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%292501998.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292501998_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%292501998.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292501998_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%292501998.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292501998_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%292501998.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292501998_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%292501998.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292501998_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%292501998.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292501998_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%292501998.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292501998_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%292501998.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292501998_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%292501998.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292501998_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%292501998.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292501998_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%292501998.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292501998_ENG_xhtml_01011.jpg)

1.3.Open public consultation results for this specific initiative

Characteristics of respondents

47 respondents provided views on the EU-Africa Global Health partnership. Among them 13 respondents (27.66%) are citizens. The group is dominated by respondents from academic and research institutions (15 respondents or 31.91%), citizens and company/business organisations (7 respondents or 14.89%). The majority of respondents, namely 35 (74.47%), have been involved in the on-going research and innovation framework programme, while 31 respondents (88.57%) were directly involved in a partnership under Horizon 2020 or its predecessor Framework Programme 7.

Results on general questions

Characteristics of future candidate EU-Africa Global Health initiative as viewed by respondents

At the beginning of the consultation, the respondents of this partnership indicated their views of the needs of the future European Partnerships under Horizon Europe. There were two options for which many respondents indicated that they were fully needed, namely be more responsive towards societal needs (34, 72,34%) and make a significant contribution to achieving SDGs (33, 70.32%). The only options where less than 30% of respondents indicated that options were fully needed, was in response to be more responsive toward priorities in national and/or regional R&I strategies and for the other category. With regard to Other, it is likely that respondents did not have a concrete idea of other needs of the future European Partnerships. No statistical differences were found between the views of citizens and other respondents.

Figure 12: Views of respondents in regard to the needs of future European Partnerships under Horizon Europe (N=47)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292501998.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292501998_ENG_xhtml_01012.jpg)

Main advantages and disadvantages of Institutionalised European Partnerships

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. The keyword analysis used for open questions showed the respondents viewed a network as the main advantage of the institutionalized partnership, as well as long term funding.

Results on candidate European Partnership specific questions

Relevance of EU level efforts to address problems in relation to Global Health

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

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292501998.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292501998_ENG_xhtml_01013.jpg)

With regard to the uptake in innovation problems, the inability of health systems in Africa and in the EU to take up the research results of innovative health technologies was highlighted as the main area of concern (34 respondents, 72.34%, indicated it as very relevant). With regard to structural and resource problems, the answers are fairly similar. 26 respondents (55.32%) have indicated that both the lack of capacity of research institutions and health professionals in Africa to conduct clinical trials and the lack of diagnostic capacity in Africa to support the conducting of clinical trials are very relevant.

Last, with regard to research and innovation problems, 29 respondents indicated that they view insufficient capacity of the research community to anticipate and react to infectious diseases outbreaks as a very relevant problem (61.70%). Limited capacity for evidence-based decision-making by the research community on infectious diseases outbreaks has received the least amount of very relevant answers out of all the problems presented, as 17 respondents have indicated that it is relevant for research and innovation efforts at the EU level to address this issue (36.17%). No statistical differences were found between the views of citizens and other respondents.

Horizon Europe mode of intervention to address problems

Figure 14: Assessment of Horizon Europe intervention

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292501998.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292501998_ENG_xhtml_01014.jpg)

Relevance of elements and activities to ensure meeting of objectives

Setting joint long-term agendas

To the question on 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, over 90% of respondents consider that the involvement of African countries is very relevant (Figure 15). Over 60% of them suggest that the participation of Member States and Associated Countries, as well as, foundations and NGOs is very relevant. The least number of respondents (21 respondents or 44.68%) suggested that industry should be involved in setting a joint long-term agenda. 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%292501998.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292501998_ENG_xhtml_01015.jpg)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292501998.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292501998_ENG_xhtml_01015.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, and in-kind expertise to meet the candidate Partnership objectives, over 50% of respondents indicated Member States and Associated Countries, African countries, foundations and NGOs are most relevant. Based on the opinions of respondents, the role of academia is considered smaller for pooling and leveraging resources, in contrast to setting a long-term agenda, as only 15 respondents consider that their involvement is very relevant to pool and leverage resources. 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%292501998.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292501998_ENG_xhtml_01016.jpg)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292501998.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292501998_ENG_xhtml_01016.jpg)

Relevance of elements and activities for the partnership composition

Around 55% of respondents consider that both the flexibility in partners’ composition and a broad range of partners (including across disciplines and sectors) are very relevant to reach the Partnership’s objectives. Less than 10% of respondents consider these elements as not very relevant (Figure 17). No statistical differences were found between the views of citizens and other respondents.

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

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292501998.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292501998_ENG_xhtml_01017.jpg)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292501998.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292501998_ENG_xhtml_01015.jpg)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292501998.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292501998_ENG_xhtml_01017.jpg)
![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292501998.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292501998_ENG_xhtml_01015.jpg)

Relevance of implementation of activities

Concerning the relevance of implementation of several activities for meeting objectives, the activities listed included: joint R&D programme, collaborative R&D projects, deployment and piloting activities, input to regulatory aspects (i.e. to developers of medicines or health technologies on approvals and pre-qualifications) and co-creation of solutions with end-users (e.g. national health systems). Out of 45 respondents, 77.8% indicated that collaborative R&D projects are very relevant. The co-creation of solutions with end-users is also considered as very relevant by a large number of respondents (66.6%). In contrast, deployment and piloting activities, and input to regulatory aspects is considered less relevant. Overall, citizens provided similar views, but found Joint R&I programme more relevant.

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

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292501998.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292501998_ENG_xhtml_01018.jpg)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292501998.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292501998_ENG_xhtml_01015.jpg)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292501998.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292501998_ENG_xhtml_01018.jpg)
![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292501998.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292501998_ENG_xhtml_01015.jpg)

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

Respondents were asked to assess the relevance of a specific legal structure (funding body) for the candidate European Partnership to achieve several activities. According to Figure 19, a greater number of respondents indicated that the legal structure would be needed to obtain more buy-in and long-term commitment from other partners, to increase financial leverage and to implement activities more effectively. In contrast, the least number of respondents suggest that the legal structure would assist in ensuring better links to regulators, as only 16 respondents indicated that it would be very relevant for this purpose. No statistical differences were found between the views of citizens and other respondents.

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

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292501998.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292501998_ENG_xhtml_01019.jpg)

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

The majority of the respondents consider that the proposed scope and coverage of the Partnership is right in terms of technologies, research areas, geographical coverage, types of partners, range of activities and sectors. However, among listed areas, a higher share of respondents (14 respondents or 31.11%) indicated that the geographical coverage might be too narrow. 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 Global Health institutionalised Partnership

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292501998.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292501998_ENG_xhtml_01020.jpg)

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

Among 39 respondents, 31 (79.49%) consider that it would be possible to rationalise the candidate European Institutionalised Partnership and its activities, and/or to better link it with other comparable initiatives. No statistical differences were found between the views of citizens and other respondents.

The respondents who answered affirmative, where asked which other comparable initiatives it could be linked with. The analysis of the results show that respondents mention scientific capability, infectious diseases, other programmes and new partnerships as well as clinical trials.

A more in-depth analysis of the comments shows that several respondents, mostly from academic organisations, see potential for collaboration or alignment with, in particular, WHO-TDR, the candidate ‘One Health Partnership’, the candidate Innovative Health Initiative, the candidate Key Digital Technologies Partnership and European vaccine development initiatives like Transvac2, as well as national initiatives (not specified). A NGOs nevertheless highlighted the need to make strategic investment decisions and to dedicate predetermined budget envelop to the development of products to heal specific diseases. A representative of the industry sector similarly reported the need to ensure the sustainability of new products by ensuring, through alignment with other initiatives, the engagement of multiple types of stakeholders.

For the four respondents who answered negatively on the question, the analysis shows that they mention capacity building, broader initiatives, sufficient knowledge and specific objectives.

All respondents highlighted that the candidate partnership has very specific objectives and that, like its predecessors, it is unique, so that there should not be any risk of duplication of research and innovation efforts. A representative from the industry sector, in the same line, stated that the candidate partnership could learn from other initiatives, but it should be given the full freedom of adapting its specific objectives to the circumstances. An EU citizen added that EDCTP would not have achieved its goals if it had had broader objectives.

Relevance of the candidate to deliver targeted scientific, economic/technological and societal impacts

Respondents were asked to assess the relevance of the candidate Partnership to deliver on listed impacts. Based on results, among societal impacts, it is expected to be ‘very relevant’ for stimulation of the development of effective, affordable and appropriate health products for developing countries and for fighting against communicable diseases and reduction of the societal and societal burden that they entail (Figure 21). Among presented economic impacts, a greater number of respondents, namely 26 out of 45 (57.78%), indicated that the candidate Partnership would be ‘very relevant’ for ensuring better, safe and affordable health technologies, tools and digital solutions for health. The majority of respondents (32 out of 45, or 71.11%) suggest that the initiative would have a significant effect on local capacity development to support and conduct clinical trials. Overall, citizens provided similar views, but found the societal impact regarding ‘More efficient and sustainable health systems’ more relevant.

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

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292501998.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292501998_ENG_xhtml_01021.jpg)

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

[Top](#document1)