‘All TEFs Open for Business’, which 
took place in Berlin in 2024. This event fostered collaboration and engagement across various 
sectors,  strengthening  the  network  and  promoting  the  exchange  of  ideas  and  best  practices 
among TEF stakeholders. 

Effective communication and dissemination activities also contribute to promoting access 
to European Technology infrastructures and fostering collaboration among stakeholders. 
Success  stories  illustrate  the  benefits  and  real-world  impact  of  the  services  offered  by 
technology infrastructures and can contribute to encouraging broader user engagement. In the 
context  of  a  European  network  of  Technology  Infrastructure,  stakeholders  highlighted  the 
potential benefits of transitioning from communication and dissemination efforts focused on 
isolated use cases to promoting collaborative, multi-stakeholder projects supported by the TIs. 
For example, rather than having a SMEs relying solely on a technology from a single RTO, the 
goal should be to encourage joint efforts where an SME collaborates with industry partners to 
leverage technology across multiple RTOs.  

Workforce Development  

Both the operation of TIs and the development of the surrounding ecosystem require a 
skilled  workforce  and  a  robust  talent  pipeline.  This  involves  not  only  upskilling  and 
reskilling existing engineers but also fostering the growth of a European talent pool capable of 
effectively  operating  and  leveraging  these  infrastructures  and  their  systems.  While  some 
initiatives  are  in  progress,  stakeholders  across  different  ecosystems  agree  that  workforce 
development remains a significant challenge for the successful deployment and utilisation of 
these  infrastructures  and  the  successful  growth  of  the  ecosystem.  For  example,  the  Digital 
Europe project Master4HPC addresses skill gaps in high-performance computing; however, its 
scalability is limited, with only around 100 students graduating per cohort.  

Similarly, the Joint Education for Advanced Chip Design in Europe (Edu4Chip) initiative 
strengthens Europe's chip design capabilities by creating and implementing harmonised study 
programs at leading European universities. This initiative aims to increase the number of skilled 
chip design experts.  

369 https://ai-matters.eu/services-catalog/ 

275 

 
 
Several initiatives at the national level are also contributing to workforce development in the 
semiconductor  and  digital  technology  domains,  but  their  fragmented  nature  limits  their 
collective impact, for example as it is the case for the Spain’s 'Cátedras Chip' programme. 
This initiative finances the creation of university chairs focused on advancing microelectronics 
research,  aiming  to  strengthen  academic  and  industrial  collaboration  in  the  field.  Another 
example is the Hellenic Emerging Technologies Industry Alliance, based in Greece, which 
is an alliance of 47 industrial members and 28 universities and research institutes dedicated to 
promoting  the  adoption  of  digital  technologies  and  fostering  entrepreneurship  in  emerging 
technology domains. Further evaluations of the coherence and synergies between different EU 
and  national  programmes  could  help  shed  light  on  how  the  fragmented  implementations  of 
various skill and workforce development initiatives affect the potential for creating synergies 
and achieving the scale necessary for building a competitive and robust workforce at the pan-
European level. This question seems particularly relevant in emerging fields, such as AI and 
quantum  computing,  where  foundational  knowledge  and  skills  need  to  be  developed  or 
significantly adapted. 

Coherence 

•  Internal Coherence: complementarity with R&D&I activities funded under other EU 

programmes  

The  Technology  Infrastructures  under  SO1  and  SO6  are  implemented  by  Chips  Joint 
Undertaking and the EuroHPC Joint Undertaking370. Their activities are funded through 
different European Union’s programmes including Horizon Europe for R&D&I activities, 
the  Digital  Europe  for  deployment  and  capacity  building  activities  and  the  Connecting 
Europe  Facility (CEF-2  programme) for  EuroHPC  to  support  and  catalyse  investments  in 
digital connectivity infrastructures of common interest. From a strategic perspective, internal 
coherence and synergies between funding programmes are primarily guided by the Strategic 
Research and Innovation Agenda.  In this context,  this strategic document  developed by a 
Joint  Undertaking  in  collaboration  with  industry  and  other  key  stakeholders,  has  been 
recognised as a critical tool for aligning priorities and ensuring consistency across the European 
Union’s priorities.  

The Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda of the EuroHPC JU371  was adopted in 2019 by 
the  JU’s  Research  and  Innovation  Advisory  Group  (RIAG).  The  EuroHPC  JU  builds  the 
Multiannual  Strategic  programme  (MASP)  based  on  the  SRIA,  and  it  is  currently  under 
revision and in full consultation with advisory groups. The interviewees referred to a very good 
partnership between the JU with the RIAG and the second advisory group of the EuroHPC JU, 
its infrastructure advisory group (INFRAG). There are exchanges at least once a week, and 
they are fully involved in the development of the new Multiannual Strategic programme372. 
Through its advisory group experts, the EuroHPC JU has access to information on the latest 
developments  in  technology  and ideas for focusing  its  investments. Similarly, the Chips  JU 
(ex-KDT JU) is committed to open and transparent processes for consulting all partners and 
other relevant stakeholders on the identification of their priorities (which is exemplified in the 
drafting of the SRIA, involving over 300 experts from industry, RTOs and academia in almost 

370 https://eurohpc-ju.europa.eu/index_en 
371 EuroHPC_RIAG_Strategic_Agenda_2019_0.pdf 
372 EuroHPC Joint Undertaking Multiannual Strategic programme (2021 – 2027) 

276 

 
 
all participating states, and collecting feedback on the draft SRIA from stakeholders in annual 
Stakeholder Forums).373 

As  part  of  this  evaluation,  several  examples  demonstrate  the  integration  of  R&D&I 
activities and projects funded under the EU Framework programmes for Research and 
Innovation  (e.g.  FP7,  Horizon  2020,  and  Horizon  Europe)  within  Digital  Europe-funded 
infrastructures. The DEEP project374 series is a prominent example, beginning with the initial 
DEEP project  (1 December 2011 –31 May 2015) and extending through DEEP-ER, DEEP-
EST,  and  DEEP-SEA.  Funded  under  the  EU  Framework  programmes  for  Research  and 
Innovation and EuroHPC, these projects contributed to the development of innovative software 
components, such as ‘software bricks’, which enable dynamic modularity of applications on 
multi-partition systems. These components are being deployed in EuroHPC systems, including 
MELUXINA in Luxembourg and JUPITER at Jülich financed through the Digital Europe.  

Box 6. DEEP Project Serie deployment in EuroHPC System JUPITER 

JUPITER will be based on a dynamic, modular supercomputing architecture, which the Forschungszentrum Jülich have 
developed together with European and international partners in the DEEP projects funded by the European Commission and 
EuroHPC JU. The modular architecture will enable an optimised utilisation of the various computing modules during complex 
simulations. Such architecture also means that the system will be well prepared for integrating future technologies such as 
quantum computing. DEEP-SEA latest project of this series (and a EuroHPC one) also supported the development of other tools 
that are deployed in software stacks of EuroHPC computers.  

Following the successful completion of DEEP-EST and the launch of the prototype at the Jülich Supercomputing Centre, the 
DEEP projects face a new challenge: how to design programming environments that can support future Exascale systems with a 
wide variety of different workloads. 

Source: Link and Link  

The European Processor Initiative (EPI)375 funded through the EU Framework programme 
for  Research  and  Innovation  and  EuroHPC,  has  supported  the  development  of  the  RHEA 
General-Purpose  Processor  by  SiPearl,  which  is  expected  to  be  integrated  into  Jülich’s 
JUPITER supercomputer in the near future. The first three-year phase of the project (2018–
2021)  successfully  delivered  key  technologies  aimed  at  improving  European  sovereignty, 
including the RHEA GPP and a proof-of-concept for European accelerator technology. Next 
steps  in  the  second  half  of  the  project  notably  include  finalising  the  development  and 
deployment  of  the  first  generation  of  low-power  processor  units,  advancing  the  second 
generation  of  the  GPP  with  technological  enhancements  for  European  Exascale  machines, 
developing second-generation low-power accelerator test chips for use by the HPC community 
as well as establishing robust industrialisation and commercialisation pathways to ensure long-
term economic sustainability. 

Another  example,  still  in  the  pilot  stage  and  not  yet  a  production  system,  is  the  EUPEX 
project376, supported by Horizon Europe. The project focuses on co-designing a European 
modular exascale-ready pilot system. EUPEX brings together results from numerous prior 
projects  while  validating  processors  developed  through  the  European  Processor  Initiative 
(EPI). The goal is to create a coherent modular HPC platform, paving the way for a self-reliant 

373 European Commission: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Berrada, K., Viscido, S., Lotito, A., Maroulis, N. 
et  al., Horizon  Europe  and  the  digital  &  industrial  transition  –  Interim  evaluation  support  study  –  Phase  2 –  Horizon 
Europe – Institutionalised partnership report – ECSEL & Key Digital Technologies (KDT) joint undertakings, Viscido, 
S.(editor),  Lotito,  A.(editor),  Boekholt,  P.(editor)  and  Lebhardt, F.(editor),  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union, 
2024, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/71518 

374 https://deep-projects.eu/ 
375 https://eurohpc-ju.europa.eu/research-innovation/our-projects/european-processor-initiative-epi_en 
376 EUPEX project https://eurohpc-ju.europa.eu/research-innovation/our-projects/eupex_en 

277 

 
 
European  HPC 
supercomputers. 

industry  capable  of  manufacturing  and  delivering  exascale-class 

Despite  existing  synergies  between  R&D&I  activities  and  deployment  efforts,  stakeholders 
have  expressed  concerns  about  the  pace  of  technological  development,  citing  delays  in 
translating research outcomes into tangible applications and scaling up solution. While Europe 
hosts a significant share of the world’s HPC resources, only a small fraction of HPC technology 
and infrastructure is developed within the EU. This reliance on imports places the European 
Union at a competitive disadvantage. Currently, the EuroHPC JU relies heavily on off-the-shelf 
solutions and lacks an integrated pipeline between research and production, unlike models that 
can be observed in the US where research agencies fund early-stage technology development, 
and public authorities commit to purchasing first-of-its-kind solutions. This approach provides 
start-ups with financial security, enabling them to invest in R&D and bring new innovations to 
market  with  confidence.  This  issue  is  closely  linked  to  the  uptake  of  EU-funded 
technological R&D in public procurements, particularly in encouraging the integration of 
European  technologies  in  infrastructure  projects.  Interviewees  acknowledged  that  the  High-
Performance  Computer  procurement  process  is  progressing  with  a  clear  focus  on  adopting 
European technologies when it comes to the acquisition of quantum computers. For instance, 
the first quantum processors have been acquired from the French start-up Pascal, and EuroHPC 
is advancing with the procurement of additional quantum machines. These include a photonics-
based quantum computer from Quandela, another French company, alongside five additional 
European quantum solutions. 

The  Chips  Joint  Undertaking,  a  strategic  initiative  funded  by  both  Horizon  Europe  and  the 
Digital  Europe  programme,  fosters  synergies  between  the  two  programmes.  R&D  activities 
funded  by  Horizon  Europe  fully  align  with  the  deployment  activities  of  the  Digital  Europe 
programme. In this context (as it is the case for EuroHPC JU), programming coherence ensures 
that Horizon Europe supports the development of new technologies, while the Digital Europe 
programme  funds  the  pilot  lines  needed  to  implement  these  innovations  and  make  them 
available  for  further  testing.  Integration  and  coherence  must  also  be  established  between 
R&D&I projects under the Chips Joint Undertaking and the broader Chips for Europe initiative. 
I  The  relationship  between  research  infrastructures  funded  through  Horizon  Europe  and 
technology infrastructures supported under the Chips Act could be improved by exploring the 
potential  synergies  between  these  two  types  of  infrastructures. Another  critical  point  is  the 
alignment between the five Pilot Lines and other existing TIs in the microelectronics sector. At 
this stage, coordination is facilitated by the fact that many major Pilot Lines / Cleanrooms in 
Microelectronics are managed by the same key stakeholders involved in the Chips Act, such as 
leading  RTOs  like  CEA,  IMEC,  Fraunhofer  and  VTT.  Having  a  clear  picture  of  existing 
Research  and  Technology  infrastructure  within  the  field  of  Microelectronics  and  potential 
collaborations  at  the  European  level  would  be  highly  valuable. This  could  be  facilitated  by 
ongoing initiatives, such as the RITIFI project377, funded under Horizon Europe, which aims 
to map and support synergies between Research Infrastructures and Technology Infrastructures 
at European level. Coherence must also be strengthened with ongoing initiatives such as the 
INFRACHIP - European Research Infrastructure on Semiconductor Chips378 to ensure it 
fits  into  the  broader  pipeline  and  contributes  effectively  to  a  unified  European  strategy  for 

377 RITIFI project - https://ritifi.eu/ 
378 INFRACHIP - https://infrachip.eu/ 

278 

 
 
semiconductor  development.  Questions  regarding  coherence  with  existing  national 
microelectronics centres and their alignment with the broader Chips Act initiative merit further 
exploration. Examining how the capacities developed under the Chips Act can connect with 
the  activities  of  a  wider  network  of  national  technology  centres  could  significantly  amplify 
their contribution to the broader European innovation ecosystem. 

•  Internal Coherence: Aligning synergies between EDIHs, Competence Centres 

and AI Factories to prevent duplications 

All  three  Technology  Infrastructures  described  in  the  case  studies  are  organised  around 
Competence  Centres  (SO1  and  SO6)  or,  in  the case  of  the TEF  (SO2)  a  single-entry  point. 
These Competence Centres or Single-Entry Points (SEP) are intended to connect to European 
network  of  Infrastructures,  serving  as  access  points  to  other  nodes  within  the  network. 
Competence  Centres  and  SEP  of  the  TEFs  are  also  complementarity  to  other  EU 
initiatives such as the European Digital Innovation Hubs (EDIH). As a matter of example, 
TEFs and European Digital Innovation Hubs (EDIHs) play distinct but interconnected roles 
in fostering innovation and technological adoption. EDIHs focus on supporting the local 
economy by helping businesses and organisations adopt digital technologies. EDIH play a key 
role  in  linking  regional  activities  to  a  Europe-wide  network  within  sustainable  innovation 
infrastructure preventing redundancy and lowering costs. They also act as local entry points to 
European AI initiatives, including TEFs, and emphasise the principle of ‘test before invest’, 
allowing  users  to  assess  the  benefits  of  mature  technologies  in  their  environments  before 
purchasing. TEFs, on the other hand, serve as centralised resources and toolkits for EDIHs 
and other AI solution users. Unlike EDIHs, TEFs focus on validating emerging technologies 
in real-world  environments, through TIs bridging the gap between development and market 
readiness. The complementarity lies in the pipeline from TEFs to EDIHs: TEFs validate and 
refine new technologies, and once mature, the validated solutions can be distributed via EDIHs 
to local users and businesses379. 

As  outlined  in  the  Chips  Act380,  synergies  between  Competence  Centres  and  existing 
structures,  such  as  European  Digital  Innovation  Hubs  established  under  Digital  Europe, 
should be maximised. As Competence Centres are still being established, some interviewees 
highlighted that connections with EDIHs have not yet been highly visible. However, the ground 
for  such  synergies  has  been  paved  with  industry  players  involved  in  EDIHs  recognised  as 
valuable partners for Competence Centres, offering key channels for collaboration. As part of 
the  Finnish  Competence  Centre,  efforts  are  ongoing  to  map  networks  focused  on  industry 
digitalisation  across  Finland,  with  plans  to  integrate  these  existing  channels  into  the  Chips 
Competence  Centre’s  operations  once  active.  The  distributed  ‘access  point’  model  of 
Competence Centres, as outlined in the Chips Act, is specifically designed to leverage these 
networks, ensuring wide access and effective integration.  

As part of SO1, the AI Factories initiative381, announced in January 2024, aims to support a 
broad  spectrum  of  European  users,  including  start-ups,  SMEs,  industry,  academia,  and  the 
public sector. This initiative seeks to foster a highly competitive and innovative AI ecosystem 
in Europe by acquiring and upgrading large General-Purpose AI models, supercomputers, and 
programming  facilities. Additionally,  it  will  focus  on  developing  next-generation  Graphics 

379 https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/fr/faqs/testing-and-experimentation-facilities-tefs-questions-and-answers 
380 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2023.229.01.0001.01.FRA 
381 https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/ai-factories 

279 

 
 
Processing  Units,  including  those  for  quantum  computing,  to  address  the  global  chip 
shortage382. The AI Factories also aim to broaden AI adoption, particularly among start-ups and 
SMEs, by offering access to AI solutions while strengthening the European AI research 
ecosystem.  Interviewees  emphasised  the  initiative's  importance  in  maintaining  Europe’s 
competitiveness, not only for public institutions but also for private entities. They highlighted 
the  urgency  of  acting  swiftly  and  decisively  to  address  the  needs  of  the AI  community  and 
demonstrate Europe’s commitment to overcoming challenges and seizing opportunities in AI 
development. The AI Factories initiative complements the broader strategy of fostering an 
ecosystem  of  excellence  and  trust  in  AI  across  the  European  Union  by  leveraging 
initiatives such as the AI Testing and Experimentation Facilities also escribed in this case 
study. The synergies between AI Factories and TEFs will improve AI innovation ecosystem, 
providing  pre-market  validation  for  AI  innovations  developed  within  AI  Factories. 
Additionally,  coherence  with  other  major AI  networks,  such  as  CLAIRE  (Confederation  of 
Laboratories for Artificial Intelligence Research in Europe) and ELLIS (European Laboratory 
for Learning and Intelligent Systems), is essential to ensure the alignment of high-investment 
efforts with Europe’s wider AI research and development landscape.  

•  Internal Coherence: Synergies between Specific Objectives within Digital Europe 
TIs  cannot  be  decoupled  either  from  the  data  they  utilise  and  generate.  Effective  data 
management  is  also  an  important  part  of  their  operation,  particularly  for Technology 
infrastructures under Specific Objectives 1 and 2. Under Specific Objective 1, in the context 
of exascale resources and AI, which involve enormous training datasets and observational data, 
the seamless production, movement, storage, and analysis of data is a growing challenge. 
Data management strategies must ensure that data flows in and out of machines in an 
integrated,  efficient,  and  secure  manner. According  to  interviewees,  while  EuroHPC  has 
made significant strides in this direction, there is an increasing awareness of the need for a data 
strategy that is linked to the computing strategy. Addressing emerging needs will require a long-
term  and  ambitious  vision.  This  includes  understanding  and  planning  for  data  growth, 
particularly  in  sectors  like  health  and  life  sciences,  where  personal  data  protection 
requires additional privacy and security measures.  

In  that  context,  the  Technology  Infrastructures  highlighted  in  the  case  studies,  present 
opportunities  for  synergies  with  other  activities  under  SO2,  such  as  Data  Spaces.  TIs  are 
expected to establish strong connections with Common European Data Spaces, which make 
data more accessible for economic and societal applications while promoting interoperability 
and cross-sector collaboration.  

•  External Coherence; Complementary IPCEI Industrial Deployment and Joint 

Undertaking R&D&I and Deployment Activities 

Since 2018, two IPCEIs in the microelectronics value chain have been launched383. These 
IPCEIs comprise 100 projects in 14 Member States including up to €10 billion State aid which 
is expected to unlock more than €20,2 billion of additional private investment. These projects 
focus  on  R&D  and  First  Industrial  Deployment  of  technologies.  While  IPCEIs  focus  on 
strategic  value  chains  with  an  emphasis  on  first  industrial  deployment  just  before  mass 
production, the Chips JU also supports value chains but operates at a lower TRL, concentrating 

382 https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/ai-factories 
383 IPCEI - https://www.ipcei-me.eu/ 

280 

 
 
on research and technology validation as part of  the Chips for Europe Initiative. Coherence 
between the two initiatives is evident in examples such as the ASML EUV projects384, which 
demonstrate alignment between IPCEI and Pilot Lines. Synergies between the Chips JU and 
IPCEI emerge naturally because the same or similar companies participate in both frameworks 
(e.g.  CEA  Leti,  Silicon Austria  Lab),  and  Member  States  fund  IPCEIs  through  national  co-
funding  while  also  co-financing  Chips  JU  projects.  A  key  argument  could  be  that  these 
synergies  should  be  institutionalised  to  ensure  a  structured  and  efficient  transition  from 
research  to  industrial  deployment.  Further  avenues  for  synergies  could  also  be  explored 
including how pilot lines can eventually evolve into large-scale industrialisation, strengthening 
the  overall  semiconductor  ecosystem.  Moreover,  lab-to-fab  accelerator  projects  are  also 
being  funded  within  the  Chips  Joint  Undertaking  and  aim  to  industrialise  pilot  lines  by 
bridging the gap between research and large-scale production, ensuring that innovations can 
transition smoothly from research to manufacturing.385  

•  External Coherence: Synergies Between EU-Funded Initiatives and National and 

Regional programmes 

Technology Infrastructures discussed in this case study, which are funded 50% at the European 
level, represent strategic investments that many Member States could not have been able to 
undertake at the same scale independently. This highlights the added value of European-level 
financing, enabling the establishment of advanced capabilities that serve the collective needs 
of  the  Union.  These  infrastructures  complement  existing  national  and  regional  facilities, 
offering European-wide capabilities and access. 

At the national level, several initiatives align with and complement European efforts. For 
example,  the  French  ‘NumPEx’  initiative  under  the  France  2030  program  is  an  exploratory 
research  initiative  led  by  CEA,  CNRS,  and  Inria.  It  focuses  on  designing  and  developing 
software  components  for  future  exascale  machines,  preparing  both  scientific  and  industrial 
users  to  fully  leverage  their  capabilities.  NumPEx  also  contributed  to  the  Jules  Verne 
consortium's response to EuroHPC’s call for expressions of interest, with the aim of hosting 
and operating one of the two planned European exascale machines by 2025 at the Très Grand 
Centre de Calcul at the CEA DAM Île-de-France centre. 

Box 7. The NumPEx programme 

The NumPEx programme (NumPEx) is a six-year project with a budget of €41 million which commenced in 2023. 
The programme stems from an objective analysis of the current state of the HPC/HPDA community at 
international, European, and national levels. One of the key drivers of the NumPEx program is the ongoing 
paradigm shift in HPC system architectures, with rapidly emerging new technologies and applications (e.g. the 
digital continuum and AI). This shift necessitates the development and adaptation of the HPC software stack to 
prepare for the upcoming Exascale supercomputer. The program also aims to anticipate and prepare for post-
Exascale systems and their applications. The programmes aims to:  
Contributing to the European Exascale software stack: NumPEx plays a critical role in the European Exascale 
ecosystem, with a special focus on the Jules Verne project, which will deliver the second European Exascale system 
in 2025. 

384 https://www.asml.com/en/products/euv-lithography-systems 
385 See the Decision GB 2024.92 - Annex MAWP - Appendix 6 – CE. DIGITAL-JU-Chips-2025-SG-SSOI. The accelerator 
for Advanced Strained Silicon on Insulator Substrates will provide the necessary infrastructure to validate SOI substrates 
on  an  industrial  scale,  accelerating  their  adoption  within  the  European  semiconductor  ecosystem.  By  supporting  high-
volume  production,  manufacturers  can  assess  the  feasibility  and  cost-effectiveness  of  SOI  in  large-scale  FD-SOI 
applications. It will also promote collaboration across the semiconductor ecosystem, working with other pilot lines, as well 
as connecting to the design platform and competence centres, among others.  

281 

 
 
Preparing the building blocks for post-Exascale software solutions: In the long term, NumPEx aims to explore and 
develop innovative software solutions to address the rapid evolution of complex HPC systems, the increasing 
prevalence of data flow-oriented applications, and the integration of AI approaches 
Preparing academic and research applications for the Exascale era 
Structuring the French Exascale community 

Source: https://numpex.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/NumPEx_white_paper.pdf 

Synergies  between  funded  infrastructures  and  national  or  regional  initiatives  are  also 
demonstrated  through  the  contribution  of  regional  funds.  For  instance,  the  LUMI 
supercomputer  has  benefited  from  additional  funding  provided  by  the  European  Regional 
Development Fund, allocated by the Regional Council of Kainuu386.  

EU Added Value  

The primary EU added value in co-funding the acquisition and operational costs of Technology 
Infrastructures through Digital Europe lies in the effective pooling of resources, enabling large-
scale  investments  in  strategic  technologies  and  digital  ecosystems  that  benefit  all  Member 
States. These investments, such as those in EuroHPC supercomputers and Chips Pilot Lines, 
represent significant financial commitments–amounting to €250 m387 for the former and over 
€3.6  billion  for  the  latter388–that  individual  Member  States  would  unlikely  undertake 
independently. This collaborative approach facilitates the acquisition of critical infrastructure 
across  Europe,  fostering  innovation,  enhancing  the  region’s  technological  and  industrial 
competitiveness, and reducing reliance on foreign testing infrastructures. In the context of SO1 
for instance, interviewees note that by working together, Europe has achieved pre-exascale and 
exascale systems much faster than individual Member States could have done independently. 
The  dual-funding  approach,  combining  EU  and  national  contributions,  adds  a  strong 
European  dimension  to  infrastructures  hosted  in  Member  States  while  ensuring  they 
retain ownership over identifying infrastructure needs acting as ‘problem owners’. This 
allows Member States to adapt infrastructures to their ecosystems and provide services tailored 
to the specific demands of their industries, particularly benefiting SMEs and start-ups. At the 
same  time,  this  model  promotes  broader  access  to  European  collaborations,  enabling 
researchers and stakeholders across Europe to access these infrastructures, fostering innovation 
and cross-border collaboration. 

Technology  Infrastructures,  as  presented  in  this  case  study,  are  conceived  and  structured  as 
interconnected networks, enabling the establishment of pan-European collaborations—a key 
aspect of the EU's added value. For instance, Testing and Experimentation Facilities fund 
networks of TI providers across at least three countries. EFs enable access to these networked 
facilities through a digital single-entry point. These infrastructures are organized into ‘nodes’ 
offering  complementary  services  and  focus  areas,  supported  by  smaller  ‘satellite’.  This 
approach is further reinforced by a Coordination and Support Action under the Digital Europe 
2023–2024,  which  applies  a  cross-sector  perspective  to  existing  TEFs.  High-Performance 
Computing centres generally collaborate across Europe, but this collaboration is set to deepen 
with the introduction of two new exascale systems in Germany and France. Additionally, the 
integration  of  Quantum  Computing  and Artificial  Intelligence  across  all  HPC  systems  will 

386 https://www.lumi-supercomputer.eu/eurohpcju/ 
387 

https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/factpages/digital-success-stories-jupiter-first-european-exascale-
supercomputer#:~:text=The%20DIGITAL%20Europe%20programme%20is,boost%20to%20EU’s%20AI%20ecosystem. 

388 Includes Digital Europe programme, Horizon Europe and Member States participation. 

282 

 
 
create  common  challenges  that  further  strengthen  the  need  for  unified  efforts  among  HPC 
centres throughout Europe. Complementary initiatives like EuroCC and Castiel (1 and 2) aim 
to  establish  a  European  network  of  National  Competence  Centres,  facilitating  coordinated 
access to supercomputing networks and promoting collaboration across Member States. As part 
of SO6, the Pilot Lines are supported by an extended network of connected design centres and 
Competence  Centres.  These  centres  act  as  hubs  to  coordinate  the  supply  and  demand  for 
competencies across Europe, operating through a single-entry point model to streamline access 
and strengthen connections between facilities and stakeholders 

Finally,  developing  a  strategy  at  the  European  level,  particularly  in  strategic  sectors  (e.g. 
semiconductor, AI, HPC) ensures the participation of major players while influencing smaller 
countries to prioritise the same objectives. Large Member States and key industrial players, 
often  with  pre-existing  strategies  and  infrastructure,  align  with  European  initiatives  (e.g. 
Finland's  national  strategy,  ‘Chips  from  the  North’  or  Belgium  IMEC’s  participation  in  the 
Chips for Europe Initiative), leveraging frameworks like the European Chips Act to reinforce 
their national goals. In that context, Joint Undertakings, which include both Member States and 
industry stakeholders, play an important role in ensuring coherence and alignment. At the same 
time, smaller countries are influenced by these European frameworks to make certain critical 
technologies  a  priority.  In  the  context  of  the  Chips Act,  Croatia,  for  instance,  initiated  the 
Croatian Competence Centre for Semiconductors in  2023, aligning  its  efforts  with  the EU's 
semiconductor  targets389.  Similarly,  Czechia  implemented  the  European  Chips  Act  by 
establishing the Czech National Semiconductor Cluster, which has led to significant progress, 
such as producing 3 million wafers annually390. Malta, through Malta Enterprise, has set up a 
microchips  competence  centre  to  attract  industry  players  and  innovators  in  this  strategic 
sector391. These examples illustrate how the European strategy in certain technology sectors 
can reinforce coherence among major players but also acts as a catalyst for smaller Member 
States  to  prioritise  certain  strategic  goals  –  added  value  for  the  EU  as  such  competitive 
ecosystem across the EU. These examples demonstrate how a European strategy in specific 
technology sectors can enhance coherence among major players while serving as a catalyst for 
smaller Member States to prioritise strategic objectives. This approach generates significant 
added value for the EU by fostering a competitive ecosystem across the entire region. 

Conclusions  

In  conclusion,  Technology  Infrastructures  are  instrumental  in  driving  the  deployment  of 
technologies, structuring digital ecosystems, and delivering the essential capabilities needed 
for  innovation  and  growth.  They  serve  as  a  critical  bridge  between  research  and  the 
commercialisation  of  technologies,  acting  as  backbone  of  digital  ecosystems  and  enabling 
technological advancements that support economic and societal development.  

Investing in Technology Infrastructures at the European level delivers substantial added value 
by achieving outcomes that no individual Member State could accomplish independently. Such 
investments  guarantee  pan-European  access  and  establish  a  cohesive  network  of 
infrastructures,  supporting  collaboration  and  innovation  across  border.  However,  as 
demonstrated throughout this report, the ability of TIs to achieve their intended and full impact 

389 DESI Report 2024 – Country Report Croatia 
390 DESI Report 2024 – Country Report Czech Republic 
391 DESI Report 2024 – Country Report Malta 

283 

 
 
is contingent on a range of interconnected factors. These factors underline the necessity for a 
holistic  policy  framework  that  integrates  TIs  within  the  broader  innovation  ecosystem. 
Standalone  investments,  while  valuable,  are  insufficient  to  unlock  their  full  potential.  To 
maximise  the  benefits  of  TIs,  coordinated  and  comprehensive  interventions  across  policy, 
funding, and collaboration must be prioritised. 

Sources and methodology 

This case study was developed based on desk research, analysis of use cases available on the 
websites  of  various  Technology  Infrastructure  providers,  and  interviews  with  TI  providers, 
including  HPC  centres,  hosting  entities,  pilot  lines,  and  operators  of  Testing  and 
Experimentation Facilities. 

AI  &  Robotics  Estonia  (2024)  AI  &  Robotics  Estonia  AIRE:  2025-2030  vision.  Retrieved  from: 
https://aire-edih.eu/2023/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/aire-visioon.pdf  

AI  &  Robotics  Estonia  (2024)  2023:  Completed  Projects.  Retrieved  from:  https://aire-
edih.eu/en/projects/completed-projects/  

AI & Robotics Estonia (2024) News, Aire Club. Retrieved from: https://aire-edih.eu/en/at-start-up-day-
aire-hosted-european-partners-and-shared-inspiring-artificial-intelligence-case-studies/  

European Digital Innovation Hubs Network (2024) AI Algorithms and Sensor Integration for Robotic 
Vessels. 
https://european-digital-innovation-hubs.ec.europa.eu/knowledge-
hub/success-stories/ai-algorithms-and-sensor-integration-robotic-vessels#solutions  

Retrieved 

from: 

Underpin (2024) Use Cases. Retrieved from: https://underpinproject.eu/use-cases/  

Underpin (2024) Work Packages. Retrieved from: https://underpinproject.eu/work-packages/  

Github 
https://github.com/GenomicDataInfrastructure  

Genomic 

(2024) 

Data 

Infrastructure. 

Retrieved 

from: 

European  Commission  (2023)  Europe's  Beating  Cancer  Plan:  First  prototype  of  the  Cancer  Image 
Europe  platform  goes  live.  Retrieved  from:  https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/europes-
beating-cancer-plan-first-prototype-cancer-image-europe-platform-goes-live  

EU  Digital  Wallet  Consortium  (2024)  EWC  project  Phase  1  overview.  Retrieved  from: 
https://eudiwalletconsortium.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/EWC-P1-Overview-Citizen-feedback-
and-end-user-piloting-202410.pdf 

NOBID  consortium  (2024)  Meet  the  work  packages:  Discover  WP6's  work  on  QEAA  issuance. 
Retrieved from: https://www.nobidconsortium.com/meet-the-work-packages-discover-wp6s-work-on-
qeaa-issuance/  

(2024) 

DC4EU 
Project 
https://dm158x9fyyzgp.cloudfront.net/wp-
content/uploads/2024/02/DC4EU_D1.1_Project_Management_Handbook_v.01.pdf  

Management 

Handbook. 

D1.1 

Retrieved 

from:  

DC4EU (2024) Outputs. Retrieved from: https://www.dc4eu.eu/outputs/  

POTENTIAL  (n.a.)  POTENTIAL  enters  its  next  phases  with  confidence.  Retrieved  from: 
https://www.digital-identity-wallet.eu/assets/files/Potential%20-%20Press%20Release%202.pdf 

AI4Health Imaging (2024). AI for Health Imaging. Retrieved from: https://ai4hi.net/  

284 

 
 
European  Commission  (2024)  European  Cancer  Imaging  Initiative.  Retrieved  from:  https://digital-
strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/cancer-imaging  

TEF-Health  (2024)  Technical  and  scientific  support  for  Health  AI  providers  and  notified  bodies. 
Retrieved from: https://tefhealth.eu/home  

B1MG (2024) Beyond 1 million Genomes. Retrieved from: https://b1mg-project.eu/  

European  Commission  (2024)  European  ‘1+  million  Genomes’  Initiative.  Retrieved  from: 
https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/1-million-genomes 

European Commission (2023) The New European Innovation Agenda. Retrieved from: https://research-
and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/strategy/support-policy-making/shaping-eu-research-and-innovation-
policy/new-european-innovation-agenda_en  

European  Commission  (2024)  Digital  Europe  programme  –  Performance.  Retrieved  from: 
https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-budget/performance-and-reporting/programme-
performance-statements/digital-europe-programme-performance_en  

European Commission (2018) The European Declaration on High-Performance Computing. Retrieved 
from: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/european-declaration-high-performance-computing  

Commission 

European 
https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-
age/european-chips-act_en  

European 

(2024) 

Chips 

Act. 

Retrieved 

from: 

AI-matters (2024). AI-Matters. Retrieved from: https://ai-matters.eu/services-catalog/ https://eurohpc-
ju.europa.eu/index_en  

European Commission: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Shirinzadeh, S., Viscido, S., 
Endo, C., Lotito, A. et al., Horizon Europe and the digital & industrial transition – Interim evaluation 
support  study  –  Phase  2  –  Horizon  Europe  –  Institutionalised  partnership  report  –  EuroHPC  joint 
undertaking,  Viscido,  S.(editor),  Lotito,  A.(editor),  Boekholt,  P.(editor)  and  Lebhardt,  F.(editor), 
Publications Office of the European Union, 2024, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/561873 

European  Commission:  Directorate-General  for  Research  and  Innovation,  Berrada,  K.,  Viscido,  S., 
Lotito, A., Maroulis, N. et al., Horizon Europe and the digital & industrial transition – Interim evaluation 
support study – Phase 2 – Horizon Europe – Institutionalised partnership report – ECSEL & Key Digital 
Technologies (KDT) joint undertakings, Viscido, S.(editor), Lotito, A.(editor), Boekholt, P.(editor) and 
Lebhardt, 
2024, 
Publications 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/71518  

F.(editor), 

European 

Union, 

Office 

the 

of 

DEEP projects (2024) DEEP-SEA. Retrieved from: https://deep-projects.eu/  

EuroHPC  Joint  Undertaking  (2024)  The  European  Processor  Initiative  (EPI).  Retrieved  from: 
https://eurohpc-ju.europa.eu/research-innovation/our-projects/european-processor-initiative-epi_en  

EuroHPC 
ju.europa.eu/research-innovation/our-projects/eupex_en  

Joint  Undertaking 

(2024)  EUPEX  project.  Retrieved 

from:  https://eurohpc-

RITIFI (2024) About us. Retrieved from: https://ritifi.eu/  

INFRACHIP  (2024)  The  European  research  platform  for  the  sustainable  development  of  next-
generation and future semiconductors chips. Retrieved from: https://infrachip.eu/ 

285 

 
European Commission (2024) Testing and Experimentation Facilities (TEFs): Questions and Answers. 
Retrieved from: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/fr/faqs/testing-and-experimentation-facilities-tefs-
questions-and-answers  

EUR-lex  (2023)  Regulation  establishing  a  framework  of  measures  for  strengthening  Europe's 
semiconductor  ecosystem  and  amending  Regulation  (EU)  2021/694  (Chips  Act).  Retrieved  from: 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2023.229.01.0001.01.FRA  

AI 
European 
strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/ai-factories  

Commission 

(2024) 

Factories. 

Retrieved 

from: 

https://digital-

IPCEI  on  Microelectronics  (2024)  IPCEI  on  Microelectronics.  Retrieved  from:  https://www.ipcei-
me.eu/  

LUMI 
EuroHPC 
(2024) 
supercomputer.eu/eurohpcju/  

Joint  Undertaking. 

Retrieved 

from: 

https://www.lumi-

Digital  Economy  Society  Index  (2024)  Digital  Decade  Report,  Country  Report  Croatia,  Czech 
Republic,  Ireland  and  Malta.  Retrieved  from:  https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/factpages/state-
digital-decade-2024-report  

Interview with EU implementing organisation 

286 

 
 
 
 
Case Study 3: Synergies 

Objective  

The aim of this case study is to provide rich, qualitative data on how and why the activities 
aimed at fostering synergies between Digital Europe programme (from now on Digital Europe) 
and other programmes contribute to achieving the programme’s objectives, with a specific 
focus on Horizon 2020, Horizon Europe, Connecting Europe Facility and Erasmus+.  

The general objectives of Digital Europe are ‘to support the digital transformation of industry 
and to foster better exploitation of the industrial potential of policies on innovation, research 
and  technological  development  (…)  the  programme  should  also  aim  to  better  align  Union, 
Member State and regional policies, and to pool private and industrial resources in order to 
increase investment and develop stronger synergies.’392.  

Promoting innovative, green and digital economic transformation and fostering excellence in 
research  and  innovation  (R&I)  are  among  the  EU  policy  priorities.  The  European  R&I 
ecosystem is a complex web of different European, national, regional and local instruments. 
All  instruments  focus  on  different  Technology  Readiness  Levels  (TRLs)  –  ranging  from 
fundamental  research  to  the  deployment  of  technologies.  This  creates  interlinkages  and 
potential for synergies between the instruments. An integrated approach and strengthening of 
synergies between the key EU instruments can reinforce the impact of policies and resources 
through  complementarities  and  promote  the  effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  utilising  the 
European R&I potential.  

Considering the above, this case study analyses how and the extent to which synergies with 
Digital Europe and other programmes are fostered.393  

Approach 

This  case  study  looks  at  synergies  between  Digital  Europe  and  other  programmes,  with  a 
specific focus on Horizon 2020, Horizon Europe, Connecting Europe Facility and Erasmus+. 
This case study is based on desk study, a mini-survey for selected Digital Europe projects, a 
general beneficiary survey, interviews with Digital Europe project managers, data analyses of 
e-grant  data  and analyses of the Digital  Europe Work programmes 2021  - 2022 and 2023  - 
2024. 0 presents an elaborate explanation of the methods.  

The case-study is divided into three sections: 

•  Synergetic actions: background piece on the rationale behind the synergies and the 
type of synergies targeted by the EC, a review of the synergies identified in the 
various regulations of R&I programmes, the data analysis and the Digital Europe 
interim evaluation survey.  

392 Regulation (EU) 2021/694 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2021 establishing the Digital Europe 
programme  and  repealing  Decision  (EU)  2015/2240  (Text  with  EEA  relevance).  (14)  Retrieved  from:  https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32021R0694  

393 By examining synergies, this case study contributes to the evaluation question COH.04: To what extent is Digital Europe 
coherent with actions funded under EU programmes listed in Annex III of the Digital Europe Regulation, the Recovery and 
the Resilience Facility, the Digital Decade Policy programme objectives and targets (22) and other EU programmes with 
similar objectives? Have synergies materialised? In which areas should synergies be fostered? 

287 

 
 
•  Evaluation criteria: an assessment of the evaluation dimensions with respect to how 
Digital Europe fosters synergy with other programmes. This includes six illustrative 
examples to highlight best practices of targeted, potential and realised synergies.  

•  Conclusion: synthesis of the findings and conclude with best practices.  

Limitations  

This evaluation is conducted halfway through the programme's implementation and therefore 
the ability to observe and analyse materialised synergies is limited. Additionally, there is a time-
lag  between  the  activities  of  other  European  programmes  and  deployment  through  Digital 
Europe. This affects the extent to which synergies already can be achieved. In addition to that, 
different definitions of synergies exist. This case study is therefore focused on describing some 
of the expected synergies, using the synergy typology described in the next section, as well as 
on first indications that these are being realised. However, the study cannot present a complete 
review of the various ways in which the Commission aims to foster synergies. 

Synergetic actions - evidence 

This Section introduces the scope and definition of synergies in the context of this case study. 
Secondly, it introduces different mechanisms through which synergies can occur. Following 
that, it describes references to synergies in Digital Europe Regulation and cross-references to 
four other programmes and the references to Digital Europe in their respective Regulations394. 
Third, a quantitative and descriptive overview of a selection of Digital Europe projects that 
potentially have synergies with the previously mentioned four other programmes following the 
data  analyses  and  two  surveys  is  provided.  Finally,  this  section  highlights  findings  from  a 
HaDEA Feedback to Policy Report on synergies.  

The definition of ‘synergies’  

To ensure a common understanding of ‘synergies’, it is important to define the term, as different 
definitions and interpretations exist. According to the Better Regulation Toolbox synergies 
are closely linked with the evaluation criterium coherence. This criterium focuses on synergies 
or  inconsistencies  between  policies  in  related  fields  that  are  expected  to  work  together, 
especially if the other interventions have the same or similar objectives.395  

Similarly, the evaluation study on the external coherence and synergies of Horizon 2020 
within  the  European  research  and  innovation  support  system396  explains  that  ‘synergy 
occurs when the sum of (expected) results of programmes/initiatives as a whole is greater than 
the sum of the parts (1+1>2)’. Synergies can occur through coordinated policies, a common 
approach or through common institutions. The report Research to Reality Digital Solution to 
European Challenges defines horizontal and vertical synergies, reflecting the way governments 
are involved (i.e. within or between). Horizontal synergies occur between funding programmes 
at  the  same  government  level  with  complementary  objectives.  On  the  other  hand,  vertical 

394  Horizon 2020, Horizon Europe, Connecting Europe Facility and Erasmus+. 
395  Better  Regulation  Toolbox.  Retrieved  from:  https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/planning-and-

proposing-law/better-regulation/better-regulation-guidelines-and-toolbox_en  

396 European Commission: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Evaluation study on the external coherence and 
synergies of Horizon 2020 within the European research and innovation support system – Final report, Publications Office 
of the European Union, 2023, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/90147 

288 

 
 
 
synergies occur across government levels, such as when regional and national levels align with 
EU level policies.397 Finally, a guidance notice in the context of synergies between Horizon 
Europe and the ERDF provides insight on how synergy mechanisms can be operationalised.398   

In this study, we will use the following synergy typology for conceptual clarity (see Table). 
Fostering of synergies can refer to any of the other types of synergies listed in this table. This 
synergy typology is based on the different previously mentioned sources399:  

Table 10. Synergy typology 

Synergy type 

Explanation 

Cumulative 
funding 
synergies  

Sequential 
synergies  

Cumulative funding synergies bring together different funding streams (including both shared and directly 
managed funds) in the same project, single action or a group of inter-dependent actions or operations (e.g. an institute 
receives Digital Europe funding and uses other funding streams to co-finance the project or investments).  

Sequential synergy refers to collaboration where projects/initiatives build on each other’s results/resources. 
Within this type, there is a differentiation between:  

Upstream synergy, which occurs when initiatives pave the way for new projects (Digital Europe) (e.g. (national) 
investments into capacities and infrastructures are to be made available to the deployment of innovative new 
technologies and solutions).  

Downstream synergy aimed to enhance the take up of H2020 and other research results towards the market (e.g. 
the results of a H2020 project are further developed, prototyped and demonstrated to foster or increase the uptake of 
the developed technology solution).  

Concurrent (or 
parallel) 
synergies  

Concurrent synergy refers to projects/initiatives that complement each other. The positive complementary 
interactions are contemporaneous rather than sequential (e.g. participants are active in multiple programmes that are 
complementary, and knowledge spillovers take place).  

Strategic 
synergies  

Operational 
synergies  

Strategic synergies are characterised as planned synergies through aligning policy objectives, synergy-enhancing 
services, implementation rules or requirements (e.g. award criteria aimed to foster synergies).  

Operational synergies refer to interactions regarding concrete ways to implement the collaboration, including 
financial and non-financial aspects. This collaboration can be intentional or incidental. A special case of 
operational synergy is substitution synergy which occurs when successfully evaluated H2020 (or Digital Europe) 
proposals are subsequently funded by other sources (e.g. after receiving the Seal of Excellence).  

Synergies (mechanisms) in the Regulation establishing Digital Europe 

Digital Europe is embedded within a clear policy framework guided by EU priorities (i.e. 
the  digital  transformation)  and  the  Digital  Decade  Framework.  The  Regulation 
establishing Digital Europe states that the programme should aim to support digital industry 
transformation  by  aligning  EU,  national,  and  regional  policies  and  pooling  resources  to 
enhance  investment  and  foster  synergies.  The  Regulation  introduces  different  synergy 
mechanisms and a wide range of references to other programmes:  

The extent to which a project has (or explains the) synergies and complementarities with 
other  Union  programmes  is  used  as  an  award  criterion  in  the  selection  process  of  Digital 
Europe projects (strategic synergy).  

The implementation of different funding programmes related to one technology by one 
implementing  body,  for  instance,  HPC  development  by  the  EuroHPC  JU,  creates 
synergies among research and deployment actions (strategic synergies) 

397 Research To Reality - Digital Solution to European Challenges link (download) 
398 Commission Notice Synergies between Horizon Europe and ERDF programmes 2022/C 421/03 Retrieved from: https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52022XC1104(02).  The  Commission  Notice  introduces  different 
mechanisms to exploit synergies, including Seals of Excellence, transfers, cumulative funding, support  for Teaming and 
‘upstream/downstream synergies. 

399 Including the Evaluation study on the external coherence and synergies of Horizon 2020 within the European R&I support 
system, the Commission Notice on Synergies, the Better Regulation Toolbox, the Digital Europe Regulation, the Research 
to Reality Digital Solution to European Challenges-report and the HaDEA Feedback to Policy study. 

289 

 
 
Collaboration  between  the  Commission  and  the  relevant  Member  States  authorities 
should  aim  to  create  synergies  between  directly  and  indirectly  managed  programmes 
(operational synergies);  

The Seal of Excellence is introduced as a means to certify and signals the quality of a proposal 
to other funders, when a project was assessed, complied with the minimum requirements, but 
was not financed due to budgetary constraints (operational synergy); 

Arrangements for cumulative/complementary funding from Union programmes where the 
management  arrangements  allow  it  (in  sequence,  in  an  alternating  way,  or  through  the 
combination of funds), due to the need for co-financing for most actions;  

The European Digital Innovation Hubs are a means to foster synergies with Horizon Europe 
and/or other R&I programmes; 

Cross-references between the Digital Europe Regulation and the Regulations of the other 
four Union programmes in scope  

There  are  strong  complementarities  for  synergies  between  Digital  Europe  and  respectively 
Horizon Europe, Connecting Europe Facility, Erasmus+ and Horizon 2020 in each legal basis. 
Horizon  Europe  and  Digital  Europe  address  similar  themes  but  target  different  types  of 
actions.  Both  have  different  outputs  and  intervention  logics.  Horizon  Europe  is  focused  on 
research and innovation, while Digital Europe focuses on deployment. Both the Digital Europe 
regulation (Annex III) and the Horizon Europe regulation400 cross-reference each other. For 
instance, Horizon Europe has dedicated budget for the cluster ‘Digital, Industry and Space’, 
which aims to develop technologies relevant to Digital Europe. Horizon Europe has ‘digital’ as 
a cross-cutting theme, and it supports research infrastructures and through the pillar ‘Innovative 
Europe’ supports scale-up breakthrough innovations. Conversely, Digital  Europe focuses on 
digital  capacity  building,  national,  regional  and  local  deployment  of  digital  capacities  and 
digital technologies in areas of public interest. Digital Europe supports infrastructures access 
for  R&D  activities  supported  by  Horizon  Europe  and  gradually  implements  technologies 
developed under Horizon Europe. 

As  for  the  synergies  with  the  Connecting  Europe  Facility,  the  Digital  Europe  regulation 
highlights that the Digital Europe capacities and infrastructures are to be made available to the 
deployment of innovative new technologies and solutions in the field of mobility and transport. 
Furthermore, CEF aims to support the roll-out and deployment of these technologies. The CEF 
regulation401 specifies that the CEF should focus on funding the digital infrastructure, whereas 
Digital Europe focuses more on individual digital services and applications in the context of 
mobility  and  transport.  Finally,  the  Digital  Europe  regulation  stipulates  that  coordination 
mechanisms are to be established.  

The synergies with Erasmus+ lie mostly at complementing the development and acquisition 
of the advanced digital skills in all Digital Europe domains and through mobility experiences. 

400 Regulation (EU) 2021/695 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 April 2021 establishing Horizon Europe – 
the Framework programme for Research and Innovation, laying down its rules for participation and dissemination, and 
repealing Regulations (EU) No 1290/2013 and (EU) No 1291/2013 (Text with EEA relevance) Retrieved from: https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/695/oj  

401 Regulation (EU) 2021/1153 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2021 establishing the Connecting 
Europe Facility and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1316/2013 and (EU) No 283/2014 (Text with EEA relevance) Retrieved 
from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32021R1153  

290 

 
 
The Digital Europe Programme does not provide funding for students’ mobility experiences, 
however, the mobility experiences can be funded by Erasmus+, for instance, via the Digital 
Traineeship Opportunities (DOTs). Double degrees among partners of Digital Europe projects 
offer another opportunity for mobility outside of Erasmus+. 

The project AI&Health402 (101083880), for instance, devotes a work package to student and 
staff  mobility  using  the  Erasmus+  digital  tools.  It  is  aimed  at  the  creation  or  renewal  of 
Erasmus+  inter-institutional  bilateral  agreements  among  university  partners  for  successful 
student mobility (for studies, traineeships or a combination of both) and staff mobility. It uses 
digital  Erasmus+  tools,  such  as  the  Erasmus+  dashboard,  to  manage  the  mobility,  and  the 
European student card for the recognition of student status, access to campus, and transfer of 
student  records.  In  practice,  students  enrolled  in  an  AI&Health  master  offered  by  one 
participating  university  can  attend  an  AI&Health  master  module  in  another  university  and 
obtain a double master degree (each university offers a different specialisation). As the training 
model  is  hybrid,  students  can  benefit  from  Erasmus+  grants  to  attend  lessons  abroad  at  the 
second university. 

The  project  AI4CI403  (101123524)  introduced  a  Joint  Master  Agreement  and  Erasmus+ 
agreements  to  support  student  mobility  between  the  participating  universities.  Moreover, 
double degree agreements are being finalised. 

The GreenChips-EDU project404 aims to foster student mobility by offering Double Degree 
(DD) programmes. Partners in this project are promoting double degree agreements, which 
offer students the opportunity to earn two degrees from different institutions. By promoting 
these agreements, the project aims to enhance student mobility and provide a more 
comprehensive educational experience. 

Horizon 2020 was embedded in a clear policy framework that includes a priority on the digital 
transformation (e.g. the Digital Agenda for Europe), however, logically, in the Horizon 2020 
regulation there are no references to Digital Europe or vice versa405.  

Finally, in all cases, it is highlighted that programming and implementation processes require 
a strong coordination mechanisms and governance structure. 

Beneficiary survey 

The results of the beneficiary survey show that large shares of respondents value Digital Europe 
as  being  complementary  to/  having  synergies  with  other  programmes’  input  on  synergies. 
Similarly, for a large part of the respondents, sequential synergies occur.406  

402 Advanced digital skills programme Artificial Intelligence and Health 
403 Artificial Intelligence for Connected Industries 
404 Building a Digitally-Supported Education Ecosystem for Next Generation Microelectronics Experts in Sustainable Chips 

and Applications for a Green and Circular Economy 

405 Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing Horizon 
2020 - the Framework programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) and repealing Decision No 1982/2006/EC 
Text with EEA relevance. Retrieved from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32013R1291  

406 For a complete analysis of the beneficiary survey, please see ANNEX C of the Synopsis report.   

291 

 
 
 
Figure  8.  Beneficiary  survey  question  35:  Please  comment  whether,  and  if  so  to  which  extent,  the  Digital  Europe  is 
complementary  to  and/or  has  created  synergies  (e.g.  collaboration  in  implementation)  with  the  following  type  of  other 
instruments: (n=1160): 

At  the  European  level,  Digital  Europe  is  seen  as  fully  coherent  with  other  EU  funding 
instruments  by  38.9%  (n=394)  of  respondents.  Perceptions  of  coherence  between  Digital 
Europe and regional and national funding opportunities are mixed, with several respondents 
seeing Digital Europe as only partially aligned with these opportunities (34.5% (n=243) for 
regional  and  37.2%  (n=304)  for  national  funding)  (Figure  8).  While  the  majority  of  the 
participants indicated coherence with other EU programmes in an open question, some also 
indicated  that  practical  challenges  (e.g.  legal  restrictions,  administrative  barriers,  lack  of 
coordination or the integration with national funding sources) hinder the extent to which the 
synergies can be exploited. 

Figure 9. Beneficiary survey question 36: Does your Digital Europe-funded project build directly on activities supported under 
other European funding instruments, such as Horizon Europe, ERDF, Recovery and Resilience Facility, Digital Decade Policy 
programme etc.? (n=1160) 

As for sequential synergies, as much as 41% of the respondents mention that their project 
builds  on  the  results  of  another  EU  funded  projects,  which  highlights  that  beneficiaries 
manage  to  navigate  through  different  EU  funding  options  further  improving  or  developing 
previously achieved results.  34% (n=390) did not agree with that statement and 25% (n=293) 
that did not know (Figure 9).    

Data analysis  

High-level analysis of cross-participation data 

Cross-participation  analysis,  which  can  serve  as  a  proxy  of  potential  for  knowledge 
transfer  shows  an  overlap  of  targeted  stakeholder  groups  between  the  Digital  Europe 
programme and Horizon 2020, Horizon Europe and Erasmus+. This analysis shows that 
71%  (2482)  of  all  unique  organisations  participating  in  Digital  Europe  (3474)  also 
participate in Horizon Europe, Horizon 2020, Erasmus+ and/or the Connecting Europe 
Facility.  Furthermore,  the  data  shows  that  there  are  multiple  organisations  that 

292 

 
 
 
 
 
participate in more than one Digital Europe project (there are 3474 unique organisations in 
the dataset and in total there are 5196 project-organisation combinations).   

Digital Europe benefits  from established networks, where participants have previously 
collaborated  on  other  EU-funded  initiatives  or  worked  as  consortium  partners. About 
1601  unique  organisations  (representing  46%  of  all  unique  organisations  that  participate  in 
Digital  Europe)  are  common  between  the  Digital  Europe  and  Horizon  Europe,  1763 
(representing 51%) between the Digital Europe and Horizon 2020 and 856 unique organisations 
(representing 25% of Digital Europe participants) between the Digital Europe and Erasmus+. 
There  is  an  existent  but  more  limited  overlap  of  targeted  stakeholders  between  the  Digital 
Europe  programme  and  the  Connecting  Europe  Facility  with  94  unique  organisation 
(representing 3% of all unique organisations that participate in Digital Europe). 

There is substantial overlap of targeted stakeholder groups between Digital Europe and 
Horizon Europe and Horizon 2020, with about 1601 unique organisations (representing 46% 
of all unique Digital Europe grant participants) in common between the Digital Europe and 
Horizon Europe, and 1763 (representing 51%) between the Digital Europe and Horizon 2020. 
Key  SOs  concentrating  cross-participation  include  SO4  (Advanced  Digital  Skills),  SO5 
(EDIH)  and  SO1(High  Performance  Computing).  Cross-participation  in  the  aforementioned 
areas  (EDIH,  High  Performance  Computing  including  NCCCs, Advanced  Digital  Skills)  is 
consistent, as it links research outcomes of tested innovative digital solutions with practical 
applications. It is also important to note that some activities, including the NCCCs and EDIH, 
were initially funded under Horizon, which further explains the cross-participation. 

Digital Europe also complements Erasmus+ which supports education and training, and which 
has concrete synergies with SO4. Cross-participation analysis which serves as a proxy of 
potential knowledge transfer shows an overlap of targeted stakeholder groups between 
Digital Europe and Erasmus+ with about 856 unique organisation (representing 25% of the 
unique Digital Europe participants) in common between the Digital Europe and Erasmus+. Key 
SOs  concentrating  cross-participation  include  SO4  (Advanced  Digital  Skills)  and  SO5 
(Deployment and Best use of Digital Capacities and Interoperability). Other SOs such as SO1 
also include synergies with Erasmus+ as part of their training activities. One of the priorities 
of  the  Digital  Education  Action  Plan  is  to  support  the  development  of  digital  skills  and 
competences.  HPC  Training  Activities  builds  on  the  successful  pilot  project  ‘Digital 
Opportunity Traineeships’, continued under Erasmus+ as part of the Digital Education Action 
Plan, and it will focus on highly specialised skills, notably in HPC.  

The Digital Europe programme also has complementarities with the Connecting Europe 
Facility (CEF) and the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF2) as the latter supports the high 
capacity  broadband  and  5G  corridors  necessary  to  deploy  digital  services  and 
technologies across the EU407. Cross-participation analysis indicates existent but more limited 
overlap  of  targeted  stakeholders.  There  are  94  unique  organisation  involved  in  228  Digital 
Europe projects that participate in CEF-funded project as well. The 94 unique organisations 
correspond to 3% of all unique organisations that participate in Digital Europe. Key SOs that 
show  cross-participation  include  SO3  (Cybersecurity  and Trust)  and  SO5  (Deployment  and 
Best Use of Digital Capacities and Interoperability) (see Table ). Indeed, some complementary 

407 SWD (2024) 37 Final Performance and Evaluation Framework for Digital Europe 

293 

 
 
between activities are to be observed between the CEF and the Digital Europe as the first eight 
EDMO regional hubs (under SO5) and operations were initially funded and supported by the 
CEF before receiving Digital Europe funding.  

In  all  instances,  the  organisations  that  cross-participate  (i.e.  the  organisations  that  are 
involved  in  both  Digital  Europe  and  Horizon  Europe,  Horizon  2020,  Erasmus+  and/or  the 
Connecting  Europe  Facility)  account  for  a  disproportionally  large  share  of  all  possible 
Digital  Europe  project-organisation  combinations  (e.g.  Digital  Europe-Horizon  Europe: 
46%  of  the  unique  organisations  account  for  57%  of  all  possible  project-organisation 
combinations; Digital Europe-Horizon 2020: Digital Europe-Horizon 2020: 51% of the unique 
organisations  account  for  60%  of  all  possible  project-organisation  combinations;  Digital 
Europe-Erasmus+: 25% of the unique organisations account for 34% of all possible project-
organisation combinations; Digital Europe-CEF: 3% of the unique organisations account for 
4%  of  all  possible  project-organisation  combinations).  This  means  that  the  cross-
participating organisations are relatively more involved in Digital Europe projects, than 
the non-cross-participating organisations. This suggests that these organisations are well 
positioned to foster and exploit synergies within the Digital Europe programme as well as 
in combination with any of the other four programmes. 

Table 11. Cross-participations (i.e. project-organisation combinations) across SOs and European programmes 

SO / European programme  

Connection 
Europe Facility 
(CEF) 

Horizon 2020 

Horizon Europe 

Erasmus +  

SO1: High Performance Computing 

SO2: Artificial Intelligence 

SO3: Cybersecurity and Trust 

SO4: Advanced Digital Skills 

SO5: Deployment and Best Use of Digital 
Capacities and Interoperability 

SO6: Semiconductors  

Total Cross-participations 

6 

39 

74 

20 

89 

NA 

228 

121 

658 

480 

359 

1512 

NA 

2481 

115 

661 

474 

364 

1328 

NA 

2942 

79 

305 

204 

321 

856 

NA 

1306 

Table 12. Cross-participations across SOs and European programmes (unique organisations) 

CEF Unique 
Organisations (n 
/ %) 

Horizon 2020 
Unique 
Organisations (n / 
%) 

Horizon Europe 
Unique 
Organisations  

Erasmus+ Unique 
Organisations (n / %) 

Total Unique 
Organisations 
per SO 

5 

5% 

94 

88% 

90 

84% 

64 

60% 

107 

22 

43 

11 

56 

3% 

7% 

2% 

2% 

445 

69% 

447 

70% 

188 

29% 

643 

353 

61% 

344 

59% 

154 

26% 

582 

276 

59% 

279 

60% 

227 

49% 

464 

1136 

49% 

987 

43% 

610 

27% 

2297 

SO1: High 
Performance 
Computing 

SO2: Artificial 
Intelligence 

SO3: 
Cybersecurity 
and Trust 

SO4: Advanced 
Digital Skills 

SO5: 
Deployment 
and Best Use of 
Digital 
Capacities and 
Interoperability 

294 

 
 
 
 
SO6: 
Semiconductors  

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

Data analysis of selected Digital Europe projects   

To gain better understanding of the dynamics at play, a selection of 120 Digital Europe project-
programme  combinations408  that  have  high  potential  for  synergies  with  Horizon  Europe, 
Horizon  2020,  CEF  and  Erasmus+  was  developed  by  DG  CNECT  –  based  on  cross-
participation data, a relevance score, and a manual selection process. This sample was chosen 
based on the purpose and scope of this case study.  

Cross-participation  does  not  necessarily  imply  that  synergies  will  occur,  it  can  provide  an 
indication  of  potential  synergies.  Here,  data  on  cross-participation  was  used  to  narrow  the 
amount of the projects to be analysed. The previous sub-section provides an overview of the 
cross-participation data. After selecting all projects in which beneficiaries also received grants 
from CEF, Horizon 2020, Horizon Europe or CEF, the sample was further refined409. This was 
done based on references in the Digital Europe proposals to the four EU programmes and their 
relevance scores – indicating the degree of alignment of the Digital Europe project with one of 
the  four  EU  programmes  (using  the  indexing  software  Elasticsearch).  Across  the  four 
programmes, 1117 out of all 5229 Digital Europe projects received a relevance score comparing 
them  to  one  of  the  other  programmes. Afterwards,  manual  selection  of  the  most  relevant 
projects (i.e. the highest relevance score) was conducted based on the description of the planned 
synergies in the proposals. This approach aims to identify the Digital Europe projects with the 
greatest potential for synergies. It should be noted that the potential for synergies is higher than 
the  120  Digital  Europe  project-programme  combinations  as  shown  by  the  figures  on  cross-
participations in the previous section and the number of projects with high relevance scores. 
For an elaborate methodological explanation, see Section 0.  

The  selected  sample  of  120  project-programme  combinations  signals  high  potential  for 
concurrent synergies, as knowledge spillovers can be obtained through participation in 
multiple Digital Europe projects or through the interlinkages between different projects 
from  different  programmes.  The  120  combinations  involve  100  unique  Digital  Europe 
projects, indicating that some projects have been identified as having (potential) synergies with 
more than one of the four programmes. Similarly, there are 1087 unique organisation-project 
combinations,  in  which  811  unique  organisations  participate,  indicating  that,  22%  of  the 
organisations participate in more than one Digital Europe project. 

Figure 10. Selection of projects 

408 This refers to a combination of a Digital Europe project and potential synergies with either Horizon 2020, Horizon Europe, 

Erasmus+ and/or the Connecting Europe Facility. 

409 As shown in the previous section, there are there are 3474 unique organisations in the dataset and 5196 project-organisations 
combinations  –  this  means  that  there  are  5196  cross-participations  between  Digital  Europe  and  any  of  the  four  other 
programmes in the dataset. 

295 

 
 
 
 
The  identified  project-programme  combinations  show  strong  thematic  complementarity 
when disaggregating them per SO410. The strongest thematic links between the SOs and the 
other  programmes  can  be  observed  between  CEF  and  SO3  (e.g.  digital  infrastructure, 
including cybersecurity and SO3: cybersecurity and trust), and Erasmus+ and SO4 (e.g. skills 
development and SO4: advanced digital skills). The other two SOs in scope (SO2: artificial 
intelligence and SO 5: deployment and best use of digital capacities and interoperability) have 
a more  cross-cutting  theme and therefore are relevant  to  both  Horizon Europe and  Horizon 
2020.  

A further analysis– based on the provided reasons for selection – was made to grasp how likely 
these potential synergies are. In some cases, it was not possible to clearly identify what type of 
(potential) synergy would occur. This resulted in 48 project-programme combinations with 
clear evidence of a (potential) synergy (including 39 unique projects), which means that for 
40%  of  the  pairs  there  is  a  high  likelihood  of  creating  synergies  among  the  two  funding 
programmes.  

Although in some cases, there was limited evidence how the (potential) synergy would occur, 
a  manual  in-depth  analysis  was  performed  on  the  120  project-programme  combinations. 
Through the manual in-depth analysis, the identified synergies were categorised based on the 
following synergy categories: concurrent synergies and sequential synergies (including direct 
follow-up  projects).  Table  provides  an  overview  of  the  categorisation  of  all  120  project-
programme  combinations.  From  this  sample,  more  than  half  of  the  project-programme 
combinations are performed by consortia that already have worked together, (including, but 
not limited to the four programmes in scope); around half of the projects use knowledge that 
has been developed by previous projects, and 13 projects are direct follow-ups from previous 
projects. When considering the 48 project-programme combinations with clear evidence of a 
(potential) synergy, 88% of the project-programme combinations have concurrent synergies, 
79% for sequential synergies, and 10 projects are direct follow-ups from previous projects.  

Table 13. Categorisation synergies for selected project-programme combinations 

Type of Synergy 

All project-programme combinations 

Concurrent 

Sequential 

Count 

65 

59 

Unique projects 

52 

45 

410  The  selection  of  120  Digital  Europe  project-programme  combinations  did  not  contain  Specific  Objective  1  High 

Performance Computing and Specific Objective 6 Semiconductors projects. 

296 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Direct follow-up project 

19 

13 

Results mini survey on synergies  

To refine and gather insights on the extent to which the 100 identified Digital Europe projects 
foster synergies, a mini survey was conducted. The objective of the mini survey is to gather 
information on the extent to which co-funding has occurred, previous collaboration on EU / 
other projects between participants, whether the project is a direct follow-up project, whether 
the Digital Europe funded project uses input from other programmes or that its outputs will be 
used by other programmes, and their general perspective on synergies. 30 projects responded 
to the survey.   

In terms of co-funding, according to the respondents of the mini survey, around half of the 
projects  (n=16)  were  co-funded  by  other  public  sources,  while  the  other  projects  (n=14) 
were  co-funded  from  private  sources.  The  majority  of  the  publicly  co-financed  projects 
received  co-funding  from  the  Recovery  and  Resilience  Facility  (RRF)  or  from  national, 
regional or local funding sources. In the open questions, respondents refer to Italy and Spain 
as examples where the RRF was used as a pre-arranged source of additional funding411. The 
majority of the projects with national, regional or local funding sources indicated that the co-
funding was mostly self-arranged, and that this was a difficult process.  

The majority of the respondents have  collaborated on EU funded (or other) projects in the 
past. For 30% of the respondents (n=9), all consortium members have collaborated in the past, 
whereas  for  63%  some  consortium  members  collaborated  before  (n=19).  In  terms  of  the 
positioning of Digital Europe in the R&I landscape, and to what extent Digital Europe is 
integrated with the other programmes through mutual use of (knowledge) outputs, we notice a 
strong position for the Digital Europe programme. Error! Reference source not found. shows 
that some projects are a direct continuation of a previously funded project – from national, 
regional or local programme, Erasmus+, H2020 or the Connecting Europe Facility.  

Figure  11.  Is  your  Digital  Europe  funded  project  a  continuation  of  a  project  previously  funded  by  any  of  the  following 
programmes? (n=30) 

As  for  the  uptake  of  knowledge,  results  or  outputs  from  projects  funded  by  other 
programmes,  Error!  Reference  source  not  found.  shows  that  relatively  more  projects 
indicate that they use knowledge developed by other programmes (ranging for 4 projects using 
knowledge  from  CEF  to  9  projects  using  knowledge  from  national,  regional  or  local 

411 Please see Section 0 Effectiveness for more information on these examples. 

297 

 
 
 
 
 
programmes, and Horizon 2020). Examples include analysis methods, standards, metadata and 
data sources previously developed, experiences in developing test beds and robotic laboratories 
and other findings, such as skills gap analysis.  

Figure 12. Does your Digital Europe funded project use knowledge, results or outputs developed under one of the following 
programmes? (n=30) 

The same holds true for the use of capability buildings programmes or (digital/research) 
infrastructures  developed  through  other  programmes  by  Digital  Europe  projects  (Error! 
Reference  source  not  found.).  Examples  include  digital  platforms,  test  beds,  HPC,  AI 
infrastructures and also computing and data storage infrastructures procured in CEF.  

Figure  13.  Does  your  Digital  Europe  project  use  capability  building  programmes  or  (digital/research)  infrastructures 
developed by one of the following programmes? (n=30) 

As  for  the  uptake  of  Digital  Europe  project  outputs,  capacities  or  infrastructure, 
respondents  indicate  their  Digital  Europe  project  indeed  will  produce  outputs,  capacities  or 
infrastructures that can be taken up in all the other programmes. Examples include EDIHs that 
will  Test  before  Invest-services,  training  activities  in  collaboration  with  other  programmes, 
online platforms and testing facilities.  

Figure 14. Will the outputs, capacities or infrastructures developed by your Digital Europe project be used, complemented by 
or made available to the following programmes? (n=30) 

298 

 
 
 
 
Digital Europe project managers suggest that the programme is placed well in the knowledge 
network. Many consortium partners (93%, n=28) have collaborated in previous projects, and 
use  the  knowledge  gathered  for  those  projects.  Similarly,  21  respondents  indicate  that  their 
project  is  part  of  a  network  of  similar  projects,  and  that  they  exchange  findings  and  best 
practices.  90%  of  the  respondents  (n=27)  have  explicitly  indicated  in  their  Digital  Europe 
proposal how the project would foster synergies. Only 40% of the respondents (n=12) have 
communicated with the European Commission or other authorities on ways to exploit synergies 
before the start of the project. This figure increases to 63% of the projects (n=19) during the 
project. Finally, in the final open question, some respondents indicate that meetings where the 
projects can share experiences and results can be useful to further exploit synergies.  

Figure 15. Do you agree with the following statements? (n=30) 

HaDEA Feedback to Policy study - synergies 

HaDEA has written a Feedback to Policy (F2P) that focuses on the topic synergies – as it is 
responsible  for  the  implementation  of  around  20%  of  the  Digital  Europe  budget.  HaDEA 
highlights in the report synergies that they identified as best practices. Synergies with Horizon 
Europe and Horizon 2020 projects are found, and to a smaller extent with Erasmus+. The main 
mechanisms  identified  are  complementarity  of  parallel  projects  or  clustering  of  projects. 
Complementary funding are areas of further exploration, as the process of combining funds 
from  different  programmes  remains  complex.  Finally,  HaDEA  indicated  that  a  systematic 

299 

 
 
 
 
approach  is  needed  to  explore  realised  synergies  and  extract  meaningful  insights  for 
policymaking.  

Evaluation criteria  

Coherence 

Evidence suggests that there is (thematic) complementarity between Digital Europe and 
the  other  EU-funded  programmes412.  Digital  Europe  is  embedded  in  a  clear  policy 
framework. The Communication: 2030 Digital Compass: the European way for the Digital 
Decade sets out that the key to the digital transformation is the ability of businesses deploy 
new key digital technologies and their absorptive capacity to adopt them rapidly –roles that the 
Digital Europe both fulfils.  

There are clear cross-references and direct and indirect provisions in the legal bases of 
the different programmes, explaining the role and position of the programmes. Whereas 
Horizon Europe has distinct focus on research and innovation activities (i.e. TRL 4-8), Digital 
Europe is aimed at the deployment of digital infrastructures and tools and capacity building 
(i.e. TRL 8-9). The regulations of the different R&I programmes stipulate how these synergies 
should occur.  

A strong thematic similarity between the different programmes can also be observed from 
the data analysis conducted for this case study and the Digital Europe Regulation and 
analysis of its work programmes. Digital Europe is thematically coherent and complementary 
with other programmes. Examples of this thematic similarity are CEF and SO3), and Erasmus+ 
and SO4 (education and training, see the illustrative examples of AI4CI and GreenChips-EDU).  

Illustrative example – CyberSuite413 (SO3) 

The CyberSuite project is a good example of a Digital Europe project that takes up the outputs 
developed  under  different  EU-funded  projects  (e.g.  Horizon  2020).  The  objective  of 
CyberSuite is to identify challenges in cybersecurity for SMEs lacking resources. CyberSuite 
produced a gap analysis for services and helps SMEs access these services through a tailored 
marketplace  for  cybersecurity  services.  It  specifically  aims  to  leverage  past  EU-funded 
research  outcomes,  knowledge  and  innovations  by  integrating  them  into  the  CyberSuite 
marketplace  –  this  was  required  by  the  description  of  the  topic  in  the  Digital  Europe Work 
programme (DIGITAL-ECCC-2022-CYBER-B-03-UPTAKE-CYBERSOLUTIONS).  

The services and tools that will be leveraged by CyberSuite stem from more than 15 past EU-
funded  projects,  in  which  the  different  consortium  partners  have  participated.  Specific 
examples  of  the  uptake  of  previously  developed  outputs  are  the  PUZZLE  marketplace  that 
serves as the basis for the CyberSuite Marketplace, Advanced Cybersecurity Analytics Services 
(ACAS)-tool, both developed in the H2020 PUZZLE-project, educational support, and smart 
virtual  assistant  for  assessing  cyber-vulnerabilities  and  offering  cyber-protection  of  SMEs 
(developed by the H2020-project GEIGER.) The project will also support the market uptake of 
these solutions.   

412 Horizon Europe, the Connecting Europe Facility and Erasmus+. 
413  Uptake 

of 
https://cybersuiteproject.eu/.  

Innovative  Security-as-a-Service  Solutions,  CyberSuite,  Grant  Agreement: 

101145861, 

300 

 
 
In terms of direct complementarity between the different programmes, evidence suggests 
that their programming fosters synergies. This complementarity is also perceived by a large 
number of respondents of the beneficiaries survey (41%, n=477) –agreeing that their Digital 
Europe  project  builds  directly  on  activities  supported  under  other  European  funding 
instruments. There are also means through which this complementarity is operationalised. The 
so-called EU Synergy call grants and procurements are to be linked with other grants funded 
from  any  other  EU  funding  programme.  For  instance,  the  DIGITAL-2024-BESTUSE-07-
MULTICOUNTRY topic (-Support to the implementation of multi-Country Projects (MCPs)) 
identifies the European Regional Development Fund as the source for additional funding. 

Illustrative example – AI4CI414 (SO4) 

The AI4CI project has complementarities with Horizon 2020, Horizon Europe and Erasmus+. 
During the implementation of different Horizon 2020 projects, the lack of skills of graduates 
in  applying AI  to  connected  industries  became  apparent  (e.g.  the  programming  of  robots, 
distributed AI techniques or integrating AI-based learning loops for network automation). This 
was the raison d'être of the creation of the master’s programme currently underdeveloped by 
AI4CI. Several outputs of Horizon 2020 projects serve as input to AI4CI including teaching 
and training goals (e.g. AI@EDGE produced use-cases for applied AI in connected industries). 
Similarly, various Horizon Europe or national projects (e.g. Nexasphere, ANR TREES, ANR 
NET4AI) involving  consortium partners  will enable updates to  the AI4CI  master’s syllabus 
with latest knowledge and offer students opportunities to participate in projects or internship 
where cutting-edge technologies are used. Finally, a mechanism for mobility between European 
universities, research centres and industry are part of the design of AI4CI study programme 
(through established Erasmus+ exchange agreements or national systems (e.g. the French state 
provides co-funding (tax credits or bonuses) for apprenticeship workers/students from AI4CI 
master)). 

Finally,  the  EDIHs  can  be  seen  as  a  means  to  create  coherence  between  different 
programmes. They are specifically referred to in the Digital Europe Regulation as a tool to 
achieve  synergies.  Data  from  the  data-analysis  of  the  selected  projects  and  the  mini-survey 
confirm this link between regional, national or Horizon 2020 projects and the Digital Europe 
EDIH projects. Synergies are achieved through the follow-up of preparatory projects as well 
as  through  co-funding  opportunities.  While  participants  indicate  that  co-funding  often  is 
difficult,  in  some  countries  the  government  has  set-up  special  schemes  to  support  the  co-
funding  of  EDIHs.  For  instance,  in  Spain  the  government  published  the  Royal  Decree 
174/2023, which regulates the granting of subsidies (EUR 15 million) to EDIHs as well as the 
Orden ICT/1296/2022, which regulates the granting of aid to SMEs who make use of EDIH 
services – this second Orden also applies to DIHs that received the Seal of Excellence, but did 
not receive Digital Europe funding.  

Effectiveness  

There  is  a  clear  funnel  of  other  programmes  (inputs)  serving  as  the  basis  for  Digital 
Europe. Similarly, there is a strong network of beneficiaries in place, as many participants 
indicate  that  they  have  collaborated  in  the  past.  However,  due  to  the  time  lag  between 
preparing  and  evaluating  calls  and  contractualising  beneficiaries,  the  actual  implementation 

414 European AI4CI Master Artificial Intelligence for Connected Industries, Grant Agreement: 101123524 https://ai4ci.eu/  

301 

 
 
and  materialisation  of  results  (the  R&I  lag)  and  the  timing  of  this  interim  evaluation,  few 
projects have been completed (the first Digital Europe project started mid-2022), it is still too 
early to draw firm conclusions on the amount of actual synergies that have been materialised.  

The current evidence indicates that concurrent synergies occur or that there is potential 
for  them  to  take  place.  Multiple  organisations  are  involved  in  various  Digital  Europe 
projects,  other  EU-funded  programmes  or  have  previously  worked  as  consortium 
partners on other projects. The data analysis and the mini survey suggest that Digital Europe 
participants  form  a  strong  network,  which  subsequently  can  facilitate  the  transfer  of 
knowledge. Out of all the 811 organisations that participate in any of the 100 selected projects, 
22%  participate  in  more  than  one  Digital  Europe  project.  There  is  one  example  of  an 
organisation participating in 10 of the 100 Digital Europe projects. The in-depth analysis of 48 
project-programme combinations, showed that 88% of the project-programme combinations 
showed signs of concurrent synergies. Additionally, in the mini survey on synergies, 93% of 
the  participants  (n=28)  indicate  that  the  consortium  still  collaborates  or  has  collaborated  in 
other projects (i.e. the entire consortium or only a selection of partners), and that the knowledge 
gathered  there  is  being  used  for  the  Digital  Europe  project.  Finally,  HaDEA’s  Feedback  to 
Policy (F2P) Synergy report also stated that their analysis showed that most identified synergies 
stem from complementarity of parallel projects or (informal) clustering of projects.  

Similarly,  evidence  suggests  that  sequential  synergies  occur,  and  that  there  is  ample 
opportunity  for  them  to  be  further  fostered.  41%  of  the  respondents  of  the  beneficiary 
survey mention that their Digital Europe-funded project builds directly on activities supported 
under  other  European  funding  instruments  (n=477). There  are  various  mechanisms  through 
which synergies can be fostered – differing in the extent to which a synergy can be attributed 
to Digital Europe. The most direct way of sequential synergies is when a Digital Europe project 
is a follow-up project from a previously funded project. Several examples of such a synergy 
exist,  such  as  projects  following  preparatory  actions,  a  follow-up  of  research  results  or  a 
continuation of the development of an EDIH. 27% of respondents from the mini-survey state 
that their Digital Europe project is a direct continuation of another project. The data analysis 
of the selected Digital Europe projects with high potential for synergies also show that 21% are 
a follow-up project of a previous project. 

Illustrative example – PrePAI and DeployAI (SO2)   

The PrePAI and DeplyAI projects are a good example of sequential synergies. The Pre-PAI 
project  is  a  preparatory  action  for  the  development,  deployment  and  launch  of  an AI-on-
demand platform. The deployment of the platform will be completed by the DeployAI project. 
Both projects make use of knowledge and outputs developed by a vast range of other projects, 
most  notably:  the  Horizon  2020  AI4EU  project.  Six  Horizon  2020  projects  defined  and 
developed services for the platform (AI4Copernicus, AIPLAN4EU, DIH4AI, BONSAPPS and 
STAIRWAI),  four  Networks  of  Excellence  (H2020L  ELISE,  TAILOR,  AI4Media  and 
HUMANAI  NET)  also  contribute  to  the  platform,  and  under  Horizon  Europe  the  project 
AI4EUROPE is funded. All activities combined are a good example of how different project 
funded  by  different  programmes  each  play  their  distinct  role  in  making  the AI-on-Demand 
platform market-ready. 

Additionally,  in  terms  of  knowledge  uptake  and  creation  (i.e.  upstream  and  downstream 
synergies), there is evidence that suggests that Digital Europe well integrates knowledge 

302 

 
from other EU funding instruments. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that the Digital 
Europe  projects’  outputs  will  provide  knowledge  bases  for  other  (future)  R&I 
programmes.  This  was  suggested  by  part  of  the  respondents  of  the  mini  survey,  the  data 
analysis of selected Digital Europe projects and HaDEA’s Feedback to Policy (F2P) Synergy 
report.  The  results  of  the  mini-survey  show  that  knowledge,  results  or  outputs,  capability 
building programmes or (digital/research) infrastructures developed through other programmes 
are all being taken up by the Digital Europe projects – this is the case for national, regional or 
local projects, or Horizon 2020 and to a much lesser extent the Connecting Europe Facility. 
Similarly, the results indicate that Digital Europe outputs will be used in other programmes, 
most  notably  national,  regional  or  local  programmes  or  Horizon  Europe. The  data  analysis 
identified sequential synergies for 38 of the 48 Digital Europe projects where synergies were 
classified. This  synergy  mechanism  is  strategically  applied  in  the Work  programmes  and/or 
topic texts. For instance, in the Digital Europe Work programme for 2023-2024 in the text on 
the European Green Deal Data Space there is a clear reference that the action should take up 
the  work  from  a  preparatory  Digital  Europe  CSA  as  well  as  the  results  of  Horizon  Europe 
projects  funded  under  HORIZON-CL6-2021-GOVERNANCE-01-17.  The  previously 
highlighted CyberSuite-project also considers results from previous projects. This highlights 
the importance of systematic signposting to other related activities in work programmes.  

Illustrative example – GreenChips-EDU (SO4) 
The GreenChips-EDU project is a good example of the uptake of knowledge created in other 
programmes and an example of a strong knowledge network. The aim of the GreenChips4EDU 
project is to meet the microelectronics industry’s demand for skills (through the development 
of  education  and  trainings),  attract  talent  (both  staff  and  students),  exploit  the  benefits  of 
cutting-edge technologies and infrastructures, and establish partnerships between the network 
of organisations. GreenChips-EDU makes use of the outputs of the Erasmus+ METIS project415. 
METIS  developed  a  need  assessment  for  the  microelectronics  industry  to  see  what  kind  of 
training needs there will be in the future. Based on that assessment, trainings and education 
programmes for students and for up- and re-skilling people of employees  i were developed. 
The consortium is partially composed of university partners that are also part of the European 
Universities  Alliance  ‘Unite!  -University  Network  for  Innovation,  Technology  and 
Engineering’416 (co-funded by Erasmus+) – in theory this allows for a further exploitation in 
the future of the results stemming from this project.  

It is expected that Digital Europe funding that was allocated to establish infrastructures 
will, in the future, provide opportunities to exploit synergies.  EuroHPC infrastructures will 
be  made  available  to  the  sectorial  data  spaces.  In  January  2024,  the  launch  of AI  Factories 
integrated  into  EuroHPC  Regulation  was  announced.  The  first  seven  AI  factories  will  be 
established  in  15  member  states  to  deploy  new AI-optimised  supercomputers  and  upgrade 
existing systems, significantly enhancing Europe's AI capabilities.  

Some Digital Europe beneficiaries indicate that a factor that slows down the ability to 
foster synergies is related to co-funding. In some cases, there are public arrangements for 
organisations  to  use.  In  other  cases,  there  are  no  arrangements  nor  a  supporting 

415Funded 

in 

2019 

under 

the 

Erasmus+ 

Sectors-Skills 

Alliances: 

https://erasmus-

plus.ec.europa.eu/projects/search/details/612339-EPP-1-2019-1-DE-EPPKA2-SSA-B 

416https://education.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/document-library-docs/european-universities-factsheet-

unite.pdf 

303 

 
 
 
 
legislative framework, due to the novelty of the programme. Especially for smaller firms or 
when there are large consortia, the administrative burden is high. There are also examples of 
countries where there are well functioning mechanisms for co-funding. Italy, for instance, uses 
the  RRF  for  EDIHs  and  TEFs417,  and  there  are  specific  schemes  to  provide  co-funding  to 
beneficiaries  of  Digital  Europe  in  Denmark418  and  in  the  Netherlands419.  Finally,  some 
respondents from the mini survey on synergies indicate that there should be more opportunities 
to actively foster synergies through the grouping of similar projects, which would allow them 
to use the results or best practices or generally network with each other. 

EU Added Value  

Digital  Europe  demonstrates  strong  EU  added  value  due  to  its  strategic  approach  to 
digital deployment across the EU to promote its competitiveness and positioning in the 
EU R&I system – provides a unique position for projects and organisations to exploit the 
benefits  of  working  together  in  a  multi-national  context.  EU  added  value  is  an  intrinsic 
element of the programme as its actions aim to improve digital competitiveness and reinforce 
strategic autonomy across the European Union. The large-scale complex deployment projects 
cannot be achieved at the level of Member States alone but require strategic EU coordination. 
The developed digital solutions and services are to be used across borders serving the whole 
EU Community.  

Illustrative example – CloudCamp4SMEs  

CloudCamp4SMEs has the objective to support the digital transformation of SMEs through 
training courses on digital skills for Cloud Technologies. The project is set up to make sure that 
the trainings will address the needs of SMEs, based independent of the innovation status of a 
country. There are 5 pilot countries that cover the different levels of innovations (i.e. Innovation 
Leader, Strong Innovator, Moderate Innovators and Emerging Innovators). After finishing the 
pilots, the programmes will be scaled across Europe to deliver the trainings that correspond to 
the actual needs of SMEs. 

Evidence  from  different  sources  shows  that  there  is  a  transmission  mechanism  of 
knowledge, funding or outputs from Digital Europe to national or regional programmes 
and vice versa. In multiple cases, projects make use of knowledge prepared under national 
and/or regional programmes as shown in previous illustrative cases. Three project managers in 
the mini-survey on synergies indicate that national or regional projects were followed-up by 
Digital Europe projects. The HaDEa analysis shows eight instances of synergies with national 
or regional funds or the RRF420.  

Illustrative example – DATAlife (EDIH) (SO5) 

The DATAlife project is a good example of how a Digital Europe project can be a follow-up 
project from previously funded regional projects. The objective of the DATAlife project is to 
support  the  deployment  of Artificial  Intelligence  and  Data Analytics  for  Galician  primary, 
biotech and health sector SMEs. In 2019, DATAlife was selected by the Galician Innovation 
Agency as a strategic DIH for the region. In an elaborate open call, a mapping exercise was 

417 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52023PC0765#footnoteref100 
418 https://digst.dk/digital-transformation/digital-europe/tilskudsfond-for-medfinansiering/ 
419 https://www.rvo.nl/subsidies-financiering/digital-europe/aanvraagproces 
420 The RRF should address country-specific challenges that i.e. should support the digital transition. 

304 

 
 
done to  see the strengths  of the  regional innovation ecosystem,  a seminar was organised to 
identify weaknesses for the implementation and a training programme to improve the set-up of 
the  proposed  DIH  were  done.  Besides  the  content  of  the  EDIH,  DATAlife  was  considered 
strategic based on their  contribution  to  the RIS3. The Galician Innovation Agency provides 
DATAlife  with  funds  to  create  the  EDIH  and  develop  their  services421.  Following  that, 
DATAlife  also  obtained  funding  from  the  Galician  Institute  for  Economic  Promotion  (co-
financed by ERDF) for the project Obradoiros 4.0 and the HIBA project (Interreg-POCTEP)422. 
Because of this, DATAlife was able to respond to the Digital Europe EDIH call. The Digital 
Europe project allows DATAlife to further exploit their services. 

Digital  Europe  provides  clear  EU  added  value  in  the  context  of  digital  skills  and  the 
mobility of students and staff. The programme enables the ability to involve a wider range of 
expertise,  as  opposed  to  internal  expertise  available  to  an  organisation.  One  interviewee 
indicated  that  this  is  a  real  benefit  for  the  students  that  will  participate  in  new  master’s 
programme that are being supported by Digital Europe. This also holds true for the projects 
AI4CI and GreenChips-EDU as well. 

421 https://www.dihdatalife.com/en/galician_innovation_agency-gain/  
422 

https://www.dihdatalife.com/en/hiba-project-hub-iberia-agrotech/ 

https://www.dihdatalife.com/en/igape_digitization_workshops/  

and 

305 

 
 
 
 
Conclusions  

Digital  Europe  and  efforts  by  the  European  Commission  to  foster  synergies  play  an 
important  role  in  the  digital  transition.  The  digital  transition  requires  multi-  and 
transdisciplinary research, the inclusion of a wide range of stakeholders and active valorisation 
of research results into market-ready products.  

Digital Europe is guided by, and coherent with, a clear policy framework. Through cross-
references and direct and indirect provisions in the legal bases of the different programmes, the 
(thematic or operational) complementarities of different programmes are outlined, setting the 
foundations for the materialisation of synergies This thematic complementarity can also be 
observed  in  the  cross-participation  data  analysis  and  the  analysis  of  the  work 
programmes.  

While  the  project  implementation  is  still  ongoing,  it  is  evident  that  various  conditions  are 
present paving the way for a successful exploitation of synergies. There are different means 
through which synergies are fostered. A strong network of implementing organisations is in 
place – many participants indicated that they have collaborated in the past. At the same time, 
some interviewees suggested that Digital Europe is new to them and that networking activities 
with other projects would be beneficial to them. There is evidence that knowledge developed 
by other programmes from different levels of the R&I system are being taken up or will 
be  taken  up  in  the  future.  The  manual  in-depth  analysis  of  120  project-programme 
combinations  showed  that  more  than  half  of  the  project-programme  combinations  are 
performed  by  consortia  that  already  have  worked  together,  around  half  of  the  projects  use 
knowledge that has been developed by previous projects and more than 10% are direct follow-
ups from previous projects. In terms of cumulative funding, there is no evidence whether this 
has been materialised.  

The activities aimed to foster synergies help to create EU-added value for Digital Europe, 
due to the pan-European nature of the programme, the extent to which Digital Europe takes up 
national, regional or local knowledge outputs and the mobility of students and staff through its 
link with Erasmus+.  

An  EU-wide  definition  of  synergies  and  a  systematic  way  of  identifying  and  an  automated 
tracking mechanisms to monitor synergies are suggestions to improve future identification of 
synergies.  Finally,  some  respondents  indicated  that  there  should  be  more  opportunities  for 
learning,  alignment  and  best-practices  sharing  between  Digital  Europe  projects,  through  a 
repository of projects, results and/or new related calls and meetings to share experiences and 
networking activities.  

Sources and methodology 

This  case  study  employs  a  mixed-methods  approach  to  analyse  how  and  why  the  activities 
aimed  at  fostering  synergies  between  Digital  Europe  and  other  programmes  contribute  to 
achieving  Digital  Europe’s  objectives,  with  a  specific  focus  on  Horizon  2020,  Horizon 
Europe, Connecting Europe Facility and Erasmus+.  

Data collection was conducted through a variety of methods, including: 

306 

 
•  Desk  study  (incl.  the  HaDEA  report  and  publicly  available  information  on  Digital 

Europe projects); 
•  Beneficiary survey; 
•  Mini survey on synergies; 
• 

Interviews  (targeted  interviews  and  beneficiary  interviews  conducted  for  the 
evaluation); 
•  Data analysis  

In this section, we will highlight the mini-survey and the data analysis.  

Data analysis 

The  data  was  performed  on  the  input  provided  by  DG  CNECT  following  their  analysis  of 
Digital Europe project proposals using Cortex tool – based on cross-participation, a relevance 
score and manual selection. The output of this analysis was a selection of 120 Digital Europe 
project-programme  combinations423  that  have  high  potential  for  synergies  with  Horizon 
Europe, Horizon 2020, CEF and Erasmus+. DG CNECT used the following methodology to 
identify the list of 120 Digital Europe project-programme combinations:  

First of all, projects with cross-participations (i.e. at least one beneficiary in the Digital Europe 
project that also participates in the other programmes (CEF, HE, H2020, or Erasmus+) were 
identified.  Please  note  that  cross-participation  does  not  necessarily  results  in  synergy.  This 
especially  holds  true  for  larger  research  organisations  such  as  universities.  The  cross-
participation information was subsequently used to filter the number of projects that were to 
be screened in subsequent steps.  

Following that, all Digital Europe proposals were screened in Cortex. The projects proposals 
(part B of the proposal) that have a reference to the four other EU funded programmes ‘Horizon 
Europe’, ‘H2020’, ‘CEF’ and ‘Erasmus+’ were listed.   

At the same time, all Digital Europe projects received a relevance score. The indexing software 
Elasticsearch analyses Digital Europe project proposals based on their similarity/relevance to 
the four other EU funded programmes.    

DG  CNECT  then  listed  Digital  Europe  projects  that  have  both  a  common  participant and  a 
reference to one of the four programmes in part B and ranked them based on their relevance 
score.  

Following that, a manual selection was performed to identify 30 Digital Europe projects per 
programme (so 120 project-programme combinations in total) where synergies are likely to 
occur. This manual selection was done through the analysis op part B of the Digital Europe 
proposal.  The  analysis  consisted  of  identifying  if  the  Digital  Europe  project  builds  on/or 
complements other projects funded in a different programme (or intends to do so), the name 
and if available number of these projects, and how this would occur. In case of no concrete 
evidence  other  types  of  potential  synergies  were  checked  for  (e.g.  consortia  collaboration 
before or a large number of similar previous projects in the same area).  

423 This refers to a combination of a Digital Europe project and potential synergies with either Horizon 2020, Horizon Europe, 

Erasmus+ and/or the Connecting Europe Facility. 

307 

 
 
Finally, as part of the analysis of this case study, an additional classification of the 120 project-
programme combinations was performed. This was done on the basis of the provided reasons 
for selection.  In some cases, there was not enough evidence to clearly identify what type of 
(potential)  synergy  would  take  place.  This  does  not  mean  that  those  projects  do  not  foster 
synergies,  merely  that  for  our  analysis  there  was  too  limited  information  on  the  (potential) 
synergy.  In  other  instance,  it  was  clear  in  what  way  and  how  likely  the  potential  synergies 
would occur.   

Descriptive statistics data analysis 

A total of 120 Digital Europe project-programme combinations have been identified through 
the  process  described  earlier.  These  120  combinations  involve  100  unique  Digital  Europe 
projects, indicating that some projects have been identified as having (potential) synergies with 
more than one other programme. 

Figure 16. Distribution synergies (project-programme combinations) for the selected Digital Europe projects  

There are 811 unique organisation that participate in one or more Digital Europe project – there 
are 1087 unique organisation-project combinations.  

Figure 17. Participation in synergetic Digital Europe projects per organisation 

Mini-survey on synergies 

To refine and gather insights on the extent to which the 100 identified Digital Europe projects 
(i.e. the 120 project-programme combinations) foster synergies, a mini-survey was shared with 
the project managers of the selected projects.  

The objective of the mini survey is to gather information on the extent to which these projects 
with a high likelihood of synergies to occur, actually exploited synergies. The survey covered 
whether  co-funding  has  occurred,  previous  collaboration  on  EU  /  other  projects  between 
participants,  whether  the  project  is  a  direct  follow-up  project,  whether  the  Digital  Europe 
funded  project  uses  input  from  other  programmes  or  that  its  outputs  will  be  used  by  other 
programmes,  and  their  general  perspective  on  synergies.  In  the  mini-survey,  the  following 
definition  of  synergies  was  provided:  Synergies  can  be  defined  in  terms  of  funding  (e.g. 
cumulative  funding),  sequential  synergies  (e.g.  Digital  Europe  projects  build  on  results 
previously achieved in other programmes , or Digital Europe projects pave the way for other 

308 

 
 
 
projects), parallel (e.g. knowledge spillovers due to involvement in multiple projects), strategic 
(e.g. synergy-enhancing implementation rules and requirements) or operational synergies (e.g. 
Seal of Excellence). 

The response rate to the survey was 30% (i.e. 30 responses). Please find below the responses 
to the survey (excl. the open answers). 

Figure 18. What is the current status of the Digital Europe funded project? (n=30) 

Figure 19. Does or did your Digital Europe funded project make use of additional or complementary funding from another 
EU, national or regional programme? (n=30) 

Figure 20. Have the members of your consortium collaborated on EU funded or other projects in the past? 

309 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure  21  Is  your  Digital  Europe  funded  project  a  continuation  of  a  project  previously  funded  by  any  of  the  following 
programmes? (n=30) 

Figure 22. Does your Digital Europe funded project use knowledge, results or outputs developed under one of the following 
programmes? (n=30) 

Figure  23.  Does  your  Digital  Europe  project  use  capability  building  programmes  or  (digital/research)  infrastructures 
developed by one of the following programmes? (n=30) 

Figure 24. Will the outputs, capacities or infrastructures developed by your Digital Europe project be used, complemented by 
or made available to the following programmes? (n=30) 

310 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 25. Do you agree with the following statements? (n=30) 

311