Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

*|*

# 52012DC0758

**REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Annual Progress Report on the activities of the Joint Technology Initiatives Joint Undertakings (JTI JUs) in 2011 /\* COM/2012/0758 final \*/**

  

REPORT FROM
THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

Annual Progress Report on the activities
of the Joint Technology Initiatives Joint Undertakings (JTI JUs) in 2011

1.           Introduction

The Joint Technology Initiatives are a
novel way of forming public-private partnerships in industrial research at
European level. They were set up as pilots in 2007-2008 under the Seventh
Framework Programme[1]
in five strategic areas — aeronautics and air transport (the Clean Sky initiative),
public health (the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI)), fuel cell and
hydrogen technologies (the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen (FCH) initiative), embedded
computing systems (the ARTEMIS initiative) and nanoelectronics (the ENIAC initiative). The SESAR[2]
(Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research) programme should also be
mentioned since it is funded under the Seventh Framework Programme. Bringing
together industry, the research community, regulators and the EU to define
common research agendas and invest in large-scale multinational research
activities, the JTIs represent an intriguing opportunity, especially in a
global economic downturn, for Europe to strengthen its competitiveness based on
the principles of scientific excellence, openness and innovation.

An annual report on the progress achieved by
the Joint Technology Initiatives Joint Undertakings (‘JTI JUs’) is required by
Article 11(1) of the Council Regulations setting up the individual JTIs, which
state that ‘the Commission shall present to the European Parliament and to the
Council an annual report on the progress achieved by the [name of the JTI]
Joint Undertaking. This report shall contain details of implementation
including number of proposals submitted, number of proposals selected for
funding, type of participants, including SMEs, and country statistics’.

This 2011 annual report follows the first
interim evaluations of the Joint Undertakings carried out under Article 11(2)
of the Council Regulations. It provides information to the European Parliament
and the Council and outlines the progress achieved by the JTI JUs since they
were set up.

The
report starts with a brief introduction of the JTI JUs, summarises their key
achievements in 2011 and outlines the areas of improvement in the future. It is
accompanied by a Commission Staff Working Document mainly quantifying the
research activities of the respective JTI JUs in 2011. Moreover, it includes updated
information on results and progress relating to calls launched in previous years.

2.           The
JTI JUs

The Joint Technology Initiatives were set up
in the form of Joint Undertakings under Article 187 of the Treaty on the Functioning
of the EU, which states that ‘the Union may set up joint undertakings or
any other structure necessary for the efficient execution of Union research,
technological development and demonstration programmes’. They are ‘Community
bodies’ under Article 185 of the EU Financial Regulation[3]. They were a major new feature
of the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7), introduced to support key areas of research
and technological development that can contribute to Europe’s competitiveness
and quality of life but that were not best served by existing FP7 instruments[4].

Under
the FP7 ‘Cooperation’ Specific Programme, five JTI JUs were set up in 2007-2008
for the period to 31 December 2017:

(1)
Aeronautics and Air Transport (Clean Sky)
JU, increasing the competitiveness of the
European aeronautics industry while reducing emissions and noise, established
by Council Regulation (EC) 71/2008 of 20 December 2007;

(2)
Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) JU, fostering the development of
better and safer medicines for patients, established by Council Regulation (EC)
73/2008 of 20 December 2007;

(3)
Fuel Cells and Hydrogen (FCH) JU, speeding up the
development and deployment of hydrogen supply and fuel cell technologies,
established by Council Regulation (EC) 521/2008 of 30 May 2008;

(4)
Embedded Computing Systems (ARTEMIS) JU, helping the European industry to consolidate and reinforce its
world leadership in embedded computing technologies, established by Council
Regulation (EC) 74/2008 of 20 December 2007;

(5)
Nanoelectronics (ENIAC) JU, targeting to achieve a very high level of miniaturisation required
for the next generation of nanoelectronics components, established by Council
Regulation (EC) 72/2008 of 20 December 2007.

The European Commission, as a co-founding
member, was responsible for starting up the JTI JUs. Once they had built up
their legal and financial framework and demonstrated their capacity to manage their
own budgets, ARTEMIS, IMI and Clean Sky were given autonomy in October-November
2009, followed by ENIAC in May and FCH in November 2010. Thus, 2011 was the first
full year in which all the JTI JUs operated autonomously.

The
Joint Undertakings select projects through annual open and competitive calls
for proposals following one- or two-stage submission and evaluation. They
provide funding for collaborative projects and coordination
and support actions. The calls for proposals launched by the Clean Sky
JU are more specific in scope, of shorter duration and demanding expected
results at higher technology-readiness levels. Clean Sky publishes several
calls per year.

3.           Progress
achieved in 2011 and major challenges

3.1.        Outcome of the first
interim evaluation

The Council Regulations setting them up
require two interim evaluations of the JUs. The first interim evaluation was performed
on time and assessed their quality and efficiency and the progress achieved
towards their objectives. All the reports concluded with a favourable opinion; they
agreed that the JUs should continue beyond 2013 and took a common position on
the following matters. First, the evaluation panels supported the Sherpa Group’s
recommendations[5],
in particular ‘that the current legal framework be streamlined to fit the
purposes of setting up and implementing future JTIs’. In this respect, the
current ‘Community body’ status of JTIs should be reviewed. They recommended
reinforcing and streamlining processes and decision-making. They also referred
to the need for more structured coordination and complementarity with FP7 and
national programmes and funds; for improved communication, to enhance the visibility
of JTI actions aimed at the general public and at international level; and for
systematic data collection and a monitoring system for key performance
indicators.

The panels identified specific
issues and challenges and made a series of recommendations for action by the
various stakeholders (JUs, the European Commission, industry, Member States,
Governing Boards, etc.). Details of the evaluations are given in the Commission
Staff Working Document.

The Commission’s response
to the evaluations of Clean Sky, IMI and FCH was published as a staff working paper
with the communication Partnering in Research and Innovation (COM(2011) 572),
in September 2011. Its communication First interim evaluation of the ARTEMIS
and ENIAC Joint Technology Initiatives (COM(2010) 752) was published, with
a staff working paper detailing its response, in December 2010.

For the Clean Sky, IMI and FCH JUs, the panels recommended prompt
action on improving communication with citizens, setting-up key performance
indicators and making the JUs’ Executive Directors, rather than the Governing
Boards, responsible for matters pertaining to day-to-day management. For ENIAC
and ARTEMIS, the panel made 18 recommendations for Member States, industry, the
Commission and the JUs. It urged Member States to make multi-annual budgetary
commitments and industry and the JUs to make a stronger commitment to implementing
the European strategy. The Commission was advised to gather data for future evaluation
of the JTI JUs.

3.2.        Strategic Research Agenda

The strategic research agendas (SRAs) were
revised to set new priorities for the JUs, to meet current challenges and to take
into account the industrial progress achieved in recent years. Most JUs started
this work in 2010 and completed it in 2011.

In aeronautics, the targets set for Clean Sky
JU were reassessed, updating the development plan and prediction of the environmental
benefits to be expected by the end of the programme. In the pharmaceutical
sector, the Innovative Medicines Initiative’s SRA was revised to reflect
scientific advances and changes in the industry. This update was completed in
2011, focusing on large scale, game-changing projects and setting eight new priorities.

The strategic research and demonstration
priorities of the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen JU were also revised in 2011. New
targets were set in the Multi-Annual Implementation Plan (MAIP) for the four FCH
application areas, to reflect technical and scientific progress made since the
first MAIP. As a result, some topics will no longer be considered in future
calls and six new ones will be introduced. The revised targets were also
extended to 2020, to align them with the next framework programme, Horizon 2020.

For embedded
computing systems, new technical options and challenges
have arisen since 2006 when the
ARTEMIS European Technology Platform issued its first SRA, so the ARTEMIS SRA
was also updated and research priorities for the
development and adoption of key technologies across different application areas
were reviewed. The revised SRA gives
a clear idea of what is needed in Europe in the next decade from all
R&I players to allow the emergence of new markets and applications
important to society.

For ENIAC JU and nanoelectronics components, there
were calls for all the technology fields and 9 of the 16 application fields in
2011. The next 2012 calls will include all applications and technology fields.

3.3.        Communication and
administration

One of the objectives that the interim
evaluations wished to see for the Joint Undertakings in 2011 was to take a more
proactive and target-oriented approach to their communication activities,
especially with SMEs and the research community to increase their participation
in the research projects. They recommended that the JTI JUs develop and
implement clear communication and dissemination plans, establish a separate
identity and work more on synergies with national programmes and international
cooperation with non-EU stakeholders.

In 2011 special attention
was in fact given to communication, stressing promotion of JU activities among European
citizens and dissemination of initial results. Clean Sky and FCH both acquired new
websites. Factsheets were updated, a newsletter (from IMI and Clean Sky) and a
paper magazine (ARTEMIS) were circulated regularly and some press releases on
significant achievements were also published. JU representatives also attended
international conferences and specific events were held to publicise calls. The
tables at Annex and the Staff Working Paper list the main communication
activities of each JU.

For the first time, the five
JTI JUs jointly organised a one-week event, ‘Innovation in action’, in the
European Parliament building in Brussels in October 2011. The event was hosted
by Maria de Graça Carvalho, MEP. A joint exhibition ran for the week and each
Joint Technology Initiative had its own conference and ran sessions on
particular topics. The press attended a joint press conference and covered the
event. The Executive Directors of all five JUs presented their organisations’
key successes and the Commission Director-General and Deputy Director-General took
part in the discussions.

JTI research activities were
fully under way and 2011 saw the first success stories. Some projects won awards
for being particularly innovative and others were recognised as excellent for
their research achievements (see ‘success stories’ in the tables at Annex).

On the administrative
front, the five JUs moved successfully in January 2011 from a Commission
building to dedicated premises in the heart of Brussels. By the end of the
year, they had made progress in staff recruitment: both FCH and ENIAC reached
full capacity; IMI, Clean Sky and ARTEMIS were closed to fully staffed, however
IMI had three vacant temporary posts and one contract post above the authorised
level. Recruitment to the Clean Sky JU was in line with the Governing Board’s
decision, but there was a Contract Agent post vacant and an urgent need for
additional staff to handle the workload that could not be covered by the current
team so extra, temporary staff were hired. ARTEMIS had two vacant contract agent
posts.

The JUs complied with planning and reporting requirements,
both their governing and advisory bodies met on a regular basis, and their
Governing Boards approved strategic documents such as the 2010 final accounts
and draft budgets. New chairs of the Governing Boards of Clean Sky and FCH were
elected in 2011.

3.4.        Operational progress

JUs aim to coordinate resources and funding from industry and public
bodies so as to achieve synergies and help build Europe’s future growth,
competitiveness and sustainable development. In 2011, the five JUs launched further
calls for proposals in line with their strategic research agendas and continued
to evaluate and negotiate grants arising from previous calls. Since they differ
in terms of the number of calls, topics, evaluation stages, sector and governance,
the operational progress achieved during 2011 in call implementation is reported
in separate sections below.

4.           Progress achieved by the Clean Sky JU

For the period 2008–2013, Clean Sky was
allocated a total budget of € 1.6 billion: a maximum € 800 million from
the European Commission (in cash), to be matched by industry contributions (in
kind) worth at least € 800 million. Three main objectives were set for Clean
Sky: (i) to accelerate environmental improvements in Air Transportation System
(ATS) through the introduction of advanced technologies and full scale
demonstrators, (ii) to improve on the overall ATS impact on the environment (reducing
noise, emissions, and fuel consumption), and (iii) to consolidate the European aeronautics
industry around a project of common interest.

Clean Sky’s performance needs to be judged in
the light of its specific characteristics, in particular the considerable industry
involvement in the JU at various levels, from strategic management to the definition
and description of call topics and direct participation in the evaluation of
projects. Unlike the other JUs, Clean Sky works mainly via grants to named
beneficiaries rather than calls for proposals. In fact, its main achievements
result from the work of its members, organised in six different technical areas
called Integrated Technology Demonstrators (ITD), supported by a Technology
Evaluator who continuously monitors and assesses the result. There is effective
and organised coordination with other organisations, particularly the Single
European Sky Air Traffic Management Research (SESAR) JU.

Much of the overall budget (€ 600
million, or 75 %) is distributed to these members or ‘named beneficiaries’;
the remaining € 200 million is allocated to calls for proposals. These
calls are launched on a regular but one-off basis when ITD members express a
need for additional specific research activities to complement their work.
Consequently, the Clean Sky calls for proposals are targeted calls, cover various
topics (23 to 58 during 2011) and are of short duration (averaging six months
to one year).

In 2011 Clean Sky completed
the evaluation of call 7 and published three calls for proposals: calls 8, 9
and 10. It managed 159 topics in total, resulting in a total of 325 partners from
22 countries selected after call 10. The table below gives an overview of the
calls launched and evaluated by Clean Sky in 2011, including proposals
submitted and evaluated.

|| || Proposals || Evaluation results || Success rate (%) || Indicative budget  [max. funding] (€m) || Outcome of the call (€m)

Call indicative || || || Eligible || || Above the threshold || Selected for funding

No of topics || Submitted || % eligible

7 || SPI-JTI-CS-2010-05 || 38 || 71 || 67 || 94.37 % || 45 || 29 || 64 % || 23.0 || 14.6

8 || SPI-JTI-CS-2011-01 || 58 || 127 || 119 || 93.70 % || 84 || 49 || 58 % || 31.9 || 22.5

9 || SPI-JTI-CS-2011-02 || 23 || 62 || 59 || 95.16 % || 32 || 16 || 50 % || 12.7 || 6.1

10 || SPI-JTI-CS-2011-03 || 40 || 62 || 60 || 96.77 % || 35 || 24 || 68 % || 19.5 || 9.4

TOTAL || 159 || 322 || 305 || 95 % || 196 || 118 || 60 % || 87.1 || 52.6

In comparison with the other JUs, overall
participation in the calls is high and so is the number of projects selected
for funding. The participants are evenly distributed between research
organisations, industry, universities and SMEs. However, Clean Sky appeared to
be less attractive to public bodies and regulatory agencies in 2011. SMEs accounted
for a very high number of participants in the projects funded (37 %); over
the period 2008–2011, SMEs accounted for 38% of the EU’s Clean Sky funding[6].

Based on the data available for the funded
projects, calls 7 to 10 attracted participants from 23 countries. The countries
best represented were the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, Italy and France, which
have an industrial tradition in aeronautics. Clean Sky attracted the most participants
from the EU-12 countries of any JU. Of the ‘associated’ countries, Switzerland led
with six coordinators, while the main international partners were China and
Russia; the US did not participate.

The Technology Evaluator covered four main
research work packages, which all had activities and deliverables in 2011. Overall,
carrying out the 2011 plan was a significant challenge. Despite some
difficulties, the Technology Evaluator managed to put in place reinforced
planning and control mechanisms for 2012. The first assessment performed, also served
to ‘demonstrate’ the full process and proved to be encouraging. The quality and
timeliness of deliverables should improve significantly in 2012 and will be
closely monitored by the JU as a top priority.

For more information, including success
stories, see ‘Clean Sky JU: main achievements in 2011 at a glance’, in the Annex.

5.           Progress achieved by the INNOVATIVE
MEDECINES INITIATIVE JU

For the period 2008–2013, the Innovative
Medicines Initiative (IMI) JU was allocated a total budget of € 2 billion.
The European Commission contributes maximum € 1 billion from its Seventh
Framework Programme budget, to be matched by in-kind contributions (consisting
mostly of research activities) worth at least another € 1 billion from member
companies of the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and
Associations (EFPIA). This makes the IMI Europe’s largest public-private
partnership overall, as well as the largest pharmaceutical-related PPP.

The IMI’s main objectives are: (i) to build a
more collaborative environment for pharmaceutical R&D in Europe; (ii) to speed
up the development of more effective and safer medicines for patients and (iii)
to increase the competitiveness of the EU pharmaceutical sector. The main
challenges are: (i) industrial: insufficient R&D investment; (ii)
scientific: technological complexity, and (iii) European: research is
fragmented in Europe.

Industrial partners are heavily involved in IMI;
in particular, EFPIA companies participate much more in IMI projects than in
FP7 Health Projects. Another feature of IMI is the two-stage process for calls
for proposals: applicants send Expressions of Interest (EoIs) in stage one,
then in stage two the best ranked participants and the EFPIA consortium are
invited to form a full project consortium and draft a Full Project Proposal
(FPP).

In 2011, IMI completed the evaluation of call
3 and published a fourth call for proposals. The table below presents a general
overview of the calls launched and evaluated in 2011, with data on the
submitted EoIs and evaluated FFPs.

Call indicative || || || || || EoIs above the threshold || FPPs selected for funding || Success rate (selected FPPs/ submitted EoIs)

No of topics || Submitted EoIs || Eligible EoIs || % of retained

2010-03 || 7 || 32 || 30 || 93.75 % || 16 || 7 || 21.88 %

2011-04 || 7 || 86 || 80 || 93.02 % || 30 || 7 || 8.14 %

TOTAL || 14 || 118 || 110 || 93.4 % || 46 || 14 || 11,86 %

Calls 3 and 4[7]
attracted wide interest and a high number of applicants: 1377. But because of
the restricted number of topics, only 20 % (266) of the initial applicants
were finally included in the projects selected for funding together with
industry participants — about 50 teams from EFPIA companies joined the
consortia. The total number of participants in the calls in 2011 is 316,
resulting in an average success rate of 23 %.

The participants' typology of IMI is very specific.
Industry is well represented (by EFPIA companies and SMEs) and there is also very
high participation from universities. At the first stage, a good number of EoIs
were submitted by SMEs, followed by other participants and patients’
organisations. But academia accounted for most of the participants in the projects
eventually funded (208) followed by the EFPIA (53) and SMEs (47), with the
latter representing 17.7 % of total participation. SMEs received 13.56 %
of the EU funding over the period from 2008 to 2011.

Regarding the geographical distribution of
the applicants, the available figures relate to Call 3. Participants in the
winning projects (123, excluding EFPIA companies) came from 19 countries, mostly
the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, France and Sweden. The Czech
Republic and Hungary were the only EU-12 countries (recent EU members) represented,
with a single participant each. Switzerland led the ‘associated’ countries, with
six participants, followed by Israel and Iceland. As for international participation,
the US had three participants (as many as Spain). For call 4, IMI recorded 143
participations in the proposals selected for funding, but the geographical
distribution is unknown yet.

For more information including success
stories, see ‘IMI JU: main achievements in 2011at a glance’, in the Annex.

6.           Progress achieved by the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen
JU

For the period 2008–2013, the Commission
allocated the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen (FCH) JU a budget of € 470 million.
This amount is expected to be matched by cash contribution for the running
costs and by in-kind contributions for the operational costs from the legal
entities participating in its activities. FCH is therefore expected to have a
total budget of € 940 million.

FCH’s main objectives are: (i) to accelerate
the development and deployment of fuel cell and hydrogen technologies; (ii) to
provide the technology base to start marketing them within the timeframe 2015
to 2020, reducing the ‘time to market’, and (iii) to place Europe at the
forefront of these technologies worldwide.

FCH uses two types of funding schemes to further
a wide spectrum of RTD activities: collaborative projects (for basic research
and demonstration) and coordination and support actions (for networking
activities, including pre-normative research). Another feature of FCH is its cross-cutting
activity: to complement the four scientific application areas it aims to raise
awareness, educate the public and support the market. Submission and evaluation
are carried out by means of a simple single-stage process.

FCH launched
one call in 2011 (FCH-JU-2011-1 — see table below).
The table below presents data on the submitted and evaluated proposals to this
call.

Call indicative || || || || || Above the threshold || Selected for funding || Success rate

No of topics || Submitted proposals || Eligible proposals || % of retained

2011-01 || 36 || 82 || 81 || 98.78 % || 53 || 30 || 36.59 %

FCH attracted a wide range of participants
of all types, including public authorities (e.g. national/regional bodies, energy
agencies) and NGOs. This could be because of their particular interest in the
coordination and support actions. The participants were also evenly distributed
between research organisations and industry. Of the 667 applicants responding
to the call, 225 had their projects funded. The projects selected for funding
involved 73 SMEs, representing 25.6 % of total participation. Over the
period 2008 to 2011, SMEs accounted for 22.15 % of EU funding in FCH.

A total of 26 countries were represented in
the call, led by Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Italy and Belgium. EU-12
countries were well represented, with 10 participations. Switzerland and Norway
led the list of ‘associated’ countries (with seven coordinators each) followed
by Iceland and Turkey with one participant each. The international partners included
participants from the US, the Republic of Korea, China, Canada and Serbia.

In terms of administrative progress, FCH overcame
some of the limits on in-kind contribution when Council Regulation (EU) No
1183/2011 was adopted on 14 November 2011. Recognising the membership of the
N.ERGHY Research Grouping, this amendment allowed non-industry participants
such as the N.ERGHY Research Grouping to make in-kind contributions counting as
matching funding. This amendment was also expected to improve funding levels.

For more information, including success
stories, see ‘FCH JU: main achievements in 2011 at a glance’, in the Annex.

7.           Progress achieved by the ARTEMIS JU in
2011

For the period 2008–2013, the Commission
allocated a maximum budget of € 420 million to the Embedded Computing
Systems (ARTEMIS) JU, which was boosted by ARTEMIS Member State funding of at
least 1.8 times the EU contribution (€ 756 million). A matching contribution
in kind at least equivalent to the public authorities’ total is expected from
industry.

On 5 July 2011, ARTEMIS signed an
additional Administrative Agreement with the Brussels Capital Region of
Belgium. An Administrative Agreement with Poland was signed in December 2011, making
it the 23rd ARTEMIS Member State, with the intention of committing a budget to
the 2012 call.

The main objectives of ARTEMIS are to tackle
the research and structural challenges faced by industry in embedded systems and
to help the European industry consolidate and reinforce its world leadership in
embedded computing technologies. The participation of Member States in funding
and governance alongside the EU and industry is a major feature of the JU. The
submission and evaluation procedure is two-stage: applicants first send a
project outline (PO), then a full project proposal (FPP).

In 2011,
10 grant agreements relating to the 2010 call 3
were signed and call 4 was launched. The table below gives an overview of the POs
and FFPs submitted in response to call 4, together with the results of the
evaluation.

Call indicative || Submitted project outlines (POs) || Submitted proposals (FPPs) || || || Above the threshold || Selected for funding || Success rate

Eligible proposals || % of retained

2011-1 || 41 || 27 || 27 || 100 % || 16 || 9 || 22 %

540 applicants reached the FPP stage of the
2011 call for proposals and 206 were involved in the projects funded (an
average of 23 participants per project). ARTEMIS seeks to foster collaboration
between all stakeholders — industry, including SMEs, national and/or regional
authorities, and academic and research centres — pulling together and focusing
research efforts. There was a good balance in the types of participants in 2011,
with 71 from research organisations and academia, 73 industrial partners and 62
SMEs. The scientific and research community is well represented and
coordinated. SMEs accounted for 37.9 % of total participations in 2011, and
obtained 19.18 % of EU funding to ARTEMIS over the period 2008 to 2011.

The projects funded involved 17 countries, led
by Spain, Italy, Germany, Finland, France and Austria. The EU-12 countries were
also represented, by Czech Republic, Latvia and Estonia. Only one associated
country was involved in the projects selected for funding: Norway, but with a
good number of participants (6). The US was the sole international partner, with
one participant.

For more information see ‘ARTEMIS JU: main
achievements in 2011 at a glance’, in the Annex.

8.           Progress achieved by the ENIAC JU

For the period 2008–2013, the Commission
allocated a maximum budget of € 450 million to Nanoelectronics (ENIAC), which
was boosted by ENIAC Member State funding of at least of 1.8 times the EU
contribution (€ 810 million). A matching contribution in kind at least equivalent
to the public authorities’ total is expected from industry.

The main objectives of ENIAC are: (i) to tackle
research and innovation in nanoelectronics technologies and their integration
in smart systems; (ii) to help European industry consolidate and reinforce its
position in nanoelectronics technologies and systems and (iii) to contribute to
further incorporation and miniaturisation of devices, and increase their
functionalities while delivering new materials, equipment and processes. As with
ARTEMIS, the participation of Member States in funding and governance alongside
the EU and industry is a major feature of ENIAC. The submission and evaluation
process is similarly two-stage (PO, then FPP).

In 2011 a decline in commitments by ENIAC
Member States was reversed and this increase in commitments is expected to
continue in 2012. However, it was observed that the 1.8 ratio between
the ENIAC JU and the Member States’ grants to the projects would likely not be
achieved at the life end of the JU. As a consequence, the Public Authority
Board took a decision to reduce ENIAC JU's participation from 16.7 % to 15 %
of total eligible costs and up to 52 % of the ENIAC Member States’
contributions to the calls for proposals. This should result in a ratio close
to 1.8, provided that (i) the ENIAC JU uses the maximum EU contribution provided
for in the Council Regulation and (ii) the ENIAC Member States fund their
participants at funding rates similar to those in the past.

In 2011 ENIAC launched two calls for
proposals, call 4 and call 5 (the latter with a one-stage procedure because of
a tight deadline). The table below gives an overview of the two calls launched
and evaluated in 2011.

Call indicative || Submitted project outlines (POs) || Submitted proposals (FPPs) || Eligible proposals || % of retained || Above the threshold || Selected for funding || Success rate % (FPP level) ||

2011-1 || 20 || 9 || 9 || 100 % || 7 || 6 || 66.7 % ||

2011-2 || NA || 8 || 7 || 87.50 % || 6 || 6 || 75.0 % ||

TOTAL || 20 || 17 || 16 || 93.75 % || 13 || 12 || 70.85 % ||

Of the 286 applicants that sent Full
Project Proposals (FPP) for the 2011 ENIAC calls, 195 were selected for
funding, a good success rate. The balance of partners is very specific to the
sector: research organisations (50), industry (71) and SMEs (74) are quite
evenly represented while public bodies and academia are absent. SMEs accounted
for 37.9 % of all participations from 2008 to 2011 they accounted for 13.30 %
of EU funding.

Participants in the calls came from 19
countries, with the Netherlands in the lead, followed by Italy, France, Germany
and Austria. EU-12 countries also participated, mostly represented by the Czech
Republic, Poland and Slovakia. There was good participation from ‘associated’
countries, led by Israel, with 5 participants, Norway (3) and Switzerland (1).
However, there were no international partners.

Towards the end of 2011
the ENIAC JU launched a call for Expressions of Interest in setting up pilot
lines. This call aims to prepare the JU to be a preferred instrument for
implementing the KET policy on improving Europe’s position in six ‘key enabling
technologies’ including nanoelectronics. The pilot lines will allow innovation
at higher technology-readiness levels (4 to 8) providing a bridge to Horizon
2020.

For more information,
including success stories, see ‘The ENIAC JU: main achievements in 2011 at a
glance’, in the Annex.

9.           General
progress achieved in 2011

9.1.        Stakeholder participation

Thanks
to the experience gained with setting up the JUs, it is now possible to start
providing data on progress achieved in terms of participation.

|| Participations in proposals submitted (2011) || Participations in projects selected for funding (2011)

Clean Sky || 600 || 238

IMI || 1377 || 319

FCH || 667 || 285

Artemis || 540 || 206

Eniac || 286 || 195

Total || 3470 || 1243

In 2011, JUs registered 3470 participations
in submitted proposals while the participations in funded projects equalled
1243. The overall success rate of 35.8 % is very promising and can be
regarded as positive given that JUs are conducting highly specific, industry-driven
research.

The JUs have made efforts to widen participation,
for example by improving communication with potential applicants to the open
calls for proposal. Tailored Info Days have been held and JU participation in seminars,
events and major technological fairs and exhibitions has grown. Progress has
also been made in increasing the public visibility of JTIs. Almost all JTIs’
web pages were revamped to present better and more user-friendly information.

This action has helped make the JTIs JUs
initiatives more accessible to the research and scientific communities. As a
result, for example, IMI received twice as many expressions of interest in
response to its second call as it had in response to its first.

The types of stakeholders involved in the
research projects vary according to the JU:

·
Participation in FCH projects funded is
diverse, with all stakeholders being represented in funded projects: 77
research organisations, 49 universities, 76 large industries, 73 SMEs, 7 others
and 3 public bodies among its 285 participants.

·
IMI has attracted some 50 participations
from EFPIA companies (large industry), 208 universities, 47 SMEs, 6 patients’
organisations and 5 others.

·
Clean Sky, ENIAC and ARTEMIS have no public
bodies or ‘others’ participating in their funded projects.

·
Industry accounts for 73 and 71
participations in ARTEMIS and ENIAC respectively and 53 in Clean Sky.

·
Universities account for 54
participations in Clean Sky, whilst they are included in research organisations
in ARTEMIS.

·
Research organisations account for 43 participation
in Clean Sky and 71 and 50 respectively in ARTEMIS and ENIAC.

After two years of full activities, stakeholder
participation seems well balanced overall, though there still is room for
improvement in less well-represented categories.

When looking at participation and
representativeness figures, it is well to remember that targeted results are
expected in each technological sector.

9.2.        The Innovation dimension
and SME involvement

The current five JUs can already be
considered an innovative model of implementing research. The partnership
between public and private sectors is a significant step forward in transferring
research results to the market. The JTIs JUs set their own research agendas in
close cooperation with industry, with the aim of turning results into
applications in the shortest possible time. This process of accelerating the
use of research results will be pushed further under Horizon 2020, in
particular under the ‘Industrial Leadership’ objective.

That being said, we can already highlight
elements which allow a first appreciation of the innovation achieved by the
five JUs in 2011, even if this report does not aim to present a detailed
analysis of this aspect.

·
The concept of Technology
Readiness Level (TRL) has been introduced in the Clean Sky JU and projects
submitted in reply to the open calls are also evaluated in terms of the level
of maturity of the technology. The TRL is used to evaluate and compare the
different stages of development of a given technology; the maximum level 6 refers
to research projects which have reached the stage before product development.

·
In ARTEMIS, an Index
of maturity and an Index of SME engagement in the proposals are used to
facilitate the evaluation of those projects which can best contribute to developing
innovation from research.

·
A number of prototyping
and demonstration activities were present in the Annual Implementation Plans for
the JTIs. For Clean Sky, in 2011, there were 15 research topics open to
demonstrators and 1 on prototyping. For FCH, there were 7 topics for
demonstrators and one for a proof of concept focused on fuel cell systems.

·
In 2011, ENIAC introduced the ‘ENIAC
Innovation Award’ to recognise projects approaching completion or having
recently been completed that produced the most impactful innovation. The ‘E3Car’
project, with 28 demonstrators and a total budget of € 180 million, was
the first winner.

·
Two JUs also won Innovation Awards:

–
Clean Sky was given an award at the ‘Inter
Airport Europe’ event in Munich for the ‘TaxiBot’ project, for having found an
innovative solution applicable to towbarless aircraft tractors for taxiing in
and out at airports that reduces environmental impact.

–
One of the smaller companies active in
FCH received the EU prize for women innovators at the 2011 Innovation
Convention. An Italian company with 40 employees was the first to develop a
self-recharging hydrogen fuel cell system for back-up power, a cleaner,
renewable alternative to lead-acid batteries and diesel generators.

In this way, JUs achieved further
progress in knowledge and scientific quality in 2011, with projects having
potential impacts on the industry and the research environment.

In aeronautics, a new system was developed
to reduce manufacturing and maintenance costs: the Breakthrough
Laminar Aircraft Demonstrator in Europe (BLADE) and analyses of airline
economics including the requirements of new environmental regulations are
ongoing: this is the Contribution of Airlines for the Reduction of Industry
Nuisances and Gases (CARING) project.

In fostering
the development of better and safer medicines for patients, the NEWMEDS
database is the world largest repository of antipsychotic clinical trial data,
comprising data on 23 401 patients from the five leading pharmaceutical
companies in the area. It is important to emphasise that, for the first time,
competing companies have a common will to open and share the results of their clinical
trials. This is essential support for better targeted and personalised health
care.

In the transport sector, the Clean Hydrogen
In European Cities Project (CHIC) is introducing environmentally-friendly city
buses in European cities to reduce the impact of buses on the environment, and
promotes them with the aim of shortening the ‘time to market’. The E3Car
project, funded to manage the power train of electrical vehicles improved power
conversion and distribution and increased energy efficiency, by 10 % and
35 % respectively, offering a competitive environment of 28 demonstrators.

The JUs encouraged SME participation, with
good results in 2011: about 28 % of successful participants were SMEs. Of the
five JTIs, ENIAC proved most attractive to SMEs, which accounted for 37.9 %
of total participation in the JU, followed by Clean Sky (37 %)[8]; ARTEMIS (31 %); FCH (25.6 %) and IMI (17.7 %)[9]. The average rate of EU funding which went to SMEs for all JTIs JUs
in the period 2008-2011 was slightly over 21 %, which exceeds the general
FP7 objective of 15 %. The table below presents a detailed overview of SME
participation in the five JUs, both in proposals submitted and in projects selected
for funding (2011).

|| Participations in submitted proposals || Participations in projects selected for funding

Clean Sky || 239 || 88

IMI || 263 || 47

FCH || 174 || 73

ARTEMIS || 182 || 62

ENIAC || 109 || 74

Total || 967 || 344

The number of SMEs participating strongly
suggests that there is a good balance of research activities tailored to SMEs,
in which their contributions are essential to the achievements of more general
research and innovation objectives.

With the progress
achieved in 2011, JTIs JUs are on the way to reaching their innovation
potential and to contributing to meeting the future challenges set under the
Horizon 2020 programme.

9.3.        Participation in terms of
geographical location

The five JUs involve an
average of 20 Member States in the implementation of the SRAs. The most
diverse is FCH, which has a number of international partners. The top players
belong to Member States that have an advanced industrial environment surrounded
by dynamic systems of SMEs, research centres and universities.

|| No of countries participating in projects selected for funding || Top players[10]

Clean Sky || 23 || UK, DE, ES, IT FR

IMI || 15 || UK, DE, NL, FR, SE

FCH || 26 || DE, UK, FR, IT, BE

ARTEMIS || 17 || ES, IT, DE, FI, FR & AT

ENIAC || 19 || NL, IT, FR, DE, BE

We also note that all but
one of the EU-12 countries have participated.

·
Overall, the EU-12 accounts for roughly 15 %
of the total participation in funded projects. Clean Sky leads with about 10 %,
whereas EU-12 participation in IMI projects is negligible. The graph below
shows EU-12 participation by JTI in 2011 (funded projects only).

·
The best represented EU-12 Member State is
Poland with 18 participations in funded projects (6 in FCH and ENIAC altogether,
12 in Clean Sky), and 5 projects coordinated by Polish organisations. The Czech
Republic follows with 16 participations in funded projects and positions in all
JTIs, led by ARTEMIS with 7 Czech participations. Romania accounts for 6 participations
and Hungary 3. By contrast, Lithuania is not involved in any selected projects.

·
Clean Sky organised a round table on
aeronautical research in Central and Eastern Europe in 2011, to boost the
participation of less active areas. This is considered good practice, and the
Commission wants to see this emulated by the other JTIs in future. In 2012, the
Commission will hold further discussions with the JUs on how to substantially increase
EU-12 participation.

JTI research activities also
proved attractive to countries associated with the FP7, which accounted for roughly
15 % of participations. The most active Associated Country, in
2011, was Switzerland, followed by Norway and Israel. FCH attracted the highest
number of participants from associated countries, followed by Clean Sky and
IMI. Assessments of associated country involvement in ARTEMIS and ENIAC should also
take into account their tripartite model of funding.

Country || IMI || FCH || CS || ARTEMIS || ENIAC || Total

Switzerland || 6 || 7 || 6 || || 1 || 20

Norway || || 7 || 1 || 6 || 3 || 17

Iceland || 2 || 1 || || || || 3

Israel || 2 || || 2 || || 5 || 9

Turkey || || 1 || 1 || || || 2

Serbia || || 1 || || || || 1

Total || 10 || 17 || 10 || 6 || 9 || 52

9.4.        The International
dimension

A number of international
partners have been involved in JTI activities, accounting for roughly 3 %
of participations in projects funded in 2011. The range of experience gained
with international partners varies greatly from one technological sector to
another. It also depends on the strategies and synergies that JTIs pursue in
research, innovation or regulatory fields.

As shown in the table
below, the United States showed interest in almost all JTIs and had the greatest
participation in funded projects overall.

Country || IMI || FCH || CS || ARTEMIS || ENIAC || Total

US || 3 || 1 || 1 || 1 || || 6

Russia || || || 1 || || || 1

China || || 1 || || || || 1

Korea || || 1 || || || || 1

Canada || || 1 || || || || 1

Total || 3 || 4 || 2 || 1 || 0 || 10

In order to compete in
the global arena, industry needs not only to reinforce cooperation and decrease
fragmentation in Europe, but to establish synergies elsewhere, in particular
with key international players. The international dimension of JTIs initiatives
is thus an element which is going to be further developed. The Commission is
currently discussing with the JUs how to reach out to international partners to
meet the particular needs of the sectors concerned.

FCH has already revised
its Multi-Annual Implementation Plan to make it more ambitious and competitive
in comparison with the worldwide efforts in the technological domain. The updated
ARTEMIS SRA now clearly shows what is
needed in Europe in the next decade from all players in R&D and innovation
to make Europe a leader in Embedded Systems.

9.5.        Grant portfolio

The Grant Agreements (GAs) portfolio varies
from one JU to another, along with the types of projects, the size of consortia
and the budget allocated. JUs may not only develop collaborative research but
also support networking activities (e.g. FCH) with Coordination and Support
Actions, where consortium size is naturally smaller and its composition different.

|| Grants under negotiation in 2011 || Grants signed in 2011 || Grants for which activities have ended

Clean Sky || 24 || 80 || 7

IMI || 2 || 13 || 0

FCH || 0 || 26 || 5

ARTEMIS || 9 || 10 || 3

ENIAC || 0 || 22 || 0

Total || 35 || 151 || 15

In the first three years of activity, the
portfolios of Grant Agreements signed by JUs differed in size, number of
partners and budget allocated.

·
Clean Sky’s GAs are the most
distinctive. The number of projects funded and GAs signed is bigger, but with fewer
partners in each and relatively small budgets. Clean Sky calls allow single-partner
projects, particularly if the research topic is so specific that only one
organisation (or few competing in selection and evaluation) fits the call
requirements. There are on average two partners in Clean Sky GAs, with an
average allocated budget of € 515,000. So while the number of GAs to be signed
calls for considerable management efforts, coordination in the consortia requires
less effort.

·
IMI and FCH attract similar types of consortia:
there are fewer projects (and GAs signed) but they are bigger in terms of both
the budget allocated and the number of partners. The average number of partners
in an IMI project is 26, taking EFPIA and non-EFPIA organisations together, and
the average budget of GAs signed is roughly € 10 million (IMI JU contributions
only). For FCH, on average there are 9 partners per project with a budget of € 3.8
million.

·
ARTEMIS and ENIAC average 23 (ARTEMIS) and
22 (ENIAC) partner organisations in a consortium, with an average budget of € 15.8
million (ARTEMIS) and € 23 million (ENIAC)[11].

10.         Challenges and outlook

The first interim evaluations of the Joint
Undertakings were carried out as planned and reports were finalised in April
2011. The overall outlook for the JUs was considered to be good. The external
experts’ recommendations included improving communication with citizens, setting
key performance indicators and delegating more of the Governing Boards’ responsibilities
for day-to-day management to the JUs’ Executive Directors. The recommendations
should be fully implemented before the second interim evaluation is conducted in
2013.

In 2011, the JUs
considerably improved communication activities directed at the general
public. The projects’ visibility increased and the standard of their main
communication tools (e.g. their web pages) rose.

They also set up key performance
indicators:

·
IMI set key performance and results indicators
for two major priorities: SRA implementation and Programme Office performance. The
average Time to Grant (TtG) has fallen by over 90 days.

·
Clean Sky implemented most of the
recommendations made by the experts. The performance of the Integrated
Technology Demonstrators (ITDs) was subject to annual review by independent
experts.

·
FCH introduced ‘Operational Indicators’ to
monitor progress in RTD activities; these are set against results indicators
using target and latest known results.

·
ENIAC introduced a Key Performance Indicator
(KPI) including the time taken from the Public Authorities Board funding
decision to the first payment to each beneficiary.

Further
progress will be assessed in the second interim evaluation and the 2012 Annual Progress
Report.

As
the JUs are now fully autonomous, we can make an initial assessment of their benefits.
The stable allocation of funds illustrates industry commitment. SMEs were
attracted by the JTIs JUs' research topics, especially because of the
stability and continuity of the research and innovation environments and the
funding modalities. Overall, by the end of 2011, SMEs had received 21 % of
the EU funding. As noted in Section 9.2, JTIs met the challenge of becoming a truly attractive way of
implementing research for small and medium-size companies. SMEs can benefit
from participation in specific working environments, from research topics that
are clearly geared to the market and from the JUs as an instrument which better fits their needs'.

Taking a broader view,
overall stakeholder participation is well balanced and all parties have
been involved in JTIs’ research activities. Budget allocation shows that research
organisations and universities accounted for 45 % of EU funding on average
and industry 34 %. Other organisations, such as NGOs, umbrella organisations
and foundations, accounted for 2 % of the EU funding and SMEs for roughly
21%.

In
2011 the main research objectives evolved to reflect the latest progress in their
fields of technology. The JTIs JUs strategic research and innovation agendas
have been fed with ambitious objectives over a longer timeframe.

·
In aviation, Clean Sky updated its research
objectives following the guidance given in Flightpath 2050, Europe’s vision
for Aviation report, produced in 2011 by ACARE.

·
The revision of the IMI’s strategic research
agenda will change the types of projects funded: calls will focus on large-scale
and game-changing projects.

·
FCH revised its Multi-Annual Implementation Plan
and the targets for the Application Areas were extended to 2020 (from 2015).

·
ARTEMIS revised its Strategic Research Agenda to
take better account of the intrinsic nature of embedded systems as the ‘neural
system’ of society, reflecting their pervasiveness in all modern products,
infrastructure and services.

·
ENIAC’s Strategic Research Agenda continues to
be pertinent to tackling major societal challenges, which very much depends on
improving integrated circuit functionality and reducing power consumption.

In general, and in comparison with previous versions, the JUs’
updated strategic research and innovation agendas have largely taken into
consideration the strategy for research and innovation put forward by the European
Commission under ‘Horizon 2020’. Those links will ensure consistency and
will make it easier to align EU actions with the overall objectives of
increasing competitiveness in industry, excellence in science and growth and
job creation.

The JUs’ administrative consolidation continued, particularly
development of their internal control frameworks, with significant advances in their
control mechanisms. The Governing Boards adopted ex post audit strategies and
considered new procedures to complete and strengthen their Internal Control
Systems. All Joint Undertakings improved their IT and logistical functions.

The results achieved by
the five JUs so far confirm them as ambitious European initiatives with
the potential to be recognised as models of public-private partnership.

The Commission is now collecting
contributions from the industrial partners with a view to further extending the
JUs in the next Multi-Annual Financial Framework. Open consultations are also ongoing,
in order to attract the widest possible response with a view to designing the
future of JUs for the next period of financing.

For the future, a number of challenges
remain open:

·
Administrative burden

The JUs are relatively small, so running
costs are relatively high. One way to improve efficiency could be for the JUs
and opt for a common administrative structure. The relatively small size of the
JUs was considered as ‘risky element’ by experts involved in the first interim
evaluation of ARTEMIS and ENIAC. The independent experts proposed, amongst the
possible scenarios for JUs evolution both merging the two and setting up a joint
structure for administrative tasks only.

·
Complementarities and coordination with
other EU and national programmes and commitment from
industry and Member States in ARTEMIS and ENIAC

It is time to seek better alignment of
ARTEMIS and ENIAC research agendas with national programmes. The Commission is
currently discussing possible organisational effects with stakeholders, taking
also into account the present economic situation. Along these lines, common
vision documents were produced with Eureka, the clusters CATRENE and ITEA2 in
2010. This approach could prove useful and discussions are under way to provide
a common framework for the JTIs while still keeping their specific approaches —
top-down for the JTIs and bottom-up for the Eureka clusters, with an industry-led
strategy for both instruments. Increased cooperation with Member States to
strengthen synergies may be sought for all JTIs, in particular for the benefit
of potential new entrants and for SMEs.

Funding for ARTEMIS and ENIAC projects
follows a unique tripartite model. Partners obtain much of their funding from their
own governments or regional agencies under grant agreements. The JUs also
provide funding directly to the partners worth up to about 16.7 % of their
eligible costs. This funding model worked well in the first years of ARTEMIS,
but with certain limitations — mainly caused by sharply lower commitments by Member
States in the context of the economic and financial crisis. In 2011 for the
first time the trend was upwards and this is expected to continue in 2012.

To summarise the experience gained in the
first year of autonomy of all the Joint Undertakings, in which the first successful
results have been delivered[12]:

(1)
The Joint Undertakings represent an innovative
model for conducting research in partnership for technologies considered
strategic for Europe; commitment from all partners is vital to achieve the expected
results and to effectively contribute to the Europe’s competitiveness. Irrespective
of the funding mechanisms put in place by the different JUs, the past two years
have shown certain difficulties in matching funds from industry and Member States.

(2)
It is unquestionable that the JUs have gained
speed and visibility and have started to be seen as relevant players in their fields
of technology at global level.

(3)
Additional flexibility in implementing
structures (the JUs) should be granted to allow them to focus on research
rather than on administrative tasks; if necessary, in order to improve their
effectiveness, they could be organised differently to optimise the use of
resources.

(4)
The JUs’ achievements need to be monitored and
evaluated against a set of KPIs, which should be formulated in a way that
reflects their diversity but still enables comparison.

(5)
JUs should maintain and even increase their simplicity,
openness and accessibility to all potential beneficiaries. Particular
consideration should be paid to new entrants from less well-represented
countries and to SMEs.

(6)
Appropriate international strategies should be
defined for each JTI JU, taking into account their specific research areas, the
potential benefits of cooperation in terms of research, innovation and
regulation and, of course, the collateral risks.

Based on the experience gained and looking
to the future, JUs are on the way to consolidating their potential to be
recognised as a model of public-private partnership for EU research activities.
They already made improvements in 2011 in line with the recommendations made in
the first interim evaluation and further improvements are still expected.

First successes in 2011, such as cutting
manufacturing and maintenance costs in aeronautics, analysing future airline economics,
and opening up competing companies to their industrial partners (e.g. via a
central database of results), demonstrate that JTI JUs are able not only to
address technical challenges, but also to boost the industrial and research environment.
A major step in the collection of project results is expected in 2012.

Moreover, an initial analysis of the
benefits of the PPPs is currently ongoing and the results will be reported in
2012. In assessing the extent of the JTI JUs’ impact on the implementation of
research and innovation activities at EU level, the analysis will also refer to
the criteria set in the Horizon 2020 programme agreed with the Member
States. In this respect, the JUs’ experience so far will also be assessed
against the criteria established for setting up future PPPs.

11.         ANNEX — Progress achieved in 2011 by JTIs
JUs at a glance

1.1.        Article
Clean Sky (CS) JU: main achievements in 2011 at a
glance

AREA || PROGRESS — ACHIEVEMENTS

Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) || The targets set in the CS SRA were re-assessed as well as the actual progress and validity assumptions. The results were: an updated Development Plan and updated forecasts of achievable environmental benefits by the end of the programme. The First Internal Assessment has been published in 2012.

Call implementation || Number of calls in 2011: 3 calls launched (2011-1; 2011-2; 2011-3). The last call launched in 2010 (2010-5) was also implemented. Number of proposals submitted: 322 Number of eligible proposals: 305 Number of proposals funded: 118 Global project portfolio: 298 (including 247 signed grant agreements)

Success stories: - BLADE (Breakthrough Laminar Aircraft Demonstrator in Europe), selected to be exhibited at the first Innovation Convention, (Brussels, 5 and 6 December 2011), developed a monitoring system that detects damage and defects in newly designed natural laminar flow wing in real time, reducing manufacturing and maintenance costs. - TaxiBot Dispatch Towing Vehicle (DTV) project won the 2011 Innovation Award at Inter Airport Europe in Munich. It is a towbarless aircraft tractor for single aisle aircraft (e.g. A320, B737), which allows the aircraft to switch off engines during taxiing. - CARING (Contribution of Airlines for the Reduction of Industry Nuisance and Gases) is the only Clean Sky project involving airlines. Running from early 2010 to December 2012, it aims to analyse how current and future environmental regulations could affect airline economics and how airlines can best adapt to regulatory changes.

Participation, including SMEs || In 2011: Total number of participants: 600 Number of participants in funded projects: 238 Number of SMEs in funded projects: 88 – 37 % of total participations Participants by category in funded projects: Large Industry (PRC): 53; Higher and Secondary Education (HSE): 54; Research Organisations (RCE):43 From 2009 to 2011: Global geographic coverage of participation (in calls 1 to 10) broken down by country in funded projects: 23 countries involved. Top countries       Coordinators      Participants        Total participation                                                                                             UK                          52                          45                          97 DE                           52                          34                          86 ES                           31                          31                          62 IT                            28                          33                          61 FR                           39                          45                          84 Participants from associated countries (Switzerland, Israel, Norway, Turkey) coordinated 10 winning projects. One Chinese and one Russian participant were also selected in 2010 and 2011 calls, both as coordinators.

Communication || CS participated in two major European technical conferences (Aerodays in Madrid and the Paris Air Show). Info Days for potential applicants were organised in Ankara, Dublin, Lisbon, Toulouse, Vienna and Warsaw. CS took part in the first Innovation Convention, held in Brussels on 5 and 6 December. In Brussels, it hosted a joint event with the other JTIs at the European Parliament on 5 and 6 October. The web page was revamped in April and the quarterly newsletter sent to about 3000 recipients. Three press releases on crucial events were published and CS was quoted in 14 in EU articles and publications. In June 2011 CS organised a round table on Aeronautical Research in Central and Eastern Europe to boost the participation of less active areas in Europe. A focus on SMEs’ experiences with CS was issued (2 interviews)

Governance || The Governing Board met four times in 2011. At the December meeting the Chair (Charles Champion) and Vice-Chair (Catalin Nae) were elected.

1.2.        IMI JU: main achievements in
2011 at a glance

AREA || PROGRESS — ACHIEVEMENTS

Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) || SRA revision finalised, shifting the focus to large-scale, game-changing projects.

Call implementation || Number of calls launched in 2011: 1. The last call launched in 2010 (call 3-2010) was also implemented. Both calls used a two-step submission and evaluation procedure. Number of proposals submitted (Expressions of Interest, first-stage proposal): 118 Number of eligible proposals: 110 Number of proposals funded: 14 Global project portfolio: 30

Success stories: NEWMEDS, an IMI project on depression and schizophrenia, created new databases allowing the collection and storage of large datasets, which led to the assembly of the largest known repository of antipsychotic clinical trial data, comprising data on 23 401 patients from the five leading pharmaceutical companies in this area. For more information see: http://www.newmeds-europe.com/

Participation, including SMEs || Total number of participants: 1377 altogether for calls 3 (438) and 4 (939) Participants in funded projects: 266 altogether for calls 3 (123) and 4 (143). 53 EFPIA companies have to be added for call 3. For call 4 the number of EFPIA companies is not yet known. Number of SMEs in funded projects: 47 – 17.7 % of total participations in calls 3 and 4. Participants by category in funded projects, excluding industry: Patients organisations: 6; Higher and Secondary Education (HSE): 208; Others (OTH): 5 Participation in funded projects in call 2010-3 broken down by country (data not yet available for 2011-4): 19 countries involved. Top countries        Total participations                                  UK                           28 DE                           21 NL                           13 FR                            11 SE                            9 In addition three US partners were involved in three winning consortia. Israel and Iceland had 2 participations each and Switzerland 6.

Communication || IMI held 6 events in 4 countries each with 60 to 250 participants. In Brussels IMI took part in a joint JTI event hosted at the European Parliament on 5 and 6 October. Six press releases were issued and circulated to a target group of over 150 journalists. About 30 articles were published in media and journals, 6 of them for a specialised scientific public. The IMI newsletter reaches 1500 subscribers and the web page has up to 9000 visitors/month.

Governance || The Governing Board met three times in 2011. In addition to decisions on running the JTI JU, the Board appointed the members of the Scientific Committee.

1.3.        FCH JU: main achievements in
2011 at a glance

AREA || PROGRESS — ACHIEVEMENTS

Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) || Revision of the Multi-Annual Implementation Plan finalised. Revised targets for the Application Areas extended to 2020 (from 2015) to better align with Horizon 2020.

Call implementation || Number of calls in 2011: 1 Number of proposals submitted: 82 Number of eligible proposals: 80 Number of proposals funded: 30 Global project portfolio: 98 (including 76 signed Grant Agreements)

Success stories: A number of European cities are currently pioneering the development and introduction of city buses powered by environmentally-friendly hydrogen fuel cells. The Clean Hydrogen In European Cities project (CHIC) began in November 2010 to promote the development of hydrogen fuel cell buses for public transport and pave the way for widespread use of this technology and the necessary infrastructure from 2015. The project is an essential next step towards full commercialisation of hydrogen powered fuel cell buses. CHIC aims to reduce the ‘time to market’ for the technology and support ‘market lift off’. For more information see: http://chic-project.eu/

Participation, including SMEs || Total number of participants: 667 Participants in funded projects: 285 Number of SMEs in funded projects: 73 – 25.6 % of the total participation Participants by category in funded projects: Large Industry (PRC): 76; Research organisations (REC): 77; Higher and Secondary Education (HSE): 49; Public Authorities (PUB): 3; Others (OTH): 7 Participation in funded projects broken down by country: 26 countries involved. Top countries       Total participation                                 DE                           67 UK                          36 FR                           31 IT                            30 BE                           26 Five international partners (the US, Korea, China, Canada and Serbia) took part in FCH research activities, with one participant in funded projects each.

Communication || In 2011 FCH developed a new web site, which from March to year end was visited over 40 000 times. Three major EU events were organised, while the Programme Office and the executive director attended 25 external events and conferences, some of them outside Europe (in the US, Japan, Korea, China, and Canada). FCH took part in the joint JTI event hosted at the European Parliament on 5 and 6 October.

Governance || The Governing Board met three times in 2011. In addition to decisions on running the JTI JU, the Board unanimously elected its new Chair, Mr Pierre Etienne Franc (of Air Liquide), in June.

1.4.        Artemis JU: main
achievements in 2011 at a glance

AREA || PROGRESS — ACHIEVEMENTS

Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) || The ARTEMIS Industry Association presented the revised SRA in May. The JU then updated its research objectives.

Call implementation || Number of calls in 2011: 1 (two-step submission and evaluation) Number of proposals submitted (Full Project Proposals): 27 Number of eligible proposals: 27 Number of proposals funded: 8 Global project portfolio: 44

Participation, including SMEs || Total number of participants (Full Project Proposals): 540 Participants in funded projects: 206 Number of SMEs in funded projects: 62 – 31 % of total participation Participants by category in funded projects: Large Industry (PRC): 73; Research organisations (REC) and Higher or Secondary Education (HSE) together: 71. Participation in funded projects, broken down by country: 17 countries involved. Top countries    Total participations                             ES                        31 IT                        28 DE                       23 FI                         19 FR                       15 AT                       15 The US participated in the 2011 call and had 1 project funded.

Communication || ARTEMIS participated in 6 events held jointly with national partners to promote calls for proposal and project results among stakeholders and potential beneficiaries. The ARTEMIS Industry Association Summer Camp was held in June and followed by four other major events. ARTEMIS helped stage a joint JTI event at the European Parliament on 5 and 6 October. The magazine Artemis was issued three times and new information brochures were published. In addition, nine articles were published in various EU countries. The visual identity of the JTI was improved.

Governance || The Governing Board (GB) met three times and the Public Authorities Board (PAB) met twice. In addition to decisions on running the JTI JU, the GB agreed to include the option of hiring Seconded National Experts in the Multi-Annual Staff Policy Plan.

1.5.        ENIAC JU: main
achievements in 2011 at a glance

AREA || PROGRESS — ACHIEVEMENTS

Call implementation || Number of calls in 2011: 2 (call 1 used a two-step submission and evaluation procedure; call 2 a one-step procedure). Number of proposals submitted (Full Project Proposals): 17 Number of eligible proposals: 16 Number of proposals funded: 12 Global project portfolio: 40

Success stories: The E3Car project started in February 2008 with the aim of tackling the main challenges in the management of the electrical vehicle power train and reducing the energy lost in the intermediate stages of the power train. E3Car won an innovation award in November 2011 for its major achievements in many developments on several key components, in particular: - improvement of power conversion and distribution by 10 %; - increase in energy efficiency by 35 % overall. The project achieved 28 demonstrators and generated an architectural view of the electrical vehicle and 7 more collaborative projects on electric mobility, mobilising more than 100 partners with a total budget of € 180m. For more information see: http://www.e3car.eu/

Participation, including SMEs || Total number of participants (Full Project Proposals): 286 Participants in funded projects: 195 Number of SMEs in funded projects: 74 – 37.9 % of total participations Participants by category in funded projects: Large Industry (PRC): 71; Research organisations (REC): 50 Participation in funded projects, broken down by country: 19 countries involved. Top countries    Total participations                             NL                       49 DE                       29 IT                        26 FR                       21 AT                       12 Five participants from Israel took part in call 2, joining winning consortia.

Communication || ENIAC held 10 ‘face to face’ meetings with Member States/public authorities. It helped organise the EU Nanoelectronic Forum and presented the new ‘ENIAC JU Innovation Award’ at the event. ENIAC helped stage the joint JTI event at the European Parliament on 5 and 6 October. ENIAC also participated in a number of international events.

Governance || The Governing Board (GB) met three times and the Public Authorities Board (PAB) met five times in 2011. In addition to decisions on running the JTI JU, the GB decided to launch a call for Expressions of Interest for pilot lines related to Key Enabling Technology (KETs).

[1]               Decision No 1982/2006/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Seventh Framework
Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and
demonstration activities (2007-13), OJ L 412, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

[2]               This document does not report on the SESAR JU.
Although the SESAR JU has the same legal basis as the other JUs, it is funded
under the Seventh Framework Programme and the trans-European Transport Networks
Programmes, over a different lifetime, and has different governance and
reporting mechanisms from the other JUs.

[3]               Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) 1605/2002 of 25 June
2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European
Communities, OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

[4]               Commission Staff Working Document ‘Joint Technology
Initiatives: Background, State-of-Play and Main Features’, SEC(2007) 692,
Brussels, 15.5.2007.

[5]               The Sherpa Group was called on by the Commission in
July 2009 to take stock of initial experience of setting up JTIs under FP7. Its
members came from industry partners of the JTIs and the Recovery Plan
public-private partnerships. Meetings were chaired by the Director-General of
DG RTD and also attended by various Commission staff. For its conclusions and
recommendations, see the report ‘Designing together the ‘ideal house’ for
public-private partnerships in European research’ (January 2010), at: ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/docs/jti/jti-sherpas-report-2010\_en.pdf.

[6]               The 38% share of the SMEs participation concerns only
their participation in the calls for proposals. Only € 200 million of EU
funding for Clean Sky is dedicated for calls for proposals while € 600 million
is distributed to the 'named beneficiaries'.

[7]               EFPIA companies are not included at
the first stage of the process (EoIs), they are only taken into account when it
comes to FPPs and proposals selected for funding.

[8]               The 37% share of the SMEs participation concerns only
their participation in the calls for proposals. Only € 200 million of EU
funding for Clean Sky is dedicated for calls for proposals while € 600 million
is distributed to the 'named beneficiaries'.

[9]               The respective percentage rates for the participation
of SMEs in each JTI relate to the year 2011.

[10]             Best performing countries ranked in terms of number of
participations in the funded projects.

[11]             Note that the ENIAC data refers to calls launched
in the last three years, whereas the ARTEMIS data on average consortia size
only applies to the 2011 call.

[12]             See the Call Implementation section for the relevant
JUs in the Annex.

[Top](#document1)