Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Open Public 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%292508749.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508749_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%292508749.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508749_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%292508749.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508749_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%292508749.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508749_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%292508749.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508749_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%292508749.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508749_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%292508749.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508749_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%292508749.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508749_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%292508749.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508749_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%292508749.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508749_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%292508749.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508749_ENG_xhtml_01011.jpg)

1.3.Open Public Consultation

Characteristics of respondents

There are 382 respondents who have answered (part of) the consultation for the Clean Hydrogen Partnership. Of these respondents, 76 (19.90%) were citizens. The largest group of respondents were businesses and academic and research institutions both with 123 respondents (32.20%). There were 21 respondents from business associations (5.50%). The other respondents were representatives of public authorities (13, 3.4%), non-governmental organisations (8, 2.09%) or other (17, 4.45%). Over 3/4s of respondents, namely 293 (76.70%), have been involved in the on-going research and innovation framework programme, of which 245 respondents (83.62%) were directly involved in a partnership under Horizon 2020 or its predecessor Framework Programme 7.

Results on general questions

Relevance of efforts of the candidate European Partnership to address problems

Figure 12: Views of the respondents in regard to the needs of future European Partnerships under Horizon Europe (N=382)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508749.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508749_ENG_xhtml_01012.jpg)

Main advantages and disadvantages of participation in the Institutionalised European Partnership

The respondents were asked what they perceived to be the main advantages and disadvantages of participation in an Institutionalised European Partnership (as a partner) under Horizon Europe. This analysis showed the respondents mentioned long term commitment and collaboration in relation to advantages and efficient management and higher visibility in relation to disadvantages.

Results on candidate European Partnership specific questions

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

In the consultation, respondents were asked to provide their view on the relevance of research and innovation efforts at EU level to address the following problems in relation to hydrogen and fuel cells, specifically on three types of problems: problems in uptake of hydrogen and fuel cells innovations (UI-P), structural and resource problems (SR-P) and research and innovations problems (RI-P).

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

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508749.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508749_ENG_xhtml_01013.jpg)

With regard to the uptake in innovation problems, 278 respondents have indicated that it is very relevant for research and innovation efforts at EU level to address the problem of high costs of clean hydrogen and fuel cells solutions that hinder mass commercialisation until serial production is achieved, factoring-in economies of scale (73.74%). Of the uptake in innovation problems, market failures due to inadequate industry investment has the least amount of very relevant answers (45.50%), while most respondents still have indicated that they view this issue as very relevant.

There were only two structural and resource problems that the respondents were asked to reflect on. Of these the limited role of current industrial policy in framing the market perspectives related to hydrogen and fuel cells innovation, received more 5 (very relevant) answers, namely 60.53% of responses.

The research and innovation problem that most people have indicated as very relevant is the innovation gap in the EU in translating the results of hydrogen and fuel cells research into new products, with 267 respondents choosing this answer (70.82%). The problem that was least often indicated as very relevant, is also a research and innovation problem, namely: lack of interest of major market players to engage in hydrogen and fuel cells research (121, 32.01%). No statistical differences were found between the views of citizens and other respondents. Respondents that are/were involved in a current/preceding partnership (Horizon 2020 or Framework Programme 7) found all uptake in innovation problems more relevant than other respondents.

Horizon Europe interventions to address problems

After providing their views on the relevance of problems, respondents were asked to indicate how these challenges could be addressed through Horizon Europe intervention. No statistical differences were found between the views of citizens and other respondents.

Figure 14: Assessment of Horizon Europe intervention

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508749.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508749_ENG_xhtml_01014.jpg)

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

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 (see 
[Figure](#_Ref25681880)
15). The highest amount of respondents indicated that the involvement of Industry is very relevant (323 respondents or 86.13%). A large part of respondents also indicated that the involvement of Academia (215, 58.58%) and Member States and Associated Countries (201, 53.46%) is very relevant. With regard to Foundations and NGO’s, respondents indicate that their involvement is seen as less relevant, with only 70 (19.23%) respondents indicating that their involvement is very relevant and a 135 respondents (37.09%) indicating that their involvement is a 3 on the relevance scale. No statistical differences were found between the views of citizens and other respondents.

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

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508749.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508749_ENG_xhtml_01015.jpg)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508749.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508749_ENG_xhtml_01016.jpg)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508749.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508749_ENG_xhtml_01015.jpg)
![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508749.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508749_ENG_xhtml_01016.jpg)

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 Partnership objectives, the patterns are similar. First, 301 respondents (80.05%) indicated that industry was very relevant, which is much larger than for any of the other stakeholders. 205 (54.14%) respondents felt that Member States and Associated Countries were very relevant and 188 (51.37%) of respondents indicated that Academia were very relevant. Foundations and other stakeholders were deemed less relevant, since only 68 (18.68%) and 89 (24.31%) respondents respectively indicated that these stakeholders were very relevant. No respondents indicated that any of the categories was not relevant at all.

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

Figure 16: Views of respondents on relevance of actors for pooling and leveraging resources

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508749.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508749_ENG_xhtml_01017.jpg)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508749.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508749_ENG_xhtml_01016.jpg)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508749.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508749_ENG_xhtml_01017.jpg)
![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508749.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508749_ENG_xhtml_01016.jpg)

Relevance of elements and activities for the partnership composition

Respondents were asked about the relevance of the 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 Partnership objectives. As it is visible in 
[Figure](#_Ref25681351)
17, ensuring involvement of a broad range of partners has more ‘very relevant’ answers (143, 38.96%) than the flexibility in the composition of partners (112, 30.60%). Almost 17% (16.94%) of respondents has indicated that flexibility in composition is worth a 2 on the relevancy scale, for ensuring involvement of a broad range of partners, this is the case for 47 respondents (12.81).

No statistical differences were found between the views of citizens and other respondents. Respondents that are/were directly involved in a current/preceding partnership found flexibility in the composition of partners less relevant.

Figure 17: Views of respondents on relevance of partnership composition elements

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508749.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508749_ENG_xhtml_01018.jpg)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508749.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508749_ENG_xhtml_01016.jpg)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508749.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508749_ENG_xhtml_01018.jpg)
![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508749.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508749_ENG_xhtml_01016.jpg)

Relevance of implementation of activities

Respondents were asked to provide opinions on the relevance of implementation of several activities for meeting objectives of the Clean Hydrogen Partnership. 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 375 respondents, 292 (77.86%) indicated that deployment and piloting activities are very relevant to ensure that the Partnership would meet its objectives. For all the other options, the majority (over 60%) of all respondents have indicated that these are very relevant.

No statistical differences were found between the views of citizens and other respondents. Respondents that are/were directly involved in a current/preceding partnership found most activities slightly more relevant than other respondents.

Figure 18: Views of respondents on relevance of implementation of the following activities

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508749.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508749_ENG_xhtml_01019.jpg)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508749.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508749_ENG_xhtml_01016.jpg)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508749.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508749_ENG_xhtml_01019.jpg)
![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508749.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508749_ENG_xhtml_01016.jpg)

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

Respondents were also asked to assess the relevance of a specific legal structure (funding body) for the candidate European Partnership to achieve several activities. According to 
[Figure](#_Ref26451425)
19, respondents indicated that it was very relevant to set up a specific legal structure for the partnership to achieve a more effective implementation of activities (235, 62.67%) and to increase financial leverage (229, 60.90%). Although ‘to ensure better links to practitioners on the ground’ and ‘to obtain more buy-in and long term commitment from other partners, have received the least 5 (very relevant) answers (106 and 123 respectively), they have received the most 4 answers. Which could indicate that they are still seen as important, just slightly less important than the other options.

No statistical differences were found between the views of citizens and other respondents. Respondents that are/were directly involved in a current/preceding partnership found a legal structure slightly more relevant for most objectives.

Figure 19: Views of respondents on relevance of a specific legal structure

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508749.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508749_ENG_xhtml_01020.jpg)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508749.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508749_ENG_xhtml_01020.jpg)

Scope and coverage of the candidate European Partnership

Respondents were asked to assess the scope and coverage of the proposed Clean Hydrogen Partnership, based on its inception impact assessment. The clear majority of the respondents have indicated that the partnership has the right scope and coverage across all areas. The respondents have been the most positive with regard to technologies covered, where 261 respondents (70.54%) have indicated the partnership has the right scope and coverage. The respondents who have indicated that the scope and coverage are not right, have indicated that it was too narrow more often than they viewed it as too broad.

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

Figure 20: Views of respondents on the scope and coverage proposed for the Clean Hydrogen partnership

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508749.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508749_ENG_xhtml_01021.jpg)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508749.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508749_ENG_xhtml_01021.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 TRL levels, flagship projects and the production and distribution of hydrogen technology.

Alignment of the European Partnership with other initiatives

The respondents were also asked if it they thought it would be possible to rationalise the candidate European Institutionalised Partnership and its activities, and/or to better link it with other comparable initiatives. 165 respondents (48.53%) have indicated that they think this is the case.

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

The respondents who answered affirmative, where asked which other comparable initiatives it could be linked with. The results show that respondents think the initiative could be linked with other comparable initiatives related to hydrogen, renewable energy and the application of hydrogen as well as clean aviation and rail systems.

For the respondents who answered negatively on the previous question, The results show that respondents mention key success factors, other initiatives, other partnerships and the energy system and energy transport.

Relevance of the Candidate European Partnership to deliver impacts

Based on 
[Figure](#_Ref26357780)
 21, among presented societal impacts, only the category “improved working conditions” has a relatively low number of respondents that consider that the Partnership would be ‘very relevant’ for this impact category. In other categories, around 80% of respondents consider that the Partnership would be ‘very relevant’ to deliver on those impacts. Similarly, among listed economic/technological impacts, around 80% of respondents suggest that the Partnership would have a significant effect on/be ‘very relevant’ for increasing industrial leadership in hydrogen technologies and uptake of new technologies, for provision of a solution for storing renewable energy for later use, and for provision of low-carbon and competitive solutions for heavy duty and long-distance transport. In contrast, the least number of respondents, namely 197 out of 376 (52.39%), expect a significant impact of the candidate Partnership on better cross-fertilisation of innovative ideas from SMEs to large companies. Around 70% of respondents indicated that the Partnership will have a significant impact on all listed categories in the area of science.

No statistical differences were found between the views of citizens and other respondents. Respondents that are/were involved in a current/preceding partnership found most economic/technological and scientific impacts more relevant than other respondents.

Figure 21: Views of respondents on the relevance of the candidate European Institutionalised Partnership to various impacts

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508749.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508749_ENG_xhtml_01022.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)