Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

*|*

# 52013DC0002

**REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Evaluations of the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme /\* COM/2013/02 final \*/**

  

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

Evaluations of the Competitiveness and
Innovation Framework Programme

1.           Introduction

This report highlights the findings and
recommendations of the evaluations of the Competitiveness and Innovation
Framework Programme 2007-2013 (CIP) and its sub-programmes, formulates the
Commission's response to the evaluations' recommendations and sets out
follow-up measures.

Thereby the Commission complies with the
requirement of Article 8(5) of the Decision establishing the CIP[1] to communicate interim and
final evaluations of the Framework Programme and of its specific programmes to
the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions.

2.           BACKGROUND

2.1.        The Competitiveness and
Innovation Framework Programme

The Competitiveness and Innovation
Framework Programme[2]
is a key programme in addressing the challenges EU industry is facing. Its
objectives are in line with the flagship initiatives of the Europe 2020
Strategy, where smart, sustainable and inclusive growth is a key priority for
EU intervention to strengthen the EU economy.

The CIP aims at contributing to the
competitiveness and innovative capacity of the Union as an advanced knowledge society, with sustainable development based on
robust economic growth and a highly competitive social market economy with a
high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment.

This Framework Programme supports innovation activities (including eco-innovation), provides
better access to finance and delivers business support services in the regions;
it encourages a better take-up and use of information and communication
technologies (ICT), helps to develop the information society and also promotes
the increased use of renewable energies and energy efficiency.

·
The CIP is divided into three operational
programmes. Each of them has its specific objectives, aimed at contributing to
the competitiveness of enterprises and their innovative capacity in their own
areas, such as ICT or sustainable energy; The Entrepreneurship and Innovation
Programme (EIP)[3];
The Information Communication Technologies Policy Support Programme (ICT-PSP)[4]; The Intelligent Energy Europe
Programme (IEE)[5].

2.2.        Evaluations of the CIP and
its sub-programmes

The Decision establishing the CIP contains
specific provisions relating to the evaluation of the CIP and of its
operational programmes. In particular, it states that the Framework Programme
and its specific programmes shall be subject to interim and final evaluations
to measure the impact of the Framework Programme, and each of the specific
programmes, against its objectives, including competitiveness, innovation,
entrepreneurship, productivity growth, employment and environment. The Decision
also stipulates that the interim evaluation of the Framework Programme had to
be completed by 31 December 2009 and the final evaluation by 31 December 2011,
and that the interim and final evaluations of the specific programmes should be
arranged in such a way that their results can be taken into account in the
interim and final evaluation of the Framework Programme.

The interim and final evaluations have aimed
at:

–
measuring the impact of the Framework Programme and
its specific programmes against their objectives;

–
assessing the extent to which the Framework Programme
and its specific programmes have contributed to the objectives set out at the
beginning of this section;

–
evaluating the extent to which the objectives of
the Framework Programme and its specific programmes are pertinent to the needs,
problems and issues it was designed to address;

–
evaluating the efficiency of the Framework Programme
and its specific programmes and identify their most efficient and its most
inefficient aspects.

The interim evaluation of the EIP was
conducted by GHK Consulting Ltd and Technopolis and the final report was
presented on 30 April 2009.

The CIP ICT-PSP interim evaluation was conducted
by a panel of five experts[6]
and its final report was presented in May 2009.

The interim evaluation of the Intelligent
Energy-Europe II Programme was performed by Deloitte Consulting and its final
report was presented on 27 April 2009.

The interim evaluation of the
Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme was conducted by GHK
Consulting Ltd and Technopolis and the final report was presented on 9 March
2010.

The final evaluation of the
Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme was performed by the Centre for
Strategy & Evaluation Services (CSES) with a final report in April 2011.

The final evaluation of the Intelligent
Energy-Europe II Programme was conducted by Deloitte and the final report was
published on 8 June 2011.

The CIP ICT PSP final (second interim) evaluation
was completed on 20 July 2011 by a panel of experts[7].

The CIP Framework Programme final
evaluation, taking into account the results of previous evaluation studies, was
finalised in December 2011 by the Centre for Strategy & Evaluation Services
(CSES).

All evaluation reports are available on the
web[8].

3.           Main findings of the
evaluations

In general, the evaluations confirmed the
relevance, effectiveness and efficiency of the Framework Programme and of each
of its three specific programmes.

3.1.        Interim evaluation of the
CIP

The interim evaluation of the CIP[9] found that ‘the limited
budget attached to CIP means that it is not an expenditure-orientated programme
like the Cohesion Policy Funds or the Seventh Framework Programme for Research
and Technological Development (FP7), but one that seeks to achieve its
ambitious and broadly defined objectives by leveraging its ideas, products
and partnerships into other policies and programmes.’

The report states that an overwhelming
support was present among internal as well as external stakeholders for intervention
at a Community level in the fields of innovation and competitiveness in the
form of a flagship programme such as CIP, and suggested that CIP needed to
focus on areas that demonstrate the greatest European added value and impact.

It was assessed that stakeholders tended to
identify parts of the programme and not CIP as a whole: the evaluators
considered that CIP is not well understood as a Framework Programme also due to
the fact that it was a new framework programme, with a limited budget and
supporting a wide array of instruments targeting a number of different
audiences. They considered however that the information mechanisms already
in place, being NCPs and the Enterprise Europe Network, were important
instruments for improving on the information and communication of CIP.

The evaluation
found that many planned efficiencies were emerging in the evidence associated
with the management and implementation of CIP. In particular CIP financial
instruments have been considered highly efficient instruments 'by design'
for assisting SMEs. Financial intermediaries however, complained of excessive
reporting requirements which add to the cost of participating and suggested to
reduce administrative burden.

The report also found that operational synergies were improved through the involvement of the Executive
Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation (EACI) and the Enterprise
Europe Network. In
particular under the EIP it was underlined the role of having one Network
facing SMEs across Europe. The role of EACI was considered successful in
increasing resource efficiencies through the separation of administrative
functions from policy making.

3.2.        Final evaluation of the
Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme (EIP)

The evaluation of EIP[10] came to five main conclusions:
firstly, that the program was performing well and was on track to
achieve the expected impacts; secondly, that in most instances, the Programme was gathering momentum,
as it was building on existing achievements; in
addition, that survey evidence
demonstrated the ‘utility’ of the Programme, by confirming that it directly
meets SME needs; furthermore, evaluators found that interviews and other
evidence point to a clear European value-added.
And finally that the monitoring
system that has been developed is a valuable contribution to assessing the
performance of the Programme on an on-going basis, but this system was still
being developed in some areas and the data on indicators needed to be presented
more consistently.

EIP objectives were found highly relevant
to the needs of businesses. Furthermore, it was found that ‘the programme is
effectively benefiting end-users, in particular SMEs (small and
medium-sized enterprises)’. The major strength of the EIP is that it
concentrates on core issues for SMEs in a direct and practical way. The EIP actions,
notably the financial instruments and eco-innovation, have effectively created
conditions for real replication in the market.

For what concerns the Financial
Instrument, they have been found as achieving their objectives of
facilitating access to finance for the start-up and growth of SMEs. In detail,
the GIF facility and SMEG loan and micro credit windows are found relevant to
the needs of European SMEs since they fulfil a demand for finance which
otherwise would not have been met and contribute to the start up and growth of
SMEs. One of the most noticeable effects found in the report for what concerns
the instruments is the leverage effect.

Concerning the Enterprise Europe Network,
the evaluators found that the Network was well focused on its main objectives
of promoting innovation, business co-operation and cross-border trading, and
added that there is a high level of client satisfaction with the Network’s
services. In particular they indicated that 'the Network is a major
policy asset for the EU’s relationship with enterprises and has
considerable further potential in terms of the engagement of SMEs with the
objectives and actions of the EIP'.

The approach used for EIP eco-innovation
related activities is found to be coherent across the Programme in terms of the
inclusion of the appropriate elements and relevant in addressing existing
market failures that restrict the sector, targeting both the demand and supply
side of the market, as well as strengthening the operational environment. The
evaluators found also that the scheme was likely to be significantly
over-subscribed.

3.3.        Final evaluation of the
Intelligent Energy Europe II Programme (IEE)

The evaluation
of the IEE[11]
found that its actions are achieving their specific and strategic objectives
and contributing to the programme’s overall impact and outcome.

The IEE
programme is found to be "relevant and useful as it replies to the
evolving needs, problems and barriers related to sustainable energy issues that
Europe is facing. The combination of the actions which covers a wide
spectrum of priorities, the involvement of different type of actors which can
clearly influence the uptake of sustainable energy solutions and in particular
the combination of market solution oriented projects and projects targeting
policy adaptation as well as the influence of the IEE II actions at different
moment of the market cycle contribute to the effectiveness of the programme".

There remain non-technological
barriers which slow down the uptake of sustainable energy technologies. IEE
II contributes to reducing them by supporting activities in the fields of
policy support, capacity building, dissemination and promotion and market
replication projects.

Positive
feedback has been collected by the evaluators as regards the effectiveness
of the actions supported both in reaching their objectives and in contributing
to the programme’s objectives. Furthermore, the activities supported are judged
the most appropriate to meet the objectives set.

Concerning the efficiency
of the programme, the evaluators suggested increasing the means put in place to
better facilitate the achievement of the overarching objectives of the
programme, especially given the limited time remaining to achieve these before
2020 and the delays incurred vis-a-vis certain sustainable energy development
objectives.

It was
demonstrated that the programme was able to use synergies with other EU funding
programmes such as FP7 and the structural funds.

3.4.        Final evaluation of the
Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Policy Support Programme (ICT
PSP)

The final
evaluation of the ICT PSP [12]
underlined the uniqueness of the programme and its innovative role as its
projects design new platforms for innovative cross-border services in areas
of public interest, in particular in areas where
there are continuing systemic and organisational risks..

Some
attributes of the programme are identified as very positive: 'a unique and pioneering innovation instrument, directly
policy-related, complementary portfolio of instruments, wide stakeholder
participation'. The further increase of stakeholders participation is
amongst the recommendations given by the panel of experts, together with overcoming
hurdles to SME participation. It is also recommended to improve
information flows and linkages with other EU programmes such as the ones
relating to regional policies.

The panel
suggested continuing the ICT PSP as an innovation deployment policy instrument
and that ICT PSP focus on deployment of ICT
innovations and addressing systemic and organisational risks should be
maintained in any follow-up.

They recommended
that the top-down policy-driven approach in large-scale projects (Pilot A)
should be continued, as it is a working model of how to enhance more widespread
uptake of new innovative services at EU level. They also assessed that the
bottom-up demand-driven projects (Pilot B) can provide new and innovative
cross-border services in new government service-related areas (eContent,
eHealth and aging, eGovernment and eEnergy/eTransport), and promote
interoperability and the development of wider markets for innovative public
services.

3.5.        Final evaluation of the
CIP

The final
evaluation[13] report of the CIP confirmed its success.

The report
states that '[T]he evidence from the Final Evaluations and other sources,
confirms that the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme as a
whole, and its specific programmes individually are all performing well, in
line with expectations at the launch of the programme'.[14]

In addition it
is assessed that 'The CIP as a whole has become a major vehicle for
promoting innovation, particularly as
conceived as a relatively open process going beyond the simple focus on
technological development that characterised earlier conceptions towards the
more balanced perspective that encompasses developments in the service sector
as much as in manufacturing and relates to processes and business models as
much as products. This in turn is a major contribution to the
competitiveness of the European economy'.

The definition
of CIP's objectives is considered coherent and relevant to the needs,
problems and issues intended to address, and a concentration in areas where EU
action can make a difference was achieved. The evaluation assessed
positively the flexibility of CIP and considered that accessing support under
the CIP is easier than in other comparable programmes.

It is found that
the body of work on support for innovation created by the CIP Programme
represents now a substantial corpus ok knowledge potentially informing other
policy areas.

The evaluation
underlined the improvements arising from the delegation of the management of
substantial parts of CIP to the EACI concerning the efficiency of the
programme management, both in relation with costs to the Commission and
efficiency of the services provided, as measured in terms of number of
contracts signed, the period to contract and payment delays.

The
current economic crisis has underlined the significance of CIP's central
objectives and the relevance of many of the issues CIP was designed to address,
which makes it more urgent to build on ideas that have proven successful and
demonstrated effectiveness, such as the financial instruments.

4.           Main recommendations
& planned follow-up actions

The evaluations made some recommendations
on how to further improve the implementation of the CIP and design a possible
successor programme which have been taken into due consideration during the
implementation of the Programme and when preparing the Commission proposals for
successor programmes to the CIP (COSME[15]
and parts of Horizon 2020[16])

The CIP final evaluation report stated that
further synergies between the three sub-programmes could be created by
articulating new positions on central themes of the framework programme, for
example on innovation policies.

The CIP’s overall lack of visibility was
identified as one of its main shortcomings. However, it was also stressed that
well-known brands such as the Enterprise Europe Network, Intelligent Energy
Europe, and SME Week should not be renamed. Furthermore, better dissemination
of information on successful activities supported by the Programme was
recommended. The Commission actively uses the Enterprise Europe Network, which
is funded by CIP, to distribute information on EU policies and services
available under all programmes such as FP7 or Structural Funds. A number of
actions have been undertaken to reach the broadest number of potential
participants. In the area of Eco-innovation Market Replication, the Enterprise
Europe Network often acts as a regional or national contact point, distributing
information on calls, organising dedicated matchmaking events or sectoral
cluster meetings. Beneficiaries of grants are also referred to the IPR Helpdesk
created by CIP to help them with intellectual property issues resulted from its
participation in other EU programmes such as the FP7. In the area of
innovation, actions have been and continue to be continuously promoted by TAKE
IT UP (Europe INNOVA) and the INNO-Partnering Forum (PRO INNO Europe®). The
outreach tasks of projects beyond their direct participants is enhanced by the
offering of web sites in which other organisations can actively contribute to
and social networking features are integrated. Communication efforts will
intensify regarding successor programmes.

Furthermore, it was recommended that a
stable set of output, result and impact indicators be devised to
help monitor the programme effectiveness and the achievement of its objectives.
The European Commission’s proposals for successor programmes to the CIP (COSME[17] and parts
of Horizon 2020[18])
are addressing most of these recommendations, in particular by strengthening
the intervention logic of the programmes (e.g. Horizon 2020 provides for a
seamless connection between research and innovation, taking into account key
societal challenges, such as energy and natural resources, as well as crucial
technologies, such as ICT), linking it to the EU’s strategic priorities, and
introducing in the legal text general and specific objectives linked to result
and impact indicators

Regarding the recommendation on "an
active policy of promoting synergies at an operational level by a
systematic approach to improving the management of the links between different
areas of the Programme", the Commission actively uses the Enterprise
Europe Network to distribute information. A number of actions have been
undertaken to reach the broadest number of potential participants. In the area
of eco-innovation, the Enterprise Europe Network often acts as a regional or
national contact point, distributing information on calls, organising dedicated
matchmaking events or cluster meetings. Beneficiaries of grants are also
referred to the IPR Helpdesk to help them with intellectual property issues. As
regards innovation, seminars have taken place with Network members on public
procurement for innovation to disseminate the lessons learnt by the relevant
actions. Another example are the links created between the Enterprise Europe
Network and IMP3rove[19]
when the Enterprise Europe Network partners organise innovation management
training.

The EIP final evaluation recommended that
"further developments in the Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme
need to take care to build on current achievements to increase the momentum
that has already been created in a range of the activities undertaken and to
avoid, where possible, the risks of disruption inherent in any new departures".
In the EIP annual work programme 2013 the Commission will to a large extent
propose a continuation of successful actions from previous years or new
actions based on past experiences, while at the same time ensuring consistence
with political priorities and economic developments.

Regarding the recommendation on keeping
under review the extent to which European value-added is evident in the Financial
Instruments, the Commission has taken it into account in the preparation of
the next generation of financial instruments. European added value will be a
key element of the new debt and equity platforms, on whose principles all
future financial instruments in the MFF for 2014-2020 will be based. In
particular, the case for financial instruments relies on the benefits
associated with the strengthening of the Single Market by overcoming market
fragmentation in venture capital investment, high risk lending covered by EU
resources and credit enhancement. The main purpose of the financial instruments
under the COSME programme as proposed by the Commission will be to improve
access to finance for SMEs in market segments which are not covered by Member
States’ measures, which are restricted to investments and support within each
country. The focus will be on financing expansion of growth-oriented
enterprises that are aiming at international expansion and to develop a
cross-border SME finance market. Only an EU-level programme can fulfil this
role. Similarly, in the proposal of the Commission on Horizon 2020, the Equity facility for Research & Innovation will complement
national schemes that cannot cater for cross-border investments in R&I. The
early-stage deals will also have a demonstration effect that can benefit public
and private investors across Europe. The Debt facility will help remedy market
deficiencies that prevent the private sector from investing in R&I at an
optimum level. Its implementation will enable the pooling of a critical mass of
resources from the Union budget and, on a risk sharing basis, from the
financial institution(s) entrusted with its implementation. It will stimulate
firms to invest more of their own money in R&I than they would otherwise
have done. In addition, the Debt facility will help organisations, both public
and private, to reduce the risks of undertaking the pre-commercial procurement
or procurement of innovative products and services.

With regard to eco-innovation the
evaluation suggested that "given the small size of the eco-innovation
scheme, the eventual impacts are likely to be correspondingly restricted, in
spite of the promising results anticipated and the fact it is likely to be
significantly over-subscribed. The implications for future funding should be
considered." The Commission has proposed in the next generation of
programmes to include eco-innovation as one of the priorities in the Framework
Programme for Research and Innovation - Horizon 2020 and to expand EU
intervention both in terms of budget and range of instruments.

The Commission is drawing the lessons from
the evaluations received to continuously improve its implementation of the current
Framework Programme and its specific programmes. The evaluations have
furthermore served as important guide points in the preparation of the new
generation of Programmes (COSME and Horizon 2020). The Commission therefore
invites the Council and the Parliament to make full use of these
recommendations when amending the Commission's proposals in view of the final
adoption of the programmes.

[1]               Decision No 1639/2006/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 24 October 2006, establishing a Competitiveness and
Innovation Framework Programme 2007-2013 (OJ L 310/15,
09.11.2006)

[2]               See http://ec.europa.eu/cip/

[3]               http://ec.europa.eu/cip/eip/index\_en.htm

[4]               http://ec.europa.eu/cip/ict-psp/index\_en.htm

[5]               http://ec.europa.eu/cip/iee/index\_en.htm

[6]               Prof Gerard Pogorel (Chair), Professor of Economics
and Management, Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Télécommunications,
(ENST-Telecom ParisTech), France. Dana Berova, Gartner,
Czech Republic. Prof Slavo Radosevic, Professor of
Industry and Innovation Studies, University College London. Eppie Eloranta,
Director of TIEKE, the Finnish Information Society Development Centre.Jeremy
Harrison (Rapporteur), Director of abdi Ltd, UK partners of the ROI Institute.

[7]               Graham Vickery, Terttu Luukkonen, Slavo Radosevic,
Robbert Fisher (Rapporteur).

[8]               http://ec.europa.eu/cip/documents/implementation-reports/index\_en.htm

[9]               http://ec.europa.eu/cip/files/docs/interim\_evaluation\_report\_march2010\_en.pdf

[10]             http://ec.europa.eu/cip/files/docs/final-evaluation-of-eip\_en.pdf

[11]             http://ec.europa.eu/cip/files/docs/2011\_iee2\_programme\_en.pdf

[12]             http://ec.europa.eu/cip/files/cip/docs/cip\_ict\_psp\_interim\_evaluation\_report\_2011\_en.pdf

[13]             http://ec.europa.eu/cip/files/cip/cip\_final\_evaluation\_final\_report\_en.pdf

[14]             CSES, Executive Report - Final Evaluation of the
Competitiveness and Innovation Programme, December 2011, page 8 available at http://ec.europa.eu/cip/files/cip/executive\_summary\_cip\_final\_report\_en.pdf

[15]             COM(2011)834 final

[16]             COM(2011)808 final, COM(2011)809 final, COM(2011)810
final, COM(2011)811 final, COM(2011)812 final

[17]             COM(2011)834 final

[18]             COM(2011)808 final, COM(2011)809 final, COM(2011)810
final, COM(2011)811 final, COM(2011)812 final

[19]             With IMP³rove, small and medium-sized enterprises
(SMEs) have the valuable chance to benchmark their own Innovation Management
performance against other companies from the same industry sector, country,
size and age. Benchmarking offers a sound basis for effective support by an
Innovation Management support provider.

[Top](#document1)