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%292508741.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508741_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%292508741.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508741_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%292508741.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508741_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%292508741.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508741_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%292508741.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508741_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%292508741.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508741_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%292508741.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508741_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%292508741.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508741_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%292508741.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508741_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%292508741.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508741_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%292508741.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508741_ENG_xhtml_01011.jpg)

  

1.3.Open public consultation results for this specific initiative

For the initiative “Circular Bio-Based Europe” 19 individual pieces of feedback were collected, mainly from businesses (2 responses), business associations (6 responses), academic institutions (5 responses, including 2 anonymous), public authorities (3 responses) and NGOs (3 responses).
[3](#footnote4)
 Among the elements mentioned were:

·Eight stakeholders (all businesses, two business associations, three academic institutions, one NGO and two public authorities) welcomed the integration of circular economy objective and highlighting the high relevance of the circular economy topic in the context of biobased industries

·Eight stakeholders (all businesses, some business associations, over half academic institutions, one public authority) commented on the model of the new initiative and welcomed the Institutional Partnership model. Comments included that this model represents the deepest level of integration and engagement; that it is the best way forward as it will contribute to longevity and sustainability, through integration, engagement. Some mentioned positive experience and the proven efficiency of the current Bio-based Industries Joint Undertaking structure. Some stakeholders commented on the commitment issue, and noted that only IP provides the legal means to ensure the private partner meets a defined minimum level of commitments.

·One public authority stakeholder while supporting the IP model, commented on importance of assuring an appropriate governance model that is aligned with the public interest, industry needs and the needs of other key stakeholders such as primary producers and end users. They suggest that the role of the MS in the governance is strengthened including via synergies with national programmes, more open process of programme topic generation, information sharing with the MS as in other parts of Horizon, transparency on the real (in-kind and in-cash) contributions actually provided by industry.

·One stakeholder from NGO sector criticized the models of public-private partnerships (ETPs, JTIs, JUs) with industry having an increasing say in determining strategic research agendas and promoting own needs at the expense of EC funds.

·Several stakeholders suggested to ensure that thematic coverage included additional topics as listed below:

–Three stakeholders commented on importance of inclusion of bioenergy sector in the sectorial coverage of the new initiative, commenting that it can also contribute to the circular economy and its synergies with other bio-based sectors.

–There stakeholders from business, business associations and regional government, stressed the relevance of wastewater in the circular bio-based economy as an important source of nutrients and chemicals

–One association extensively argued about importance of promoting R&I on plant-based proteins under the new initiative.

–One business association suggested to include a focus on renewable gases from agricultural waste in the topical scope of the initiatives.

·Two stakeholders (from academia and NGO), highlighted the importance to consider environmental impact of creating new demand for biomass (e.g. food security, impact on ecosystems, resource conflicts outside EU), and ensure maintenance or improvement of biodiversity.

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

Figure 12: In your view, how relevant are the following elements and activities to ensure that the proposed European Partnership would meet its objectives? - Responses for the Circular Bio-based Europe Initiative - Setting joint long-term agenda with strong involvement of

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508741.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508741_ENG_xhtml_01012.jpg)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508741.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508741_ENG_xhtml_01013.jpg)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508741.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508741_ENG_xhtml_01012.jpg)
![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508741.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508741_ENG_xhtml_01013.jpg)

Figure 13: In your view, how relevant are the following elements and activities to ensure that the proposed European Partnership would meet its objectives? - Responses for the Circular Bio-based Europe Initiative - Setting joint long-term agenda by stakeholder type with strong involvement of

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508741.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508741_ENG_xhtml_01014.jpg)

Pooling and leveraging resources through coordination, alignment and integration with stakeholders

Figure 14: In your view, how relevant are the following elements and activities to ensure that the proposed European Partnership would meet its objectives-Responses for the Circular Bio-based Europe Initiative - Pooling and leveraging resources (financial, infrastructure, in-kind expertise,etc.) through coordination, alignment and integration with:

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508741.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508741_ENG_xhtml_01015.jpg)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508741.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508741_ENG_xhtml_01013.jpg)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508741.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508741_ENG_xhtml_01015.jpg)
![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508741.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508741_ENG_xhtml_01013.jpg)

Relevance of the partnership composition

Figure 15: In your view, how relevant are the following elements and activities to ensure that the proposed European Partnership would meet its objectives - Responses for the Circular Bio-based Europe Initiative - Partnership composition

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508741.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508741_ENG_xhtml_01016.jpg)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508741.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508741_ENG_xhtml_01013.jpg)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508741.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508741_ENG_xhtml_01016.jpg)
![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508741.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508741_ENG_xhtml_01013.jpg)

Relevance of activities

Respondents were asked to provide opinions on the relevance of implementing a set of activities for meeting the objectives of the candidate Circular Bio-based Europe Partnership. Among activities were listed – a joint R&D programme, collaborative R&D projects, deployment and piloting activities, input to regulatory aspects and co-creation of solutions with end-users. Out of 203 respondents, 147 (72.41%) indicated that deployment and piloting activities are very relevant to ensure that the Partnership would meet its objectives. Collaborative R&I projects have also been considered as very relevant by a large number of respondents (120 respondents or 59.11%). In particular, a large majority of academics, business associations and EU citizens, and all respondents from public authorities, indicated collaborative R&I projects as relevant. In contrast, input to regulatory aspects is considered less relevant by respondents. However, still a large share of academics, business associations, businesses (250+), public authorities and other types of respondents indicated this element as relevant.

Respondents that are/were involved in a current/preceding partnership found joint R&I programmes more relevant than other respondents. Overall, this element was considered as relevant by more than half of business associations, business organisations and NGOs, and by more than two thirds of academics, EU citizens and public authorities.

Figure 16: In your view, how relevant are the following elements and activities to ensure that the proposed European Partnership would meet its objectives - Responses for the Circular Bio-based Europe Initiative - Implementing the following activities

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508741.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508741_ENG_xhtml_01017.jpg)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508741.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508741_ENG_xhtml_01013.jpg)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508741.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508741_ENG_xhtml_01017.jpg)
![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508741.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508741_ENG_xhtml_01013.jpg)

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

Respondents were also asked to assess the relevance of a specific legal structure (funding body) for the candidate European Partnership to implement several activities. According to Figure 17 most respondents indicated that a specific legal structure was ‘very relevant’ to implement its activities more effectively. The majority of stakeholders from business associations, SMEs, businesses (250+), public authorities and EU citizens indicated a high relevance of a legal structure for a more effective implementation of activities.

Respondents that are/were involved in a current/preceding partnership found the effective implementation of activities, increased financial leverage and the collaboration with other partnerships more relevant than other respondents.

Overall, the majority of respondents in all stakeholder groups indicated the set-up of a legal structure as relevant or highly relevant to: implement activities more effectively and more transparently; increase financial leverage; ensure better links to practitioners on the ground; obtain more buy-in and long-term commitments from other partners; ensure harmonization of standards; and facilitate synergies with other EU and national programmes.

A legal structure was considered relevant or highly relevant for a faster implementation of activities to respond to sudden market or policy needs by the majority of respondents in all stakeholder groups, with the exception of business associations where more than half considered it relevant to a smaller degree.

Contrarily to all other stakeholder groups, a moderate majority of EU citizens considered a legal structure either close to not relevant or relevant to a smaller degree to ensure better links to regulators. Similarly, the majority of NGOs indicated a specific legal structure to be close to not relevant or relevant only to a small degree to facilitate collaboration with other relevant European Partnerships.

The number of respondents that have indicated that they view a measure as ‘not relevant at all’ is very small across all the measures and all stakeholder groups.

Figure 17: In your view, how relevant is to set up a specific legal structure (funding body) for the candidate European Partnership to achieve the following? - Responses for the Circular Bio-based Europe Initiative

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508741.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508741_ENG_xhtml_01018.jpg)

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

Respondents were asked to assess the scope and coverage of the Circular Bio-based Europe Partnership, based on its inception impact assessment. The clear majority of the respondents across all stakeholder groups have indicated that the partnership has the right scope and coverage across all areas, although geographical coverage and types of partners covered have the highest number of right scope and coverage answers. On average, a very small share of respondents have indicated that they felt the scope and coverage were too broad, while a slightly higher but still small share of respondents have indicated that the scope was too narrow. In particular, a higher share of NGOs compared to other stakeholders groups, have indicated this with regards to technologies covered. Similarly, a higher share of academics compared to other stakeholder groups, have indicated geographical coverage, research areas, range of activities and sectoral coverage to be too narrow, although the majority still considered these as correctly covered.

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

Figure 18: What is your view on the scope and coverage proposed for this candidate institutionalised European Partnership, based on its inception impact assessment? Respondents for the candidate Circular Bio-based Europe Partnership

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508741.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508741_ENG_xhtml_01019.jpg)

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508741.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508741_ENG_xhtml_01019.jpg)

Aside from this multiple-choice question, the respondents were also asked to provide any comment that they may have on the proposed scope and coverage for this candidate Institutionalised Partnership. The keyword analysis used for open questions resulted in the graph shown below. This analysis showed the respondents used this question to talk about sustainable biomass, plant protein, food security as well as the circular (bio)economy and an inception impact assessment.

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

The respondents were also asked if it they thought it would be possible to rationalise the candidate European Institutionalised Partnership and its activities, and/or to better link it with other comparable initiatives. 100 respondents (57.47%) have indicated that they think this is the case.

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

The respondents who answered affirmatively were asked to indicate which other comparable initiatives this proposed partnership could be linked with. This analysis showed the respondents used this question to talk about several initiatives with which it should actively cooperate and foster links, including Innovative SMEs (suggested by a large company); the HEU missions on "Soil health and food" and on " Healthy Oceans, Seas, Coastal and Inland Waters’ (suggested by an academic); and European Platforms such as SUSCHEM on plastic circular economy and the materials platform EUMAT (suggested by an academic). Making these links would ensure the initiative reaches its potential of significant environmental impact.

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

Respondents were asked to assess the relevance of the candidate European Institutionalised Partnership to deliver on listed impacts. According to the results in this question, among societal impacts, a greater number of respondents suggest that the Partnership would be ‘very relevant’ for reducing greenhouse emissions, for maximisation of valorisation of organic waste, and agriculture and forestry residues, and for replacement of oil-based chemicals and materials with bio-based and biodegradable ones. In comparison, the least number of respondents considered that the partnership would be ‘very relevant’ for increasing adoption of production systems. Among economic/technological impact categories, a greater number of respondents (150 out of 204, or 73.53%) indicated that the Partnership would be ‘very relevant’ for delivery of bio-based products that are comparable and/or superior to fossil-based products. The pattern of responses on impacts in the area of science are very similar – over 60% of respondents believe that the Partnership would be ‘very relevant’ for generating new scientific knowledge and for increasing scientific cooperation.

The majority of respondents across all stakeholder groups considered European Partnerships to be either very relevant or relevant to deliver the targeted scientific, social and economic impacts. Citizens found the societal impact related to sustainable management of natural resources and the economic/technological impact related to the creation of jobs in rural and underdeveloped areas more relevant.

A greater share of businesses (250+), SMEs, public authorities and NGOs, compared to other stakeholder groups - although still not the majority - considered European Partnerships to be either not relevant or relevant to a smaller degree to deliver targeted social impacts.

An even higher share of the abovementioned stakeholder groups - although not the majority - considered European Partnerships to be either not relevant or relevant to a smaller degree to deliver targeted economic impacts.

Figure 19: In your view, how relevant is it for the candidate European Institutionalised Partnership to deliver on the following impacts? Responses for the candidate Circular Bio-based Europe Partnership

![](./../../../resource.html?uri=IMMC:Ares%282021%292508741.ENG.xhtml.Ares_282021_292508741_ENG_xhtml_01020.jpg)

:   [(1)](#footnoteref2)
     
    <https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/better-regulation-guidelines-stakeholder-consultation_en>
:   [(2)](#footnoteref3)
     
    <https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/ConsultationPartnershipsHorizonEurope>
:   [(3)](#footnoteref4)
     Feedback on inception impact assessment to be found on https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2019-4972449/feedback\_en?p\_id=5722347

[Top](#document1)