Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Stakeholder Consultation Synopsis

1.1.Introduction

In line with the Better Regulation Guidelines,
[1](#footnote2)
 an online public stakeholder consultation was conducted on the 12 candidates for institutionalised partnerships based on a structured questionnaire, between September and November 2019, gathering 1635 replies for all 12 initiatives. The replies to the common questions are summarized in the horizontal results section 1.2. A summary of the results for each specific initiative is contained in section 1.3 

1.2.Horizontal results of the Open Public Consultation

The consultation was open to everyone via the EU Survey online system
[2](#footnote3)
. The survey contained two main parts to collect views on general issues related to European partnerships (in Part 1) and specific responses related to one or more of the 12 candidate initiatives (as selected by participants). The survey was open from 11 September to 12 November 2019. The consultation was available in English, German and French and advertised widely through the European Commission’s online channels as well as via various stakeholder organisations. 

Profile of respondents

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

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

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508706.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508706_ENG_xhtml_01001.jpg)

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

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

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

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Name of the partnership | Number and % of respondents from both groups  (n=1035) | Number and % of respondents from a non-campaign group  (n=815) | Academic/research institutions | Business associations | Company/business organisations (<250) | Company/business organisations (250+) | EU citizens | NGOs | Public authority |
| Fuel Cells and Hydrogen 2 (FCH2) Joint Undertaking | 354 (33.33%) | 247 (30.31%) | 97 | 9 | 37 | 43 | 41 | 8 | 5 |
| Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking | 195 (18.84%) | 145 (17.79%) | 57 | 2 | 10 | 27 | 37 | 1 | 7 |
| European Metrology Programme for Innovation and Research (EMPIR) | 150 (14.49%) | 124 (15.21%) | 64 | 0 | 13 | 9 | 14 | 2 | 19 |
| Bio-Based Industries Joint Undertaking | 142 (13.72%) | 122 (14.97%) | 39 | 8 | 20 | 27 | 14 | 1 | 6 |
| Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking | 124 (11.98%) | 101 (12.40%) | 31 | 7 | 5 | 31 | 14 | 3 | 7 |
| Electronic Components and Systems for European Leadership (ECSEL) Joint Undertaking | 111 (10.72%) | 88 (10.80%) | 42 | 2 | 7 | 20 | 12 | 0 | 5 |
| Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research (SESAR) Joint Undertaking | 66 (6.38%) | 46 (5.64%) | 10 | 3 | 3 | 20 | 3 | 2 | 3 |
| 5G (5G PPP) | 53 (5.12%) | 47 (5.77%) | 20 | 1 | 6 | 14 | 5 | 0 | 1 |
| Eurostrars-2 (supporting research-performing small and medium-sized enterprises) | 44 (4.25%) | 40 (4.91%) | 17 | 0 | 6 | 1 | 7 | 0 | 6 |
| Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 (IMI2) Joint Undertaking | 37 (3.57%) | 35 (4.29%) | 18 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 3 |
| Partnership for Research and Innovation in the Mediterranean Area (PRIMA) | 28 (2.71%) | 26 (3.19%) | 15 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership | 25 (2.42%) | 24 (2.94%) | 12 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| Ambient Assisted Living (AAL 2) | 22 (2.13%) | 21 (2.58%) | 11 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| European High-Performance Computing Joint Undertaking (EuroHPC) | 22 (2.13%) | 18 (2.21%) | 6 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 2 |

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

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Name of the candidate Institutionalised European partnership | Number and % of respondents from both groups  (n=1613) | Number and % of respondents from a non-campaign group  (n=1341) |
| Clean Hydrogen | 506 (31.37%) | 382 (28.49%) |
| European Metrology | 265 (16.43%) | 225 (16.78%) |
| Clean Aviation | 246 (15.25%) | 191 (14.24%) |
| Circular bio-based Europe | 242 (15%) | 215 (16.03%) |
| Transforming Europe’s rail system | 184 (11.41%) | 151 (11.26%) |
| Key Digital Technologies | 182 (11.28%) | 162 (12.08%) |
| Innovative SMEs | 111 (6.88%) | 110 (8.20%) |
| Innovative Health Initiative | 110 (6.82%) | 108 (8.05%) |
| Smart Networks and Services | 109 (6.76%) | 107 (7.98%) |
| Safe and Automated Road Transport | 108 (6.70%) | 102 (7.61%) |
| Integrated Air Traffic Management | 93 (5.77%) | 66 (4.92%) |
| EU-Africa research partnership on health security to tackle infectious diseases – Global Health | 49 (3.04%) | 47 (3.50%) |

Characteristics of future candidate European Partnerships

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

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

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508706.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508706_ENG_xhtml_01002.jpg)

Main advantages and disadvantages of Institutionalised European Partnerships

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

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

Relevance of EU level to address problems in Partnerships’ areas

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

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508706.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508706_ENG_xhtml_01003.jpg)

Horizon Europe mode of intervention to address problems

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

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508706.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508706_ENG_xhtml_01004.jpg)

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

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

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

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

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

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

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508706.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508706_ENG_xhtml_01005.jpg)

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

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508706.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508706_ENG_xhtml_01006.jpg)

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

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508706.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508706_ENG_xhtml_01007.jpg)

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

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508706.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508706_ENG_xhtml_01008.jpg)

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

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

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508706.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508706_ENG_xhtml_01009.jpg)

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

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

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508706.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508706_ENG_xhtml_01010.jpg)

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

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

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

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

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508706.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508706_ENG_xhtml_01011.jpg)

  

1.3.Open public consultation results for this specific initiative

Characteristics of respondents

There are 191 respondents who have answered (part of) the consultation for the Clean Aviation Partnership. Of these respondents, 55 (29%) were citizens. The largest group of respondents were academic and research institutions (57, 30%) closely followed by businesses 55 respondents (28.80). There were five respondents from business associations (3%). The other respondents were eight representatives of public authorities (4%), three non-governmental organisations (1.57%), or seven others (4%). The overwhelming majority, namely 167 (87%) respondents, have been involved in the on-going research and innovation framework programme, of which 140 respondents (73%) were directly involved in a partnership under Horizon 2020 or its predecessor Seventh Framework Programme.

Results on general questions

Characteristics of future candidate European Partnerships – as viewed by respondents to the Clean Aviation initiative

The respondents of this partnership were asked to indicate their views of the needs of the future European Partnerships under Horizon Europe. All 191 respondents answered and mainly indicated that many of these needs were required. The most valued option was making a significant contribution to the EU efforts to achieve climate-related goals (127, 66%).

Figure 12: Views of the respondents in regard to the needs of future European Partnerships under Horizon Europe (N=191)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508706.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508706_ENG_xhtml_01012.jpg)

Stakeholders also noted the presence of regulatory barriers in the context of standards and disruptive technology development and that the lack of global integrated standards undermines the benefits of R&I activities developed at an EU level, thus affecting European competitiveness.

Relevance of EU level efforts to address problems in relation to Clean Aviation

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

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508706.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508706_ENG_xhtml_01013.jpg)

A substantial majority of business organisations, business associations, academic and research institutions, public authorities and EU citizens strongly recognise the impact that long development and innovation cycles and high associated costs of demonstration are having on the growing ecological footprint, whilst all parties also recognise that a future partnership must also make significant contributions to EU global competitiveness.

With regard to the uptake in innovation problems, 76 respondents have indicated that the regulatory framework lagging behind technology developments is very relevant (41%). The lack of consideration of societal and users’ needs was considered as less relevant for research and innovation efforts at EU level to address, with only 35 respondents indicating this was very relevant (19%)

Horizon Europe mode of intervention to address problems

Figure 14: Assessment of Horizon Europe intervention

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508706.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508706_ENG_xhtml_01014.jpg)

Long-term commitment, demonstration and development of new technology, relevant stakeholders and a common research roadmap were mentioned in support of an institutionalised partnerships.

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

Respondents were asked how relevant the involvement of actors is in setting a joint long-term agenda to ensure that the proposed European Partnership would meet its objectives. Most respondents indicated that the involvement of industry, (154 respondents; or 82.%) academia (96; 52.%) and Member States and Associated Countries (80; 43.%) is very relevant.

Figure 15: Views of respondents on relevance of actors in setting joint long-term agenda

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508706.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508706_ENG_xhtml_01015.jpg)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508706.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508706_ENG_xhtml_01016.jpg)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508706.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508706_ENG_xhtml_01015.jpg)
![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508706.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508706_ENG_xhtml_01016.jpg)

The responses supported the view that the initiatives should enable the development of a long-term strategy, underpinned by a roadmap, that mainly draws on inputs from industry and academia, with additional inputs from Member States.

Relevance of elements and activities in pooling and leveraging resources

With respect to the relevance of actors in pooling and leveraging resources, such as financial, infrastructure, in-kind expertise etc.), to meet the partnership’s objectives, the patterns are very similar. Most of the respondents (13.9; 75%) indicated that industry was very relevant. A large part of respondents also indicated that the involvement of Member States and Associated Countries (96; 52%) and academia (80; 43%) is very relevant.

Among stakeholders responding to the Open Public Consultation there was widespread recognition of the problem of fragmentation and lack of effective coordination of R&I activity, underpinning the case for intervention at the European level.

Relevance of elements and activities for the partnership composition

Respondents were asked about the relevance of Partnership composition, such as flexibility in the composition of partners over time, and involvement of a broad range of partners (including across disciplines and sectors), to reach the partnership’s objectives. Ensuring involvement of a broad range of partners has more ‘very relevant’ answers (99; 55%) than the flexibility in the composition of partners (83; 45%). Overall, 83% of respondents have given flexibility either a score of 4 or 5 (very relevant) which is higher than the 82% who have given the broad range of partners a score of 4 or 5 (very relevant).

Figure 16: Views of respondents on relevance of partnership composition elements

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508706.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508706_ENG_xhtml_01017.jpg)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508706.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508706_ENG_xhtml_01016.jpg)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508706.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508706_ENG_xhtml_01017.jpg)
![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508706.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508706_ENG_xhtml_01016.jpg)

Relevance of implementation of activities

Respondents were asked to provide opinions on relevance of implementation of several activities for meeting objectives of the Clean Aviation. Among activities were listed – joint R&D programme, collaborative R&D projects, deployment and piloting activities, input to regulatory aspects and co-creation of solutions with end-users. Out of 187 respondents, 119 (64%) indicated that collaborative R&I projects are very relevant to ensure that the Partnership would meet its objectives. A Joint R&I programme has also been considered as very relevant by a large number of respondents (112 respondents or 60%). Input to regulatory aspects is seen by the least respondents as very relevant, with 37% (68) of the responses falling in this category, however 72 respondents (40%) have given it a score of 4 on the relevance scale, which indicates that it is still considered as relevant.

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

Figure 17: Views of respondents on relevance of implementation of the following activities

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508706.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508706_ENG_xhtml_01018.jpg)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508706.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508706_ENG_xhtml_01016.jpg)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508706.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508706_ENG_xhtml_01018.jpg)
![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508706.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508706_ENG_xhtml_01016.jpg)

In addition, virtually all stakeholders consulted as part of the Open Public Consultation scored the following impacts with high relevance scores: increased industrial leadership and uptake of new technologies; the acceleration of key technologies through selected demonstrators; as well as the creation of high-skilled jobs in the low-carbon economy.

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

Figure 18: Views of respondents on relevance of a specific legal structure

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508706.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508706_ENG_xhtml_01019.jpg)

The Open Public Consultation responses provided further support for the view that a well-defined legal structure of the kind underpinning an institutional partnership could be expected to increase the economic and technological impacts of the initiative.

A substantial majority of business organisations of different sizes, business associations, academic institutions, public authorities and EU citizens considered that such a structure was either relevant or very relevant for achieving more effective and faster implementation of the initiative, increased financial leverage, better links to both regulators and practitioners on the ground, harmonised standards, facilitated synergies with EU/national programmes and facilitated collaboration with other partnerships.

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

Respondents were asked to assess the scope and coverage of the Clean Aviation Partnership, based on its inception impact assessment. The clear majority of the respondents indicated that the partnership has the right scope and coverage across all areas, with over 60% of respondents choosing this option. Respondents were the most positive with regard to the type of partners covered (138; 77%), technologies covered (136; 76%) and research areas covered (132; 73%). Across all areas an average of 10% of the respondents indicated that the scope is too narrow.

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

Figure 19: Views of respondents on the scope and coverage proposed for the Clean Aviation Partnership

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508706.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508706_ENG_xhtml_01020.jpg)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508706.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508706_ENG_xhtml_01020.jpg)

Aside from this multiple choice question, the respondents were also asked to provide any comment that they may have on the proposed scope and coverage for this candidate Institutionalised Partnership. This analysis showed the respondents used this question to talk about low carbon fuel, hybrid electric batteries, impact assessment and the geographical coverage of new technology.

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

The respondents were also asked if it they thought it would be possible to rationalise the candidate European Institutionalised Partnership and its activities, and/or to better link it with other comparable initiatives. 111 respondents (67%) have indicated that they think this is the case. No statistical differences were found between the views of citizens and other respondents.

In responding to the Open Public Consultation, a majority of stakeholders stated that the legal structure underpinning an institutionalised partnership was either relevant or very relevant to the facilitation of collaboration with other partnerships under Horizon Europe. Support for this view was particularly strong among business organisations with fewer than 250 people, but it was also held by most SMEs, academic and research institutions, public authorities and EU citizens.

A substantial majority in each of the same stakeholder groups confirmed that there would be scope for rationalising the activities of the candidate partnership for Clean Aviation and to link it with other initiatives under Horizon Europe.

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

Figure 20: Views of respondents on the relevance of the candidate European Institutionalised Partnership to various impacts

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508706.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508706_ENG_xhtml_01021.jpg)

:   [(1)](#footnoteref2)
     
    <https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/better-regulation-guidelines-stakeholder-consultation_en>
:   [(2)](#footnoteref3)
     
    <https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/ConsultationPartnershipsHorizonEurope>

[Top](#document1)