Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

*|*

# 52013SC0539

**COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT CLEAN SKY & IMI /\* SWD/2013/0539 final \*/**

  

Table of Contents

1............ Introduction. 3

2............ Overall
analysis of progress achieved in 2012. 4

2.1......... Communication
and administration. 4

2.2......... Strategic
Research Agenda. 5

2.3......... Operational
progress. 7

2.3.1...... Progress
achieved by the CLEAN SKY JU.. 7

2.3.2...... Progress
achieved by the INNOVATIVE MEDECINES INITIATIVE JU.. 9

2.3.3...... Progress
achieved by the FUEL CELL AND HYDROGEN JU.. 12

2.3.4...... Progress
achieved by the ARTEMIS JU.. 14

2.3.5...... Progress
achieved by the ENIAC JU.. 15

2.4......... Stakeholder
participation. 17

2.5......... Innovation
and SMEs involvement 19

2.6......... Participation
across Countries. 21

2.7......... Grant
portfolio. 25

2.8......... Actions
performed by Commission in 2012. 26

2.8.1...... Stakeholder
consultations. 26

2.8.2...... Cost-benefit
analysis of the JUs. 28

2.8.3...... Preparatory
work for the second interim evaluation. 30

3............ CLEAN
SKY JOINT UNDERTAKING.. 31

3.1......... Introduction
to the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking (CS JU) 31

3.1.1...... Budget 32

3.1.2...... Governing
structure. 32

3.2......... Overall
progress since the establishment of clean sky jti/ju. 33

3.2.1...... Programme
implementation overall 33

3.2.2...... Grant
agreements with members. 35

3.2.3...... Description
of the 'Integrated Technology Demonstrators' (ITD) activities. 35

3.3......... Implementation
of calls for proposals (CFPs) overall 35

3.4......... Outline
of the main activities and achievements during 2012. 36

3.4.1...... Running of
the JU.. 36

3.4.2...... Second
Interim Evaluation. 42

3.4.3...... Achievements
at Programme level 42

3.4.4...... Governance
- Major decisions taken by the Governing Board and other JU bodies. 49

3.4.5...... General
Forum.. 54

3.4.6...... Main
communication activities. 54

3.4.7...... Success
stories. 55

3.5......... Call(s)
implemented in 2012. 56

3.5.1...... CALL 11
SP1-JTI-CS-2012-01. 56

3.5.2...... CALL 12
SP1-JTI-CS-2012-02. 60

3.5.3...... CALL 13
SP1-JTI-CS-2012-03. 64

3.6......... Grant
Agreements/Project Portfolio. 68

3.6.1...... Grant
agreements signed (commitment amounts) 68

3.6.2...... Grant
Agreements for which activities have ended and/ or final results are available. 78

4............ INNOVATIVE
MEDICINES INITIATIVE JOINT UNDERTAKING.. 85

4.1......... Introduction
to the Innovative Medicines Initiative JU (IMI JU) 85

4.1.1...... Budget 85

4.1.2...... Governing
structure. 85

4.2......... Overall
progress since the establishment of the imi jti/ju. 86

4.2.1...... Bibliometric
Analysis. 89

4.3......... Call
implementation – aggregated information from the establishment up to 2012. 90

4.3.1...... Samples of
Key Performance Indicators. 94

4.4......... Outline
of the main activities and achievements in 2012. 96

4.4.1...... Overview
of 2012 achievements. 96

4.4.2...... Running of
the IMI JU.. 99

4.4.3...... Second
Interim Evaluation. 101

4.4.4...... Progress
in the implementation of the strategic research agenda. 101

4.4.5...... Major
decisions taken by the governing board and other ju bodies. 102

4.4.6...... Main
communication activities. 102

4.4.7...... Success
Stories. 105

4.5......... Calls
implemented in 2012. 106

4.5.1...... Calls
implementation - Overview.. 106

4.5.2...... Evaluation
and selection procedures. 107

4.5.3...... Aggregated
information 2012. 109

4.5.4...... IMI – 3rd
Call – 2010 – Implementation of final stages. 111

4.5.5...... IMI - 4th
Call – 2011. 113

4.5.6...... IMI – 5th
Call – 2012. 117

4.5.7...... IMI – 6th
Call – 2012. 119

4.5.8...... IMI – 7th
Call – 2012. 123

4.6......... Grant
agreements/project portfolio. 126

4.6.1...... Grant
agreements signed during the year 2012. 126

4.6.2...... Aggregate
GA signed. 127

4.6.3...... Grant
agreements for which activities have ended and/or final results are available. 129

GLOSSARY AND
ABBREVIATIONS. 130

1.           Introduction

The present Commission Staff Working Document
accompanies the Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and to
the Council on the progress achieved by the Joint Technology Initiatives Joint
Undertakings in 2012. In compliance with Article 11 (1) of each Council
Regulation establishing the Joint Technology Initiatives Joint Undertakings
(hereinafter referred to as "JTI JUs") it shall provide details on
the implementation of their research activities, i.e. number of proposals
submitted, number of proposals selected for funding, type of participants,
including SMEs, and country statistics. The document shall also "include
assessment results of the Technology Evaluator referred to in Article 8(1) of
the Statutes [of the Clean Sky JU], as appropriate" pursuant to Article
11(1) of Council Regulation (EC) 71/2008 setting up the Clean Sky Joint
Undertaking.

The data contained in this document is gathered
through a specifically designed template, filled in by each JTI JU under the
guidance of the European Commission. The document introduces a comprehensive
analysis of progress and achievements in 2012 and it is followed by further
five sections, one per Joint Undertaking, which detail in-depth the results
achieved by the JTI JU. Each section contains the following three sub-sections
providing information on the JTI JUs' activities in 2012 in a structured and
uniform way: 1) Introduction, 2) Overall progress since the establishment of
the JTI JUs, 3) Outline of the main activities and achievements in 2012, 4)
Calls for proposals implementation in 2012 and 5) Grant Agreements/ projects
portfolio.

The description of the progress of each Joint
Undertaking throughout the year starts with a short introduction of the JTI JU,
outlining its legal basis, main objectives, research priorities, funding and
governing structure. The second sub-section highlights the key achievements of
the entity from its establishment up to 2012 whilst the third sub-section focus
on the activities and achievements during 2012 only and submission and
evaluation process of the individual JTI JUs calls is also explained.

The second to last sub-section is dedicated to
the calls for proposals launched by the Joint Undertakings in 2012. In case the
entity has launched multiple calls during the year, each call is described with
a brief summary listing the call topics, eligible beneficiaries, timeline and
indicative budget, followed by detailed statistics on the submitted proposals
by types of participants and by country. A special attention is given to the
number of SMEs, whose participation in the call is presented separately.

Detailed statistics on the selected proposals
by types of participants and by country are provided, which can serve for a
comparative analysis of the participants at the different steps of the call.
Each sub-section ends with a table giving information on the grant agreements
signed in the respective call.

The last sub-section provides details on the
Grant Agreements signed by the relevant JTI JU as well as details on Grant
Agreements for which activities have ended and/ or final results are available.

2.           Overall
analysis of progress achieved in 2012

2.1.        Communication
and administration

In
order to increase participation in the projects of SMEs and research community,
the first interim evaluations advised the JTI JUs to take a more proactive and
target-oriented approach in their communication activities. Recommendations
clearly invited JTI JUs to develop and implement better-tailored communication
and dissemination plans, establish a separate identity and improve synergies
with national programmes and international cooperation with non-EU
stakeholders.

Following actions taken in 2011 to reinforce
communication and dissemination activities, JTI JUs continued to reinforce
their visibility towards stakeholders and the general public.

Newsletters (from IMI and Clean Sky) and a paper
magazine (ARTEMIS and Clean Sky) are circulated regularly and a number of press
releases on significant achievements have also been published.

JTIs JUs websites are also regularly updated and
represent a communication tool rich in novelties and tailored for stakeholders.

In
2012, the JTI JUs again have efforts to widen participation, for example by
improving communication with potential applicants to the calls for proposals.
This also entailed the organisation of targeted
awareness rising and communication activities held in countries usually less
represented in projects selected for funding.

A
consistent number of tailor-made Info Days were held and JU participation in
seminars, events and major technological fairs and exhibitions continued to
grow. Progress was also made in increasing the public visibility of JTIs by,
for instance, constantly improving the JTIs’ web sites to present better and
more user-friendly information.

The Annual General Forum and Stakeholders Forum are
also major events at which members, partners and potential partners get
together and are given up-to-date information on achievements and project
results. These events have attracted hundreds of participants in 2012.

Besides,
FCH and the IMI in particular gained international visibility as part of
European actions in support of research and policy making. The United States and South Korea were the main target countries: a number of bilateral meetings took
place during the year with the aim of developing cooperation at project level
and exchanges of information. In this context, appropriate
international strategies should be defined or boosted 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.

All the five JUs made significant progress towards
reaching their full complement of staff in 2012 replacing staff members who
left during the year.

ARTEMIS filled two existing administrative positions
while ENIAC was almost fully staffed (one Seconded National Expert will join in
2013). The FCH JU also recruited two staff and reached its full complement of
20 staff by the end of the year. IMI reached full strength in mid-2012.

Clean Sky lost three temporary staff who were
replaced in good time and two out of six contract staff also left. Currently it
has a staff of 24 members, but to tackle the workload, it has three extra staff
on temporary contracts.

The
JUs complied with planning and reporting requirements, both their governing and
advisory bodies met on a regular basis and their Governing Boards (GB) approved
strategic documents such as the 2011 final accounts and draft budgets. The FCH
JU’s GB also approved changes in the organisational structure of the Programme
Office. For Clean Sky and IMI, new Governing Boards chairs and vice-chairs were
elected in 2012 and the contracts of the Executive Directors were renewed.

2.2.        Strategic Research Agenda

The
Strategic Research Agendas (SRAs) were revised to set new priorities, to meet
current challenges and to take into account the industrial progress achieved in
recent years. The revised SRAs have strengthened the innovation dimension and
reinforced the focus on a higher level of readiness of the technologies. This
entailed addressing a higher number of research activities at the levels of TRL[1] 4 to
8.

In
aeronautics, the overall Clean Sky (CS) programme was revised in 2012 as a
consequence of major changes made in 2011 to work in the engine Integrated
Technology Demonstrator (ITD) with reference to the Open Rotor configuration.
Due to the high level of interdependence of the six ITDs, the targets set for
the Clean Sky JTI JU were reassessed and updated in March 2012, together with
the development plan and the forecast of the environmental benefits to be
expected by the end of the programme.

The
achievements in the development of the open rotor allowed introducing a new
technology stream on lean-burn engines focusing on the reduction of NOx
emissions, thus strengthening the CS capability to address ambitious NOx
reduction targets.

The
Technology Evaluator (TE), which gathers all the 12 ITD leaders and the major
aeronautical research establishments in Europe, ran the First Internal
Assessment of Clean Sky technologies for the purpose of analysing the full
environmental potential of Clean Sky technologies. Its results were published
in March 2012. The assessment was based on a comparison of two scenarios for
the air traffic system in 2020: with fleet Clean Sky aircraft replacing all
existing aircraft and without Clean Sky aircraft. Combining the analysis for
airports and air traffic systems, the results indicate that Clean Sky is on
track to reduce noise, to reduce CO2 emission by 50% and NOX by 80% and to
minimise the life-cycle impact of aircraft on the environment by 2020. It also
indicated that, to minimise the environmental impact of the aircraft' life
cycle, all research and technology areas of Eco-Design should be considered.
The assessment also showed the benefits of linking work programmes closely to
the key technical and demonstration milestones in each ITD.

In
the pharmaceutical sector, the Innovative Medicines Initiative’s SRA was fully
revised by the end of 2011 to reflect scientific advances and changes in the
industry environment. The focus was put on large-scale, game-changing projects
and in 2012 this new vision resulted in a decision to fund two major projects:
a pan-European platform for drug discovery, the European Lead Factory,
and the antimicrobial resistance programme New Drugs for Bad Bugs. Both
projects’ research activities also involve clinical and chemical developments
closer to the market. The assessment of a number of on-going projects
demonstrated that the results are in line with the objectives set for the IMI.

In
the fuel cells and hydrogen sector, a review of the Implementation Programme in
November 2012
confirmed that, overall, the JTI JU is making
progress towards the main objectives set in its the Multi-Annual Implementation
Plan (MAIP). Market introduction has been achieved for some early applications
such as forklifts and small back-up power units. For both energy and transport
applications, progress has been made in materials performance, durability and
cost reduction for both components and systems for transport and stationary
power applications.

In
the embedded systems sector, a working group on success criteria and metrics
was set up in early 2010 to better monitor the research progress made by
ARTEMIS and to convert targets generically described in the SRA into measurable
quantities. This working group analysed data collected via targeted
questionnaires that were distributed to project participants in 2011 and 2012.
The replies to the second-phase survey suggest in particular that: new
partnerships have been established and a growing number of SMEs been involved
in networks of stakeholders; there is growing interest in building prototypes
and demonstrators, including trials and field testing; the impact on business
has mainly been to reduce development costs and time to market while increasing
the level of reusability.

In
the nanoelectronics components sector, overall progress in the implementation
of the SRA shows that the ENIAC JTI JU has boosted technological areas in which
Europe improved its competitiveness, namely "Equipment, Materials and
Manufacturing" (28% of the JU funding allocated), "Semiconductor
Process and Integration" (25% of funding) and "Energy
Efficiency" (24% of funding). This process is also helping to reduce the
fragmentation in the research and innovation environment and facilitating steady
cooperation among stakeholders. In 2012 investment in electronics R&D was
increased significantly by combining ENIAC and CATRENE[2]
funding. Cooperation between the ENIAC JTI JU and CATRENE has always been a key
element of the SRA and finally brought the expected results.

2.3.        Operational progress

JTI
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 2012, the five JUs launched 12 calls for
proposal, opening 263 research topics in line with their updated SRAs. JTIs JUs
also continued to evaluate and negotiate grants arising from previous calls.
Overall, over 2500 participants submitted proposals and over 1200 participants
were selected for funding in 2012 with an aggregated success rate of about 34%.

The 263 research topics for which calls were
launched and managed in 2012 resulted in over 500 proposals being submitted [3] and
172 being selected for funding (see table below).

|| Number of proposals submitted in 2012 || Number of proposals selected for funding in 2012 || Success rate ||

Clean Sky || 344 || 120 || 35% ||

FCH || 72 || 28 || 39% ||

IMI || 37 || 5 || 14% ||

ENIAC || 27 || 11 || 40.7% ||

ARTEMIS || 24 || 8 || 33% ||

Total || 504 || 172 || 34% ||

As
JTI JUs differ in terms of the number and type of calls launched and managed,
the research topics, the types of beneficiaries and stages of evaluation,
progress in implementing calls is outlined for the different JTIs in sections
3.1 to 3.5 below.

2.3.1.     Progress achieved by the CLEAN SKY JU

Clean
Sky was set up to achieve three main objectives by the end of the programme.
These are: (i) to accelerate environmental improvements in the 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. To achieve these objectives, Clean Sky works with the Single European
Sky Air Traffic Management Research (SESAR) JU, as the two initiatives
complement each other.

A
total budget of € 1.6 billion was allocated to Clean Sky: a maximum
€ 800 million from the European Union in cash, to be matched by industry
contributions in-kind worth at least € 800 million.

Clean
Sky works mainly via grants to named beneficiaries rather than calls for
proposals. 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 (TE) that continuously monitors and
assesses the results. Most of the overall budget ( € 600 million or 75 %)
is distributed to these members, who are the "named beneficiaries";
the remaining € 200 million is allocated through calls for proposals. This
report focuses in particular on these calls, launched on a regular but one-off
basis when ITD members express a need for additional specific research
activities to complement their work. The implementation of research by named
beneficiaries is reported in Annexe I.

Clean
Sky calls for proposal are targeted call; they cover various topics in each
technological area and are usually of short duration (averaging six months to
one year) with a limited number of partners in the consortia (in average less
than two partners per project). Calls for Partners are evaluated in a
single-stage process with the support of independent experts. In 2012, Clean
Sky published three calls for proposals.

In
2012, The JU managed 158 topics in total, with 245 partners from 17 countries
selected after call 13. Compared to 2011 and for a similar number of research
topics to be implemented (159 in 2011), Clean Sky faced a slight contraction in
the number of participants and countries involved. This could also be due to
fewer calls being launched over the year (four in 2011, three in 2012). The
table below gives an overview of the calls launched and evaluated by Clean Sky
in 2012, including proposals submitted and evaluated.

Calls reference || Proposals Submitted || Evaluation Results ||

Call N° || Ref || Number of proposals || Number of eligible proposals || % of retained || Above threshold || Selected for funding || Redress cases || Reserve List || Success rate ||

11 || 2012-01 || 159 || 142 || 89,31% || 96 || 54 || 5 || 42 || 33,96% ||

12 || 2012-02 || 109 || 104 || 95,41% || 69 || 36 || 1 || 33 || 30,28% ||

13 || 2012-03 || 76 || 71 || 93,42% || 49 || 30 || 1 || 19 || 39,47% ||

|| total || 344 || 317 || 92,71% || 214 || 120 || 7 || 94 || 35% ||

The
overall maximum funding available at call publication was €98.9 million and the
funding requested after evaluation €64.2 million.

The
overall eligibility of proposals was as high as in 2011 about 93% of submitted
proposals were considered eligible for evaluation, against 95% in the previous
year. The number of projects selected for funding increased (to 120 from 118 in
2011), split over three calls and not four as in 2011.

In
comparison with the other JUs, the high overall number of topics is high and
this factor affects participation in the calls, which is high, as is the number
of projects selected for funding. The participants are evenly distributed
between research organisations, industry, universities and SMEs. Clean Sky was
again less attractive to public bodies and regulatory agencies in 2012. SMEs
accounted for a very high number of participants[4]
in the projects funded (38 %) with a significant success rate (51%); over
the period 2008–2012, SMEs accounted for 34% of the EU’s Clean Sky funding for
calls for proposals[5].

Based
on the data available on the funded projects, calls 11 to 13 attracted
participants from 17 countries, about 30% of the countries involved in 2011 did
not apply in 2012. The countries best represented were Spain, the United Kingdom, Italy, France and Germany in that order; they confirm their strong
industrial tradition in aeronautics in Europe. Their participations[6]
altogether account for over 72% of the total selected for funding.

The
promising representation of the newer Member States (the EU-12) reported in
2011 decreased significantly, from 22 to 7 participants in 2012, though Cyprus participated for the first time in JTI JU calls.

Switzerland
increased its leadership among the Associated Countries with 12 participations,
twice as many as in 2011. Clean Sky did not include any international partners
in the funded projects, although China and Russia were successfully represented
in 2011.

On
Communication, in 2012, 15 press releases and press clipping were
published and a new brochure on the Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda
was posted online. Special issues of the ‘Skyline’ magazine presented the
assessment of the first Technology Evaluator.

Clean
Sky organised 8 events, including Information Days on calls that were held in
Madrid, Turin, and Brussels; it participated in 12 other major international
events: in particular, ‘Innovation Zone’ at Farnborough Air Show where the
stand was visited by Rt Hon David Willetts, the UK Minister for University and
Science.

Conferences
with the goal of raising students’ interest in aeronautics, environment and
Europe took place in Amsterdam, Bristol, Paris and Berlin, with audiences of up
to 150 students. The General Forum took place in November 2012 and over 120
stakeholders from industry, SMEs, academia, research organisations and EU
institutions participated in this annual event.

Concerning
Governance, the Governing Board met four times in 2012. On 30 March
2012, the CS JU Development Plan was adopted and on 13 December 2012 the Chair
(Mr Alessandro Franzoni) and Vice- Chair (Mr Ric Parker) for 2013 were elected.

2.3.2.     Progress achieved by the INNOVATIVE MEDECINES INITIATIVE
JU

The
European Commission and the pharmaceutical industry collaborated to jointly
achieve at the end of the programme a number of objectives which are paramount
for Europe. These 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; and (iii) to increase the competitiveness of the
EU pharmaceutical sector.

A
total budget of € 2 billion was allocated to the Innovative Medicines
Initiative (IMI) JU. Of this, a maximum of € 1 billion was to be allocated
from the EU budget for the Seventh Framework Programme, while in-kind
contributions worth at least another € 1 billion were expected from member
companies of the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and
Associations (EFPIA).

Companies
have found that IMI calls are well suited to their needs and are participating
much more in IMI projects now than in FP7 Health Projects.

The
IMI handles calls for proposals in two stages. In stage one, applicants that
can be funded under the IMI send expressions of interest (EoIs); in stage two,
the best-ranked participants and EFPIA companies are invited to form consortia
and jointly draft a full project proposal (FPP). This mechanism also implies
two-stage evaluation: in step one for EoIs and in step two for FPPs. Only FPPs
that meet all the evaluation criteria and pass ethical review are finally
selected for funding. In 2012, for already ongoing projects, IMI introduced a
new option of applying for additional research funding if projects proved to be
worth more investment to explore new scientific opportunities. The first
Explore New Scientific Opportunities (ENSO) call was launched in August and
five applications were submitted by the second cut-off date in December. Since no proposals had been received by the first cut-off date,
the budget available for the two was combined, and amounted to € 5 214 163.
Five projects were selected for funding and overall five new organisations joined: one from EFPIA and four non- EFPIA
members.

ENSO partners – including EFPIA companies – come mostly from Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Switzerland, the Netherland, Sweden and Belgium. Organisations from the newer Member States EU-12 are
less well represented: only Poland, the Czech Republic and Estonia are included in one of the five funded projects , once each (as are Ireland, Israel, Norway, Denmark).

In
2012, the IMI signed the two final grant agreements for call 3, finalised the
stage 2 evaluation of call 4 and published four additional calls for proposals
(calls 5, 6, 7, and 8). Grant Agreements were also signed for all projects from
calls 4 to 6. The table below presents a general overview of calls 5 to 7,
which were launched and evaluated in 2012[7].

Call Reference || Submitted Expression of Interest || Evaluation results

Submitted Expression of Interest || Eligible EoIs || % of retained || EoI above threshold || Full Project Proposals selected for funding || Success rate (selected FPPs/ submitted EoIs)

Call 5 - 2012 || 14 || 12 || 85.7% || 2 || 1 || 7.1%

Call 6 - 2012 || 14 || 13 || 92.9% || 3 || 2 || 14.3%

Call 7 - 2012 || 9 || 8 || 88.9% || 2 || 2 || 22.2%

 Total || 37 || 33 || 89.2% || 7 || 5 || 13.5%

|| || || || || ||

Calls
5 to 7 [8]
attracted 418 applicants, of which only 14% were selected for funding. These
418 applicants submitted a total of 33 eligible Expressions of Interest and
five projects were selected for funding at the end of the evaluation procedure.
Furthermore, in calls 5 and 6, two eligible proposals submitted by different
research groups were merged into one project. This was recommended by the
independent experts to optimise the potential benefits of projects, avoid
fragmentation in the research environment and keep the highest possible number
of beneficiaries involved.

For
the IMI, there are a limited number of research topics and a large allocated
budget and this affects the final number of partners involved in each
consortium.

The
IMI participant[9]'
typology of is very specific. Industry is well represented (by EFPIA companies
and SMEs, the latter participating in 104 out of 418 EoIs) and there is very
high participation by universities and research organisations, which together
submitted 74% of EoIs. Academia also accounted for most of the participants in
the projects eventually funded (25) in 2012 followed by research organisations
(18) and SMEs (16), with the latter representing 26 % of total
participation considering all calls for which Grant Agreements were signed in
2012 (calls 4 to 6). It is worth mentioning that this result appears slightly
different if only calls launched in 2012 and for which  Grant Agreements were
signed during the year are taken into account: SMEs participation in calls 5
and 6 was 20,5%. This is good progress compared to the 17.7% in 2011. Globally,
SMEs were awarded about €93 million under the Grant Agreements signed in 2012.

Regarding
the geographical distribution of successful participants, the quantity and
quality of available figures improved in 2012. Participants in projects
selected for funding (62, excluding EFPIA companies) came from 13 countries,
mostly the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands and France. Hungary was the only EU-12 country represented, with one participation in call 5.
Calls 5 to 7 did not include international partners although these were
represented in the calls finalised in the first half of the year (e.g. calls 3
and 4). Associated countries also participated significantly only in calls 3
and 4 with 20 participations overall (about 7%).

On
Communication, IMI participated in 15 different events in 7 different
European countries and was presented in National Info Days throughout 2012 in
13 different European countries. It published 9 press releases and was quoted
in 11 public newsletters. On dissemination of results, IMI achieved 366 publications
relating to funded projects. Access to the web page increased by about 20 %
from 2011, taking into account unique visitors (about 8000 visitors/month).

Concerning
Governance, the governing board met three times in 2012. In April 2012,
Mr Roch Doliveux (EFPIA) became Chair and Dr Rudolf Strohmeier (EC) Vice-Chair
for a one-year term. 21 decisions on running the JTI JU were approved.

2.3.3.     Progress achieved by the FUEL CELL AND HYDROGEN JU

The
FCH JU pursues three main objectives: (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.

To
achieve these objectives by the end of the programme, a budget of € 940
million was allocated. The EU cash contribution is €470 million maximum, to be
matched by cash contributions to running costs and by in-kind contributions to
operational costs from the legal entities participating in FCH JU activities.

The
FCH JU 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 the FCH JU is cross-cutting
activity: to complement the four scientific application areas it aims to raise
awareness, educate the public and support the market. Proposals are submitted
and evaluated by means of a simple single-stage process.

During
2012 the FCH JU launched and evaluated one call for proposals (FCH-JU-2012-1),
for an indicative available budget of €77,5million. 72 proposals were
submitted, of which 68 were eligible. 28 were proposed for negotiations,
representing a success rate of 39%. No Grant Agreement was signed for this call
for proposals in 2012; but 33 Grant Agreements were signed for proposals
evaluated in 2011.

The
table below presents the major features.

Call Reference || Submitted Proposals || Evaluation results || Reserve list, if any % of retained

Submitted Proposals || Eligible Proposals || % of retained || Above threshold || selected for funding || Success rate

FCH-JU-2012-1 || 72 || 68 || 94% || 43 || 28 || 39% || 35%

The
72 proposals submitted covered the five application areas, four scientific and
one cross cutting, with best results in the areas of Transportation and
Refuelling Infrastructures and Early Markets for which 100% of the proposals
submitted were selected. The results did not vary much from the previous year,
and overall the volume of activity and the results remained steady.

The
FCH JU attracted a wide range of participants[10]
of all types, including public authorities (e.g. national/regional bodies,
energy agencies) and NGOs. This might be because of their particular interest
in coordination and support actions. The participants were also evenly
distributed between research organisations and industry. The Commission is
partnering with the New Energy World Industry Grouping (NEW-IG), which
associates industrial companies, and the N.ERGHY Research Group, which
represents the research community. Of the 573 applicants responding to the
call, 222 had their projects funded, with an overall success rate of 39%. 12
public bodies and organisations other than private companies were selected for
funding whilst SMEs had 55 participations in successful proposals; this
represents 25% of the total participation. Taking as its baseline the Energy
Theme of the Cooperation Programme in FP7 in the period 2008-2012, SMEs
participation in FCH JU activities is significantly higher than in FP7. In the
FCH JU, SMEs receive 25% of the funding compared to 18% in FP7.

Twenty
countries were represented in the call, led by Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Italy and Belgium. Compared to the previous year, France performed better than the UK within the seven countries that altogether are leaders in the
sector. EU-12 countries were represented with 11 participations. Poland demonstrated best results in the group of four (Poland, Czech Republic, Lithuania and Romania).

Of
the Associated Countries, Switzerland and Norway maintained their position with
17 participations overall, a slight increase compared to 2011, and Croatia participated for the first time. The international partners were only represented
by the United States with one participation.

On
Communication, in 2012, FCH JU organised 3 events and participated in
another 7. Publications included a general leaflet on FCH JU, a listing &
mapping of demonstration activities and a report on the programme review with
fact sheets for each project. The FCH web site, operational since March 2011,
acquired pages on the stakeholders’ general assembly and related activities,
programme reviews, and projects presented by application area and year.

Concerning
Governance, the governing board met four times in 2012. In addition to
decisions on running the JTI JU, in November 2012 two other new members of the
scientific committee were appointed.

2.3.4.     Progress achieved by the ARTEMIS JU

ARTEMIS
JU was set up to achieve at two main objectives by the end of the programme:
(i) to tackle the research and structural challenges faced by industry in
embedded systems, and (ii) to help European industry consolidate and reinforce
its world leadership in embedded computing technologies.

Embedded
systems are the invisible brain of all electronic systems and are a main
differentiating factor in the market. In 2012 the world market for embedded
systems was estimated at €472 billion.

The
work in ARTEMIS is closely linked and depends on the work done in ENIAC as
electronic components nowadays incorporate more functionalities.

The
participation of Member States in funding and governance alongside the EU and
industry is a major feature of the JU. The European Union, Member States and industry share the total maximum budget as follows: the maximum EU
contribution is €420 million, the ARTEMIS Member States contribute at least 1.8
times the EU contribution (€756 million), and in-kind contribution from
industry must be at least equivalent to the public authorities’ total.

To date, the 44 running ARTEMIS projects
represent total R&D&I investment of € 708 million, comprising € 228
million in national contributions, a € 116 million contribution by the EU
and € 363 million from industry. All eight sub-programmes of the ARTEMIS
Research Agenda are covered. In the first four years of the JU to 2011,
commitments from the ARTEMIS Member States fell. However, the introduction of the ARTEMIS Innovation
Pilot Projects (AIPPs) for the 2012 call reversed this trend, resulting in the
highest ever commitment for an ARTEMIS call. € 38 million was allocated in funding via JU grants,
along with € 66 million funding by Member States.

Currently
23 different countries are cooperating on implementing the ARTEMIS SRA to boost
embedded systems in Europe. Poland signed an Administrative Agreement in
December 2011 and committed the resources needed; nine Polish organisations
have participated successfully in calls for proposals, a very promising result
for a new member.

The
submission and evaluation procedure is normally in two-stage: applicants first
send a project outline (PO), then a full project proposal (FPP). This procedure
was used in calls for proposals for 2009, 2010 and 2011. In 2012, as in 2008,
ARTEMIS launched and evaluated calls following a single-stage procedure. So in
2012, the Project Outline phase was skipped and the process speeded up. The
table below gives an overview of the FFPs submitted in response to the
2012call, together with the results of the evaluation.

Call Reference || Submitted Full Project Proposals || Evaluation results || Reserve list if any % on list

Submitted Full Project Proposals || Eligible FPPs || % of retained || Above threshold || selected for funding || Success rate%

ARTEMIS-2012-1 || 25 || 24 || 96% || 13 || 8 || 32% || 3 proposals, 23% of above threshold

631 applicants were involved in Full Project
Proposals and 326 were selected for funding in the 8 successful projects. This
entailed an increase in the number of partners by project: on average consortia
included 40 partners in 2012 against 23 in 2011. ARTEMIS seeks to foster
collaboration between all stakeholders — especially industry, including SMEs,
national and/or regional authorities, and academic and research centres —
pulling together and focusing research efforts. There was again a good balance
between the types of participants[11]
that were represented with some 33.1% from universities and research
organisations altogether, 34.4% form large industry and 32.5% from SMEs.
Globally, SMEs have been funded with over €9 million in 2012.

The
projects funded involved 18 countries, led as in the previous year by Spain, Italy, France, Germany, Netherlands and Finland. The EU-12 countries were represented by the Czech Republic again this year followed by Poland, Slovenia and Latvia. Only Turkey had participation as an Associated Country but the 2012 call did not attract
international partners.

On
Communication, ARTEMIS
participated in over a dozen events. The Chair of the JU Governing Board was
interviewed for the Embedded World Conference and Exhibition newspaper and the
Research Media (UK) published an interview with ARTEMIS Industry Association
Chair Klaus Grimm, focusing on international innovation. Series 12 and 13 of
the ARTEMIS Magazine were published, plus various brochures on the JU in
general and on specific matters such as calls.

Concerning
Governance, the governing board met three times and the public
authorities’ board met four times. The main decisions taken by the governing
board during the year were related to the annual implementation plan 2012 and
annual budget plan 2012.

2.3.5.     Progress achieved by the ENIAC JU

ENIAC
pursues three main objectives at programme level: (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.

Considering
the high cost and the great complexity of R&D requiring multi-disciplinary
efforts, coordination in the field of electronic components at European level
with the Member States is of paramount importance.

The
work done in ENIAC complements the embedded systems development done in
ARTEMIS.

The
maximum budget allocated by the European Union is €450 million, which should be
boosted by ENIAC Member State funding of at least of 1.8 times that (€ 810
million). The industry’s in-kind contribution must at least match the public
authorities’ total. As with ARTEMIS, the participation of Member States in
funding and governance alongside the EU and industry is a major feature of
ENIAC.

After
ENIAC became autonomous, commitments from ENIAC Member States steadily
declined, but this trend was reversed in 2011. This turnaround was reinforced
by the successful second call launched in 2012, which focused on the Key
Enabling Technologies (KET) pilot line. Research activities for this call
involved a higher level of technology readiness (TRL 4 to 8) and a larger budget
(€ 193.2 million). At the end of 2012, national investment increased to € 150
million, from € 62 million on setting up.

Typically,
ENIAC calls follow a two-stage submission and evaluation process like ARTEMIS
(project outline, then full project proposal) and in 2012 two calls were
launched and managed.

The
table below gives an overview of the two calls launched and evaluated in 2012.

Call Reference || Submitted Project Outlines (POs) || Evaluation results

Submitted Project Outlines || Eligible POs || % of retained || Full Project Proposals || Selected for funding || Success rate

ENIAC-2012-1 || 16 || 16 || 100% || 11 || 6 || 37.5%

ENIAC-2012-2 || 11 || 11 || 100% || 6 || 5 || 45.5%

total || 27 || 27 || 100% || 17 || 11 || 40.7%

Of the 360 applicants that sent Full Project
Proposals (FPPs) for the 2012 ENIAC calls, 247 were selected for funding, with
a success rate of over 68%. The quality of Project Outlines proved good in 2012
and all 17 went to the second-stage: 11 FPPs were selected for funding, with a
success rate of 40.7%. Participants[12]
selected for funding include research organisations (39), universities (42),
industry (108) and SMEs (58). SMEs accounted for 23% of all participations and
received over €24 million funding in 2012.

Participants
in the calls came from 21 countries, with France,
Netherlands, Germany and Italy leading with 155 participations between them,
out of 247 (about 63 % of the total). EU-12 countries also participated,
mostly represented by the Czech Republic (4 participations), Poland (3) and Hungary, Malta, Slovak Republic and Romania (2 each). There was also good
participation from Associated Countries; Israel took the lead with 4
participations, followed by Norway (3) and Switzerland (2). In 2012, no
international partners were selected for funding, as in 2011.

At
the end of 2011, the ENIAC JU launched a call for Expressions of Interest in
setting up pilot lines. This call prepared the JU to help implement the policy
on improving Europe’s position in six key enabling technologies (KET) including
nanoelectronics. The pilot lines are intended to boost innovation and implement
activities at higher technology-readiness levels (TRL 4 to 8)[13].
Consequently, the second call of 2012 was fully dedicated to developing
projects targeting pilot lines. After evaluation, 5 of these projects were
selected for funding for a total of 128 participants, including 27 SMEs.

On
Communication, on top of
participating in several events in Germany, Austria, Italy, and sponsoring
events in Belgium, France, the Netherlands and Germany, ENIAC issued 2 press
releases which attracted over 10 000 and 8 000 internet views respectively.
Together with The Parliament Magazine, it organised the ‘Securing the Future’
round table event at the European Parliament, among other events and
publications.

Concerning
Governance, the governing board met
three times and the public authorities board met four times in 2012. Main
decisions concerned the AIP 2012, the annual budget plan 2012 and adoption of
the work programme 2013.

2.4.        Stakeholder
participation

After
three years of full operational autonomy of the JUs, it is possible to start
appreciating the progress achieved in terms of participation[14].
The data also provide an initial overview of the research and innovation
environment best served by JTI JUs and information on the level of
participation reached by category of beneficiaries.

The
graphic below compares overall participation in 2011 and 2012.

Categories of beneficiaries in 2012 are
presented in the table below.

|| Participations in proposals submitted (2012) || Participations in projects selected for funding (2012)

Clean Sky || 483 || 245

IMI || 418 || 62

FCH || 573 || 222

ARTEMIS || 631 || 326

ENIAC || 360 || 247

Total || 2465 || 1102

In
2012, JTI JUs recorded 2465 participations in submitted proposals while
participations in funded projects came to 1102. In comparison to 2011, the
number of proposals submitted contracted by about 30 % while the number of
projects selected for funding was the same.

This
is particularly evident for the IMI and reflects the new focus put on ‘think
big’ projects. In fact, in 2012, in the three out of four calls launched for
which data are available the number of full project proposals selected for
funding was small (5) and this therefore affected the total number of
participations.

The
trend was more or less stable in the other four JTI JUs with the exception of
ENIAC where the number of participations in projects selected for funding was
higher than in the Project Outline phase. This is due to the two-stage
evaluation and to the recommendations provided by evaluators after the first
step evaluation. In some cases consortia that submitted Project Outlines
decided to add specific capabilities and/or equipment following feedback from
the independent experts. This also happened in the IMI but it did not affect
total participations before and after the evaluation procedures ended.

The
overall success rate increased from 35.8 % in 2011 to 45% confirming that
JUs are a tool to fund industry-driven highly specific research. This also
demonstrates that the involved stakeholders are getting more and more
acquainted with the modus operandi of these new instruments.

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

Participation in the FCH
JU is diverse, with all stakeholders being represented in funded projects: 59
research organisations (around 27%), 31 universities (around 14%), 68 large
industries (around 31%), 55 SMEs (around 25%) and 3 public bodies among its 222
participants. The participation of public bodies is linked to the demonstration
activities of the JU, where collaborations at national and regional level are
of importance.

IMI has attracted mostly
industry representatives (66, i.e. 59%) both from large companies (EFPIA) and
SMEs; universities, research organisations and regulators accounted for a
further 46 participants (around 41%).

Generally, Clean Sky,
ARTEMIS and ENIAC proved less attractive for public bodies. SMEs are well
represented in Clean Sky, with 94 (38%) participations, and in ARTEMIS and
ENIAC, with 106 (32.5%) and 58 (23%) respectively.

Overall, SMEs represent
about 30% of the total participations and large industry account for another
31,1 %.

The
following table shows participations by category for the five JTI JUs. Note
that:

·
in the IMI, EFPIA companies — which are
‘private for profit’ — are not included. Overall, since the IMI was set up,
EFPIA companies have accounted for 363 participations in funded projects, while
in 2012 they accounted for about 50;

·
in ARTEMIS, universities and research
organisations are normally considered together and the table follows that
practice.

Type of participant || Clean Sky || FCH || IMI || ARTEMIS || ENIAC ||

Public bodies || || 3 || || || || 3

Research organisations || 53 || 59 || 18 || 108 || 39 || 277[15]

Higher or secondary education || 54 || 31 || 25 || 42 || 152

Private for profit (excl. education) || 44 || 68 || \*\*[16] || 112 || 108 || 332

SMEs || 94 || 55 || 16 || 106 || 58 || 329

Others || || 6 || 3 || || || 9

Total || 245 || 222 || 62 || 326 || 247 || 1102

However,
when looking at participation and the representativeness of figures, it should
be borne in mind that targeted results are expected in each technological
sector.

2.5.        Innovation
and SMEs involvement

The
current five JTI JUs are an innovative model for implementing research. The
partnership between the public and the private sectors is a significant step
forward in transferring research results to the market. The JTI 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.

We
can highlight some points that allow the JTI JUs’ innovation performance in
2012 to be appreciated, but the report does not aim to present a detailed
analysis of this aspect of the JUs.

The
concept of Technology Readiness Level (TRL), which
emerged in the aeronautic and space sectors, has been extensively used by the
Clean Sky JU in evaluating projects submitted to ascertain the maturity of the
technology[17]. ENIAC has also introduced the concept of TRL, in particular for
projects selected for funding as part of the KET Pilot Line. This was the topic
of the second ENIAC call in 2012 and proposals were expected to demonstrate a
TRL of between 4 and 8.

In
ARTEMIS, an index of maturity and an index of SME
engagement in proposals has been used in the last two years to help identify
those projects which can best contribute to developing innovation from
research. ARTEMIS also interacts with Centres of Innovation Excellence (CoIE),
which are multi-country, multi-organisation, interconnected R&D operators
whose aim is successful innovation in a given market (e.g. intelligent
building). The ARTEMIS Innovation Pilot Projects (AIPPs) concept was introduced
in 2012. Projects funded under the AIPP are expected to cover the full
innovation chain, from the proof of concept and prototyping stage to potential
applications in industrial platform.

A
number of prototyping and demonstration activities were
presented in the Annual Implementation Plans for the JTIs. In particular, the
FCH increased the number of demonstrators, namely in the area of "Early
Markets" and called for proof of concept at system level in the area of
"Stationary Power Generation and CHP". These two technology areas,
together with "Transportation and Refuelling Infrastructures",
feature large demonstration projects.

In
Clean Sky, in the technological area of Green Regional Aircraft, the INDUCER
project successfully delivered a laboratory-scale demonstration on "smart
repairs" and further research topics launched in 2012 calls have addressed
the demonstration and testing phases.

Within
the FCH, a Danish SME has developed and facilitated the commercialisation of
its two innovative products: H2Station (Hydrogen refuelling stations for
automotive, bus and materials handling applications), and H2Drive (Fuel cell
systems for materials handling vehicles such as forklift trucks and airport tow
tractors).

Two
new projects received ENIAC’s ‘Innovation Award’, introduced in 2011 to
recognise projects approaching completion or recently completed that produced
the most impactful innovation. These were IMPROVE and LENS, which are generally
considered success stories. IMPROVE, in particular, boosted cooperation between
manufacturers and research organisations in Europe and has produced over 90
publications.

In
the area of key standards and tools for drug development, IMI is supporting
RAPP-ID, a project that successfully developed a device and protocol related to
breath-borne aerosol sampling currently at the patenting stage.

FCH
has currently submitted 13 patents, according to its operational indicators for
2012.

The
JTI JUs continued to encourage SME participation, with improved results in
2012: SMEs accounted for about 30 % of successful participants[18]
and 329 of the organisations involved. Of the five JTI JUs, Clean Sky proved
most attractive to SMEs, which accounted for 38[19]%
of total participation in the JU, followed by ARTEMIS (32.5 %); IMI (26 %);
FCH (25 %) and ENIAC (23 %).

As regards to the Governance in the FCH JU, where the sector is still young and based on a high
number of SME's, it should be noted that the Industry Grouping (IG) has grown
from 48 members in 2007 till 68 at present and
60% of these members are SME's. Furthermore, one of the IG seats in the
Governing Board is reserved for an SME.

The
amount of EU funding which went to SMEs in 2012 varied from one JTI JU to
another: IMI allocated over €55 million to SMEs in call 5 to implement the
major European Lead Factory project (EUC2LID) and about €93 million overall.
Clean Sky, FCH and ENIAC averaged €22 million and ARTEMIS about €10 million.

The
table below gives a detailed overview of SME participation in the five JTI JUs,
both in proposals submitted and in projects selected for funding 2012.
Globally, SMEs submitted fewer proposals than in 2011 but performed better in
terms of success rate: this has increased overall from 35 % to 44 %.

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

Clean Sky || 186 || 94

IMI || 104 || 16

FCH || 160 || 55

ARTEMIS || 225 || 106

ENIAC || 70 || 58

Total || 745 || 329

The
number of participating SMEs confirms that JTI JUs offer a good range of
research activities tailored to SMEs, in which their contributions are
essential to achieving more general research and innovation objectives. Progress
in 2012 has shown the JTI JUs to be a powerful tool to foster innovation and
they are expected to contribute further under the Horizon 2020 programme.

2.6.        Participation
across Countries

The five JTI JUs involved an
average of 20 Member States in the implementation of the SRAs in 2012,
as in the previous year. The IMI demonstrated a significant increase in the
number of countries involved: eight new countries took part in projects
selected for funding by the end of the year. On the other hand, Clean Sky and
FCH witnessed a decline in geographic diversity. As shown in the table below,
the top players come from Member States that have an advanced industrial
environment surrounded by dynamic systems of SMEs, research centres and
universities. These countries are: Germany (201 participations) France (182), the United Kingdom (139), Italy (126), the Netherlands (101), Spain (92), Austria (19), Sweden (18) and Belgium (13). Amongst the nine countries France and Germany participated to calls for proposals in all five JTI JUs. In particular in IMI and
FCH the top players confirmed their ranking positions: the United Kingdom kept the lead in IMI and Germany led in FCH.

|| N° of countries participating in projects selected for funding || Top players[20]

Clean Sky || 17 || Spain, the United Kingdom, Italy, France, Germany

IMI || 23 || The United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, France, Sweden

FCH || 21 || Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Belgium

ARTEMIS || 18 || Spain, Italy, France, Germany, the Netherlands

ENIAC || 20 || France, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Austria

In
terms of the international dimension in 2012, the number of partners involved
from outside the EU was small. Only four organisations from the United States were selected for funding, three in the IMI and one in FCH. This represents a
percentage well below the 3 % reported in 2011.

EU-12
countries’ access to JTI JU research activities improved overall: in general,
the newer Member States accounted for approximately 6 % of total
participation in funded projects, against 4 % in 2011. For the first time,
organisations from Lithuania were represented in a selected project.

The
table below shows the number of participations by country, in funded projects,
and the distribution in each JTI JU.

Country || IMI || FCH || Clean Sky || ARTEMIS || ENIAC || Total

Czech Republic || 1 || 3 || || 16 || 4 || 24

Cyprus || || || 3 || || || 3

Estonia || 1 || || || || || 1

Hungary || 3 || || 1 || || 2 || 6

Latvia || || || || 2 || || 2

Lithuania || || 1 || || || || 1

Malta || || || || || 2 || 2

Poland || || 5 || 2 || 9 || 3 || 19

Romania || || 1 || 1 || || 2 || 4

Slovak Republic || || || || || 2 || 2

Slovenia || || || || 4 || || 4

Total || 5 || 10 || 7 || 31 || 15 || 68

EU-12
participation was analysed for each JTI JU for the last two years of activity.

EU-12
participation in Clean Sky (2011–2012) by country and number of
participations.

EU-12 participation in IMI (2011–2012)
by country and number of participations.

EU-12 participation
in FCH (2011–2012) by country and number of participations.

EU-12 participation in ARTEMIS (2011–2012) by country and
number of participations.

EU-12 participation
in ENIAC (2011–2012) by country and number of participations.

EU-12
participation in FCH and ENIAC remained steady in the last two years and
increased slightly in the IMI, which shows the efforts made by the JTI JUs to
better represent less involved countries.

By
contrast, EU-12 participation decreased by about 25% in Clean Sky, which
performed better in 2011. ENIAC registered the most significant increase in
participation (roughly 26%).

Overall,
participation by the Czech Republic remained consistent and confirmed its
leading position in the group. Poland and Hungary followed with 19 and 6
participations respectively. The remaining nine countries were less well
represented and Bulgaria was not involved in funded projects.

Specific
efforts have been made to attract more participation. For example, in April
2012, Clean Sky interviewed a representative of the Polish Institute of
Aviation with the aim of highlighting the experience of Polish organisations as
project coordinator.

The IMI successfully
launched the Cooperative Medicine Development Course for postgraduate students
from Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Portugal and Turkey. This high-level educational experience is intended to provide the
best teaching in the field of pharmaceutics.

ARTEMIS organised an
International Brokerage Event in Prague in January 2012 and a Call Workshop in Gdansk, in May 2012, in cooperation with the European Institute of Technology (EIT) and
the National Contact Point.

JTI JUs research activities also proved attractive
to countries associated with the FP7, which accounted for approximately 5 %
of participations. The most active Associated Country in 2012 was Switzerland, followed by Norway and Israel, with 58 participations altogether, these countries
account for 92% of participations in the five JTI JUs. Croatia, which joined the EU in July 2013, was successfully involved in FCH activities. The
IMI and FCH attracted the highest number of participants from Associated
Countries, followed by Clean Sky, ENIAC and ARTEMIS. Further assessments of
associated country involvement in ARTEMIS and ENIAC should also take into
account their tripartite model of funding.

An overview of the involvement of FP7 associated
countries in JTI JU research activities is provided below.

Country || IMI || FCH || Clean Sky || ARTEMIS || ENIAC || Total

Croatia || || 1 || || || || 1

Iceland || 3 || || || || || 3

Israel || 4 || || || || 4 || 8

Norway || 2 || 5 || || 3 || 3 || 13

Switzerland || 11 || 12 || 12 || || 2 || 37

Turkey || || || || 1 || || 1

Total || 20 || 18 || 12 || 4 || 9 || 63

2.7.        Grant portfolio

The grant agreements (GAs) portfolio
varies from one JTI JU to another, together with the types of projects, the
size of consortia and the budget allocated. JTI JUs may not only develop
collaborative research but also support networking activities (e.g. FCH) with
coordination and support actions or tailored high level training (e.g. IMI and
FCH), where consortium size is naturally smaller and its composition different.

The overall number of grant agreements
signed in 2012 increased slightly (151 GAs were signed in 2011), while the
activities for which results are available or GAs ended naturally increased by
about 20 %, as programme implementation advanced.

|| GAs signed in 2012 || GAs for which activities ended in 2012

Clean Sky || 102 || 55

IMI || 11 || 0

FCH || 33 || 5

ARTEMIS || 9 || 11

ENIAC || 11 || 8

Total || 166 || 79

Clean Sky’s GAs remain the most distinctive. The number of projects
funded and GAs signed is bigger, but with fewer partners in each project and
relatively small smaller budgets per project. Clean Sky calls allow
single-partner projects, particularly when the research topics are 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 € 408 000 and a funding rate of 65.3 %. The usual duration of
projects is also rather limited (12 to 24 months average) since results have to
be achieved in a short time and be integrated in the correspondent
technological area. The JU contribution to the 102 GAs signed in 2012 is of
about € 44 million. So, while the number of GAs to be signed and the
management of reporting call for considerable efforts, coordination with and
between partners is less burdensome.

FCH
consortia have an average of eight partners and a JU contribution of €3
million. The JU contribution to the 33 GAs signed in 2012 is of about €117
million. Management effort is likely to be similar to those engaged in FP7
cooperative research projects.

The
IMI’s project portfolio typically features 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 over 20, taking
EFPIA and non-EFPIA organisations together. In 2012, the average budget of the
GAs signed was roughly € 20.6 million (IMI JTI JU contributions only). The
IMI has also a stock of 39 GAs signed since it was set up and no results from
completed projects. Note that a small number of projects, which were close to
obtaining results or proved worth continuing with their scope revised were
funded through the new ENSO calls

ARTEMIS
involves on average 21 partners in a consortium with an average budget of €16
million. The JU contribution to the 9 GAs signed in 2012 was about €24 million.
In ENIAC, the average number of partner organisations involved is 21, with a
budget of about €13.5 million.

For the IMI, ARTEMIS and ENIAC, the effort required to coordinate
the relevant number of partners in a given consortium are likely to be offset
by the limited administrative interaction required because the number of
projects selected for funding is small.

2.8.        Actions
performed by Commission in 2012

2.8.1.     Stakeholder
consultations

Stakeholders
were consulted by the European Commission in 2012 with a view to extending the
JTI JUs’ mandate under Horizon 2020. These consultations are part of the impact
assessment accompanying the legislative proposals for JTIs under the new
research and innovation framework programme. In the case of ARTEMIS and ENIAC,
a single consultation was carried out, as the Commission proposal foresees
merging them into a single initiative dealing with electronic components and
systems. The consultations were carried out using different tools but all
included public web-based consultation, the results of which are presented in
detail in the impact assessments for the proposals. Other tools used were:

1.           Individual position
papers by stakeholders, JTI JU members and JTI JU advisory bodies;

2.           Hearings/meetings with
the wider stakeholders’ community (some general, some targeted);

3.           Meetings with
representatives of Member States and Associated Countries;

4.           Surveys amongst
participants in on-going projects;

5.           Independent experts’
advice;

6.           Specific studies on
future trends and impact of the JTI JU in the specific sector;

7.           Identification and
analysis of economic data, carrying out literature searches and assessing
results from R&D projects.

Overall, the
consultations demonstrate the clear European added value of public private
partnerships. Stakeholders consider that the sectors in which the JUs operate
are key to addressing societal challenges and industrial competitiveness but
that it is impossible to rely solely on market mechanisms to achieve major
innovations closer to the market. Therefore, they consider it appropriate to
set up public private partnerships in these areas under Horizon 2020, as they
are contributing to achieving the critical mass required for technological
breakthrough and large-scale investment in research, development and demonstration,
and to bridging the gap between academic and industrial research. Stakeholders
also consider that Member States’ support would not be sufficient.

Having lighter
structures and increasing SMEs’ involvement are mentioned as points to be
considered for future improvement.

A profile of the
stakeholders emerges from the over 500 replies submitted through the online
questionnaires by the deadline.

The
public consultation on Clean Sky, FCH and IMI JUs took place from 11 July to 4
October 2012. The number and types of respondents varied from one JU to
another, as outlined below. Information on the results of the consultation on
ARTEMIS and ENIAC JUs is presented separately because the relevant online
consultations were followed a different path.

·
91 replies were received by the closing date of the consultation on Clean
Sky.

Replies
came from at least 17 different countries, including five from Associated
Countries. France and Spain were the best represented (with 23.1 % each),
followed by Germany (15.4 %). Other countries included Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Italy, Sweden and the United Kingdom. The country profile was
generally in line with participation in calls for proposals, particularly for Spain, France and Germany.

·
127 replies were received by the closing date of the consultation on FCH.

Replies
came from at least 22 different countries, including five from Associated
Countries. France was the best represented (with 30 % of respondents),
followed by Germany and the United Kingdom (13 % each). Participation by
Nordic and EU-12 countries was generally low. This does not match the general
pattern of participation in calls for proposals launched by the FCH JU, which
are more widely representative. This generally means less dominance by one
country, while in the consultation by far the highest number of respondents
were from France.

·
134 replies were received by the closing date of the consultation on IMI.

Replies
mainly came from six EU countries — Belgium, France, Germany, Portugal, Spain and United Kingdom — which accounted for 66 % of replies. There was at least
one reply from 19 EU countries. Under ‘Other’ (non-EU) several replies were
from Associated Countries, e.g. Switzerland and Norway. This reflects these two
countries’ recurrent participation in calls for proposals. Note that the six
countries that answered most include those which participate most in funded
projects.

·
For ARTEMIS and ENIAC,
the online consultation was conducted between 20 July and 12 October 2012 and 151
replies were received.

Replies
mainly came from the 23 European countries involved in the current JTIs, with
more than 20 % from Germany and France. The industrial associations that
are currently members of the ARTEMIS and ENIAC JUs responded for their
constituencies (representing respectively 206 and 126 members) which gave their
views more weight. Germany and France were also amongst the countries
performing best in calls for proposals from ARTEMIS and ENIAC.

The
table below presents the response to the open consultations by JU and by type
of respondent. ‘Other’ includes organisations from non-EU countries. Individual
citizens accounted for over 20 % of responses in three consultations out
of four (Clean Sky, IMI, and FCH): this might imply better public awareness of
JTI JUs, too. An average of 12 % of SMEs replied to the online
questionnaires. Universities are included in the category ‘research
organisations’ and, surprisingly, none of them replied to the consultation on
Clean Sky.

Respondent by type || Clean Sky || IMI || FCH || ENIAC & ARTEMIS

Individual Citizens || 25.3% || 21.64% || 27.6% || 1%

SME s || 10% || 8.21% || 18.9% || 11%

Research Organisation || 0% || 12.69% || 18.9% || 39%

Large Business || 34.2% || 7.46% || 14.17% || 26%

Business Organisation || 3% || 6.72% || 6.3% || 2%

NGOs || 6% || 21.64% || 5.51% || 0%

Other || 15.4% || 14.93% || 4.72% || 13%

Member State Administration || 6% || 5.22% || 2.36% || 8%

Regional/ Local Administration || 0% || 1.49% || 1.57% || 0%

|| 100% || 100% || 100% || 100%

2.8.2.     Cost-benefit analysis of the JUs

In preparation of the new framework programme for research and
innovation, Horizon 2020, the Commission assessed its current implementing
modes, including the JTIs. This involved assessing their impact on the relevant
technology sectors, and carrying out a cost-benefit analysis of the JUs as
administrative structures.

The
cost-benefit analysis was included in the Impact Assessment performed in 2012
on public-private partnerships set up under Article
187 TFEU for Horizon 2020. It
first examined the current situation of JUs in comparison with implementation
by DG RTD. Then it considered possible scenarios for the use of JTI JUs under
Horizon 2020 and relevant key features, such as the cost impacts of
simplification measures and derogations.

The
CBA covers the cost efficiency of the administrative structures set up to
implement the JTIs’ strategic research agendas (e.g. setting them up,
supervision and winding down), not of the instrument as such (i.e. programming,
project management, etc.).

The
analysis revealed a number of areas where the next framework programme and the
next generation of JUs could be improved, as follows.

·
The suitability of
the general legal framework of the JUs.

The legal framework has proven less suited to the needs of
relatively small structures like the JUs. Generally, administrative procedures
are not geared to small entities. Examples include: high administrative
overheads (on average 50 % of JU staff are administrative compared with 22 %
in the rather larger European agencies[21],
also set up as EU bodies), procedures for staff recruitment and procurement,
financial regulation limits, sharing of services between JUs and governing
boards that tend to be involved in administrative decisions rather than focused
on strategic issues.

The optimal balance between the legal framework and efficiency of
the JU may not have been reached because the limited size of the administrative
structure (JU) needed to support the JTI as a means of implementing the PPP was
not sufficiently taken into consideration. Under the next Framework Programme,
the Commission envisages a number of measures to move closer to the optimal
balance by amending the legal basis for future JUs, including granting
derogations to the Horizon 2020 rules on participation and dissemination
specifically for Article 187 initiatives and proposed simplification measures
under Horizon 2020.

·
The setting up costs of the
JUs.

This
phase was a resource-intensive experience for all parties involved in terms of: building, recruitment, service level agreements (SLAs)
and transfer of the initial project portfolio from the Commission to the JUs. Moreover,
the average time taken for the JUs to reach financial autonomy was 725 days[22].

The analysis concludes
that, while the cost of setting up the current JUs was a one-off cost, the
costs of renewing their mandates should be covered by the efforts to set up
Horizon 2020 and the cost of their current supervision. The CBA also assumes
that, if a new JU is set up under Horizon 2020, the cost will be a one-off
expense again and this could be estimated at about € 500 000 a year. In the
light of the actual proposals for JUs under Horizon 2020, the set up cost will
be lower, through learning from the experience under FP7.

·
The cost of monitoring and supervising by
the Commission services, including the programming of the JUs.

Supervising
the JUs has been resource-intensive for the Commission. In particular,
the effort involved in supporting the work of the governing boards was
underestimated.

In
sum, use of a JU to implement a JTI of the current size is roughly cost neutral
for the Commission, both in terms of the JU’s setting up, operation and winding
down procedure and in terms of managing any FP7 legacy, as long as 50 %
of the administrative running costs are being covered by the private partner.
To secure cost-neutrality for Horizon 2020, the size of the JTI programmes has
to increase, cost-reducing simplifications must be implemented and
cost-increasing derogations from Horizon 2020 provisions avoided.

Conversely,
the benefits of a JTI JU are non-monetary, e.g. shared decision-making
with private partners and defragmentation of research and innovation
environment in given sectors, which are key for European competitiveness. There
may be monetary benefits from the JTI, such as leveraging additional funding
for research and innovation, but these were addressed in the Impact Assessment
on the JTIs.

2.8.3.     Preparatory work for the second interim evaluation

The
Council Regulations setting up the JTI JUs require two interim evaluations. The
first was performed on time and covered in the 2011 report. The second is due
by 31 December 2013 and will, in particular, assess the implementation of
previous expert recommendations on a number of issues. These are: the need to
reinforce coordination and complementarity with FP7 and national programmes and
funds; the need to improve communication and to enhance the visibility of JTI
actions aimed at the public and at international level; the need for a coherent
system of data collection and performance monitoring through a set of key performance
indicators.

In
2012, JTI JUs (Clean Sky, FCH and IMI) jointly cooperated with Commission staff
on preparatory work for the second interim evaluation. This concerned in
particular the provision of data, statistics and information on programme operations
and the inputs required to define consistent terms of reference. Their final
reports on the second interim evaluation should be ready in autumn 2013.

ARTEMIS
and ENIAC began the evaluation in late September 2012 and appointed six
independent experts, coordinated by a panel chair and supported by a recorder,
to evaluate the JTIs’ relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and research
quality. These evaluation criteria will also favour reflection on merging
ARTEMIS and ENIAC. Initial conclusions were produced in early 2013 and the
final report on the second interim evaluation is expected in November 2013.

3.           CLEAN
SKY JOINT UNDERTAKING

3.1.        Introduction to the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking (CS JU)

The Clean Sky Joint Undertaking (hereinafter
referred to as "CS JU") has been established by Council Regulation
(EC) 71/2008 of 20 December 2007 as a public-private partnership between the
aeronautic industry and the European Union for a period up to 31 December 2017.
In its set-up, the European Union is represented by the European Commission and
the Aeronautics industry is represented by the leaders of the Integrated
Technology Demonstrators (ITDs)[23]
and their associates. The ITD leaders are twelve industrial organisations that
jointly committed to perform, complete and exploit the Clean Sky programme[24].
Each leads or co-leads a specific Integrated Technology Demonstrator. The
associate members are seventy-four private or public organisations representing
industry, academia, SMEs and research centres, selected through a transparent
and fair process as permanent members of the Clean Sky JU. They committed to
perform and complete certain essential work packages in one or more ITDs for
the duration of Clean Sky.

The main objective of Clean Sky JU is to
develop environmental technologies impacting all flying segments of commercial
aviation in order to contribute to the ACARE targets[25]
for reduction of emissions and noise in air transport in Europe[26],
thus contributing to improving the air transport system worldwide. This objective
is achieved through coordination of research activities that pool resources
from the public and private sectors, and that are carried out by the main
aeronautical stakeholders (ITD leaders and associates) directly and by partners
selected through open and competitive calls for proposals.

The CS JU is built upon six different technical
areas called Integrated Technology Demonstrators (ITD), which develop
innovative technologies covering all segments of commercial aviation. Each ITD
is led by two founding members and operates through a matrix structure. The
ITDs are listed below:

Smart Fixed
Wing Aircraft (SFWA) led by Airbus and SAAB – focused on active wing
technologies that sense the airflow and adapt their shape as required, as well
as on new aircraft configurations to optimally incorporate these novel wing
concepts;

Green
Regional Aircraft (GRA) led by Alenia Aeronautica and EADS-CASA – dealing with
low-weight configurations and technologies using smart structures, low-noise
configurations;

Green Rotorcraft
(GRC) led by Agusta-Westland and Eurocopter – focused on innovative rotor
blades and engine installation for noise reduction, lower airframe drag, diesel
engine and electrical systems for fuel consumption reduction and
environment-friendly flight paths;

Sustainable
and Green Engines (SAGE) led by Rolls-Royce and Safran – integrating
technologies for low noise and lightweight low pressure systems, high
efficiency, low nitrous oxides and low weight core;

Systems for
Green Operations (SGO) led by Thales Avionics and Liebherr Aerospace – coping
with all-electric aircraft equipment and systems architectures, thermal
management, capabilities for green trajectories and improved ground operations;

Eco-Design
(ED) led by Dassault Aviation and Fraunhofer Gesellschaft – addressing the full
lifecycle of materials and components, focusing on issues such as optimal use
of raw materials, decreasing the use of non-renewable materials, natural
resources, energy, emission of noxious effluents and recycling. Multiple links
for coherence and data exchange is ensured between the different ITDs.

Complementing these six ITDs, the Technology
Evaluator (TE) is a dedicated evaluation platform cross-positioned within the
CS project structure. The TE is co-led by DLR and Thales and includes major
European aeronautical research organisations as members. Its objective is to
assess the environmental impact of the technologies developed by the ITDs and
to assess the result of the overall Clean Sky's project output.

3.1.1.     Budget

The total budget of the CS JU is equally
divided between the EU and its private members and is set to a maximum of € 1.6
billion. The EU contribution is maximum € 800 million, paid from the budget
appropriation allocated to the theme "Transport" of the Specific
Programme "Cooperation" under the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7)
of the European Union (2007-2013)[27],
while the industry should commit the resources at least equal to the EU
contribution.

3.1.2.     Governing structure

The CS JU governance is composed of three
bodies: the Governing Board, the Executive Director and the ITD Steering
Committees. It is also supported by three advisory groups: the Scientific and
Technological Advisory Board (STAB), the National States Representatives Group
(NSRG) and the General Forum.

The Governing
Board is composed of the 12 ITDs leaders (the members), the European Union represented by the Commission and 6 Associates.

The Executive Director is the legal
representative and the chief executive for the day-to-day management of the CS
JU in accordance with the decisions of the Governing Board in line with Article
6 of the CS Statutes.

Two advisory bodies provide further input,
recommendations and play a coordination role:

The National States Representative Group
(NSRG) is the focal point on Clean Sky at the national level; it operates
as a network of national representatives of each EU Member State and of each
other country associated to the Framework Programme. The NSRG ensures the
organisation and the outcome of the calls are transparent and fair, assists
with the organisation of Info days and dedicated technical workshops, reviews
information and provides opinions on the programme progress to the Clean Sky
JU, contributes to the update of the strategic orientation of the programme and
the involvement of SMEs in Clean Sky.

The Scientific and Technological Advisory
Board (STAB) is composed of high level scientists and engineers and aims at
advising the JU on matters related to scientific and technological analysis,
environmental effects forecast, and societal aspects and economics.

The General Forum is a statutory
assembly open to all members and partners of the Clean Sky programme.

3.2.        Overall progress since the establishment of clean sky
jti/ju

3.2.1.     Programme implementation overall

Clean Sky JU gained operational capacity to
implement its budget on 16 November 2009. Until that point, the European
Commission was responsible for the establishment and the initial operations of
the Clean Sky JU in collaboration with the other private founding members and
in accordance with Article 16 of the Council Regulation establishing the Clean
Sky JU. During the first years of independent functioning the CS JU achieved
progress in both increasing its operational capacity and in running the Clean
Sky operations.

Since its establishment, Clean Sky supports
research activities carried out by the members of Clean Sky and by partners
selected following open and competitive Calls for Proposals, independent
evaluations and negotiations leading to the conclusion of grant agreements with
partners.

Built upon 6 different Integrated Technology
Demonstrators (ITDs), Clean Sky JU ensures the continuous progress in all
target technologies. From the beginning of the programme, each ITD has
developed the work plan by identifying and selecting the most promising
technologies to achieve the objectives based on the ACARE targets for 2020, and
to design the associated technology demonstrators to be tested in the second
part of the programme. Currently, the development in each ITD is going
according to the plans. In 2011, a change in scope of the first engine
demonstrator related to the Open Rotor configuration was introduced and the
programme has been revised and adapted to this change accordingly, including
the impact on the planned flight activity which is part of SFWA ITD. In March
2012, a revised Development Plan was adopted by the Governing Board in order to
update the strategic targets of the JU.

Concerning the Technology Evaluator, created in
2008 with the objective to assess the environmental impacts and benefits of the
overall Clean Sky's project output, the general requirements were defined in
2009. They were reviewed and detailed in 2011, paying particular attention to
the first assessment cycle and to the needs of the trade-off studies. In March
2012, the Technology Evaluator completed its first full-scale simulation and
performed the evaluation of Clean Sky’s progress at all three assessment levels
(Aircraft, Airport, and Air Transport System). Preliminary results show that
with research that has been started within the programme, the objectives of
Clean Sky will be achieved. The programme has a potential to reduce CO2 and NOx
emission by 20-40% depending on the aircraft type and bring significant noise reduction.

At the end of 2012, Clean Sky, according to its
Regulation and Statutes defining 25% of the EU funding to be allocated to
partners selected via Calls for Proposals, has launched 13 calls with the total
of 170 M€ EU funding. The topics in each call are defined by each ITD. The
calls serve the dual purpose of widening the participation in Clean Sky to
further organisations and to identify R&D performers who will participate
in the mainstream activities of Clean Sky.

As aircraft fuel economy is also influenced by
a flight trajectory management strategy, CS JU has established links with the
SESAR Joint Undertaking which investigates Air Traffic Management (ATM)
technologies in line with the "Single Sky" initiative of the European
Commission. These links are established via the Technology Evaluator, as well
as via the SGO ITD that develops the avionics equipment interfacing with ATM,
and via management meetings involving the relevant staff members of the two JUs
(i.e. for Clean Sky, the SGO Project Officer, up to the two Executive
Directors. As mentioned above, a joint review / audit was performed in a
leading company of both JUs, in order to check the quality and the
comprehensiveness of the interface between the two programmes in the relevant
work packages.

In the 4th Quarter of 2010 a first interim
assessment of the Clean Sky JU was performed by a Panel of six members
designated by the European Commission. The report was delivered to the European
Commission and the JU in January 2011. A second interim evaluation is to be
completed in the autumn of 2013 and the panel has started its activities in the
spring 2013.

3.2.2.     Grant agreements with members

The majority of the work inside the Clean Sky
JU is carried out by its industrial members under the form of grant agreements
with named beneficiaries. According to Article 13 (2) (a) of Council Regulation
(EC) 71/2008 setting up the Joint Undertaking, an amount of up to € 400 million
shall be allocated to the ITD leaders and up to € 200 million – to the associate
members. In turn, the ITD leaders and associates engage to contribute resources
at least matching the EU contribution.

The Clean Sky JU signed the first seven grant
agreements with its members (referred to as "GAM") in 2008: - one for
each of the six ITDs, - a supplementary one for the activities of the
Technology Evaluator.

These grant agreements will remain in force for
the whole duration of Clean Sky, until 31 December 2017. Each year, an
amendment is signed in order to update the annual description of work with the
corresponding JU financial contribution. No new named beneficiaries joined the
CS JU in 2012. The commitments amounted to €17 M€ in 2008; €70.6 M in 2009,
€75.7 M in 2010, €103.16 M in 2011 and 111.94 M 2012.

3.2.3.     Description of the 'Integrated Technology Demonstrators'
(ITD) activities

The detailed progress of activities of each ITD
in 2012 is presented in Annexe I.

3.3.        Implementation of calls for proposals (CFPs) overall

At least 25 % of the EU funding to the CS JU
must be allocated to Partners selected via Calls for Proposals. Topics are
defined by each ITD. They serve the dual purpose of widening the participation
to Clean Sky to other organisations and to identify R&D performers called
in to participate to the mainstream activities of Clean Sky. Partners selected
via Calls for Proposals are being funded in compliance with the upper funding
limits set in the Rules of Participation of the 7th Framework Programme.

Activities to be carried out by Partners
selected via CFPs are an essential part of the core R&D activities of Clean
Sky and have to lock in with the activities carried out by CS JU members other
than the European Community.

What is peculiar for Clean Sky Calls for
Proposals is that the content of the activities is much more focused, i.e. they
are topics and not research themes, with limited duration and specific targeted
results expected (at higher Technology Readiness Levels). The topics are
prepared by the Topic managers of the ITDs and checked by the Project Officers
at the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking (JU).

Another difference from collaborative research
calls is that the budget is defined by the topic value, and not by the maximum
funding: this to allow a wider participation from all types of entities,
independently from the actual eligibility for funding. Furthermore, a single
entity can present proposals, with no need for a consortium to be created.
Differently from Collaborative research, there is always one winner per topic,
provided suitable proposals are submitted and positively evaluated.

Clean Sky Calls for Proposals results, from
Call 1 to Call 13, at a glance:

Total cost: 260 M€ Total funding: 196.8 M€ Total running projects: 347 Average funding rate: 65.3 % Number of topics successfully applied to: 417 Number of winning participations: 808 Average number of participants by topic: 1.938 Average budget by project: 408 000€ Number of partners: 462 (NB: there are less partners than “successful participations”, because of entities being selected for funding more than once, in several topics along time) Average SME share: 33.7 % in funding Average Academia share: 18 % in funding.

In addition to that, the proposals received at
deadline in the 13 calls launched so far are 1210. Considering the
geographic distribution of successful organisations since the setting up of
Clean Sky, the overall picture is presented below.

The best players, both in terms of coordinators
and participants, are the UK (with a total of 101 participations overall), France (with a total of 86 participations) and Germany (82). Germany furthermore, shows high
performance in coordinating projects, ranking 52 only beyond UK that coordinates 54 projects.

Figure
1: Overall geographic distribution of successful organisations (by coordinator
and participant)

3.4.        Outline of the main activities and achievements during
2012

3.4.1.     Running of the JU

3.4.1.1.  HR
Issues

Clean Sky JU is composed of 18 temporary agents
and 6 contract agents (24 staff). Due to the rejection of an increase of posts
in its MSPP 2012-2014 and 2013-2015, the JU could not enlarge in staff numbers.
However, in order to face the expected increase of workload, 3 interim staff
have been hired.

The hiring concerned the functions:

1 Administrative Assistant

2 Project Support Officers to help the Project
Officers in the management of projects and the calls for proposals.

In 2012 the implementation of research
activities implied for a team of 7 Project officers, 2.5 Financial Officers, 1
Legal Officer also the processing of a greater number of administrative tasks,
these were:

Negotiated GAPs:

–
Amendments of grant agreements: GAPS= 45, GAMs =
9

–
Payments to Partners: 142

–
Payments to Members: 14 (covering individual
payments to 210 beneficiaries)

In addition to that, the JU administrates all
of its running costs internally, e.g. salaries, mission costs, utility
invoices, experts reimbursements (over 250 individual payments),

In 2012, 16 of the Temporary Agents posts
available from the initial Governing Board decision were filled for the
full year. 2 Temporary Agents (Legal officer and Accounting officer) left and
were recruited within the year. 4 of the 6 contract agents’ positions were also
filled for the entire year.

In June, the CA FG IV (Ex-Post Audit Officer)
left and the recruitment was started. The successful applicant started his
contract on 15/1/13. In addition, in September one CA FG II (secretary) left
and the recruitment process initiated. This was still on-going at the end of
the year as the JU received over 500 applications for the position.

In August, the Communication Officer (TA AD7)
left and the recruitment of the successor was achieved in 2012; the selected
candidate started on 1/2/2013.

Clean Sky JU has also hired 2 trainees, one as
support for the Communication officer and one for the secretariat from
September, when the related posts were not occupied and the recruitment not
completed yet.

It is expected that the future workload will
keep increasing. This entails in particular an increasing of tasks as
highlighted below:

(1)
Number of grant agreements to be established for
Partners:

–
Calls 1 to 13: 88 GAPs are still in negotiation
(currently dealt with by 6 Project Officers who already have on average 50
on-going GAPs each to manage

–
Call 14: 54 projects are foreseen to be
negotiated

(2)
Total
number of interim or final reports from Partners to be treated:

–
508 for the currently existing GAPs - this
number is growing as more GAPs are signed.

–
428 for grants currently in negotiation or for
still on-going calls. The number is based on 171 topics to be launched at 2.5
periods per GAP.

–
Total reports foreseen: 936

(3)
Number
of grant agreements to be amended and monitored for Members (GAMs):

–
4 annual and 3 multiannual amendments (annexes
1A and 1B), which entail a total number of 210 beneficiaries

–
7 annual reports for a total number of 210
beneficiaries.

Since no long term solution is reachable under
the current situation, the JU has opted for hiring of interim staff as a
temporary mitigation action. Due to the lack of continuity and the inefficiency
caused by frequent changes of staff, the core business processes dealing with
the operational and financial grant management face important risks of
underperformance.

In parallel, Clean Sky has done considerable
efforts in lean management. These efforts have been focused mainly in
optimising IT costs by sharing the IT infrastructure maintenance and support
costs (e.g. common IT helpdesk and support contract) and the use of common
facilities such as meeting rooms and mail collection with 4 other JUs residing
in the same building.

A lean management of Staff has also resulted in
a saving of 4.5 posts, which would normally be covered individually in a
similar structure. This has been achieved as follow:

–
The most crucial HR processes (like recruitment
procedures, departures of staff, performance evaluation and the entire
administration of the existing team of more than 24 people) have been
centralised under the responsibility of the Assistant to the Executive
Director. This has avoided hiring a dedicated staff member in the position of
HR Assistant.

–
The pool of 3 secretaries has been reduced to 2
staff by allocating the tasks relating to calls support and administration to
one former secretary.

–
The Internal Auditor is performing a
coordination and management role for the increasingly heavy burden of the
ex-post audit process. This function is combined with the role of quality
management officer for the JU too.

3.4.1.2.  Legal
Issues

A revision of the GAMs model core Grant
Agreement and Annex II was carried out since the Commission has decided to
commit the remainder of the funds dedicated to the Specific ‘Cooperation’ Programme[28]
of the Decision No 1982/2006/EC on FP7[29]. As a
consequence of the multi-annuality and on the request of some ITDs, the Grant
Agreements for Members (‘GAMs’), concluded on a yearly basis, had to be revised
on the basis of the model of FP7 grant agreement. The revisions concerned the
reference to programme duration, reporting periods and payment modalities
(pre-financing, interim and final payments).

This global commitment allows the CS JU to
set-up multi-annual GAMs, either on a two, three or four-year basis, as from
2013 to 2017.

The JU left open the possibility of either
scheme (multi-annual GAM annual) to each ITD. The model Grant Agreement has
been adapted in such a way as to accommodate any solution. The revised models
were approved by Decision of the GB on 13 December 2012 (GB-2012-12-13-12 doc7a
Core GA-Annex II).

The Executive Director adopted a decision (no.
69) on the funding of third parties established outside the EU and FP7
Associated countries (ED Decision n° 69). The JU had to assess some requests
and, after consulting DG RTD, decided for legal certainty and equal treatment
of beneficiaries to establish a procedure to assess such cases.

The GB approved a transitional mandate to the
Executive Director to ensure overall continuity of the JTI activity and the
coordination of the preparatory phase of Clean Sky 2 Programme
(CS-GB-2012-12-13 doc9 Mandate\_ED\_CS2)

3.4.1.3.  ICT
Issues

The year 2012 was one of on-going development
in the area of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) in Clean Sky. In
addition to the regular support, software updates and refinements, some notable
advances were made.

Clean Sky joined several more framework
contracts of the European Commission for ICT hardware and service procurement.
This provides more options and flexibility to meet future requirements.

An agreement was concluded in January 2012 with
DG RTD to use their ICT facilities to access essential systems for key Clean
Sky staff in the event of a disaster situation impacting the Clean Sky ICT
facilities. These facilities were successfully tested in June 2012. This forms
an important part of the business continuity options from an IT perspective for
the CS JU.

A lot of progress was made in further
integration with the relevant IT systems of the European Commission. System
testing of access to the CORDA data warehouse was completed in 2012 ready for
implementation in January 2013.

A new IT system for managing the Grants for
Members was developed and implemented (GMT). This required the setup of a new server
to host the application and security measures and certification for the on-line
user interface.

Further measures were implemented to improve
the safekeeping of data. On the server side, a second tape drive was purchased
and installed to improve the speed and robustness of the tape backups. On the
client side, all desktops and laptops with upgraded with software to backup and
synchronise local data with the server to protect against PC hardware failure
or accidental deletion.

The Wi-Fi network was improved in several ways.
A large project was started to redesign the document file structure and the new
architecture was largely in place and more than two-thirds of the documents
migrated by the end of 2012.

A pilot for the uploading of electronic
versions of financial certificates (CFS) and reports (Form C) from partner
grant beneficiaries was successfully completed. In November 2012 automatic
generation of invoices was implemented in the contract management system for
partner grant beneficiaries (CPM / PDM). This is in turn integrated with the
budgetary system (ABAC) in which those invoices are now automatically created
at data entry level in the workflow.

Clean Sky staff has regularly participated in
the discussions concerning the new IT systems to be implemented for the CfP
process in Horizon2020. Clean Sky requirements have been integrated and the
first of those systems (SEP) has already been tested in 2012 and is now in use
for the submission of proposals in the 14th Clean Sky call for proposals.

Concerning management, a more formal structure
has been put in place for the governance of the ICT facilities shared between
the JTIs. A road map has been developed to plan the evolution of the ICT
facilities over the coming years.

3.4.1.4.  Procurements
and contract signed in the year 2012 (see table below)

Contractor || Selection procedure || Document Reference || Subject || Signature Date || Duration || Amount >5000 Euro

Start People/CSJU || Framework Contract IMI JU 2011.SC.137 || Purchase Order n°25 || Interim PO Assistant Exceptional activities long term || 24/01/2012 || 01/03/2012-31/08/2012 || 40.473

Start People/CSJU || Framework Contract IMI JU 2011.SC.137 || Purchase Order n°26 || Interim Communication Assistant || 24/01/2012 || 4h/day for 4 weeks 30/01/2012-31/03/2012 || 5.622,4

PriceWaterHouseCoopers EU Services EESV || Framework Contract association to BUDG FC || No: 30-CE-0227323–Lot1; Specific Contract No: 01\_01\_29 || Accounting advice and assistance to the contracting authority (2011 final accounts) || 07/05/2012 || 20 days (from 07/05/12) || Max 25124

PriceWaterHouseCoopers EU Services EESV || Framework Contract association to BUDG FC || No: 30-CE-0227323–Lot1; Specific Contract No: 01\_01\_29 || Accounting advice and assistance to the contracting authority (2011 final accounts) || 13/06/2012 || 8.5 days (from 13/06/12) || 11.492

Framework Contract IMI JU 2011.SC.137 || Framework Contract IMI JU 2011.SC.137 || Purchase Order n°65 || Interim Legal Officer || 11/05/2012 || 01/08/2012-31/10/2012 || 21.922

Start People/CSJU || Framework Contract IMI JU 2011.SC.137 || Purchase Order n°86 || Interim PO Assistant Exceptional activities long term || 11/05/2012 || 01/08/2012-21/12/2012 || 33.726

Start People/CSJU || Framework Contract IMI JU 2011.SC.137 || Framework Contract IMI JU 2011.SC.137 Purchase Order n°100 || Interim PO Assistant Exceptional activities long term || 30/05/2012 || 04/06/2012-31/08/2012 || 48.902

Start People/CSJU || Framework Contract IMI JU 2011.SC.137 || Purchase Order n°145 || Interim PO Assistant Exceptional activities long term || 07/08/2012 || 01/08/2012-30/09/2012 || 13.490

Start People/CSJU || Framework Contract IMI JU 2011.SC.137 || Purchase Order n°147 || Financial Assistant Exceptional activities long term || 03/08/2012 || 20/08/2012-21/12/2012 || 23.719

Start People/CSJU || Framework Contract IMI JU 2011.SC.137 || Purchase Order n°148bis || Interim PO Assistant Exceptional activities long term || 01/09/2012 || 01/10/2012-21/12/2012 || 20 235.6

JK Events/CSJU || Framework Contract SCIC-D1-C.C 001/2008 || Purchase Order No. 164 || General Forum 2012 || 07/09/2012 || until 27/09/2012 || 33.341,3

EFE Group/CSJU || Framework Contract EC n°HR/H3/PR/2011/012 lot1/2 || Purchase Order No. 236 || Team Building 2012 Trainings || 21/11/2012 || 2 days || 5.855

Hotel Thon/CSJU || Low Value Negotiated Procedure - art. 91 FR, 126 IR || Clean Sky 2012/10 Service contract || CS2 Consultation event || 5/12/2012 || 3 days || 26.968

FMD Consulting SPRL/CSJU || Low Value Negotiated Procedure - art. 91 FR, 126 IR || Contract Clean Sky 2012 || Ex-post audit service contact || 17/12/2012 || 8 days || 5 000

Nuxos Publishing Technologies/CSJU || Low Value Negotiated Procedure - art. 91 FR, 126 e) IR || Contract Clean Sky 2012-Extension of Contract 2011/05 || CSJU “GMT” data base development || 17/12/2012 || Until 30/06/2013 || 48.000

It has to be noted that the new external
service provider (e.g. the Interim Agency Start People) alone account for over
€ 186 000 in 2012.

3.4.2.     Second Interim Evaluation

The Council Regulation of Clean Sky JTI Joint
Undertaking stipulates that the Commission shall conduct a second interim
evaluation by the 31 December 2013 with the assistance of a panel of
independent experts, on the basis of the terms of reference established after
consultation of the JU. During 2012 Clean Sky has cooperated with the services
of the Commission and the FCH and IMI JTIs JUs to start the preparatory work.
This concerned in particular the identifications of adequate independent
experts and inputs provided for the definition of the terms of reference.

3.4.3.     Achievements at Programme level

2012 was the third full year of independent
functioning of the Joint Undertaking. The CS JU achieved progress in both
increasing its operational capacity and in running the operations.

Clean Sky maintained close links with the SESAR
Joint Undertaking, which investigates air traffic management technologies in
line with the Single European Sky initiative, with dedicated meetings at
different levels.

A significant change occurred in 2012: a
revised Development Plan was adopted by the Governing Board in March 2012. This
document updates, once a year, the strategic targets of the JU: environmental
forecasts, key technologies, demonstrators contents and schedule.

The main evolution concerned the SAGE ITD,
where a new project was created, SAGE 6, dedicated to NOx emissions decrease.
To fund this project, one of the two Open Rotor projects (SAGE 1) was reduced
in funding and in scope, while the other (SAGE 2) was fully confirmed and
committed up to the engine ground test.

3.4.3.1.  Key
milestones

–
Publication and evaluation of the 3 CS JU's
calls for proposals in 2012 as planned, with the related evaluations in the
same year;

–
Amendment to the model Grant Agreement for
Partners (GAP) and the model Grant Agreement for Members (GAM);

–
Internal processes monitoring;

–
More focussed involvement of the Scientific and
Technological Advisory(STAB);

–
Improved interaction with the National Sate
Representatives Group (NSRG)

–
Implementation of Internal Audit Plan and
Ex-Post Audit Strategy;

–
Implementation of the Communication and
Dissemination Strategy.

3.4.3.2.  ITDs
Examples of achievements

At the level of ITDs, a number of projects
delivered important final results. These     are:

·
In the GRA ITD – Structural Health Monitoring
using Magnetostrictive Sensors.

Within GRA ITD a project titled “Induction
Heating and Health Monitoring Solutions for Smart Aircraft Maintenance using
Adapted Composite Patches– INDUCER” (255770) has been implemented by GMI, TWI
and NTUA, Topic Manager being Alenia Aeronautica. Apart from innovative heating
principle applied (namely induction heating), the project was focusing on the
development of  “sensing arrays” using magnetostrictive sensors for remote
(non-contact) strain sensing (health monitoring) of bonded composite repairs.
Extensive numerical simulation of coupled strain / magnetic field has been
performed, following by the development / adaptation of full chain of
interrogation equipment and acquisition / processing software. The project
finished with a successful lab scale demonstration of developed methodology for
strain mapping of composite repairs (smart repairs)

·
In the SFWA ITD –
Inductive Curing of Bonded Composite Repairs.

“Induction based Curing Tool for Optimized
heating of composite Repairs – INDUCTOR” (270574) has been recently finalized
by GMI and NTUA, having Fraunhofer IFAM playing the role of the Topic Manager.

INDUCTOR led to the development of a fully
operational induction heating equipment, including control and Human Machine
Interface software, capable of curing composite repairs at a faster rate of
curing, achieving better temperature homogeneity and radically reducing power
consumption. The developed equipment is accompanied by a set of coils,
optimized for the application of composite repairs. Range of application include
composite to composite, composite to metal as well as thermoplastic repairs.

3.4.3.3.  Progress
in the implementation of the Strategic Research Agenda

The targets set at the beginning of the Clean
Sky programme, were the subject of a re-assessment of validity and consistency
with respect to evolution of the outside scenario and the actual progress of
the activities related to the technology maturation and implementation in the
planned demonstrators.

The original content of Clean Sky as defined in
the proposal was compliant with the requirements of the Strategic Research
Agenda (SRA) with respect to the Greening of Air Transport, identifying the
technical domains where new technologies are worth exploring and developing to
the level of maturity needed for innovating future aircraft.

A re-assessment of actual progress and validity
of assumptions was performed, resulting in an updated work plan (Development
Plan) and updated forecast of achievable environmental benefits at the end of
the programme. To this scope the role of Technology Evaluator and the dialogue
with all ITDs (especially the “vehicle” one with their Conceptual Aircraft
Definition) was essential, as provided by the First Internal Assessment
performed and published in early 2012.

3.4.3.4.  Implementation
of calls for proposals (cfps) in 2012

According to Article 13 (2) (b) of the same
regulation, the remaining 25% of the EU funding to the Clean Sky JU (amounting
to at least € 200 million) are allocated to partners selected via open and
competitive calls for proposals.

According to the Clean Sky's Rules for
Participation and Rules for Submission of Proposals and the Related Evaluation,
Selection and Award procedures any legal entity established in an EU Member
State or in a country associated to the FP7 may participate in a CS project. A
proposal may involve one or several participants. Examples of potential
participants are research institutes, universities, industry, including SMEs,
and end-users.

3.4.3.5.  Topic
definition

The call topics are proposed by each ITD
Steering Committee and reviewed by the CS JU Executive Office and by the
European Commission. The calls are broadly published by all suitable channels,
including the Clean Sky's website. According to the requirements of the ITD and
the work package, a single stage submission and evaluation process is followed.
Once a proposal is submitted, eligibility check and independent evaluations
take place.

3.4.3.6.  The
evaluation of proposals

Evaluation is performed on the basis of the
following principles:

–
Excellence of projects selected;

–
Transparency of decisions;

–
Fairness and impartiality of evaluations;

–
Confidentiality of all information;

–
Efficiency and speed of evaluation;

–
Compliance with ethical and security principles.

The evaluation of proposals is carried out by a
panel of experts comprising two internal experts from the ITD responsible for
the call and two external experts in an open and transparent competitive
procedure. Topic managers representing the ITD leaders, as well as Clean Sky staff
members, also take part in the evaluation process. The presence of independent
observers aims to verify and guarantee that the above-mentioned rules and
principles are followed.

To ensure a high degree of transparency, the CS
JU invited two different observers in 2012, one for the Calls 11 and 12 (Fulvia
Quagliotti) and one new call 13 (Arrigo Mezzano).

Each observer had full access to all stages of
the evaluation and to consensus meetings. Their Evaluation Reports are
available on the website (http://www.cleansky.eu).

The evaluations are performed against six
pre-determined evaluation criteria. For each criterion, a score is given on a
scale from 0 (proposal fails to address the criterion) to 5 (proposal addresses
all aspects of the criterion). All factors have equal weight. For a proposal to
be considered for funding, it needs to pass the following thresholds: a minimum
3/5 for each of the 6 criteria and a minimum 20/30 total score.

№ || Evaluation criterion || Score || Weight || Threshold

1. || Technical excellence || 0 to 5 || 1 || 3/5

2. || Innovative character || 0 to 5 || 1 || 3/5

3. || Compliance with the call for proposals specification and timetable (relevance), || 0 to 5 || 1 || 3/5

4. || Adequacy and quality of respondent's resources, management and implementation capabilities and track record || 0 to 5 || 1 || 3/5

5. || Appropriateness and efficient allocation of the resources to be committed (budget, staff, equipment) || 0 to 5 || 1 || 3/5

6. || Contribution to European competitiveness || 0 to 5 || 1 || 3/5

|| Total score: || || || 20/30

The evaluation process consists of several
steps:

1.
Briefings of the experts to explain the process
and the rules for evaluation;

2.
Eligibility Review Committee to ensure a
coherent legal interpretation of all cases and equal treatment of participants;

3.
Individual remote evaluation, the results of
which are included in an individual evaluation report;

4.
Consensus meeting for each proposal, the results
of which are included in a consensus evaluation report;

5.
Topic meeting to examine and compare the various
consensus reports, the results of which are included in an evaluation summary
report. A topic report is also established with a list of ranked proposals
above thresholds, a list of proposals failing one or more thresholds and a list
of ineligible proposals, if any.

If the proposal passes the thresholds and is
selected for funding, it enters into the next phase – the negotiation. The
process is concluded by the signature of a contract, called Grant Agreement
with Partners (referred to as "GAP").

3.4.3.7.  Calls
specificities

It is important to note that the calls for
proposals launched by the Clean Sky JU differ from FP7 collaborative research
calls and calls launched by the other JTI JUs. The content of the activities is
much more focused, i.e. there are topics, rather than research themes, with a
limited duration and specific targeted results expected at higher technology
readiness levels.

The calls supplement the technical competences
of the Clean Sky's members by performing highly specific activities, which, on
the other hand, have to "slot in" with the overall technical work
plan of the CS JU. For this reason, only one contract is awarded for each of
the topics that are published, and compliance with the technical description is
imperative. However, due to the very specific nature, it is possible to
participate in a call as a single entity and not in a consortium, as allowed by
the Clean Sky's Rules for Submission of Proposals.

Another difference from collaborative research
calls is that the budget is defined by the topic value, and not by the maximum
funding, which allows a wider participation from all types of entities,
independently from the actual eligibility for funding.

Since Call 5 a dedicated Negotiation Kick-off
meeting involving the successful organisations of given topics and the related
topic managers is held by the JU about 4 week after evaluation, in order to
expedite the dialogue between the future partner and the topic manager, and the
preparation of all documents needed for the signature of the Grant Agreement
for partners.

In 2012 the JU performed another
"reporting and closure of GAPs meeting" with partners who had already
been invited to report or who were about to report to the JU in line with the
grant agreements signed with the JU. This meeting allowed reaching those
partners who needed technical, administrative or legal assistance with the
reporting for their grant agreements. As many actors are new to Clean Sky and
some are even new to the FP7 research funding, this session was very useful for
all concerned. This initiative will continue for all future calls.

3.4.3.8.  Aggregated
information 2012

A total of 158 topics were published in 2012,
in the different calls as in the table above (Calls 11 to 13, namely 2012-01,
2012-02, 2012-03).

The average response in the year is confirmed
at 2.2 proposals per topic, i.e. more than 344 proposals in total for 158
topics.

The success rate of topics in the average is
again 79%, as in 2011, due either to no proposals submitted or to negative
evaluation of proposals.

The JU has taken all available actions to
improve participation, like more accurate description of some topics, wider
dissemination, and a dedicated, early communication with potential applicants
for the most critical topics. Several Info Days have been performed, with
successful participation.

The eligibility has worsened compared with
2011, from 12 proposals to 26; however, in a few cases this is a consequence of
the cancelation of the topic during the evaluation, and not of the actual
ineligibility of the proposals themselves.

The monitoring of associates involvement in
Calls has continued in 2012, with proper action to be taken at JU level in
2013. The rebalance will take place at global level, between member and CFP
budget.

Table
1: Aggregated information on calls launched and managed in 2012

|| PUBLICATION || OUTCOME || GAPs

call # || ref || date publ || closing date || evaluation week || VALUE || # topics || max funding || VALUE || # topics || Req. Funding || #GA signed

11 || 2012-01 || 13-Jan-12 || 3-Apr-12 || 21-May-12 || 48,7 || 69 || 36,6 || 42,3 || 58 || 25,4 || 32

12 || 2012-02 || 11-Apr-12 || 10-Jul-12 || 17-Sep-12 || 43,1 || 42 || 32,4 || 37,7 || 36 || 24,2 ||

13 || 2012-03 || 5-Jul-12 || 18-Oct-12 || 26-Nov-12 || 39,8 || 47 || 29,9 || 29,1 || 30 || 14,6 ||

total || 131,6 || 158 || 98,9 || 109,1 || 124 || 64,2 ||

3.4.3.9.  Evaluations
outcome

A total of 483 participants took part to the
calls in 2012, 245 were selected for funding with an overall success rate of 51
%.

186 participants belong from SMEs and 94 of
them were selected for funding with a promising success rate of 51%.

Projects selected for funding were globally 120
out of 214 proposals above the threshold. Over 90 projects were included in the
reserve list.

Table 2: Aggregated information on
participation by type and success rate in 2012

Type participant || Nr of participants in the Proposals || Nr of participants in the funded Projects || Participants success rate

Public Bodies || || ||

Research organisations || 98 || 53 || 54%

Higher or secondary education || 107 || 54 || 50%

Private for profit (excl. education) || 92 || 44 || 48%

SMEs || 186 || 94 || 51%

Others || || ||

Total || 483 || 245 || 51%

Table
3: Aggregated information on results from evaluation in 2012

|| SUBMITTED PROPOSALS || EVALUATION RESULTS || ||

call # || ref || # proposals || # eligible proposals || % of retained || Above threshold || Selected for funding || # redress || Reserve List || topic success rate ||

11 || 2012-01 || 159 || 142 || 89,31% || 96 || 54 || 5 || 42 || 33,96% ||

12 || 2012-02 || 109 || 104 || 95,41% || 69 || 36 || 1 || 33 || 30,28% ||

13 || 2012-03 || 76 || 71 || 93,42% || 49 || 30 || 1 || 19 || 39,47% ||

|| total || 344 || 317 || 92,71% || 214 || 120 || 7 || 94 || 35% ||

Concerning the geographic distribution of
successful participants, the graph below shows the aggregated situation in
calls 11 to 13.

Figure1:
Successful participations by country in 2012

In 2012, the 245 organisations selected for
funding belong from 17 Countries. The best players, both in terms of
coordinators and participants, are Spain (47 participation with 27
coordinators) the UK (with 36 participations equally distributed in
coordination and participation), Italy (with 33 participation, of which 14 as
coordinator and 19 as partner) and France with an opposite situation compared
to Italy (33 total with 19 coordinators and 13 partners). Participants from
EU-12 are from Cyprus, Poland, Hungary and Romania. Switzerland is the only
Associated Country which took part in successful projects in 2012 with 5
coordination and 7 participations.

3.4.3.10.          Redress
statistics

In calls 12 and 13, only one redress per call
was submitted, as in 2011; only Call 11, scored 5 requests for redress. This is
basically explained by the largest number of topics (69) and related proposals
(159), while no other correlation appears to be applicable (each redress is a
specific topic, in different ITDs).

In all cases the Redress Committee judged the
relevance of the complaint: in all case no change occurred to the ranking list
as resulting from the evaluation.

Apart from the peculiar case in Call 11, the
effectiveness and correctness of the evaluation process is confirmed.

3.4.4.     Governance - Major decisions taken by the Governing Board
and other JU bodies

3.4.4.1.  Governing
Board

The Governing Board is composed of 19 members:
the EC, with veto rights on matters of public concern, the 12 founding members
of Clean Sky and one Associate member for each of the 6 ITDs, representing
itself and the other Associates in the same ITD. These Associates in 2012 were:
ONERA, MTU, Hellenic Aerospace, Green Systems Aircraft Foundation and INCAS.
The Chair and Vice-Chair of the Governing Board are elected for one year term,
renewable once. On its meeting of December 14th, 2011, the Governing Board
re-elected respectively Charles Champion (Airbus) and Catalin Nae (INCAS) as
Chair and Vice-Chair for 2012.

–
The CS JU Governing Board (GB) held four
meetings in 2012 (30 March, 21 June, 11 October and 13 December). The following
6 written procedures were implemented:

–
21/1/2012 - Written Procedure 2012 – 01 to adopt
Documents N° CS-GB-2012-001 Updating Annexes VI and VII of the Grant Agreements
for Members and for Partners (GAMs and GAPs), and a Special Clause for GAMs

–
16/2/2012 - Written procedure 2012 – 03 for the
adoption of the Annual Provisional Accounts 2011

–
26/3/2012 - Written procedure 2012 – 04 for
adoption of Budget amendment no. 1 to AIP and ABP 2012

–
19/6/2012 - Written procedure 2012 – 07 to adopt
decision n° 58 validation of in kind contributions 2008 2009 2010 2011

–
18/6/2012 - Written procedure 2012 – 08 to adopt
decision n° 59 final accounts and budgetary implementation report 2011

–
19/12/2012 - Written Procedure 2012 – 10 to
adopt calls decision no. 10 11 12 outcome

The Governing Board has adopted during 2012 the
following key documents in its meetings (non-exhaustive list):

–
30 March 2012:

–
CS JU Development Plan

–
CS JU Staff Committee Decision

–
21 June 2012:

–
Assessment of the Clean Sky Annual Activity
Report 2011

–
Adoption of the Panel recommendation for the extension
of the Executive Director (ED) contract

–
11th October 2012:

–
Budget amendment n° 2 for 2012

–
Appointment of the Accounting Officer

–
13th December 2012:

–
Election of the Chairman (Mr. Alessandro
Franzoni) and Vice Chairman (Mr. Ric Parker) for 2013

–
GAM model grant agreement Core and Annex II

–
AIP 2013, Budget 2013 and Establishment Plan
2013

–
GB Decision on a transitional mandate to the
Executive Director on the preparatory phase of Clean Sky 2

It can be noted that most of the decisions have
been adopted unanimously or very close to unanimity, showing a smooth and
efficient decision-making process. Each Governing Board is prepared by a
"Sherpa Group" meeting, chaired by the JU.

3.4.4.2.  Executive
Director

The staff was kept at the previous level of 24,
according to the Staff Policy Plan adopted – despite a request of 3
supplementary posts, accepted by the industrial members of the Governing Board
but eventually rejected by the European Commission, as stated in the report on
risk management. This situation was faced through the hiring of some interim
support and trainees.

The Executive Director is supported by two
managers: the Coordinating Project Officer and the Head of Administration and
Finance. One Project Officer per ITD and the TE allows the JU to play its
coordination role.

As stated above, an agreement was reached at
the Governing Board to appoint the Internal Audit Service (IAS) as the internal
audit function of the JU. The IAS strategic audit plan was adopted by the
Governing Board in December 2011. The first audit was performed in November
2012 an assurance audit on the topic “Grant Management – Annual Planning (GAMs
and topics of the calls)”. In March 2013 the JU has received the Final Audit
Report, which contained one very important and seven important recommendations.
The JU’s management has provided comments to the auditors’ findings and has
accepted the recommendations. An action plan for implementing the auditors’
recommendations has been proposed by the JU and agreed by the IAS.

Main recommendations were concerning:

(1)
delays in the execution of the programme and
related budget under spending.

The IAS sees
a systematic risk for CSJU of not reaching its strategic objectives and of not
using its resources efficiently. The JU has described in its comments the
actions started in the year 2012 to adapt the budget allocation to individual
ITDs;

(2)
evaluation of resources consumption. The IAS
criticizes, that, whereas the annual budget planning is built at the level of
beneficiaries (work packages), the monitoring of the budget implementation is
done at the level of deliverables by the JU. The JU agrees to reinforce its
controls over the ITDs annual budgeting but states in its comments, that
planning of the budget cannot be extended to the level of deliverables. The IAS
agrees to the actions proposed by the JU, which enforce the controls for
assessing the budget on work package level set up by the ITD coordinators
through the Project Officers of the JU.

The management (internal and external, i.e. for
the ITD coordination and management activity) relies on a few key documents:
the Quality Manual, the Manual of Financial Procedures, the Management Manual,
and the Development Plan – the latter being approved at the level of the
Governing Board.

3.4.4.3.  ITD Steering
Committees

Each Integrated Technology Demonstrator (ITD)
is in charge of one specific technology line within the CS programme. The ITD
and Technology Evaluator (TE) Steering Committees are responsible for technical
decisions taken within each ITD and the TE and have met regularly in the course
of 2012. The relevant Project Officer, supported when needed by the
Coordinating Project Officer or the Executive Director, attends these meetings.
The Executive Director in particular chairs the TE Steering Committee meetings.

3.4.4.4.  Scientific
and Technological Advisory Board

The Scientific and Technological Advisory Board
(STAB) is an advisory body of now 10 high-level scientists and engineers, all
independent from CS JU stakeholders. Its purpose is to focus on the scientific
and technical analysis of Clean Sky from different perspectives: besides
environmental impact; technology and scientific forecast; societal aspects;
economics. Chaired by David Ewins, Professor at the Bristol University and the
Imperial College, it met five times in 2012.

The STAB provided recommendations on the
necessity to focus on the mainstream of large demonstrators, the schedule
management, the strengthening of the system-level vision and the management of
resources in the leading companies. Two STAB members, on average, participated
in each ITD annual review, according to their expertise area, mostly with the
same distribution as in 2011, for continuity purposes, while some rotation is
also organized for the sake of cross experience and for bringing fresh views.
The main recommendations and general views on the technical progress were
forwarded by the Executive Director to the Governing Board and discussed.

In 2012, “interim progress reviews” involving
for each ITD, the reviewers, the JU project officer, coordinating project
officer and Executive Director, the coordinators and when necessary the work
package leaders, were held six month after the annual review, in order to check
the implementation of the recommendations and to update the reviewers on the
technical progress. These interim reviews proved quite helpful and demonstrated
a satisfactory situation in most work packages, or sub-projects.

Besides this, dedicated reviews were organized
when deemed necessary by the Executive Director, in particular as concerns the
GRC 5 project, dedicated to the management of trajectory and mission for
rotorcrafts. The work programme, on the request of the JU Project Officer, had
been deeply revisited, and the update was submitted to this review with STAB
and external reviewers. The result was satisfactory and the revised work
programme endorsed, with some recommendations.

The STAB was also involved in a review
performed jointly with SESAR, focussed on Clean Sky and SESAR activities in the
field of development of Flight Management Systems (FMS). The purpose of the
review was to identify potential interfaces between respective programmes as
well as potential overlaps. The main conclusion of the review was that no undue
overlap was noticed. Recommendations for further improvement of the interface
were provided.

3.4.4.5.  National
State Representative Group (NSRG)

Article 10 of the Council Regulation setting up
the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking outlines that the NSRG will review information
and provide opinion on programme progress, on compliance and on the meeting of
targets. It will also update strategic orientations or link to Framework
Programme Collaborative Research. It shall also provide input to Joint
Undertaking on the interface with relevant national research programmes and
identification of potential areas of cooperation, as well as specific measures
taken at national level with regard to dissemination events, dedicated
technical workshops and communication activities.

It consists of one representative of each EU
Member State and of each other country associated with the Framework Programme.
It is chaired by one of these representatives. To ensure that the activities
are integrated, the Clean Sky Executive Director and the Chair of the Governing
Board or his representative attend the NSRG meetings and the Chair of the NSRG
attends as an observer at the Clean Sky Governing Board.

During 2012 the NSRG met four times and was
represented at the Governing Board meetings. Two of the meetings were held
outside Brussels, one at SAAB in Linkoping where members reviewed SFWA in
detail and the other hosted by Airbus in Toulouse where the members visited the
Flight Test aircraft and control centre.

In February, Jim Lawler was re-elected as Chair
and Gerben Klein Lebbink as Vice Chair. This year the members were invited and
many chose to actively participate in the General Forum in November.

The National States continue to be very
supportive of Clean Sky and members take a proactive and supportive role particularly
in its’ relations with the European Council.

The Group has taken an active interest in the
rules and conditions being used for Calls for Proposals and the selection of
Partners in order to ensure and demonstrate transparency and accountability.
The NSRG has received and discussed the reports of the independent observers.

The NSRG has also been interested in monitoring
the development of the different ITDs and the maturing of the Technology
Evaluator. They welcomed the continuing risk assessment system which ensures
that the interfaces between individual ITDs themselves as well as the
Technology Evaluator work and the resulting refocusing in terms of work and
budgets as they develop and the priorities of the leaders change. In
particular, the NSRG formally recognised and supported the developments which
necessitated a change in the SAGE ITD.

The NSRG also recognised the issue around the
JU current understaffing.

National States have taken a very supportive
view on the continuation of the JTI instrument under H2020. A national states
view was developed as a joint initiative of the Clean Sky NSRG and the ACARE
Member States Group. The document was the collective view of the
representatives involved in the NSRG and ACARE Member States Group and was not
a formal view of any of the States involved. These are being formulated in the
European Council process. The document reflected that Clean Sky is proving to
be an effective and efficient instrument to mature and demonstrate technologies
and brings added value to Europe. The National States support the preparation
of a future JTI (Clean Sky 2) provided that the lessons learned and successes
of Clean Sky are taken into account to improve the JTI instrument further.
Specific recommendations were made relating to Governance, Content, Initiation
and Processes.

Following the study carried out in 2011 on the
role and activities of the NSRG, the specific actions identified were actively
pursued. These related to:

·
Representation from all relevant states and
their attendance at meetings. 29 of a potential 39 States have nominated
representatives but only 14 attend regularly. There are a few MS which have not
nominated representatives. It was agreed with the European Commission that
these will be specifically approached in the context of any further Clean Sky
programme.

·
Coordination with national programs. Ideas were
discussed by the states with large programmes. MS with “smaller” or no
dedicated aerospace programmes could use a selective approach to put
collaborative projects together using National funds. Clean Sky JU is expected
to point out projects that could possibly be funded in this way.

·
Information dissemination and Info days:
suggestions on how much information, how soon, to whom it needs to be
disseminated, etc. have been developed. The general consensus is: as much as
possible, as soon as possible, using the National Contact Point system. A
number of actions were taken in calls 12 and 13 and the effects are being
monitored. Ideally, information should be made available in the Annual
Implementation Plans for consultation in advance of calls to allow for
feed-back on proposed budgets/content and to prepare resources.

·
Major Clean Sky events should be held about
every 9 months, with a fundamental presentation of the progress, the current
issues and the upcoming calls, plus possibly dedicated sub-meetings per ITD.
These are to be supplemented by local events in different parts of the EU. With
“failed” topics special events are recommended.

·
In cases where a topic is a follow up project
then it has been suggested that the potential applicant should have access to
the full information of the previous project, including results, so that the
competition is fair and transparent. There is a proposal to maintain a list of
topics that have not been answered on the website. This has not been
implemented at present.

·
The JU has identified a list of communication
actions where the support of the NSRG members is needed. With the appointment
of the new Communication Officer, this now needs to be developed to define the
specifics.

3.4.5.     General Forum

The General Forum is a statutory assembly open
to all members and partners of the Clean Sky programme.

On November 21st 2012, this meeting
gathered more than 120 of Clean Sky members and stakeholders from SMEs,
Academia, Research organisations and Industry.

The meeting was divided in 2 parts: a plenary
session in the morning followed by workshops on specific topics in the
afternoon.

In the morning, the presentations focused on
programme implementation in 2011 (technical and financial), forecast for 2013
and implementation of recommendations from 2011 General Forum among others. The
preparation of the continuation of Clean Sky was also presented.

In the afternoon, three workshops gathered
inputs from participants on:

(1)
Communication and dissemination of results,

(2)
Networking within Clean Sky and

(3)
Innovation in Calls.

During these workshops, moderated by members of
the JU staff, presentations by Clean Sky’s stakeholders were followed by a session
for debate and discussion.

In total, six recommendations were issued.

Clean Sky’s Members and Partners are invited to
further promote their activities by referring to the programme and using the
Clean Sky logo, but also by providing the JU with feedback and materials to be
disseminated.

The JU acknowledged the need to inform
prospective partners early on the topics, and recommended them to use National
Contact Points and clusters when forming consortia. Concerning calls, CS JU
will try and engage non-aerospace companies and further explain the purpose of
the topics.

3.4.6.     Main communication activities

The communication activities are managed
according to the Communication Strategy adopted by the Governing Board, and
updated when necessary. The last update dates back to December 2011. On the
basis of this strategy, identifying objectives, target audiences, messages and
tools, an annual communication plan is built.

3.4.6.1.  Website

Clean Sky improved its website in 2012: in
particular the technical information on each ITD, which were deeply revised and
updated; besides that, the official information about the beneficiaries of
grant agreements is periodically updated.

3.4.6.2.  Publications

In 2012 regularly published the “Skyline”
newsletter and communicated with stakeholder and public in general with
frequent e-news.

Furthermore 15 press releases and press
clipping were published in 2012.

In order to update users on technical
achievements, in June 2012 a new brochure on the Strategic Research and Innovation
Agenda was posted on-line as well as Special issues of the “Skyline” magazine
presented the assessment of the first Technology Evaluator. (http://www.cleansky.eu/sites/default/files/documents/cs-te-assessment-special-edition-2012.pdf)

The ITD Annual Report Summary was issued on
October 2012.

3.4.6.3.  Events

Clean Sky organised overall 8 events, including
Information Days on calls that were held in Madrid, Turin, and Brussels.

In addition to that the JTI JU participated to
12 other major international events. In particular, Clean Sky participated in
the “Innovation Zone” in Farnborough Air Show and the stand was visited in
particular by Rt Hon David Willetts, the UK Minister for University and
Science.

An effort was also made to raise the interest
of students to aeronautics, environment and Europe: mainly thanks to the
involvement of STAB members, successful conferences took place in Amsterdam,
Bristol, Paris and Berlin, with audiences of up to 150 students.

The possible continuation of Clean Sky in Horizon
2020, usually called Clean Sky 2, was subject to a lot of activity from the
industry and the European Commission. The Joint Undertaking was mandated to
coordinate this action, in particular to contribute to the public consultation.
A large consultation day took place in ILA in Berlin, in September, where the
general outline of the draft programme was presented and where external inputs
were provided.

The General Forum took place in November 2012
gathering over 120 participants.

3.4.6.4.  Awareness
rising

The awareness of the European institutions
about Clean Sky achievements is considered as a priority, concerning both the
satisfactory progress to the objectives and the wide participation. It has been
noticed that the high level of SME participation in the programme, through the
Calls for Proposals, was not recognized enough. Actions have been taken in this
direction, for instance through appointments with MEPs.

In April 2012 Janusz Sznajde, from the
Institute of Aviation in Poland, was interweaved to promote the experience of a
Polish organisation being coordinator of a Clean Sky project (STARLET project:
http://starlet.ilot.edu.pl/description.html).

3.4.7.     Success stories

3.4.7.1.  Wind
tunnel test campaigns

A series of wind tunnel test campaign were
performed in 2012 on three different technologies

The first one is the Natural Laminar Flow (NLF)
for laminar wing. NLF is established as a key technology stream within CleanSky
Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft in order to reduce aircraft drag. The BLADE
demonstrator (Breakthrough Laminar Aircraft Demonstrator in Europe) will be
based on an A340 Flying Test Bed modified in the outer wings with two NLF wing
portions.

As part of the process to mature NLF for
application, ETW (European Transonic Wind Tunnel) has performed experiments
with a large low-sweep half model at flight-relevant Reynolds numbers. The
completed European research project TELFONA, led by Airbus, had already
demonstrated the applicability of ETW for NLF wing design. TELFONA’s results
have demonstrated that ETW’s flow quality enables laminar testing close to free
flight conditions.

In the framework of Clean Sky, ETW has been
used to contribute to a wing design methodology aiming at robust laminar
performance taking into account different surface imperfections. The transition
locations were measured by the German Aerospace Research Center (DLR) Göttingen
using CryoTSP. The data will serve to validate CFD predictions on NLF wing
designs including such imperfections as they may occur on a real aircraft.

Two other wind tunnel tests were also performed
concerning Open Rotor and wing anti-icing and de-icing
systems.

The Rolls-Royce and SNECMA have performed
independently a series of tests on their own test rigs to assess uninstalled
characteristics of their Open Rotor design (especially the blades), and then
participated to performance and aero-acoustics test on a complete model
together with Airbus in DNW.

Finally, three systems
for wing anti-icing and de-icing, which do not use bleed air from the engine
anymore, were investigated and dedicated Icing Wind tunnel tests were
performed: two electro-thermal systems, developed by Liebherr and Zodiac, and
one electro-mechanical system, developed by SAAB.

3.4.7.2.  Composite
repair technology for aircraft maintenance

A series of projects were performed by the GMI
AERO French SME and other partners.

As an example, the ADVANCED project (271691) -
“Advanced heating system and control mode for homogeneous high temperature
curing of large composite repairs” has been recently completed by GMI and the
NTUA, Topic Manager being Aircelle (Group SAFRAN). It concerned the development
of innovative solutions for the application of very large composite repairs, to
be performed outside autoclaves. Even though achieving the very strict temperature
tolerances (usually in the area of (+/-5 at 180 or 225oC) for
repairs of several m2 is rather challenging, the expected benefits
are significant, as reduction of autoclave utilization induces direct reduction
both to the overall repair cost and to the CO2 footprint of the
repair. The developed equipment has been successfully tested and approved at
industrial environment, on an extremely demanding application (A380 reverser).

3.5.        Call(s) implemented in 2012

3.5.1.     CALL 11 SP1-JTI-CS-2012-01

3.5.1.1.  Summary
information

Call Identifier || SP1-JTI-CS-2012-01

Publication date || 13 January 2012

Deadline || 3 April 2012

Evaluation || 9-11 May 2012; 21-25 May 2012

Indicative Total budget (in €) || EUR 48,7 millions

EU contribution after evaluation || EUR 25.4 millions

In-kind contribution after evaluation || EUR 12,9 millions

Where relevant, the contribution from the Member States or National funding, or other contributions || N/A

Reference to call topics || http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/page/cooperation?callIdentifier=SP1-JTI-CS-2012-01

The Clean Sky JU published its eleventh call
for proposals on 13 January 2012. The call was open for 69 topics covering activities
within all ITDs without the Technology Evaluator (TE) and grouped in 16 areas,
further re-grouped under the six ITDs as shown in the table below and in Annex
II (full list of topics by ITD and Area).

Table
4: Topics overview

Identification || ITD - Area - Topic || Nr of topics || Indicative budget (K€) || Maximum funding (K€)

JTI-CS-ECO || Clean Sky - EcoDesign || 14 || 3,295 || 2,471

JTI-CS-ECO-01 || Area-01 - EDA (Eco-Design for Airframe) || || 3,045 ||

JTI-CS-ECO-02 || Area-02 - EDS (Eco-Design for Systems) || || 250 ||

JTI-CS-GRA || Clean Sky - Green Regional Aircraft || 11 || 9,960 || 7,470

JTI-CS-GRA-01 || Area-01 - Low weight configurations || || 4,260 ||

JTI-CS-GRA-02 || Area-02 - Low noise configurations || || 4,300 ||

JTI-CS-GRA-03 || Area-03 - All electric aircraft || || 1,400 ||

JTI-CS-GRC || Clean Sky - Green Rotorcraft || 4 || 1,450 || 1,088

JTI-CS-GRC-01 || Area-01 - Innovative Rotor Blades || || 400 ||

JTI-CS-GRC-03 || Area-03 - Integration of innovative electrical systems || || 650 ||

JTI-CS-GRC-06 || Area-06 - Eco Design for Rotorcraft || || 400 ||

JTI-CS-SAGE || Clean Sky - Sustainable and Green Engines || 11 || 16,150 || 12,113

JTI-CS-SAGE-02 || Area-02 - Open Rotor Demo 2 || || 13,150 ||

JTI-CS-SAGE-03 || Area-03 - Large 3-shaft turbofan || || 2,600 ||

JTI-CS-SAGE-05 || Area-05 - Turboshaft || || 400 ||

JTI-CS-SFWA || Clean Sky - Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft || 15 || 11,350 || 8,513

JTI-CS-SFWA-01 || Area01 – Smart Wing Technology || || 4,500 ||

JTI-CS-SFWA-02 || Area02 - New Configuration || || 6,850 ||

JTI-CS-SGO || Clean Sky - Systems for Green Operations || 14 || 6,540 || 4,905

JTI-CS-SGO-02 || Area-02 - Management of Aircraft Energy || || 4,700 ||

JTI-CS-SGO-03 || Area-03 - Management of Trajectory and Mission || || 1,590 ||

JTI-CS-SGO-04 || Area-04 - Aircraft Demonstrators || || 250 ||

|| Totals (€) || 69 || 48,745 || 36,559

The total indicative budget of the call was set
to € 48 745 000, of which the EU contribution could be up to € 36 558 750
(50-75% of the topic maximum budget indicated).

3.5.1.2.  Analysis of proposals submitted

Applicants were invited to submit their
proposals by 3 April 2012. In total, 159 proposals involving applicants
from 19 countries were received. Out of those 159 proposals, 142 were
considered eligible for evaluation.

They were evaluated by 161 independent
experts.

Table 5: Participants by type in
the submitted proposals and success rate

Type participant[30] || Nr of participants in the Proposals || Nr of participants in the funded Projects || Participants success rate

REC || 19 || 23 || 42%

HSE || 29 || 22 || 45%

SME || 51 || 41 || 35%

PRC || 26 || 20 || 38%

PUB[31] || 0 || 0 || 0

OTH || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 125 || 106 || 39%

All call applicants distributed per country are
given in the figure below. Spain, Italy, the UK and Germany submitted the
highest number of projects.

Figure
3: Applicants per country

The first 5 best players were Spain (with 88
participations), Italy (43), the UK (42), Germany (31) and France (30), which
altogether counted for 234 participations out of a total of 305.

The EU-12 Countries took part with a total of 6
participations whlist Associated Countries accounted for 16, best players were
Switzerland and Turkey with 7 participations each.

3.5.1.3.  Evaluation results

The on-site evaluation of the proposals took
place in Brussels between 21 and 25 May 2012 following the methodology
described in Section 4.3. It was preceded by individual remote evaluations. To
ensure high degree of transparency, the CS JU invited one independent observer
to verify if the evaluations have been done according to the set evaluation
guidelines and rules.

Out of the 142 eligible proposals, 96 passed
the thresholds, while 46 failed one or more thresholds.

In terms of the topics failed (because not
answered or with no successful proposal selected), this is the situation per
ITD:

Table 6: Topics failed per ITD

ITD || || Unanswered || Failed

SFW || Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft || 1 || 0

GRA || Green Regional Aircraft || 0 || 1

GRC || Green Rotorcraft || 1 || 1

SAGE || Sustainable and Green Engines || 3 || 0

SGO || Systems for Green Operations || 2 || 1

ECO || Eco-Design || 1 || 0

Total || || 8 || 3

The evaluation results, after processing all
submitted proposals, are presented in the table below.

Table
7: Evaluation results overall

|| Submitted proposal || Evaluation results

ITD/Area || || Eligible proposals || || Above threshold || Proposals selected for funding || Reserve list

Submitted proposals || % of retained

SFWA || 32 || 31 || 96.87% || 23 || 74.19% || 13 || 41.93% || 10

GRA || 44 || 36 || 81.81% || 24 || 66.66% || 10 || 27.77% || 14

GRC || 4 || 3 || 75.00% || 2 || 66.66% || 2 || 66.66% || 0

SAGE || 17 || 17 || 100.00% || 11 || 64.70% || 8 || 47.05% || 3

SGO || 20 || 19 || 95.00% || 14 || 73.68% || 10 || 52.63% || 4

ED || 42 || 36 || 85.71% || 22 || 61.11% || 11 || 30.55% || 11

total || 159 || 142 || 89,31% || 96 || 67,61% || 54 || 38,03% || 42

The 54 proposals proposed for funding accounted
for 106 participations from 14 European countries.

Of those, 22 (21%) came from academia, 20 (19%)
represented the industry and 23 (22%) were research institutions. The SME
participation was 38% (41 companies were SMEs), requesting a total funding of €
10 689 197 (42% of the total requested funding). Below you may find the
geographical distribution of the 106 participations.

Figure 4: Successful participants
per country and typology

The geographical distribution of the proposals
selected for funding is shown in the graph below, Spain taking the leading
position with 13 proposals, followed by France with 9 and the United Kingdom
and Germany are equal with 8 proposals each. Switzerland is the only Associated
Country that took part to this call.

Figure
5: Proposals selected for funding per country

3.5.2.     CALL 12 SP1-JTI-CS-2012-02

3.5.2.1.  Summary
information

Call Identifier || SP1-JTI-CS-2012-02

Publication date || 11 April 2012

Deadline || 10 July 2012

Evaluation || 17-21 September 2012

Indicative total budget (in €) || EUR 43,1 millions

EU contribution after evaluation || EUR 24,2 millions

In-kind contribution after evaluation || EUR 11,4 millions

Where relevant, the contribution from the Member States or National funding, or other contributions || N/A

Reference to call topics || http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/page/cooperation?callIdentifier=SP1-JTI-CS-2012-02#wlp\_call\_FP7

The Clean Sky JU published its twelfth call for
proposals on 11 April 2012. The call was open for 42
topics covering activities within all ITDs without the Technology Evaluator
(TE), which were grouped in 17 areas, further
re-grouped under the six ITDs as shown in the table below and in Annex II (full
list of topics by ITD and Area).

Table
8: Topics overview

Identification || ITD - Area - Topic || Nr of topics || Indicative budget (K€) || Maximum funding (K€)

JTI-CS-ECO || Clean Sky - EcoDesign || 5 || 720 || 540

JTI-CS-ECO-01 || Area-01 - EDA (Eco-Design for Airframe) || || 520 ||

JTI-CS-ECO-02 || Area-02 (EDS - Eco-Design for Systems) || || 200 ||

JTI-CS-GRA || Clean Sky - Green Regional Aircraft || 2 || 2,840 || 2,130

JTI-CS-GRA-01 || Area-01 - Low weight configurations || || 240 ||

JTI-CS-GRA-05 || Area-05 - New configurations || || 2,600 ||

JTI-CS-GRC || Clean Sky - Green Rotorcraft || 5 || 4,590 || 3,443

JTI-CS-GRC-01 || Area-01 - Innovative Rotor Blades || || 710 ||

JTI-CS-GRC-02 || Area-02 - Reduced Drag of rotorcraft || || 800 ||

JTI-CS-GRC-03 || Area-03 - Integration of innovative electrical systems || || 1,000 ||

JTI-CS-GRC-05 || Area-05 - Environmentally friendly flight paths || || 2,080 ||

JTI-CS-SAGE || Clean Sky - Sustainable and Green Engines || 9 || 16,350 || 12,263

JTI-CS-SAGE-02 || Area-02 - Open Rotor Demo 2 || || 13,500 ||

JTI-CS-SAGE-03 || Area-03 - Large 3-shaft turbofan || || 1,850 ||

JTI-CS-SAGE-04 || Area-04 - Geared Turbofan || || 1,000 ||

JTI-CS-SFWA || Clean Sky - Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft || 9 || 12,700 || 9,525

JTI-CS-SFWA-01 || Area01 – Smart Wing Technology || || 1,700 ||

JTI-CS-SFWA-02 || Area02 - New Configuration || || 7,500 ||

JTI-CS-SFWA-03 || Area03 – Flight Demonstrators || || 3,500 ||

JTI-CS-SGO || Clean Sky - Systems for Green Operations || 12 || 5,990 || 4,493

JTI-CS-SGO-02 || Area-02 - Management of Aircraft Energy || || 4,540 ||

JTI-CS-SGO-03 || Area-03 - Management of Trajectory and Mission || || 900 ||

JTI-CS-SGO-04 || Area-04 - Aircraft Demonstrators || || 550 ||

|| Totals (€) || 42 || 43,190 || 32,393

The total indicative budget of the call was set
to € 43 190000, of which the EU contribution could be up to € 32 393 500
(50-75% of the topic maximum budget indicated).

3.5.2.2.  Analysis of proposals submitted

Applicants were invited to submit their
proposals by 10 July 2012. In total, 109 proposals were submitted in response to
the 42 open topics addressed by the present call, involving applicants from 21
countries. 5 were found to be ineligible and the remaining 104 eligible
proposals were evaluated by 110 independent experts. The table below presents
the distribution of participants by typology in the submitted proposals.

Table 9: Participants by type in
the submitted proposals and success rate

Type participant[32] || Nr of participants in the Proposals || Nr of participants in the funded Projects || Participants success rate

REC || 53 || 17 || 43%

HSE || 49 || 14 || 51%

SME || 86 || 32 || 43%

PRC || 54 || 13 || 56%

PUB || 0 || 0 || 0

OTH || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 242 || 76 || 48%

All calls applicants distributed per country
are given in the figure below.

Figure
6: Applicants per country

Again Spain, France, Germany, United Kingdom and Italy submitted the highest number
of proposals, both as coordinator and participant. The EU- 12 countries were
represented by Romania (6 participations), Czech Republic (3), Hungary (2),
Latvia, Poland and Slovakia (1). Associated Countries, by Switzerland (8),
Turkey (2) and Norway (1).

3.5.2.3.  Evaluation
results

The on-site evaluation of the proposals took
place in Brussels between 17 and 21 September 2012 following the methodology
described in Section 4.3. It was preceded by individual remote evaluations. To
ensure high degree of transparency, the CS JU invited one independent observer
to verify if the evaluations have been done according to the set evaluation
guidelines and rules. Out of the 104 eligible proposals, 69 passed the thresholds,
while 35 failed one or more thresholds.

In terms of the topics failed (because not
answered or with no successful proposal selected), the final situation of
successful topics vs. published ones was as follows:

Table 10: Topics failed per ITD

ITD || || Unanswered || Failed

SFW || Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft || 0 || 0

GRA || Green Regional Aircraft || 0 || 0

GRC || Green Rotorcraft || 0 || 1

SAGE || Sustainable and Green Engines || 0 || 1

SGO || Systems for Green Operations || 1 || 2

ECO || Eco-Design || 0 || 1

Total || || 1 || 5

The evaluation results, after processing all
submitted proposals, are presented in the table 12 below.

Table 11: Evaluation results

|| Submitted proposal || Evaluation results

ITD/Area || || Eligible proposals || || Above threshold || Proposals selected for funding || Reserve list

Submitted proposals || % of retained

SFWA || 17 || 17 || 100.00% || 15 || 88.23% || 9 || 52.94% || 6

GRA || 9 || 8 || 88.88% || 3 || 37.50% || 2 || 25.00% || 1

GRC || 19 || 18 || 94.73% || 11 || 61.11% || 4 || 22.22% || 7

SAGE || 19 || 19 || 100.00% || 12 || 63.15% || 8 || 42.10% || 4

SGO || 19 || 19 || 100.00% || 14 || 73.68% || 9 || 47.36% || 5

ED || 26 || 23 || 88.46% || 14 || 60.86% || 4 || 17.39% || 10

total || 109 || 104 || 95,41% || 69 || 66,35% || 36 || 34,62% || 33

The 36 proposals proposed for funding accounted
for 76 participations from 13 European countries.

Of those, 14 (19%) came from academia, 13 (17%)
represented the industry and 17 (22%) were research institutions. The SME
participation was 42% (32 companies were SMEs), requesting a total funding of €
6 765 120 (28% of the total requested funding). Below you may find the
geographical distribution of the 76 participations.

Figure
7: successful participants per country and typology

The geographical distribution of the proposals
selected for funding is shown in the graph below, Spain taking the leading
position with 9 proposals, followed by the France, Germany and United Kingdom.

Figure
8: Proposals selected for funding per country

3.5.3.     CALL 13 SP1-JTI-CS-2012-03

3.5.3.1.  Summary
information

Call Identifier || SP1-JTI-CS-2012-03

Publication date || 5 July 2012

Deadline || 18 October 2012

Evaluation || 26-30 November 2012

Indicative Total budget (in €) || EUR 39,8 millions

EU contribution after evaluation || EUR 14,5 millions

In-kind contribution after evaluation || EUR 5,5 millions

Where relevant, the contribution from the Member States or National funding, or other contributions || N/A

Reference to call topics || http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/page/cooperation?callIdentifier=SP1-JTI-CS-2012-03#wlp\_call\_FP7

The Clean Sky JU published its thirteenth call
for proposals on 5 July 2012. The call was open for 47 topics grouped in 13
areas, further re-grouped under the six ITDs as shown in the table below and in
Annex II (full list of topics by ITD and Area).

Table
12: Topics overview

Identification || ITD - Area - Topic || Nr of topics || Indicative budget (K€) || Maximum funding (K€)

JTI-CS-ECO || Clean Sky - EcoDesign || 7 || 1,270 || 953

JTI-CS-ECO-01 || Area-01 - EDA (Eco-Design for Airframe) || || 1,270 ||

JTI-CS-GRA || Clean Sky - Green Regional Aircraft || 1 || 400 || 300

JTI-CS-GRA-01 || Area-01 - Low weight configurations || || 400 ||

JTI-CS-GRC || Clean Sky - Green Rotorcraft || 5 || 2,550 || 1,913

JTI-CS-GRC-01 || Area-01 - Innovative Rotor Blades || || 1,650 ||

JTI-CS-GRC-02 || Area-02 - Reduced Drag of rotorcraft || || 600 ||

JTI-CS-GRC-06 || Area-06 - Eco Design for Rotorcraft || || 300 ||

JTI-CS-SAGE || Clean Sky - Sustainable and Green Engines || 12 || 18,450 || 13,838

JTI-CS-SAGE-02 || Area-02 - Open Rotor Demo 2 || || 8,550 ||

JTI-CS-SAGE-03 || Area-03 - Large 3-shaft turbofan || || 6,400 ||

JTI-CS-SAGE-06 || Area-05 - Lean Burn || || 3,500 ||

JTI-CS-SFWA || Clean Sky - Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft || 8 || 10,725 || 8,044

JTI-CS-SFWA-01 || Area01 – Smart Wing Technology || || 300 ||

JTI-CS-SFWA-02 || Area02 - New Configuration || || 9,750 ||

JTI-CS-SFWA-03 || Area03 – Flight Demonstrators || || 675 ||

JTI-CS-SGO || Clean Sky - Systems for Green Operations || 14 || 6,450 || 4,838

JTI-CS-SGO-02 || Area-02 - Management of Aircraft Energy || || 5,950 ||

JTI-CS-SGO-03 || Area-03 - Management of Trajectory and Mission || || 500 ||

|| Totals (€) || 47 || 39,845 || 29,884

The total indicative budget of the call was set
to € 39 845,000, of which the EU contribution could be up to € 29 883,75
(50-75% of the topic maximum budget indicated).

3.5.3.2.  Analysis of proposals submitted

Applicants were invited to submit their
proposals by 18 October 2012. In total, 76 proposals were submitted in
response to the 47 open topics addressed by the present call, involving
applicants from 14 countries. 5 of them were found to be ineligible, and
the remaining 71 eligible proposals were evaluated by 102 independent
experts.

The table below presents the distribution of
participants in the submitted proposals:

Table 13: Participants by type in
the submitted proposals and success rate

Type participant[33] || Nr of participants in the Proposals || Nr of participants in the funded Projects || Participants success rate

REC || 26 || 13 || 19%

HSE || 29 || 18 || 17%

SME || 49 || 21 || 18%

PRC || 12 || 11 || 42%

PUB || 0 || 0 || 0

OTH || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 116 || 63 || 21%

All calls applicants distributed per country
are given in the figure below.

Figure
9: Applicants per country

Spain with a total of 34 participations, the UK
(25), France (25) and Italy (25) followed by Germany (19) took the lead as
number of proposal submitted both as coordinator and participant. Cyprus was
the only Country from the EU-13 being represented (2 participations) as
Switzerland was the only Associated Country represented with 4 participations.

3.5.3.3.  Evaluation results

The evaluation of the proposals took place in
Brussels between 26 and 30 November 2012 following the methodology described in
Section 4.3. To ensure high degree of transparency, the CS JU invited one
independent observer to verify if the evaluations have been done according to
the set evaluation guidelines and rules. Out of the 71 eligible proposals, 49
passed the thresholds, while 22 failed one or more thresholds.

In terms of the topics failed (because not
answered or with no successful proposal selected), the final situation of
successful topics vs. published ones was as follows:

Table 14: Topics failed per ITD

ITD || || Unanswered || Failed

SFW || Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft || 3 || 0

GRA || Green Regional Aircraft || 0 || 0

GRC || Green Rotorcraft || 0 || 1

SAGE || Sustainable and Green Engines || 3 || 2

SGO || Systems for Green Operations || 3 || 3

ECO || Eco-Design || 2 || 0

Total || || 11 || 6

The evaluation results, after processing all
submitted proposals, are presented in the table below:

Table
15: Evaluation results

|| Submitted proposal || Evaluation results

ITD/Area || || Eligible proposals || || Above threshold || Proposals selected for funding || Reserve list

Submitted proposals || % of retained

SFWA || 10 || 10 || 100.00% || 9 || 90.00% || 5 || 50.00% || 4

GRA || 6 || 6 || 100.00% || 3 || 50.00% || 1 || 16.66% || 2

GRC || 10 || 10 || 100.00% || 7 || 70.00% || 4 || 40.00% || 3

SAGE || 17 || 14 || 82.35% || 11 || 78.57% || 7 || 50.00% || 4

SGO || 23 || 22 || 95.65% || 13 || 59.09% || 8 || 36.36% || 5

ED || 10 || 9 || 90.00% || 6 || 66.66% || 5 || 55.55% || 1

total || 76 || 71 || 93,42% || 49 || 69,01% || 30 || 42,25% || 19

The 30 proposals proposed for funding accounted
for 63 participations from 11 European countries.

Of those, 18 (29%) came from academia, 11 (17%)
represented the industry and 13 (21%) were research institutions. The SME
participation was 33% (21 companies were SMEs), requesting a total funding of €
4 712 933 (33% of the total requested funding). Below you may find the
geographical distribution of the 63 participations.

Figure
10: Successful participants per country and typology

The geographical distribution of the proposals
selected for funding is shown in the graph below, Italy taking the leading
position with 7 proposals, followed by the United Kingdom, Spain and Germany.

Figure 11: Proposals selected for
funding per country

3.6.        Grant Agreements/Project
Portfolio

3.6.1.     Grant agreements signed
(commitment amounts)

During 2012
there were signed 102 GAPs belonging to Calls 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. They
are listed below together with the call they were part of.

No || Project Number || Project Acronym || Project Title || Call Identifier || CS JU contribution || In-kind contribution || Total contributions

1 || 267210 || ELPOC || Electrical Power Control – More Electric Aircraft || SP1-JTI-CS-2009-02 || 495,510 || 495,510 || 991,020

2 || 271815 || LOSPA || Model Design and Manufacturing of the Turbofan Configuration for Low Speed Aerodynamic and Acoustic Testing || SP1-JTI-CS-2010-03 || 978,754 || 326,252 || 1,305,006

3 || 271886 || NOISETTE || Landing Gear Noise Attenuation || SP1-JTI-CS-2010-03 || 114,412 || 35,138 || 149,550

4 || 277741 || DATACAST || Development of a low cost Advanced gamma Titanium Aluminide Casting Technology || SP1-JTI-CS-2010-04 || 323,000 || 227,000 || 550,000

5 || 278438 || HI-POTENTIAL || Higly Innovative Isothermal Forging of Gamma TIAL Alloy for LPT blades || SP1-JTI-CS-2010-04 || 284,408 || 284,409 || 568,817

6 || 287087 || AeroSim || Development of a Selective Laser Melting (SLM) Simulation tool for Aero Engine applications || SP1-JTI-CS-2010-05 || 700,290 || 268,114 || 968,404

7 || 286786 || ICARO || In-field CFRP surfaces Contamination Assessment by aRtificial Olfaction tool || SP1-JTI-CS-2010-05 || 177,778 || 59,259 || 237,037

8 || 296687 || BFCleaner || Borate Free Cleaners for Aluminum Alloys || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-01 || 66,279 || 30,101 || 96,380

9 || 296549 || ISINTHER || Industrialization setup of Thermoplastics in situ consolidation process || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-01 || 195,539 || 88,901 || 284,440

10 || 296722 || HVRCFM || The Conversion of Recycled Carbon Fibre Yarn and Tape Into High Value Fabrics and Materials || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-01 || 187,500 || 62,500 || 250,000

11 || 296700 || BESTT || Development, Construction and Integration of Bench Systems for Ground Thermal Tests || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-01 || 1,495,853 || 498,618 || 1,994,470

12 || 296138 || MAGNASENSE || Magnetostrictive sensor applications for self-sensing of composite structures || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-01 || 165,000 || 55,000 || 220,000

13 || 296514 || STRAINMON || Strain Monitoring in Composite Stiffened Panels Using Sensors || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-01 || 74,940 || 24,980 || 99,920

14 || 296595 || AFSIAL || Advanced fuselage and wing structure based on innovative Al-Li alloys || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-01 || 339,425 || 105,475 || 444,900

15 || 296617 || SMyTE || Advanced concepts for trailing edge morphing wings - Design and manufacturing of test rig and test samples - Test execution || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-01 || 157,715 || 51,556 || 209,271

16 || 296693 || HERRB || Helicopter Electric Regenerative Rotor Brake || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-01 || 523,745 || 174,584 || 698,329

17 || 296648 || TRAVEL || Tilt Rotor ATM Integrated Validation of Environmental Low Noise Procedures || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-01 || 573,640 || 222,760 || 796,400

18 || 296671 || LeVeR || Lean Burn Control System Verification Rig || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-01 || 545,503 || 405,327 || 950,830

19 || 296515 || OREAT II || Open Rotor Engines Advanced Technologies II || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-01 || 940,371 || 940,372 || 1,880,743

20 || 296503 || HT° Motor windings || Reliability assessment of key technologies for high temperature electrical machines || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-01 || 219,383 || 73,595 || 292,978

21 || 296701 || LHTFPCB || Demonstration of a large, high temperature, flexible printed circuit board || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-01 || 357,852 || 238,203 || 596,054

22 || 296115 || ALTD || Large 3-shaft Demonstrator - Aeroengine intake acoustic liner technology development || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-01 || 2,547,129 || 2,226,834 || 4,773,963

23 || 296585 || LEAN || Development of light-weight steel castings for efficient aircraft engines || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-01 || 502,914 || 258,422 || 761,335

24 || 296543 || ViMaQ || Hot sheet metal forming of aerospace materials - Virtual manufacturing and enhanced quality || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-01 || 290,750 || 207,250 || 498,000

25 || 296526 || INTFOP || Integrating Forging and Process Simulation for turbine disks || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-01 || 182,500 || 182,500 || 365,000

26 || 296541 || AMI4BLISK || Automated Geometrical Measurment and Visual Inspection for Blisks || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-01 || 765,493 || 527,870 || 1,293,363

27 || 296474 || E-SEMA || Development of Electric Smart Actuator for gas turbine engines || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-01 || 588,533 || 379,267 || 967,800

28 || 296540 || HiTNiFo || Development of an advanced design and production process of High Temperature Ni-based Alloy Forgings || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-01 || 260,875 || 194,125 || 455,000

29 || 296250 || HITECAST || High temperature Ni-based super alloy casting process advancement || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-01 || 325,000 || 175,000 || 500,000

30 || 296587 || LIGHT-TANK || Feasibility study and prototypes manufacturing of oil tank in thermoplastic for Helicopter Engine || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-01 || 307,887 || 141,989 || 449,876

31 || 296551 || HEXENOR || Development of Helicopter EXhaust Engine NOise Reduction technologies || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-01 || 666,065 || 417,764 || 1,083,829

32 || 296507 || RODTRAC || Robustness of distributed micron-sized roughness-element for transition control || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-01 || 375,000 || 125,000 || 500,000

33 || 296613 || INARAS || Automated Riblets Application on Aircraft Parts || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-01 || 412,468 || 137,490 || 549,958

34 || 296345 || STARLET || Basic Wind Tunnel Investigation to Explore the Use of Active Flow Control Technology for Aerodynamic Load Control || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-01 || 190,140 || 59,711 || 249,851

35 || 296681 || HIVOLA || High Voltage amplifier for MEMS-based Active Flow Control (AFC) Actuators || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-01 || 334,499 || 111,500 || 445,998

36 || 296092 || GBSSD(3) || Ground Based Structural & Systems Demonstrator Phase 3 - Component and sub-system manufacture || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-01 || 1,448,175 || 1,448,175 || 2,896,350

37 || 296588 || PROUD || PRECISSION OUTER WING ASSEMBLY DEVICES || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-01 || 2,191,512 || 731,488 || 2,923,000

38 || 296642 || FRARS-2 || Future Regional Aircraft Requirements Survey - Part 2 || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-01 || 74,340 || 24,780 || 99,120

39 || 298156 || CARHAY2011 || Design, Manufacturing and Impact Testing of Advanced Composite Materials || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-02 || 110,591 || 33,064 || 143,655

40 || 297173 || COMAG || Development and Implementation of Conductive coating for Magnesium sheets in A/C || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-02 || 120,000 || 40,000 || 160,000

41 || 298037 || BIFTTEC || Bamboo Innovative Fiber for Technical Textile and Environment Conservation || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-02 || 112,259 || 35,968 || 148,227

42 || 298090 || BME Clean Sky 027 || Development of an innovative bio-based resin for aeronautical applications || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-02 || 262,500 || 87,500 || 350,000

43 || 298106 || Riblet Sensor || Light Scattering on Micro Structured Surface Coatings || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-02 || 149,194 || 50,750 || 199,944

44 || 298114 || JIF4FLIGHT || Final Assembly Line Assembly Jigs and Fixtures for flight test demonstrator || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-02 || 1,049,610 || 949,710 || 1,999,320

45 || 298131 || IRIDA || Industrialisation of Out-of-Autoclave Manufacturing for Integrated Aerostructures || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-02 || 382,500 || 112,500 || 495,000

46 || 298147 || STARTGENSYS || ADAPTATION KIT DESIGN & MANUFACTURING: APU DRIVING SYSTEM || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-02 || 269,600 || 133,000 || 402,600

47 || 298164 || MOSKIN || Morphing Skin with a Tailored Non-conventional Laminate || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-02 || 296,950 || 103,050 || 400,000

48 || 298176 || ARMLIGHT || Design, development and manufacturing of an electro-mechanical actuator and test rig for AiRcrafts Main LandIng Gear acTuation systems. || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-02 || 473,693 || 274,338 || 748,031

49 || 298182 || AGF || Active Gurney Flap || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-02 || 202,423 || 97,155 || 299,577

50 || 298187 || ACcTIOM || Advanced Pylon Noise Reduction Design and Characterization through flight worthy PIV || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-02 || 390,860 || 179,300 || 570,160

51 || 298192 || GUM || Active GUrney on Main Rotor blades || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-02 || 341,550 || 141,850 || 483,400

52 || 306648 || I-PRIMES || I-PRIMES: an Intelligent Power Regulation using Innovative Modules for Energy Supervision || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-03 || 187,200 || 62,400 || 249,600

53 || 307767 || DynaPit || Nose Fuselage/Cockpit Dynamic Characterization for Internal Noise Attenuation || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-03 || 149,879 || 49,960 || 199,839

54 || 306928 || CALAS || Computational Aero-acoustic Analysis of Low-noise Airframe Devices with the Aid of Stochastic Method || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-03 || 112,500 || 37,500 || 150,000

55 || 306880 || DSOT300-125S || development and manufacturing of programmable electrical load and advanced PSM for electrical energy management testing in flight demo || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-03 || 73,350 || 24,451 || 97,801

56 || 307727 || SPLS || Smart programmable load and source || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-03 || 155,475 || 54,525 || 210,000

57 || 308129 || REGENESYS || Multi-source regenerative systems power conversion - REGENESYS || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-03 || 681,929 || 229,305 || 911,234

58 || 306997 || GREENBARRELS || Contra-Rotating Open Rotor (CROR) Propeller barrels || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-03 || 1,649,994 || 549,998 || 2,199,992

59 || 308265 || HOSTEL || Integration of a HOt STrEam Liner into the Turbine Exit Casing (TEC) || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-03 || 374,999 || 125,000 || 499,999

60 || 307866 || MICMEST || Microwave Clearance Measurement System for Low Pressure Turbines || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-03 || 349,993 || 349,993 || 699,986

61 || 307869 || ELWIPS || Electro-thermal Laminar Wing Ice Protection System Demonstrator || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-03 || 857,913 || 451,977 || 1,309,890

62 || 304851 || MATPLAN || CONSTRUCTION OF BESPOKE EVALUATION POWER MODULES~(MATPLAN) || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-03 || 150,694 || 95,730 || 246,424

63 || 307309 || PECOAT || Novel Coating Systems For Power Electronics In Aerospace Environments || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-03 || 363,176 || 121,058 || 484,234

64 || 306513 || ALT || Formulation and characterization of new aluminium alloys produced by ingot metallurgy for high temperature applications (250ºC) || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-03 || 311,447 || 128,931 || 440,378

65 || 307834 || SAA-Seal || Corrosion protection of Aluminium unpainted parts: development of an appropriated Cr free sealing process on thin SAA layer (≤5 µm) || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-03 || 179,985 || 59,995 || 239,980

66 || 307111 || AMICOAT || Development of new antimicrobial nanostructured durable coatings for fuel tanks || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-03 || 224,970 || 74,990 || 299,960

67 || 307659 || MAGNOLYA || Advanced environmentally friendly chemical surface treatments for cast magnesium helicopter transmission alloys preservation || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-03 || 150,000 || 50,000 || 200,000

68 || 307397 || HYPOTHESIS || Feasibility study of intelligent High Integrated Power Electronic Module (HIPEM) for Aeronautic Application || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-03 || 374,460 || 124,820 || 499,280

69 || 307526 || ARMONEA || Anotec Real-time MOdel for Noise Exposure of Aircraft || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-03 || 199,962 || 87,454 || 287,416

70 || 306927 || KLEAN || Knowledge-based EFB for green flight trajectory decision aid || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-03 || 559,491 || 186,497 || 745,988

71 || 323514 || COMPipe || Composite Pipes and Fittings for Aero-Engines Dressing || SP1-JTI-CS-2012-01 || 1,062,500 || 702,096 || 1,764,596

72 || 323540 || VIPER || Valve hIgh PERformances for flow control separation in aircraft || SP1-JTI-CS-2012-01 || 299,906 || 97,344 || 397,250

73 || 323380 || robustAFC || Performance Evaluation of a highly robust Fluid Actuator for AFC || SP1-JTI-CS-2012-01 || 298,950 || 99,650 || 398,600

74 || 323458 || MEMS MATURITY || MEMS Gyro - Maturity assessment of performance and integration || SP1-JTI-CS-2012-01 || 572,625 || 190,875 || 763,500

75 || 323535 || ResAcc || Development of a readout circuit for a resonant accelerometer || SP1-JTI-CS-2012-01 || 596,723 || 196,008 || 792,730

76 || 323423 || MAGBOX || Aeronautical Magnetic Gear Box || SP1-JTI-CS-2012-01 || 183,627 || 64,607 || 248,234

77 || 323392 || HIPERLAM || High-Fidelity and High-Performance Laminar Wing Optimization || SP1-JTI-CS-2012-01 || 187,499 || 62,501 || 250,000

78 || 323452 || HiReLF || Transonic High Reynolds Number Testing of a Large Laminar Wing Half Model || SP1-JTI-CS-2012-01 || 899,979 || 299,993 || 1,199,972

79 || 323543 || L-CROR CTS || Low speed aerodynamic test of large CROR aircraft model in a closed test section || SP1-JTI-CS-2012-01 || 1,499,880 || 499,960 || 1,999,840

80 || 323419 || ROTOPOWER || DEVELOPMENT OF KEY TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS FOR HIGH POWER-DENSITY POWER CONVERTERS FOR ROTORCRAFT SWASHPLATE ACTUATORS || SP1-JTI-CS-2012-01 || 258,749 || 86,251 || 345,000

81 || 323528 || HTCS || Passive cooling solution validation for aircraft application || SP1-JTI-CS-2012-01 || 225,000 || 75,000 || 300,000

82 || 323453 || HIROPEAM || High rotational heat pipe experimental analysis and modelisation for turbomachine purpose || SP1-JTI-CS-2012-01 || 215,722 || 71,907 || 287,629

83 || 323475 || E-SLEEVE || Direct filament wound rotor carbon resin sleeves by bulk curing and layer-by-layer Electron beam polymerisation || SP1-JTI-CS-2012-01 || 149,325 || 45,875 || 195,200

84 || 323444 || SOG PEERS || SOG Power Electronics with Energy Recycling System || SP1-JTI-CS-2012-01 || 693,746 || 693,747 || 1,387,493

85 || 323520 || OPTO-CLAVE || Design, implementation and validation of an automatic learning cure cycle optimisation process for the eco-efficient autoclave processing of composite materials || SP1-JTI-CS-2012-01 || 74,780 || 25,039 || 99,819

86 || 323405 || LRI-HiT || Investigations of liquid resin impregnation and out-of-autoclave curing of composites for the high temperature aerospace applications || SP1-JTI-CS-2012-01 || 365,159 || 134,760 || 499,918

87 || 323474 || MIFACRIT || Methodology Toolbox for Accelerated Fatigue Testing of FRP Materials: Micro-structural Failure Criterion for Multi-axial Fatigue of FRP Structures || SP1-JTI-CS-2012-01 || 149,903 || 49,967 || 199,870

88 || 323395 || IMAGINE || Integrated Approach to Manage Glass Fiber Aircraft Insulation Waste || SP1-JTI-CS-2012-01 || 121,610 || 98,070 || 219,680

89 || 323418 || RASAC || RAMAN spectroscopy for identification of aerospace composites || SP1-JTI-CS-2012-01 || 162,926 || 50,694 || 213,620

90 || 323417 || LIBSAC || Laser Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy for identification of Aerospace Composites || SP1-JTI-CS-2012-01 || 110,872 || 33,249 || 144,120

91 || 323476 || AEROBEAM || Direct Manufacturing of stator vanes through electron beam melting || SP1-JTI-CS-2012-01 || 100,951 || 32,650 || 133,601

92 || 323402 || AiMeRe || Aircraft Metal Recycling || SP1-JTI-CS-2012-01 || 171,246 || 107,961 || 279,207

93 || 323485 || AChSo || Automated Chemical Stitching and Preforming || SP1-JTI-CS-2012-01 || 220,183 || 73,160 || 293,343

94 || 323454 || SELFRAG CFRP || High Voltage Pulse Fragmentation Technology to recycle fibre-reinforced composites || SP1-JTI-CS-2012-01 || 217,500 || 217,500 || 435,000

95 || 323464 || MAS DE NADA || MAS DE NADA: Modeling and Advanced Software Development for Electrical Networks in Aeronautical Domain Analysis || SP1-JTI-CS-2012-01 || 187,200 || 62,400 || 249,600

96 || 323422 || AFLOG || Advanced Floor Grids for Green Regional A/C New Concept of Design, Manufacturing and Installation in Ground Full Scale Demo || SP1-JTI-CS-2012-01 || 1,466,000 || 719,000 || 2,185,000

97 || 323466 || WILDCRAFT || Wireless Smart Distributed end System for Aircraft || SP1-JTI-CS-2012-01 || 188,478 || 67,821 || 256,299

98 || 323470 || WAVECOM || Microwave assisted curing for carbon fiber reinforced epoxy composites || SP1-JTI-CS-2012-01 || 104,236 || 43,340 || 147,576

99 || 323410 || PUMA || PUMA || SP1-JTI-CS-2012-01 || 158,559 || 158,629 || 317,188

100 || 323420 || Disacop || Disassembly of eco-designed helicopter demonstrators || SP1-JTI-CS-2012-01 || 149,977 || 50,008 || 199,985

101 || 323301 || ITURB || Optimal High-Lift Turbine Blade Aero-Mechanical Design || SP1-JTI-CS-2012-01 || 629,325 || 209,775 || 839,100

102 || 323427 || WELDMINDT || Open rotor Engine WELDed parts inspection using MINiaturizable NonDestructive Techniques || SP1-JTI-CS-2012-01 || 374,500 || 113,455 || 487,955

Total || € 43,746,956 || € 22,552,877 || € 66,299,833

3.6.2.     Grant Agreements for which
activities have ended and/ or final results are available

# || Project Number || Project Acronym || Project Title || Project Call Identifier || Project EC Contribution || Project Total Cost || In-Kind Contribution || Project End Date

1 || 255741 || SMASH || Smart Methodologies and multilevel/multiscale Analysis of composite stiffened panel for Structural Health monitoring || SP1-JTI-CS-2009-01 || 312.847,00 || 417.130,00 || 104.283,00 || 31/01/12

2 || 255878 || DINNO-CROR || Design of innovative CROR blade and pylon || SP1-JTI-CS-2009-01 || 305.867,00 || 409.930,00 || 104.063,00 || 31/01/12

3 || 270601 || GBSSD(2) || Design & Manufacture of a ground based structural/systems demonstrator (Phase 2) || SP1-JTI-CS-2010-01 || 249.807,00 || 499.615,00 || 249.808,00 || 31/01/12

4 || 271829 || NURMSYS || Original design & manufacturing of a New Upstream Rotating Measurement System for gas turbine exhaust gases studies || SP1-JTI-CS-2010-03 || 144.210,00 || 202.280,00 || 58.070,00 || 29/02/12

5 || 285152 || DTV || DTV : Dispatch Towing Vehicle, for "Engines Stopped" Aircraft Taxiing || SP1-JTI-CS-2010-05 || 950.952,00 || 1.909.220,00 || 958.268,00 || 29/02/12

6 || 270625 || MACOTECH || Design and manufacturing of smart composite panels for wing applications and development of structural health monitoring techniques || SP1-JTI-CS-2010-01 || 88.899,90 || 119.933,20 || 31.033,30 || 31/03/12

7 || 270574 || INDUCTOR || Induction based Curing Tool for Optimized heating of composite Repairs || SP1-JTI-CS-2010-01 || 112.500,00 || 150.000,00 || 37.500,00 || 30/04/12

8 || 270647 || ICE-TRACK || Support of Icing Tests (Runback-Ice behaviour of surfaces) and Icing Mechanisms || SP1-JTI-CS-2010-01 || 172.100,00 || 229.467,60 || 57.367,60 || 30/04/12

9 || 271494 || CS-GYRO || MEMS gyrometer for wing behaviour measurement || SP1-JTI-CS-2010-02 || 600.000,00 || 800.000,00 || 200.000,00 || 30/04/12

10 || 270591 || SIEDIT || Development of a Slat with Integrated Electrical Deicers for Icing Wind Tunnel Tests || SP1-JTI-CS-2010-01 || 185.000,00 || 370.000,00 || 185.000,00 || 02/05/12

11 || 270586 || WINGTECH\_EVALUATION || WING BOX TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION - TRADE-OFF STUDY FOR THE RANKING OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES BEST FITTING WING || SP1-JTI-CS-2010-01 || 89.765,00 || 119.687,00 || 29.922,00 || 31/05/12

12 || 278170 || NEURAL || Neural network computation for fast trajectory prediction || SP1-JTI-CS-2010-04 || 112.316,00 || 149.755,00 || 37.439,00 || 31/05/12

13 || 255811 || EMAS || Electric Motor And Sensor design and manufacture || SP1-JTI-CS-2009-01 || 138.900,00 || 189.600,00 || 50.700,00 || 30/06/12

14 || 267678 || CORA || Sensor for Convective and Radiative Heat Loss || SP1-JTI-CS-2009-02 || 44.550,00 || 59.400,00 || 14.850,00 || 30/06/12

15 || 270539 || EASYPATCH || Prefabricated CFRP Parts || SP1-JTI-CS-2010-01 || 112.050,00 || 149.420,00 || 37.370,00 || 30/06/12

16 || 270593 || AWAHL || Advanced Wing And High-Lift Design || SP1-JTI-CS-2010-01 || 319.544,00 || 450.000,00 || 130.456,00 || 30/06/12

17 || 271691 || ADVANCED || Advanced heating system and control mode for homogeneous high temperature curing of large composite repairs || SP1-JTI-CS-2010-03 || 165.000,00 || 220.000,00 || 55.000,00 || 30/06/12

18 || 287122 || BASE || Business Aviation for Sustainable Economy || SP1-JTI-CS-2010-05 || 177.727,50 || 236.970,00 || 59.242,50 || 30/06/12

19 || 270624 || POTRA || Parametric optimisation software package for trajectory shaping under constraints || SP1-JTI-CS-2010-01 || 158.288,00 || 296.999,00 || 138.711,00 || 04/07/12

20 || 267567 || LAMBLADE || Development and provision of a numerical model to solve laminar-turbulent boundary-layer transition and boundary-layer velocity profiles for unsteady flow conditions || SP1-JTI-CS-2009-02 || 92.400,00 || 123.240,00 || 30.840,00 || 31/07/12

21 || 255750 || FLIGHT-NOISE || Advanced Turbofan-Equipped Aircraft Noise Model || SP1-JTI-CS-2009-01 || 247.443,00 || 329.924,40 || 82.481,40 || 31/08/12

22 || 255907 || MAS\_LAB || Multipurpose Aircraft Simulation Laboratory || SP1-JTI-CS-2009-01 || 250.000,00 || 500.000,00 || 250.000,00 || 31/08/12

23 || 255909 || ACTIPPTSENS || Active Pressure, Position and Temperature sensors for Turboshaft engines. || SP1-JTI-CS-2009-01 || 599.658,00 || 799.550,20 || 199.892,20 || 31/08/12

24 || 267525 || TIALBLADE || (BLADES INTO) HIGH TEMPERATURE MATERIAL || SP1-JTI-CS-2009-02 || 172.476,75 || 233.105,00 || 60.628,25 || 31/08/12

25 || 267608 || SMART || Saber Model Automatic tRanslation Tool, a software for Saber models conversion to multi-systems simulation platforms || SP1-JTI-CS-2009-02 || 149.310,00 || 199.080,00 || 49.770,00 || 31/08/12

26 || 270535 || CLEANCOMPFIELD || Construction and Assembly of a Prototype Surface Pre-treatment Tool for In-filed use || SP1-JTI-CS-2010-01 || 112.500,00 || 150.000,00 || 37.500,00 || 31/08/12

27 || 270644 || CLEANLE || Concept Study of a cleaning device for wing leading edges || SP1-JTI-CS-2010-01 || 29.955,00 || 39.940,00 || 9.985,00 || 31/08/12

28 || 296514 || STRAINMON || Strain Monitoring in Composite Stiffened Panels Using Sensors || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-01 || 74.940,00 || 99.920,00 || 24.980,00 || 31/08/12

29 || 255739 || AFC-TEFL-HLC || Active flow control application on trailing edge flap for high-lift configuration || SP1-JTI-CS-2009-01 || 224.993,00 || 299.990,00 || 74.997,00 || 30/09/12

30 || 255752 || LEBOX || Leading Edge Box Design for Swept Flow Control Wing || SP1-JTI-CS-2009-01 || 223.997,00 || 298.663,00 || 74.666,00 || 30/09/12

31 || 278144 || SUPERBLEND || Development of Thermoplastic Polymer blend with Low Melting Point and with Similar Properties than PEEK || SP1-JTI-CS-2010-04 || 149.628,00 || 199.504,00 || 49.876,00 || 30/09/12

32 || 323452 || HIRELF || Transonic High Reynolds Number Testing of a Large Laminar Wing Half Model || SP1-JTI-CS-2012-01 || 899.979,00 || 1.199.972,00 || 299.993,00 || 24/10/12

33 || 271838 || LH-LHT-RFT || Flight-tests with multi-functional coatings || SP1-JTI-CS-2010-03 || 58.350,00 || 116.700,00 || 58.350,00 || 27/10/12

34 || 270571 || MISPA || Proposal for the Development of an Applicator for Microstructured Paint Coatings Resulting in Significant Drag Reduction of Treated Surfaces || SP1-JTI-CS-2010-01 || 182.608,00 || 252.873,72 || 70.265,72 || 31/10/12

35 || 270666 || ESCRITP || Electrical Simulation Criteria & Tool Performances || SP1-JTI-CS-2010-01 || 100.000,00 || 200.000,00 || 100.000,00 || 31/10/12

36 || 270669 || COMPARE || COMPArative evaluation of NDT techniques for high-quality bonded composite REpairs || SP1-JTI-CS-2010-01 || 112.497,00 || 150.000,00 || 37.503,00 || 31/10/12

37 || 270577 || MEMFAC || A Microfabricated Actuator for Active Flow Control on Aircraft || SP1-JTI-CS-2010-01 || 94.988,00 || 189.976,00 || 94.988,00 || 05/11/12

38 || 251798 || EMICOPTER || Emission analysis. Tools required to perform the emission analysis and evaluation methodology || SP1-JTI-CS-2009-01 || 299.543,00 || 399.391,00 || 99.848,00 || 30/11/12

39 || 271492 || WINGACCS || Wing Dynamics Acceleration Sensor || SP1-JTI-CS-2010-02 || 450.000,00 || 600.000,00 || 150.000,00 || 30/11/12

40 || 271498 || NLFFD || NLF Starboard Leading Edge & Top cover design & manufacture || SP1-JTI-CS-2010-02 || 1.850.000,00 || 3.700.000,00 || 1.850.000,00 || 30/11/12

41 || 286030 || WINDTUNNEL || DESIGN AND MANUFACTURE OF A WIND TUNNEL TEST HARDWARE || SP1-JTI-CS-2010-05 || 291.225,00 || 388.300,00 || 97.075,00 || 30/11/12

42 || 287100 || µSAM || Micro Synthetic Jet Actuator Manufacturing || SP1-JTI-CS-2010-05 || 224.419,50 || 299.226,00 || 74.806,50 || 30/11/12

43 || 296631 || TARTASEAL || Chromate free and energy efficient sealing of TSA anodic films for corrosion protection || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-01 || 75.000,00 || 100.000,00 || 25.000,00 || 30/11/12

44 || 296658 || NOCONDES || Novel Continuous Descent Simulation Test Support || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-01 || 187.121,00 || 249.496,80 || 62.375,80 || 14/12/12

45 || 296642 || FRARS-2 || Future Regional Aircraft Requirements Survey - Part 2 || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-01 || 74.340,00 || 99.120,00 || 24.780,00 || 15/12/12

46 || 323543 || L-CROR CTS || Low speed aerodynamic test of large CROR aircraft model in a closed test section || SP1-JTI-CS-2012-01 || 1.499.880,00 || 1.999.840,00 || 499.960,00 || 24/12/12

47 || 267679 || SMYLE || LE coupon based technology || SP1-JTI-CS-2009-02 || 148.360,00 || 197.814,60 || 49.454,60 || 31/12/12

48 || 270531 || FLOCOSYS || Efficient System for Flow Control Actuation || SP1-JTI-CS-2010-01 || 45.450,00 || 60.600,00 || 15.150,00 || 31/12/12

49 || 270573 || EXPECT || Examination of Practical Aspects of Innovative Bonded Composite Repair Techniques || SP1-JTI-CS-2010-01 || 56.250,00 || 75.000,00 || 18.750,00 || 31/12/12

50 || 270583 || VEDISYS || Versatile and Eco-efficient Direct Drive Systems for Testing the Starters/Generators of Aircraft Engines || SP1-JTI-CS-2010-01 || 484.363,00 || 645.820,00 || 161.457,00 || 31/12/12

51 || 270599 || BME CLEAN SKY 032 || Resin, Laminate and Industrial Nanoparticles Concept and Application. Industrialization || SP1-JTI-CS-2010-01 || 134.999,00 || 180.000,00 || 45.001,00 || 31/12/12

52 || 270658 || STRAINWISE || Hardware & Software Development of Wireless Sensor Network Nodes for Measurement of Strain in Airborne Environment || SP1-JTI-CS-2010-01 || 552.048,00 || 795.393,00 || 243.345,00 || 31/12/12

53 || 271858 || DIMAG || Development and Implementation of Magnesium sheets in A/C || SP1-JTI-CS-2010-03 || 52.500,00 || 70.000,00 || 17.500,00 || 31/12/12

54 || 287020 || PALAST || Assessment of the interaction of a passive and an active load alleviation scheme || SP1-JTI-CS-2010-05 || 142.020,00 || 189.360,00 || 47.340,00 || 31/12/12

55 || 296687 || BFCLEANER || Borate Free Cleaners for Aluminium Alloys || SP1-JTI-CS-2011-01 || 66.279,00 || 99.998,00 || 33.719,00 || 31/12/12

|| || || totals || 14.849.843,6 || 22.511.204,52 || 7.661.360,7 ||

4.           INNOVATIVE MEDICINES INITIATIVE JOINT UNDERTAKING

4.1.        Introduction to the Innovative Medicines Initiative JU (IMI JU)

The Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint
Undertaking (hereinafter referred to as "IMI") has been established
by Council Regulation (EC) 73/2008 of 20 December 2007 as a public-private
partnership between the pharmaceutical industry, represented by the European
Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA), and the
European Union, represented by the European Commission.

The IMI JU has been set up for a period up to
31 December 2017 with the main objectives to build a collaborative eco-system
for pharmaceutical R&D in Europe and to speed up the development of more
effective and safer medicines for patients. In achieving this, IMI creates
large-scale networks of innovation in pharmaceutical research. Joining forces
in the IMI research and training projects, leading pharmaceutical companies and
SMEs, academia, regulatory agencies and patients' organisations cooperate with
each other to tackle the major challenges in drug development and to improve
people's health. This brings up socio-economic benefits to European citizens
and society and increases the competitiveness of the European pharmaceutical
industry.

The objectives of the IMI JU are achieved
through coordination of research activities that pool resources from public and
private sectors. These activities are carried out by the members of EFPIA
directly, and by partners selected through calls for proposals.

4.1.1.     Budget

The maximum Union contribution to the IMI Joint
Undertaking covering running costs and research activities shall be €1 billion.
The contribution is paid from the appropriation in the general budget of the
European Union allocated to the ‘Health’ theme of the Specific Programme
"Cooperation" implementing the Seventh Framework Programme.

EFPIA provides monetary contribution to the IMI
JU running costs, in an amount equal to the contribution of the Union. The
pharmaceutical companies' members of EFPIA jointly fund the IMI research
activities through contributions in kind at least equal to the financial contribution
of the Union.

4.1.2.     Governing structure

The Governing Board – is composed of the
two founding members (the European Commission and the EFPIA) and any future
members of the IMI JU and it is responsible for the IMI JU operations. Further
governance bodies are:

The Executive Director, supported by the
Executive Office (IMI JU staff); he is the legal representative of the JU and
responsible for its day-to-day management.

The States Representatives Group is an
advisory group composed of representatives from Member States and countries
associated to the Seventh Framework Programme.

The Stakeholder Forum, representing all
stakeholders (researchers from academia, SMEs, industry, clinicians,
regulators, patients, etc.); it takes place annually with the aim of exchanging
views on the on-going and planned research activities.

The Scientific Committee - is composed
of 15 members that have been appointed further to suggestions made by the
States Representatives Group and gives strategic science-based recommendations
to the IMI JU, advises on the continued relevance of the Research Agenda and
the scientific priorities, which are the basis for Call Topics.

4.2.        Overall progress since the establishment of the imi
jti/ju

The IMI JTI/JU performed in 2012 an extensive analysis of the on-going projects by extracting project
achievements from progress reports, interim reviews as well as the scientific
publications resulting from the projects. As envisioned in the Strategic
Research Agenda (SRA) of 2007, the projects from the early calls focus more on
the early stages of the drug development process such as pre-clinical
development and its translation, biomarkers and drug safety assessment. However
the trend towards later phases of the value chain such as clinical as well as
chemical development becomes visible with calls launched after the update of
the SRA in 2011. In particular with the 5th and 6th Call there has been a shift
towards “think big” projects such as European Lead Factory – ELF, and the
antimicrobial resistance programme New Drugs for Bad Bugs - ND4BB.

The measurable outputs resulting from on-going
projects and in some cases expected outcomes from recently launched “think big”
projects have been divided into 7 categories:

–
Establishment of robust validated models for
drug development

–
Development of clinically relevant biomarkers

–
Identification of new drug targets

–
Improved drug safety prediction, prevention and
monitoring

–
Establishment of key standards and tools for
drug development

–
Clinical trials - improved design and process

–
New in silico tools for drug development

–
Education and Training for new generation
R&D scientists

The table below presents most significant
examples of outcome/achievement by category.

1) Establishment of robust validated models for drug development

Project || Area || Results description

NEWMEDS || schizophrenia, depression || Evaluated 14 animal models of schizophrenia in the proteomic biomarker panel developed by the consortium. Identified 4 preclinical models mimicking serum clinical biomarker signatures of first onset schizophrenia patients. Developed a circuit (hippocampal-prefrontal) model of schizophrenia and validated it against currently available agents. Developed new imaging techniques via new PET probes, and developed translatable animal-human imaging methodologies (fMRI). Developed and pre-validated translatable rodent touchscreen technology for precisely measuring cognitive dysfunction (together with PHARMACOG).

2) Development of clinically relevant biomarkers

Project || Area || Results description

PHARMACOG || Alzheimer’s disease || Identified novel biomarkers sensitive to disease progression in transgenic mice. Demonstrated that cortical resting state EEG is sensitive to the cognitive decline in mild AD patients and might represent a cost-effective and non-invasive marker with which to enrich cohorts of AD patients that decline faster for clinical studies.

3) Identification of new drug targets

Project || Area || Results description

MARCAR || Safety || Identified a sustained liver-specific epigenetic switch within non genotoxic carcinogens target genes. Gained novel insight into early mechanisms of non genotoxic carcinogens that might lead to novel target identification.

4) Improved drug safety prediction, prevention and monitoring

Project || Area || Results description

e-TOX || knowledge management safety || Is building a toxicology information database utilising toxicology legacy reports from pharma partners to develop better in silico tools for toxicology prediction of new compounds (2087 reports extracted, 2904 cleared, 3643 planned in total). Assembled ChOX database using public data covering 175,000 compounds annotated to > 400 targets with > 700,000 activities extracted from 10,000 publications. Developed an in silico model for predicting cardiac toxicity. Developed 83 in silico models – internal pre-validation on-going. Developed toxicogenomics model for interpretation of transcriptomics and toxicogenomics data in order to predict inter-species toxicological profiles.

5) Establishment of key standards and tools for drug development

Project || Area || Results description

RAPP-ID || infectious diseases || Developed a device and protocol related to breath-born aerosol sampling - patenting on-going.

6) Clinical trials - improved design and process

Project || Area || Results description

NEWMEDS || schizophrenia depression || The analysis of the combined data from 23,401 schizophrenia patients has resulted in a proposal for reduction in the length of schizophrenia clinical trials as well as a reduction in the number of patients required to be enrolled. Initiated a clinical trial to develop new approach of combining medications with therapy.

7) New in silico tools for drug development

Project || Area || Results description

OpenPHACTS || knowledge management || Integrated 7 pharmacological information sources into a modular platform to query and analyse the data (>450 M triples) and developed 4 example applications.

8) Education and Training for new generation R&D scientists

Project || Area || Results description

PHARMATRAIN || E&T in Pharmaceutical Medicine || Successfully launched the Cooperative European Medicines Development Course - a postgraduate qualification in medicines development that will provide students from Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Turkey the very best teaching in the pharmaceutical field. 317 students have been following various courses (49% from EFPIA companies). Signed Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) with university of California and Peking.

4.2.1.     Bibliometric Analysis

A bibliometric analysis of IMI projects was
also conducted with the assistance of a contractor and the first report
delivered in October 2012. By the end of 2012, a total of 366 publications
resulting from IMI projects were identified.

82.7% of IMI project publications have been
published in a total of 119 journals to date, of which 95 are ranked in the top
quartile of journals (by Journal Impact Factor) in their specific research
fields. These journals include Nature, JAMA, PNAS and Nature Genetics. The
average citation impact for IMI project research is 1.55 for the 2-year period,
2010-2011, where world average is 1.0. For comparison, the EU’s average
citation impact relative to world baseline for the same 2-year period in
similar research fields was 1.14.

Up today, around 4500 scientists collaborate
under the IMI public-private partnership umbrella. They have a common mission,
namely to facilitate and accelerate the development of better and safer
medicines for the benefit of patients and society across Europe. The strong
interest elicited all over the world by the IMI programme to tackle
anti-microbial resistance and the creation of the IMI European Lead Factory
demonstrates that IMI effectively contributes to restoring European leadership
and competitiveness in the pharmaceutical sector.

Form the first call launched in 2008 until now,
40 Grant Agreements have been signed for a total of 51 research topics.

Overall, 3.535
organisations demonstrated interest to the IMI calls for proposal and
participated to the first step submission. Among these, 737 have been retained
for funding.

4.3.        Call implementation –
aggregated information from the establishment up to 2012

From the establishment up to 2012 IMI JU
launched 8 Calls covering a total of 51 topics. No Grants Agreements have been
signed for Calls 7 and 8 yet however Calls 1 to 6 resulted in the signature of
40 Grant Agreements with an outcome of €579,8M. The table below gives a more
detailed overview on IMI Calls from
the establishment up to 2012.

Table 1: Aggregated information on calls
implemented from 2008 until 2012

Call Reference || Publication date || Evaluation date || Nr of topics || Nr of GA signed || Indicative budget [max funding] (M€) || Outcome of the call (M€) ||

Call 1 - 2008 || 30/04/2008 || 9-17 September 2008 2 Feb – 4 March 2009 (incl remote and panel) + re-evaluation of 2 FPPs (topic 14 Emtrain-17-Poptrain) 4 au 8 May 2009 || 18 || 15 || 122,7 || 110,4 ||

Call 2 - 2009 || 27/11/2009 || 23-26 Feb 2010 13-16 July 2010 || 9 || 8 || 76,8 || 80,7 ||

Call 3 - 2010 || 22/10/2010 || 14-15 Feb 2011 5-8 July 2011 || 7 || 7 || 114 || 111,8 ||

Call 4 - 2011 || 18/07/2011 || 21-23 Nov 2011 17-20 April 2012 || 7 || 7 || 105 || 97,9 ||

Call 5 - 2012 || 6/03/2012 || 18-20 June 2012 27 Sept 2012 || 1 || 1 || 80 || 80 ||

Call 6 - 2012 || 24/05/2012 || 25-27 July 2012 29-30 Oct 2012 || 2 || 2 || 109 || 99 ||

Call 7 - 2012 || 17/07/2012 || 8-9 Nov 2012 25-26 March 2013 || 2 || N/A || 13 || N/A ||

Call 8 - 2012 || 17/12/2012 || 9-12 April 2013 27-29 April 2013 || 5 || N/A || 143,3 || N/A ||

Enso Call || 21/08/2012 || || || || 5,2 || 5,9 ||

Total || || || 51 || 40 || 769 || 585,7 ||

In terms of Calls participations
(excluding EFPIA) up to 2012 there were a total of 3535 participants in the
Expression of Interest of which 737 submitted Full Project Proposals. All Full
Project Proposals submitted where selected for funding. The table below gives
an account of the total participants by type in the different stages and
respective success rate. It has to be noted that, due to the two-stage
evaluation, number of participations in FPPs and especially in funded projects
might be higher than in the stage of Expression of interests. This is mainly
due to recommendations made by expert evaluators following which additional
partners could have been included in the consortia in order to have all the
capabilities to carry out the research as described in the work plan.

Table 2:
Aggregated information on participation by type and success rate

Type of participant || Nr of participants in the EoI || Nr of participants in the FPP || FPPs % of retained || Nr of participants in Funded Projects || participants success rate ||

Research organisations || 1.451 || 183 || 12,61% || 183 || 12,61% ||

Higher or secondary education || 1.404 || 384 || 27,35% || 387 || 27,56% ||

Private for profit (excl. education) || 0 || 0 || || || ||

SMEs || 636 || 109 || 17,14% || 109 || 17,14% ||

Others || 44 || 58 || 131,82% || 58 || 131,82% ||

Total || 3.535 || 734 || 20,76% || 737 || 20,85% ||

With regards to the grand total of
beneficiaries including EFPIA participations there were 1,100 of which 363 were
EFPIA representing 33% of the total beneficiaries. The Academia represented 35%
of participations whilst Research Organisations represented 16.6%, SMEs 9.9%,
Patients organisations 1.7%, Regulatory Agencies just short of 1% and the
remaining 2.8% of participations were from Other Partners. The table below
shows the exact number of participations by type of beneficiaries:

Participation by typology of beneficiaries in the 40 Projects (Calls 1 to 6 Grant Agreements signed)

Academia || 387

Research Organisations || 187

SMEs || 109

Patient's Organisations || 19

Regulatory Agencies || 8

Other Partners || 31

Total IMI Participations || 737

EFPIA || 363

Total Participations || 1104

The graphic below shows the percentage of SME
in participations overall and in budget allocated from Call 1 to 7.

Overview on participation of EFPIA and
non-EFPIA organisations and allocation of funding, from the setting up until
2012 (in 37 of the running projects).

Figure 1: participation overall including
EFPIA and non-EFPIA organisations

Figure 2:
SMEs participation in calls 1 to 7

In terms of the overall geographic distribution
of successful organisations (by coordinator and participant) as most of the
project coordinators are from the EFPIA companies, the chart below does not
include these.

Figure 3: Participation by country in successful
projects

Considering the geographic distribution of
successful organisations, both coordinators and participants but excluding
EFPIA companies, the best players are the UK with 159 succesfull orgnaisations
followed by Germany with 124, France (84) and Netherlands (70).

Switzerland, Israel, Iceland, Norway and Serbia
from the Associated Countries counted all together for 46 participations (about
6% of the total). EU-13 is represented by Hungary (6 participations), Poland
(3), Estonia (2), their participations is about 1% of the total. United States
has as much participations as Poland, Norway and Portugal.

4.3.1.     Samples of Key Performance Indicators[34]

4.3.1.1.  Time
to Grant (TtG)

As a result of the simplification exercise and
the associated process streamlining (outcome of the work of the Simplification
Task Force established in autumn 2011), IMI’s time to grant record has
improved.

For example, an ethics screening of the
highest-ranked Expressions of Interest is performed to identify critical issues
early on, so that they can be taken up in the preparation of the Full Project
Proposal. That way time-consuming 'repair' after the 2nd stage evaluation can
be avoided. It is now also clear that the negotiations about the project
agreement, which the consortium partners must conclude amongst themselves, need
to start already during the preparation of the Full Project Proposal.
Administrative checks on applicants now also start before the Full Project
Proposal is submitted. The templates for the different application stages and
the project reporting have been simplified. Great effort has been made to avoid
asking redundant questions while collecting all the necessary information. In
parallel the call process and the grant management is being implemented in a
revised electronic system SOFIA (submission of information)

The following graphic shows 2012 achievements
per Call in tyerms of TtG. The timeline calculation goes from the deadline for
submission of Expressions of Interest (EoIs) until Grant Agreement signature.

4.3.1.2.  Time
to Pay (TtP)

The following figure sets out the breakdown per
transaction type and enables a comparison with the two previous years. Details
about Time to pay are set out in the subsequent graphs:

Operational
costs

Running
costs

4.4.        Outline of the main activities and achievements in 2012

4.4.1.     Overview of 2012 achievements

Objectives in the AIP 2012 and Targets || Action and outcome

Research Activities Target : Commitment appropriations as close as possible to 100% but ≥ 95%

Monitoring of on-going projects (Call 1 and 2) Launch of Call 3 and 4 projects Launch of 4 new Calls for Proposals ||  14 interim reviews (13 from Call 1 projects, 1 from Call 2)  3 Cross-projects meetings, 2 cross-projects brochures supported  All seven Call 3 projects and six of seven Call 4 projects kicked off their activities in 2012  Preparation for kick off of EMIF project in early 2013  Calls 5, 6, 7 and 8 launched between March and December, incorporating the outcome of the simplification exercise (streamlined process supported by dedicated IT tool)  First Call for Proposals to Explore New Scientific Opportunities (ENSO) launched in August 2012 : 5 applications submitted Result : 95,76 % of operational budget execution

Communication No specific targets

Promotion of IMI by enhancing stakeholders’ outreach, taking advantage of success stories and testimonies of on-going projects ||  IMI Communication strategy developed under the auspices of the Governing Board  16 events targeting policy makers and opinion and industry leaders  Series of events to promote IMI to potential applicants and multipliers, including webinars, workshops and info sessions and active participation in 13 Member States national infodays  9 press releases and 11 public newsletters  366 publications from IMI projects  Average of 8100 unique visitors per month on IMI website (up 20% from 2011)

Key performance Indicators Target : Bibliometric indicator: Citation scores of project publications

Set of indicators critical for monitoring IMI’s achievements in terms of:  strategic relevance and added value of IMI in reinforcing pharma R&D in Europe by addressing bottlenecks and gaps in drug research. Target of percentage of participants in signed grant agreements that are SMEs  monitoring the operational performance of the Executive Office. || Performance monitoring methodology developed (e.g. bibliometric data screening on IMI project publications). See details in page 5 Total IMI contribution €496,851,540 Total SME funding €93,711,345 % SME 18.9%

Management of the Executive Office

Staffing 100 % of filled positions Finance Target : Operational costs: Commitment appropriations as close as possible to 100% but ≥ 95% Payment appropriations as close as possible to 100% but ≥ 80% Running costs: 100% commitment and payment appropriations Average Time to Pay (TTP) Pre-financing payments: ≤ 15 days Interim payments to beneficiaries: ≤ 45 days Average Time to Grant (TTG): ≤ 290 days Audits Information and Communications Technology ||  Staff ceiling of 36 reached in mid-2012 (100%)  Staff Committee established  Optimal operational budget execution: 95.58% in commitments and 100% in payments 73,19 % on commitment and 60,21 % on payment appropriations 12 pre-financing payments with a TTP average of 5 days 26 Interim payments (cost claims) made in 2012 with an average TTP of 60 days. 11 grants signed in 2012 with a TTG average of 346 days  1317 financial transactions made  Improvement in payments time-lines, in particular reduction of late payments for running costs by a third compared to 2011  First joint IMI-EFPIA financial management workshops for IMI projects  55 ex-post audits of beneficiaries finalised  Internal control environment strengthened  Preparation and launch of first audits of in-kind (EFPIA companies)  4 visits by European Court of Auditors  Core-business tool (SOFIA) subject to significant development improvements. Now SOFIA enables the full creation of XML files to be transferred to CORDA with the following data: Expressions of Interest (EoI), Full Project Proposal (FPP), Negotiation and Project data.  Technical consolidation of dedicated platforms for IMI Governance bodies as a vector of communication  Several new tools set up for the internal environment, including an electronic document management system

4.4.2.     Running of the IMI JU

4.4.2.1.  Human
Resources issues

In total, the IMI JU could hire up to 36 staff
(temporary and contract agents) in 2012, including one Executive Director, 8
project officers, one Head of Administration & Finance Unit, one Internal
Audit Manager, one External Relations Manager, one Communication and Event
Manager and other.

Recruitments were conducted in 2012 in line
with the Multi-Annual Staff Policy Plan approved by the Governing Board. The
authorised maximum ceiling of 36 staff members was reached on 1 July 2012. The
post incumbency rate was very good. 6 new staff members in 2012 joined IMI as
follows:

the Science pillar increased by 3 additional
Scientific Project Officers and 1 Administrative Assistant. Another
Administrative Assistant replaced a staff member who resigned at the end of
2011.

In Administration and Finance, a new
Administrative Assistant joined following a resignation.

The following selection processes launched in
2012 will be completed in 2013:

Ex-Post Audit and Finance Officer (AD5)

Communication and Events Officer (AD7)

4.4.2.2.  IT
issues

Following the development of Contract
Negotiation and Project Phase the XML Export to CORDA has been enhanced to
include data from these two phases. The development work has now been
completed. SOFIA enables the full creation of XML files to be transferred to
CORDA with the following data: Expressions of Interest (EoI), Full Project
Proposal (FPP), Negotiation and Project data. The interface is currently in a
phasing test. Further steps will be conducted with DG RTD to confirm adequate
reception, loading and availability of IMI data in CORDA.

4.4.2.3.  Procurement
activities

The large majority of IMI’s procurement in 2012
was done under existing multi-annual framework contracts. Of the framework
contracts, the most significant in volume, namely in IT services, audits and
interim staff provision, have been concluded jointly with other Joint
Undertakings to avoid duplication and minimise administrative effort.

The Joint Undertakings took the decision in
2012 to increase the contract volume ceiling of the framework contracts in IT
infrastructure services, telecommunications services and software development
(JTI/IT/2010/NP/01 - Lots 1-3) under a negotiated procedure under Art.126(1)(f)
of the Implementing Rules of the Financial Regulation. The possibility was
foreseen in the original tender specifications, because the Joint Undertakings
had just been established, which made it difficult to estimate long-term needs.

IMI also participates where possible in the
European Commission’s framework contracts. In 2012, the most significant of
these in usage volume terms was in the field of support services for event
organisation.

There were only two new larger tender
procedures carried out in 2012. The table below gives the details on these
including the procedure used in each case, the publication date, the award date
and the name of the contractor(s). Only tenders with a value exceeding EUR
60,000 are listed here.

4.4.2.4.  Budget
and finance

In 2012, the budget execution improved
significantly compared to 2011, with 95.76% execution in commitment
appropriations and 96.70% in payment appropriations. The graphs below set out
achievements both for operational activities (Call-related) and for the running
costs of the Executive Office (staff and infrastructures).

Regarding execution on carry overs,
significantly progress has been made as 100% of the amounts carried over from
2011 has been consumed in 2012.

The new amounts carried over from 2012 to 2013 have
decreased compared to those of 2011.

Concerning financial operations, IMI handled a total of
1317 financial files (payments, commitments, recovery orders and budget
transfers) in 2012.

4.4.3.     Second Interim Evaluation

The Council Regulation of the Innovative
Medicines Initiative (IMI) JTI Joint Undertaking stipulates that the Commission
shall conduct a second interim evaluation by the 31 December 2013 with the
assistance of a panel of independent experts, on the basis of the terms of
reference established after consultation of the JU. During 2012 the IMI JTI JU
has cooperated with the services of the Commission and the Clean Sky and FCH
JTIs JUs to start the preparatory work. This concerned in particular the
identifications of adequate independent experts and inputs provided for the
definition of the terms of reference.

4.4.4.     Progress in the implementation of the strategic research
agenda

Following the updating of the SRA in 2011,
increasing stress has been a shift towards “think big” projects. In particular,
with the 5th and 6th Calls focus has been put on European Lead Factory – ELF,
and the antimicrobial resistance programme New Drugs for Bad Bugs - ND4BB.

The European Lead Factory comprises two topics:

–
European Screening Centre

–
Joint European Compound Collection

This theme falls under key research priority
number 4 of the revised Strategic Research Agenda: ‘Beyond High Throughput
Screening - pharmacological interactions at the molecular level’, which is
correlated to the following Areas of Interest: Strategies in R&D, Tools and
Techniques.

4.4.5.     Major decisions taken by the governing board and other ju
bodies

The Governing Board oversees the implementation
of IMI’s activities. As from April 2012, Mr Roch Doliveux (EFPIA) became
Chairman and Dr Rudolf Strohmeier (EC) Vice-Chairman for a one year mandate. In
2012, 21 decisions have been approved by the Board. The Governing Board met
three times (March, June, October), adopting various decisions and reports that
include the Annual Activity Report 2011, the Annual Implementation Plan for
2013, Call texts and budgets and the outcome of evaluations. In addition,
monthly teleconferences between the Chair, Vice-Chair and the Executive
Director were held for information purposes.

The Scientific Committee held three meetings in
2012 (March, June, October), Chaired by Professor C. Noë. Key activities
included update on IMI projects achievements, notably on the occasion of
interim reviews of Call 1 projects, and consultation on future and new call
topics.

Through its annual Stakeholder Forum, IMI
engages key stakeholders in discussions about its activities. IMI held its 2012
Stakeholder Forum on 30 May, the evnet gathered over 150 participants . Updates
on IMI project achievements and future calls topics were presented and
discussed. A debate on IMI's impact on the pharmaceutical research and
development (R&D) landscape took also place.

4.4.6.     Main communication activities

In 2012, the IMI communication strategy and key
messages focused on communicating the success of IMI. As the overview below
shows, IMI has generated a wide visibility through various events, publications
and other communication actions as described in the table below:

. EVENTS || Date & Place || Outcome / Report

Key events targeting policy makers, opinion leaders and industry leaders

European Voice Debate on Healthcare  Presentation on IMI || 19 March 2012 Brussels ||  Article in European Voice  Visibility towards EU journalists and opinion/decision makers

DIA Euromeeting  Session + Exhibition stand || 26-28 March 2012 Copenhagen || Visibility towards industry/opinion leaders.

Innovation in Healthcare without Borders, European Commission  Exhibition stand || 16 April 2012 Brussels || Visibility towards SMEs

Hearing at the European Economic and Social Committee || 4 May 2012 Brussels || Visibility to national EU opinion makers

European Parliament Lunch Debate (The Parliament Magazine), hosted by Lambert Van nistelrooij, MEP  Presentations on IMI || 8 May 2012 Brussels || Visibility towards MEPs.

IMI Stakeholder Forum  on IMI’s impact on pharma R&D || 30 May 2012 Brussels || Over 150 people attended

European Partnership for Action Against Cancer (EPAAC) Research Forum  Presentations on IMI on patient involvement || 2 July 2012 Brussels || Outreach to patients’ organisations

EuroScience Open Forum (ESOF)  Presentations on IMI || 13 July 2012 Dublin || Visibility towards media.

Innovation Days – a Pharma & Biotech event  Presentation on IMI || 1 October 2012 Poland || Visibility towards SMEs and industry

European Health Forum Gastein  EPFIA lunch debate: Dialogue, transparency, trust  IMI/EFPIA session : Connecting new science, research healthcare needs || 4 October 2012 Austria || Strong visibility towards policy makers / industry decision makers

Innova Health Cyprus Presidency event  IMI satellite event ‘IMI – Putting Policy Into Practice’  IMI involvement in main event & resulting report || 11 October 2012 Cyprus || Strong visibility and positive recognition by policy makers / industry decision makers.

German Pharmaceutical Industry Association (BPI) Parliamentary Evening  Key note speech on IMI || 17 October 2012 Brussels || Exposure to industry and EU policy makers

Regulatory aspects in Innovative Medicines Initiative Projects (EMA)  IMI chairs session || 7 November 2012 London || Encouraging involvement of regulators

IMI European Parliament Event, hosted by Amalia Sartori, MEP Health Research at a Crossroads – Are Public-Private Partnerships the Way Forward? || 13 November 2012 Brussels ||  ~140 attendees  Personal contacts with MEPs and high-level opinion makers

IMI participation in InnovaHealth event in the European Parliament (by European Alliance for Personalised Medicine), hosted by Petru Luhan, MEP || 29 November 2012 Brussels || Personal contacts with MEPs

Key events to promote IMI’s Calls to potential applicants and multipliers key actions

Launch of 4th Call projects  Press release + through other communication channels || 5 December 2012 ||

ENSO Call promotion  Webinar for coordinators of on-going projects || 25 October 2012 ||

IMI support and/or staff presenting IMI at national info days || Throughout 2012 Austria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland

5th Call promotion  Open Info Day  Webinars  Web + email campaign || 27 February 2012, Brussels 5 and 20 February 2012

6th Call promotion  presentation at FP7 Health Info Day  workshop at IMI Stakeholder Forum  presentation at FP7 Health NCP meeting  webinars || 29 May 2012, Brussels 30 May 2012, Brussels 31 May 2012, Brussels 24, 25 May and 12 June 2012

7th Call promotion  Webinars  Info session during IMI Stakeholder Forum || 12, 17, 20 July, 2 August 2012 30 May 2012

Health NCP webinar (Health NCP Net)  On IMI Calls, rules, procedures, communication This was highly successful and will be repeated in the future || 17 September 2012

BioPartnering Future Europe (focus on SMEs)  Presentation on IMI Calls || 8 October 2012, Brussels

8th Call promotion  Webinars on AMR topics for SRC & SC  Webinars for applicants (+ for NCPs & SRG) on all topics || 15 October 2012 6,11,12,13,17 December 2012

4.4.6.1.  SMEs
awareness rising

As part of its commitment to communicating
better with all stakeholders, IMI pursued its efforts towards SMEs. The JU
Staff attended many meetings with SME organisations, ensured that the voice of
SMEs is heard at its stakeholder meetings.

A Stakeholder Workshop Addressing
‘Public-Private Partnership in Innovative Health Research under Horizon 2020’
was held in Brussels, on 19 September 2012. This workshop addressed the
experience of SMEs in Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs), particularly IMI, and
gathered important lessons learnt for inclusion in any future PPP under Horizon
2020.

SMEs, both those involved in IMI projects and
those not involved, were invited to attend and contribute. The IMI JU, the
European Commission and EFPIA presented the current status of SME participation
in and future perspectives under Horizon 2020.

There was strong support for IMI and the
benefits that working in a PPP can bring, however, based upon experience, areas
of improvement were suggested. These included the need to speed up decision
making and the Call process and recruitments into consortia. There was general
support for a future PPP under Horizon 2020 and the societal benefits that such
an initiative could bring. It was clearly felt that a future PPP should have a
broader range of partners and be easier to access for SMEs in order for it to
be truly successful.

4.4.7.     Success Stories

Chronic pain affects one in five European
citizens and adequate treatments are often lacking. The EUROPAIN
consortium has revealed important findings that contribute to a better understanding
of the mechanisms of chronic pain. For instance, the scientists discovered
similarity between pain caused by chemotherapy and the cold-induced pain caused
by concentrated menthol. They have also identified a molecule that causes the
pain of sunburn, raising hopes for the development of new, more effective
painkillers. The scientists hope that this newly discovered pain mechanism in
sunburn will help them to understand more about pain in other inflammatory
conditions like arthritis and cystitis as well. Studying brain imaging (scans),
the researchers have found that changes in how the brain functions in patients
with chronic pain can also be seen after minimal pain in healthy volunteers.

The SUMMIT consortium is developing
methods to identify risk factors for chronic complications in diabetes
patients. Diabetic complications, leading to stroke or problems with the heart,
kidneys and eyes, impose an immense burden on the quality of life of the
patients and account for more than 10% of health care costs in Europe. Together
with other initiatives, SUMMIT has generated the largest data collection of
genomic studies (Genome Wide Association Studies) up to date, including over 26
000 individuals with or without vascular or kidney complications of type 1 and
type 2 diabetes. It will help the scientists to identify genetic factors that
increase the risk of diabetic complications. A series of studies examining
potential metabolic markers or indicators of vascular complications of diabetes
is near completion. SUMMIT combines genetic, biomarker and imaging data to
identify non-invasive imaging markers of complications in blood vessels from
carotid (large artery in neck and chest) examinations. For visualizing the
high-risk atherosclerotic plaques (rich in fat deposits and inflammation) the
consortium has developed a non-invasive ultrasound based technology. SUMMIT has
constructed computer models that will help to predict complications and
response to treatment, on the basis of changes in the body.

The MARCAR consortium has developed and
proved the effectiveness of methods that help identify chemical changes in the
genetic material (chromosomes) that are related to cancer (non-genotoxic
carcinogenesis). The detection of these so-called epi-genetic changes can be used
as early biological indicators (biomarkers) to predict if drugs in development
are likely to cause unwanted effects (cancer) in patients. The findings will
therefore contribute to a better assessment of the safety of candidate drugs.
In addition, MARCAR has demonstrated that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can
be used to reliably detect liver tumors in mice when they are just 1 mm across
- previously more invasive techniques were needed to pick up tumors of this
size. As MRIs are non-invasive, they can be repeated at different stages of the
study, meaning that fewer animals are needed to obtain reliable results. The
fact that MRIs can be used to detect tumors at an early stage and to monitor
their reversibility makes them an invaluable tool in assessing the cancer risk
of potential drugs. MARCAR’s development of early biomarkers and non-invasive
tumor imaging methods should ultimately help reduce the need for long-term
experiments in animals.

4.5.        Calls implemented in 2012

4.5.1.     Calls implementation - Overview

The year 2012 was a landmark for the Innovative
Medicines Initiative. With the launch of 4 new Calls for Proposals (5, 6, 7 and
8) and a Call to Explore New Scientific Opportunities (Enso Call) for a total
IMI JU contribution of € 351.018.540 matched by the industry for an amount of
in kind contribution of € 322.910.064 and the kick-off of 13 new projects, IMI
committed almost half of its available budget in a single year. This
unprecedented effort resulted in the successful mobilization of the different
stakeholders, as reflected by the high quality funding applications that IMI
received, involving 487 industrial and academic teams.

During 2012, IMI consortia developing new tools
and methods to improve assessment of drug actions or implementing new education
and training programmes reported striking results. While these first
achievements are very encouraging, their effective translation into standards
of care will require novel innovative approaches, taking advantage of the
neutral platform represented by IMI. To help achieve this goal, in 2012 IMI
launched new projects focusing on defining real effectiveness and risk/benefit
evaluation of drugs and vaccines.

In addition to the implementation of the final
stages of Calls 3 and 4, five new Calls (Calls 5 to 8 and the ENSO Call) were
launched in 2012. The new streamlined Call process, including simplified forms
and the improved SOFIA submission tool, was fully implemented from the 5th
Call.

These changes shortened the time needed from
Call launch to project funding, and therefore allowed the full implementation
(including Grant Agreement signature) of both Calls 5 and 6 within one year. An
overview of these activities is displayed in the chart below (2012 – 2013).

4.5.2.     Evaluation and selection procedures

Project participants are selected by IMI
through open and competitive calls for proposals following a two-stage
submission and evaluation process.

During the first stage (referred to also as
"Stage 1") the call for proposals is
announced. The interested parties from academia, SMEs, patient organisations,
regulatory agencies and large non-EFPIA companies are invited to form applicant
consortia and to submit their Expressions of Interest (EoIs) in response to the
call. A first peer review is then performed, resulting in a shortlist of
top-ranked consortia. The applicant consortia of the best ranked EoIs and the
EFPIA consortium already associated to the topic are invited to form a full
project consortium. They prepare a Full Project Proposal (FPP) containing a
draft project agreement, which shall be concluded by the members of the
consortium governing their relationship.

In the second stage of the call (referred to
as "Stage 2"), the FPPs are evaluated
during a second peer review based on the consistency with the original EoI,
scientific excellence, quality of the implementation plan and potential impact.
Ethical issues are also considered at this stage. Only FPPs that have been
favourably reviewed in Stage 2 of the call can be selected for funding. The
selected full project consortia are invited then to conclude a grant agreement
governing their relationship with the IMI JU.  The chart below shows the
overall selection procedure:

The evaluation criteria as listed in the table below are applied. Thresholds
are set for some or all of the criteria, such that any expressions of interest
or full project proposal failing to achieve the threshold scores will be
rejected. A weight is also applied to some criteria. The fourth criterion at this
stage was only assessing the existence of potential ethical issues to be
reviewed in the next stage of the call.

№ || Evaluation criterion || Score || Weight || Threshold

1. || Scientific and/or technological excellence || 0 to 5 || 4 || 15/20

2. || Excellence of partnership || 0 to 5 || 3 || 10/15

3. || Work plan outline || 0 to 5 || --- || ---

4. || Ethical issues || Yes/No || --- || ---

With respect to experts involved in the review
of proposals submitted in response to Call 4, 5 and 6 the majority originated
from Europe (56 from EU 15; 9 from EU-12) and 23 from outside Europe.

4.5.3.     Aggregated information 2012

Calls 5, 6 and 7 have been analysed by
aggregating information.

The table below the number Expressions of
Interest submitted for each call and the respective evaluation results
(e.g. the number of eligible Full Project Proposals retained for funding):

Table 3: Evaluation results

Call Reference || Submitted Expression of Interest || Evaluation results || Reserve list, if any % of retained

Submitted Expression of Interest || Eligible EoIs || % of retained || Above threshold || Submitted Full Project Proposals || Success rate%

Call 5 - 2012 || 14 || 12 || 85,7% || 2 || 1 || 7,1% ||

Call 6 - 2012 || 14 || 13 || 92,9% || 3 || 2 || 14,3% ||

Call 7 - 2012 || 9 || 8 || 88,9% || 2 || 2 || 22,2% ||

Total || 37 || 33 || 89,2% || 7 || 5 || 13,5% ||

Note:
In Calls 5 and 6, two proposals merged into one.

In terms of the participation by typology of
beneficiaries in Calls 5, 6 and 7 there were a total of 418 Expressions of
Interest, 62 of which submitted Full Project proposals and 62 were selected for
funding. The table below gives an account of the total participants by type in
the different stages and respective success rate.

Table
4: participants by type and success rate

Type participant || Nr of participants in EoI || Nr of participants in the FPP || FPPs % of retained || Nr of participants in Funded Projects || Participants success rate

Research organisations || 178 || 18 || 10,11% || 18 || 10,11%

Higher or secondary education || 131 || 25 || 19,08% || 25 || 19,08%

Private for profit (excl. education) || 0 || 0 || || ||

SMEs || 104 || 16 || 15,38% || 16 || 15,38%

Others || 5 || 3 || 60,00% || 3 || 60,00%

Total || 418 || 62 || 14,83% || 62 || 14,83%

Furthermore, the participation of SMEs
has been also carefully analysed in 2012.

The involvement of Small and Medium Enterprises
(SMEs) in IMI projects has become one of the top priorities. Therefore efforts
are being made to enhance their participation. The table and figures below
summarise SME involvement in IMI projects for which grant agreements were
signed up to the end of 2012.

Even though Calls 3 and 4 were launched in 2011
it was not possible to provide the countries participation figures however
these figures are now available and therefore included in the graphic below
which gives a precise breakdown of participations by Country in Calls 3 to 7.

Figure
4: participation by Country in calls 3 to 7 (FPP selected for funding)

Out of the 290 participations overall, the UK,
Germany, Netherlands and France performed best counting for 58% of the total.
Globally, Hungary, Czech Republic and Estonia represented the EU-13 Countries
with 5 participations, 3 Hungary and 2 each Czech Republic and Estonia. IMI
also attracted organisations from the Associated Countries, which with
Switzerland, Iceland, Israel, and Norway accounted for 20 participations
overall (about 7%).

4.5.4.     IMI – 3rd Call – 2010 – Implementation of final stages

Call 3 resulted in the signature of 7 Grant
Agreements in total.

The final two Grant Agreements (ABIRISK and
PreDICT-TB) were signed in early 2012. This enabled the IMI to proceed with
pre-financing payments of EUR 10.5 million.

GA № || Project acronym || A || B ||

JU contribution || In-kind contribution ||

115336 || MIP-DILI || € 15.335.538 || € 12.558.465 ||

115303 || ABIRISK || € 18.170.217 || € 9.358.093 ||

115308 || BioVacSafe || € 17.425.666 || € 7.579.933 ||

115337 || PreDICT-TB || € 14.778.855 || € 9.296.156 ||

115300 || EU-AIMS || € 19.467.204 || € 9.538.635 ||

115317 || DIRECT || € 21.388.643 || € 16.472.745 ||

115334 || EUPATI || € 5.250.000 || € 4.756.112 ||

Total || || € 111.816.123 || € 69.560.139 ||

|| || || ||

The highest percentage (63.5%) of the total JU
contribution (€111.816.123) was distributed among 69 Academia participants, 21.4%
was distributed among 30 Research organisations, 9% among 14 SMEs, 2.4% among
Patients Organisations and the remaining among Other Partners.

The two graphics below illustrate the exact
amounts distributed by type of participants and the distribution in numbers
also by type of participants, both at grant level.

Figure 5: participation by type and
budget distribution (FPP selected for funding)

In terms of the geographical distribution of
the amounts above as well as the geographic distribution in number of
participations at grant level, of the 19 Countries involved, the United
Kingdom comes on top with the highest amount (31.5% of the total JU
contribution) and with the highest number of participations (29), followed by
Germany with 21 participations among which 16.3% of the total JU contribution
was distributed.

The graphics below show the amount distributed
and the number of participations by country at grant level.

Figure
6: Participation by country and budget allocated (FPP selected for funding)

4.5.5.     IMI - 4th Call – 2011

4.5.5.1.  Summary
information

Call Identifier || IMI -4rth Call - 2011

Publication date || 18 July 2011

Deadline for submission of EoIs || 18 October 2011

Evaluation of EoIs || October – December 2011

Results of 1st stage approved by GB || 14 December 2011

Deadline for submission of FPPs || 13 March 2012

Indicative Total budget (in €) || EUR 105 million

EU contribution after evaluation || EUR 97.943.541

In-kind contribution after evaluation || EUR 111.829.483

Number of topics || 7

Reference to call topics || http://www.imi.europa.eu/content/4th-call-2011

The 4th Call for proposals, published on 18
July 2011, consisted of the following 7 topics:

(1)
Knowledge management

(2)
Building a European Medical Information
Framework (EMIF) of patient-level data to support a wide range of medical
research. This Call theme consisted of 3 “sub-topics” to be merged into one
final project.

(a)
Information Framework / Knowledge Management
Service Layer.

(b)
Metabolic complications of obesity

(c)
Protective and precipitating markers for the development
of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other dementias.

(3)
European Translational Research Infrastructure
& Knowledge Management Services (eTRIKS).

(a)
Chemistry, Manufacturing and Control

(4)
Delivery and targeting mechanisms for biological
macromolecules.

(5)
In vivo predictive biopharmaceutics tools for
oral drug delivery.

(6)
Sustainable chemistry – delivering medicines for
the 21st century.

(a)
Technology and Molecular Disease Understanding

(7)
Human induced pluripotent stem (hiPS) cells for
drug discovery and safety assessment.

(a)
Understanding and optimising binding kinetics in
drug discovery.

Following the approval of the recommendations
of the consensus panels by the Governing Board in 2011, the first-ranked EoIs
were invited to prepare a Full Project Proposal with the pre-established EFPIA
consortia. For EMIF the first-ranked EoIs of the three subtopics were invited
to merge and prepare with a single FPP the pre-established EFPIA consortium.

The evaluation of the resulting FPPs was
conducted by the external experts; initially working remotely and then at a
consensus panel meeting. All 7 Full Project Proposals were recommended for
funding by IMI and approved by the Governing Board. Grant agreements were
signed during 2012 for all 7 projects.

4.5.5.2.  Analysis
of proposals submitted

See
Annual Progress Report 2011

4.5.5.3.  Evaluation
results

(a)
Stage 1, see Annual Progress Report 2011.

(b)
Stage 2:

Following the approval of the recommendations
of the consensus panels by the Governing Board in 2011, the first-ranked EoIs
were invited to prepare a Full Project Proposal with the pre-established EFPIA
consortia. For EMIF the first-ranked EoIs of the three subtopics were invited
to merge and prepare with a single FPP the pre-established EFPIA consortium.

The evaluation of the resulting FPPs was
conducted by the external experts; initially working remotely and then at a
consensus panel meeting. All 7 Full Project Proposals were recommended for
funding by IMI and approved by the Governing Board. Grant agreements were
signed during 2012 for all 7 projects for a total amount of € 97.943.541.

Concerning the amounts distribution and the
distribution in numbers by participants typology 71.5% of the total was
distributed among 82 Academia participants, 17.2% among 27 Research
Organisations, 11% among SMEs and the remaining among Patient Organisations and
Other Partners.

Figure 7: participation by type and
budget distribution (FPP selected for funding)

Concerning the geographic distribution in Call
4 out of 21 countries the United Kingdom comes on top with the highest
number of participations (38) that in terms of distribution of the amounts
represents 37.6% of the total JU contribution. The UK is then followed by
Germany, Netherlands and France. The following 2 graphs illustrate the
geographic distribution of participations and geographic distribution of
amounts, respectively.

Figure
8: Participation by Country and budget allocated (FPP selected for funding)

All 7 projects pre-financing were paid
in 2012:

Project ID || Project Acronym || Project IMI JU contribution || Project EFPIA in kind contribution || Project Prefinancing

115366 || K4DD || 8.286.932 || 9.831.318 || 2.651.817

115439 || StemBANCC || 26.000.000 || 21.023.330 || 8.320.000

115360 || CHEM21 || 9.829.638 || 13.888.017 || 3.931.855

115369 || ORBITO || 8.975.392 || 11.486.863 || 2.872.125

115363 || COMPACT || 10.184.913 || 18.217.735 || 3.259.172

115446 || ETRIKS || 10.309.818 || 10.838.978 || 3.299.141

115372 || EMIF || 24.356.849 || 26.543.242 || 9.742.739

Total || || 97.943.542 || 111.829.483 || 34.076.849

4.5.6.     IMI
– 5th Call – 2012

4.5.6.1.  Summary
information

Call Identifier || IMI -5th Call – 2012

Publication date || 06 March 2012

Deadline for submission of EoIs || 16 May 2012

Results of 1st stage approved by GB || 3 July 2012

Deadline for submission of FPPs || 13 September 2012

Indicative Total budget (in €) || EUR 80 million

EU contribution after evaluation || EUR 79.999.157

In-kind contribution after evaluation || EUR 91.337.070

Number of topics || 1

Reference to call topics || http://www.imi.europa.eu/content/5th-call-2012

IMI’s 5th Call theme, the creation of a
European Lead Factory for drug discovery, comprised 2 topics:

1. European Lead Factory - Screening Centre.

2. European Lead Factory - Compound Collection.

4.5.6.2.  Analysis
of proposals submitted

14 expressions of Interest (EoIs) had been
received by the submission deadline of which 12 were eligible, as follows.

Analysis of the applicants revealed that 162
legal entities took part; 83 (51%) were academic and non-profit organisations
and 79 (49%) were small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). On average, there
were 13.5 entities per EoI (range 5-32). Key figures regarding submitted
EoIs are presented below.

Figure
9: Participants by type in Expression of Interest (EoI)

4.5.6.3.  Evaluation
results

The in-house evaluation - Stage 1 of the EoIs
was conducted by a single panel of six independent experts mainly from Europe.
The ELEGENCE consortium was ranked first for the Screening Centre Topic, while
the SYNTARA consortium was ranked first for the Compound Collection topic. The
first-ranked applications were found to comprise 22 legal entities of which 9
(41%) were SMEs. Key figures of the first-ranked EoIs are presented below.

Table
5: Evaluation results

Call Reference || Submitted Expression of Interest || Evaluation results

Submitted || Eligible EoIs || % of retained || Above threshold || Full Project Proposals || Selected for funding || success rate

Call 5 - 2012 || 21 || 12 || 57,14% || 2 || 1 || 1 || 5%

Figure
10: Participants by type and Country

The two subtopics were combined at the second
stage, therefore the two successful applicant consortia and the EFPIA
consortium merged to form a single consortium to produce and submit their Full
Project Proposal (FPP).

Evaluation of the FPP at Stage 2 (project name:
European Lead Factory; acronym EUC2LID: European Centre for Chemistry and Lead
Identification) was successfully completed with the Expert Panel recommending
to the Board that the EUC2LID consortium progress to the negotiation stage.

Despite the project involving complex legal and
Intellectual Property issues, the negotiation of the Call 5 proposal European
Centre for Chemistry and Lead Identification (EUC2LID) was concluded on 3
December 2012. The negotiation involved several changes and one major one was the
change of Managing Entity. The Grant Agreement signature took place on the 19th
December 2012 with pre-financing released on the 21 December 2012. The project
could then start on 1 January 2013.

4.5.7.     IMI – 6th Call – 2012

4.5.7.1.  Summary
information

Call Identifier || IMI -6th Call – 2012

Publication date || 24 May 2012

Deadline for submission of EoIs || 09 July 2012

Results of 1st stage approved by GB || 09 August 2012

Deadline for submission of FPPs || 10 October 2012

Indicative Total budget (in €) || EUR 109 million

EU contribution after evaluation || 99.017.213

In-kind contribution after evaluation || 112.534.022

Number of topics || 2

Reference to call topics || http://www.imi.europa.eu/content/6th-call-2012

The 6th Call consisted of 2 topics:

–
Topic 1:

·
Innovative
Trial Design & Clinical Drug Development:

·
Subtopic
1A: Workpackage 1-4

·
Subtopic
1B: Workpackage 5

–
Topic 2:

·
Learning
from success and failure & Getting Drugs into Bad Bugs

Topic 1 focused on building and training
networks of researchers, facilitating and increasing the exchange of research
data, improving the efficiency of clinical trials on new antibiotics through
better laboratory tests and better trial design, and conducting clinical trials
to test a new antibiotic targeting infections caused by methicillin-resistant
Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).

Topic 2 focused on exploring new methods to
improve antibiotic uptake in Gram-negative resistant bacterial pathogens.

The Topic text was finalized during the first
months of 2012 and was sent for consultation with the States Representatives
Group and the Scientific Committee in April and May 2012.

Upon Governing Board approval, the 6th Call for
Proposals was launched on 24th May 2012, initiating an ambitious programme
(NewDrug4BadBugs, ND4BB) which addresses the major public health issue of
antimicrobial resistance. The programme aims at creating a new research
environment in Europe which will favour speeding up the delivery of much-needed
new antibiotics to patients, in particular targeting Gram-negative and
multiresistant bacteria.

The EFPIA in-kind contribution committed to the
6th Call projects was EUR 111.6 million, while the committed IMI JU
contribution was EUR 99.0 million.

4.5.7.2.  Analysis
of proposals submit

14 Expressions of Interests (EoIs) were
submitted for the 6th Call for Proposals, among which 13 were found eligible.

Key figures regarding submitted EoIs are
presented here below.

Figure
11: Participants by type in EoI – Details on Academia and SMEs participation

4.5.7.3.  Evaluation
results

The evaluation of the EoIs was conducted by
panels of independent experts from Europe, (including EU 12), Canada, and the
USA working initially remotely and then at a consensus meeting. Thirteen external
experts worked in 2 panels (1 panel per topic) moderated by IMI’s Scientific
Officers, in accordance with the IMI Rules for submission, evaluation and
selection of Expressions of Interests and proposals’.

Table 6: Evaluation results

Call Reference || Submitted Expression of Interest || Evaluation results

Submitted || Eligible EoIs || % of retained || Above threshold || Full Project Proposals || Selected for funding || success rate

Call 6 - 2012 || 28 || 13 || 46,43% || 3 || 2 || 2 || 7%

Key
figures of the first-ranked EoIs are presented as follows.

Figure 12: Participants by type

Following the approval of the recommendations
of the evaluation panels by the Governing Board, the two first-ranked EoIs for
Topic 1 were invited to merge, and prepare a Full Project Proposal (FPP)
together with the pre-established EFPIA consortium.

The first-ranked EoI for Topic 2 was also
invited to prepare an FPP with the pre-established EFPIA consortium. The
evaluation of the resulting two FPPs was conducted by the external experts
working initially remotely and then at a consensus panel meeting. Full Project
Proposals, COMBACTE and Translocation were recommended for funding by IMI and
approved by the Governing Board.

In light of the urgency in the implementation
of the topics the timelines of the 6th Call were kept very short with the
2-stages evaluation process and the negotiation finalized within 2012.

The Grant Agreement was signed in December 2012
for Translocation. The IMI proceeded with pre-financing payments of EUR 5.1
million for Translocation. The remaining project, COMBACTE will receive
pre-financing in early 2013.

GA № || Project acronym || A JU contribution || B In-kind contribution

115523 || COMBACTE || 83.033.010,00 € || 104.398.189,00 €

115525 || Translocation || 15.984.203,00 € || 8.135.833,00 €

Total || || 99.017.213,00 € || 112.534.022,00 €

Figure 13: Participations by
Countries in successful proposals in Calls 5 and 6

4.5.8.     IMI – 7th Call – 2012

4.5.8.1.  Summary
information

Call Identifier || IMI -7th Call – 2012

Publication date || 17 July 2012

Deadline for submission of EoIs || 9 October 2012

Results of 1st stage approved by GB || 30 November 2012

Deadline for submission of FPPs || 07 March 2013

Indicative Total IMI JU budget (in €) Indicative Total in kind contribution (in €) || EUR 13 million

EU contribution after evaluation || Not yet available

In-kind contribution after evaluation || Not yet available

Number of topics || 1

Reference to call topics || http://www.imi.europa.eu/content/7th-call-2012

The 7th Call for proposals included 2 topics.

–
Topic 1:

·
Developing a framework for rapid assessment of
vaccination benefit/risk in Europe

–
Topic 2:

·
Incorporating real-life clinical data into drug
development

As a first consultation of the Scientific
Community, a workshop on effectiveness research and the impact of vaccines was
held on 24 April 2012. The EFPIA coordinator for each topic presented the topic
followed by a discussion with a panel of invited experts. Experts were selected
based on recommendations from Scientific Committee members, members of the SRG,
and also the EFPIA project teams. This workshop, moderated by the Scientific
Committee Chair and co-Chair, resulted in a series of recommendations that were
used for the preparation of draft topic texts to be submitted for a final
consultation of the SRG and Scientific Committee during early June 2012.

4.5.8.2.  Analysis
of proposals submit

The high degree of specialization of these Call
topics resulted in 9 Expressions of Interests (EoIs) among which 8 were
eligible. Key figures regarding submitted EoIs are presented here below.

Figure 14: Participation by type in
EoI – Detail on Academia and SMEs participation

4.5.8.3.  Evaluation
results

The
evaluation of the EoIs was conducted by panels of independent experts from Europe
and the USA working initially remotely and then at a consensus meeting. 14
external experts worked in 2 panels (1 panel per topic) moderated by IMI’s
Scientific Officers.

Table
7: Evaluation results

Call Reference || Submitted Expression of Interest || Evaluation results

Submitted || Eligible EoIs || % of retained || Above threshold || Full Project Proposals || Selected for funding || success rate

Call 7 - 2012 || 19 || 8 || 42,11% || 2 || 2 || 2 || 11%

Key
figures of the first-ranked EoIs are presented here below.

Figure
15: Participations by type – Details on Academia participation

The two SME partners in the first ranked
consortium were from Belgium and Spain.

Following the approval of the recommendations
of the evaluation panels by the Governing Board, the two first-ranked EoIs were
invited to prepare a Full Project Proposal (FPP) together with the
pre-established EFPIA consortium. The deadline for submission of the FPP is 7
March 2013. The evaluation of the resulting two FPPs will be conducted in 2013.

4.6.        Grant agreements/project portfolio

4.6.1.     Grant agreements signed during the year 2012

A total of 11 Grant Agreements were signed in
the year of 2012 corresponding to a total contribution of €529.858.981 in which
the JU contributions equate to 42.8%, the In-kind contributions equate to 43.4%
and 13.8% equate to Own resources other than In-kind contributions. The table
below gives a detailed breakdown of the relevant Grant Agreements signed in
2012 as well as the breakdown and totals of the contributions.

GA № || Project acronym || Call Identifier || A || B || C || D

JU contribution || In-kind contribution || Own resources || Total contribution

(Other than B) || A+B+C

115303 || ABIRISK || Call 3 - 2010 || 18.170.217 || 9.358.093 || 5.471.311 || 32.999.621

115337 || PreDICT-TB || Call 3 - 2010 || 14.778.855 || 9.296.156 || 4.484.125 || 28.559.136

115372 || EMIF || Call 4 - 2011 || 24.356.849 || 26.543.242 || 7.835.649 || 58.735.740

115446 || eTRIKS || Call 4 - 2011 || 10.309.818 || 10.838.978 || 3.139.745 || 24.288.541

115363 || COMPACT || Call 4 - 2011 || 10.184.913 || 18.217.735 || 3.238.349 || 31.640.997

115369 || ORBITO || Call 4 - 2011 || 8.975.392 || 11.486.863 || 3.962.626 || 24.424.881

115360 || CHEM 21 || Call 4 - 2011 || 9.829.638 || 13.888.017 || 3.035.536 || 26.753.191

115439 || StemBanCC || Call 4 - 2011 || 26.000.000 || 21.023.330 || 8.579.463 || 55.602.793

115366 || K4DD || Call 4 - 2011 || 8.286.931 || 9.831.318 || 2.868.767 || 20.987.016

115489 || EU2CLID || Call 5 - 2012 || 79.999.157 || 91.337.070 || 25.202.832 || 196.539.059

115525 || Translocation || Call 6 - 2012 || 15.984.203 || 8.135.833 || 5.207.970 || 29.328.006

Total || 226.875.973 || 229.956.635 || 73.026.373 || 529.858.981

4.6.2.     Aggregate GA signed

Since
the establishment up to 2012 IMI JU has signed a total of 39 Grant Agreements
(15 in Call 1; 8 in Call 2; 7 in Call 3; 7 in Call 4; 1 in Call 5 and 1 in Call
6) for which the total contribution is €1.143.033.742 (43.5% in JU
contributions; 42.6% in In-kind contributions and 14% Own resources other than
In-kind contributions.

№ || GA № || Project acronym || Call Identifier || A || B || C || D

JU contribution || In-kind contribution || Own resources || Total contribution

(Other than B) || A+B+C

1 || 115001 || MARCAR || Call 1 - 2008 || 6.049.576 || 5.155.604 || 1.867.556 || 13.072.736

2 || 115002 || E-TOX || Call 1 - 2008 || 4.737.991 || 7.984.119 || 1.238.361 || 13.960.471

3 || 115003 || SAFE-T || Call 1 - 2008 || 13.901.969 || 17.983.604 || 3.918.225 || 35.803.798

4 || 115004 || PROTECT || Call 1 - 2008 || 11.009.715 || 9.700.789 || 5.190.077 || 25.900.581

5 || 115005 || IMIDIA || Call 1 - 2008 || 7.074.760 || 15.081.800 || 1.616.920 || 23.773.480

6 || 115006 || SUMMIT || Call 1 - 2008 || 13.999.979 || 14.567.466 || 4.456.921 || 33.024.366

7 || 115007 || EUROPAIN || Call 1 - 2008 || 5.999.413 || 10.929.803 || 2.098.483 || 19.027.699

8 || 115008 || NEWMEDS || Call 1 - 2008 || 8.986.216 || 13.442.771 || 2.636.388 || 25.065.375

9 || 115009 || PHARMA-COG || Call 1 - 2008 || 9.658.388 || 11.487.333 || 8.890.366 || 30.036.087

10 || 115010 || U-BIOPRED || Call 1 - 2008 || 8.976.473 || 10.836.687 || 2.476.742 || 22.289.902

11 || 115011 || PROactive || Call 1 - 2008 || 6.767.597 || 8.225.388 || 1.743.484 || 16.736.469

12 || 115012 || SafeSciMET || Call 1 - 2008 || 2.216.405 || 3.449.040 || 786.041 || 6.451.486

13 || 115013 || Pharma Train || Call 1 - 2008 || 3.510.291 || 3.149.288 || 555.708 || 7.215.287

14 || 115014 || EU2P || Call 1 - 2008 || 3.479.725 || 3.789.361 || 0 || 7.269.086

15 || 115015 || EMTRAIN || Call 1 - 2008 || 4.000.000 || 3.528.060 || 0 || 7.528.060

16 || 115188 || PREDECT || Call 2 - 2009 || 8.100.509 || 7.970.224 || 3.098.024 || 19.168.757

17 || 115234 || OncoTrack || Call 2 - 2009 || 16.050.282 || 10.544.557 || 4.883.080 || 31.477.919

18 || 115151 || Quic-Concept || Call 2 - 2009 || 7.000.000 || 6.788.606 || 3.084.056 || 16.872.662

19 || 115153 || RAPP-ID || Call 2 - 2009 || 6.828.438 || 5.848.470 || 1.882.687 || 14.559.595

20 || 115142 || BT-CURE || Call 2 - 2009 || 16.137.872 || 14.767.531 || 6.421.670 || 37.327.073

21 || 115156 || DDmore || Call 2 - 2009 || 9.615.058 || 10.218.672 || 1.893.267 || 21.726.997

22 || 115191 || Open PHACTS || Call 2 - 2009 || 9.988.866 || 4.596.565 || 2.760.868 || 17.346.299

23 || 115189 || EHR4CR || Call 2 - 2009 || 7.019.046 || 7.042.616 || 2.142.470 || 16.204.132

24 || 115336 || MIP-DILI || Call 3 - 2010 || 15.335.538 || 12.558.465 || 4.409.043 || 32.303.046

25 || 115303 || ABIRISK || Call 3 - 2010 || 18.170.217 || 9.358.093 || 5.471.311 || 32.999.621

26 || 115308 || BioVacSafe || Call 3 - 2010 || 17.425.666 || 7.579.933 || 5.216.484 || 30.222.083

27 || 115337 || PreDICT-TB || Call 3 - 2010 || 14.778.855 || 9.296.156 || 4.484.125 || 28.559.136

28 || 115300 || EU-AIMS || Call 3 - 2010 || 19.467.204 || 9.538.635 || 6.782.527 || 35.788.366

29 || 115317 || DIRECT || Call 3 - 2010 || 21.388.643 || 16.472.745 || 5.155.446 || 43.016.834

30 || 115334 || EUPATI || Call 3 - 2010 || 5.250.000 || 4.756.112 || 3 || 10.006.115

31 || 115372 || EMIF || Call 4 - 2011 || 24.356.849 || 26.543.242 || 7.835.649 || 58.735.740

32 || 115446 || eTRIKS || Call 4 - 2011 || 10.309.818 || 10.838.978 || 3.139.745 || 24.288.541

33 || 115363 || COMPACT || Call 4 - 2011 || 10.184.913 || 18.217.735 || 3.238.349 || 31.640.997

34 || 115369 || ORBITO || Call 4 - 2011 || 8.975.392 || 11.486.863 || 3.962.626 || 24.424.881

35 || 115360 || CHEM 21 || Call 4 - 2011 || 9.829.638 || 13.888.017 || 3.035.536 || 26.753.191

36 || 115439 || StemBanCC || Call 4 - 2011 || 26.000.000 || 21.023.330 || 8.579.463 || 55.602.793

37 || 115366 || K4DD || Call 4 - 2011 || 8.286.931 || 9.831.318 || 2.868.767 || 20.987.016

38 || 115489 || EU2CLID || Call 5 - 2012 || 79.999.157 || 91.337.070 || 25.202.832 || 196.539.059

39 || 115525 || Translocation || Call 6 - 2012 || 15.984.203 || 8.135.833 || 5.207.970 || 29.328.006

TOTALS || 496.851.593 || 487.950.879 || 158.231.270 || 1.143.033.742

4.6.3.     Grant agreements for which activities have ended and/or
final results are available

No grant agreements closed yet.

              GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS

              GENERAL

AAR
– Annual Activity Report

ABAC
– Accrual Based ACcounting is a transversal, transactional information system
allowing for the execution and monitoring of all budgetary and accounting
operations by the Commission, an Agency or EU Institution

ABP
– Annual Budget Plan

AIP
– Annual Implementation Plan

APR
- Annual Progress Report

AWP
– Annual Work Program

CDT
– Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union

CFP
- Calls For Proposal

CORDA
- COmmon Research DAta warehouse application (IT Tool) is a module used to
create statistics and report tables for FP6/7 project

CPM
– Contract and Project Management (IT Tool)

CSWD
– Commission Staff Working Document

DG
BUDG – European Commission Directorate-General for Budget

DG
CNECT – European Commission Directorate General for Communications Networks,
Content and Technology

DG
HR – European Commission Directorate-General Human Resources and Security

DG
RTD - European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation

ECA
- European Court of Auditors

EPSS
- Electronic Proposal Submission System (IT Tool)

ESS
– Evaluation Service Support (IT Tool)

EC
– European Commission

ED
– Executive Director

ERA
– European Research Area

ESR
– Evaluation Summary Reports

EU
– European Union

FP7
- Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research,
technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013)

FPP
- Full Project Proposal

GA
– Grant Agreements

GB
– Governing Board

Horizon
2020 - Horizon 2020 is the financial instrument implementing, in the period
from 2014 to 2020, the Innovation Union, a Europe 2020 flagship initiative
aimed at securing Europe's global competitiveness.

HR
– Human Resources

IE
– Interim Evaluation

IT
– Information Technology

JTIs
- Joint Technology Initiative are European Union instruments for addressing
technological challenges that are of key importance for the future
competitiveness of the EU industry involved, challenges that industry and
markets would fail to address without a sizeable public intervention extended
over a multi-annual timescale

JU
- Joint Undertaking refers to the administrative structure of the JT

MASP
- Multi-Annual Strategic Plans

MSPP
- Multi-Annual Staff Policy

NEF
– Negotiation Module, Back Office (IT Tool) used to manage data entry for
Negotiations, Amendments, and Periodic Reports

PDM
– Participant Data Management (IT Tool)

PO
– Project Outline

REA
- Research Executive Agency (REA)

R&D
– Research and Development

SEP
– Submission and Evaluation of Proposals (IT Tool)

SESAR
(JU) - Single European Sky ATM Research programme is the technological and
operational dimension of the Single European Sky (SES) initiative

SME
– Small and Medium Enterprises

SRA
- Strategic Research Agenda

SRIA
- Strategic Research & Innovation Agenda

              CLEAN SKY

ACARE
– Advisory Council for Aeronautical Research in Europe

ATM
- Air Traffic Management

DLR
- German Aerospace Research Center

DNW
– German-Dutch Wind Tunnels

ED
- Eco-Design

ETW
- European Transonic Wind Tunnel

GAM
– Grant Agreement for Members

GAP
– Grant Agreement for Partners

GMT
– (IT tool)

GRA
- Green Regional Aircraft

GRC
- Green Rotorcraft

ICT
– Information and Communications Technology

ITD
- Integrated Technology Demonstrator

NLF
- Natural Laminar Flow

NSRG
- National States Representative Group

SAGE
- Sustainable and Green Engines

SFWA
- Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft

SGO
- Systems for Green Operations

STAB
- Scientific and Technological Advisory Board

TE
- Technology Evaluator

TRL
– Technology Readiness Level, measure to assess the maturity of evolving
technologies

              IMI

AMR
- AntiMicrobial Resistance is the resistance of microorganism(s) to treatment
to which they were previously sensitive.

Biomarkers
(see also diagnostic makers) - distinct biochemical, genetic or molecular
characteristics or substances that are indicators of a particular biological
condition or process (for example a blood test to measure protein biomarkers
for cancer).

ICD
- International Classification of Diseases is a standard diagnostic tool used
to classify diseases and other health problems recorded on many types of health
and vital records including death certificates and health records

Clinical
Trial - any research study that prospectively assigns human participants or
groups of humans to one or more health-related interventions to evaluate the
effects on health outcomes

COCIR
- the ‘Comité Européen de Coordination des Industries Radiologiques,
Electromédicales et d’information de santé’

Diagnostic
markers (see also Biomarkers) - substances or groups of substances in the body
or in a bodily fluid that can be tested for, and which indicate the presence of
a particular illness or condition (for example a type of cancer)

EFPIA
- European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations

EMA
- European Medicines Agency

EMTRAIN
- European Medicines Training Network

EoI
– Expression of Interest

EUPATI
- European Patients Academy on Therapeutic Innovation

FDA
- US Food and Drug Administration

FPP
– Full Project Proposal

Me-too
drugs - drugs that are structurally very similar to already known drugs, with
only minor differences

One
health - efforts to work collaboratively across a variety of disciplines and
locales to obtain optimal health for people, animals and the environment, given
the evident links between each of these

Patent
cliff - colloquialism to denote the potential sharp decline in revenues upon
patent expiry of one or more leading products of a firm. A patent cliff is when
a firm's revenues could "fall off a cliff" when one or more
established products go off-patent, since these products can be replicated and
sold at much cheaper prices by competitors

SRG
- States Representatives Group

Zoonoses
- diseases which can be transmitted between different species (e.g. rabies)

[1]               TRL:
the Technology Readiness Level is
a measure used to assess the maturity of evolving technologies. TRL levels are
grouped into four major development phases:

(1) Fundamental research: TRL 1 Basic principles
observed; (2) Technological research: TRL 2 technology concept
formulated; TRL 3 Experimental proof of concept; TRL 4 Technology validated in
lab; (3) Product demonstration: TRL 5 Technology validated in relevant
environment; TRL 6 Demonstration in relevant environment; TRL 7 demonstration
in operational environment; TRL 8 System complete and qualified; (4) Competitive
manufacturing: TRL 9 Successful mission operations.

[2]               Cluster
for Application and Technology Research on Nanoelectronics, CATRENE is a
EUREKA’s co-operative R&D public private partnership for large companies,
SMEs, institutes and universities aiming at precompetitive innovations in
semiconductor technology and applications.

[3]               For
IMI and ENIAC only the stage of Expression of Interest and Project Outline
respectively has been accounted.

[4]               Participant
refers to single entities (SMEs, Universities, Research Organisations, etc.)
that take part in given call. This definition implies that they are counted
once only.

[5]               The 34% 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'.

[6]               In this report, the term
“Participations” refer to participant that may be involved in more than one
proposal in response to calls. This definition implies potential multiple
participation of entities.

[7]               Call
8 was launched mid-December 2012, so the results cannot yet be reported.

[8]               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.

[9]               For the definition of
participant / participations see foot notes 10 and 12

[10]             For the
definition of participant / participations see foot notes 10 and 12

[11]             For the
definition of participant / participations see foot notes 10 and 12

[12]             For the
definition of participant / participations see foot notes 10 and 12

[13]             See footnote 5.

[14]             For the
definition of participant/participations, see footnotes 10 and 12.

[15]             This
amount includes Research organisation and Higher or secondary education, which
are not distinguished in ARTEMIS

[16]             Private for Profit: EFPIA
companies accounted for about 50 participations in 2012

[17]             See footnote 5

[18]             Foot
note 10

[19]             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’.

[20]             Countries
are ranked by number of participations and not by alphabetical order

[21]             Figure
based on the European Court of Auditors’ own analysis covering 22 agencies for
the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.

[22]             Implementation of the JTI
programme started before full autonomy was granted to any of the JUs. In the
interim period, special task forces operated within DG RTD and DG INFSO
(currently DG CONNECT) in collaboration with the interim executive directors to
publish calls, recruit staff, evaluate the first calls, sign grant agreements,
etc.

[23] According to Article 1 of the Clean Sky's Statutes, the Integrated
Technology Demonstrators (ITDs) refer to the six technological areas
covered by the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking.

[24] The founding ITD leaders of the Clean Sky JU are: Agusta-Westland,
Airbus, Alenia, Dassault Aviation, EADS-CASA, Eurocopter, Fraunhofer
Gesellschaft, Liebherr, Rolls-Royce, SAAB, Safran and Thales.

[25] In 2001, the Advisory Council for Aeronautical Research in
Europe (ACARE) set the following targets for the aeronautics
industry by 2020: 50% reductions of the fuel consumption and the carbon dioxide
emissions, 80% reduction of the nitrous oxides emissions, 50% reduction of the
perceived external noise and improvement of the environmental impact of the
lifecycle of aircraft and related products.

[26] Europe in this context refers to the EU Member States and the
countries associated to the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Union
(2007-2013), i.e. Switzerland, Israel, Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Turkey, Croatia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia, Serbia, Albania, Montenegro, Bosnia
and Herzegovina and Faroe Islands (December 2010).

[27] Decision 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
(2007-2013), OJ L 412, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

[28]             http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2006/l\_400/l\_40020061230en00860242.pdf

[29]             http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2006/l\_412/l\_41220061230en00010041.pdf

[30]             Explanation of acronyms:

REC –
Research Centre; HSE – Higher or Secondary Education; SME – Small Medium
Enterprise; PRC – Private Companies; PUB – Public Body; OTH - Other

[31]             For both PUB and OTH, current tables show zero because
the initial allocation to the first four categories of all participants;
according to that selection, this is still valid and will be revised only if
some new case is presented where a more appropriate allocation to either PUB or
OTH is necessary. For statistical purpose, we deem the current attributions are
correct.

[32]             –Refer to notes 6 and 7

[33]             –Refer to notes 6 and 7

[34]             For more in depth information on the actual result
indicators please refer to the Annual Activity Report which is publicly
available in the JU web page.

Table of
Contents

5............ ARTEMIS JOINT
UNDERTAKING.. 3

5.1......... Introduction to the
Artemis JU.. 3

5.1.1...... Budget 3

5.1.2...... Governing structure. 3

5.2......... Overall progress since
the establishment of the ARTEMIS JTI/JU.. 4

5.3......... Outline of the main
activities and achievements in 2012. 8

5.3.1...... Running of the JU.. 8

5.3.2...... Second Interim Evaluation. 9

5.3.3...... Calls implementation in
2012. 11

5.3.4...... Governance - Major
decisions taken by the Governing Board and other JU bodies. 14

5.3.5...... Main communication
activities. 15

5.3.6...... Success Stories. 17

5.4......... Call(s) implemented in
2012. 18

5.4.1...... Call ARTEMIS-2012-1. 18

5.5......... Project Portfolio. 20

5.5.1...... Grant agreements signed or
under negotiation - GAs signed in 2012 (commitments amount) 20

5.5.2...... Grant agreements for which
activities have ended and/or final results are available. 21

6............ ENIAC JOINT
UNDERTAKING.. 31

6.1......... Introduction to the
ENIAC JU.. 31

6.1.1...... Budget 32

6.1.2...... Governing structure. 32

6.2......... Overall progress since
the establishment of the ENIAC JTI JU.. 33

6.2.1...... Funding ratio between
European Commission and Member States. 36

6.3......... Outline of the main
activities and achievements in 2012. 37

6.3.1...... Running of the JU.. 37

6.3.2...... Progress in the
implementation of the Strategic Research Agenda. 38

6.3.3...... Implementation of calls for
proposals (CFP) overall 39

6.3.4...... Governance - Major
decisions taken by the Governing Board and other JU bodies. 41

6.3.5...... Main communication
activities. 42

6.3.6...... Success story. 43

6.4......... Calls implemented in
2012. 43

6.4.1...... ENIAC-2012-1. 43

6.4.2...... ENIAC-2012-2. 46

6.5......... Project Portfolio. 49

6.5.1...... Grant agreements signed
(commitment amounts) 50

6.5.2...... Grant agreements for which
activities have ended and/or final results are available. 51

7............ FUEL CELL AND
HYDROGEN (FCH) JOINT UNDERTAKING.. 52

7.1......... Introduction to the FCH
JU.. 52

7.1.1...... Budget 53

7.1.2...... Governing structure. 53

7.2......... Overall progress since
the establishment of the FCH JTI/JU.. 55

7.2.1...... A strong and strategic
partnership at the forefront of FCH technologies. 55

7.2.2...... Progress towards the
Multi-Annual Implementation Plan (MAIP) objectives. 57

7.2.3...... Leveraging effect 59

7.2.4...... Industry and SME
participation to date. 59

7.3......... Outline of the main
activities and achievements in 2012. 59

7.3.1...... Running of the FCH JU.. 59

7.3.2...... Progress in the
implementation of the Multi-Annual Implementation Plan. 61

7.3.3...... Implementation of calls for
proposals (CFP) 61

7.3.4...... Evaluation process. 63

7.3.5...... Governance - Major
decisions taken by the Governing Board and other JU bodies. 63

7.3.6...... Second Interim Evaluation. 65

7.3.7...... Main communication
activities. 65

7.3.8...... Success stories. 67

7.4......... Call(s) for proposals
implementation in 2012. 68

7.4.1...... Call for proposals
FCH-JU-2012-1. 68

7.5......... Project Portfolio. 72

7.5.1...... Grant agreements signed
(commitment amounts – during the year 2012) 72

7.5.2...... Grant agreements for which
activities have ended and/or final results are available. 88

GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS. 90

5.           ARTEMIS JOINT UNDERTAKING

5.1.        Introduction to the Artemis JU

Growing out of the ARTEMIS European Technology
Platform (ETP), the ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking (hereinafter referred to as
"ARTEMIS JU") was established by Council Regulation (EC) 74/2008 of
20 December 2007 as a public-private partnership between the European
Commission, the participating Member and Associated States (by now 23
countries)[1],
and ARTEMIS-IA[2],
a non-profit industrial association of R&D actors in the field of embedded
computer systems.

The ARTEMIS JU has been set up for a period up
to 31 December 2017 with the main objective to tackle the research and structural
challenges in embedded systems faced by the industrial sector. The goal is to
define and implement a Research Agenda for Embedded Computing Systems. ARTEMIS
JU aims to help European industry consolidate and reinforce its world
leadership in embedded computing technologies.

5.1.1.     Budget

The maximum EU contribution to the ARTEMIS
Joint Undertaking is set to € 420 million paid from the appropriations in the
general budget of the European Union allocated to the theme "Information
and Communication Technologies" of the Specific Programme
"Cooperation" under the FP7. The research activities of the entity
are supported also through financial contributions from the ARTEMIS member
States amounting to at least 1.8 times the EU contribution (€ 756 million) and through
in-kind contributions by research and development organisations participating
in projects, which at least match the contribution of the public authorities.

5.1.2.     Governing structure

The ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking governance
structure comprises:

–
The Governing Board (GB) has overall responsibility for the operations of the ARTEMIS Joint
Undertaking. Its role is to oversee the implementation of the JU. It consists
of representatives from industry (ARTEMIS-IA) and public authorities including
the Commission and member States. Voting rights are split equally: 50% for
industry and 50% for public authorities.

–
The Industry and Research Committee (IRC) represents the interests of industry and the research community
through ARTEMIS-IA, the Artemis Industrial Association. It consists of members
appointed by ARTEMIS-IA. Its role is to draft the Multi-Annual Strategic Plan
based on the Research Agenda. In addition, it drafts an Annual Work Programme
for the activities of the JU including calls for research proposals.

–
The Public Authorities Board (PAB) consists of representatives of the ARTEMIS member States and the European Commission. It discusses and approves the Annual Work Programme. It is
also responsible for the decisions on the scope and budget of the calls for
proposals, launch of the calls, selection of proposals and allocation of public
funds for selected proposals. A third of the voting rights are assigned to the
Commission and the remaining two thirds are allocated to Member States.

–
The Executive Director is the chief executive of the Joint Undertaking whose role is to
ensure its day-to-day management. He is appointed by the Governing Board, for a
period of three years and is supported by a secretariat - the ARTEMIS-JU Office
- which handles the operational aspects of the JU.

5.2.        Overall
progress since the establishment of the ARTEMIS JTI/JU

ARTEMIS JU has since 2008 been able to become a
reference both in terms of piloting a new model for public-private partnerships
in research and in enabling R&D projects co-financed by both Union and national funds. The ARTEMIS JU has launched and managed 44 projects from its
first four Calls, started negotiations on 8 projects from its fifth Call and
initiated preparations for its sixth and final Call.

The following achievements of the initiative on
the embedded systems industry have been realised:

- An effective collaboration between the public
and private sectors within the public-private partnership represented by the
JU. The 44 running projects represent a total R&D&I investment of
708M€, comprising 228M€ national contributions, 116M€ contribution by the EU
and 363M€ from industry. The ratio of national to EU funding – a figure of
merit of the leverage effect of the EU contribution – is 1.96. The project
'footprint'/average countries per project is about 7, reducing fragmentation in
Europe.

- Combining Union and national efforts in order
to support the best European collaborative R&D to contribute to achieving
the technology and industrial objectives of the ARTEMIS JTI. The distribution
of the investment allocation of projects to the ARTEMIS Sub-Programme (ASPs) of
the ARTEMIS Research Agenda is as follows:

The distribution of investment over the 8 ASPs
is mainly in ASP1 (Safety-critical systems, with 32%) and ASP5 (Architectures,
with 26%). ASP1 is of high importance to the Transport and Medical industries.
It attracts larger projects with directly industrially relevant outcomes. ASP5
addresses the high technical complexity of low-power multi-core platforms. It
is made up of generally smaller-scale projects and higher academic content.

- Increasing overall R&D investments in the
field of Embedded Computing Systems: the first 4 years of ARTEMIS JU, showed a
negative trend in the volume of the commitments of the ARTEMIS member States.
The introduction of the concept of AIPPs (ARTEMIS Innovation Pilot Projects)
for Call 2012 reversed this trend. The concept of very large projects, that are
closer to the market, was positively welcomed by many ARTEMIS member States,
resulting in the highest ever commitment for an ARTEMIS call.

- Promoting the involvement of SMEs in the JU
activities. Of the 586 unique entities participating in ARTEMIS projects (with
many organization participating in multiple projects), 207 (35%) are large
enterprises, 210 (36%) are SMEs and 169 (29%) are public research
organisations. The 70% industrial participation indicates the industrial focus
of the programme. The high SME participation results from the national
contribution that favour SME participation, and from the establishment of local
ARTEMIS networks.

In order to monitor the progress of the
ARTEMIS-JU programme, a specific working group “Success Criteria and Metrics”
was set up in 2010. Its goal was to convert the generic targets described in
the ARTEMIS SRA into measurable quantities. This was done by conducting a
bottom-up study using a targeted questionnaire to the participants in
ARTEMIS-JU projects. The results of the first returns were published in 2011. A
second questionnaire was launched during 2012. The preliminary analysis of the
results shows that:

–
Networks have been established and are fully
operational. New partnerships and the involvement of SME’s has grown.

–
The industry-driven approach and the combination
of scientific & industrial views are key strengths and motivators within
the ARTEMIS community.

–
There is growing awareness of and interaction
with the ARTEMIS “Centres of Innovation Excellence” (CoIE)[3].

–
Business impact has been mostly observed in
reduced development costs, reduced time to market and higher re-usability.

–
The ARTEMIS Annual Work Programme targets that
are revised for each Call is a very useful living instrument for the ARTEMIS
stakeholders.

–
The societal challenges are addressed properly,
with ‘’security and safety’’ being first number 1.

–
There is growing interest in building prototypes
and demonstrators, including public trials and/or field tests.

–
There has been increasing attention to
communication, including on press releases and press coverage, bringing ARTEMIS
into the public domain.

Table
1: General overview on ARTEMIS progress - from the establishment up to 2012

Call Reference || Publication date || Evaluation date || Nr of topics || Nr of GA signed || Indicative budget [max funding] (M€) || Outcome of the call (M€) ||

ARTEMIS-2012-1 || 19/04/2012 || 8-12/10/2012 || 8 ASP + 6 AIPP || 8 under negotiation || 140,28 || 102,04 ||

ARTEMIS-2011-1 || 1/03/2011 || 3-7/10/2010 || 8 ASP || 9 || 72,42 || 68,88 ||

ARTEMIS-2010-1 || 26/02/2010 || 4-8/10/2010 || 8 ASP || 10 || 93,34 || 81,73 ||

ARTEMIS-2009-1 || 5/03/2009 || 28/9-2/10/2009 || 8 ASP || 13 || 104,51 || 101,29 ||

ARTEMIS-2008-1 || 8/05/2008 || 29/9-2/10/2008 || 8 ASP || 12 || 98,9 || 92,45 ||

Total || 509,45 || 446,39 ||

The ARTEMIS Calls' submission and evaluation
procedure has been completed in one or two stages (i.e. with or without PO phase). The following Calls have had a two phase submission/evaluation process: 2009,
2010 and 2011; and Calls 2008 and 2012 had a one phase submission process
(without PO phase).

Table 2: Total number of
participant and success rate from the establishment up to 2012

Type of participant || Nr of participants in the Full Project Proposals || Nr of participants in the funded Projects || Participants success rate

Uni/Inst/NP || 920 || 311 || 33,80%

Large Industry || 880 || 366 || 41,59%

SMEs || 840 || 263 || 31,31%

Others || - || - ||

Total || 2640 || 940 || 35,61%

The data in table 2 counts the participation of
a partner in projects as one i.e. multiple participations of an individual
partner are not accounted for. Table 3 shows that 50% of Full Project Proposals
(FPP) are evaluated to be above threshold and roughly 50% of these
above-threshold proposals are funded, giving a “proposal success ratio” of 1 in
4. This ratio is considered to be good as on the one hand it assures good
quality in the projects and on the other hand does not discourage participation
(especially from SMEs).

Table
3: Overall proposal success ratio

CALL || FPPs submitted || FPPs above threshold || Funded Projects

2008 || 27 || 17 || 12

2009 || 44 || 24 || 13

2010 || 73 || 28 || 10

2011 || 27 || 16 || 9

2012 || 24 || 13 || 8

TOTAL || 195 || 98 || 52

% of total FPPs submitted || 50% || 27%

Overall, the 44 on-going projects in ARTEMIS
present additional features, as by number of partners and countries involved in
consortia and by budget allocated. Statistics are represented in table 4 below.

Table 4: Statistics on running
projects – projects dimension and average duration

Projects typology || Min || Max || Average

Number of partners || 8 || 56 || 21

Number of Countries || 4 || 11 || 7

Total Budget || 2.5 M€ || 59 M€ || 16 M€

Duration || > 90% of projects are 3 years, < 10% are 2 years

 The geographic distribution on successful
participations is summarised in figure 1.

24 Countries have been involved in ARTEMIS
projects since its launch. The countries participated most are Italy (with 148 successful organisations involved), Spain (128) and Germany (100). Participation
from the EU-13 is as follows: Czech Republic (32), followed by Hungary and Latvia (with respectively 7 and 6 organisations involved).

Figure 1: Overall geographic
distribution of successful organisations (by coordinator and participant)

5.3.        Outline of the main activities and achievements in 2012

5.3.1.     Running of the JU

5.3.1.1.  HR
issues

ARTEMIS currently hires 13 staff members in
total. Staff ensures the execution of the needed financial transactions
(payment of salaries, payments to project participants…) according to the
Financial Regulation.

In 2012 two positions were filled: one
Administrative Assistant to the Programme Officers’ team in October to replace
a staff member who resigned; one secretary was recruited in 2012 and will be in
the post on January 2013. To cover the gap between September and January, an
interim secretary was contracted.

5.3.1.2.  Internal
Control

In September 2012, notice was given of the
discharge given by the Budgetary Authority to the ARTEMIS JU Executive Director
for the financial year 2010.

In 2012, the Court of Auditors delivered a
qualified opinion on the annual accounts of the JTI for 2011, mainly about the
insufficient assurance regarding the transactions at national level upon which
the JU payments are based. The Commission is closely monitoring the
qualifications made by the Court of Auditors and the follow-up given to these
by the Executive Director.

Since the inception of the JTI, the Executive
Director has been investing significant efforts to simplify the procedures,
ensure sound financial management, implement the Internal Control Standards and
work closely together with the member States. Action plans have been
established to respond to the Court of Auditors' concerns, including a close
follow-up on the ex-post controls done by the member States. The increasing
attractiveness of the JTI to member States and industrial investment shows that
these efforts are paying off.

5.3.1.3.  Administrative
expenditure

For the year 2012, it was agreed between the
Commission and ARTEMIS-IA that all administrative expenditure (running costs)
would be paid according to the following repartition: ARTEMIS-IA 1.2 MEUR and the
European Commission 1 MEUR. At the end of the year the needs of ARTEMIS JU for
administrative expenditures reached 2M and a consequence the contribution from
the European Commission was 0.8M EUR.

5.3.1.4.  Agreements
signed

In March 2012 ARTEMIS revised the General
Financing Agreement (GFA) signed with the European Commission on 17 October
2009 in order to correct the date by which the specific report (i.e. the
provisional accounts) should be delivered by the Joint Undertaking. This GFA
determines the modalities and conditions applicable to the Union contribution
to be provided to the Joint Undertaking and other items defining mutual rights
and obligations as considered appropriate by the parties.

An Administrative Agreement was signed with Poland in January 2012.

A host agreement was signed with the Belgian
authorities in February 2012.

The following Service level Agreements and/or
Memorandum of Understanding have been signed by ARTEMIS in 2012:

Service/DG || Content || Date

REA || Supply of FP7 support services for evaluations and reviews || 09.01.2012

CDT || Translation services || 10.01.2012

DG HR || Centralised services from DG HR || 28.02.2012

DG BUDG || Implementation and usage of ABAC || 17.10.2012

5.3.2.     Second Interim Evaluation

The Council decision establishing the ARTEMIS
Joint Undertakings foresaw that two interim evaluations (IE) should be carried
out by December 31st 2010 and December 31st 2013 respectively. The 2nd Interim
Evaluation ran from September 2012 to February 2013 and focused on the
assessment of the following four criteria: Relevance; Effectiveness; Efficiency
and Research Quality. A panel of 6 independent experts coordinated by a panel
chairman and supported by a recorder conducted a systematic and rigorous
evaluation, using multiple data sources. The ARTEMIS JU facilitated the interim
evaluation by providing relevant documentation and by contributing to panel
interviews. The 2nd IE report was published in early June 2013.

5.3.2.1.  Progress
in the implementation of the Strategic Research Agenda

A Multi-Annual Strategic Plans (MASP), with
connected Research Agenda, was approved in December 2011, based on the revised
Strategic Research Agenda (SRA). It was further updated and adopted in 2012 to
include the findings of the ARTEMIS-ITEA Sherpa group.

The ARTEMIS SRA is articulated in terms of both
vertical application areas and horizontal technology thrusts as shown in the
figure below:

All the
relevant industrial communities interested in embedded computing systems, such
as downstream system companies and upstream component companies (such as
semiconductor, pure software and sub-system suppliers) are involved in ARTEMIS.

Eight ARTEMIS ASPs are defined to facilitate
appropriate coverage of the area and involvement of stakeholders:

–
ASP1: Methods and processes for safety-relevant
Embedded Systems

–
ASP2: Embedded Systems for Healthcare and
Wellbeing

–
ASP3: Embedded Systems in Smart Environments

–
ASP4: Embedded Systems for manufacturing and
process automation

–
ASP5: Computing Platforms for Embedded Systems

–
ASP6: Embedded Systems for Security and Critical
Infrastructures Protection

–
ASP7: Embedded Technology for supporting
Sustainable Urban Life

–
ASP8: Human-centred design of Embedded Systems

The present situation on the 44 projects
selected in the first 5 years is illustrated by the following chart (ASP
coverage by averaged count of projects - projects may cover more than one ASP):

The ASP graph by investment distribution shows
a similar distribution.

In 2012 ARTEMIS introduced the AIPPs to cover
the full innovation chain from a proof of concept and prototyping stage right
through to a solid industrial platform. The implementation will build on the
results of the research of ARTEMIS-JU projects clustered around societal
challenges. AIPPs aim to achieve long-lasting and self-sustaining “eco-systems”
of actors. One of the major characteristics of the new research approach
promoted by the ARTEMIS JU is the promotion of cross-fertilization and reuse of
technology results in different application domains. The AIPPs are addressing
the areas of:

–
Critical Systems Engineering Factories.

–
Innovative Integrated Care Cycles.

–
Seamless Communication & interoperability-
smart environment (the neural system of society).

–
Production and Energy System Automation.

–
Computing platforms for embedded systems.

–
“Intelligent-Built” environment and urban
infrastructure for sustainable and “friendly” cities.

5.3.3.     Calls implementation in 2012

The ARTEMIS JU supports R&D activities
through open and competitive yearly call for proposals. The programme is open
to organisations in the EU Member States and Associated Countries.

Call 2012 was published on 19 April 2012 with a
one-step procedure and a deadline for submission of Full Project Proposals
(FPP) on 6th September 2012. The Call text specified the
contribution from the Joint Undertaking, the contributions from ARTEMIS member
States, the national eligibility criteria, the Guide for Applicants and other
information related to the Call.

The total indicative budget of the Call was
140.280.166 €, which includes an ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking contribution of
49.776.833 €, and an ARTEMIS member States contribution of 90.503.333 €. The
in-kind effort from industry would be roughly the same amount, yielding a total
investment to the projects of roughly 280 M€.

Following the evaluation, the ARTEMIS PAB
decides on the selection of proposals and the allocation of funding. The
ARTEMIS JU is then mandated by the PAB to negotiate with selected proposals
taking into account the maximum public funding allocated and the
recommendations for changes, if any.

After the successful conclusion of the
negotiations the grant agreements are signed with ARTEMIS JU and participants.
Participants that receive national financial contribution from ARTEMIS member
States also conclude national grant agreements with the national funding
authorities.

5.3.3.1.  Evaluation
procedure and criteria

The evaluation criteria for full project
proposals are set out in the document ARTEMISPAB-4-08: "ARTEMIS Joint
Undertaking selection and evaluation procedures related to Calls for
proposals". The 5 evaluation criteria are listed in the following table
along with the weight and thresholds.

|| Criteria || AWP 2012 part A (ASP) || AWP 2012 part B (AIPP)

Maximum score / weighting || Threshold || Maximum score / weighting || Threshold

1 || Relevance and contributions to the objectives of the call || 10 / 1 || 6 || 5 / 1 || 3

2 || R&D innovation and technical excellence || 10 / 1 || 6 || 10 / 1 || 6

3 || S&T approach and work plan || 10 / 1 || 6 || 10 / 1 || 6

Proposals submitted to ARTEMIS JU calls are
evaluated with the assistance of independent experts. This process ensures the
principles of equal treatment, excellence and competition.

Funding for ARTEMIS projects follows a unique
tripartite model. About 50% of the costs is covered by the partners, the
ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking provides 16.7% funding and the member States and/or regions fund the rest. This funding model has been working well in the first
years of the Joint Undertaking, but with certain limitations – mainly due to
the reduced level of commitments from the member States in the context of the
economic and financial crisis.

5.3.3.2.  Proposal
submission, assessment and evaluation

The proposals were submitted electronically to
the ARTEMIS JU via the Electronic Proposal Submission System (EPSS). 25 FPPs
(22 ASP’s and 3 AIPP’s) were submitted, all of which except one AIPP satisfied
the eligibility criteria for full project proposals. The evaluation was
conducted according to the rules set out in document ARTEMIS PAB-4/08:
"ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking selection and evaluation procedures related to
Calls for proposals".

The total costs and requested funding for the
submitted proposals is as follows:

Total Costs Requested || JU Funding Requested || National Funding Requested

485.608.783,00 € || 81.096.666,76 € || 162.475.572,87 €

In addition to the two AIPP proposals, both for
more than 80 M€ total cost, there are 4 proposals of more than 20 M€ and 8
proposals of more than 10 M€ and another 5 of very close to 10 M€.

Analysing the participation of the different
participant types shows that Call 2012 has again attracted a balanced mix of
industry and academia appropriate for its market-facing programme, and again a
healthy participation by SMEs. The details of this breakdown are given in the
following tables:

Participation by Total Costs

LE || PRO || SME || Grand Total

221.012.801,00 || 143.254.998,00 || 121.340.984,00 || 485.608.783,00

46% || 30% || 25% ||

Total participations

LE || PRO || SME || Grand Total

184 || 222 || 225 || 631

29% || 35% || 36% ||

Unique participants

LE || PRO || SME || Grand Total

128 || 133 || 188 || 449

28,5% || 29,6% || 41,9% ||

The 24 eligible FPPs were submitted to a group
of 51 independent experts. AIPP’s and ASP’s each had their own set of
evaluation criteria and scoring in order to address their specific needs, as
described in the AWP2012. The resulting individual evaluation reports were
consolidated into Evaluation Summary Reports (ESR) and an ordered list was
established through a panel meeting, held in Brussels from the 8th
to the 12th October 2012. 25 of the independent experts attended the
panel session, which was also attended by an independent observer. The report
of the observer confirmed that procedures and quality controls as set out in
the evaluation manual were correctly implemented.

The ESRs were each reviewed by the Executive
Director. This ensured consistency of the quality of the ESR and more generally
acted as a fine-grained filter quality control. The consistency of the results
so achieved gives a very high level of confidence in the quality of the
technical selection process.

13 proposals (2 AIPP’s and 11 ASP’s) were
evaluated above threshold (40 points minimum on a maximum of 60, with
individual threshold on certain criteria).

5.3.3.3.  Proposal
ranking, selection and allocation of funding

The selection decision was taken by the Public
Authorities Board at its meeting on 7th November 2012. The selection
took into account the eligibility checks performed by the national authorities.
To aid the PAB in making its funding decision, two tools were used. Firstly, a
presentation containing the key parameters and abstract of each proposal was
made, to serve as a reference base. Secondly, a new adaptation of the funding
allocation Excel spread sheet used in previous Calls was made, which allowed
for dynamic re-ordering of the proposals giving instant visibility of the
impact of suggested ordering changes that takes place during the funding
allocation discussions.

The final decision of the PAB was to grant a
mandate to the Executive Director for negotiation of 8 proposals, to put 3
proposals in the reserve list and to reject two proposals because of lack of
funding. This yields the following table of allocated funding (summary only –
full details can be found in the PAB decision ARTEMIS-PAB-2012-D.19).

5.3.3.4.            Negotiation and start of R&D projects

As from end of November 2012, the consortia
were invited to enter into negotiations for establishing a grant agreement. The
negotiation framework allows consortia to provide the relevant documentation in
the first 6 weeks of 2013. For the negotiations of project proposals submitted
under Call 2012, the Commission’s IT tools will be used, namely NEF (contract
negotiation module) and CPM (contract management module).

5.3.4.     Governance - Major decisions taken by the Governing Board
and other JU bodies

The GB held 3 meetings in 2012, while the PAB
met 4 times. The Industry and Research Committee (IRC) had 2 official meetings.
The main decisions taken by the GB during the year were related to Annual
Implementation Plan 2012 and Annual Budget Plan 2012. All decisions were taken
unanimously.

Important decisions of the PAB included the
launch of 2012 call and the work programme of 2013.

The ARTEMIS GB took the following decisions:

–
ARTEMIS-GB-2012-D.38 Multiannual Staff Policy
Plan 2013-2015

–
ARTEMIS-GB-2012-D.39 Strategic audit plan for
2012-2014

–
ARTEMIS-GB-2012-D.41 Amendment to budget 2012

–
ARTEMIS-GB-2012-D.42 AIP 2012

–
ARTEMIS-GB-2012-D.43 Extension of the contract
of employment of the Executive Director

–
ARTEMIS-GB-2012-D.44 Appointment of independent
experts to monitor evaluations

–
ARTEMIS-GB-2012-D.45 Annual accounts 2011
(decision)

–
ARTEMIS-GB-2012-D.46 MASP

–
ARTEMIS-GB-2012-D.47 Annual Implementation Plan
for 2013

–
ARTEMIS-GB-2012-D.48 Budget for 2013

–
ARTEMIS-GB-2012-D.50 Call 2012 evaluations:
report from observer

–
ARTEMIS-GB-2012-D.51 Amendment of budget 2012

–
ARTEMIS-GB-2012-D.52 Amendment to AIP 2012

The ARTEMIS PAB took the following decisions:

–
ARTEMIS-PAB-2012-D.15 Amendment to selection of
proposals retained for negotiation (Call 2011)

–
ARTEMIS-PAB-2012-D.16 Amendment to AWP 2012

–
ARTEMIS-PAB-2012-D.17 Decision instructing the
Executive Director to launch the Call 2012

–
ARTEMIS-PAB-2012-D.18 Amendment to rules for
evaluation and selection for calls for proposals

–
ARTEMIS-PAB-2012-D.19 Selection of project
proposals retained for negotiations following Call 2012 and allocation of
public funding

–
ARTEMIS-PAB-2012-D.20 AWP 2013

5.3.5.     Main communication activities

In 2012 ARTEMIS has continued to promote its
activities and enhanced the visibility of results achieved so far. In
particular, a number of communication activities have been performed and a set
of different tools have been used to best reach the target audience.

5.3.5.1.  Website

As the web site represents the principal tool
to communicate on ARTEMIS to the wider public, the site has been upgraded, both
in its content and in the “back-office” Content Management System (CMS). The
content of specific pages of common interest, such as “Events”, has been linked
between the JU and –IA sites, assuring proper synchronisation and harmonisation
of the content presented on those pages. The site has also prepared for full
digitalisation of the documents made available (unified data format), and also
for compatibility with the growing number of small-format display devices
(smart-phones and tablet computers).

5.3.5.2.  Publications

·
ARTEMIS Magazines 12 and 13. The ARTEMIS
magazine is distributed to:

–
Cabinet of Commissioner Neelie Kroes

–
DG CONNECT unit embedded systems

–
ARTEMIS Public Authorities

–
ARTEMIS National Contact Points

–
Strategic institutes (such as PROMETEO, EICOSE)

–
Members of ARTEMIS Industry Association

–
ARTEMIS project partners

–
ITRE Committee,

–
Magazines are also shipped to ARTEMIS events
around Europe.

·
ARTEMIS Call 2012 Brochure

·
Revised ARTEMIS general brochure

·
Advertisement. The ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking
published an advertisement in the European Parliamentary Yearbook that is
disseminated into the European Parliament. Also, a digital announcement on the
yearbook website was arranged, including a profile.

·
ARTEMIS Newsletter, sent to the ARTEMIS
Community a week before the Co-summit.

·
ARTEMIS Book of Projects Volume 2 as a follow-up
of ARTEMIS Book of Projects Volume 1.

·
ARTEMIS Project Folder Call 2010 & 2011, as
a follow-up of ARTEMIS Project Folder of Call 2008 & Call 2009. This is a
summary of all projects mentioned in ARTEMIS Book of Projects Volume 2.

·
ARTEMIS Project Call leaflets & posters for
projects from Call 2008/2009/2010/2011. (For call 2011 new posters &
leaflets have been produced. For the calls 2009 & 2010 the posters &
leaflets have been updated. All Call 2008 projects are finished and all got a
poster in the ARTEMIS Walk of Fame, including a ‘finished’ star).

5.3.5.3.  Press

Interaction with the press occurred mainly via
press releases and interviews. The main press interactions are listed here:

·
The pre-announcement for the ARTEMIS Proposers
Day was wired to the press database;

·
A press release of ARTEMIS project CESAR was
distributed;

·
An email interview was arranged with the Chair
of the JU Governing Board, for the Embedded World Conference and Exhibition
newspaper

·
Press release for the Call 2012 launch,
distributed via the ARTEMIS-IA press database and published on the website.

·
ARTEMIS MBAT project press release, distributed
to the press and published on the website.

·
Research Media (UK) published an interview with
ARTEMIS Industry Association chairman Klaus Grimm, focusing on international
innovation.

·
Pre Co-summit 2012, press release

·
Post Co-summit 2012, press release

5.3.5.4.  Events

·
International Brokerage Event 2012 in Prague, organised by the ARTEMIS Industry Association (17.01.2012 and 18.01.2012).

·
ARTEMIS Pre-brokerage event, held in Reading UK on 11.01.2012.

·
ARTEMIS Workshop in Finland, organised by TEKES
the Electronics Knowledge Centre (1.02.2012)

·
ARTEMIS Spring Event 2012 in Nuremberg, coupled
with the Embedded World Conference and Exhibition (28 and 29.02.2012).

·
ESI symposium 2012, stand on the “information
market” in Eindhoven (22.03.2012)

·
Call 2012 workshops:

–
In Madrid, co-organized with the Ministerio de
Industria, Energia y Turismo, The Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovation, CDTI and
Prometeo (13.04.2012).

–
In Paris, co-organized with Ubifrance and the
National Contact Point (20.04.2012)

–
In Gdansk, organized in co-operation with ETI
and the National Contact Point (11.05.2012).

·
Extra AIPP Brokerage Event to further
disseminate Call 2012 information for the AIPPs (03.07.2012).

·
ARTEMIS-ITEA Co-summit 2012, 30 and 31 October
2012 CNIT - Paris, France.

·
Pre-Brokerage Event for Call 2013, in Brussels, Belgium on 13 December 2012.

·
In Munich, Germany, the EUROPEAN NANOELECTRONICS
FORUM organised by ENIAC & Catrene took place from 20-21 November 2012 in Munich, Germany and was attended by ARTEMIS-JU projects POLLUX and IoE.

·
In Reading, United Kingdom, the ARTEMIS
Information Workshop took place on 17 December 2012, to disseminate preliminary
Call 2013 information.

·
Presentations by the Executive Director

·
During 2012, the Executive Director actively
took part in many ARTEMIS promotion activities, including presentations in 25
events.

5.3.6.     Success Stories

The CESAR (Cost-efficient methods and
processes for safety relevant embedded systems) project ended on 30.06.2012 and
the final review took place on the 2 -4.07.2012. The project cost was more than
58 M€ and 56 partners were involved. CESAR was credited with a very high
importance and visibility right from the beginning and its results have a
significant impact on the European embedded systems industry, mainly in the
area of safety relevant applications, such as automotive, aerospace, rail and
industry.

The state of the art in safety-critical
embedded systems has considerably been advanced in several areas, both related
to processes and products. Many scientific (academic) and technical
(industrial) achievements have been published and many of the important results
of CESAR have been made available on the CESAR website to the Embedded System
community. A significant number of breakthroughs and innovations are part of
the CESAR results particularly on cross-sectoriality and /or to overcome
barriers and obstacles that hampered reusability of design approaches,
reference architectures for ES, technology platforms and tools in the Embedded
System Community at large. A large number of deliverables and demonstrators
(pilot applications) were developed and shown.

CESAR has shown the value of a large project.
CESAR had the critical mass, as well as the right mix of partners, to present a
uniform set of processes, tools, guidelines and examples for the development of
safety-critical embedded systems.

The Objective of POLLUX - which stands
for Process Oriented Electronic Control Units for Electric Vehicles developed
on a multisystem real-time embedded platform - is to develop a distributed real
time embedded systems platform for next generation electric vehicles, by using
a component and programming-based design methodology. Reference designs and
embedded systems architectures for high efficiency innovative mechatronics
systems will be addressed with regard to requirements on composability,
networking, security, robustness, diagnosis, maintenance, integrated resource
management, evolvability and self-organization. This approach is extremely
promising in predicting the drive behaviour of the electric car, which underpins
the successful market appreciation of such a vehicle. So far the Project has
achieved most of its objectives and technical goals. Software in the loop (SIL)
simulation of vehicle dynamics was given that is received as a major positive
outcome in the project.

Investigations are on-going on the usability of
ethernet approach for in car communications (including safety-critical ones).
The physical demonstrators – 2 electric vehicles – are being developed to
validate the POLLUX approach. Hereto the work is not completed, but it is
progressing according to plan.

eSONIA stands
for Embedded Service-Oriented Monitoring, Diagnostics and Control: Towards the
Asset-Aware and Self-Recovery Factory. Its objectives are to realise the
asset-aware and self-recovery plant through pervasive heterogeneous IPv6-based
embedded devices, bringing on-board specialised services, glued through a
middleware capitalising the service orientated approach. This will be applied
in industry for the first time, in order to support continuous monitoring,
diagnostics, prognostics and control of assets, regardless of their physical
location. The project will contribute to reduced costs of maintenance and
increased up-time in manufacturing in the specified use cases but also in other
industries as the technology is generic and the solutions are designed in a way
that can be applied to current production systems. The project thus contributes
to current state of art and addresses important interoperability issues.

5.4.        Call(s) implemented in 2012

5.4.1.     Call ARTEMIS-2012-1

5.4.1.1.  Summary
information

Call Identifier || ARTEMIS-2012-1 ||

Publication date || 19/04/2012 ||

Deadline || 06/09/2012 ||

Indicative Total budget (in €) || 140,28 M€ ||

EU contribution after evaluation || 37,95 M€ ||

MS contributions after evaluation || 64,05 M€ ||

In-kind contribution after evaluation || 125,42 M€ ||

Reference to call topics || All 8 ASP and 6 AIPP topics are relevant ||

5.4.1.2.  Analysis
of proposals submitted

·
Number of proposals submitted and, if
appropriate, by topic:

–
Total: 25

–
Eligible for evaluation: 24

·
Number of participants in the submitted
proposals:

–
Total: 631

5.4.1.3.  Evaluation
results

·
Number of proposals submitted and, if
appropriate, by topic: 24

·
Passing the thresholds, failing the thresholds:
13 above threshold /11 below threshold

·
Proposed for funding, and reserve list: 8 for
funding /3 in reserve list

·
Success rate: 33.3%

·
Number of participants in the proposals selected
for funding:

Total: 326

SMES: 106 – Budget allocated to SMEs equal to € 9.6 M.

Table
5: Evaluation results

Call Reference || Submitted Full Project Proposals || Evaluation results || Reserve list, if any % of retained

Submitted Full Project Proposals || Eligible FPPs || % of retained || Above threshold || Selected for funding || Success rate%

ARTEMIS-2012-1 || 25 || 24 || 0,96 || 13 || 8 || 32% || 3 proposals, 23% of above threshold

Table
6: Participation by type and success rate

Type participant || Nr of participants in the Full Project Proposals || Nr of participants in the funded Projects || Participants success rate

Uni/Inst/NP || 222 || 108 || 48,65%

Large Industry || 184 || 112 || 60,87%

SMEs || 225 || 106 || 47,11%

Others || - || 0 ||

Total || 631 || 326 || 51,66%

In 2012, 18 Countries participated in the 8
selected for funding projects. Spain with 45 participations, Italy (44) and France (38) followed by Germany, resulted as the most represented countries. The Czech Republic and Poland registered the highest participation from EU-13 Countries. Turkey was the only associated country that took part successfully to calls in 2012.

Figure
2: Participation by country – selected for funding projects

5.5.        Project
Portfolio

5.5.1.     Grant agreements signed or under negotiation - GAs signed in 2012 (commitments amount)

The following table provides the list of
projects for which grant agreements have been signed by Call identifier:

№ || GA № || Project acronym || Call Identifier || A || B || C || D || E

JU contribution || In-kind contribution || Own resources || National funding || Total contribution

(Other than B) || A+B+C+D

1 || 295378 || e-GOTHAM || ARTEMIS-2011-1 || 1.142.417,11 || 3.163.265,89 || - || 2.535.138,00 || 6.840.821,00

2 || 295311 || VeTeSS || ARTEMIS-2011-1 || 3.212.373,42 || 9.768.418,20 || - || 6.254.977,38 || 19.235.769,00

3 || 295371 || CRAFTERS || ARTEMIS-2011-1 || 2.937.789,52 || 8.490.854,03 || - || 6.162.910,45 || 17.591.554,00

4 || 295372 || DEMANES || ARTEMIS-2011-1 || 3.430.086,48 || 10.387.644,71 || - || 6.721.708,81 || 20.539.440,00

5 || 295373 || nSafeCer || ARTEMIS-2011-1 || 2.722.812,59 || 8.960.670,66 || - || 4.620.783,75 || 16.304.267,00

6 || 295364 || DESERVE || ARTEMIS-2011-1 || 4.328.019,73 || 14.075.250,03 || - || 7.513.016,06 || 25.916.285,82

7 || 295354 || SESAMO || ARTEMIS-2011-1 || 1.968.114,44 || 6.824.278,14 || - || 3.220.723,82 || 12.013.116,40

8 || 295397 || VARIES || ARTEMIS-2011-1 || 2.200.959,23 || 5.827.033,91 || - || 5.151.403,42 || 13.179.396,56

9 || 295440 || PaPP || ARTEMIS-2011-1 || 1.732.709,34 || 5.766.132,27 || - || 3.030.663,00 || 10.529.504,60

TOTALS || 23.675.281,85 || 73.263.547,84 || - || 45.211.324,69 || 142.150.154,38

5.5.2.     Grant agreements for which activities have ended and/or
final results are available

The following table indicates the projects
which have had their final review in 2012. Due to administrative processing,
including in the Member States administrations, the final payments were still
pending at the end of 2012. Therefore the amounts indicated in the table are
the committed amounts as agreed in the PAB decisions of the first and second
calls of ARTEMIS.

|| GA № || Project Start Date || Date GA ended || Project acronym || Project features || A || B || C || D || E

JU contribution || In-kind contribution || Own resources || National funding || Total contribution

(Other than B) || A+B+C+D

1 || 100039 || avr-09 || || CHARTER || CHARTER will develop concepts, methods, and tools for embedded system design and deployment that master complexity and substantially improve the development, verification and certification of critical systems. || 850868,841 || 2577346,159 || 0 || 1666808 || 5095023

2 || 100012 || févr-09 || || eDIANA || To enable sustainable urban life, eDIANA targets rationalization of the use of resources while increasing comfort by means of embedded systems technologies in residential and commercial buildings. To achieve greater efficiency in use of resources, it aims at prioritizing energy use, more flexibility in the provision of resources and better situation awareness for the citizen and for service and infrastructure owners. || 2894188,167 || 9775161,973 || 0 || 4661117,86 || 17330468

3 || 100035 || janv-09 || || SYSMODEL || SYSMODEL will develop supportive modelling tools for the design and implementation of time and power critical heterogeneous systems. The focus is on reuse of existing models and their integration in a heterogeneous system. The vision is to allow SMEs to build cost-efficient ambient intelligence systems with optimal performance, high confidence, reduced time to market and faster deployment. || 897457,1718 || 2084531,358 || 0 || 2392126,87 || 5374115,4

4 || 100026 || mars-09 || || iLAND || iLAND will develop enabling technologies for modular, component-based middleware for networked systems that demand deterministic, dynamic functional composition and reconfiguration. Its results embrace a lightweight middleware architecture offering deterministic services and QoS-based resource management, and an approach for modelling deterministic, dynamic reconfiguration and composition of applications, with validation through three application demonstrators. || 653471,531 || 1711898,809 || 0 || 1547632,76 || 3913003,1

5 || 100021 || avr-09 || || INDEXYS || INDEXYS will develop a cross-domain instantiation of the GENESYS embedded system architecture, for Industrial-grade exploitation on real-world platforms in Railway, Aerospace, Automotive and Industrial Control domains. || 1226367,005 || 3397705,995 || 0 || 2719442 || 7343515

6 || 100022 || févr-09 || || CHESS || CHESS aims to build modelling languages for extra-functional properties, and develop tools for evaluation of these properties of component contracts. It will adapt component infrastructures for the integration of real-time and dependable patterns, and validate the approach through multi-domain case studies. || 1990537,461 || 5838163,879 || 0 || 4090685,24 || 11919386,58

7 || 100032 || mars-09 || avr-13 || SMART || SMART will create an innovative WSN infrastructure based on both off-the shelf reconfigurable devices (FPGAs) and specially designed Reconfigurable Application Specific Instruction Set Processors (RASIPs). This infrastructure will support video and data compression as well as high-levels of security with lower power consumption than existing solutions. || 594177,344 || 1784706,056 || 0 || 2071860,6 || 4450744

8 || 100016 || mars-09 || || CESAR || CESAR targets significant reduction of overall development time and effort, between 30% and 50%, using a Reference Technology Platform (RTP). The aim is, within 5 years, to double the number of European technology providers and SMEs joining the CESAR ecosystem and reduce by 50% the cost of integration, configuration, deployment, and maintenance of tool-chains. || 9500583,177 || 30215637,1 || 0 || 18816899,34 || 58533119,62

9 || 100036 || mars-09 || || EMMON || EMMON will perform technological research of new, efficient, and low-power consumption communication protocols, embedded middleware with better overall energy-efficiency, fault-tolerance and reliability for large scale monitoring, remote command & control operational systems for end-users and development of network planning and deployment tools to facilitate and assist those same deployments. The quantified goal of the project is to create an integrated framework of technologies for large scale and dense wireless sensor networks that allow effective monitoring for more than 10,000 devices. This would advance WSN deployment size by one order of magnitude. The EMMON project is preparing the final demonstrator to show the real world example of the EMMON technology. Due to external factors this will be shown to the ARTEMIS Project Officer and invited experts at the end of May 2012 || 406691,424 || 970736,076 || 0 || 1185850,5 || 2563278

10 || 100017 || janv-09 || || SOFIA || SOFIA will create an Open Innovation Platform (OIP) providing the interoperability that allows interaction between multi-vendor devices. For this, it will create interaction models and embedded devices that support a variety of “smart spaces” and a variety of users, and develop methods, techno-economic structures and toolkits for the deployment of smart environments and for the development of services and applications based on them. It will also define scenarios to demonstrate the capabilities of the OIP in personal spaces, indoor spaces and cities. || 6093013,203 || 21238458,8 || 0 || 9153637 || 36485109

11 || 100224 || juin-10 || || pSHIELD || SHIELD aims at addressing Security, Privacy and Dependability (SPD) in the context of Embedded Systems (ESs) as “built in” rather than as “add-on” functionalities, proposing and perceiving the first step toward SPD certification for future ES. || 900599,2817 || 2987141,828 || 0 || 1505068,97 || 5392810,08

TOTALS || 26007954,61 || 82581488,03 || 0 || 49811129,14 || 158400571,8

6.           ENIAC JOINT UNDERTAKING

6.1.        Introduction to the ENIAC JU

The ENIAC Joint Undertaking (hereinafter
referred to as "ENIAC JU") was established by Council Regulation (EC)
72/2008 of 20 December 2007 as a public-private partnership between the
European Commission, the participating Member and Associated States (by now 22
countries[4])
and AENEAS[5],
a non-profit industrial association of R&D actors in the field of
semiconductors.

The ENIAC JU has been set up for a period up to
31 December 2017 with the main objective to tackle the research and innovation
in nanoelectronics technologies and their integration in smart systems. The
goal is to define and implement a Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) on
Nanoelectronics-Based Systems in Europe. ENIAC JU aims to help European
industry consolidate and reinforce its position in nanoelectronics technologies
and systems.

The nanoelectronics industry is the provider of
all integrated circuits found in all devices and equipment requiring either
standalone computational capacity or interaction with human beings or their
environment. Progress of the past decades in work efficiency was largely driven
by such smart components. It is evident that personal computers, cell phones
and related personal devices improved the life quality of people overall.

The strategic importance of nanoelectronics was
recognized and triggered the establishment of ENIAC JU as a way to improve European
competitiveness in these enabling fields. First of all, they allow for a
concerted effort at the European level through the funding of R&D projects
where the industry is a major actor. This is done through Strategic Research
Agendas established by the related ETPs, i.e. AENEAS in the case of ENIAC. The
vision was to reduce unnecessary duplication and improve the cooperation
between the R&D public and private actors in Europe. Furthermore this
helped to cope with the fast increasing R&D costs in nanoelectronics due to
extreme miniaturization. Funding down to innovation is increasingly necessary
to address the innovation gap and bridge R&D to deployment. This will help
to keep innovation capability in Europe instead of producing high class
research that is industrialized elsewhere in the world.

In 2011, the recommendations of the High-Level
Group on Key Enabling Technologies (KET) led to a positive influx on the
activities of the ENIAC JU. Increased support by Member States allowed the
ENIAC JU to successfully execute 2 calls in 2012. As a result the downwards
trend in funding has been reversed. The provision for a KET-related call in the
Annual Work Programme 2012 was approved at the end of 2011. This approval
facilitated the funding of projects at higher levels of Technological Readiness
(TRL).

ENIAC coordinates research activities through
competitive calls for proposals to enhance the further integration and
miniaturization of devices, and increase their functionalities while delivering
new materials, equipment and processes, new architectures, innovative
manufacturing processes, disruptive design methodologies, new packaging and
‘systemising’ methods. It drives and is driven by innovative high-tech
applications in communication and computing, transport, health care and
wellness, energy and environmental management, security and safety, and
entertainment.

6.1.1.     Budget

The maximum EU contribution to the ENIAC JU
covering running costs and R&D activities is set to € 450 million paid from
the appropriations in the general budget of the European Union allocated to the
theme "Information and Communication Technologies" of the Specific
Programme "Cooperation" under the FP7. The research activities of the
entity are supported also through financial contributions from the ENIAC member
States amounting to at least 1.8 times the EU contribution (i.e. € 810 million
for a total EU contribution of € 440 million) and through in-kind contributions
by research and development organisations participating in projects, which at
least match the contribution of the public authorities.

6.1.2.     Governing structure

The ENIAC JU is managed by an Executive
Director. Its governance structure comprises a Governing Board (GB), a Public
Authorities Board (PAB) and an Industry and Research Committee (IRC).

The Governing Board consists of
representatives of the members of the ENIAC Joint Undertaking and the
chairperson of the industry and research committee. It has the overall
responsibility for the operations of the ENIAC Joint Undertaking and  oversees
the implementation of its activities.

The Executive Director is the chief
executive responsible for the day-to-day management of the ENIAC Joint
Undertaking in accordance with the decisions of the governing board and its
legal representative.

The Public Authorities Board consists of
the public authorities of the ENIAC Joint Undertaking. It is responsible for,
among others, ensuring that the principles of fairness and transparency are
properly applied in the allocation of public funding to participants in
projects; discussing and approving the annual work programme upon proposals
from the industry and research committee, including the budgets available for
calls for proposals; approving the rules of procedure for calls for proposals,
for the evaluation and selection of proposals and for monitoring of projects;
upon proposal of the representative of the Community, deciding on the ENIAC
Joint Undertaking financial contribution to the budget of the calls for
proposals; approving the scope and the launch of calls for proposals; approving
the selection of project proposals to receive public funding following calls
for proposals; upon proposal of the representative of the Community, deciding
on the percentage of the ENIAC Joint Undertaking's financial contribution to
participants in projects arising from calls for proposals in any given year.

Members of the Industry
and Research Committee are appointed by the AENEAS Association. This Committe consists of no more than 25
members. It is responsible for, among others, elaborating the draft multiannual
strategic plan and submit it to the governing board for approval; preparing the
draft annual work programme; elaborating proposals regarding the technological,
research and innovation strategy of the ENIAC Joint Undertaking; elaborating
proposals for activities regarding the creation of open innovation
environments, promoting the participation of SMEs, developing standards
transparently and with openness to participation, international cooperation,
dissemination and public relations; advising the other bodies on any issue
related to planning and operating research and development programmes,
fostering partnerships and leveraging resources in Europe in order to achieve
the objectives of the ENIAC Joint Undertaking; appointing working groups where
necessary under the overall coordination of one or more members of the industry
and research committee in order to achieve the above tasks.

6.2.        Overall progress since the establishment of the ENIAC
JTI JU

The impact of the initiative on the
semiconductor industry is observed in the following achievements:

·
It defined and implemented a Research Agenda
strengthening the relevant areas in which Europe improved its competitiveness
by directing funding to the priority subjects, in the first line to “Energy
Efficiency” (24%), “Equipment, Materials and Manufacturing” (28%) and
"Semiconductor Process and Integration" (25%).

·
The first projects approaching completion
demonstrated significant advances of the state of the art in their respective
fields, strengthening the global competitive position of the European industry.

·
It leveraged the public investments, increasing
the amounts contributed by the ENIAC member States by a factor of 2.5 (from €62
million in 2008 to €150 million in 2012) and the EU contributions by a factor
of 3.5 (from €35 million in 2008 to €125 million in 2012). The private sector
increased its contributions by a factor of 5 (from about €110 million in 2008
to an estimate amount exceeding €550 million in 2012).

·
It engaged the whole ecosystem, allowing the
countries with smaller national programmes in nanoelectronics to contribute to
a combined level equivalent to the three leading nations.

·
It created opportunities to contribute for the
SMEs that represent 24% of the participating organizations, inducing
collaboration of the large industry (41% of the participating organizations)
and the academic and technological research (35%).

·
The project proposal, submission and evaluation
mechanisms allow to execute the whole cycle within 7-9 months.

·
It is the only mechanism that already engaged in
implementing the KET policies to the extent to which they are compatible with
the existing regulations, rules and procedures, playing the role of a catalyser
federating all contributors towards re-engaging the European semiconductor
industry on a path of profitable growth.

·
It induced a new quality of collaboration
between the stakeholders that resulted in remarkable progress in the past and
provides a solid basis for the future strategic perspectives.

Table1:
General overview on ENIAC progress - from the establishment up to 2012

Call Reference || Publication date || Evaluation date || Nr of topics || Nr of GA signed || Indicative budget [max funding] (M€) || Outcome of the call (M€) ||

ENIAC-2008-1 || 8/05/2008 || 28/10/2008 || 5 || 7 || 89,8 || 95,6 ||

ENIAC-2009-1 || 19/03/2009 || 13/11/2009 || 8 || 11 || 104,4 || 106,2 ||

ENIAC-2010-1 || 26/02/2010 || 2/11/2010 || 7 || 10 || 86,0 || 87,5 ||

ENIAC-2011-1 || 23/02/2011 || 27/07/2011 || 18 || 6 || 70,8 || 53,1 ||

ENIAC-2011-2 || 24/06/2011 || 11/11/2011 || 18 || 5 || 99,4 || 62,7 ||

ENIAC-2012-1 || 23/02/2012 || 29/10/2012 || 25 || 6 || 73,3 || 55,2 ||

ENIAC-2012-2 || 4/05/2012 || 29/10/2012 || 25 || 5 || 193,2 || 218,9 ||

Total || || 106 || 50 || 630,9 || 679,2 ||

NB: this table takes
into account the 2 cancelled projects as compared to PAB decisions and as
reported in the 2012 ENIAC AAR

Table 2: Aggregated information on the number of
participant and success rate by participant from the establishment up to 2012

Type participant || Nr of participants in the Project Outlines || Nr of participants in the Full Project Proposals || FPPs participants success rate || Nr of participants in the Funded Projects || Participants success rate

Public Bodies || 1 || 1 || 100,0% || 0 || 0,0%

Research organisations || 274 || 312 || 113,9% || 191 || 69,7%

Higher or secondary education || 363 || 359 || 98,9% || 190 || 52,3%

Private for profit (excl. education) || 640 || 737 || 115,2% || 435 || 68,0%

SMEs || 370 || 443 || 119,7% || 253 || 68,4%

Others || 15 || 5 || 33,3% || 0 || 0,0%

Total || 1663 || 1857 || 111,7% || 1069 || 64,3%

NB: not all calls were subject to PO phase,
this explains the higher than 100% success rate at FPP level. Due to the two-stage
evaluation and to the recommendations provided by evaluators after the first
step evaluation, it occurred that a number of consortia in the submitted
Project Outlines decided to add specific capabilities and/or equipment
following the feedback given by the independent experts. This resulted in a
higher number of participants at the level of FPP, as shown in the table above.

Figure 1: Overall geographic distribution of
successful organisations (by coordinator and participant)

The situation on the 50 projects
selected over the first 5 years is illustrated by the following chart where
numbers refer to eligible costs of the funded projects.

This
graph reflects an overall balance between the applications and technology
topics as identified in the SRA. On the applications side, almost 1/4 of the
total implementation is related to energy efficiency – a very important topic
in which nanoelectronics can provide significant improvements and innovation.
Automotive, communications and health are balanced and take the largest portion
of the rest of the applications. The increase of the technology share in the
total funding reflects the weight of the pilot lines, focus of the second call
of 2012.

6.2.1.     Funding ratio between European Commission and Member
States

The Statutes of the ENIAC Joint Undertaking
state in Art. 11.6(b) that "financial contributions from ENIAC Member
States shall amount in total to at least 1.8 times the Community's financial
contribution".

This requirement has to be met at the end of
the implementation of the ENIAC JU, i.e. essentially at the end of 2013 when
the total commitment contributions to projects from the Union and the ENIAC
Member States will be known.

In the previous years and especially in Call 2
('KET' call) in 2012, the target of 1.8 was not reached for ENIAC JU. The main
reason for the deviation of the ratio is that the focus of the calls influences
the funding regime applied by the ENIAC member States. ENIAC member States
overall lower their contribution to pilot lines as these are considered as
'experimental development' rather than 'applied research'. Typically the total
public funding (EU and ENIAC member States) is set at 25% for large
organizations with the JU funding rate at 15%. A differentiated analysis of the
period 2008-2012 shows this effect:

Here it appears that the ratio 1.8 is almost
adhered to for 'standard' calls (1.72) while it deviates significantly for the
'KET' calls (0.96).

Furthermore the EU contribution calculated as a
fixed percentage (55%) of the national commitments was consumed in each call,
also in case the national commitments were not fully allocated and  EU
commitments were granted to support participants in projects when there was no
national funding available. Indeed the Regulation imposes that all
beneficiaries receive the same JU funding rate whether or not partners receive
national funding. In these instances, de facto the partners in the projects
contribute more of their own resources, which explain the large volume of
activities, shows their commitment and the high leverage effect of JU funding.

Developments such as the KET initiative induced
a changed landscape which could not be foreseen at the launch of the ENIAC JU.
This had an impact on the financing model which stipulated 2/3 Member States
and 1/3 EU funding. The funding ratio target value at 1.8 for the 'standard'
projects is fully in line with the Council Regulation whilst a lower funding
ratio for 'KET' pilot projects results. Note in this context that the leverage
effect of the EU contribution is fully in line with the Council Regulation,
i.e. a leverage effect of a factor of 6.

6.3.        Outline of the main activities and achievements in 2012

6.3.1.     Running of the JU

Within a small structure, the basic functions
remained unchanged in 2012: one operational unit, one administration and
finance unit, and one secretariat. The ENIAC JU will reach its Staff ceiling in
January 2013, when a Seconded National Expert is expected to join.

The increase in personnel made necessary a
number of changes, which have been executed in January 2012, in particular the
financial circuits have been updated to include the additional resources and
ensure a back-up for every function.

The Data Protection Officer (DPO) was nominated
on 27 September 2011 and in 2012, the European Data Protection Supervisor
(EDPS) performed a survey and issued its report on the “Status of Data
Protection Officers” confirming that the ENAC JU is compliant.

The ENIAC JU also nominated its Local IT
Security Officer (LISO).

6.3.1.1.  Internal
Control

In 2012, the Court of Auditors delivered a
qualified opinion on the annual accounts of the JTI for 2011, mainly related to
the insufficient assurance regarding the transactions at national level upon
which the JU payments are based. The Commission is closely monitoring the
qualifications made by the Court of Auditors and the follow-up given to these
by the Executive Director.

Since the inception of the JTI, the Executive
Director has been investing significant efforts to simplify the procedures,
ensure sound financial management, implement the Internal Control Standards and
work closely together with the Member States. Action plans have been
established to respond to the Court of Auditors' concerns, including a close
follow-up on the ex-post controls done by Member States. The increasing
attractiveness of the JTI to Member States and industrial investment shows that
these efforts are paying off.

The IAS issued on 12 June 2012 the “Annual
Internal Audit Report for 2011 (Article 72 (4) of the Framework Financial
Regulation) for the ENIAC Joint Undertaking”. The ENIAC JU management defined
an action plan to address the weaknesses that were identified.

In 2012 the ENIAC JU continued collaborating
with ARTEMIS JU in collecting the national audit policies. The report of the
IAS chartered to assess the national procedures indicated to the ENIAC JU that
the available data is not conclusive. Consequently, the ENIAC JU changed its
strategy and mandated the IAC to propose and then execute an audit.

In essence, the audit involved a sample of 161
transactions randomly pulled from all transactions executed since the programme
inception, in compliance with the statistical model defined by the Commission,
using the Monetary Unit Sampling.

6.3.1.2.  Second
Interim evaluation

The Council Regulation foresees for the ENIAC
JU two interim evaluations (IE) tod be carried out by December 31st
2010 and December 31st 2013 respectively. The 2nd Interim
Evaluation ran from September 2012 to February 2013 and assessed the following:
Relevance; Effectiveness; Efficiency and Research Quality. A panel of 6
independent experts coordinated by a panel chairman and supported a Recorder
conducted a systematic and rigorous evaluation, using multiple data sources.
The ENIAC JU facilitated the process by providing relevant documentation and by
contributing to the panel interviews. The 2nd IE report will be published in
early June 2013.

6.3.2.     Progress in the implementation of the Strategic Research
Agenda

The Annual Work Programme 2012 (AWP2012) is
based on the "Vision, Mission and Strategy for European Micro- and
Nanoelectronics" jointly set out with CATRENE. The topics are shown in the
table below.

APPLICATIONS || TECHNOLOGY

1. Automotive and Transport || Intelligent Electric Vehicle || 6. Design Technology || Managing Complexity

Safety in Traffic || Managing Diversity

Co-operative Traffic Management || Designing for Reliability and Yield

2. Communication and Digital Lifestyle || Internet Multimedia Services || 7. Semiconductor Process and Integration || Know-how on Advanced and Emerging Semiconductor Processes

Evolution to a Digital Lifestyle || Competitiveness through Semicond. Process Differentiation

Self-organizing Networks || Opportunities in System in Package

Short-range Convergence || 8. Equipment, Materials and Manufacturing || Advanced CMOS - 1Xnm & 450mm

3. Energy Efficiency || Sustainable and Efficient Energy Generation || More than Moore

Energy Distribution and Management - Smart Grid || Manufacturing

Reduction of energy consumption ||

4. Health Care and Aging Society || Home Healthcare

Hospital Healthcare

Heuristic Healthcare

5. Safety and Security || Consumer and Citizen Security

Securing the European Challenging Applications

Enabling Technologies for Trust, Security and Safety

6.3.3.     Implementation of calls for proposals (CFP) overall

The ENIAC JU supports R&D activities
through open and competitive calls for proposals published on a yearly basis.
The programme is open to organisations in the EU Member States and Associated
Countries. Selected projects are co-financed by the ENIAC JU and the countries
that have joined ENIAC. The ENIAC JU implements significant parts of the above
referred Strategic Research Agenda.

Funding decisions under the ENIAC JU Annual
Work Programme are made on the basis of proposals submitted upon a call.
Proposals describe the planned research activities, give information on the
applicants and costs. The eligible proposals are evaluated by independent
experts using of pre-established evaluation criteria.

Following the evaluation, the PAB decides on
the selection of proposals and the allocation of funding (ENIAC JU and national
funding). The ENIAC JU then negotiates with selected proposals taking into
account the maximum public funding allocated and the recommendations for
changes, if any.

If negotiations are successfully concluded
grant agreements are signed with ENIAC JU. Participants from ENIAC member
States also conclude national grant agreements with their own national funding
authorities.

According to the AWP2012, the ENIAC JU launched
two calls (sixth and seventh calls):

–
A first call open to regular project proposals
centred on the Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) 1-5, with a budget of € 73.3
million; and

–
A second call addressing projects satisfying the
specific criteria defined for KET Pilot Line proposals and addressing TRL 4-8,
with a budget of € 193.2 million.

These calls were both on a 2 steps procedure
with a project outline submission phase. The first call of 2012 was in line
with previous calls. The second call followed a call for expression of interest
that was launched at the end of 2011.

Each full project proposal (FPP) was initially
evaluated by four individual external experts. On each FPP a consensus meeting
between these experts was subsequently organised. Following all consensus
meetings a panel meeting of external experts under the chairmanship of the
Executive Director was held. The panel produced the final evaluation result for
each proposal and the ranking of the proposals.

Table 3: Aggregated information on calls launched and
managed in 2012

Call Reference || Publication date || Evaluation date || Nr of topics || Nr of GAs signed || Indicative budget [max funding] (M€) || Outcome of the call (M€) || Funding

EU contribution || In-kind || MS contribution

ENIAC-2012-1 || 23/02/2012 || 29/10/2012 || 25 || 6 || 73,3 || 55,2 || 17,6 || 62,8 || 37,6

ENIAC-2012-2 || 4/05/2012 || 29/10/2012 || 25 || 5 || 193,2 || 218,9 || 107,8 || 508,6 || 111,1

Total || 50 || 11 || 266,5 || 274,1 || 125,4 || 571,4 || 148,7

            Table 4: Aggregated information on results
from evaluation in 2012

Call Reference || Submitted Project Outlines || Evaluation results

Submitted Project Outlines || Eligible POs || % of retained || Full Project Proposals || Selected for funding || Success rate%

ENIAC-2012-1 || 16 || 16 || 100,0% || 11 || 6 || 37.5%

ENIAC-2012-2 || 11 || 11 || 100,0% || 6 || 5 || 45.5%

Total || 27 || 27 || 100,0% || 17 || 11 || 40,7%

The geographic distribution of countries
involved in Full Project Proposals selected for funding is presented in the
table below.

Overall, 21 countries were represented. France,
Netherlands, Germany and Italy altogether had 155 participations out of 247
(about 63% of total).

From EU-13, Czech republic had 4 participations
followed by Poland with 3, Hugary, Malta, Slovak Republic and Romania with 2.
From the associated countries Israel had 4 participations, Norway had 3 and
Switzerland had 2.

Figure 2:
Participation by Country in Full Project Proposals selected for funding

The 5 evaluation criteria listed in the
following table along with their weight and thresholds:

Criteria || Maximum score / weighting || Threshold

Relevance and contributions to the objectives of the call || 10 / 1 || 6

R&D innovation and technical excellence || 10 / 1 || 6

S&T approach and work plan || 10 / 1 || 6

Market innovation and market impact || 10 / 2 || 6

Quality of consortium and management || 10 / 1 || -

Total || 60 || 40

One project (DeNeCor) of the sixth call
involved clinical tests to validate demonstrators. It was subject to an ethical
evaluation. 2 experts were selected from the relevant database of the 7th
Framework Programme. The recommendations of the ethical evaluation were
implemented in the negotiation phase and the project was accepted for funding.

6.3.4.     Governance - Major decisions taken by the Governing Board
and other JU bodies

The GB held 3 meetings (14 March, 28 June and
20 November 2012) and approved decisions by six written procedures, while the
PAB met 4 times. The main decisions taken by the GB during the year were
related to Annual Implementation Plan 2012 and Annual Budget Plan 2012.

Important decisions of the PAB included the
launch of 2 calls and the related selection of projects, and the adoption of
the Annual Work Programme for 2013.

The ENIAC GB took the decisions listed below:

–
Adoption of the Multi-annual Staff Policy Plan
(MSPP) for years 2013-2015

–
Approval of the preliminary draft Annual Budget
Plan (ABP) 2013

–
Draft Annual Implementation Plan (AIP) 2013

–
Adoption of the Annual Activity Report 2011 and
its analysis and assessment

–
Amendment to the AIP 2012 and ABP 2012

–
Adoption of the 2011 Annual Accounts

–
Adoption of the AIP 2013 and ABP 2013

The
ENIAC PAB took the decisions listed below:

–
Adoption of the decision to launch the sixth and
seventh Calls for proposals

–
Mandate to the Executive Director to enter
negotiations for Call 2012-1

–
Mandate to the Executive Director to enter
negotiations for Call 2012-2

–
Adoption of the Annual Work Programme 2013

–
Projects Selection and Funding

6.3.5.     Main communication activities

The ENIAC JU prolonged in 2012 the Service
Level Agreement with AENEAS on communication and public relations support. The
ENIAC JU defined and executed in 2012 a Communication Plan. The following
activities were carried out:

·
Organized together with The Parliament Magazine
the “Securing the Future” round table event at the European Parliament on 6
November 2012 hosted by MEP Lambert van Nistelrooij with participation from
Galileo, the European Defence Agency, the European Commission and industry
representatives.

·
Executed a communication day for the Project
Coordinators.

·
Had numerous exchanges with project
coordinators, visited or hosted representatives from the industry including
CEA/Leti, IMEC, Silicon Saxony, SEMI Europe, ESIA, Infineon, SOITEC, Intel,
ASML and  NXP.

·
At the European Nanoelectronics Forum 2012 the
ENIAC JU announced that the “ENIAC JU Innovation Award” went to two projects,
“IMPROVE” and “LENS”.

·
Issued 2 press releases exceeding 10,000 and
8,000 viewers respectively.

·
Printed and distributed:

–
in collaboration with the magazine “Zillion”, a
feature on the ENIAC Innovation Award 2011

–
in collaboration with the International Research
magazine the Executive Summary of the Annual Activity report 2011 (brochure),
an interview with the Executive Director “Stimulating growth in
nanoelectronics”, projects results from the Call 2008-1 and ENIAC 2012
Innovation Awards (brochure)

–
in collaboration with The Parliament magazine,
the “Smart support?” feature covering the “Securing the future” event

·
Updated the web site, including video content.

·
Co-organized the European Nanoelectronic Forum
with the EUREKA cluster CATRENE, and the European Commission.

·
Participated in several events in Germany,
Austria, Italy, and sponsored events in Belgium, France, the Netherlands and
Germany.

6.3.6.     Success story

The IMPROVE project partners developed
computational models for equipment behaviour and history enabling virtual
metrology, predictive maintenance and adaptive control plans to improve
throughput, stability and reproducibility, and the overall wafer fab
efficiency. According to the project coordinator: “In IMPROVE, six
manufacturers with operations in Europe collaborated with 14 research
laboratories, institutional and academic, and 10 industrial solution providers
to considerably advance the state of the art in manufacturing sciences and get
ready to compete based on efficiency and innovation”. More than 90 publications
resulted from the findings of IMPROVE project which are further cited, showing
their value. Exchange with other ENIAC projects allows for further development
and implementation of the obtained results.

Lithography is the essential technology for
scaling semiconductor devices. The sophistication and cost of the equipment
increases at fast pace as the patterned feature size steadily decreases. To
extend as much as possible the incumbent immersion lithography technology down
to the 22 nm technology node, the 12 partners of LENS project considerably
advanced the multiple facets of the technology using double exposure. LENS thus
successfully demonstrated the applicability of the incumbent immersion
lithography technology for at least two more technology nodes using dual
exposure or pitch doubling techniques, “thereby allowing the timely and
economically efficient development of the next generations of semiconductor
devices”.

6.4.        Calls implemented in 2012

6.4.1.     ENIAC-2012-1

6.4.1.1.  Summary
information

Call Identifier || ENIAC-2012-1

Publication date || 23/02/2012

Deadline || PO: 12/04/2012

FPP: 14/06/2012

Indicative Total budget (in €) || 73,3 M€

EU contribution after evaluation || 17.6 M€

MS contributions after evaluation || 37.6 M€

In-kind contribution after evaluation || 62.8 M€

Reference to call topics || All grand challenges were selected

6.4.1.2.  Analysis
of proposals submitted

·
Number of proposals submitted and, if
appropriate, by topic:

–
Total: (PO) 16

–
Eligible for evaluation: (PO) 16

·
Number of participants in the submitted
proposals:

–
Total: 207

–
Success rate by type (see table 6),.

–
By country:

16
Countries submitted Project Outlines, the most significant participation in
terms of number of organisations involved was from Germany with 39
participations followed by Netherlands with 34 and Italy and France with 31
each. From EU-13, only Czech Republic was represented with 7 participations. As
Associated Countries, Turkey, Israel and Switzerland accounted together for 4
participations.

Figure 3: Participations by Country (submitted FPPs)

6.4.1.3.  Evaluation
results

Number of proposals submitted and, if appropriate,
by topic:

–
FPP passing the thresholds, failing the
thresholds: 11 above threshold

–
FPP proposed for funding, and reserve list: 6
for funding and 0 on the reserve list

–
Success rate: 37.5%

Table 5:
Evaluation results

Call Reference || Submitted Project Outlines || Evaluation results || Reserve list, if any

Submitted Project Outlines || Eligible POs || % of retained || Full Project Proposals || Selected for funding || Success rate%

ENIAC-2012-1 || 16 || 16 || 100,0% || 11 || 6 || 37,5% ||

Table 6: Participation by type and
success rate

Type participant || Nr of participants in the Project Outlines || Nr of participants in the Full Project Proposals || FPPs % of retained || Nr of participants in the funded Projects || Participants success rate

Public Bodies || 0 || 1 || 0,0% || 0 || 0,0%

Research organisations || 27 || 27 || 100,0% || 15 || 55,6%

Higher or secondary education || 56 || 55 || 98,2% || 29 || 51,8%

Private for profit (excl. education) || 76 || 73 || 96,1% || 44 || 57,9%

SMEs || 43 || 42 || 97,7% || 31 || 72,1%

Others || 5 || 4 || 80,0% || 0 || 0,0%

Total || 207 || 202 || 97,6% || 119 || 57,5%

Number
of participants in the proposals selected for funding:

–
Total: 119

–
Of which SMEs: 31

–
Success of SMEs: 72,1%, the budget allocated to
SMEs is 10.6 M€

–
By country:

16
Countries were represented in the selected for funding FPPs. After selection,
23 participants are from Netherlands, 19 from Germany and 19 from France and 18
from Italy. Slovak Republic had 2 participations and Norway 1.

Figure 4:
Participations by Country (funded FPPs)

6.4.2.     ENIAC-2012-2

6.4.2.1.  Summary
information

Call Identifier || ENIAC-2012-2

Publication date || 04/05/2012

Deadline || PO: 14/06/2012

FPP: 13/09/2012

Indicative Total budget (in €) || 193,2 M€

EU contribution after evaluation || 107.8 M€

MS contributions after evaluation || 111.1 M€

In-kind contribution after evaluation || 508.6 M€

Reference to call topics || focus on projects targeting Pilot Line activities

6.4.2.2.  Analysis
of proposals submitted

Number
of proposals submitted:

–
Total: 11 (PO)

–
Eligible for evaluation: 11 (PO)

Number of participants in the submitted
proposals:

–
Total: 158

–
Success rate by type, of which SMEs: see table 8

–
By country:

20
Countries overall took part to the ENIAC second call for a total of 158
participations. The most represented Countries were France, Germany,
Netherlands and Austria. From EU-13, Poland had 3 participations. Czech
Republic, Hungary, Malta and Romania each had one participant. Israel, Norway
and Switzerland represented the Associated Countries with a total of 8
participations.

Figure 5: Participations by Country
(submitted FPPs)

6.4.2.3.  Evaluation
results

Number
of proposals submitted (FPP): 6

–
FPP proposed for funding: 5

–
Success rate: 45,5 %

Table
7: Evaluation results

Call Reference || Submitted Project Outlines || Evaluation results || Reserve list, if any

Submitted Project Outlines || Eligible POs || % of retained || Full Project Proposals || Selected for funding || Success rate%

ENIAC-2012-2 || 11 || 11 || 100,0% || 6 || 5 || 45,5% ||

Table 8: Participation by type and
success rate

Type participant || Nr of participants in the Project Outlines || Nr of participants in the Full Project Proposals || FPPs % of retained || Nr of participants in the funded Projects || Participants success rate

Public Bodies || 1 || 0 || 0,0% || 0 || 0,0%

Research organisations || 27 || 27 || 100,0% || 24 || 88,9%

Higher or secondary education || 19 || 22 || 115,8% || 13 || 68,4%

Private for profit (excl. education) || 59 || 81 || 137,3% || 64 || 108,5%

SMEs || 17 || 28 || 164,7% || 27 || 158,8%

Others || 5 || 0 || 0,0% || 0 || 0,0%

Total || 128 || 158 || 123,4% || 128 || 100,0%

Number of
participants in the proposals selected for funding:

–
Total: 128

–
Of which SMEs: 27 SMEs were involved in selected
for funding FPPs with a budget allocated equal to  14.1 M€

–
Success rate of SMEs:. Over 100% success rate is
due to the inclusion of new partners from PO to FPP as recommended in the PO
evaluation report.

–
By country

20
Countries were represented in the selected for funding FPPs. After selection,
the situation is as follows France (30 participations), Netherlands (20),
Germany (19) and Austria (15). From EU-13, Poland had 3
participations. Czech Republic, Hungary, Malta and Romania each had 2
participations. Israel (4 participations), Norway (2) and Switzerland (1)
represented the Associated Countries with a total of 7 participations.

Figure 6: Participations by Country
(funded FPPs)

6.5.        Project
Portfolio

This section provides an overview on signed
grant agreements and their implementation.

The following table provides the list of
eligible and funded projects. The projects are funded according to their
ranking and the available funding (European Commission and Member States).

Call || Eligible projects || Funded projects

ENIAC-2012-1 || HIT-Light APPOLLO DeNeCor E2COGaN ESEE INTEGRATE OPERA PROMINENT CityCar AAH AUTARK DIVA BEST MAP || DeNeCor E2COGaN ESEE INTEGRATE OPERA PROMINENT

ENIAC-2012-2 || AGATE E450EDL EPPL Lab4MEMS PLACES2BE PULMAN || AGATE E450EDL EPPL Lab4MEMS PLACES2BE

6.5.1.     Grant agreements signed (commitment amounts)

6.5.2.     Grant agreements for which activities have ended and/or
final results are available

The following table indicates the projects which have had their
final review in 2012. Due to administrative processing, including in the Member
States administrations, the final payments were still pending at the end of
2012. Therefore the amounts indicated in the table are the committed amounts as
agreed in the PAB decisions of the first and second calls of ENIAC.

7.           FUEL CELL AND HYDROGEN (FCH) JOINT UNDERTAKING

7.1.        Introduction to the FCH JU

The Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking
(hereinafter referred to as "FCH JU") has been established by Council
Regulation (EC) N° 521/2008 of 30 May 2008 as an industry-led public-private
partnership supporting research, technological development and demonstration
(RTD) activities in fuel cell and hydrogen technologies in Europe. The FCH JU
members are the New Energy World Industry Grouping (NEW-IG)[6],
representing the fuel cell and hydrogen industries, the N.ERGHY Research
Grouping[7],
representing the research community, and the European Union, represented by the
European Commission.

The FCH JU has been set up for a period up to
31 December 2017 with the main objective to significantly accelerate the market
introduction of fuel cell and hydrogen technologies, realising their potential
as an instrument in achieving a carbon-clean energy system. The broader use of
fuel cells, as an efficient power conversion technology, and hydrogen, as an
environment-friendly energy carrier, can contribute to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions[8],
and lower the dependence on hydrocarbons, and to stimulate the economic growth.
The aim of the FCH JU is to bring these benefits to Europeans through a
concentrated effort from all sectors pooling together public
and private resources.

The FCH JU programme of activities comprises
long-term and breakthrough-oriented research, research and technological
development, and demonstration and support actions. Project support is mainly
granted following open and competitive calls for proposals, peer review
evaluation and the conclusion of Grant Agreements. A small number of activities
are implemented through calls for tender (i.e. public procurement). The
strategic research and demonstration priorities of the FCH JU are set out in
the Multi-Annual Implementation Plan (MAIP). This document is critical since it
outlines the activities to be supported by the FCH JU and serves as the basis
to draft the Annual Implementation Plans (AIP) which contains inter alia the
topics for the annual calls for proposals. The MAIP 2008-2013 outlines four
main application areas (AA):

–
Transport & Refuelling Infrastructure - It has as a main objective the development and testing of
competitive hydrogen-fuelled road vehicles and corresponding hydrogen
refuelling infrastructure, and the full range of supporting elements for market
deployment and increased industrial capacity. Approximately 32-36% of the
overall budget is earmarked for this application area

–
Hydrogen Production and Storage - It aims to develop and, where possible, fully implement a
portfolio of cost-competitive, energy efficient and sustainable hydrogen
production, storage and distribution processes enabling supply of the
anticipated hydrogen energy demand while demonstrating the role that hydrogen
can play as an energy carrier in reaching Europe’s key long term and mid-term
energy objectives. Approximately 10-12% of the overall budget is earmarked for
this application area

–
Stationary Power Production & Combined
Heat and Power - overall objective is to improve
the technology for fuel cell stack and balance of plant components to the level
required by the stationary power generation and CHP (Combined Heat & Power)
markets by bridging the gap between laboratory prototypes and pre-commercial
systems. Approximately 34-37 % of the overall budget is earmarked for this
application area.

–
Early Markets -
The aim is to develop and deploy a range of fuel cell-based products capable of
entering the market in the near term and to turn into commercial success
stories. Early markets are considered strategically important to build up and
sustain an early manufacturing and supply base for fuel cells products and
systems. Approximately 12-14 % of the overall budget is earmarked for this
application area.

–
Cross-cutting activities - have been established as a fifth area to provide programme level
coordination. These activities include drafting of regulations and formulation
of codes and standards, pre-normative and socio-economic research, technology
and life cycle assessments, market support (particularly for SMEs), public
awareness and education. Approximately 6- 8% of the overall budget will be
dedicated to these cross-cutting activities.

7.1.1.     Budget

The maximum EU contribution to the FCH JU is €
470 million, covering running costs (€ 20 million) and operational costs (€ 450
million). The EU contribution is paid from the appropriations in the general
budget of the European Union allocated to themes "Energy",
"Nanosciences, Nanotechnologies, Materials and New Production
Technologies", "Environment" and "Transport" of the
Specific Programme "Cooperation" under the FP7. For operational
costs, the EU contribution shall at least be matched by the contributions of
all the legal entities participating in the FCH JU activities.

7.1.2.     Governing structure

For coordinating the inputs of all the members
and managing its activities, the Joint Undertaking's governance structure
comprises of two executive bodies – the Governing Board and the Executive
Director assisted by the Programme Office, and three advisory bodies – the
Scientific Committee, the States Representatives Group (SRG) and the
Stakeholders' General Assembly.

The Governing Board is the main
decision-making body of the FCH JU. All three members of the FCH JU are
represented on the Governing Board: the NEW Industry Grouping has six seats,
the European Commission has five seats and the N.ERGHY Research Grouping has
one seat. At least one of the representatives appointed by the Industry
Grouping represents SMEs. The vote of the European Commission is indivisible.
The decisions are taken by consensus, or, if failing to reach one, by a three
quarters majority. The Governing Board has overall responsibility for the
operations of the Joint Undertaking: implementation of activities, approval of
the annual implementation plan, budget, accounts and the balance-sheet;
approval of the list of selected project proposals, etc.

The Executive Director and the Programme
Office are in charge of the day-to-day management of the Fuel Cells and
Hydrogen Joint Undertaking. The Executive Director is the legal representative
of the FCH JU. He is the chief executive responsible for the implementation of
the Joint Undertaking, in accordance with the decisions of the Governing Board.

The Scientific Committee is an
independent advisory body to the Governing Board. Its priorities are to:

–
Advice on the R&D agenda set out in the
Multi-Annual and Annual Implementation Plans;

–
Advice on the scientific achievements described
in the annual activity report.

The Scientific Committee has nine
members, appointed by the Governing Board on the basis of their scientific
competencies and expertise to give their strategic science-based
recommendations on the priorities and the progress of the FCH JU. The members
reflect a balanced representation of world class expertise from academia,
industry and regulatory bodies. They represent different fields of expertise
within fuel cell and hydrogen technologies.

The States Representatives Group
consists of one representative of each Member State and of each country
associated with the 7th Framework Programme and has an advisory role to the FCH
Joint Undertaking and the representatives act as an interface between the FCH
JU and the relevant stakeholders within their respective countries. The States
Representatives Group reviews information and provides opinions on programme
progress in the FCH JU, compliance and respect of targets, coordination with
national programmes and more. It meets at least twice a year. The Chairperson
of the States Representatives Group has the right to attend the meetings of the
Governing Board as an observer.

The Stakeholders' General Assembly is an
annual event aimed at informing all interested parties about the activities of
the FCH JU and acquiring feedback for future planning of the programme. It is
also a key platform for European and global stakeholders across sectors to come
together to examine and assess the current position of this emerging industry,
exchange ideas on next steps and make contacts. The Stakeholders' General
Assembly has a formal advisory role to the FCH Joint Undertaking and it is an
important communication channel to ensure transparency and openness of the FCH
JU's activities with its stakeholders.

7.2.        Overall progress since the establishment of the FCH
JTI/JU

7.2.1.     A strong and strategic partnership at the forefront of
FCH technologies

The FCH JU has structured the R&D landscape
in the FCH sector through the establishment of an industry led public-private
partnership with a long-term perspective, combining the capacities of companies
and research organisations to design a joint strategic research agenda and
multi-annual plans and pooling long-term public and private commitments for
funding.

The FCH JU has also enabled the development of
a strategic programme of activities as defined in the Multi Annual
Implementation Plan (MAIP), comprising long-term, breakthrough-orientated
research, applied research and technological development, demonstration and
supporting actions, including strategic studies, pre-normative actions and
technology assessment. More than 380 M€ in grants has already been allocated to
about 130 projects (completed, on-going and under negotiation) and several of
them can be considered as important success stories. The tables and figure
below describe some features of the participation in the FCH JU projects:

Table
1: General overview on FCH progress from the establishment in 2008 up to 2012

Call Reference || Publication date || Evaluation date || Nr of topics || Nr of GA signed || Indicative budget [max funding] (M€) || Outcome of the call (M€) ||

FCH-JU–2008-1 || 15/10/2008 || February 2009 || 15 || 16 || 28,1 || 68,5\*\* ||

FCH-JU–2009-1 || 2/07/2009 || November 2009 || 29 || 28 || 71,3 || 122,3\*\* ||

FCH-JU-2010-1 || 18/06/2010 || November 2010 || 25 || 26 || 89,1 || 230,5\*\* ||

FCH-JU-2011-1 || 3/05/2011 || September 2011 || 36 || 33 || 109 || 282,4\*\* ||

FCH-JU-2012-1 || 17/01/2012 || June 2012 || 31 || 0\* || 77,5 || 292,5\*\* ||

Totals || 136 || 103 || 375 || 996,2 ||

Note:
\* The 2012 call for proposals is still under negotiations and \*\* Sum of
the

amounts
requested in all eligible proposals

Table 2: Total number of
participants by type and success rate

from
the establishment in 2008 up to 2012

Type participant || Nr of participants in the Proposals || Nr of participants in the Funded Projects || Participants success rate || Budget allocation

Public Bodies || 52 || 18 || 34,6% || 4,2%

Research organisations || 621 || 315 || 50,7% || 21,0%

Higher or secondary education || 511 || 175 || 34,2% || 10,0%

Private for profit (excl. education) || 584 || 316 || 54,1% || 37,0%

SMEs || 602 || 256 || 42,5% || 27,0%

Others || 78 || 27 || 34,6% || 0,8%

Total || 2448 || 1107 || 45,2% || 100,0%

Overall, SMEs
have success rate equal to 42,5 % and take 27% of the funding compared to 18%
in FP7-Energy. And the average size of a project is 8 partners with a FCH JU
contribution of €2.95 million.

Figure
1: Overall geographic distribution of successful organisations

(by coordinator and participant)

7.2.2.     Progress towards the Multi-Annual Implementation Plan
(MAIP) objectives

The main objective of the existing FCH JU is to
accelerate the market introduction of FCH technologies, and place Europe at the
forefront of FCH technologies worldwide. The 2012 Programme review held on 28 and 29 November 2012 has confirmed that overall the FCH JU is making progress against its
principal objectives as set out in the MAIP. Market introduction has already
been achieved for some early applications such as forklifts and small back-up
power units. For both energy and transport applications progress has been
achieved notably in the materials performance, durability, and costs reduction
for both components and systems of transport and stationary power applications.
As an illustration, between 2008 and 2012:

·
The cost of PEM fuel cells has dropped on
average by half (from 1,000 €/kW to 500€/kW) and their lifetime increased by
25% (from 2,000 to 2,500 hours);

·
The cost of fuel cells for forklifts has dropped
from 7,000 €/kW to 4,000 €/kW;

·
The cost of storing gaseous hydrogen has been
reduced from 1.0 to 0.5 M€/ton;

·
The cost of hydrogen refuelling stations has
dropped by 30% (today 0.7 to 2 M€ for Capex[9] depending on
the quantity of hydrogen available).

In the area of transportation and refuelling
infrastructure, dominated so far by large demonstration projects, more than
40 fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEV) and more than 40 buses are being tested
in real condition (approx. 10% of worldwide fleet), with more vehicles expected
to be rolled-out. Work has also continued on standardisation in order to ensure
that the challenges of fuel metering and fuel quality are addressed
appropriately. Good progress has been made both in terms of extending the
performance and improving durability of the vehicles and in the reducing the
cost of Hydrogen Refuelling Stations (HRS) for which the target of 1-2 M€ for
50-200 kg/day capacity has been achieved. For buses, the purchasing prices are
coming closer to the 1M€ range target. Volume-building towards mass
commercialisation remains, however, a challenging target of the MAIP that goes
beyond the remit of the programme's scope and budget.

The hydrogen production and distribution
portfolio mainly focuses on research and development especially on the
production of green hydrogen, with a mix of mature and novel technologies, such
as water electrolysis, biomass gasification, fermentation and solar technology.
Strengthened efforts on underground storage, improvement of solid stage
hydrogen storage and on distribution of hydrogen are complementary to the
research on production pathways. The potential to use hydrogen for large scale
storage of energy from intermittent renewable energy sources is at the top of
the energy agendas and will be investigated in a project which will demonstrate
the system level technology readiness of the production of hydrogen using
renewable electricity as well as its compression, storage and end use in
transport applications or for grid balancing. The project might be a showcase
for end customers.

In the Stationary Power Generation and
Combined Heat and Power application area the research projects related to
materials degradation and components' control and diagnostics have been
complemented by a number of demonstrations that are providing valuable
experience and learning. With the portfolio of projects supported so far, it
can be said that progress is being made towards the most important targets on
volume and costs for the medium term, 2015 set up by the MAIP document:
demonstration of more than 1000 units 1-2 kW systems (project ene.field) from 9
manufacturers supported by 24 utilities in 12 Member States,1MW commercial
system H2-based in Hungary for more than 20000 hours operation, electrical
efficiency of 48% and a cost of system 2.5 mill €/MW (equivalent of 2500 €/kW).
Electrical efficiencies of more than 60% are expected to be achieved in the
near future.

The projects of the early markets
portfolio fall into one of three main categories: (i) material handling
vehicles, primarily fork lift trucks; (ii) portable and micro-fuel cells for
personal power solutions; and (iii) back-up power systems. The portfolio
continues to be well aligned with strategic objectives: three flagship projects
focus on forklifts, postal delivery vehicles as well as trucks for airport usage.
Back-up power systems are addressed with two large projects, focused on
telecommunication applications. These projects are paving the way for
deployment with some of the manufacturers optimizing their production lines for
larger commercialisation. Innovative personal power solutions and unmanned
flying vehicles are also explored as part of the portable and micro-fuel cells
category. Taken as a
whole, this portfolio covers the objectives of the MAIP, although some
demonstrations had experienced difficulties attracting end users and OEMs in
the consortia.

Last but not least, cross-cutting
projects are playing an important strategic role in the realisation of the FCH
JU’s overarching commercialisation objective. In this respect, the on-going
projects provide the minimum coverage of the key elements of the MAIP, covering
three distinct topics: (i) training and education, (ii) socio-economic aspects
(including a project aiming at developing a new tool for technology assessment
and progress monitoring) and (iii) pre-normative research and Life Cycle
Analysis (PNR & LCA) projects. More effort is needed to ensure that the
progress made is maintained and enhanced through additional projects. In
particular, further work is needed to address market obstacles arising from
variability of regulations, standards and permit procedures and to keep
training materials up to date.

7.2.3.     Leveraging effect

The establishment of the FCH JU was expected to
trigger from the industry an additional investment of 600M€ in RTD on top of
their in-kind contribution to the FCH JU. The close to 80 private companies
that have participated to the survey undertaken in the framework of the impact
assessment for the continuation of the FCH JU under Horizon 2020[10]
have together reported an annual € 1,5 billion of expenditures in R&D and
market introduction in 2011 or 2012, 36% seeing an increase of more than 10%
annually since 2007. About 50% of the FCH JU Industry Grouping members state
they have increased their R&D expenditures thanks to the existence of the
JU, even during a period of severe economic and financial crisis, suggesting
that the industry has taken their commitment very seriously. This illustrates
that a public-private partnership with a mechanism such as a JU does improve
the investment environment and can indeed trigger additional investments.

The leveraging effect is also apparent from the
funding rates of the JU, which have been lower than for FP7 due to the
obligation of the legal entities participating in the projects to match the EU
contribution. As a consequence, the JU budget has allowed supporting a larger
number of projects.

7.2.4.     Industry and SME participation to date

The weight of the private sector in the
applicant consortia has increased, indicating that the JU calls for proposals
are more attractive to industry, particularly SMEs, than FP7. Industry
(including SMEs) takes 66% of the funding compared to 47% in FP7. SME
participation is significantly higher than in FP7: SMEs take 25% of the funding
compared to 18% in FP7. These figures refer to the Energy Theme of FP7 in the
period 2008-2012.

7.3.        Outline of the main activities and achievements in 2012

7.3.1.     Running of the FCH JU

7.3.1.1.  HR
issues

Two selection procedures were completed
(replacement of the staff upon their resignation):

·
Financial Assistant AST4 (took up the duties on
16 October 2012)

·
Project Manager FG IV for a temporary filling of
an AD 8 project manager position (to take up the duties on 01 January 2013)

In this context the Governing Board approved a change
in the organisation chart aiming at reinforcing the finance team given the
increased workload stemming in particular from the increased number of cost
claims submitted and from the coordination and monitoring of ex-post audits.

At end of 2012 the FCH JU Program Office was
staffed with 17 Temporary Agents and 3 Contract Agents. The FCH JU also offered 6 months traineeship to young graduates.

The following implementing rules were adopted
by the Governing Board of the Joint Undertaking in March 2012:

·
Decision on the policy on protecting the dignity
of the person and preventing psychological harassment and sexual harassment

·
Decision for setting up the FCH JU Staff
Committee

·
Decision on staff appraisal

Finally, two team building events were
organized as well as training activities and a survey on the satisfaction of
the staff was conducted for the first time in 2012.

7.3.1.2.  Legal
and Financial Framework

In 2012, the main activities carried out by the
Program Office in this field included the following:

·
Revision of the model grant agreement:

The model grant agreement was revised to
include two simplifications:

The possibility for SMEs owners and other
persons who work for a FCH JU project but do not receive a salary to declare
their personnel cost through a flat rate system.

The possibility for beneficiaries to declare
average personal costs without having to obtain a certification of their
methodology in advance.

·
Communication campaign on how to avoid financial
errors:

In order to facilitate the financial
implementation of projects and to avoid errors in the costs reporting by
beneficiaries, the FCH JU organised three sessions of a one-day-training for
its beneficiaries. The training included a detailed explanation of the
financial provisions of the grant agreement, an explanation of the control
system applicable to the FCH JU funding as well as an analysis of the most
frequent errors in the costs reporting of beneficiaries. A guide was also
drafted for the beneficiaries.

7.3.1.3.  IT
Infrastructure

The priority objectives for IT are to ensure a
stable and secure IT system, provide IT support to staff and to cooperate with
the other JUs to ensure synergy and the efficient use of resources. The main
achievements in 2012 for IT include the following: (i) the IT infrastructure was stabilised and enhanced throughout the year,
(ii) the business continuity plan including elements of disaster recovery plan
was adopted and an agreement was signed with DG RTD which provides for support
in case of crisis, (iii) the mail registration tool was improved which
offers some features available in the Ares tool of the Commission, and (iv) the
IT governance structure for the JUs has been put in place and coordinated by
the IT Officers, Heads of Finance and Administration and Executive Directors.

The 2012 risk assessment identified a number of
problems still experienced with the IT tools during the year which increased
the risk level for the internal processes for the calls for proposals.
Particular attention was given to those issues as they have a direct impact on
the workload and planning activities of the staff. Aside from this, access to
the CORDA database has improved the speed and quality of data analysis.

The stabilisation of the IT tool configuration
and servers, timely reporting and monitoring of IT issues and a root-cause
analysis of the problems and a close following the Service Level Agreements
have all worked to significantly reduce other IT risks in the organization in
2012.

7.3.2.     Progress in the implementation of the Multi-Annual
Implementation Plan

In 2012, 33 grant agreements were concluded for
an amount of € 117.5 M corresponding to the call for proposals 2011, the
largest call for proposals launched by the JU. In parallel the evaluation of
2012 call for proposals was carried out and the Governing Board approved on the
11 October 2012 the start of negotiations of 28 proposals for an indicative
budget of € 79.8 M.

24 interim and 5 final reports concerning 209
beneficiaries were validated leading to interim/final payments for an amount of
€ 5.2 M and to clearing of € 12 M. In this frame, following the recommendations
of the internal audit capability the ex-ante control process was enhanced in
particular through a clarification of the control strategy, a strengthening of
the monitoring tools and a review of the procedures/checklists. In addition,
the implementation of the ex-post audit strategy launched in 2011 was pursued
with 19 audits finalized out of 33 selected. Furthermore, a communication
campaign aiming at avoiding financial errors in cost claims of the FCH JU
beneficiaries was organised, including 3 training sessions covering 54% of the
projects. With a similar aim, the FCH JU Guide on Financial Issues[11]
was published providing detailed explanations of the financial provisions of
the grant agreement.

A study[12] on the
commercialisation of Fuel Cell buses was carried out involving a coalition of
40 companies and government organisations. It concludes that Fuel Cells and
Hydrogen technology allows for a promising, necessary and environment-friendly
alternative powertrain for urban buses contributing to the decarbonisation of
road transport.

The RTD priorities and topics to be included in
the AIP for the 2013 call for proposals were initially drafted by the Application
Area Working Groups led by representatives of the member companies of the
Industry and Research Groupings. The AIP 2013 was completed after consultations
with the relevant services of the Commission, the Scientific Committee and the
FCH JU States Representatives Group. Based on the AIP 2013 the 2013 call for
proposals comprises 27 topics with an estimated FCH JU financial contribution
of € 68.5 million, as well as 5 public procurements for € 4,65 million, summing
up to the committed € 450 million EU contribution for the period 2008-2013.

7.3.3.     Implementation of calls for proposals (CFP)

The FCH JU launches open and competitive calls
for proposals annually on the basis of which funding is granted for research,
technological development and demonstration projects. The topics stem from the FCH
JU Annual Implementation Plan (AIP) and are consistent with the five Application
Areas described above and the RTD priorities and key objectives for the
respective year.

Two types of funding schemes are used to
implement projects in the FCH JU: 1) collaborative projects, and 2)
coordination and support actions. The schemes to be used in the different calls
for proposals are announced in the call for proposals fiche. FCH JU's projects
are selected through calls for proposals following a single stage submission
and evaluation process. The whole call for proposals process is managed by the
Programme Office of the FCH JU according to the principles of excellence,
transparency, fairness and impartiality, confidentiality, efficiency, speed and
ethical and security considerations and following the FCH JU Rules for
submission of proposals and the related evaluation, selection and award
procedures[13].

As a first step, the FCH JU performs an
eligibility check to see whether the applicants meet the announced eligibility
criteria. Then FCH JU appoints independent experts with the same principles as
for the Framework Programme, to assist with the evaluation of proposals and
identification of those of best quality for possible funding. All eligible
proposals are evaluated with respect to the evaluation criteria and the
associated weight and thresholds set for the call for proposals. Evaluations
are done in three steps: remotely, through on-site consensus meetings and panel
reviews. During the remote evaluation, proposals are assessed individually by a
minimum of three experts and the results are included in an individual
evaluation report. Once the experts complete their individual assessments,
the evaluation proceeds to a consensus assessment, the objective of which is to
exchange common views on the evaluated proposals. The results of the consensus
meetings are included in consensus evaluation reports. The final step in
the evaluation process is the panel review. The outcome of this review are the evaluation
summary reports for each proposal, including a list of ranked
proposals above thresholds for each application area, a list of proposals
failing one or more thresholds and a list of ineligible proposals, if any. The
presence of independent observers during the different evaluation stages verifies
and guarantees that the above-mentioned rules and principles are followed.

After completing the evaluation and
establishing ranked lists with proposals for funding for each application area
and a reserve list, these lists are presented to the FCH JU Governing Board.
Once the latter approves the list of proposals to be funded the Joint
Undertaking enters into negotiations with the coordinators. If a negotiation is
successfully concluded, the project is selected and a grant agreement providing
for a FCH JU financial contribution is signed.

7.3.4.     Evaluation
process

Figure 2: FCH JU calls for
proposals. Submission and evaluation process

33 Grant Agreements resulting of the evaluation
of the 2011 call for proposals were signed.

During 2012 the FCH
JU launched and evaluated one call for proposals (FCH-JU-2012-1). The
evaluation was carried out by 31 independent experts, 1 chairperson and 1
vice-chair person who oversaw the whole consensus phase. In addition, 1
independent observer monitored that the evaluation procedure was carried out in
a fair, impartial and confidential manner. The individual remote evaluations
took place from 8th to 20th June 2012 and the consensus
meetings from 25th to 27th June, which were followed by
the final Panel meeting on 28th and 28th June. The
details of the evaluation are provided in section 4.1 below.

7.3.5.     Governance - Major decisions taken by the Governing Board
and other JU bodies

The
FCH Governing Board held four meetings in 2012:

·
The 11th Governing Board meeting
was held on 7 March 2012. The main decision taken was the adoption of the 3rd
batch of implementing rules.

·
The 12th Governing Board meeting
was held on 29 June 2012. The main decision taken was the approval of the Final
Accounts 2011, the appointment of 2 new members of the Scientific Committee,
the adoption of the first amendment to the FCH JU budget 2012, and the adoption
of the Annual Assessment of the in-kind contribution for the year 2011.

·
The 13th Governing Board meeting
was held on 11 October 2012. The main decisions taken were the adoption of the
correction factor for the funding of the call for proposals 2012 (0.8), the
adoption of the list of proposals to start negotiations and the second
amendment to the FCH JU budget 2012.

·
The 14th Governing Board meeting
was held on 29 November 2012. The main decision taken was the appointment of
two other new members of the Scientific Committee.

The following documents were adopted and/or
approved by the FCH JU Governing Board via written procedure:

·
FCH JU Multi Annual Staff Policy Plan 2013-2015;

·
Provisional accounts for the financial year of
2011;

·
FCH JU Annual Activity Report 2011;

·
FCH JU Annual Implementation Plan and budget for
2013.

·
FCH JU Communication Strategy;

·
Methodology for asessing in-kind contribution;

·
Contract for the study on Bus commercialisation;

·
Contract for the Study on the trends in terms of
investments, jobs and turnover in the Fuel cells and Hydrogen Sector;

·
Contract on “Development of a European Fuel
Cells and Hydrogen Vehicles Roll out: Written report about a rollout strategy
for Hydrogen transport in the UK”;

·
Amendment of the FCH JU Model Grant Agreement;

·
Change in the organisational structure of the
FCH JU Programme Office;

·
Decisions for concluding a grant agreement for
the seven batches of projects from the call for proposals FCH-JU-2011-1.

7.3.5.1.  FCH
JU Consultative Bodies

The Scientific Committee met three times
during the year (January, March and October). The meetings focused on three
main topics: discussions and recommendations for the preparation of the AIP
2013, organisation of the 2012 Programme Review and discussions and
recommendations for the future role and mandate of the Scientific Committee in
the possible FCH JU in Horizon 2020. 4 new members (out of 9) have joined the
Scientific Committee during 2012, and the chair has also changed during the
period.

The States Representatives Group (SRG)
held three meetings in 2012 (March, June, November). Information on the FCH JU
operations was provided to the SRG by the Programme Office and by the
Commission and the Industry Grouping on future perspectives for Horizon 2020.
During the meeting there were open discussions on the future role of the SRG
and on ways to improve the coordination between MS and FCH JU Programmes. The
SRG was also consulted on the AIP 2013. The "mapping exercise"
launched in 2011 for SETIS, the Strategic Energy Technology Information System
of the Joint Research Centre (JRC), did unfortunately not materialise due to a
lack of sufficient data transmitted by the MS representatives.

The Stakeholders General Assembly which
had as a theme "Realising sustainable growth through fuel cells and
hydrogen", was held at "Maison de la Chimie" in Paris on 12th
October 2012. The number of participants (255) was lower than in previous
editions. The breakdown by sectors was: industry (40%), "research
organisation – academia" (26%), national and regional institutions (13%)
and EU institutions 8%. By countries: France (25%), Belgium (15%) and Germany
(12%). The panel discussions, with Q&A sessions with the public, focused on
the following topics: (i) perspective for the FCH sector and the possible
future Joint Undertaking for the 2014-2020 period, (ii) the increasing profile
of hydrogen as a storage medium for renewable energy and grid balancing, (iii)
national and regional initiatives for deployment of fuel cells technology and
hydrogen infrastructure and (iv) the financing of innovation and early
deployment of FCH technologies.

7.3.6.     Second Interim Evaluation

The Council Regulation of Hydrogen and Fuel
Cells JTI Joint Undertaking stipulates that the Commission shall conduct a
second interim evaluation by the 31 December 2013 with the assistance of a
panel of independent experts, on the basis of the terms of reference
established after consultation of the JU. During 2012 the FCH JTI JU has
cooperated with the services of the Commission and the Clean Sky and IMI JTIs
JUs to start the preparatory work. This concerned in particular the provision
of data, statistic and information on the operations of the programme and
inputs provided for the definition of the terms of reference.

7.3.7.     Main communication activities

In 2012, activities initiated in 2011 have been
further developed. In addition, new activities have been initiated, with a view
to strengthen awareness-raising towards EU and national policy makers,
multipliers’ networks as well as towards opinion leaders and stakeholders of
the FCH sector and related communities. The messages focused on the overall
potential and market readiness of FCH technologies, the progress of the program
so far and the dissemination of projects' results.

The FCH JU further
strengthened its relationships with policy makers at European and national
levels, creating opportunities for presenting the partnership, its achievements
and its perspectives for delivering the objectives. Presentations were made to
Commission officials, MEPs (in particular the ITRE working group of the S&D
Group and two dinner debates in Brussels and Strasbourg), representatives from Member
States (in particular the Councillors and Scientific attachés of the National
Permanent Representations at the occasion of an official Research & Energy
Council Working Party meeting in June) and the Social and Economic Committee
(April). A special effort was made towards Central and Eastern European policy
makers through meetings with permanent representation advisors from EU 12.
Additionally, individual meetings with some 50 key relevant policy makers were
also organised.

7.3.7.1.  Events

The FCH JU organised the following events:

·
The 5th Stakeholders’
General Assembly, organized on the 12 October in Paris with a view to
raise awareness on FCH technologies and programs among stakeholders and
decision makers in France. A reception was hosted by Senator Jean-Marc Pastor,
on 11 October.

·
The second Program Review Days, organised on 28 and 29 November, enabling a
public assessment on the progress of the program towards its objectives.

·
A public information session for the 2012
call for proposals and support to the brokerage event organised by
Industry and Research groupings in Brussels (9 February).

The FCH JU participated in the following events
(booth, presentations of the FCH JU activities, participation in panels etc.):

·
The Hannover Messe from 23 to 27 April 2012,
as part of the Group Exhibit Hydrogen + Fuel Cells. The FCH JU joined force
with the German partners NOW, CEP and Linde. The EU Commissioner for Climate Action, Connie Hedegaard, and the
EU Commissioner for Energy, Günther Oettinger, showed great interest in the
exhibits.

·
The World Hydrogen Energy Conference, from 3 to
7 June in Toronto.

·
The EU Open day,
through an exhibition in the Berlaymont Building and a display of a Fuel Cell
and Hydrogen car. Commissioner Oettinger had the opportunity to test drive the
Fuel Cells and Hydrogen car.

·
The EU Sustainable Energy Week (EUSEW), from
22 to 28 June, the FCH JU offered a joint exhibition with one of
its flagship demonstration projects, H2 Moves Scandinavia, in the European
Parliament.

·
The Paris Motor show, from 27 to 29
September, in collaboration with Air Liquide and the project
H2 Moves Scandinavia.

·
The Festival of
sustainable development, from 9 to 11 November,
organised by a Brussels local authority, offered an
opportunity to show the technology to a general public.

·
National information sessions for the 2012 call for proposals (UK, Spain, Italy)

FCH JU staff and/or the Executive Director
participated in more than 30 external events and conferences in 2012 in 10
different Member States and 3 key non-European countries (US, Switzerland,
Canada) to present the program and FCH JU activities and developments.

The FCH JU
contributed to the organisation and/or supported the organisation of two
workshops, one on materials on 26-27 March in Grenoble and one on electrolysers
on 10 May in Copenhagen.

7.3.7.2.  Publications

Publications[14] include (i)
the 'fact-based study on power trains for vehicles', (ii) the report from the
FCH sector on 'the financial and technological outlook for the period
2014-2020', (iii) the 2011 Program Review Days final
report, (iv) a policy analysis, commissioned by the FCH
JU to the Bruegel Institute labelled 'The great transformation: decarbonising
Europe's energy and transport systems', and (v) a wide
sectorial survey addressing the whole FCH community on R& D investments and
activities, job creation, and on the general growth of the sector.

The FCH JU maintained regular press relations
at many activity launches, such as the launch of the 2012 call for proposals,
the publication of the Bruegel study on the decarbonisation of the energy and
transport system, the events organised during the EUSEW, the Motor Show and the
Stakeholders’ General Assembly. Four press releases were issued in 2012 and
numerous inputs were also provided to journalists upon request. Articles on FCH
JU were directly contributed and published in Research Media (issue Spring
2012) and European Energy Innovation magazine (issue winter 2012).

Several publications have been developed: a
general leaflet on FCH JU, a listing & mapping of demonstration activities
and a report on the program review with fact-sheets per projects. The FCH JU
web site, operational since March 2011, developed new pages: the Stakeholders’
General Assembly and its surrounding activities, program reviews and projects
which were presented by application area and year.

7.3.8.     Success stories

In the field of back-up power of the early
market, FITUP is a demonstration project in which a total of 19
market-ready fuel cell systems from two different suppliers are installed as
backup power sources by final users in Italy, Switzerland and Turkey.
Real-world customers from the telecommunications industry are using these fuel
cell-based systems, with power levels in the 3-12kW range, in their sites.
These units are under test to demonstrate a level of technical performance that
qualifies them for market entry, thereby accelerating their worldwide
commercialisation, in particular (i) reliability of greater than 95%, (ii)
durability of more than 1500 hours and more than 1000 cycles. The project
involves the benchmarking and certification of units from both fuel cell
suppliers according to a test protocol developed by the consortium in order to
conduct extensive tests in field trials in sites selected by the final users.
About 50% of planned tests are already performed (about 1300 total hours) and
the analysis of the data collected so far indicates that the progress achieved
will allow meeting the project targets and showing that the systems developed
are competitive with incumbent technologies such as batteries and/or diesel
generators. The project has a 3-year duration and a total cost of €5.4 million
with a FCH JU contribution of €2,5 million. The consortium consists of large
and small entities including fuel cell system manufacturers, end users,
certification companies and R&D centres.

The project SOFT-PACT ('stationary
applications' portfolio), led by E.ON, intends to deploy 100 micro-CHP units
(Gennex SOFC based provided by Ceramic Fuel Cell Limited company) in Germany,
UK, Italy and Benelux and to demonstrate an electrical efficiency of at least
60%. The project also addresses the most important commercial challenges by
developing the whole supply chain, mass manufacturing aspects and European
housing stock availability, ultimately addressing the certification schemes in
the different Member States, Standard Assessment procedures and Grid connection
standards. Up to date more than 30 units have been successfully installed in UK
and Germany in two different configurations and electrical efficiencies of 62%
were reported for some of them. Some installation issues not related to the
technology itself but to the different requirements in the Member States will
be addressed in the final phase of the project.

With support of the FCH JU, the Danish based
SME H2Logic A/S has developed and facilitated the commercialisation of its two
innovative products: H2Station® - Hydrogen refuelling stations for
automotive, bus and materials handling applications, and H2Drive® - Fuel
cell systems for materials handling vehicles such as forklift trucks and
airport tow tractors. The company´s first move was supported by Danish national
programmes and the Nordic Energy Research; the further optimisation of a cost
effective fuel cell system was carried out in the FCH JU- supported
HyLift-DEMO-project. In 2011, H2Logic A/S installed four 70MPa H2Stations in
less than 12 months; one of them operates on the premises of SINTEF as part of
the FCH JU H2moves Project - the large scale demonstration of fuel cell
vehicles and refuelling infrastructure in Oslo.

7.4.        Call(s) for proposals implementation in 2012

7.4.1.     Call
for proposals FCH-JU-2012-1

7.4.1.1.  Summary information

Call Identifier || FCH-JU-2012-1 ||

Publication date || 17 January 2012 ||

Deadline || 24th May 2012 ||

Indicative Total budget (in €) || €77.5 million[15] ||

EU contribution after evaluation || €80,1 million ||

In-kind contribution after evaluation || €63,9 million ||

Reference to call topics || Annex 1 ||

Table
3: Evaluation results

Call Reference || Publication date || Evaluation date || Nr of topics || Nr of GAs signed || Indicative budget [max funding] (M€ ) || Outcome of the call (M€) || Funding

EU contribution || In-kind

FCH-JU-2012-1 || 17/01/2012 || June 2012 || 31 || 0 || 77,5 || 292,5 || 80,1 || 63,9

7.4.1.2.  Analysis
of proposals submitted

Number of proposals submitted:

–
Total: 72

–
Eligible for evaluation: 68

Area || Submitted || Eligible

Transportation & Refuelling Infrastructure || 15 || 15

Hydrogen Production & Distribution || 20 || 18

Stationary Power Generation & CHP || 22 || 21

Early Markets || 8 || 8

Cross-cutting Issues || 7 || 6

Total: || 72 || 68

Number of participants in the submitted
proposals:

–
Total: 573

–
SMEs: 160, which corresponds to 28% of total
participants.

The average size of a project is 8 partners
with a FCH JU contribution of €3.05 million.

Figure
3: Requested contribution by Country

Table 4: Success rate by type of
participant

Type participant || Nr of participants in the Proposals || Nr of participants in the funded Projects || Participants success rate || Budget allocation

Public Bodies || 19 || 3 || 16% || 0,2%

Research organisations || 136 || 59 || 43% || 24,0%

Higher or secondary education || 112 || 31 || 28% || 11,0%

Private for profit (excl. education) || 126 || 68 || 54% || 38,0%

SMEs || 160 || 55 || 34% || 26,0%

Others || 20 || 6 || 30% || 0,8%

Total || 573 || 222 || 39% || 100,0%

Participation by countries is presented in the
table below. Overall, 30 Countries took part to FCH Call, best players were
Germany (with 102 participations), Italy (72), France (61) and the UK (59).
Form the EU-13, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Poland, Romania, Estonia, Lithuania,
Slovakia, Hungary and Croatia submitted applications for a total of 3
participations, the best player being Poland with 7 participations. To be noted
that non-EU or Associate Countries showed interest to FCH calls: the United
States and Russian Federations got respectively 3 and 2 participations.

Figure 4: Number of Countries in
evaluated proposals

7.4.1.3.  Evaluation results

Number of proposals submitted:

–
Passing the thresholds: 43

–
Failing the thresholds: 29

–
Proposed for funding: 28

–
Reserve list: 15

–
Success rate: 39%

Table
5: Evaluation results

Call Reference || Submitted Proposals || Evaluation results || Reserve list, if any % of retained

Submitted Proposals || Eligible Proposals || % of retained || Above threshold || Submitted for funding || Success rate%

FCH-JU-2012-1 || 72 || 68 || 94% || 43 || 28 || 39% || 35%

Number of participants in the proposals
selected for funding (see table 5):

–
Total: 224

–
Success rate by type, of which SMEs: 55
participants with a 34 % success rate

–
By country:

Germany, France, the UK and Italy performed
best as number of participations in the selected for funding projects, all
together registered 136 participations out of 224 – over 60% of the total
participations.

Figure 5: Participations by Country
selected for funding

7.5.        Project
Portfolio

This section will provide information on the
general picture on signed grant agreements (GA) and on their implementation
together with a comprehensive picture of the JU's business.

7.5.1.     Grant agreements signed (commitment amounts – during the
year 2012)

№ || GA № || Project acronym || || Call Identifier || A || B || C

Project title || JU contribution || In-kind contribution || Total contribution

|| A+B

1 || 298300 || T-CELL || Innovative SOFC Architecture based on Triode Operation || FCH-JU-2011-1 || 1.796.267,00 || 1.627.900,80 || 3.424.167,80

2 || 299732 || UNIFHY || UNIQUE gasifier for hydrogen Production || FCH-JU-2011-1 || 2.203.599,00 || 1.352.053,00 || 3.555.652,00

3 || 300081 || ELECTROHYPEM || Enhanced performance and cost-effective materials for long-term operation of PEM water electrolysers coupled to renewable power sources || FCH-JU-2011-1 || 1.352.771,00 || 1.489.541,00 || 2.842.312,00

4 || 301782 || FLUMABACK || Fluid Management component improvement for Back up fuel cell systems || FCH-JU-2011-1 || 2.773.700,00 || 1.666.764,00 || 4.440.464,00

5 || 303024 || EURECA || Efficient use of resources in energy converting applications || FCH-JU-2011-1 || 3.557.293,00 || 2.757.212,00 || 6.314.505,00

6 || 303411 || DON QUICHOTE || Demonstration Of New Qualitative Innovative Concept of Hydrogen Out of windTurbine Electricity || FCH-JU-2011-1 || 2.954.846,00 || 1.991.288,00 || 4.946.134,00

7 || 303415 || SAPIENS || SOFC Auxiliary Power In Emissions/Noise Solutions || FCH-JU-2011-1 || 1.591.590,00 || 777.917,20 || 2.369.507,20

8 || 303417 || HYUNDER || Assessment of the potential, the actors and relevant business cases for large scale and seasonal storage of renewable electricity by hydrogen underground storage in Europe || FCH-JU-2011-1 || 1.193.273,00 || 573.243,00 || 1.766.516,00

9 || 303418 || PHAEDRUS || High Pressure Hydrogen All Electrochemical Decentralized RefUeling Station || FCH-JU-2011-1 || 3.566.343,00 || 2.743.489,00 || 6.309.832,00

10 || 303419 || PUMA MIND || Physical bottom Up Multiscale Modelling for Automotive PEMFC Innovative performance and Durability optimization || FCH-JU-2011-1 || 2.294.106,00 || 1.798.523,69 || 4.092.629,69

11 || 303422 || MATHRYCE || Material Testing and Recommendations for Hydrogen Components under fatigue || FCH-JU-2011-1 || 1.296.249,00 || 1.196.688,00 || 2.492.937,00

12 || 303428 || BOR4STORE || Fast, reliable and cost effective boron hydride based high capacity solid state hydrogen storage materials || FCH-JU-2011-1 || 2.273.682,00 || 1.797.029,30 || 4.070.711,30

13 || 303429 || EVOLVE || Evolved materials and innovative design for high-performance, durable and reliable SOFC cell and stack || FCH-JU-2011-1 || 3.105.093,00 || 2.700.280,80 || 5.805.373,80

14 || 303435 || ARTIPHYCTION || Fully artificial photo-electrochemical device for low temperature hydrogen production || FCH-JU-2011-1 || 2.187.040,00 || 1.454.802,00 || 3.641.842,00

15 || 303445 || STACKTEST || Development of PEM Fuel Cell Stack Reference Test Procedures for Industry || FCH-JU-2011-1 || 2.909.898,00 || 2.727.882,20 || 5.637.780,20

16 || 303446 || IMPALA || IMprove PEMFC with Advanced water management and gas diffusion Layers for Automotive application || FCH-JU-2011-1 || 2.640.535,00 || 2.441.051,80 || 5.081.586,80

17 || 303447 || HYPER || Integrated hydrogen power packs for portable and other autonomous applications || FCH-JU-2011-1 || 2.221.798,00 || 1.694.711,00 || 3.916.509,00

18 || 303449 || STAMPEM || STAble and low cost Manufactured bipolar plates for PEM Fuel Cells || FCH-JU-2011-1 || 2.576.505,00 || 2.647.302,60 || 5.223.807,60

19 || 303451 || HYLIFT-EUROPE || HyLIFT-EUROPE - Large scale demonstration of fuel cell powered material handling vehicles || FCH-JU-2011-1 || 9.263.194,00 || 11.068.789,20 || 20.331.983,20

20 || 303452 || IMPACT || Improved Lifetime of Automotive Application Fuel Cells with ultra-low Pt-loading || FCH-JU-2011-1 || 3.902.403,00 || 4.934.891,00 || 8.837.294,00

21 || 303454 || TRISOFC || Durable Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Tri-generation System for Low Carbon Buildings || FCH-JU-2011-1 || 1.481.391,00 || 1.254.169,00 || 2.735.560,00

22 || 303457 || PURE || Development of Auxiliary Power Unit for Recreational yachts || FCH-JU-2011-1 || 1.665.796,00 || 1.280.763,20 || 2.946.559,20

23 || 303458 || CLEARGEN DEMO || The Integration and demonstration of Large Stationary Fuel Cell Systems for Distributed Generation || FCH-JU-2011-1 || 4.600.000,00 || 5.549.904,00 || 10.149.904,00

24 || 303461 || LIQUIDPOWER || Fuel cell systems and Hydrogen supply for Early markets || FCH-JU-2011-1 || 1.999.872,00 || 1.688.454,00 || 3.688.326,00

25 || 303462 || ENE.FIELD || European-wide field trials for residential fuel cell micro-CHP || FCH-JU-2011-1 || 25.971.605,00 || 26.979.538,60 || 52.951.143,60

26 || 303466 || IMMEDIATE || Innovative autoMotive MEa Development – implementation of Iphe-genie Achievements Targeted at Excellence || FCH-JU-2011-1 || 2.087.390,00 || 1.598.163,00 || 3.685.553,00

27 || 303467 || HYTRANSIT || European Hydrogen Transit Buses in Scotland || FCH-JU-2011-1 || 6.999.999,00 || 9.321.166,57 || 16.321.165,57

28 || 303472 || EDEN || High energy density Mg-Based metal hydrides storage system || FCH-JU-2011-1 || 1.524.900,00 || 1.128.674,00 || 2.653.574,00

29 || 303476 || BEINGENERGY || Integrated low temperature methanol steam reforming and high temperature polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell || FCH-JU-2011-1 || 2.245.244,00 || 1.969.179,40 || 4.214.423,40

30 || 303482 || ARTEMIS || Automotive pemfc Range extender with high TEMperature Improved meas and Stacks || FCH-JU-2011-1 || 1.747.884,00 || 1.200.318,10 || 2.948.202,10

31 || 303484 || NOVEL || Novel materials and system designs for low cost, efficient and durable PEM electrolysers || FCH-JU-2011-1 || 2.663.357,00 || 3.080.088,00 || 5.743.445,00

32 || 303485 || SWARM || Demonstration of Small 4-Wheel fuel cell passenger vehicle Applications in Regional and Municipal transport || FCH-JU-2011-1 || 6.978.277,00 || 10.439.665,00 || 17.417.942,00

33 || 303492 || CATHCAT || Novel catalyst materials for the cathode side of MEAs suitable for transportation applications || FCH-JU-2011-1 || 1.895.862,00 || 1.082.680,80 || 2.978.542,80

TOTALS || 117.521.762,00 || 116.014.123,26 || 233.535.885,26

7.5.2.     Grant
agreements for which activities have ended and/or final results are available

№ || GA № || || || Project acronym || || Initial requested funding/ Total costs || A || B || C

Date GA signed || Date GA ended || Project title || JU contribution || In-kind contribution\* || Total contribution

|| || || A+B+C

1 || 245133 || 18/12/2009 || 31/12/2010 || NEXTHYLIGHTS || Supporting action to prepare large-scale hydrogen vehicle demonstration in Europe || 499.303 || 1.142.114 || 481.769 || 518.264 || 1.000.033

2 || 245142 || 18/12/2009 || 30/09/2011 || AUTO-STACK || Automotive Fuel Cell Stack Cluster Initiative for Europe || 1.193.015 || 2.576.629 || 885.839 || 1.184.594 || 2.070.433

3 || 245332 || 21/12/2009 || 30/06/2011 || PREPAR-H2 || Preparing socio and economic evaluations of future H2 lighthouse projects || 257.075 || 559.154 || 256.153 || 341.655 || 597.808

4 || 256328 || 15/12/2010 || 30/09/2011 || HYGUIDE || HyGuide || 366.318 || 374.359 || 366.318 || 209.530 || 575.848

5 || 256850 || 21/12/2010 || 30/09/2011 || H2FC-LCA || Development of Guidance Manual for LCA application to Fuel cells and Hydrogen technologies || 311.957 || 400.016 || 311.957 || 98.019 || 409.976

TOTALS || 2.627.668 || 5.052.272 || 2.302.036 || 2.352.063 || 4.654.099

\*
including contributions of JRC of €63,929 and €8,696.05 for AUTO-STACK and
HYGUIDE respectively.

              GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS

              GENERAL

AAR
– Annual Activity Report

ABAC
– Accrual Based ACcounting is a transversal, transactional information system
allowing for the execution and monitoring of all budgetary and accounting
operations by the Commission, an Agency or EU Institution

ABP
– Annual Budget Plan

AIP
– Annual Implementation Plan

APR
- Annual Progress Report

AWP
– Annual Work Program

CDT
– Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union

CFP
- Calls For Proposal

CORDA
- COmmon Research DAta warehouse application (IT Tool) is a module used to
create statistics and report tables for FP6/7 project

CPM
– Contract and Project Management (IT Tool)

CSWD
– Commission Staff Working Document

DG
BUDG – European Commission Directorate-General for Budget

DG
CNECT – European Commission Directorate General for Communications Networks,
Content and Technology

DG
HR – European Commission Directorate-General Human Resources and Security

DG
RTD - European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation

ECA
- European Court of Auditors

EPSS
- Electronic Proposal Submission System (IT Tool)

ESS
– Evaluation Service Support (IT Tool)

EC
– European Commission

ED
– Executive Director

ERA
– European Research Area

ESR
– Evaluation Summary Reports

EU
– European Union

FP7
- Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research,
technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013)

FPP
- Full Project Proposal

GA
– Grant Agreements

GB
– Governing Board

Horizon
2020 - Horizon 2020 is the financial instrument implementing, in the period
from 2014 to 2020, the Innovation Union, a Europe 2020 flagship initiative
aimed at securing Europe's global competitiveness.

HR
– Human Resources

IE
– Interim Evaluation

IT
– Information Technology

JTIs
- Joint Technology Initiative are European Union instruments for addressing
technological challenges that are of key importance for the future
competitiveness of the EU industry involved, challenges that industry and
markets would fail to address without a sizeable public intervention extended
over a multi-annual timescale

JU
- Joint Undertaking refers to the administrative structure of the JT

MASP
- Multi-Annual Strategic Plans

MSPP
- Multi-Annual Staff Policy

NEF
– Negotiation Module, Back Office (IT Tool) used to manage data entry for
Negotiations, Amendments, and Periodic Reports

PDM
– Participant Data Management (IT Tool)

PO
– Project Outline

REA
- Research Executive Agency (REA)

R&D
– Research and Development

SEP
– Submission and Evaluation of Proposals (IT Tool)

SESAR
(JU) - Single European Sky ATM Research programme is the technological and
operational dimension of the Single European Sky (SES) initiative

SME
– Small and Medium Enterprises

SRA
- Strategic Research Agenda

SRIA
- Strategic Research & Innovation Agenda

              ARTEMIS

AIPP
– ARTEMIS Innovation Pilot Project

ARTEMIS-IA
– ARTEMIS Industrial Association

ITEA–
the Information Technology for European Advancement is a strategic pan-European
programme currently is its second phase (ITEA 2)

ASP – ARTEMIS
Sub-programme

CMS – Content
Management System

GFA
- General Financing Agreement

IRC
- Industry and Research Committee

MBAT
- Combined Model-based Analysis and Testing of Embedded Systems (on-going
project launched in 2011)

PAB
- Public Authorities Board

              ENIAC

AENEAS
– Association for European Nanoelectronics Activities is a non-profit
industrial association established under French law

CATRENE
- is a four-year programme, which started in 2008 and extendable to eight
years. This programme aims at delivering nano-/microelectronics solutions that
enable lighthouse projects and responding to the needs of society at large

DPO
– Data Protection Officer

EDPS
– European Data Protection Supervisor

ETP
– European Technology Platform

EUREKA
– intergovernmental network launched in 1985, to support market-oriented
R&D and innovation projects by industry, research centres and universities
across all technological sectors

IAS
– Internal Audit Service

IRC
– Industry and Research Committee

KET
– Key Enabling Technologies

LISO
– Local IT Security Officer

PAB
– Public Authorities Board

              FCH

AA
– Application Areas

CHP
- Combined Heat & Power

FCEV
- Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles

HRS
- Hydrogen Refuelling Stations

MAIP
– Multi Annual Implementation Plan

N.ERGHY
- Association that groups the European research community

NEW-IG
- New Energy World Industry Grouping

PNR
& LCA - Pre-normative Research and Life Cycle Analysis

SRG
- States Representatives Group

[1]               Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Germany,
Denmark, Estonia, Spain, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy,
Latvia, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Slovenia and
the United Kingdom.

[2]               The ARTEMIS Industrial Association (ARTEMIS-IA) was
established in January 2007 in the Netherlands by five companies: Philips, ST
Microelectronics, Thales, Nokia and DaimlerChrysler. It represents the
interests of the industry and the research community within the ARTEMIS Joint
Undertaking.

[3]               A CoIE is a group of multi-country,
multi-organisation, interconnected R&D actors and businesses that by
efficient planning, acting and cooperation, achieve a significant advantage in
innovation success in a specific market. The ARTEMIS Label by the ARTEMIS
Industry Association recognises the achievements of the COIE in the field of
innovation in embedded systems. To date three CoIE are established: EICOSE
(European Institute for Complex Safety Critical Systems Engineering); ProcessIT.EU
focusing on automation solutions for the Process industry in a number of
segments; ES4IB (Embedded Systems for Intelligent Buildings).

[4]               Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland,
France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Netherlands,
Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden and the
United Kingdom.

[5]               The Association for European Nanoelectronics
Activities (AENEAS) is a non-profit industrial association established on 30
November 2006 to represent the R&D performers in the ENIAC Joint
Undertaking.

[6]               The New Energy World Industry Grouping "Fuel
Cell and Hydrogen for Sustainability" (NEW-IG) is a non-profit association
open to industrial companies dealing with fuel cell and hydrogen R&D activities
in Europe, including the EU Member States, the countries in the European
Economic Area and the EU associate and candidate countries. By the end of 2012,
the Industry Grouping had over 60 members. They varied from micro companies to
large enterprises from across the fuel cells and
hydrogen value chain.

[7]               The N.ERGHY Research Grouping is a non-profit
association representing the research community in Europe. The objective of
N.ERGHY is to promote, support and accelerate the research and deployment process
of fuel cell and hydrogen technology in Europe from the point of view of the
research community. By the end of 2012, the Research Grouping had over 60
research institutes and universities as members.

[8]               The European Strategic Energy Technology (SET) Plan
has identified fuel cells and hydrogen among the technologies needed for Europe
to achieve the 2020 Energy and Climate Change goals: 20% reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions, 20% share of renewable energy sources in the energy
mix and 20% reduction in primary energy use, as well as to achieve the
long-term vision for 2050 towards decarbonisation [Communication from the
Commission of 22 November 2007, COM (2007) 723 final].

[9]               Capex (capital expenditure) comes for any funds used
by an entity to acquire or upgrade physical assets such as property, industrial
buildings or equipment

[10]             Study on jobs and investment in the fuel cells and
hydrogen sector, 2012, http://www.fch-ju.eu/sites/default/files/Investment%20jobs%20%26%20turnover%20in%20FCH%20Sector.pdf

[11]             http://www.fch-ju.eu/content/how-participate-fch-ju-projects

[12]             The presentation and report prepared by McKinsey are
available at the following link: http://www.fch-ju.eu/news/fch-ju-launches-its-study-urban-buses-alternatives-power-trains-europe

[13]             http://www.fch-ju.eu/page/documents

[14]             Available under http://www.fch-ju.eu/page/publications

[15]             (increased by the EFTA contributions and reactivation
of amounts from previous years, as approved by the Governing Board to € 79.8 M
€)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ANNEX I - Description of the 'Integrated Technology Demonstrators' (ITD)
achievements... 2

ANNEX II - Calls for Proposals: overall list of topics published by ITD
and Area................ 28

ANNEX III - Calls for
Proposals: overall list of topics published in 2012 by
FHC JTI/JU.... 43

ANNEX I - Description
of the 'Integrated Technology Demonstrators' (ITD) achievements

A.
SFWA - Smart
Fixed Wing Aircraft ITD

In
2012 SFWA has been focussed on achieving progress
on all key SFWA target technologies. Based on the progress made in year 2011,
positive experience in the project and supported by the SFWA-ITD Reviewers all
activities conducted were even stronger aligned along the eight “Technology
Streams”:

1. Natural
Laminar Flow Smart Wing (NLF SW)

2. Hybrid
Laminar Flow Smart Wing (HLF SW)

3. Innovative
Control Surfaces (ICS)

4. Fluidic
Control Surfaces (FCS)

5. Load
Control Functions and Architectures (LCFA)

6. Buffet
Control (BC)

7. CROR
engine integration (CROR-EI)

8. Integration
of Innovative Turbofan Engines to Bizjets (IITE)

9. Advanced
Flight Test Instrumentation (FTI)

For
all technology streams respective leaders have been well installed in order to
manage the technical coordination and management through the overall SFWA-ITD
work breakdown structure, which means the appropriate steering and
interconnections between the work packages feeding inputs to the technology
stream.

A
review of the technology stream content elements towards reaching technical
readiness levels of typically TRL 5 or 6 in each of the technology streams and
careful “to completion” planning update have been conducted in the second half
of the year in parallel to the technical activities.

With
reference to the contract, the currently estimated overall consumption of
resources amounts to 97% of the grant agreement value.

Major
achievements of the year 2012 were:

Launch of the detailed design for
the “High Speed demonstrator Passive” (HSDP)
Start of manufacturing of the
laminar wing flight test articles for the “High Speed Demonstrator
Passive”
Closure of maturity “MAT B” gate of
the High Speed Demonstrator Passive
First part of the CROR feasibility
study
Major wind tunnel tests on the full
span 1/7 model completed to select a CROR engine – blade target design.
Completion of the smart wing
leading edge structural demonstrator including test preparation
“Smart Flap” and “Innovative Rear
Empennage” large ground demonstrator Launch Design Review
Initiation of ground and flight
tests to prepare the “Low Speed Demonstrator”
“Low Speed Demonstrator” - Review
performed with external evaluators
Wind tunnel tests with concepts for
the integration of innovative engines in Business Jets.
Wind tunnel tests with 2.5D active
flow control high performance high lift concepts for laminar wings.
In-flight testing of surface
coatings for laminar wings
Evaluate, select and contract new
partners for work packages published in subsequent CleanSky call for
proposals.
Finalization of concept aircraft models
for the evaluation of SFWA and other ITD technologies, primarily SAGE (SGO
first loop planned in 2013), for use by the Technology Evaluator
SFWA-ITD Annual Progress Review
meeting on 21/23 March in Bucharest
Preparation of the 2013 Consortium
Plan
Conduct the work specified in SFWA
Consortium Plan 2012 including the envisaged milestones and deliverables

The
majority of activities in the SFWA-ITD have been related to the detailed design
and manufacturing of the major flight test demonstrators.

In
particular building the two A340-based laminar wing tip sections for the “High
Speed Demonstrator Passive” (project title: “BLADE” = Breakthrough Laminar
Aircraft Demonstrator in Europe) ramped up to full pace in 2012.

A
major share of work was dedicated to the detailed design of components for the
large flight test demonstrations including the modification of the test
aircraft. For the smart laminar wing and low speed flight tests, the
manufacturing and assembly of parts will be continued.

The
critical design review for the wing is re-scheduled to take place in the first
semester of 2013.

The
focus of work in 2012 was laid to launch the detailed design work and the
launch of manufacturing of parts as well as the preparation of flight test
instrumentation and measurement equipment.

For
preparation of the “Low Speed Demonstrator” the work program was updated to
allow for the different levels of the required technologies. The result is an
intermediate step, namely two ground test demonstrators, one for the “smart
flap” and one for an active vibration attenuation test, both have been
initiated in 2012. For the active vibration attenuation test the decision was
taken in February this year to go for a full size vibration suppression test on
a Dassault Falcon F7X on ground.  The low speed demonstrator of vibration
control will fly in 2016.

The
detailed design of the CROR-pylon and the modification of the Airbus A340-600
test aircraft started at the end of 2012 with the “CROR-demo-engine FTB” launch
decision. Even though integration details will depend on  the outcome of a
feasibility study on the integration of the CROR into a “single aisle” short
range aircraft to be concluded in 2013, some preparatory actions for the flying
test bed are “long lead time items” and must start very early in year 2013.

The
review of the CROR engine integration has been extended until mid of 2013.

This
was considered necessary to review in great detail configurations other that
the previously preferred rear fuselage mounted pusher installation.

The
main challenges for all configurations are the minimization of the external
noise, the dynamic loads to the structure, the complexity and weight of the
propulsion system as well as handling quality certification issues. Activities
have been added to provide additional information for the definition of
certification rules in close coordination with engine manufacturers, and
rulemaking authorities.

The
preparation phase to start with the detailed design of the pylon, the engine
related systems including the interfaces to the test aircraft, as well as the
structural modifications to the Airbus A340-600 test bed has been launched and
will be in the scope of activities addressed in 2013.

The
preparation work done so far was reviewed after the proposed replacement of the
SAGE 1 engine by the SAGE 2 engine as already agreed in autumn 2011 by Snecma,
Rolls-Royce, Airbus and the Clean Sky JU.

While
the engine related research and development work is mainly covered in CleanSky
SAGE 1 and SAGE 2, the related development schedules are and have to be jointly
harmonized between SAGE-ITD and SFWA-ITD.

Most
of the experimental tests on the CROR in Wind tunnels have been jointly
undertaken with Airbus, Snecma and Rolls-Royce in SFWA coordination with the
relevant SAGE technical planning.

An
entirely new noise-shielding rear empennage for business-jets which have been
carefully designed in SFWA in the previous years led to the kick-off of
building a full scale structural demonstrator in 2012. The detailed design will
start in 2013 based on further numerical studies and a number of large scale
wind tunnel tests

The
development, integration and large scale ground and flight testing of the
SFWA-ITD technologies are based upon a maturation of the underlying principle
technologies.

In
2012, the majority of technologies typically reached TRLs between 3 and 4,
allowing testing them in an integrated (ground) environment. In parallel to
those tests, the pre-selected, integrated concepts will be assessed in the
(virtual) SFWA-ITD aircraft concepts. A part of these tests, for example, like
those feeding into the Technology Stream “Innovative Control Surfaces” with the
latest test article of a wing active flow control system done in cooperation
with a dedicated CFP-topic, will come to conclusion in year 2013.

The
matured SFWA-technologies are partially provided to the CleanSky Technology
Evaluator for further evaluation.

SAGE
and SGO-ITD contributions have been and will be incorporated as well.

The
computer simulation model PANEM was prepared but difficulties with this new
established model caused some delays in the on time delivery to TE. A high
level of effort has been undertaken in order to harmonize engine model data
with the aircraft models. Further effort beyond this year will be necessary
within the program in order to get reliable results.

A
large number of research and industry type wind tunnel tests have been prepared
and performed in 2012.

Four
large tests covered the testing of preselected CROR engines using different
blade designs. The test articles will be at 1/5 respectively 1/7 scale and will
address a wide range of noise and aerodynamic measurements. The most demanding
test session has been finished at the end of the year in the DNW wind tunnel.
Two large wind tunnel tests are planned to evaluate a preselected innovative
tail design for business jets in combination with advanced turbofan engines.
Most of the experimental tests on the CROR in Wind tunnels have been jointly
undertaken with Airbus, Snecma and Rolls-Royce in SFWA coordination with the
relevant SAGE technical planning.

Almost
50 days of testing have been conducted with the very complex 1/7 scale full
span test article, with the engines being tested installed, uninstalled, and
with typically three different CROR blade designs. The tests will continue in
2013.

A
number of smaller research type wind tunnel tests have been prepared to mature
various concepts of passive and active flow control technologies for the design
of the smart wing; new loads control concepts, and the design of Riblet surface
coating. In one wind tunnel test on advanced active flow control flap design
which will be conducted and exploited in cooperation with a partner in a
dedicated Call for proposal topic will be completed in early 2013. More test
sessions will follow.

To
test the long term robustness of selected innovative surface coatings against
wear and aging, a “long duration” flight test campaign on two in-service
A340-300 Lufthansa long-haul aircraft, initially planned for an end in June
2012 have been extended by 12 months due to success of the work package and the
expected extra value of further data. Started in 2011, this test has been
conducted in the frame of a CfP-topic with CleanSky partner Lufthansa Technik.

In
early 2012, large scale ground “feature” demonstrators for the smart wing are
in the last phases of completion for being tested form end of 2012 onwards.
This includes an integrated structural demonstrator equipped with all major
systems for the leading edge design. Dedicated test articles have been and will
be prepared for bird strike and lightning strike tests as well as repair
concepts. Many of the activities for the ground demonstrators have been carried
out with strong support of Call for proposal partners who already joined in the
years 2010 and 2011.

CFP
status:

Twenty-Eight
CFP- topics have been found a winner during the evaluations of Call #11, #12
and #13. The scope of topics of calls #11, #12 and #13 ranged from design and
testing of individual components and systems for the laminar wing, surface
coatings and repair methods, contribution to design and manufacturing of
laminar wing ground demonstrator parts, as well as the preparation and
qualification of new flight test instrumentation.

Further
topics have been already partially prepared for Call#14 through Call#16 in
order to be launched in 2013 and 2014. Among them a wide range of topics deals
with innovative measurement technique, the development of optical systems, and
a Blade deformation measurement system. Further subjects that have been
prepared deal with the treatment, and repair and testing of surfaces for
laminar wing panels, the design and development of laminar wing high speed
performance test and the integration of a new, enhanced AFC system in a large
scale W/T test model.

2012
and also 2013 Call topics have been and will contain major work packages to
attribute to the design and build parts of the laminar wing’s flight test
articles and topics related to a manufacturing concept for the outer wing with
special paint and coating, as well as the integration of Krueger flaps into a
business jet wing.

B.
GRA – Green
Regional Aircraft ITD

2012
was a critical year for revising the global planning of GRA activities.

Due
to the slow start GRA suffered from under-spending of yearly budget initially
planned for this ITD over the first half of Clean Sky duration. The work
requested by CS JU related to “multi-year” planning in order to cover the
period of time 2013-2016 opened an opportunity for re-definition of GRA
activities.

At
the same time a strategic decision in respect to demonstration of GTF on 130
pax configuration has been implemented and a new “master schedule” emerged. On
top of that, year 2011 resulted in significant delays in terms of pending
deliverables, 31 out of 89 have been pending at the end of the year (85% of 89
deliverables). Approximately 11% of all delays have been caused by CFPs on the
basis of the 2011 Technical Report.

Therefore,
year 2012 became a critical one from the point of view of successful
accomplishment of GRA targets.

Over
2012 the GRA did significant effort in order to reduce risk caused by delayed
deliverables. This resulted in relatively small impact of delays on milestones
related to Low Weight and Low Noise domains. Anyway, ground and flight
demonstrations are under control and more likely would be finalized by the end
of 2015. However a small probability of shift to 2016 by some 3 month still
exists. An exception is cockpit demonstrator controlled by Eads-Casa, which
requests an extra budget in order to be finalized by 2015. There is also a risk
related to Environmental Control System for flight testing, which needs some
extra budget for the equipment provider (Liebherr).

Due
to strategy changes, GRA has to deliver to TE only two GRASM models; the first
one for advanced turbo-prop and another one for aircraft powered by GTF (Geared
Turbo-fan). This plan seems to be plausible and neutralizes dependency of the
models for TE on engine data.

In
total, GRA’s utilization of resources in 2012 was around 88% of planned value
(1555/1767 MM, an estimate) vs. 80% progress in deliverables. The reason is a
discrepancy between actual expenses for producing hardware and intermediate
test results, reflecting real needs and risk mitigation against pre-programmed
value of work and formal process of deliverables approval.

It
is also worth to mention that in the course of the year, GRA has significantly
improved the process of controlling CFPs. At present, not only negotiations but
also implementation of critical CFPs is monitored by Steering Committee, in
particular as a part of risk analysis related to demonstrators.

Interdependencies
at ITD level represent critical factor from the point of view of risk of
delays.

1.
Low Weight Configuration (LWC)

In
2012, apart from PDR of Ground and in-Flight Demonstrators the Second Down-
Selection of low weight technologies was a major event of Low Weight Domain.
The manufacturing of stiffened flat large panels with different technologies
selected by the First Down Selection was completed. All panels representative
of fuselage and wing architectures have been instrumented. Static and fatigue
tests were carried out. The respective test results analyses were performed.
The definition of technical solutions on FWD fuselage, fuselage and wing of the
future generic regional aircraft utilizing the selected technologies was
progressing. The general layout of the structural component to be integrated on
test A/C for flight demonstration was developed. The respective preliminary
test plan for demonstration in-flight was defined. The general layout of ground
demonstrators (fuselage barrel & wing box) and the respective tooling for
ground test activities has been developed. The respective preliminary test plan
for demonstrations on ground has been defined. The detailed design of the
structural component to be integrated on test A/C and flight tested for
demonstration has started. The detailed design of the fuselage barrel and wing
box demonstrators to be tested on ground was started as well.

The
Work Package on LWC has acchieved its goals and should not be continued in
2013.

GRA
ITD effort and staff involved in LWC has switched his activities to ground and
flight demonstrations.

Milestone
status:

2
milestones have been planned and 2 have been successfully performed.

Deliverables
status:

Nr
of deliverables due in 2011 at the beginning of 2012:      16

Nr
of deliverables due in 2011 at the end of 2012:                0

Nr
of deliverables due in 2012:                                              24

Nr
of deliverables pending by the end of 2012:                     8

CFP
status:

In
2012, GRA LWC has launched 9 successful Topics. In a significant part they will
support preparation of ground demonstrators, for example manufacturing of floor
for full scale fuselage barrel and cockpit.

2.
Low Noise Configuration (LNC)

In
2012 LNC continued with definition of requirements and architecture of GRA
conceptual aircraft.

In
particular:

i)
aerodynamic optimisation, aero-elastic
modeling and preliminary structural layout of the Natural Laminar Flow (NLF)
wing baseline configuration tailored to top-level requirements and general
architecture of a green regional rear-fuselage engine Geared Turbo-Fan (130
pax) aircraft,

ii)
aerodynamic design of the baseline High
Lift Devices (HLD) architecture for the Geared Turbo-Fan A/C wing configuration
and

iii)
Updating of the V&V plan document to
verify the achievement of HLD airframe noise reduction, wing highly efficient
aerodynamics and load alleviation targets and validate relevant addressed
concepts/ architectures/ technical solutions in a multi-physics view.

A
work on enabling technologies (high lift devices, nose and main landing gear as
well as load control and alleviation) was continued. The main planned event
achieved was second down-selection of mentioned technologies.

Work
on definition of Demonstrators has been performed. Specification of
requirements for high speed Wind-Tunnel tests demonstration of aerodynamic
performance at transonic cruise design point and in off-design conditions of
the NLF wing design integrated with LC&A concepts, tailored to a GTF
130-seat A/C configuration has been done.

The
Work Package on LNC has achieved its goals and should not be continued in 2013.
GRA ITD effort and staff involved in LNC has switched his activities to ground
and flight demonstrations.

Milestone
status:

1
milestone has been planned and 1 has been successfully performed.

Deliverables
status:

Nr
of deliverables due in 2011 at the beginning of 2012:      9

Nr
of deliverables due in 2011 at the end of 2012:                0

Nr
of deliverables due in 2012:                                              16

Nr
of deliverables pending by the end of 2012:                     8

CFP
status:

In
2012, GRA LNC has launched 1 successful topic regarding WTT addressing Natural
Laminar Flow and Loads alleviations and control solutions. (topic: GRA-02-019)

3.
All Electrical Aircraft (AEA)

Implementation
of Level 1 (Architectural level), Level 2 (Functional level) and Level 3
(Behavioural level) in simulation models have advanced and integration of
models into the Prototype Shared Simulation Environment (SSE) has been initiated.
Those topics are essential for modeling and simulation of on-board systems.

Regarding
“Application studies” number of steps has been achieved:

Analysis of function and
performance of on board systems for an All Electrical future regional A/C.
(Activities were based on the input from WP 3.1.1 and WP 3.1.2 as well as
data from GRA New Configuration Domain - A/C configuration definition).
Implementation, analysis and
Integration of Electrical Energy Management Functional logics for Future
Regional Aircraft
Analysis of functions and
performance of on-board systems interested to in-flight demonstration,
including definition of the modifications of the A/C demonstrator in order
to integrate and to test in flight the innovative technologies for
selected on-board systems:
Electrical Environmental
Control System (E-ECS),
Electrical Energy Management
(E-EM),
Hybrid Wing Ice protection
System (H-WIPS) – CANCELED (after analysis of technical aspects as well
as cost and availability of the test aircraft)
Electro mechanical actuation
for LGS (Landing Gears: main and nose) and FCS (Flight Control System).

In
a significant part those activities have been performed through research at
COPPER Bird® (development of common ITDs (GRA, EDS, SGO).

Preparation
of flight Demonstration for AEA has been advanced by performing:

·
Initial preparation of the “Verification
and Validation Plan for the Flight Test activities.

·
Start of design of systems, parts and
structural modification for the modifications to be implemented on the A/C
demonstrator:

·
Electrical Environmental Control System
(E-ECS),

·
Electrical Energy Management (E-EM),

·
New Electrical Power Generation for Demo
Supply Channel,

·
EMA’s Loads and associated Bench Test
introduction on-board.

·
Innovative FTI

Milestone
status:

1
milestone has been planned and 1 has been successfully performed.

Deliverables
status:

Nr
of deliverables due in 2011 at the beginning of 2012:      0

Nr
of deliverables due in 2011 at the end of 2012:                0

Nr
of deliverables due in 2012:                                              5

Nr
of deliverables pending by the end of 2012:                     1

CFP
status:

In
2012, GRA LNC has launched 2 successful topics regarding flight test equipment
(electro-mechanical actuators for rudder and console for power management
system). (topics: GRA-03-009; GRA-03-010)

4.
Mission
and Trajectory Management

The
update of MTM functionalities and operational scenario has been continued
(relevant input coming from SESAR (WP 4.1.1))

The
preparation of upgraded prototyping tool architecture definition has been
started.

The
development of green FMS has been continued: a first release (including a
subset of MTM functionalities) of green FMS was finalized (WP4.3).

Milestone
status:

1
milestone has been planned and 1 has been successfully performed.

Deliverables
status:

Nr
of deliverables due in 2011 at the beginning of 2012:      0

Nr
of deliverables due in 2011 at the end of 2012:                0

Nr
of deliverables due in 2012:                                              7

Nr
of deliverables pending by the end of 2012:                     0

CFP
status: In 2012, GRA MTM did not launch a CFP.

5.
New Configurations

In
year 2012 GRA has performed:

1. TLAR
(Top Level Aircraft Requirement) – the last definition and power plant
specifications (Loop 2)

2. Sizing
and performance estimation for O/R (Open Rotor), T/P (Turbo – Prop) and T/F
(Turbo-fan) configurations (2nd loop end)

3. GTF
sizing finalization for two different configurations (trade-off between: under
wing and rear engine installation). However, only under wing engine
installation has been performed. Trade-off studies are due in 2013.

4. Calculation
of relevant data (trajectories, mission results, etc.), noise and engine
emissions evaluation for the Technology Evaluator for Green A/C (Main results
of Loop 2 activities by means of proper tools) for Turboprop and for the best
Geared Turbofan configurations. Modified GRASMs (simulation models of Green
Regional Aircraft were provided to TE)

Milestone
status:

Initially,
1 milestone has been planned for GRA NC but it has been cancelled due to change
in strategy.

Deliverables
status:

Nr
of deliverables due in 2011 at the beginning of 2012:      5

Nr
of deliverables due in 2011 at the end of 2012:                1

Nr
of deliverables due in 2012:                                              15

Nr
of deliverables pending by the end of 2012:                     5

CFP
status:

In
2012, GRA NC has launched 1 successful topic regarding WTT addressing overall
architecture of 130 pax. turbo-jet and installation issues related to power
plant. (topic: GRA-05-007).

C.
GRC – Green
Rotorcraft ITD

Progress
over 2012 can be summarized through the following table, giving the comparison
between the level of achievements (via deliverables and milestones) and
resources assigned to the project.

Expenditure
matches achievements with a level of 80% for both.

|| Deliverables || Milestones || Effort (Man Months)

|| Due || Released || Due || Released || Forecast || Spent

GRC0 || 4 || 3 || 1 || 1 || 53,0 || 60

GRC1 || 13 || 11 || 11 || 09 || 311.6 || 203.57

GRC2 || 12 || 12 || 5 || 2 || 306,4 || 231,7

GRC3 || 38 || 33 || 44 || 33 || 224,2 || 172,23

GRC4 || 14 || 3 || 24 || 24 || 285,1 || 254,4

GRC5 || 12 || 11 || 23 || 20 || 227,0 || 200,3

GRC6 || 5 || 3 || 3 || 2 || 97,5 || 90

GRC7 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 109,6 || 86

Synthesis || 4 || 3 || 1 || 1 || 53,0 || 60

78% || 1 || 1 || 53,0 || 60

Main
GRC deliverables and milestones are as follows:

For innovative blades (GRC1):
active twist specimen tests; preliminary design of 3D optimised blade
shape (PDR); design of major components for full scale rotor with active
Gurney flaps (PDR);
For airframe drag reduction (GRC2):
wind tunnel component tests completed (TRL4) concerning the optimised hub
caps and the synthetic jet flow control system and the active empennage.
Comprehensive analysis completed for air intakes and exhaust nozzles
integration.
For on-board energy (GRC3):
equipment design specifications at preliminary design or critical design
levels, agreed between integrators and suppliers (TRL3).
For the Diesel-powered helicopter
(GRC4): demonstrator engine critical design review (TRL 3); first power
pack delivered for ground test article; frozen configuration and
specification of the optimised helicopter.
For environment-friendly flight
paths (GRC5):  helicopter flight profiles optimised for low emission; low
level/narrow IFR routes for noise abatement with feasibility assessed (TRL3);
on-board flight management available; in-flight validation started.
For eco-design for rotorcraft
airframe (GRC6):  design of demonstration articles completed; parts
manufactured (partially).
Concerning the GRC contribution to
TE (GRC7): second annual release of rotorcraft software and data packages
for the SEL and TELU1 were delivered to TE.

Activities
performed in 2012 are detailed here after and the description is given against
each work package of the ITD GRC, from GRC0 to GRC7.

1.
GRC1 – Innovative rotor blades

In
2012, GRC1 activities proceeded to plan except for a delay in committing the
required resources to the full scale blade design activities.

The
Active Twist Technology advanced significantly with the successful CDR
(Critical Design Review) for the new system and maturing to TRL3.

Some
trial manufacturing using the newly developed actuators within a model scale
blade was achieved. Design of a complete blade, optimised at all radial
sections for the inclusion of active twist elements was completed. Detailed
design and planning for bench testing of a full scale blade section now
continues.

The
CDR for the Twente wind tunnel test of an Active Gurney Flap system was delayed
to February 2013. Similarly, the Preliminary Design Review for the model rotor
blade. Work with CFP partners for actuation system continues.

A
Preliminary Design Review (PDR) was completed on an optimised full scale
passive rotor blade and detailed design work is proceeding to plan.

A
further assessment of the performance and acoustic benefits of GRC1
technologies, along with mass and electrical power penalties, was also
completed and supplied to GRC7.

Three
new CFP partners were successfully chosen (innovative rotor blade production
tooling, at full scale and model scale; support 2D dynamic wind tunnel
testing).

2.
GRC2 Reduced drag of airframe and
dynamic systems activities

In
GRC2 (Reduced drag of airframe and dynamic systems activities), main tasks
focused on the optimisation of the rotor hub, the fuselage and the engine installation.
The first wind tunnel campaign to measure the baseline configuration of the
EC135, including fuselage cabin, landing skids and rotor head, has been
concluded in the context of the ADHERO project. Moreover the aerodynamic and
structural design of a new full scale hub cap for light helicopter progressed
and the one for the heavy helicopter started. Concerning the reduction of
airframe drag, especially for blunt aft bodies and for the tail, improved
aerodynamic design of the common helicopter and tilt rotor platforms had been
conducted, incorporating passive and/or active flow control systems. Concerning
the common tilt rotor platform, optimization of nose, sponsons and
wing-fuselage junction was completed, while the wing-nacelle and empennage
optimization is still on-going. The optimized tilt rotor geometry will be
tested in wind tunnel within the next period.

Concerning
engine installation tasks, aerodynamic studies and noise propagation analysis
about new side air intakes integrations for the light helicopter of ECg was
performed.

As
far as the common tilt rotor platform is concerned, a study for evaluation of
emission, engine performance and noise had been accomplished in order to reach
TRL3 in 2013.

In
2012 GRC2 supported GRC7 in defining the aerodynamic characteristics of
fuselage and empennage of the Single Engine Light (SEL) and Twin Engine Heavy
(THE) helicopter models for the “Y2020 reference” and “Y2020+CS conceptual”
fleets, whereas the Twin Engine Medium (TEM) model for the “Y2000 reference”
was revised and corrected.

In
2012, GRC2 delivered 100% of planned reports but only 40% of the planned
milestones, which reflects on budget under-spending. The main reasons are
personnel availability and bureaucratic delays in authorizing wind tunnel model
manufacturing.

3.
GRC3 Integration of Innovative
Electrical Systems for Rotorcraft

In
GRC3 (Integration of innovative electrical systems activities), analysis
reports covering technologies across differing helicopter types were delivered
and data regarding system mass and future electrical power requirements
provided to GRC7.

The
Brushless Starter Generator Preliminary Design Review (PDR) was achieved in
early 2012, work then concentrated on the associated power electronics and a
preparatory CDR which was held in November 12. The final CDR is rescheduled to
early 2014.

The
previously unsuccessful Call for Proposal’s for Power Convertor and Energy
Storage systems were merged, and subsequently awarded and launched in July 12
as REGENESYS.

Regarding
the energy recovery systems, RECYCLE progressed to parts manufacture, and the
RENERGISE has undergone a revised topology to ensure weight targets are
realised.

The
Electromechanical Actuators (EMA) for the very light helicopter has been
re-planned using a new supplier following a failure to proceed with the
originally selected partners. The EMA for Landing Gear delivered an overall
characteristics document early in the period, passed its CDR in October 12 and
was also declared to TRL3 in October 12. EMA for the Rotor brake HERRB achieved
a successful PDR in December 12. Joint technical reviews have been held between
AW, HERRB & REGENESYS CFP partners to establish technology interoperability
to maximise the system efficiencies and benefits.

The
conventional Electric Tail Rotor also successfully completed a PDR in November
12. The Fenestron Electric Tail Rotor study identified and investigated concept
issues and now plans to provide a deliverable progress report in 2013.

The
Piezo Electric Power activities included the issuing of an overall
characteristics report and the on-going closure of PDR actions.

Preparatory
work for the demonstration of GRC3 technologies on the Electric Test bench has
included the provision of interface definition documents, and detailed test
plans for the technologies to be demonstrated. Additionally the selection of
the partner for the HEMAS adaption kit was concluded.

Overall
in 2012 GRC3 progressed well against its work plan, and delivered 90% of its
planned reports.

4.
GRC4 – Integration of a Diesel engine on
a light helicopter

Regarding
definition of the “Optimal Helicopter Architecture”, the study of an advanced
ideal Diesel engine to be installed onto the optimized helicopter, all
milestones - base data to continue PZL tasks in 2012 were achieved. The delay
in issuing deliverables by PZL’s Partner LUT - basis for continuing PZL’s work–
the ideal Diesel design was recovered by the end 2012. Due to delay of studies
the consumption of the budget in 2012 was under requested value.

Regarding
Demonstrator Helicopter and its accordingly developed Powerpack, the forecasted
milestones have been achieved, with slight delay for Preliminary Design Review
(Powerpack and Helicopter PDR were done together in February 2012), and on-time
for Critical Design Review (Powerpack in June 2012, Helicopter in September
2012). Both Powerpack and Helicopter have achieved TRL3 at their respective CDR
Milestone.

The
total requested budget has been totally consumed in 2012 (with slight
overspending) thanks to the delay recovery from beginning of the year and due
to additional effort of Eurocopter to support activities under Partners
responsibility.

5.
GRC5 – Environment-friendly flight paths

To
respond to JU request to focusing the organization of the activities on
specific and well-defined Technology Products, in 2012 GRC5
(Environment-friendly flight paths) was heavily reviewed and restructured, with
some significant impact on subproject technical productivity and deliveries.
Relevant modifications to the initial activities are: higher focus on
instrumental flight procedures with respect to visual ones (due to higher
expected benefit on vehicle operational capability); re-scoping of final tilt
rotor demonstrations from flight tests to piloted simulations (due to test bed vehicle
unavailability in GRC5); diversion of gas emission experimental measurements
from the AW139 (due to unavailability of combustor numerical model) to the SW4
single-engine light helicopter (combustor model available to partners). TPs are
grouped in four Technology Streams: eco-Flight Procedures, eco-Flight Planner,
eco-Flight Guidance and eco-Technologies.

For
eco-Flight Procedures, computational tools for helicopter low-noise procedures
were completed; trajectory optimization mostly finalized and tilt rotor
activities started. AW139 acoustic tests are now confirmed for spring 2013.

For
eco-Flight Planner, the development of numerical tools started., For eco-Flight
Guidance, the planned upgrades were completed and systems are ready for the
integration of the advanced guidance concepts under study. EC135
“tunnel-in-the-sky” in-flight validation is scheduled in spring 2013. The
Low-Noise on-board Algorithm developed is ready for delivery and integration
into the AW139 experimental FMS.

For
eco-Technologies, most of the expected numerical tools for sound diagnosis and
synthesis were deployed; preliminary ground tests for pollutant measurements
were performed on the SW4 with positive results, and final flight test activity
is expected to take place in mid-2013.

6.
GRC6 – Ecodesign Rotorcraft
Demonstrators

In
GRC6 the definition of the demonstrators has been the main topic during 2012.
Specific designs, stress analysis and production details have been defined for
all four demonstrators. These demonstrators are two thermoplastic composite
structures (A stiffened helicopter tail cone and an aerodynamic fairing) for
composite manufacturing technologies and two metallic demonstrator groups (a
tail rotor gear box including a thermoplastic drive shaft and a main rotor gear
box) for new treatment methods. The most important milestones and deliverables
of 2012 were the “Demonstrator definition” and the creation of “(Pre-) designs”
as well as manufacturing documents.

Two
new Calls for proposal were started, both focusing on the end-of-life solution
for the affected demonstrators, one for thermoplastic components and one for
metallic parts.

One
deliverable, the assembly of the main rotor gear box, had to be delayed until
March 2013 because manufacturing in a serial production environment cannot
always get a high priority during strong production periods. Mitigation for
this issue is among others an intensified outsourcing of demonstrator
production to external partners.

Budget
and time consumption developed as planned with no substantial under spending.

7.
GRC7 – Interface with the Technology
Evaluator

GRC7
had three deliverables and milestones relating to delivery of the Phoenix platform V2.1 for the Technology Evaluator’s (TE)’s Second Assessment. The data
and software packages deliverables for the Twin Engine Light update (TELU1) and
Single Engine Light (SEL) generic rotorcraft were delivered to the TE in early
June 2012 as planned. Following the long awaited resolution of the IPR
agreement issue in period 5, Phoenix platform V2.1 GSP engine model outputs
were verified by Turbomeca (TM). GRC7 milestones are based on the receipt and
integration of the Phoenix V2.1 into the TE’s platform and the generation of
their assessment results.

The
successful completion of 100% of all GRC7 deliverables and milestones were as a
result of a Project Management decision to stagger GRC7 outputs to a more
realistic, achievable and manageable level.

GRC7
although completing 100% of the planned deliverables and milestones had a 15%
estimated under-spend.

CFP
status:

Three
calls were planned in 2012. GRC submitted a total amount of 12 topics in the
three calls for proposals (CfP) published:  CfP
n°11 – 4 topics (total budget:  1, 45 M€; CfP n°12 – 5 topics ((total budget:
4, 59 M€; CfP n°13 – 5 topics (including 2 resubmitted topics) :

Shared
Information Repository

The
GRC on-line repository is hosted and maintained by AgustaWestland, with support
to two CFP projects (TRAVEL and ANCORA) and to activities on Active Gurney flap
-GRC1. All documents (deliverables) are uploaded.

D.
SAGE –
Sustainable and Green Engine

2012
has been a key year for the SAGE, when critical decisions have been made and projects
have started to come to fruition and deliver engine demonstrations.

The
focus in the programme has been largely expended in preparing for
demonstrations: defining technology demonstration requirements and validation
strategies, managing the risk to engine demonstrations by raising the
Technology Readiness Level of selected technologies through sub-system rig
testing, developing engine test component designs and enabling manufacturing
technologies and reviewing the demonstrator plans.

Components
have been manufactured and demonstrators assembled and delivered for test: the
first engine demonstrations in SAGE3 (advanced dressing), SAGE5 planned end of
2012 but postponed to beginning of 2013 for technical reasons.

A
Lean Burn Demonstrator was introduced into a new SAGE project called SAGE 6.

SAGE1
has continued to develop Geared Open Rotor Technology.

The
significant technologies to be developed and finally demonstrated are the open
rotor assembly including the counter rotating blades, the blade pitch control
and the transmission systems.

The
CROR technology acquisition effort under SAGE 1 proceeded in parallel to the
SAGE 6 Lean Burn demonstration, to assist in the outstanding SFWA CROR key
decisions in 2012 and 2013. As such, support to the rule making process for
CROR flightworthy assessment including associated engineering effort was
provided to enable definition of key technologies to be demonstrated and to
enable CROR demonstration after the current Clean Sky. An installation
Functional Hazard Analysis for the demonstrator engine has been carried out in
2012 to identify major installation risk and design recommendations for future
ground and flight test demonstration.  Evaluations of CROR blade design and
material options as well as aeromechanical implications and methods have been
progressed. Design and manufacturing methods for the rotating structures have
been further investigated. Aero- acoustic design and prediction methods related
to Far Field and Near Field Noise as well as Transposition to Flight
methodologies linked to test data for validation has been further developed in
close cooperation with SFWA activities.

The
programme of work is focussed on the R&T necessary to develop the TRL of
the fundamental enabling technologies and assess the feasibility of the open
rotor concept for full demonstration.  This will be achieved by both on-going
design studies, methods and tool development and validation and component rig
test programmes. Additional rig testing at aircraft level will be carried out
in the Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft ITD in 2013 and 2014.

For
SAGE2, a Concept Review took place in 2012 to consider the feasibility
and configuration of the open rotor demonstrator. The Preliminary Design Review
has been postponed to mid-2013. Configuration and installation feasibility
studies have been performed in the period leading up to the review, together
with gas generator adaptation and open rotor propulsor design studies.  The
design of two sets of propellers has been performed. Propeller mock-up tests
have been done in 2012 in the framework of SFWA. Combined with high speed tests
performed in 2011, they enabled aerodynamic and acoustic design tools
calibration.   Low and high speed wind tunnel tests of demonstrator propeller
have been prepared and the test matrix has been defined. Several activities
have been launched through CFP to support the demonstrator.

The
SAGE3 project demonstrates technologies for large 3-shaft turbofan
engines and has delivered its first engine demonstration in November 2012 and
has completed a large proportion of the preparation for the second engine
build.

The
first technology for engine demonstration is the advanced dressings, which will
be demonstrated in two phases, through trial builds and subsequently through
engine testing.  The second engine test, to demonstrate the composite fan, is
scheduled to commence in 2013 and work in 2012 has focused on preparing of
components manufacture and completing associated rig tests.

Technologies
to support higher temperature capability and lower weight intercase structures
have been demonstrated through a series of rig tests.  Demonstration of low
pressure turbine technologies commenced through rig testing in 2011 and tests
have continued in 2012, both in preparation for the engine tests and to provide
validation data.  Preliminary design of the LP turbine module for engine
demonstration has been completed and long lead item procurement has been
launched in preparation for assembly of the turbine in 2014.

Project
SAGE4, the Geared Turbo Fan Demonstrator
Project, has started the procurement activities
to ensure its readiness for the engine demonstrator test, whose starting is now
postponed to the first quarter of 2015. The demonstrator design has been frozen
during Critical Design Review. Preliminary engine design and detailed design
work has been delayed to 2013.

Project
SAGE5 has delivered its first engine demonstration, but First Engine
Test Trial has been postponed in early 2013 for some technical issues.  Final
parts for the first build has been delivered, engine has been assembled, and
delivered for test.

Preparations
for the second engine build incorporating hot section technologies has
continued with final detail design activities being completed and manufacturing
of components for the second build launched during 2012, although final
delivery of parts is not due until 2013.

The
aim of the SAGE6 lean burn project is to demonstrate a lean burn whole
engine system to a TRL6 maturity level, suitable for incorporation into civil
aerospace applications in the 30,000lb to 100,000+ thrust classes.

Lean
burn combustion is a vital technology acquisition for the European aerospace
industry to remain competitive in the world marketplace and comply with future
CAEP & ACARE emissions legislation.

 To
increase current TRL levels of subsystems from typically TRL 3-4 to TRL-5 a
proposal has been made to develop a new demonstrator vehicle based on a
Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 engine for ground test and suitable for installation on
a flying test bed.

The
LEVER project (through CFP call 8) has completed the design activities for a
System Test Facility in support of the engine tests.

E.
SGO – Systems
for Green operations

In
2012 SGO has been focussed on achieving progress
on all developed technologies to prepare the major demonstrations – both in
flight and on ground – which are planned between end 2013 and 2015.

For
all technology streams, significant steps forward have been made, as described
in each work-package below and positively assessed by the external reviewers,
both during the Annual Review in June and in the mid-term meeting end of
November. In line with the recommendations of the reviewers the relevance of
various work streams has been reviewed and some major decisions concerning the
redefinition of objectives have been taken:

The activities on the Fuel cell
domain have been significantly reduced, and the effort focused on more
promising technologies (Wing Ice Protection, Environmental control system)
The development of the Atmospheric
Data Transmission System including a Vapour Sensor has been stopped after
TRL3, due to an inconclusive model for the operation of the system by
different stakeholders (airline, Meteo Office, etc.) and the indirect link
to the environmental objectives.

With
reference to the annual grant agreement, the currently estimated overall
consumption of resources amounts to 88% of the planned value. This reduction is
partly due to the modifications in the work plan and partly to resource issues
for some beneficiaries. This has been mitigated by a complete re-estimation of
the cost to completion and associated planning of the program carried out in
the second half of 2012.

For
large aircraft, WP1 has completed the V&V master plan for the Management of
the Aircraft Energy. The update of requirements and V&V strategy for cycle
2 has been shifted from end 2012 to March 2013. Indeed, the aim of cycle 2 is
to take advantage of cycle 1 lessons learnt in order to improve the green
benefits of the SGO concepts, which is mainly given by technologies maturity.
As some technologies maturity gates have been delayed, it was decided to
postpone cycle 2 documents to take full benefits of cycle 1 findings. This
resulted in a slight under consumption as the work has been postponed.

For
regional aircraft, WP1 has delivered the final document that contains the
reference configuration data for the green regional aircraft. This achievement
materialises the end of WP1 activity dealing with regional aircraft

In
WP1.3, exchanges with SESAR have been increased in 2012. Some relevant SESAR
documents as for mission and trajectory functions analysis have been identified
by WP1.3 and provided by SESAR. In addition, material has been prepared to
present the SGO green functions that are potentially impacted by SESAR concepts
in view of a bilateral meeting to exchange between the two projects.

In
WP2 – Management of Aircraft Energy (MAE), work on technologies for energy
management intended for demonstration activities has moved on. Throughout 2012,
the designs based on frozen architectures for cycle 1 have been completed and
first equipment and subsystems are now prepared and have been delivered to test
benches for demonstrator testing.

In
2012, WP2.4 was focused on the final quantitative large aircraft level
assessment of cycle 1 technologies, which gave promising results but without
delivering targeted benefits. Also, based on that evaluation a workshop was
organised to gather improvement topics for cycle 2 that could increase
environmental benefits of the More Electrical Aircraft.

For
electrical and thermal systems, demonstrations were planned to be assembled
during 2012, and WP2 delivered some equipment for these platforms.

Zodiac
ECE completed the detailed design of the electrical power distribution centre.
The detailed design review with Airbus, Thales and Liebherr was passed and the
manufacturing was launched.

The
MAE Wing Ice Protection technology demonstrators have been delivered to NASA Glenn Research Center in October 2012 in order to support the icing tunnel tests which
have been carried out in November 2012. The test campaign was successfully
completed for all partners end 2012 and will be finally assessed during the
TRL4 gate in the first quarter of 2013.

First
equipment intended for flight testing such as a prototype skin heat exchanger
subsystem is on the way. The manufacturing of the heat exchanger is close to
completion. The flight test campaign is planned in the fall 2013.

The
development of the electrical ECS pack was facing technical challenges in 2012.
In order to withstand all performance and safety of flight requirements design
modifications on the turbo machines are required. Finally this will contribute
to a delay of the flight test by one year into 2015. The associated mitigation
road map has been agreed.

First
hardware for the first large scale ground tests was delivered to the COPPER
Bird. Engine nacelle systems such as the nacelle actuation system have been
tested and passed TRL3 and TRL4 reviews. The generator specifically developed
for the nacelle anti-ice system passed the TRL3 review, however, it failed to
pass TRL4, leading to the decision to stop this activity within CLEAN SKY.

After
the Saab withdrawal from the thermal management function this work package was
re-organized. The new scope and the related dedicated interfaces have been
re-defined by the remaining partners Airbus, DLR and Liebherr. The final TRL
target has been reduced to TRL4 in 2014 following the TRL3 milestone end 2013.

A
key result of the Method and Tools work package WP2.1, the “Model-based energy
system design process”, has reached TRL 3 in November 2012. The Use Case
implementations proceeded well and several tests were conducted. Finally, in
the Modelica Benchmark, it was proven that modelling and simulation of electric
power system components and subsystems with Modelica is feasible in industrial
quality.

In
the field of WP3 – Mission and Trajectory Management (MTM), 2012 has brought
major progress towards the main demonstrations planned in 2014 and 15.

Flight
management functions have progressed towards TRL4, with some pilot-in-the-loop
validations. An implementation into a product prototype has been achieved for
the take-off phase and the initial specification for the cruise function has
been issued. Both functions will reach TRL4 by mid-2013. Concerning the descent
and approach phase, a TRL4 has been passed for the Time and Energy Managed
descent, whereas the adaptive Glide Slope - targeting the final approach - has
reached TRL3.

TRL4
for mission optimisation functions have been successfully passed, paving the
way to prototype implementation and demonstrations in 2013 and 14.

In
the field of the Smart Operations on Ground, the TRL3 at system level has been
achieved in January 2012, followed by a number of gates in various sub-parts of
the work, like the detailed Aircraft model and the brake cooling fan. In the
last quarter, a TRL4 on the fast-time simulation supporting the environmental
benefit analysis was passed successfully. This will lead to the TRL4 at system
level in April 2013.

Using
the inputs from SESAR gathered by WP1.3, an updated analysis of the SESAR
Concept of operation was issued.

The
major 2012 achievements of WP5 in the field of industrial exploitation was to
down select a first set of topics to be worked out in the next steps: the
impact of Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) on the airline operations, certification
issues for the more electrical aircraft, as well as specific technological
topics like e.g. impacts of new cooling fluids, the management of regenerative
energy in power quality aspects, etc.

In
the domain of system and aircraft level assessment of SGO results, a further
exchange of information with SFWA has been prepared, to allow integration of
models of SGO systems into conceptual aircraft models. The list of targeted SGO
technologies has been agreed and first models will be provided in 2013.

Main
SGO deliverables and results in 2012:

In
WP2/ MAE

Quantitative assessment of Cycle 1
technologies for Large Aircraft has been done. Based on promising results
cycle 2 has been kicked-off
IWT test campaign for the MAE WIPS
technologies has been successfully completed. The TRL4 reviews for each
technology are now planned for first quarter 2013
Design Reviews for electrical power
generation and conversion equipment have been held end of 2012 in view to
upcoming deliveries of prototypes in 2013 and 2014 to other ITDs
Development of flight test
demonstrator of the skin heat exchanger is close to completion. Following
the TRL 5 review mid 2013 the flight test campaign is scheduled in fall
2013.
TRL 4 of nacelle actuation has been
passed. TRL5 is planned mid-2013. TRL3 of the nacelle anti-ice generator
has been past but TRL4 gate has not been reached. It was decided to stop
this development.
The work on the electrical  load
management architecture has been completed in 2012, followed by a TRL3
review in January 2013
After Saab withdrawal from thermal
management end of 2011, this work package has been re-planned by Airbus,
DLR and Liebherr. TRL3 review is now planned end 2013.
TRL3
for “Model based energy system design process” has been successfully
passed end of 2012

In
WP3/ MTM

First TRL 4 milestone for vertical
Flight management functions has been passed. Significant progress has been
made for all flight phases, with TRL4 being planned in second half of
2013.
A first TRL 4 milestone for Smart
Operation on Ground System has been passed. The complete TRL4 at system
level is now foreseen in the first half of 2013.
TRL 4 milestones for on board
trajectory optimisation were successfully completed
TRL 3 milestone for the Atmospheric
Data Transmission System and Water Vapour Sensor was passed but led to the
decision to stop the development in Clean Sky for this concept.

F.
ED – Eco-Design

The
Eco-Design ITD, which is organised in the two major areas - EDA (Eco-Design for
Airframe) and EDS (Eco-Design for Systems (small aircraft) - .used around 85%
of the resources planned for 2012, according to the end-of-year estimate.

The
EDA part of the Eco-Design ITD is meant to tackle the environmental
issues by focusing on the following challenges:

·
To identify and maturate environmentally
sound (“green”) materials and processes for a/c production.

·
To identify and maturate environmentally
sound (“green”) materials and processes for a/c maintenance and use processes.

·
To improve the field of end-of-life a/c
operations after several decades of operation, including reuse, recyclability
and disposal (“elimination”) issues.

·
To provide means for an eco-design
process on order to minimize the overall environmental impact of a/c
production, use/maintenance, and disposal.

In
2012, the work performed in the frame of EDA was a continuation on the
following Work Packages:

1. WP
A.1 Alternative Solution Requirements,

2. WP
A.2 Technology Development,

3. WP
A.3 Application Studies,

4. WP
A.4/A.5/A.6 Ground Demonstration.

The
activities in WP A.1.5 ended at end of 2011. This WP was meant to analyse
social/societal requirements and to identify key socio-economic aspects of A/C
Eco Design.

In
WP A.2, the work was dedicated to continuation of the maturation of the most
innovative technologies selected at the end of 2010. The end of the development
phase is planned for beginning of October 2013.

In
WP A.3, WP A.3.1, A.3.2 and A.3.3 were active:

In WP A.3.1, the work continued in
the field of LCA. A first simplified LCA tools will be made available in
March 2013. Eco-assessments were carried out on baseline technologies and
reference alternatives, using LCA databases tailored for aerospace industry,
and starting from October 2012. Interactions with TE and Vehicle ITDs have
been fully formalised. The Bill of Materials (BoM) associated to each kind
of A/C have been produced for airliner and business jet; the Bill of
Processes (BoP) is not requested by the extrapolation method developed in
collaboration with TE.
At the end of 2011, activities also
started in WP A.3.2 which is meant to extrapolate the technologies
developed in WP A.2 to industrial conditions, thus validating these
technologies for industrial applications. Activity continued along 2012
with launch of 6 topics on CFP 13.
The activities in WP A.3.3 started
in 2011 continued on 2012 to develop Eco-Design Guideline to optimize the
A/C design, production and end of life phase from an overall environmental
perspective. Two topics were launched on CFP 11 and 13.
In
WP A.4/A.5/A.6, ground demonstration activities were carried out,
especially for the equipment parts for which demonstrators manufacturing
started late 2011. For airframe demonstrators, only preparation i.e. CAD
drawings, sizing, Test Plan preparation were undertaken.

The
general objective of the Eco-Design ITD EDS part is to gain a valuable
and comprehensive insight into the concept of all-electric aircraft. It is
expected that the use of electricity as the only energy medium, by removing the
hydraulic fluid and by the use of on-board power-by–wire will offer significant
benefits in terms of aircraft maintenance and disposal environmental impact,
and will yield new possibilities in terms of energy management (e.g.:
intelligent load shedding, power regeneration on actuators, sharing of
Electrical Control Unit over actuators…).

The
work performed in 2012 consisted in: pursuing the common activities (WP S.1),
performing the characterization of the business jet sub-systems architectures
(WP S.2) and continuing the preparation of the bench related activities (WP S.3
and WP S.4).

The
WP S.1 activity led to the final laying out of the simulation process (WP
S.1.1). After the preparation on first half of the year, the modelling
activities started in the second half (WP S.1.6). The definition of the Generic
Architecture (WP S.1.3) was finalised even if the synthesis will be produced
beginning of 2013. The activities pertaining to the definition and the
development of the subsystems populating the architectures which will undergo
tests (WP S.1.5) continued throughout 2012.

On
WP S.2 main activity was the characterization of the main sub-systems
populating the Business Jet architecture candidates (WP S.2.3). The definition
and the development of the associated equipment items which populate the test
architecture continued (WP S.2.4). The modelling activities related to the
Business Jet configuration were initiated end of 2012 (WP S.2.5).

The
WP S.3 (Electrical Test Bench) activities continued in 2012. The definition of
the ground infrastructure (WP S.3.1) has been finalized in the first half of
the year, and the early manufacturing operations continued (WP S.3.3) to get
prepared for the integration of the components in 2013 (WP S.3.4). The
definition of the electrical tests was undertaken to come to closure on May
2013 (WP S.3.2).

The
WP S.4 (Thermal Test Bench) activities also continued in 2012 with definition
of the bench systems (WP S.4.1) and continuation of their manufacturing (WP
S.4.3). The preparation of the integration of the thermal mock-ups and their
supporting systems (WP S.4.4) has been initiated in the second half of the
year. The final definition of the thermal tests to be performed continued on
2012 (WP S.4.2).

G.
TE – Technology
Evaluator

All
TE Work Packages had activities and produced deliverables in 2012:

-
WP0: TE Management and Coordination

-
WP1: TE Requirements and Architecture

-
WP2: Models Development and Validation

-
WP3: Simulation Framework Development + IVV

-
WP4: Assessment of impacts and Trade-off studies

In
WP1, during 2012 the definitions of the aircraft (fixed wing and rotary wing)
missions were updated. The metrics for the Assessment were further refined
based on the learning done in 2011, and the requirements for the
„Airport‟ and Air Transport System (ATS) evaluations were refined.

In
WP2 major obstacles needed to be overcome in the preparation and delivery of
aircraft conceptual models by the vehicle ITDs (namely GRA and SFWA).

Several
milestones as defined by the TE AIP 2012 for the delivery of the aircraft
models to the TE were missed, with delays of up to 7 months. As a consequence,
the scope of the 2012 Assessment was reduced yet again during the course of the
assessment preparation in the 4th Quarter of 2012. Moreover, it was necessary
to delay the delivery of the 2012 Assessment Report to the JU until April 2013
(estimated).

These
changes of scope included:

·
SFWA LR (Long Range)

·
SFWA SMR (Short and Medium Range) / CROR evaluation reduced to one conceptual aircraft / engine combination only
and use of a simplified approach to the noise analysis

·
Updated SFWA business jet aircraft

·
Limiting the evaluation of rotorcraft to
two conceptual vehicles (TEL, Twin Engine Light, and SEL, Single Engine Light)

·
Limiting the number of airports used for
the Airport Evaluation for fixed wing aircraft to 4

·
Performance of the evaluation of the
updated GRA-90 Turboprop

·
Performance of the evaluation of the
GTF-powered GRA130 including  noise

It must be noted that in WP2 the TE consortium
operates as a de-facto supply chain manager: all the major component conceptual
models are delivered by the ‘Aircraft ITDs’.

In
this respect, these first two assessments of 2011 and 2012 continue to show
delivery challenges from the Clean Sky ITDs into the TE, in many cases caused
by the ‘Tier-2’ effect of deliveries of data from SAGE into the Aircraft ITDs
SFWA, GRA and GRC.

In
WP3 the TE-Information System was further developed with an updated database
structure, role and usage. The foreseen extensions were defined and results of
the 1st assessment integrated. Configurations and versions of all data and
software used for the 2012 Assessment were documented including all ITDs
deliveries to the TE.

WP4,
or ‘Assessment of Impacts and Trade-Off Studies’, contained the key output from
the TE to the JU, i.e. the 1st Assessment Report (2011 Assessment).

Leading
up to the actual (2012) Assessment, other key activities and deliverables
included:

Detailed specification report
of the mission-level assessment
Detailed specification report
of the airport level assessment
Detailed specification report
of the ATS level assessment
Detailed
specification of the life-cycle analysis and a demonstration of the
calculation using reference aircraft.

Overall,
the execution of the 2012 plan has remained a significant challenge for the TE.

It
must be noted that the late supply of crucial inputs was the overriding factor
in the delivery performance. The supply chain issues originated in the SFWA and
GRA ITDs (in this order in terms of contributing delays); noting that SFWA had
major interface challenges with SAGE.

Despite
the difficulties encountered the TE, with the support from the JU, managed to
put in place reinforced planning and control mechanisms for 2012.

The
1st Assessment planned for 2011, which was delayed due to late delivery of
models from the ITDs was ultimately successfully completed in February of 2012
and well received, despite its limited scope.

The quality of the Assessment will be improved in
2013 (with the delivery of the delayed 2012 Assessment), although the
timeliness of the TE Assessments remains disappointing. This will remain
closely monitored by the JU, as a top-ranking priority, and the deliveries from
the ITDs (in particular SFWA/SAGE and GRA) will be checked and discrepancies
tackled promptly

ANNEX II -
Calls for Proposals: overall list of topics published by ITD and Area

CS JU
call 11 (SP1-JTI-CS-2012-01). Topics overview.

Identification || ITD - Area - Topic || Nr of topics || Indicative budget (K€) || Maximum funding (K€)

JTI-CS-ECO || Clean Sky - EcoDesign || 14 || 3,295 || 2,471

JTI-CS-ECO-01 || Area-01 - EDA (Eco-Design for Airframe) || || 3,045 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-ECO-01-041 || Autoclave cycle optimisation || || 100 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-ECO-01-042 || Technology Development for CFRP recovery/recycling || || 150 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-ECO-01-043 || Process Investigations for Liquid Resin Impregnation (LRI) and Out-of-autoclave (OoA) curing of composites || || 500 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-ECO-01-044 || Methodology Toolbox for Accelerated Fatigue Testing of Fiber Reinforced Laminates || || 200 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-ECO-01-045 || Process scale up for recovery and recycling of glass-fiber a/c insulation material in pilot scale || || 220 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-ECO-01-046 || End of life aircraft material identification and material ageing characterization by Raman Spectrometry || || 250 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-ECO-01-047 || End of life aircraft material identification and thermal damage characterization by Fourier Transform Infra Red || || 150 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-ECO-01-048 || End of life aircraft material identification by Laser-Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy || || 150 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-ECO-01-049 || Direct Manufacturing of stator vanes through electron beam melting || || 150 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-ECO-01-050 || Metal recycling: Recycling routes screening and design for environment || || 280 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-ECO-01-051 || Environmental friendly ancillary materials development || || 160 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-ECO-01-052 || Development of a fully automated preforming line for the production of 3-D shaped composite dry fiber profiles || || 300 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-ECO-01-053 || Disintegration of fibre-reinforced composites by electrodynamic fragmentation technique || || 435 ||

JTI-CS-ECO-02 || Area-02 - EDS (Eco-Design for Systems) || || 250 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-ECO-02-013 || Electrical Test Bench Generic Configuration Behavioural Electrical Network Analysis Model || || 250 ||

JTI-CS-GRA || Clean Sky - Green Regional Aircraft || 11 || 9,960 || 7,470

JTI-CS-GRA-01 || Area-01 - Low weight configurations || || 4,260 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-GRA-01-042 || Advanced Floor Grids for Green Regional A/C. New concept of design, manufacturing and installation in Ground Full Scale Demo || || 2,200 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-GRA-01-043 || Smart Distributed Sensory Systems || || 260 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-GRA-01-044 || Design, development and realization of a novel micro-wave based curing device for out-of-autoclave carbon fiber reinforced composite components manufacturing || || 150 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-GRA-01-045 || Advanced Liquid Infusion Technology for regional wing structure: Numerical simulation and validation through an innovative test bench || || 330 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-GRA-01-046 || Collapsible Tooling Proposal for a/c nose fuselage & cockpit || || 300 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-GRA-01-047 || Advanced light pressure bulkhead for a/c cockpit || || 320 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-GRA-01-048 || Modelling and Simulation of a self sensing Curved composite panel to predict/control damage evolution in real load condition || || 400 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-GRA-01-049 || Optimal tooling system design for large composite parts || || 300 ||

JTI-CS-GRA-02 || Area-02 - Low noise configurations || || 4,300 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-GRA-02-019 || Transonic NLF wing and LC&A integrated technologies: Experimental Validation by Innovative WT Tests || || 4,300 ||

JTI-CS-GRA-03 || Area-03 - All electric aircraft || || 1,400 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-GRA-03-009 || Advanced Flight Control System – Design, development and manufacturing of EMA with associated ECU and dedicated test bench || || 1,100 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-GRA-03-010 || Control Consolle and Electrical Power Center per Flight Demo || || 300 ||

JTI-CS-GRC || Clean Sky - Green Rotorcraft || 4 || 1,450 || 1,088

JTI-CS-GRC-01 || Area-01 - Innovative Rotor Blades || || 400 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-GRC-01-008 || Mould design and manufacture for the production of a very high tolerance model helicopter blade || || 400 ||

JTI-CS-GRC-03 || Area-03 - Integration of innovative electrical systems || || 650 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-GRC-03-012 || Development and delivery of EMA for a light helicopter || || 650 ||

JTI-CS-GRC-06 || Area-06 - Eco Design for Rotorcraft || || 400 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-GRC-06-005 || Recycling of Metallic Materials from Rotorcraft Transmissions || || 200 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-GRC-06-006 || Disassembly of eco-designed helicopter demonstrators || || 200 ||

JTI-CS-SAGE || Clean Sky - Sustainable and Green Engines || 11 || 16,150 || 12,113

JTI-CS-SAGE-02 || Area-02 - Open Rotor Demo 2 || || 13,150 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-SAGE-02-011 || Pitch Change Mechanism development, test and supply for engine demonstrator || || 7,000 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-SAGE-02-012 || Optimal High Lift Turbine Blade Aero-Mechanical Design || || 850 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-SAGE-02-013 || Advanced Non Destructive Testing methods and equipment development for fabricated structures. || || 500 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-SAGE-02-014 || Enhanced material and lifting model including sustained peak Low Cycle Fatigue || || 900 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-SAGE-02-015 || Advanced electrical machine manufacturing process implementation and tuning based on composite material process technologies || || 200 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-SAGE-02-016 || Study and durability of electrical insulating material in aircraft engine chemical environment || || 200 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-SAGE-02-017 || Variable thickness lamination machine-tool design and manufacturing || || 500 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-SAGE-02-018 || Engine Mounting System and Engine In-flight Balancing System || || 3,000 ||

JTI-CS-SAGE-03 || Area-03 - Large 3-shaft turbofan || || 2,600 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-SAGE-03-012 || Non-metallic Pipes for Aero engine Dressings || || 1,800 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-SAGE-03-013 || Extended operation temperature range for compressor structure materials || || 800 ||

JTI-CS-SAGE-05 || Area-05 - Turboshaft || || 400 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-SAGE-05-016 || Telemetric System Acquisition in harsh Environment || || 400 ||

JTI-CS-SFWA || Clean Sky - Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft || 15 || 11,350 || 8,513

JTI-CS-SFWA-01 || Area01 – Smart Wing Technology || || 4,500 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-SFWA-01-041 || Icephobic coatings – development of test methods || || 350 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-SFWA-01-042 || Flow control actuator with fast switching elements; unsteady operation with mass transfer || || 400 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-SFWA-01-043 || Testing the operational performance and robustness of Active Flow Control hardware || || 400 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-SFWA-01-044 || MEMS Gyrometer – Maturity assessment of performance and integration || || 800 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-SFWA-01-045 || MEMS Gyrometer – Miniaturisation of the analogue electronics in an Asic || || 800 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-SFWA-01-046 || MEMS Accelerometer – Miniaturisation of the analogue electronics in an Asic || || 800 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-SFWA-01-047 || High Lift Actuator Electronics || || 700 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-SFWA-01-048 || Magnetic Gearbox || || 250 ||

JTI-CS-SFWA-02 || Area02 - New Configuration || || 6,850 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-SFWA-02-020 || Development of an automated gap filler device || || 550 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-SFWA-02-022 || Design and manufacturing of an innovative cryogenic wind tunnel model with motorized empennage ||   || 1,800 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-SFWA-02-024 || Laminar Wing Optimisation using Adjoint Methods || || 250 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-SFWA-02-025 || Development of ice-fracture criteria for different ice-cases, in an electro-mechanical de-icing system application || || 300 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-SFWA-02-026 || Experimental and numerical investigation of acoustic propagation through a boundary layer in high speed conditions (refraction and scattering) || || 750 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-SFWA-02-027 || Transonic High Reynolds Number Testing of a Large Laminar Wing Half Model || || 1,200 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-SFWA-02-028 || Low speed aerodynamic test of large CROR aircraft model in a closed test section || || 2,000 ||

JTI-CS-SGO || Clean Sky - Systems for Green Operations || 14 || 6,540 || 4,905

JTI-CS-SGO-02 || Area-02 - Management of Aircraft Energy || || 4,700 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-SGO-02-021 || Development of key technology components for high power-density power converters for rotorcraft swashplate actuator || || 350 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-SGO-02-035 || Disconnect device for jam tolerant linear actuators || || 800 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-SGO-02-038 || Passive cooling solution validation || || 300 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-SGO-02-039 || Optimisation of  heat pipe to cool high speed motorised turbo-machine || || 300 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-SGO-02-040 || Compressor air inlet protection for electrical ECS || || 600 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-SGO-02-041 || Identification of a fluid for diphasic cooling adapted to aircraft applications || || 550 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-SGO-02-042 || Study and development of a carbon sleeve made by filament winding and directly wound on an electric motor rotor || || 200 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-SGO-02-043 || Aerospace housing for extreme environment || || 300 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-SGO-02-044 || Bus system  housing for extreme environment || || 300 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-SGO-02-045 || Regenerative Snubber & innovative control algorithm || || 400 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-SGO-02-046 || High Dense Smart Power Capacitor (HDSPC) for next generation Aircraft converters || || 600 ||

JTI-CS-SGO-03 || Area-03 - Management of Trajectory and Mission || || 1,590 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-SGO-03-014 || Smart Operations on Ground (SOG) power electronics with energy recycling system || || 1,390 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-SGO-03-017 || Real time optimiser for continuous descent approaches || || 200 ||

JTI-CS-SGO-04 || Area-04 - Aircraft Demonstrators || || 250 ||

JTI-CS-2012-1-SGO-04-003 || Solid State Power Controllers test benches || || 250 ||

|| Totals (€) || 69 || 48,745 || 36,559

CS
JU call 12 (SP1-JTI-CS-2012-02). Topics overview

Identification || ITD - Area - Topic || Nr of topics || Indicative budget (K€) || Maximum funding (K€)

JTI-CS-ECO || Clean Sky - EcoDesign || 5 || 720 || 540

JTI-CS-ECO-01 || Area-01 - EDA (Eco-Design for Airframe) || || 520 ||

JTI-CS-2012-2-ECO-01-054 || Chromium free surface pre-treatments and sealing of Tartaric Sulphuric Anodizing || || 150 ||

JTI-CS-2012-2-ECO-01-055 || Laser welding of newly developed Al-Mg-Li alloy || || 150 ||

JTI-CS-2012-2-ECO-01-056 || Development and demonstration of Direct Manufacturing technology for High Strength Aluminium Alloys || || 120 ||

JTI-CS-2012-2-ECO-01-057 || Advanced Composite Integrated Skin Panel structural testing || || 100 ||

JTI-CS-ECO-02 || Area-02 (EDS - Eco-Design for Systems) || || 200 ||

JTI-CS-2012-2-ECO-02-014 || Characterization of batteries in expanded range of operation || || 200 ||

JTI-CS-GRA || Clean Sky - Green Regional Aircraft || 2 || 2,840 || 2,130

JTI-CS-GRA-01 || Area-01 - Low weight configurations || || 240 ||

JTI-CS-2012-2-GRA-01-050 || Development of CNT doped reinforced aircraft composite parts || || 240 ||

JTI-CS-GRA-05 || Area-05 - New configurations || || 2,600 ||

JTI-CS-2012-2-GRA-05-007 || Development & optimization of advanced propulsion system installation through innovative complete A/C powered WT model || || 2,600 ||

JTI-CS-GRC || Clean Sky - Green Rotorcraft || 5 || 4,590 || 3,443

JTI-CS-GRC-01 || Area-01 - Innovative Rotor Blades || || 710 ||

JTI-CS-2012-2-GRC-01-010 || Low weight, high energy efficient tooling for rotor blade manufacturing || || 710 ||

JTI-CS-GRC-02 || Area-02 - Reduced Drag of rotorcraft || || 800 ||

JTI-CS-2012-2-GRC-02-007 || Wind tunnel tests on a common helicopter platform and contribution to its optimised aerodynamic design || || 800 ||

JTI-CS-GRC-03 || Area-03 - Integration of innovative electrical systems || || 1,000 ||

JTI-CS-2012-2-GRC-03-014 || Design and Implementation of a Load Simulator Rig and Ground Test Bench Adaptation Kit for a HEMAS Test Rig || || 1,000 ||

JTI-CS-GRC-05 || Area-05 - Environmentally friendly flight paths || || 2,080 ||

JTI-CS-2012-2-GRC-05-006 || Sensoring and cockpit monitoring to reduce noise in manoeuvring flight || || 1,500 ||

JTI-CS-2012-2-GRC-05-007 || Curved SBAS-guided IFR procedures for low noise rotorcraft operations || || 580 ||

JTI-CS-SAGE || Clean Sky - Sustainable and Green Engines || 9 || 16,350 || 12,263

JTI-CS-SAGE-02 || Area-02 - Open Rotor Demo 2 || || 13,500 ||

JTI-CS-2012-2-SAGE-02-019 || Air cooled Oil Cooler development, test and supply for Open Rotor || || 2,000 ||

JTI-CS-2012-2-SAGE-02-020 || Electro-hydraulic servo development, test and supply for Open Rotor || || 4,000 ||

JTI-CS-2012-2-SAGE-02-021 || Propellers Blades Bearings  Design and Manufacturing || || 1,500 ||

JTI-CS-2012-2-SAGE-02-022 || Rotating cowls || || 2,000 ||

JTI-CS-2012-2-SAGE-02-023 || Rotating nozzle || || 2,000 ||

JTI-CS-2012-2-SAGE-02-024 || Rotating plug || || 2,000 ||

JTI-CS-SAGE-03 || Area-03 - Large 3-shaft turbofan || || 1,850 ||

JTI-CS-2012-2-SAGE-03-014 || Weight saving through used of CFRC components in high temperature application (=>360C) for efficient aero-engine design || || 850 ||

JTI-CS-2012-2-SAGE-03-015 || Ring Rolling of IN718 || || 1,000 ||

JTI-CS-SAGE-04 || Area-04 - Geared Turbofan || || 1,000 ||

JTI-CS-2012-2-SAGE-04-019 || Development of physically based simulation chain for microstructure evolution and resulting mechanical properties || || 1,000 ||

JTI-CS-SFWA || Clean Sky - Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft || 9 || 12,700 || 9,525

JTI-CS-SFWA-01 || Area01 – Smart Wing Technology || || 1,700 ||

JTI-CS-2012-2-SFWA-01-049 || Demonstration of the feasibility of an in-flight anti-contamination device for business jets || || 650 ||

JTI-CS-2012-2-SFWA-01-050 || Development and construction of master moulds for riblet application || || 350 ||

JTI-CS-2012-2-SFWA-01-051 || New aircraft de-icing concept based on functional coatings coupled with electro-thermal system || || 400 ||

JTI-CS-2012-2-SFWA-01-052 || Innovative aircraft ice protection system – sensing and modelling || || 300 ||

JTI-CS-SFWA-02 || Area02 - New Configuration || || 7,500 ||

JTI-CS-2012-2-SFWA-02-029 || Design and manufacturing of baseline low-speed, low-sweep wind tunnel model || || 1,000 ||

JTI-CS-2012-2-SFWA-02-030 || Low speed aeroacoustic test of a large CROR rig in an open jet test section || || 1,300 ||

JTI-CS-2012-2-SFWA-02-031 || Aeroacoustic and aerodynamic wind tunnel tests at low speed for a turbofan model equipped with TPS || || 2,000 ||

JTI-CS-2012-2-SFWA-02-032 || Low speed aeroacoustic test of large CROR aircraft model in an open jet test section || || 3,200 ||

JTI-CS-SFWA-03 || Area03 – Flight Demonstrators || || 3,500 ||

JTI-CS-2012-2-SFWA-03-010 || BLADE wing structural test to derive test data for subsequent validation of GFEM modelling || || 3,500 ||

JTI-CS-SGO || Clean Sky - Systems for Green Operations || 12 || 5,990 || 4,493

JTI-CS-SGO-02 || Area-02 - Management of Aircraft Energy || || 4,540 ||

JTI-CS-2012-2-SGO-02-034 || EWIS Safety Analysis Tool || || 600 ||

JTI-CS-2012-2-SGO-02-036 || Design and optimisation of locally reacting acoustic material || || 300 ||

JTI-CS-2012-2-SGO-02-047 || Development and validation of sizing method for screw drives and thrust bearings || || 1,050 ||

JTI-CS-2012-2-SGO-02-048 || Modelica Model Library Development Part II || || 200 ||

JTI-CS-2012-2-SGO-02-049 || Smart erosion shield for electro-mechanical de-icers || || 250 ||

JTI-CS-2012-2-SGO-02-050 || Optimization of air jet pump design for acoustic application || || 300 ||

JTI-CS-2012-2-SGO-02-051 || Ram-air fan optimization for electrical ECS application || || 600 ||

JTI-CS-2012-2-SGO-02-052 || Electrical Starter / Generator disconnect system || || 700 ||

JTI-CS-2012-2-SGO-02-053 || Design and manufacturing of the PFIDS Laser sources (VCSELs) || || 540 ||

JTI-CS-SGO-03 || Area-03 - Management of Trajectory and Mission || || 900 ||

JTI-CS-2012-2-SGO-03-018 || Operational expertise for function definition and validation - support to experimentations || || 400 ||

JTI-CS-2012-2-SGO-03-019 || OTC-Operational (Technical) Constraints Model & OBM - Operation Business Model  AUI - Aircraft Usage Impact Model || || 500 ||

JTI-CS-SGO-04 || Area-04 - Aircraft Demonstrators || || 550 ||

JTI-CS-2012-2-SGO-04-005 || Virtual integration of electrical equipment and rig correlation || || 550 ||

|| Totals (€) || 42 || 43,190 || 32,393

CS JU
call 13 (SP1-JTI-CS-2012-03). Topics overview

Identification || ITD - Area - Topic || Nr of topics || Indicative budget (K€) || Maximum funding (K€)

JTI-CS-ECO || Clean Sky - EcoDesign || 7 || 1,270 || 953

JTI-CS-ECO-01 || Area-01 - EDA (Eco-Design for Airframe) || || 1,270 ||

JTI-CS-2012-3-ECO-01-058 || Validation of TSAA coating technology. Development of procedures and standards manual. Technical and economical study. || || 100 ||

JTI-CS-2012-3-ECO-01-059 || Design and Modification of existing spraying facilities for automated sol gel application. || || 140 ||

JTI-CS-2012-3-ECO-01-060 || Investigation and Modification of existing standard universal milling machine in order to achieve LBW capabilities || || 200 ||

JTI-CS-2012-3-ECO-01-061 || Sustainability assessment for EcoDesign-Guideline || || 200 ||

JTI-CS-2012-3-ECO-01-062 || Technology Development for CFRP Recovery/ Recycling || || 150 ||

JTI-CS-2012-3-ECO-01-063 || Extrapolation to industrial condition of a cured composite and thermoplastic recycling process || || 230 ||

JTI-CS-2012-3-ECO-01-064 || Extrapolation to industrial condition of the liquid infusion manufacturing process || || 250 ||

JTI-CS-GRA || Clean Sky - Green Regional Aircraft || 1 || 400 || 300

JTI-CS-GRA-01 || Area-01 - Low weight configurations || || 400 ||

JTI-CS-2012-3-GRA-01-051 || Methodology platform for prediction of damage event for self sensing curved composite panel subjected to real load conditions || || 400 ||

JTI-CS-GRC || Clean Sky - Green Rotorcraft || 5 || 2,550 || 1,913

JTI-CS-GRC-01 || Area-01 - Innovative Rotor Blades || || 1,650 ||

JTI-CS-2012-3-GRC-01-011 || Low cost design approach through simulation and manufacture of new mould concepts for very high tolerance composite components || || 400 ||

JTI-CS-2012-3-GRC-01-012 || Design and Manufacturing of an innovative oscillating airfoil provided with Gurney flap || || 900 ||

JTI-CS-2012-3-GRC-01-013 || Development and Correlation of CFD Methods to Model Active Gurney Flaps on Helicopter Main Rotor Blades || || 350 ||

JTI-CS-GRC-02 || Area-02 - Reduced Drag of rotorcraft || || 600 ||

JTI-CS-2012-3-GRC-02-008 || Assessment of tiltrotor fuselage drag reduction by wind tunnel tests and CFD || || 600 ||

JTI-CS-GRC-06 || Area-06 - Eco Design for Rotorcraft || || 300 ||

JTI-CS-2012-3-GRC-06-005 || Recycling of Metallic Materials from Rotorcraft Transmissions || || 300 ||

JTI-CS-SAGE || Clean Sky - Sustainable and Green Engines || 12 || 18,450 || 13,838

JTI-CS-SAGE-02 || Area-02 - Open Rotor Demo 2 || || 8,550 ||

JTI-CS-2012-3-SAGE-02-025 || SAGE2 Engine Mounting System || || 3,000 ||

JTI-CS-2012-3-SAGE-02-026 || SAGE2 Engine  In-flight Balancing System || || 4,000 ||

JTI-CS-2012-3-SAGE-02-027 || Validation of high Load Capacity Gear Material || || 550 ||

JTI-CS-2012-3-SAGE-02-028 || Study and durability of electrically insulative material in aircraft engine chemical environment || || 400 ||

JTI-CS-2012-3-SAGE-02-029 || Development and validation of a metallurgically based simulation model for crack generation during welding and heat treatment of superalloys. || || 600 ||

JTI-CS-SAGE-03 || Area-03 - Large 3-shaft turbofan || || 6,400 ||

JTI-CS-2012-3-SAGE-03-016 || Surface protection of composite aeroengine components to enable weight savings in high temperature applications (≥360oC) || || 750 ||

JTI-CS-2012-3-SAGE-03-017 || Electric Pump for Safety Critical Aero engine applications || || 1,750 ||

JTI-CS-2012-3-SAGE-03-018 || Variable fluid metering unit for Aero engine applications || || 750 ||

JTI-CS-2012-3-SAGE-03-019 || Development of materials, processes, and means to enable the application of piezoelectric materials in aero engine controls. || || 1,500 ||

JTI-CS-2012-3-SAGE-03-020 || Net shape Hot Isostatic Pressing of IN718 || || 1,650 ||

JTI-CS-SAGE-06 || Area-05 - Lean Burn || || 3,500 ||

JTI-CS-2012-3-SAGE-06-001 || Advanced materials for lean burn combustion system components using Laser- Additive Layer Manufacturing (L-ALM) || || 1,000 ||

JTI-CS-2012-3-SAGE-06-002 || Economic manufacture of lean burn combustion liner tiles using Laser- Additive Layer Manufacturing || || 2,500 ||

JTI-CS-SFWA || Clean Sky - Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft || 8 || 10,725 || 8,044

JTI-CS-SFWA-01 || Area01 – Smart Wing Technology || || 300 ||

JTI-CS-2012-03-SFWA-01-053 || Adaptation of a generic wind tunnel model for attachment line transition measurements (MAALTSU) || || 300 ||

JTI-CS-SFWA-02 || Area02 - New Configuration || || 9,750 ||

JTI-CS-2012-03-SFWA-02-033 || High speed wind tunnel test of Laminar configuration bizjet || || 2,000 ||

JTI-CS-2012-03-SFWA-02-034 || Design, Manufacture and Wind Tunnel of a large laminar half model ||   || 4,400 ||

JTI-CS-2012-03-SFWA-02-035 || Characterisation, Modelling & Passive Control of 3D transonic wing buffet || || 1,300 ||

JTI-CS-2012-03-SFWA-02-036 || In-service assessment of Leading Edge Contamination and Damage || || 250 ||

JTI-CS-2012-03-SFWA-02-037 || Blade trajectory testing || || 1,800 ||

JTI-CS-SFWA-03 || Area03 – Flight Demonstrators || || 675 ||

JTI-CS-2012-03-SFWA-03-011 || Wireless Sensor Nodes for continuous flight test measurements || || 400 ||

JTI-CS-2012-03-SFWA-03-012 || Engine Pylon load measurements and prediction of accuracy || || 275 ||

JTI-CS-SGO || Clean Sky - Systems for Green Operations || 14 || 6,450 || 4,838

JTI-CS-SGO-02 || Area-02 - Management of Aircraft Energy || || 5,950 ||

JTI-CS-2012-3-SGO-02-043 || Aerospace housing for extreme environment || || 300 ||

JTI-CS-2012-3-SGO-02-045 || Regenerative Snubber & innovative control algorithm || || 400 ||

JTI-CS-2012-3-SGO-02-046 || High Dense Smart Power Capacitor (HDSPC) for next generation Aircraft converters || || 600 ||

JTI-CS-2012-3-SGO-02-054 || Design and manufacturing of Flight test version of Electro-mechanical Wing Ice Protection assembly (Modified A320 slat 5) || || 500 ||

JTI-CS-2012-3-SGO-02-055 || Tool for wiring optimization regarding lightning threat || || 800 ||

JTI-CS-2012-3-SGO-02-056 || Integrated design tool to support EWIS optimisation || || 300 ||

JTI-CS-2012-3-SGO-02-057 || High Voltage connectors and moving links || || 200 ||

JTI-CS-2012-3-SGO-02-058 || Optimized power cable for skin effects || || 200 ||

JTI-CS-2012-3-SGO-02-059 || Certified Code Generation of Model-Based Modelica Controllers || || 200 ||

JTI-CS-2012-3-SGO-02-060 || Electrical Machine Magnetic Properties Characterisation Setup for Aerospace  Application || || 800 ||

JTI-CS-2012-3-SGO-02-061 || Technology development and fabrication of integrated solid-state power switches || || 650 ||

JTI-CS-2012-3-SGO-02-062 || Concepts and solutions for health monitoring of electro mechanical actuators || || 500 ||

JTI-CS-2012-3-SGO-02-063 || Investigation of electric components used in aerospace environment in terms of partial discharge issues || || 500 ||

JTI-CS-SGO-03 || Area-03 - Management of Trajectory and Mission || || 500 ||

JTI-CS-2012-3-SGO-03-020 || Adaptation of optimisation algorithm to avionics constraints || || 500 ||

|| Totals (€) || 47 || 39,845 || 29,884

              ANNEX
III - Calls for Proposals: overall list of topics published in 2012 by FHC JTI/JU

No. || Topic || Indicative FCH JU Funding Million  €

Transportation & Refuelling Infrastructure || 26.0

1 || Large-scale demonstration of road vehicles and refuelling infrastructure V ||

2 || Next Generation European Automotive Stack ||

3 || Compressed hydrogen onboard storage (CGH2) ||

4 || Development of peripheral components for automotive fuel cell systems ||

  5 || New catalyst structures and concepts for automotive PEMFCs ||

  6 || Fuel cell systems for airborne application ||

7 || Recommendations for the measurement of the quantity of hydrogen delivered and associated regulatory requirements ||

Hydrogen Production & Distribution || 8.75

8 || Demonstration of MW capacity hydrogen production and storage for balancing the grid and supply to vehicle refuelling applications ||

9 || Demonstration of hydrogen production from biogas for supply to vehicle refuelling applications ||

10 || Biogas reforming ||

11 || New generation of high temperature electrolyser ||

12 || Thermo-electrical-chemical processes with solar heat sources ||

13 || Pre-normative research on gaseous hydrogen transfer ||

Stationary Power Generation & CHP || 27.0

14 || Cell and stack degradation mechanisms and methods to achieve cost reduction and lifetime enhancements ||

15 || Improved cell and stack design and manufacturability for application specific requirements ||

16 || Robust, reliable and cost effective diagnostic and control systems design for stationary power and CHP fuel cell systems ||

17 || Component and sub-system cost and reliability improvement for critical path items in stationary power and CHP fuel cell systems ||

18 || System level proof of concept for stationary power and CHP fuel cell systems at a representative scale ||

19 || Validation of integrated fuel cell system for stationary power and CHP fuel cell systems ||

20 || Field demonstration of large scale stationary power and CHP fuel cell systems ||

21 || Field demonstration of small scale stationary power and CHP fuel cell systems ||

Early Markets || 10.25

22 || Demonstration of fuel cell powered material handling equipment vehicles including infrastructure ||

23 || Demonstration of portable generators, back-up power and Uninterruptible Power Systems ||

24 || Research and development on fuel supply concepts for micro fuel cell systems ||

25 || Demonstration of portable fuel cell systems for various applications ||

26 || Research and development of 1-10kW fuel cell systems and hydrogen supply for early market applications ||

Cross-cutting Issues || 5.5

27 || Hydrogen safety sensors ||

28 || Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) model evaluation protocol for safety analysis of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies ||

29 || First responder educational and practical hydrogen safety training ||

30 || Pre-normative research on fire safety of pressure vessels in composite materials ||

31 || Assessment of safety issues related to fuel cells and hydrogen applications ||

|| Total indicative FCH JU Funding || 77.5

[Top](#document1)