Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

*|*

# 52012SC0105

**COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Annual Report on the progress achieved by the Joint Technology Initiatives Joint Undertakings in 2010 /\* SWD/2012/0105 final \*/**

  

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS.................................................................................................. 5

1........... Introduction....................................................................................................... 7

2........... Progress
achieved by the Clean Sky JU............................................... 8

2.1........ About the CS JU.......................................................................................................... 8

2.2........ Main activities of the CS JU
in 2010.......................................................................... 9

2.3........ Calls for proposals..................................................................................................... 12

2.3.1..... Submission and evaluation
process............................................................................ 12

2.3.2..... Calls launched in 2009 and 2010............................................................................... 14

2.4........ Call 2 SP1-JTI-CS-2009-02....................................................................................... 16

2.4.1..... Summary information................................................................................................. 16

2.4.2..... Analysis of proposals submitted................................................................................. 19

2.4.3..... Evaluation results....................................................................................................... 19

2.4.4..... Grant agreements signed............................................................................................ 20

2.5........ Call 3 SP1-JTI-CS-2010-01....................................................................................... 23

2.5.1..... Summary information................................................................................................. 23

2.5.2..... Analysis of proposals submitted................................................................................. 27

2.5.3..... Evaluation results....................................................................................................... 27

2.5.4..... Grant agreements signed............................................................................................ 28

2.6........ Call 4 SP1-JTI-CS-2010-02....................................................................................... 33

2.6.1..... Summary information................................................................................................. 33

2.6.2..... Analysis of proposals submitted................................................................................. 34

2.6.3..... Evaluation results....................................................................................................... 34

2.6.4..... Grant agreements signed............................................................................................ 34

2.7........ Call 5 SP1-JTI-CS-2010-03....................................................................................... 35

2.7.1..... Summary information................................................................................................. 35

2.7.2..... Analysis of proposals submitted................................................................................. 38

2.7.3..... Evaluation results....................................................................................................... 38

2.7.4..... Grant agreements signed............................................................................................ 39

2.8........ Call 6 SP1-JTI-CS-2010-04....................................................................................... 43

2.8.1..... Summary information................................................................................................. 43

2.8.2..... Analysis of proposals submitted................................................................................. 46

2.8.3..... Evaluation results....................................................................................................... 46

2.8.4..... Grant agreements signed............................................................................................ 47

2.9........ Call 7 SP1-JTI-CS-2010-05....................................................................................... 50

2.9.1..... Summary information................................................................................................. 50

2.9.2..... Analysis of proposals submitted................................................................................. 53

2.9.3..... Evaluation results....................................................................................................... 53

3........... Progress
achieved by the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) JU      54

3.1........ About the IMI JU...................................................................................................... 54

3.2........ Main activities of the IMI JU
in 2010...................................................................... 55

3.3........ Call 2 IMI\_Call\_2009\_2............................................................................................ 59

3.3.1..... Summary information................................................................................................. 59

3.3.2..... Analysis of proposals submitted................................................................................. 61

3.3.3..... Evaluation procedure................................................................................................. 62

3.3.4..... Evaluation results....................................................................................................... 65

3.3.5..... Grant agreements signed............................................................................................ 67

3.4........ Call 3 IMI\_Call\_2010\_3............................................................................................ 69

3.4.1..... Summary information................................................................................................. 69

4........... Progress
achieved by the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen (FCH) JU 71

4.1........ About the FCH JU..................................................................................................... 71

4.2........ Main activities of the FCH JU
in 2010..................................................................... 72

4.3........ Call 2 FCH-JU-2009-1............................................................................................... 77

4.3.1..... Summary information................................................................................................. 77

4.3.2..... Analysis of proposals submitted................................................................................. 77

4.3.3..... Evaluation procedure................................................................................................. 78

4.3.4..... Evaluation results....................................................................................................... 78

4.3.5..... Grant agreements signed............................................................................................ 80

4.4........ Call 3 FCH-JU-2010-1............................................................................................... 84

4.4.1..... Summary information................................................................................................. 84

4.4.2..... Analysis of proposals submitted................................................................................. 86

4.4.3..... Evaluation procedure................................................................................................. 87

4.4.4..... Evaluation results....................................................................................................... 87

4.4.5..... Grant agreements signed............................................................................................ 88

5........... Progress
achieved by the ARTEMIS JU................................................. 93

5.1........ About the ARTEMIS JU........................................................................................... 93

5.2........ Main activities of the ARTEMIS
JU in 2010.......................................................... 93

5.3........ Call 3 ARTEMIS-2010-1.......................................................................................... 96

5.3.1..... Summary information................................................................................................. 96

5.3.2..... Analysis of proposals submitted................................................................................. 98

5.3.3..... Evaluation procedure............................................................................................... 103

5.3.4..... Evaluation results..................................................................................................... 104

5.3.5..... Grant agreements signed.......................................................................................... 106

6........... Progress
achieved by the ENIAC JU..................................................... 109

6.1........ About the ENIAC JU............................................................................................... 109

6.2........ Main activities of the ENIAC
JU in 2010.............................................................. 109

6.3........ Call 3 ENIAC-2010-1.............................................................................................. 112

6.3.1..... Summary information............................................................................................... 112

6.3.2..... Analysis of proposals submitted............................................................................... 113

6.3.3..... Evaluation procedure............................................................................................... 114

6.3.4..... Evaluation results..................................................................................................... 114

6.3.5..... Grant agreements signed.......................................................................................... 117

7........... Conclusion........................................................................................................ 119

8........... References........................................................................................................ 120

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

AA || Application Area

ABAC || Accrual Based Accounting System

ACARE || Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe

AENEAS || Association for European Nanoelectronics Activities

ARTEMIS-IA || ARTEMIS Industrial Association

ASP || ARTEMIS Sub-Programme

CATRENE || Cluster for Application and Technology Research in Europe on Nanoelectronics

CHP || Combined Heat & Power

CMOS || Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor

CP || Collaborative Project

CS || Clean Sky

DG || Directorate-General

DG INFSO || Directorate-General for Information Society and Media

DG RTD || Directorate-General for Research and Innovation

EC || European Commission

ED || Eco-Design

EFPIA || European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries Association

EFTA || European Free Trade Association

EoI || Expression of Interest

EPSS || Electronic Proposal Submission Service

ETP || European Technology Platform

EU || European Union

FCH || Fuel Cells and Hydrogen

FP7 || Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013)

FPP || Full Project Proposal

GA || Grant Agreement

GAM || Grant Agreement for Members

GAP || Grant Agreement for Partners

GRA || Green Regional Aircraft

GRC || Green Rotorcraft

IAS || Internal Audit Service

ICAS || International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences

ICT || Information and Communications Technologies

IMI || Innovative Medicines Initiative

IP || Intellectual property

IRC || Industry and Research Committee

IT || Information Technologies

ITD || Integrated Technology Demonstrator

JTI || Joint Technology Initiative

JU || Joint Undertaking

NEF || Negotiation Form Facility

NEW-IG || New Energy World Industry Grouping

NGA || National Grant Agreement

NGO || Non-Governmental Organisation

NSRG || National States Representatives Group

OJ || Official Journal of the European Union

PAB || Public Authorities Board

PO || Project Outline

PPP || Public-private partnership

PRO || Public Research Organisations

R&D || Research & Development

RTD || Research, Technological Development and Demonstration

S&T || Scientific & Technological Excellence

SA || Coordination and Support Action

SAGE || Sustainable and Green Engines

SET-Plan || European Strategic Energy Technology Plan

SFWA || Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft

SGO || Systems for Green Operations

SME || Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise

STAB || Scientific and Technological Advisory Board

TE || Technology Evaluator

UK || United Kingdom

USA || United States of America

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 2010. 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. It is divided into five main
sections, one per Joint Undertaking. Each section contains the following three
sub-sections providing information on the JTI JUs' activities in 2010 in a
structured and uniform way: 1) About the JTI JU, 2) Main activities in 2010,
and 3) Calls for proposals.

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 in 2010, both from operational and administrative
perspective. The submission and evaluation process of the individual JTI JUs
used in the calls is also schematically explained.

The last sub-section is dedicated to the
calls for proposals launched by the Joint Undertakings in 2010. In case the
entity has launched multiple calls during the year, each call is described in a
separate sub-section. The call's presentation starts with a brief summary
listing the call topics, eligible beneficiaries, timeline and indicative
budget. This is 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.

The evaluation procedure is also described,
giving information on the evaluation criteria, scoring and weighting of the proposals,
composition of the evaluation committees and the evaluation steps that have
been followed. 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. The
sub-section ends with a table giving information on the grant agreements signed
in the respective call.

Among the five JTI JUs, only the
presentation of the Clean Sky's calls for proposals follows a slightly
different structure to avoid repeating of information, because the Joint
Undertaking publishes several calls per year following the same steps for
submission and evaluation of proposals.

2.           Progress
achieved by the Clean Sky JU

2.1.        About
the 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, represented by the leaders of the Integrated
Technology Demonstrators (ITDs)[1]
and their associates, and the European Union, represented by the European
Commission.

The ITD leaders are twelve
industrial organisations that jointly committed to perform, complete and
exploit the Clean Sky programme[2].
Each of them 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 CS JU has been set up for a period up
to 31 December 2017 with the main objective to develop environmental
technologies impacting all flying segments of commercial aviation in order to
contribute to the ACARE targets[3]
for reduction of emissions and noise in air transport in Europe[4], thus contributing to improving
the air transport system worldwide.

The objective of the Clean Sky JU 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, 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:

(1)
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;

(2)
Green Regional Aircraft (GRA) led by Alenia Aeronautica and EADS-CASA – dealing with low-weight
configurations and technologies using smart structures, low-noise configurations;

(3)
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;

(4)
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;

(5)
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;

(6)
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, the 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.

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 of € 800 million is paid from the budget
appropriation allocated to theme "Transport" of the Specific
Programme "Cooperation" under the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7)
of the European Union (2007-2013)[5].

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.

2.2.        Main
activities of the CS JU in 2010

After its establishment, Clean Sky
gradually developed an operational capacity, and on 16 November 2009 has been
granted administrative and operational autonomy from the European Commission[6]. Thus, 2010 was the first full
year of independent functioning of the Joint Undertaking.

Key milestones

·
Publication and evaluation of the five CS JU's
calls for proposals in 2010 as planned;

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

·
Internal processes definition and mapping;

·
Set-up of a Scientific and Technological
Advisory Board in the Clean Sky's governance structure;

·
Establishment of Internal Audit Plan and Ex-Post
Audit Strategy;

·
Adoption of a Communication and Dissemination
Strategy.

In 2010 the CS JU achieved progress in both
increasing its operational capacity and in running the Clean Sky operations. 10
additional staff members were recruited, growing to 20 by the end of the year.
An Internal Auditor was appointed to establish the internal control function
and, in particular, to deal with the risk management activities. A first
internal audit started in November 2010, still in progress at the turn of the
year. Also, the main settings of the CS JU were established: a Quality Manual,
a Manual of Financial Procedures, and a Management Manual. A Development Plan
was elaborated and had to be submitted for adoption by the Governing Board in
2011.

In addition, in December 2010 Clean Sky
finalised the procurement procedure on its new permanent premises. The call for
tender has been organised jointly with the other four JUs, which were
temporarily housed at the Covent Garden building in Brussels, and in close
collaboration with the European Commission. The CS JU moved successfully to the
White Atrium building in Brussels in January 2011.

As aircraft fuel economy is influenced by
flight trajectory management strategy, Clean Sky maintained close links with
the SESAR Joint Undertaking, which investigates air traffic management
technologies in line with the Single European Sky initiative.

Technology Evaluator

The TE has been created in 2008 with the
objective to assess the environmental impacts and benefits of the overall Clean
Sky's project output. The general TE requirements were defined in 2009. In
2010, they had to be reviewed and detailed, paying particular attention to the
first assessment cycle and to the needs of the trade-off studies[7]. Among the main tasks for the
year was to create a TE system mock-up based on the GRC (helicopter) case
study. This has been expected to help the design and development of the TE
system for the first mid-term assessment planned for the end of 2011. Each year
until the final assessment in 2015, more accurate assessments are planned to be
performed with the updated sets of models resulting from the ITDs' progress.

Governance

The CS JU Governing Board held four
meetings in 2010.

On its meeting of 18 March 2010 the
Governing Board re-elected for a second and last mandate its chair and
vice-chair, followed by election of new chair and vice-chair for 2011 on its next
meetings on 14 October and 17 December. The Governing Board approved inter
alia the CS JU General Strategy, the CS JU Communication and
Dissemination Strategy, modifications to the model grant agreements, the CS
JU Staff Policy Plan 2011-2013, the CS JU Annual Implementation Plan
2010, etc.

The Steering Committees responsible for
technical decisions taken within each ITD and the TE met regularly in the
course of 2010.

The Scientific and Technological Advisory
Board (STAB) was set up in June 2010 as an advisory body to the CS JU. It was
composed of 11 high-level scientists and engineers, all independent from the
Clean Sky's stakeholders. The first meetings of the Board took place in July
and November. They were dedicated on the general presentation of the Clean Sky
JU and on some specific issues. The first item which the STAB started work on
was the completion of the Joint Undertaking's Development Plan.

On 18 June 2010, the CS JU's stakeholders
gathered for the first General Forum. It was designed to take place at least
once a year with the purpose to provide information to the participants in the
initiative about its activities and the progress of the Clean Sky JU, and to
get recommendations from them on managerial and operational items. This event
gathered more than 300 representatives from the aviation industry, the
scientific and research community, national public authorities, and
non-governmental organisations.

Communication
activities

Among the considerable achievements during
the year was the adoption of a Communication and Dissemination Strategy by
the Clean Sky's Governing Board in June 2010. The activities undertaken during
the year were in compliance with the strategy. A CS communication network was
settled to gather all its members on communication issues. The first meeting
took place on 21 October 2010.

In order to inform widely potential
candidates about its calls for proposals, Clean Sky held a number of
information sessions in Madrid, Vienna, Bologna, Turin, The Hague and London.
On 18 June 2010 the Joint Undertaking organised a public conference "The
aviation industry goes green" within the framework of the first General
Forum on the latest developments of the Clean Sky programme. An exhibition
featuring the activities of the six ITDs and the TE was accessible throughout
the day.

Furthermore, the Clean Sky initiative was
promoted through different external industrial events – aerospace trade shows,
fairs and exhibitions, such as the ILA Berlin Air Show in Germany, "Flyg
med Framtid" in Stockholm (Sweden), the International Council of the
Aeronautical Sciences (ICAS) Conference in Nice (France), the Farnborough
International Airshow in the UK, Helitech in Portugal, the AeroWeek in Brussels
(Belgium), the AeroSpace and Defence Industries Association of Europe (ASD)
Convention in Montreux (Switzerland), the Imperial College's Green Aviation
Forum in London (UK).

In 2010, Clean
Sky changed its visual identity. A tagline
"Innovating together, flying greener" was adopted and the logo was
simplified. Promotional materials such as roll-ups, press kits, ITD fact sheets
were produced. Following a call for tender, the Clean Sky's website (http://www.cleansky.eu) was renewed and has
been regularly updated with up-to-date information on calls for proposals and
latest news. A quarterly newsletter called "Skyline" has been
launched.

2.3.        Calls
for proposals

2.3.1.     Submission
and evaluation process

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, and 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. The
commitments amounted to € 17 million in 2008, € 70.6 million in 2009 and € 75.7
million in 2010. No new named beneficiaries joined the CS JU in 2010.

Grant agreements with partners

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. They serve the dual purpose of
widening the participation in Clean Sky to other organisations and to identify
R&D performers to take part in the mainstream activities of Clean Sky.
Partners selected via calls for proposals are funded in compliance with the
upper funding limits set in the FP7 Rules for Participation.

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.

The call topics are proposed by each
ITD Steering Committee and reviewed by the CS JU Executive Office and the
European Commission. The calls are broadly published by all suitable channels,
including on 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. After a proposal is submitted, eligibility check and independent
evaluations took place.

The evaluation of proposals 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.

The evaluations are performed against six
pre-determined evaluation criteria: 1) Technical excellence, 2)
Innovative character, 3) Compliance with the call for proposals specification
and timetable (relevance), 4) Adequacy and quality of respondent's resources,
management and implementation capabilities and track record, 5) Appropriateness
and efficient allocation of the resources to be committed (budget, staff,
equipment), and 6) Contribution to European competitiveness.

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.

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").

It is important to note that the calls for
proposals launched by the Clean Sky JU differ from collaborative
research 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.

2.3.2.     Calls
launched in 2009 and 2010

Since its establishment and by the end of
2010, Clean Sky launched a total of seven calls for proposals – two in
2009 and five in 2010. As a result, 73 projects are currently underway working
towards the development of environmental technologies with impact on all flying
segments of commercial aviation.

Clean Sky published its first call for
proposals on 15 June 2009. It attracted 216 proposals requesting a total
contribution of € 59 million. 45% of the applicants declared an SME status.
After the evaluation and negotiation processes, 57 grant agreements have been
signed. The Commission's Annual Report on the progress achieved by the JTI
JUs in 2009 provides detailed information on that call.

The second call for proposals was open from
25 November 2009 till 23 February 2010. Since the submission and evaluation of
the proposals took place in 2010, the results of the call were not included in
the Commission's Annual Report on the progress achieved by the JTI JUs in 2009
and will be reviewed in the present Commission Staff Working Paper.

In 2010, the CS JU launched 5 calls which
covered 150 topics, resulting in a total of 325 partners from 22 countries selected
after call 6. The present document shall provide detailed information on four
of those five calls (calls 3 to 6). Since the last for the year call for
proposals (call 7) was launched on 24 September 2010 and the evaluation of the
received proposals took place in January 2011, the Commission shall present the
results of the call in its next year's report.

The table
below gives an overview of the calls for proposals launched by the Clean Sky JU
in 2009/2010 that will be reviewed in the present document:

Call № || Reference || Publication date || Deadline for submission || Evaluation || Nr of topics || Nr of GAPs || Indicative budget (M€) || Outcome of the call (M€)

2 || SP1-JTI-CS-2009-02 || 25-11-2009 || 23-02-2010 || Mar 2010 || 24 || 20 || 11.2 || 8.3

3 || SP1-JTI-CS-2010-01 || 29-01-2010 || 27-04-2010 || May 2010 || 45 || 41 || 17.0 || 17.0

4 || SP1-JTI-CS-2010-02 || 30-03-2010 || 30-06-2010 || Jul 2010 || 4 || 4 || 5.9 || 5.9

5 || SP1-JTI-CS-2010-03 || 30-04-2010 || 20-07-2010 || Sep 2010 || 34 || 27 || 26.0 || 11.3

6 || SP1-JTI-CS-2010-04 || 27-07-2010 || 12-10-2010 || Nov 2010 || 29 || 24 || 18.8 || 16.7

7 || SP1-JTI-CS-2010-05 || 24-09-2010 || 09-12-2010 || Jan 2011 || 38 || 29 || 30.6 || 30.6

Table 1. Overview of
the CS JU calls for proposals launched in 2010

The average response to the CS JU calls in
2010 was about 2.5 proposals per topic, i.e. more than 350 proposals in total.
The average failure rate of the topics was 15%, due either to a lack of
proposals submitted in a certain topic, or to negative evaluation results of
the proposals in a topic.

With respect to the first two calls in 2009,
when the call fiches contained incorrect indicative budget under some topics, a
significant improvement has occurred in 2010 on the eligibility aspects of
proposals. After call 3 – the first call of 2010 – less than 1-2 proposals per
call were declared ineligible due to a requested funding above the threshold
defined in the call fiches.

Still limited
to call 6 (SP1-JTI-CS-2010-04), but referring to all calls launched by the
Clean Sky JU (including results from the two calls launched in 2009), Figure 1
provides statistics per country in terms of presence in winning proposals:

Figure 1. CS JU – calls 1 to 6 (2009 and
2010). Geographic distribution of winning proposals

For all calls
for proposals (up to call 6), 42% of the winners selected for funding by the
Clean Sky JU were SMEs. The figure below shows the presence of SMEs among the
winning entities; it provides in particular the number of SMEs in winning
consortia per ITD.

Figure 2. CS JU – calls 1 to 6 (2009 and
2010). Number of winning SMEs

The calls for proposals process led to an
increased number of grant agreements to be negotiated in 2010. In total, 81
GAPs were processed at the total amount of € 18.5 million. Of this, € 11
million were paid for pre-financing of GAPs.

The
negotiation of the projects selected for funding in the third and fourth call
for proposals (SP1-JTI-CS-2010-01 and SP1-JTI-CS-2010-02) started before summer
2010 and by the time of drafting the report was still in progress, whereas the
negotiations of the projects in call 5 (SP1-JTI-CS-2010-03) were launched at
the end of the year. The last two calls launched by Clean Sky in 2010 were
expected to be negotiated in 2011.

2.4.        Call
2 SP1-JTI-CS-2009-02

2.4.1.     Summary information

The Clean Sky
JU published its second call for proposals on 25 November 2009. The call was open for 24 topics covering activities within
all ITDs except for Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft (SFWA) and Technology Evaluator
(TE). The 24 open topics were grouped in 11 areas,
further re-grouped under the ITDs as shown in the table below:

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

JTI-CS-ECO || Clean Sky – Eco-Design || 5 || 990 || 742.5

JTI-CS-ECO-01 || Area-01 – EDA (Eco-Design for Airframe) || 2 || 650 ||

JTI-CS-2009-2-ECO-01-001 || Life cycle assessment databases improvement || || 150 ||

JTI-CS-2009-2-ECO-01-002 || Development of anaphoretic paint capable to protect pickled aluminium alloy surface against corrosive || || 500 ||

JTI-CS-ECO-02 || Area-02 – EDS (Eco-Design for Systems) || 3 || 340 ||

JTI-CS-2009-2-ECO-02-001 || Sensor for Convective and/or Radiative Heat Loss || || 60 ||

JTI-CS-2009-2-ECO-02-002 || Thermo physical Properties Library for Relevant Fluids || || 80 ||

JTI-CS-2009-2-ECO-02-003 || Methods & Tools – Electrical Network Analysis || || 200 ||

JTI-CS-GRA || Clean Sky – Green Regional Aircraft || 3 || 380 || 285

JTI-CS-GRA-01 || Area-01 – Low weight configurations || 1 || 100 ||

JTI-CS-2009-2-GRA-01-025 || Fatigue test of sensor integrated CFRP aircraft panels with stiffeners || || 100 ||

JTI-CS-GRA-02 || Area-02 – Low noise configurations || 2 || 280 ||

JTI-CS-2009-2-GRA-02-005 || 3D design of flap side edge active flow control || || 80 ||

JTI-CS-2009-2-GRA-02-006 || Instrumentation-electronic (Optical assembly & Thermal and mechanical strain measurement) || || 200 ||

JTI-CS-GRC || Clean Sky – Green Rotorcraft || 8 || 5,040 || 3,780

JTI-CS-GRC-01 || Area-01 – Innovative Rotor Blades || 2 || 355 ||

JTI-CS-2009-2-GRC-01 -002 || Development and provision of a numerical model to solve laminar turbulent boundary layer transition and boundary layer velocity profiles for unsteady flow conditions || || 130 ||

JTI-CS-2009-2-GRC-01-003 || Actuation mechanism development and supply for 2D wind tunnel and specimen bench testing || || 225 ||

JTI-CS-GRC-02 || Area-02 – Reduced drag of rotorcraft || 3 || 1,335 ||

JTI-CS-2009-2-GRC-02-001 || Contribution to the study of the air intake and exhaust integration into a tiltrotor nacelle || || 395 ||

JTI-CS-2009-2-GRC-02-002 || Contribution to analysis of rotor hub drag reduction || || 500 ||

JTI-CS-2009-2-GRC-02-003 || Contribution to optimisation of heavy helicopter engine installation design || || 440 ||

JTI-CS-GRC-03 || Area-03 – Integration of innovative electrical systems || 2 || 2,750 ||

JTI-CS-2009-2-GRC-03-001 || Electric Tail Drive – Modelling, Simulation and Rig Prototype Development || || 2,500 ||

JTI-CS-2009-2-GRC-03-002 || Innovative energy recovery for electrical use || || 250 ||

JTI-CS-GRC-05 || Area-05 – Environmentally friendly flight paths || 1 || 600 ||

JTI-CS-2009-2-GRC-05-003 || Emission analysis – Tools required to perform the emissions analysis and evaluation methodology, experimental support || || 600 ||

JTI-CS-SAGE || Clean Sky – Sustainable and Green Engines || 6 || 1,760 || 1,320

JTI-CS-SAGE-02 || Area-02 – Direct Drive Open Rotor || 3 || 1,300 ||

JTI-CS-2009-2-SAGE-02-003 || Design, computation and drawing of lubrication system equipment || || 660 ||

JTI-CS-2009-2-SAGE-02-004 || Performance and qualification tests of lubrication system equipment || || 240 ||

JTI·CS-2009-2-SAGE-02-005 || Design & Make of a test bench for Heat Exchanger || || 400 ||

JTI-CS-SAGE-05 || Area-05 – Turboshaft || 3 || 460 ||

JTI-CS-2009-2-SAGE-05-007 || High temperature material || || 230 ||

JTI-CS-2009-2-SAGE-05-008 || Oil tank in composite || || 115 ||

JTI-CS-2009-2-SAGE-05-009 || Casing in composite || || 115 ||

JTI-CS-SGO || Clean Sky – Systems for Green Operations || 2 || 3,000 || 2,250

JTI -CS-SGO-04 || Area-04 – Aircraft Demonstrators || 2 || 3,000 ||

JTI-CS-2009-2-SGO-04-001 || Design and manufacture of an aircraft tractor compliant with specifications for Smart Operations on ground || || 2,000 ||

JTI-CS-2009-2-SGO-04-002 || Provision of electrical equipments to complement the PROVEN tests rig || || 1,000 ||

TOTAL || 24 || 11,170 || 8,377.5

Table 2. CS JU call
2 (SP1-JTI-CS-2009-02). Topics
overview

The full call process has been managed by
the autonomous Clean Sky JU, according to the same principles of excellence,
transparency, fairness and impartiality, confidentiality, efficiency, speed and
ethical considerations applied by the European Commission in the first call.

The timing for
the call is given on Figure 3 below:

Figure 3. Timeline of the CS JU call 2 (SP1-JTI-CS-2009-02)

The total budget for the second call
included initially a financial contribution from the EU to the Clean Sky JU of
a maximum of € 16 million. This call was entirely
financed from the 2009 budget. The final published value was for a total
scope of work of € 11,170,000 with a maximum EU funding of €
8,377,500 (50-75% of the topic maximum budget indicated).

The difference between the originally
forecasted value and the finally allocated amount (equal to € 16 million) was
due to the fact that the calls formed an integral part of the overall work
programme of Clean Sky, and were launched to bring in skills and contributions
that needed to harmonise with the activities of the named beneficiaries. Some
of the originally foreseen topics were finally not launched, due to reasons of
relevance or quality of the topic descriptions. The unspent budget remained to
be re-allocated to other topics (including re-launches of unanswered ones),
keeping in mind that the Clean Sky JU has the obligation to allocate at least € 200 million via calls for proposals across its entire duration.

2.4.2.     Analysis
of proposals submitted

The call was published on 25 November 2009
and applicants were invited to submit their proposals by 23 February 2010. In
total, 60 proposals were submitted in response to the 24 open topics
addressed by the present call, involving applicants from 16 countries. 2
were found to be ineligible and the remaining 58 eligible proposals were
evaluated by 74 independent experts.

2.4.3.     Evaluation
results

The on-site evaluation of the proposals
took place in Brussels between 22 and 26 March 2010 following the methodology
described in Section 2.3.1. It was preceded by individual remote evaluations.
Out of the 58 eligible proposals, 35 passed the thresholds, while 23
failed one or more thresholds.

In terms of covered technological areas,
all 5 topics in Eco-Design and 3 in GRA were successful. On the contrary, 2 out
of 8 of the GRC topics failed (GRC-01-003 and GRC-02-003), because in both
cases the two proposals received were evaluated below threshold. In SAGE, topic
SGE-05-009 failed because the only proposal submitted was also assessed below
threshold. In SGO, topic SGO-04-001 failed due to the fact that it did not
attract any proposals in its domain.

Thus, after the evaluation, 20 projects
could be finalised covering 20 of the originally published 24 topics. To sum
up, the 4 topics remaining vacant were the following:

·
ITD: Green Rotorcraft; Area-01: Innovative
rotor blades; Topic: Actuation mechanism development and supply for 2D
wind tunnel and specimen bench testing;

·
ITD: Green Rotorcraft; Area-02: Reduced
drag of rotorcraft; Topic: Contribution to optimisation of heavy
helicopter engine installation design;

·
ITD: Sustainable and Green Engines;
Area-05: Turboshaft; Topic: Casing in composite;

· ITD: Systems for Green Operations; Area-04: Aircraft
Demonstrators; Topic: Design and manufacture of an aircraft tractor
compliant with specifications for Smart Operations on ground.

The 20 proposals proposed for
funding accounted for 32 participations from 10 European countries.
Of those, 10 (31.3%) participants came from academia and 5
(15.6%) were research institutions. The SME participation was
34.4% (11 companies), requesting a total funding of € 2,428,881
(29.3% of the total requested funding).

The
geographical distribution of the proposals selected for funding is shown in the
graph below, the UK and Italy being on the lead with 4 winning proposals each,
followed closely by Belgium (3 proposals), Germany and France (2 proposals):

Figure 4. CS JU call 2
(SP1-JTI-CS-2009-02). Proposals selected for funding per country

2.4.4.     Grant
agreements signed

The negotiations of the 20 proposals
proposed for funding in CS JU call 2 started in April-May 2010. It is important
to note that by the time of writing of the present document some of the
projects were still under negotiation. In Table 3 below these projects are
shown on positions 16-20 in italic.

The total budget requested by the
selected 20 proposals amounted to € 8,279,484.40, of which €
5,712,247.55 was the EU contribution. The total contribution
under the GAPs signed by October 2011 – 15 contracts in total – equalled to
€ 6,040,060.40, of which the EU funding was € 4,385,730.80
and the in-kind contribution from industry amounting to €
1,654,329.60.

№ || Project number || Project acronym || Project title || CS JU contribution || In-kind contribution || Total contributions

1. || 267496 || LCA DATIM || Life cycle assessment database improvement || 112,500.00 || 37,500.00 || 150,000.00

2. || 267678 || CORA || Sensor for Convective and Radiative Heat Loss || 44,550.00 || 14,850.00 || 59,400.00

3. || 267614 || AEROTHERMOPROP || Modelica library of thermodynamic and transport properties || 60,000.00 || 20,000.00 || 80,000.00

4. || 267608 || SMART || Saber Model Automatic tRanslation Tool, a software for Saber models conversion to multi-systems simulation platforms || 149,310.00 || 49,770.00 || 199,080.00

5. || 267522 || FATIGUETEST || Fatigue Test || 74,805.00 || 24,936.00 || 99,741.00

6. || 267487 || 3DFSE || 3D Design of Flap Side Edge Flow Control || 59,957.00 || 19,986.00 || 79,943.00

7. || 267679 || SMYLE || LE coupon based technology || 148,360.00 || 49,455.00 || 197,815.00

8. || 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 || 92,400.00 || 30,840.00 || 123,240.00

9. || 267309 || TILTOP || Efficient Shape Optimization of Intake and Exhaust of a Tiltrotor Nacelle || 286,200.00 || 95,400.00 || 381,600.00

10. || 267571 || CARD || Contribution to Analysis of Rotor Hub Drag Reduction || 374,997.00 || 125,001.20 || 499,998.20

11. || 267322 || ELETAD || Electrical Tail Drive – Modelling, Simulation and Rig Prototype Development || 1,858,825.80 || 619,608.60 || 2,478,434.40

12. || 267643 || RECYCLE || theRmal Energy reCoverY eleCtricaL systEms || 187,500.00 || 62,500.00 || 250,000.00

13. || 267492 || MAEM-RO || Methodologies and applications of emission measurements on rotorcraft || 288,500.00 || 288,500.00 || 577,000.00

14. || 267617 || GILD || Green & Innovative Lubrication Devices || 468,186.00 || 156,062.00 || 624,248.00

15. || 267651 || LUBEST || Performance and qualification tests of lubrication system equipment || 179,640.00 || 59,920.80 || 239,560.80

Sub-Total (signed GAPs) || € 4,385,730 || € 1,654,330 || € 6,040,060

16. || 267285 || CR FREE EPAINT || Development of a non chromated, Reach’s compliant anodic electropaint, with very low volatile organic compounds, for high protection against electrochemical corrosion of pickled aluminium alloys used || 283,687.00 || 234,188.00 || 517,875.00

17. || 267676 || TB-ACOC || Design and manufacture of a bench test to measure the thermal performance and pressure drop of the coolers Air Cooled Oil Cooler || 288,747.00 || 93,883.00 || 382,630.00

18. || 267525 || TIALBLADE || (Blades Into) High Temperature Material || 172,476.75 || 60,628.25 || 233,105.00

19. || 267611 || COMP-OIL-TANK || Feasibility, design, manufacture and characterization of an oil tank made of composite material || 86,096.00 || 28,698.00 || 114,794.00

20. || 267210 || ELPOC || Electrical Power Control – More Electric Aircraft || 495,510.00 || 495,510.00 || 991,020.00

Sub-Total (Proposals in negotiation) || € 1,326,518 || € 912,907 || € 2,239,424

TOTAL || € 5,712,248 || € 2,567,237 || € 8,279,484

Table 3. Signed GAPs and proposals in negotiations
in the CS JU call 2 (SP1-JTI-CS-2009-02)

2.5.        Call
3 SP1-JTI-CS-2010-01

2.5.1.     Summary
information

The Clean Sky
JU published its third call for proposals on 29 January 2010. The call was open for 45 topics covering activities within
all ITDs without the Technology Evaluator (TE). The 45
open topics were grouped in 13 areas, further re-grouped under the six ITDs as
shown in the table below:

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

JTI-CS-ECO || Clean Sky – Eco-Design || 2 || 1,046 || 784.5

JTI-CS-ECO-01 || Area-01 – EDA (Eco-Design for Airframe) || 1 || 400 ||

JTI-CS-2010-1-ECO-01-003 || Development of Chromium free dense and thin micro-arc coatings for corrosion protection of light alloys (Al and Mg) || || 400 ||

JTI-CS-ECO-02 || Area-02 – EDS (Eco-Design for Systems) || 1 || 646 ||

JТI-СS-2010-1-ЕСО-02-004 || Electrical test bench drive systems: mechanical interfaces || || 646 ||

JTI-CS-GRA || Clean Sky – Green Regional Aircraft || 12 || 2,025 || 1,518.75

JTI-CS-GRA-01 || Area-01 – Low weight configurations || 8 || 1,075 ||

JTI-CS-2010-1-GRA-01-026 || Reliability Oriented Optimisation of Structural Replacement Strategies || || 150 ||

JTI-CS-2010-1-GRA-01-027 || Design and manufacturing of smart composite panels for wing applications and development of structural health monitoring techniques || || 120 ||

JTI-CS-2010-1-GRA-01-028 || Nano Modification of CFRP Resin || || 80 ||

JTI-CS-2010-1-GRA-01-029 || Definition of requirements and tests of practicability || || 75 ||

JTI-CS-2010-1-GRA-01-030 || Advanced Lightning tests on a few material types for aviation || || 150 ||

JTI-CS-2010-1-GRA-01-031 || Functional laminates development Components compatibility and feasibility assessment Industrialization || || 200 ||

JTI-CS-2010-1-GRA-01-032 || Resin Laminate and Industrial Nanoparticles Concept and Application Industrialization || || 180 ||

JTI-CS-2010-1-GRA-01-033 || Trade-off study for the ranking of new technologies best fitting wing || || 120 ||

JTI-CS-GRA-02 || Area-02 – Low noise configurations || 3 || 800 ||

JTI-CS-2010-1-GRA-02-007 || Wing/pylon/nacelle/HLD for advanced regional TF A/C configuration by multidisciplinary design with aero-elastic constrains || || 450 ||

JTI-CS-2010-1-GRA-02-008 || Efficient CFD multiphysics programming research || || 150 ||

JTI-CS-2010-1-GRA-02-009 || Adaptive wing structure concept for load matching || || 200 ||

JTI-CS-GRA-04 || Area-04 – Mission and trajectory Management || 1 || 150 ||

JTI-CS-2010-1-GRA-04-002 || ATM operational requirements (collection of information regarding ATM operational requirements, available regulation, safety requirements and future expected features) || || 150 ||

JTI-CS-GRC || Clean Sky – Green Rotorcraft || 4 || 2,622 || 1,966.5

JTI-CS-GRC-01 || Area-01 – Innovative Rotor Blades || 1 || 400 ||

JTI-CS-2010-1-GRC-01 -004 || Performance/benefit assessment of advanced rotor configurations including active and passive blades || || 400 ||

JTI-CS-GRC-02 || Area-02 – Reduced drag of rotorcraft || 2 || 1,725 ||

JTI-CS-2010-1-GRC-02-004 || Contribution to design optimisation of tiltrotor for drag (fuselage/wing junction, nose, landing gear, empennage) || || 898 ||

JTI-CS-2010-1-GRC-02-005 || Contribution to the aerodynamic design optimisation of a helicopter fuselage including its rotating rotor head || || 827 ||

JTI-CS-GRC-04 || Area-04 – Installation of diesel engines on light helicopters || 1 || 497 ||

JTI-CS-2010-1-GRC-04-002 || Participation to the definition of optimal helicopter architecture for diesel engine || || 497 ||

JTI-CS-SAGE || Clean Sky – Sustainable and Green Engines || 1 || 1,000 || 750

JTI-CS-SAGE-03 || Area-03 – Large 3-shaft turbofan || 1 || 1,000 ||

JTI-CS-2010-1-SAGE-03-001 || Fan annulus filler development || || 1,000 ||

JTI-CS-SFWA || Clean Sky – Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft || 18 || 6,350 || 4,762.5

JTI-CS-SFWA-01 || Area-01 – Smart Wing Technology || 17 || 5,850 ||

JTI-CS-2010-1-SFWA-01-004 || Support of icing-tests (runback-ice behaviour of surfaces) and icing mechanisms || || 230 ||

JTI-CS-2010-1-SFWA-01-005 || Support of development of riblet-application device || || 260 ||

JTI-CS-2010-1-SFWA-01-006 || Concept for automated riblet-application (robot-concept) || || 260 ||

JТ1-С8-2010-1-SFWA-01-007 || In field surface inspection tool (for bonded repair) || || 150 ||

JTI-CS-2010-1-SFWA-01-008 || Construction and assembly of a prototype surface pre-treatment tool for in-field use || || 150 ||

JTI-CS-2010-1-SFWA-01-009 || Prototype of curing tool || || 150 ||

JTI-CS-2010-1-SFWA-01-010 || Phased array ultrasound and NDT measurements || || 150 ||

JTI-CS-2010-1-SFWA-01-011 || Prefabricated CFRP Parts || || 150 ||

JTI-CS-2010-1-SFWA-01-012 || Concept study: Cleaning device for wing leading edge || || 40 ||

JTI-CS-2010-1-SFWA-01-013 || Active Flow Control (AFC) techniques on trailing edge shroud for improved high lift configurations – design, manufacture and tests || || 460 ||

JTI-CS-2010-1-SFWA-01-014 || Manufacturing of the test set up for gust load alleviation in the Onera S3Ch WT facility || || 400 ||

JTI-CS-2010-1-SFWA-01-015 || Development and test of a fluidic actuator prototype (MEMS type) on aircraft level || || 190 ||

JTI-CS-2010-1-SFWA-01-016 || Ultra low power autonomous wireless stain gauge data acquisition unit || || 800 ||

JTI-CS-2010-1-SFWA-01-017 || Fluidic sensor for separation detection in flight – development, design, C&M, and tests || || 610 ||

JTI-CS-2010-1-SFWA-01-018 || Development and test of subsystem of active flow control actuator based on pneumatic principles || || 290 ||

JTI-CS-2010-1-SFWA-01-019 || Flown Control Actuator System development, manufacture and demonstration for high lift || || 620 ||

JTI-CS-2010-1-SFWA-01-020 || Structural designs and tests for integration of active flow control concepts on trailing edge high lift device || || 940 ||

JTI-CS-SFWA-02 || Area-02 – New Configuration || 1 || 500 ||

JTI-CS-2010-1-SFWA-02-006 || Design and manufacture of a ground-based structural/systems demonstrator || || 500 ||

JTI-CS-SGO || Clean Sky – Systems for Green Operations || 8 || 3,545 || 2,658.75

JTI-CS-SGO-02 || Area-02 – Management of Aircraft Energy || 7 || 3,245 ||

JTI-CS-2010-1-SGO-02-012 || Saber Electrical Benchmark || || 200 ||

JTI-CS-2010-1-SGO-02-013 || Test Bench for global cooling solutions validation || || 500 ||

JTI-CS-2010-1-SGO-02-014 || Construction of evaluation Power Modules (10) to a given design || || 175 ||

JTI-CS-2010-1-SGO-02-015 || Current return simulation (methodology & tool) || || 300 ||

JTI-CS-2010-1-SGO-02-016 || Thermal exchange, modelling and power optimization || || 500 ||

JTI-CS-2010-1-SGO-02-017 || Integration study of Electro-thermal and Electro-mechanical Ice Protection devices in an A320 slat || || 370 ||

JTI-CS-2010-1-SGO-02-018 || Design, manufacturing, integration and validation of AFD function || || 1,200 ||

JTI-CS-SGO-03 || Area-03 – Management of Trajectory and Mission || 1 || 300 ||

JTI-CS-2010-1-SGO-03-007 || Parametric optimisation techniques for on-board trajectory shaping under constraints || || 300 ||

TOTAL || 45 || 16,588 || 12,441

Table 4. CS JU call 3 (SP1-JTI-CS-2010-01).
Topics overview

The call process was managed by the Clean
Sky JU, according to the principles of excellence, transparency, fairness and impartiality,
confidentiality, efficiency, speed and ethical considerations.

The timing for
the call is given on Figure 5 below:

Figure 5. Timeline of the CS JU call 3 (SP1-JTI-CS-2010-01)

The total indicative budget of the
call was set to € 16,588,000, of which the EU contribution could
be up to € 12,441,000 (50-75% of the topic maximum budget indicated).

2.5.2.     Analysis
of proposals submitted

The call was published on 29 January 2010
and applicants were invited to submit their proposals by 27 April 2010. In
total, 113 proposals were submitted in response to the 45 open topics
addressed by the present call, involving applicants from 18 countries. 6
were found to be ineligible and the remaining 107 eligible proposals
were evaluated by 95 independent experts.

2.5.3.     Evaluation
results

The on-site evaluation of the proposals
took place in Brussels between 17 and 21 May 2010 following the methodology
described in Section 2.3.1. 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 107 eligible
proposals, 70 passed the thresholds, while 37 failed one or more
thresholds.

In terms of covered technological areas,
similarly to the previous call launched by Clean Sky in 2009, the 2 topics in
Eco-Design and all 12 topics in GRA were successful. The same applied to the
only topic published in SAGE. As to GRC, 3 out of the 4 topics in this
demonstrator resulted in a winning proposal. Topic GRC-04-002 failed, because
all proposals were evaluated below threshold. Regarding SFWA and SGO, topics
SFWA-01-007, SFWA-01-014 and SGO-05-015 did not attract any proposals in their
domains, while the proposals submitted in SFWA-01-013 and SGO-02-014 could not
pass the required thresholds.

Thus, after the evaluation, 40 projects
could be finalised. To sum up, the 6 topics remaining vacant were the
following:

·
ITD: Green Rotorcraft; Area-04: Installation
of diesel engines on light helicopters; Topic: Participation to the
definition of optimal helicopter architecture for diesel engine;

·
ITD: Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft; Area-01: Smart
Wing Technology; Topic: In field surface inspection tool (for bonded
repair);

·
ITD: Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft; Area-01: Smart
Wing Technology; Topic: Active Flow Control (AFC) techniques on trailing
edge shroud for improved high lift configurations – design, manufacture and
tests;

·
ITD: Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft; Area-01: Smart
Wing Technology; Topic: Manufacturing of the test set up for gust load
alleviation in the Onera S3Ch WT facility;

·
ITD: Systems for Green Operations;
Area-02: Management of Aircraft Energy; Topic: Construction of
evaluation Power Modules (10) to a given design;

· ITD: Systems for Green Operations; Area-02: Management of
Aircraft Energy; Topic: Current return simulation (methodology &
tool).

The 40 proposals proposed for
funding accounted for 63 participations from 10 European countries.
Of those, 23 (36.5%) came from academia and 10 (15.9%)
were research institutions. The SME participation was 27% (17
companies were SMEs), requesting a total funding of € 3,235,968 (24% of
the total requested funding).

The
geographical distribution of the proposals selected for funding is shown in the
graph below, Germany taking firmly the leading position with 13 proposals,
followed by the UK, France and Italy:

Figure 6. CS JU call 3
(SP1-JTI-CS-2010-01). Proposals selected for funding per country

2.5.4.     Grant
agreements signed

The negotiations of the 40 proposals
proposed for funding in CS JU call 3 started in June-August 2010. Considering
that the average time-to-grant for Clean Sky’s projects with partners in 2010
was on average 8.21 months, by the time of writing of the present document some
of the projects were still under negotiation. In Table 5 below these projects
are shown on positions 25-40 in italic.

As seen in the table, the total budget
requested by the 40 proposals amounted to € 13,535,240.72, of which €
9,091,926.55 was the EU contribution. The total contribution under the
GAPs signed by October 2011 – 24 contracts in total – equalled to €
8,283,319.72, of which the EU funding was € 5,526,556.00 and
the in-kind contribution from industry amounting to € 2,756,763.72.

№ || Project number || Project acronym || Project title || CS JU contribution || In-kind contribution || Total contributions

1. || 270589 || CO-PROCLAM || COrrosion PROtective Coating on Light Alloys by Micro-arc oxidation || 291,675.00 || 107,545.00 || 399,220.00

2. || 270625 || MACOTECH || Design and manufacturing of smart composite panels for wing applications and development of structural health monitoring techniques || 89,955.00 || 29,985.00 || 119,940.00

3. || 268170 || RESMOD || Modification of Resin || 55,080.00 || 18,360.00 || 73,440.00

4. || 270586 || WINGTECH\_EVALUATION || Wing box technology evaluation – trade-off study for the ranking of new technologies best fitting wing || 89,765.00 || 29.922.00 || 119,687.00

5. || 270593 || AWAHL || Advanced Wing And High-Lift Design || 319,544.00 || 130,456.00 || 450,000.00

6. || 270612 || E-CFD-GPU || Efficient CFD Multi-physics programming research || 112,500.00 || 37,500.00 || 150,000.00

7. || 270641 || DARGOS || Definition of ATM Requirements for GRA Operations and Simulations || 112,065.00 || 37,355.00 || 149,420.00

8. || 270629 || MORALI || Multi-Objective Robust Assessment of heLicopter Improvements || 275,880.00 || 123,960.00 || 399,840.00

9. || 270609 || CODE-TILT || Contribution to design optimization of tiltrotor components for drag reduction || 670,500.00 || 223,500.00 || 894,000.00

10. || 270563 || ADHERO || Aerodynamic Design Optimisation of a Helicopter Fuselage including a Rotating Rotor Head || 618,750.00 || 206,250.00 || 825,000.00

11. || 270571 || MISPA || Proposal for the Development of an Applicator for Microstructured Paint Coatings Resulting in Significant Drag Reduction of Treated Surfaces || 182,608.00 || 70,265.72 || 252,873.72

12. || 270535 || CLEANCOMPFIELD || Construction and Assembly of a Prototype Surface Pre-treatment Tool for In-filed use || 112,500.00 || 37,500.00 || 150,000.00

13. || 270669 || COMPARE || COMPArative evaluation of NDT techniques for high-quality bonded composite REpairs || 112,497.00 || 37,503.00 || 150,000.00

14. || 270539 || EASYPATCH || Prefabricated CFRP Parts || 112,050.00 || 37,350.00 || 149,400.00

15. || 270644 || CLEANLE || Concept Study of a cleaning device for wing leading edges || 29,955.00 || 9,985.00 || 39,940.00

16. || 270577 || MEMFAC || A Microfabricated Actuator for Active Flow Control on Aircraft || 94,988.00 || 94,988.00 || 189,976.00

17. || 270658 || STRAINWISE || Hardware & Software Development of Wireless Sensor Network Nodes for Measurement of Strain in Airborne Environment || 552,048.00 || 243,345.00 || 795,393.00

18. || 270597 || FLOWSENSYS || Flow sensor system for the separation detection at low speed in view of flight || 76,500.00 || 25,500.00 || 102,000.00

19. || 270526 || DT-FA-AFC || Development and Test of Fluidic Actuators for Active Flow Control Applications || 194,595.00 || 65,165.00 || 259,760.00

20. || 270588 || AFCIN || Structural designs and tests for integration of active flow control concepts on a trailing edge high lift device || 321,599.00 || 108,401.00 || 430,000.00

21. || 270601 || GBSSD(2) || Design & Manufacture of a ground based structural/systems demonstrator (Phase 2) || 249,807.00 || 249,808.00 || 499,615.00

22. || 270666 || ESCRITP || Electrical Simulation Criteria & Tool Performances || 100,000.00 || 100,000.00 || 200,000.00

23. || 270598 || ARCANGEL-ALPHA || Arcing and next generation electrical airplane power hazard abatement || 593,407.00 || 593,409.00 || 1,186,816.00

24. || 270624 || POTRA || Parametric optimisation software package for trajectory shaping under constraints || 158,288.00 || 138,711.00 || 296,999.00

Sub-Total (signed GAPs) || € 5,526,556 || € 2,756,764 || € 8,283,320

25. || 270583 || VEDISYS || Versatile and Eco-efficient Direct Drive Systems for Testing the Starters/Generators of Aircraft Engines || 484,363.00 || 161,457.00 || 645,820.00

26. || 270584 || ELTESTSYS || Electrical test bench drive systems: mechanical interfaces || 453,900.00 || 169,500.00 || 623,400.00

27. || 270590 || ROSA || Reliability Oriented Optimisation of Structural Replacement Strategies for Aircraft Structures || 112,470.00 || 37,490.00 || 149,960.00

28. || 270573 || EXPECT || Examination of Practical Aspects of Innovative Bonded Composite Repair Techniques || 56,250.00 || 18,750.00 || 75,000.00

29. || 270622 || CLEAN SKY FOUDRE || Advanced Lightning tests on a few material types for aviation || 56,500.00 || 56,500.00 || 113,000.00

30. || 270616 || COMPASS || Functional laminates development. Components compatibility and feasibility assessment. Industrialization || 149,997.00 || 50,000.00 || 199,997.00

31. || 270599 || BME CLEAN SKY 032 || Resin. Laminate and Industrial Nanoparticles Concept and Application. Industrialization || 134,999.00 || 45,001.00 || 180,000.00

32. || 270640 || MAWS || Modelling of Adaptive Wing Structures || 149,999.55 || 49,999.85 || 199,999.40

33. || 270596 || ORCA || Development of an optimized large scale engine CFRP annulus filler || 573,132.00 || 423,365.00 || 996,397.00

34. || 270647 || ICE-TRACK || Support of Icing Tests (Runback-Ice behaviour of surfaces) and Icing Mechanisms || 172,100.00 || 57,367.60 || 229,467.60

35. || 270587 || RIBLET ROBOTICS || Concept for automated riblet application (robot-concept) || 130,000.00 || 130,000.00 || 260,000.00

36. || 270574 || INDUCTOR || Induction based Curing Tool for Optimized heating of composite Repairs || 112,500.00 || 37,500.00 || 150,000.00

37. || 270531 || FLOCOSYS || Efficient System for Flow Control Actuation || 45,450.00 || 15,150.00 || 60,600.00

38. || 270660 || BANCHYDRO || Design and modify test bench to allow liquid-liquid heat exchanger engineering. Qualification and certification tests. Measure the thermal performance and pressure drop. || 373,875.00 || 124,625.00 || 498,500.00

39. || 270561 || TEMPO || Thermal Exchange Modelling and Power Optimization || 374,835.00 || 124,945.00 || 499,780.00

40. || 270591 || SIEDIT || Development of a Slat with Integrated Electrical Deicers for Icing Wind Tunnel Tests || 185,000.00 || 185,000.00 || 370,000.00

Sub-Total (Proposals in negotiation) || € 3,565,371 || € 1,686,550 || € 5,251,921

TOTAL || € 9,091,927 || € 4,443,314 || € 13,535,241

Table 5. Signed GAPs and proposals in
negotiations in the CS JU call 3 (SP1-JTI-CS-2010-01)

2.6.        Call
4 SP1-JTI-CS-2010-02

2.6.1.     Summary
information

The Clean Sky
JU published its fourth call for proposals on 30 March 2010. The call was open for 4 topics grouped
in two areas under one ITD – Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft (SFWA) as shown in the
table below:

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

JTI-CS-SFWA || Clean Sky – Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft || 4 || 5,900 || 4,425

JTI-CS-SFWA-01 || Area01 – Smart Wing Technology || 2 || 1,400 ||

JTI-CS-2010-2-SFWA-021 || MEMS accelerometer for wing behaviour measurement || || 600 ||

JTI-CS-2010-2-SFWA-022 || MEMS gyrometer for wing behaviour measurement || || 800 ||

JTI-CS-SFWA-03 || Area03 – Flight Demonstrators || 2 || 4,500 ||

JTI-CS-2010-2-SFWA-03-002 || Starboard leading edge and upper cover design and manufacturing || || 3,700 ||

JTI-CS-2010-2-SFWA-03-003 || Krueger Flaps Design and Manufacture || || 800 ||

TOTAL || 4 || 5,900 || 4,425

Table 6. CS JU call 4 (SP1-JTI-CS-2010-02).
Topics overview

The call process was managed by the Clean
Sky JU, according to the principles of excellence, transparency, fairness and
impartiality, confidentiality, efficiency, speed and ethical considerations.

The timing for
the call is given on Figure 7 below:

Figure 7. Timeline of the CS JU call 4 (SP1-JTI-CS-2010-02)

The total indicative budget of the
call was set to € 5,900,000, of which the EU contribution could
be up to € 4,425,000 (50-75% of the topic maximum budget indicated).

2.6.2.     Analysis
of proposals submitted

The call was published on 30 March 2010 and
applicants were invited to submit their proposals by 30 June 2010. In total, 9
proposals were submitted in response to the 4 open topics addressed by the
present call, involving applicants from 6 countries. None of them was
found to be ineligible, and all 9 eligible proposals were evaluated by 8
independent experts.

2.6.3.     Evaluation
results

The individual remote evaluations of the
proposals were carried out between 12 and 25 July 2010, followed by consensus
meetings on the CS site in Brussels on 26-27 July 2010. To ensure high degree of transparency, the CS JU invited the same
independent observer as in the previous call to verify
if the evaluations have been done according to the set evaluation guidelines
and rules. Out of the 9 eligible proposals, 7 passed the thresholds,
while 2 failed one or more thresholds. After the evaluation, proposals
were selected for negotiation covering all 4 topics.

The 4 proposals proposed for funding
accounted for 4 participations from 4 different European
countries – the UK, Belgium, Norway and Switzerland. Of those, all were
private industrial companies – there were no participants coming from academia
or research centres. The SME participation was 50%, requesting a
total funding of € 1,400,000 (23.9% of the total requested funding).

2.6.4.     Grant
agreements signed

The negotiations of the 4 proposals
proposed for funding in CS JU call 4 started in August-October 2010. Currently,
all contracts are signed and one of the projects – "Wing Dynamics
Acceleration Sensor" is already running.

As seen in
Table 7 below, the total budget requested by the selected proposals
amounted to € 5,859,840, of which € 3,279,920 was the EU
contribution:

№ || Project nr || Project acronym || Project title || CS JU contribution || In-kind contribution || Total contributions

1. || 271492 || WINGACCS || Wing Dynamics Acceleration Sensor || 450,000.00 || 150,000.00 || 600,000.00

2. || 271494 || CS-GYRO || MEMS gyrometer for wing behaviour measurement || 600,000.00 || 200,000.00 || 800,000.00

3. || 271496 || DEAMAK || Design And Manufacture of Krueger Flaps || 379,920.00 || 379,920.00 || 759,840.00

4. || 271498 || NLFFD || NLF Starboard Leading Edge & Top cover design & manufacture || 1,850,000.00 || 1,850,000.00 || 3,700,000.00

TOTAL || € 3,279,920 || € 2,579,920 || € 5,859,840

Table 7. Signed GAPs in the CS JU call 4
(SP1-JTI-CS-2010-02)

2.7.        Call
5 SP1-JTI-CS-2010-03

2.7.1.     Summary
information

The Clean Sky
JU published its fifth call for proposals on 30 April 2010. The call was open for 34 topics covering activities within
all ITDs without the Technology Evaluator (TE). The 34
open topics were grouped in 11 areas, further re-grouped under the six ITDs as
shown in the table below:

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

JTI-CS-ECO || Clean Sky – Eco-Design || 4 || 740 || 555

JTI-CS-ECO-01 || Area-01 – EDA (Eco-Design for Airframe) || 4 || 740 ||

JTI-CS-2010-3-ECO-01-004 || Development and implementation of Magnesium sheets in A/C || || 70 ||

JTI-CS-2010-3-ECO-01-005 || Integration development of a wireless strain monitoring system with a simulation tool || || 250 ||

JTI-CS-2010-3-ECO-01-006 || Enhanced local heating device capable of high and homogeneous temperature for the repair of large composite damages || || 220 ||

JTI-CS-2010-3-ECO-01-007 || Accelerated fatigue testing methodology for fibre reinforced laminates for aircraft structures || || 200 ||

JTI-CS-GRA || Clean Sky – Green Regional Aircraft || 4 || 840 || 630

JTI-CS-GRA-02 || Area-02 – Low noise configurations || 3 || 510 ||

JTI-CS-2010-3-GRA-02-010 || Advanced concepts for trailing edge morphing wings: design and manufacturing of test rig and test samples and lest execution || || 210 ||

JTI-CS-2010-3-GRA-02-011 || LE based technology structure realisation || || 150 ||

JTI-CS-2010-3-GRA-02-012 || Aero-acoustic design and assessment of a low-noise configuration for a regional aircraft nose landing gear (NLG) || || 150 ||

JTI-CS-GRA-04 || Area-04 – Mission and Trajectory Management || 1 || 330 ||

JTI-CS-2010-3-GRA-04-003 || Advanced avionics equipment simulation || || 330 ||

JTI-CS-GRC || Clean Sky – Green Rotorcraft || 1 || 430 || 322.5

JTI-CS-GRC-03 || Area-03 – Integration of innovative electrical systems || 1 || 430 ||

JTI-CS-2010-3-GRC-03-003 || Piezo power supply module || || 430 ||

JTI-CS-SAGE || Clean Sky – Sustainable and Green Engines || 4 || 12,500 || 9,375

JTI-CS-SAGE-03 || Area-03 – Large 3-shaft turbofan || 1 || 10,000 ||

JTI-CS-2010-3-SAGE-03-002 || Aeroengine intake technology development || || 10,000 ||

JTI-CS-SAGE-05 || Area-05 – Turboshaft || 3 || 2,500 ||

JTI-CS-2010-3-SAGE-05-010 || Development of a Wasted Heat Regeneration System (WHRS) || || 1,200 ||

JTI-CS-2010-3-SAGE-05-011 || Development of exhaust noise attenuation technologies || || 1,100 ||

JTI-СЗ-2010-3-SАGЕ-05-012 || Development of an advanced system for pollutant measurement || || 200 ||

JTI-CS-SFWA || Clean Sky – Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft || 8 || 4,040 || 3,030

JTI-CS-SFWA-01 || Area-01 – Smart Wing Technology || 5 || 2,140 ||

JTI-CS-2010-3-SFWA-01-023 || Design of Robust Shock-Control-Bumps for Transport Aircraft with Laminar-Flow Wings || || 350 ||

JTI-CS-2010-3-SFWA-01-024 || Flight-tests with multi-functional coatings || || 150 ||

JTI-CS-2010-3-SFWA-01-025 || Development of a closed loop flow control algorithm for wing trailing edge flow control including experimental validation || || 560 ||

JTI-CS-2010-3-SFWA-01-026 || Power module using Silicon Carbide technology for DC/DC converter application || || 480 ||

JTI-CS-2010-3-SFWA-01-027 || Deflection and structural health monitoring of composite wing movables driven by smart actuators || || 600 ||

JTI-CS-SFWA-02 || Area-02 – New Configuration || 3 || 1,900 ||

JTI-CS-2010-3-SFWA-02-007 || Wind Tunnel Model Design for Low Speed Test with Active Flow Control || || 250 ||

JTI-CS-2010-3-SFWA-02-008 || Numerical and experimental aero-acoustic assessment of installed Counter Rotating Open Rotors (CROR) power plant || || 200 ||

JTI-CS-2010-3-SFWA-02-009 || Model design & manufacturing of the turbofan configuration for low speed aerodynamic and acoustic tests || || 1,450 ||

JTI-CS-SGO || Clean Sky – Systems for Green Operations || 13 || 7,250 || 5,437.5

JTI-CS-SGO-02 || Агеа-02 – Management of Aircraft Energy || 11 || 4,500 ||

JTI-CS-2010-3-SGO-02-019 || Sample PEM construction for testing, characterisation and manufacturability assessment. || || 500 ||

JTI-CS-2010-3-SGO-02-020 || Development of key technology components for high performance electric motors || || 250 ||

JTI-CS-2010-3-SGO-02-021 || Development of key technology components for high power-density power converters for rotorcraft swashplate || || 250 ||

JTI-CS-2010-3-SGO-02-022 || Fan noise reduction: study and realisation of a sub-assembly dedicated to new generation of Starter / Generator || || 200 ||

JTI-CS-2010-3-SGO-02-023 || Development of current and voltage sensors suitable with aircraft environment || || 600 ||

JTI-CS-2010-3-SGO-02-024 || Test bench for endurance test and reliability of avionics power electronic modules || || 800 ||

JTI-CS-2010-3-SGO-02-025 || Definition and realisation of a field bus suitable for a multi-PEM (power electronic modules) resource || || 500 ||

JTI-CS-2010-3-SGO-02-026 || Modelica Model Library Development Part I || || 300 ||

JTI-CS-2010-3-SGO-02-027 || Simulation and Analysis Tool Development Part I || || 400 ||

JTI-CS-2010-3-SGO-02-028 || Support to design and test of cooling technologies || || 350 ||

JTI-CS-2010-3-SGO-02-029 || Tests of advanced lubrication equipment || || 350 ||

JTI-CS-SGO-03 || Area-03 – Management of Trajectory and Mission || 1 || 750 ||

JTI-CS-2010-3-SGO-03-008 || Modelling of weather phenomena to support Advanced Weather Radar development || || 750 ||

JTI-CS-SGO-04 || Aгеа-04 – Aircraft Demonstrators || 1 || 2,000 ||

JTI-CS-2010-3-SGO-04-001 || Design and manufacture of an aircraft tractor compliant with specifications for Smart Operations on ground || || 2,000 ||

TOTAL || 34 || 25,800 || 19,350

Table 8. CS JU call 5 (SP1-JTI-CS-2010-03).
Topics overview

The call process was managed by the Clean
Sky JU, according to the principles of excellence, transparency, fairness and
impartiality, confidentiality, efficiency, speed and ethical considerations.

The timing for
the call is given on Figure 8 below:

Figure 8. Timeline of the CS JU call 5 (SP1-JTI-CS-2010-03)

The total indicative budget of the
call was set to € 25,800,000, of which the EU contribution could
be up to € 19,350,000 (50-75% of the topic maximum budget indicated).

2.7.2.     Analysis
of proposals submitted

The call was published on 30 April 2010 and
applicants were invited to submit their proposals by 20 July 2010. In total, 91
proposals were submitted in response to the 34 open topics addressed by the
present call, involving applicants from 14 countries. 10 were found to
be ineligible and the remaining 81 eligible proposals were evaluated by 89
independent experts.

2.7.3.     Evaluation
results

The on-site evaluation of the proposals
took place in Brussels between 13 and 17 September 2010 following the
methodology described in Section 2.3.1. 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. The 81 eligible
proposals have been evaluated by a total of 89 technical independent experts,
of which 33 external and 56 internal experts, representing 18
different nations. 48 proposals passed the thresholds, while 33
failed one or more thresholds.

In terms of covered technological areas,
the 4 topics in Eco-Design and the only topic in GRC were successful. As to
GRA, 3 out of the 4 topics in this demonstrator resulted in a winning proposal.
Topic GRA-02-010 failed, because all proposals were evaluated below threshold.
Regarding SAGE and SGO, topics SAGE-03-002, SGO-02-027 and SGO-04-001 did not
attract any proposals in their domains, while the proposals submitted in
SAGE-05-011, SGO SGO-02-026 and SGO-02-028 could not pass the required
thresholds.

Thus, after the evaluation, 26 projects
could be finalised. To sum up, the 7 topics remaining vacant were the
following:

·
ITD: Green Regional Aircraft; Area-02:
Low noise configurations; Topic: Advanced concepts for trailing edge
morphing wings: design and manufacturing of test rig and test samples and lest
execution;

·
ITD: Sustainable and Green Engines;
Area-03: Large 3-shaft turbofan; Topic: Aeroengine intake technology
development;

·
ITD: Sustainable and Green Engines;
Area-05: Turboshaft; Topic: Development of exhaust noise attenuation
technologies;

·
ITD: Systems for Green Operations;
Area-02: Management of Aircraft Energy; Topic: Development of key
technology components for high power-density power converters for rotorcraft
swashplate;

·
ITD: Systems for Green Operations;
Area-02: Management of Aircraft Energy; Topic: Modelica Model Library
Development Part I;

·
ITD: Systems for Green Operations;
Area-02: Management of Aircraft Energy; Topic: Simulation and
Analysis Tool Development Part I;

·
ITD: Systems for Green Operations;
Area-02: Management of Aircraft Energy; Topic: Support to design and
test of cooling technologies;

· ITD: Systems for Green Operations; Area-04: Aircraft
Demonstrators; Topic: Design and manufacture of an aircraft tractor
compliant with specifications for Smart Operations on ground.

The 26 proposals proposed for
funding accounted for 48 participations from 11 countries. Of
those, 23 (36.5%) came from academia and 10 (15.9%) were research
institutions. The SME participation was 47.9% (23 companies
were SMEs), requesting a total funding of € 5,611,076 (51.4% of the
total requested funding).

The
geographical distribution of the proposals selected for funding is shown in the
graph below, the UK taking on the lead with 5 winning proposals, followed by
France (4 proposals), Belgium and Germany (3 proposals each):

Figure 9. CS JU call 5
(SP1-JTI-CS-2010-03). Proposals selected for funding per country

2.7.4.     Grant
agreements signed

The negotiations of the 26 proposals
proposed for funding in CS JU call 5 started in November-December 2010. Considering
that the average time-to-grant for Clean Sky’s projects with partners in 2010
was on average 8.21 months, by the time of writing of the present document some
of the projects were still under negotiation. In Table 9 below these projects
are shown on positions 14-26 in italic.

As seen in the table, the total budget
requested by the 26 proposals amounted to € 10,907,844.60, of which €
7,570,509.65 was the EU contribution. The total contribution under the
GAPs signed by October 2011 – 13 contracts in total – equalled to €
5,559,856.60, of which the EU funding was € 3,939,931.65 and
the in-kind contribution from industry amounting to € 1,619,924.95.

№ || Project number || Project acronym || Project title || CS JU contribution || In-kind contribution || Total contributions

1. || 271858 || DIMAG || Development and Implementation of Magnesium sheets in A/C || 52,500.00 || 17,500.00 || 70,000.00

2. || 271874 || WISMOS || Wireless/Integrated Strain Monitoring and Simulation System || 183,125.00 || 66,835.00 || 249,960.00

3. || 271691 || ADVANCED || Advanced heating system and control mode for homogeneous high temperature curing of large composite repairs || 165,000.00 || 55,000.00 || 220,000.00

4. || 271882 || FATIMA || Fatigue testing of CFRP materials || 149,995.00 || 49,999.00 || 199,994.00

5. || 271881 || ADAVES || Advanced avionics equipment simulation || 185,000.00 || 145,120.40 || 330,120.40

6. || 271880 || WHEXPERS || Study and manufacturing of a Wasted Heat Exchanger and a hot air Piston Engine Recuperation System || 899,985.75 || 299,995.25 || 1,199,981.00

7. || 271829 || NURMSYS || Original design & manufacturing of a New Upstream Rotating Measurement System for gas turbine exhaust gases studies || 144,210.00 || 58,070.00 || 202,280.00

8. || 271843 || NEXTWING || Numerical and EXperimental shock conTrol on laminar Wing || 262,274.40 || 87,424.80 || 349,699.20

9. || 271838 || LH-LHT-RFT || Flight-tests with multi-functional coatings || 58,350.00 || 58,350.00 || 116,700.00

10. || 271753 || VOCAL-FAN || Virtual optimization CFD platform allowing fan noise reduction || 149,335.00 || 49,780.00 || 199,115.00

11. || 271875 || AERTECVTI || Test bench for endurance test and reliability prediction of avionics power electronic modules || 564,900.00 || 188,300.00 || 753,200.00

12. || 271813 || SAFEPEM || SAfe Fieldbus dEvelopment for Power Electronic Module || 357,100.00 || 140,000.00 || 497,100.00

13. || 271847 || CLEOPATRA || CLEaner OPerations Attained Through Radars' Advance || 447,644.00 || 296,713.00 || 744,357.00

Sub-Total (signed GAPs) || € 3,619,419 || € 1,513,087 || € 5,132,507

14. || 271861 || LEATOP || Leading Edge Actuation Topology Design and Demonstration || 106,676.00 || 43,059.00 || 149,735.00

15. || 271886 || NOISETTE || Landing Gear Noise Attenuation || 114,643.00 || 34,907.00 || 149,550.00

16. || 271872 || PPSMPAB || Piezo Power Supply Module for Piezo Actuator Bench || 320,512.50 || 106,837.50 || 427,350.00

17. || 271866 || CLFCWTE || Development of a Closed Loop Flow Control Algorithm for Wing Trailing Edge Flow Control Including Experimental Validation in Two Low Speed Wind Tunnel Tests || 411,218.00 || 137,073.00 || 548,291.00

18. || 271855 || ROSIC || Robust Silicon-Carbide Technology for Aerospace DC-DC Conversion || 303,426.00 || 175,883.00 || 479,309.00

19. || 271853 || FOS3D || Fibre Optic System for Deflection and Damage Detection || 448,670.00 || 149,556.00 || 598,226.00

20. || 271784 || DEAFCON || Wind Tunnel Model Design with Active Flow Control, for Low Speed Test || 164,250.00 || 54,750.00 || 219,000.00

21. || 271765 || NAA-CROR || Numerical aero-acoustic assessment of installed Counter Rotating Open Rotor (CROR) power plant || 150,000.00 || 50,000.00 || 200,000.00

22. || 271815 || LOSPA || Model Design and Manufacturing of the Turbofan Configuration for Low Speed Aerodynamic and Acoustic Testing || 978,754.00 || 326,252.00 || 1,305,006.00

23. || 271788 || PEMREL || Sample power electronic module construction for testing, characterisation and manufacturability assessment || 337,141.00 || 162,430.00 || 499,571.00

24. || 271850 || HPEM || Development of key technology components for high performance electric motors || 187,050.00 || 62,350.00 || 249,400.00

25. || 271816 || NEELEFFECT INTHESKY || Magnetic Sensors with No Remanence for Aircraft Application || 428,750.00 || 171,250.00 || 600,000.00

26. || 271867 || LUBSEP[8] || Test of advanced lubrication equipment || --- || --- || 349,900.00

Sub-Total (Proposals in negotiation) || € 3,951,091 || € 1,474,348 || € 5,775,338

TOTAL || € 7,570,510 || € 2,987,435 || € 10,907,845

Table 9. Signed GAPs and proposals in
negotiations in the CS JU call 5 (SP1-JTI-CS-2010-03)

2.8.        Call
6 SP1-JTI-CS-2010-04

2.8.1.     Summary
information

The Clean Sky
JU published its sixth call for proposals on 27 July 2010. The call was open for 29 topics covering activities within
all ITDs without the Technology Evaluator (TE). The 29
open topics were grouped in 13 areas, further re-grouped under the six ITDs as
shown in the table below:

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

JTI-CS-ECO || Clean Sky – Eco-Design || 3 || 2,200 || 1,650

JTI-CS-ECO-01 || Аrеa-01 – EDA (Eco-Design for Airframe) || 2 || 500 ||

JTI-CS-2010-4-ECO-01-008 || Development of thermoplastic polymer blend with low melting point and properties close to PEEK ones || || 200 ||

JTI-CS-2010-4-ECO-01-009 || Moisture aging of composites – Time-Temperature – Moisture superposition principle – Hydric fatigue || || 300 ||

JTI-СS-EСО-02 || Area-02 – EDS (Eco-Design for Systems) || 1 || 1,700 ||

JTI-CS-2010-4-ECO-02-005 || Development, Construction and Integration of Systems for Ground Thermal Test Bench || || 1,700 ||

JTI-CS-GRA || Clean Sky – Green Regional Aircraft || 4 || 2,650 || 1,987.5

JTI-CS-GRA-02 || Area-02 – Low noise configurations || 1 || 150 ||

JTI-CS-2010-4-GRΑ-02-013 || Novel nose wheel evolution for noise reduction || || 150 ||

JTI-CS-GRA-03 || Аrеа-03 – All electric aircraft || 2 || 500 ||

JTI-CS-2010-4-GRA-03-002 || Energy Management – Electrical motors power control. Analytical studies and modelling || || 350 ||

JTI-CS-2010-4-GRA-03-003 || Development of Numerical Models of Aircraft Systems to be used within the JTI/GRA Shared Simulation Environment || || 150 ||

JTI-CS-GRA-05 || Area-05 – New configurations || 1 || 2,000 ||

JTI-CS-2010-4-GRA-05-005 || Aero-acoustic noise emissions measure for advanced Regional Open Rotor A/C configuration || || 2,000 ||

JTI-CS-GRC || Clean Sky – Green Rotorcraft || 3 || 1,165 || 873.75

JTI-CS-GRC-01 || Area-01 – Innovative Rotor Blades || 1 || 575 ||

JTI-CS-2010-4-GRC-01-005 || Gurney flap actuator and mechanism for a full scale helicopter rotor blade || || 575 ||

JTI-CS-GRC-02 || Area-02 – Reduced drag of rotorcraft || 2 || 590 ||

JTI-CS-2010-4-GRC-02-003 || Contribution to optimisation of heavy helicopter engine installation design || || 440 ||

JTI-CS-2010-4-GRC-02-006 || Helicopter hub and fuselage drag investigation by means of hybrid URANS/LES methods || || 150 ||

JTI-CS-SAGE || Clean Sky – Sustainable and Green Engines || 10 || 7,950 || 5,962.5

JTI-CS-SAGE-03 || Area-03 – Large 3-shaft turbofan || 4 || 3,800 ||

JTI-CS-2010-4-SAGE-03-003 || High Efficiency Fuel Pumping || || 1,500 ||

JTI-CS-2010-4-SAGE-03-004 || Fuel Control System Sensors and Effectors || || 1,300 ||

JTI-CS-2010-4-SAGE-03-005 || High Temperature Electronics || || 1,500 ||

JTI-CS-2010-4-SAGE-03-006 || Ring Rolling of IN718 || || 1,000 ||

JTI-CS-SAGE-04 || Area-04 – Geared Turbofan || 6 || 4,150 ||

JTI-CS-2010-4-SAGE-04-001 || Development of low cost near conventional hot die forging process for gamma-TiAl low pressure turbine blades || || 650 ||

JTI-CS-2010-4-SAGE-04-002 || Development of near net shape isothermal forging process for gamma-TiAl low pressure turbine blades || || 600 ||

JTI-CS-2010-4-SAGE-04-003 || Development and validation of an integrated methodology to establish future production concepts || || 1,000 ||

JTI-CS-2010-4-SAGE-04-004 || Development of low cost casting process for gamma-TiAl billets || || 550 ||

JTI-CS-2010-4-SAGE-04-005 || Development & Manufacture of High Temperature Carbon Fibre Reinforced Plastic (CFRP) Aero engine Parts for Continuous Use at Temperatures above 350 ºC || || 850 ||

JTI-CS-2010-4-SAGE-04-006 || Machining of highly stressed components; Development of Precise Electrochemical Machining (PECM) Simulation || || 500 ||

JTI-CS-SFWA || Clean Sky – Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft || 5 || 2,105 || 1,578.75

JTI-CS-SFWA-01 || Area-01 – Smart Wing Technology || 3 || 1,455 ||

JTI-CS-2010-4-SFWA-01-013 || Active Flow Control (AFC) techniques on trailing edge shroud for improved high lift configurations – design, manufacture and tests || || 460 ||

JTI-CS-2010-4-SFWA-01-028 || Structural tests on smart droop nose device with regards to aircraft level || || 745 ||

JTI·CS-2010-4-SFWA-01-029 || Development, design and manufacture and test of AFC actuator controller with industrial purposes and certification issues || || 250 ||

JTI-CS-SFWA-02 || Area-02 – New Configuration || 2 || 650 ||

JTI-CS-2010-4-SFWA-02-010 || Innovative shield design and manufacturing || || 250 ||

JTI-CS-2010-4-SFWA-02-011 || Impact test campaign || || 400 ||

JTI-CS-SGO || Clean Sky – Systems for Green Operations || 4 || 2,750 || 2,062.5

JTI-CS-SGO-02 || Area-02 – Management of Aircraft Energy || 2 || 2,250 ||

JTI-C3-2010-4-SGO-02-014 || Construction of evaluation Power Modules (10) to a given design || || 250 ||

JTI-CS-2010-4-SGO-02-030 || Test rig for endurance and reliability trials applied on TRL growth of high power Starter / Generators || || 2,000 ||

JTI-CS-SGO-03 || Area-03 – Management of Trajectory and Mission || 2 || 500 ||

JTI-CS-2010-4-SGO-03-009 || Propfan equipped aircraft noise model || || 350 ||

JTI-CS-2010-4-SGO-03-010 || High speed numerical integration techniques for precise prediction || || 150 ||

TOTAL || 29 || 18,820 || 14,115

Table 10. CS JU call 6 (SP1-JTI-CS-2010-04).
Topics overview

The call process was managed by the Clean
Sky JU, according to the principles of excellence, transparency, fairness and
impartiality, confidentiality, efficiency, speed and ethical considerations.

The timing for
the call is given on Figure 10 below:

Figure 10. Timeline of the CS JU call 6 (SP1-JTI-CS-2010-04)

The total indicative budget of the
call was set to € 18,820,000, of which the EU contribution could
be up to € 14,115,000 (50-75% of the topic maximum budget indicated).

2.8.2.     Analysis
of proposals submitted

The call was published on 27 July 2010 and
applicants were invited to submit their proposals by 12 October 2010. In total,
68 proposals involving applicants from 12 countries were
received. Out of those 68 proposals, 64 were considered eligible
for evaluation.

2.8.3.     Evaluation
results

The on-site evaluation of the proposals
took place in Brussels between 8 and 12 November 2010 following the methodology
described in Section 2.3.1. It was preceded by individual remote evaluations.
To ensure high degree of transparency, the CS JU invited the same independent
observer as in the fifth call to verify if the
evaluations have been done according to the set evaluation guidelines and
rules. Out of the 64 proposals, 40 passed the thresholds, while 24
failed one or more thresholds.

In terms of covered technological areas,
the 3 topics in GRC and all 10 topics in SAGE were successful. As to Eco-Design,
2 out of the 3 topics in this demonstrator resulted in a winning proposal.
Topic ECO-02-005 failed, because the only proposal received was evaluated below
threshold. Regarding GRA, SFWA and SGO, topics GRA-02-013, SFWA-01-028 and
SFWA-02-010 did not attract any proposals in their domains, while the proposals
submitted in SGO-02-014 could not pass the set thresholds.

Thus, after the evaluation, 24 projects
could be finalised. To sum up, the 5 topics remaining vacant were the
following:

·
ITD: Eco-Design; Area-02: EDS
(Eco-Design for Systems); Topic: Development, Construction and
Integration of Systems for Ground Thermal Test Bench;

·
ITD: Green Regional Aircraft; Area-02: Low
noise configurations; Topic: Novel nose wheel evolution for noise
reduction;

·
ITD: Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft; Area-01:
Smart Wing Technology; Topic: Structural tests on smart droop nose
device with regards to aircraft level;

·
ITD: Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft; Area-02: New
Configuration; Topic: Innovative shield design and manufacturing;

· ITD: Systems for Green Operations; Area-02: Management of
Aircraft Energy; Topic: Construction of evaluation Power Modules (10) to
a given design.

The 24 proposals proposed for
funding accounted for 54 participations from 9 European countries.
Of those, 15 (27.8%) participants came from academia and 9
(16.7%) were research institutions. The SME participation was
25.9% (14 companies), requesting a total funding of € 3,637,485
(21.8% of the total requested funding).

The
geographical distribution of the proposals selected for funding is shown in the
graph below, the UK and Germany being on the lead with 8 and 7 winning
proposals respectively, followed by Spain (3 proposals):

Figure 11. CS JU call 6
(SP1-JTI-CS-2010-04). Proposals selected for funding per country

2.8.4.     Grant
agreements signed

The negotiations of the 24 proposals
proposed for funding in CS JU call 6 started in January-February 2011.
Considering that the average time-to-grant for Clean Sky’s projects with
partners in 2010 was on average 8.21 months, by the time of writing of the
present document the majority of the projects were still under negotiation. In
Table 11 below these projects are shown on positions 8-24 in italic.

As seen in the table, the total budget
requested by the 24 proposals amounted to € 16,710,420.40, of which €
10,712,291.30 was the EU contribution. The total contribution
under the GAPs signed by October 2011 – 7 contracts in total – equalled to €
4,509,931.60, of which the EU funding was € 3,168,047.30 and
the in-kind contribution from industry amounting to € 1,341,884.30.

№ || Project number || Project acronym || Project title || CS JU contribution || In-kind contribution || Total contributions

1. || 278144 || SUPERBLEND || Development of Thermoplastic Polymer blend with Low Melting Point and with Similar Properties than PEEK || 149,628.00 || 49,876.00 || 199,504.00

2. || 277796 || E-BIRD || Development of numerical models of aircraft systems to be used within the JTI/GRA Shared Simulation Environment || 112,500.00 || 37,500.00 || 150,000.00

3. || 278419 || WENEMOR || Wind tunnel tests for the evaluation of the installation effects of noise emissions of an open rotor advanced regional aircraft || 1,374,993.00 || 578,334.20 || 1,953,327.20

4. || 278393 || PT656 || Gurney flap actuator and mechanism for a full scale helicopter rotor blade || 371,063.00 || 289,553.00 || 660,616.00

5. || 278416 || HEAVYCOPTER || Contribution to optimisation of heavy helicopter engine installation design || 329,400.00 || 109,800.00 || 439,200.00

6. || 278415 || HELIDES || Helicopter Drag Prediction using Detached-Eddy Simulation || 110,463.30 || 36,821.10 || 147,284.40

7. || 277927 || IMAPC || Development and validation of an integrated methodology in order to establish adapted production concepts for efficient turbofan engines || 720,000.00 || 240,000.00 || 960,000.00

Sub-Total (signed GAPs) || € 3,168,047 || € 1,341,884 || € 4,509,931

8. || 278156 || CF-THREAD || Composites under Fatigue: Temperature and Humidity Related Environmental Ageing Damage || 224,749.00 || 74,914.00 || 299,663.00

9. || 278407 || SIMEAD || Suite of integrated models for electrical aircraft drives || 261,453.00 || 87,150.00 || 348,603.00

10. || 278228 || ADEPT || High Efficiency Fuel Pumping || 711,608.00 || 711,607.00 || 1,423,215.00

11. || 278366 || CASE || Fuel Control System Sensors and Effectors || 655,991.00 || 579,189.00 || 1,235,180.00

12. || 278365 || HITME || High Temperature Electronics || 901,200.00 || 584,890.40 || 1,486,090.40

13. || 278288 || CORR || Introduction of contoured ring rolled parts for critical rotative aero engine applications || 520,013.00 || 423,903.00 || 943,916.00

14. || 278084 || DAFNE || Development of gamma-TiAl forgings in a low-cost near conventional hot-die process and process evaluation || 326,250.00 || 313,650.00 || 639,900.00

15. || 278438 || HI-POTENTIAL || Highly Innovative Isothermal Forging of Gamma-TiAl Alloy for LPT blades || 284,408.00 || 284,409.00 || 568,817.00

16. || 277741 || DATACAST || Development of a low cost Advanced gamma Titanium Aluminide Casting Technology || 323,000.00 || 227,000.00 || 550,000.00

17. || 278483 || HICOMP || Development and Manufacture of High Temperature Composite Aero Engine Parts || 376,555.00 || 376,557.00 || 753,112.00

18. || 278302 || SUPREME || Simulation tool for precise electrochemical machining of aircraft engine components || 361,817.00 || 120,605.00 || 482,422.00

19. || 277975 || ATTESI || Active Flow Control Technique on Trailing Edge Shroud for Improved High Lift Configurations || 344,834.00 || 114,946.60 || 459,780.60

20. || 278268 || ESTERA || Multi-level Embedded Closed-Loop Control System for Fluidic Active Flow Control Actuation Applied in High-Lift and High-Speed Aircraft Operations || 187,470.00 || 62,490.00 || 249,960.00

21. || 278368 || IMPTEST || Impact test campaign || 285,467.00 || 95,155.00 || 380,622.00

22. || 277861 || VEGETEBLE || Test rig for endurance and reliability trials applied on TRL growth of high power Starter / Generators || 1,419,935.00 || 479,945.00 || 1,899,880.00

23. || 277580 || FLIGHT-NOISE-II || Turboprop and Propfan-Equipped Aircraft Noise Emission Model || 247,179.00 || 82,393.00 || 329,572.00

24. || 278170 || NEURAL || Neural network computation for fast trajectory prediction || 112,316.00 || 37,439.00 || 149,755.00

Sub-Total (Proposals in negotiation) || € 7,544,244 || € 4,656,245 || € 12,200,489

TOTAL || € 10,712,291 || € 5,998,129 || € 16,710,420

Table 11. Signed GAPs and proposals in
negotiations in the CS JU call 6 (SP1-JTI-CS-2010-04)

2.9.        Call
7 SP1-JTI-CS-2010-05

2.9.1.     Summary
information

The Clean Sky
JU published its seventh call for proposals on 24 September 2010. The call was open for 38 topics covering activities within
all ITDs without the Technology Evaluator (TE). The 38
open topics were grouped in 15 areas, further re-grouped under the six ITDs as
shown in the table below:

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

JTI-CS-ECO || Clean Sky – Eco-Design || 11 || 5,230 || 3,922.5

JTI-CS-ECO-01 || Area-01 – EDA (Eco-Design for Airframe) || 9 || 3,030 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-ECO-01-010 || Study of cyanate ester based composites in a high service temperature environment || || 400 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-ECO-01-011 || Bicarbonate media blasting for paint-varnish removal and dry surface treatment || || 300 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-ECO-01-012 || Development of more eco-efficient aluminium alloys for aircraft structures || || 500 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-ECO-01-013 || Development and implementation of conductive coating for Magnesium sheets in A/C || || 160 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-ECO-01-014 || Infusion system development for primary structure || || 200 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-ECO-01-015 || Development of advanced preforms for LCM technologies || || 250 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-ECO-01-016 || Surface mapping to improve reliability of dry treatment on metallic and organic surfaces || || 250 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-ECO-01-017 || Production of yarns and fabrics based on recycled carbon fibres (CFs) || || 250 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-ECO-01-018 || Environmental Data Models and Interface development || || 720 ||

JTI-CS-ECO-02 || Area-02 – EDS (Eco-Design for Systems) || 2 || 2,200 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-ECO-02-006 || Electrical Test Bench Power Center || || 700 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-ECO-02-007 || Electrical Test Bench Control System, Instrumentation and Cabling || || 1,500 ||

JTI-CS-GRA || Clean Sky – Green Regional Aircraft || 2 || 620 || 465

JTI-CS-GRA-01 || Area-01 – Low weight configurations || 1 || 170 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-GRA-01-034 || Design, manufacturing and impact test on selected panels with advanced composite material || || 170 ||

JTI-CS-GRA-02 || Area-02 – Low noise configurations || 1 || 450 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-GRA-02-014 || Wing loads control/alleviation system design for advanced regional Turbo-Fan A/C configuration || || 450 ||

JTI-CS-GRC || Clean Sky - Green Rotorcraft || 7 || 11,580 || 8,685

JTI-CS-GRC-03 || Area-03 – Integration of innovative electrical systems || 2 || 930 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-GRC-03-004 || Innovative management of energy recovery for reduction of electrical power consumption on fuel consumption || || 500 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-GRC-03-005 || Adaptation kit design & manufacturing: APU Driving System || || 430 ||

JTI-CS-GRC-04 || Area-04 – Installation of diesel engines on light helicopters || 2 || 9,950 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-GRC-04-003 || Optimised Diesel engine design matching a new light helicopter architecture || || 650 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-GRC-04-004 || Diesel Power-pack Integration on a light helicopter demonstrator || || 9,300 ||

JTI-CS-GRC-05 || Area-05 – Environmentally friendly flight paths || 1 || 300 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-GRC-05-004 || Tuning of simplified rotorcraft noise models, preliminary acoustic measurement test campaign || || 300 ||

JTI-CS-GRC-06 || Area-06 – Eco-Design for Rotorcraft || 2 || 400 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-GRC-06-001 || Manufacturing of a Thermoplastic Composite Feasibility Article for a Helicopter Door || || 200 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-GRC-06-002 || Manufacturing of thermoplastic structural demonstrators || || 200 ||

JTI-CS-SAGE || Clean Sky – Sustainable and Green Engines || 4 || 5,400 || 4,050

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

JTI-CS-2010-5-SAGE-03-007 || Large 3-shaft Demonstrator – Core Turbomachinery – High Temperature Flexible PCB || || 600 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-SAGE-03-008 || Large 3-shaft Demonstrator – Structural Surface Cooler development || || 2,000 ||

JTI-CS-SAGE-04 || Area-04 – Geared Turbofan || 2 || 2,800 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-SAGE-04-002 || Development of Innovative SLM-Machinery for High Temperature Aero Engine Applications || || 1,800 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-SAGE-04-007 || Development of Selective Laser Melting (SLM) Simulation tool for Aero Engine applications || || 1,000 ||

JTI-CS-SFWA || Clean Sky - Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft || 8 || 3,999 || 2,999.25

JTI-CS-SFWA-01 || Area-01 – Smart Wing Technology || 6 || 1,842 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-SFWA-01-007 || In field surface inspection tool for contamination detection before bonded composite repair || || 250 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-SFWA-01-014 || Final design and manufacturing of a test set up for the investigation of gust load alleviation || || 400 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-SFWA-01-030 || Quantification of the degradation of microstructured coatings || || 200 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-SFWA-01-031 || Assessment of the interaction of a passive and an active load alleviation scheme for a transport aircraft || || 200 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-SFWA-01-032 || Technology evaluation and manufacturing of microtechnology-based Active Flow Control actuators || || 300 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-SFWA-01-033 || Numerical Simulation of the Assembly Tolerances for NLF Wings || || 492 ||

JTI-CS-SFWA-03 || Area-03 – Flight Demonstrators || 2 || 2,157 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-SFWA-03-004 || A340 Outer Wing Metrology || || 1,457 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-SFWA-03-005 || Surface quality measurement in flight || || 700 ||

JTI-CS-SGO || Clean Sky – Systems for Green Operations || 6 || 3,700 || 2,775

JTI-CS-SGO-02 || Area-02 – Management of Aircraft Energy || 2 || 550 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-SGO-02-027 || Simulation and Analysis Tool Development Part I || || 400 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-SGO-02-031 || Qualification of insulation materials to engine oils || || 150 ||

JTI-CS-SGO-03 || Area-03 – Management of Trajectory and Mission || 3 || 1,150 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-SGO-03-011 || Recruitment of qualified flight crew (test, airline) and expenses for tests || || 250 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-SGO-03-012 || SOG Wheel Actuator development for existing aircraft || || 650 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-SGO-03-013 || Economic analysis according to business jets operators profile || || 250 ||

JTI-CS-SGO-04 || Area-04 – Aircraft Demonstrators || 1 || 2,000 ||

JTI-CS-2010-5-SGO-04-001 || Design and manufacture of an aircraft tractor compliant with specifications for Smart Operations on ground || || 2,000 ||

TOTAL || 38 || 30,529 || 22,897

Table 12. CS JU call 7 (SP1-JTI-CS-2010-05).
Topics overview

The call process was managed by the Clean
Sky JU, according to the principles of excellence, transparency, fairness and
impartiality, confidentiality, efficiency, speed and ethical considerations.

The timing for
the call is given on Figure 12 below:

Figure 12. Timeline of the CS JU call 7 (SP1-JTI-CS-2010-05)

The total indicative budget of the
call was set to € 30,529,000, of which the EU contribution could
be up to € 22,896,750 (50-75% of the topic maximum budget indicated).

2.9.2.     Analysis
of proposals submitted

The call was published on 24 September 2010
and applicants were invited to submit their proposals by 9 December 2010. In
total, 71 proposals involving applicants from 17 countries were
received. Out of those 71 proposals, 67 were considered eligible
for evaluation.

2.9.3.     Evaluation
results

The on-site evaluation of the proposals
took place in Brussels between 17 and 21 January 2011 following the methodology
described in Section 2.3.1. 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. Clean Sky started the
negotiation of the successful projects in February-March 2011. The grant
agreements signature of the selected 29 proposals and the payment of
pre-financing were expected to be concluded by the first quarter of 2012.

Taking into consideration this timeline,
the Commission shall present the results of the Clean
Sky JU's seventh call for proposals in its next year's report on the
progress achieved by the JTI JUs.

3.           Progress
achieved by the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) JU

3.1.        About
the IMI JU

The Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint
Undertaking (hereinafter referred to as "IMI JU") 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)[9], 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[10] 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, large
pharmaceutical companies and SMEs, academia, regulatory agencies and patients'
organisations cooperate with each other to tackle the major challenges in drug
development and to act towards improving people's health.

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 the EFPIA
directly and by partners selected through open and competitive calls for
proposals.

To perform its goals, IMI has identified
four priority areas ("pillars")[11],
in which joint research projects of industry and research institutions can get
financial support:

(1)
Improving the Predictivity of Safety
Evaluation (Pillar I): addressing predictive
toxicology and risk assessment;

(2)
Improving the Predictivity of Efficacy
Evaluation (Pillar II): addressing predictive
pharmacology, biomarkers identification and validation, patient recruitment and
risk assessment;

(3)
Knowledge Management (Pillar III): leveraging the potential of new technologies to analyse a huge
amount of information in an integrative and predictive way;

(4)
Education and Training (Pillar IV): addressing gaps in expertise needed to change and support the
biopharmaceutical research and development process.

The maximum total budget of the IMI JU is
set to € 2 billion, of which the EU contribution of € 1 billion should be at
least matched with an in-kind contribution by the members of the EFPIA. The EU
contribution is paid from the appropriations in the general budget of the
European Union allocated to theme "Health" of Specific Programme
"Cooperation" under the Seventh Framework Programme of the European
Union (2007-2013).

The governance
structure of IMI consists of three bodies: the Governing Board, the Executive
Director and the Scientific Committee. Furthermore, the IMI JU is supported by
two external advisory bodies: the States Representatives Group and the
Stakeholder Forum.

3.2.        Main
activities of the IMI JU in 2010

After its establishment, IMI gradually
developed an operational capacity, and on 16 November 2009 has been granted
administrative and operational autonomy from the European Commission[12]. Thus, 2010 was the first full
year of independent functioning of the Joint Undertaking.

Key milestones

In line with the major objectives set in
the IMI Annual Implementation Plan 2010[13],
the IMI's most significant achievements during the year were:

·
Kick-off of the research projects from the 2008
call for proposals, following conclusion of the respective grant agreements;

·
Evaluation, selection and negotiation of the
research projects submitted in the 2009 call for proposals;

·
Launch of the 2010 call for proposals;

·
Establishment of Overheads Policy;

·
Publication of a guidance note on how to apply
the IMI Intellectual Property Policy[14];

·
Launch of the new IMI website including an
electronic partner search tool;

· Setting-up of an internal audit function within the IMI's operational
structure.

In parallel, several actions have been
taken during the year in preparation for the key objectives set for 2011. These
included:

·
Further amendment of the model IMI JU grant
agreement and completion of the IMI Financial Guidelines;

·
Revision of the IMI Scientific Research
Agenda[15]
and definition of the topics for future calls;

·
Enhancement of communication activities on the
basis of the first results achieved in the research projects;

· Organisation of ex-post audit activities.

After IMI became autonomous in November
2009, the number of IMI staff members increased to 22. In accordance with the
adopted Staff Policy Plan 2010-2012, this aimed to ensure the full
operational capacity of the IMI Executive Office to the limit given by the then
temporary housing at the Covent Garden building in Brussels. The organised
recruitment filled in also the position of the new internal auditor.

In addition, the procedure for procuring a
permanent IMI location was concluded in close
collaboration with the European Commission jointly with
the other JTI JUs. IMI moved successfully into its new premises in the White
Atrium building in Brussels in January 2011. The procedure for procuring the IT
infrastructure for the new offices was also completed in 2010.

In 2010, IMI started defining its internal
processes related to the adopted Internal Control Standards, and
established its own internal audit capability. In September – November 2010,
IMI conducted its first risk assessment exercise. The conclusions of the IMI's
management on its first year of independent functioning was that the progress
made in establishment and development of key internal control systems has been
satisfactory and in line with the expectations.

Governance

The IMI Governing Board held three meetings
in 2010.

At the 7th Governing Board
meeting on 16 March 2010 a new chair and a deputy-chair were appointed. The
Annual Activity Report 2009 and Annual Implementation Plan 2010
were adopted. The Governing Board approved the ranked list of Expressions of
Interest of the first stage of the call for proposals launched in 2009. It also
started a first round of amendments to the model grant agreement.

The 8th Governing Board
meeting, which took place on 20 July 2010, was concluded with a decision to
produce a statement on the Board's position on the future of the IMI JU beyond
2014.

The last for the year 9th
Governing Board meeting on 14 December 2010 initiated discussions on
intellectual property issues, financial questions related to the costs
methodology for overheads and in-kind contributions, as well as a debate on the
IMI Scientific Research Agenda and the topics for the fourth call for
proposals planned for 2011.

The Scientific Committee and the States
Representatives Group each met twice in 2010, providing advice on the revision
of the IMI Scientific Research Agenda and the scientific priorities
annexed to the Annual Implementation Plan 2011.

The first Stakeholder Forum, acting as an
external advisory body to IMI, took place on 14-15 June 2010 in Brussels. The
meeting gathered together more than 200 high-level industry representatives,
regulators, policy makers, scientific experts, patient representatives and
science leaders. The event featured presentations and discussions on the
ongoing IMI projects, the IMI Scientific Research Agenda, the research
topics in the planned third call for proposals launched in October 2010 and the
IMI Intellectual Property Policy.

Communications activities

The IMI communication activities in 2010
were focused on maintaining and upgrading the established relations with its
stakeholders. This was achieved through a number of communication events held
in Brussels during the year. The most significant were the Stakeholder Forum on
14-15 June and the Open Info/Thematic Day on the 2010 call for proposals.
During this day, organised on the date of the publication of the call – 22
October 2010, academic teams and representatives of patient organisations,
regulators, SMEs, hospitals and other interested parties received information
on the call topics and practical details on the participation in IMI projects.

Furthermore, several press releases related
to the IMI's activities and published calls, and articles/features on important
topics have been published throughout the year. In addition, members of the IMI
Executive Office held presentations on the Initiative's mission during
scientific conferences, symposia and specialists gatherings. The latter were an
important opportunity for IMI to promote its corporate image and raise awareness
and visibility of its activities in accordance with its communication strategy.

In 2010, IMI launched its new website (http://www.imi.europa.eu) with changed
vision and improved navigation, aiming to present timely and up-to-date
information on its activities, calls for proposals and ongoing research
projects. A special online partner tool was created to facilitate the search
for potential partners to prepare EoIs in response to IMI's calls for
proposals. In September, IMI published the first issue of its electronic
newsletter.

Calls for proposals

The IMI JU selects projects through open
and competitive calls for proposals following a two-stage submission
and evaluation process. Calls for proposals are published annually.

Each call for proposal provides a number of
topics based on the scientific priorities set in the IMI Annual
Implementation Plan, which in turn is based on the four identified priority
areas ("pillars") described in Section 2.1. The call topics are
defined by a group of pharmaceutical companies – members of the EFPIA,
specialists in the respective field. These companies form the EFPIA
consortia and are "leading" each topic. The EFPIA member
companies are not beneficiaries, but provide an in-kind contribution to the
projects.

In the first stage of IMI's calls (referred
to also as "Stage 1") the call for proposals is announced. 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 together 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 IMI's calls
(referred to as "Stage 2"), FPPs are evaluated through 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[16].
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 last step
before signing the grant agreement is the negotiation of the contract
managed by the IMI Executive Office. The objective is to agree on the technical
details of the project and to collect financial and legal information needed
for preparing the grant agreement.

Figure 13. IMI JU calls for proposals.
Submission and evaluation process

As a result of the calls, the IMI JU
launches a new set of collaborative research[17] and/or training
projects every year. In line with the identified four priority areas
("pillars"), many IMI projects cope with socially significant
diseases such as cancer, brain disorders and inflammatory, metabolic and
infectious diseases. Other projects focus on knowledge management and on
improving predictions of safety of new medicines. An additional focus for IMI
is education and training to narrow the gaps in expertise in biomedical R&D
knowledge and skills.

Already a total of 23 projects from the
first two waves of the calls for proposals launched in 2008 and 2009 are
underway. They are studying areas such as schizophrenia, rheumatoid arthritis,
asthma, chronic pain, electronic health records, safety in qualifying
biomarkers and standards for modelling and simulation tools. The third wave was
planned to include projects on autism, tuberculosis, diabetes and the safety of
drugs and vaccines.

The present
Commission Staff Working Document shall review the submission and evaluation
results of the IMI's second call for proposals published in November 2009,
which – due to their timeline – were not included in the Commission's Annual
Report on the progress achieved by the JTI JUs in 2009. It shall give also
an overview on the IMI's third call for proposals launched in October 2010, the
detailed results of which will be presented in the next year's Commission
report.

3.3.        Call
2 IMI\_Call\_2009\_2

3.3.1.     Summary
information

IMI published its second call for
proposals on 27 November 2009. Any company, university, research
organisation, or other entity carrying out activities relevant to the
objectives of the IMI JU in the EU Member States or countries associated with
the FP7 could participate in the call by submitting an Expression of Interest
through engaging in applicant consortia.

The following legal entities were eligible
for funding by the IMI JU: SMEs[18],
non-profit public bodies, non-profit research organisations, intergovernmental
organisations, legal entities established under Community law, secondary and
higher education establishments and non-profit patients' organisations. Any
other legal entities were supposed to bear their own costs for participating in
an IMI project.

The 2009 call
for proposals included nine topics. They were based on the scientific
priorities annexed to the IMI Annual Implementation Plan 2009 and were
formulated by the relevant EFPIA consortia under two strategic areas for
intervention – Pillar II: Improving the Predictivity of Efficacy Evaluation
and Pillar III: Knowledge Management. The call topics are listed
in the table below:

№ || Topic

Pillar II: Improving the Predictivity of Efficacy Evaluation

1. || Imaging biomarkers for anticancer drug development

2. || New tools for target validation to improve drug efficacy

3. || Molecular biomarkers: accelerating cancer therapy development and refining patient care

4. || Identification and development of rapid point-of-care diagnostic tests for bacterial diagnosis to facilitate conduct of clinical trials and clinical practice

5. || Understanding aberrant adaptive immunity mechanisms

6. || Translational research in chronic immune-mediated disease: bridging between animal models and humans

Pillar III: Knowledge Management

7. || Drug/disease modelling: library & framework

8. || Open pharmacological space

9. || Electronic health records

Table 13. Topics of the IMI JU 2009 call
for proposals

The areas of cancer, infectious diseases
and inflammation were set as priorities in Pillar II in 2009, while the
focus in Pillar III was put on the standardisation, free access,
interoperability and exchange of data relevant for drug discovery and
development, including databases for drug/disease models and small molecules,
and on the establishment of a frame for access and exchange of
clinical/healthcare data.

The timeline
of the IMI's 2009 call for proposals is shown on Figure 14 below:

Figure 14. Timeline of the IMI JU 2009 call
for proposals

The call process, managed by the IMI
Executive Office, was conducted following the principles of excellence,
transparency, fairness and impartiality, confidentiality, efficiency, speed and
ethical considerations. It has been performed according to the IMI Rules for
submission, evaluation and selection of Expressions of Interests and Full
Project Proposals. The projects have been implemented under the IMI JU
model grant agreement.

The total indicative budget of the call
included a maximum EU financial contribution of € 76.8 million[19] and in-kind
contributions from the research-based companies members of the EFPIA
estimated at € 79.5 million.

3.3.2.     Analysis
of proposals submitted

The call was published on 27 November 2009
and the applicants were invited to submit their Expressions of Interest in two
months' time, by 8 February 2010. The EoIs had to be submitted by the applicant
consortia electronically via a web-based service specifically designed by the
IMI JU for that purpose.

In total, 124 Expressions of Interest
involving 1,188 applicants from 39 different countries were
received. Out of those 124 EoIs, 6 were ineligible due to
incomplete application forms or applications submitted under a wrong topic. 118
EoIs were eligible for evaluation.

Of the total 1,188 applicants, 77.2% came from academia,
17.9% were SMEs and 4.9% represented other type of
legal entities, such as patient organisations, agencies/regulatory
organisations, other industry associations or non-EFPIA companies larger than
SMEs. The participation of the different types of applicants in the submitted
EoIs is displayed in the table below:

|| Non-EFPIA ||

Academia || SMEs || Others

Participants || 917 || 213 || 58 || 1,188

Total || 1,188

% || 77.2% || 17.9% || 4.9% || 100%

Table 14. IMI
JU 2009 call for proposals – Stage 1. Typology of participants

Comparing to
the number and type of participants in the IMI's first call for proposals, the
picture for this call followed the same pattern. There was a slight increase of
0.9% in the number of participating SMEs against the other type of legal
entities. Although not significant, this increase was in line with one of the
main objectives of the IMI JU – to promote the involvement of SMEs in its
activities.

In this second
call, there were applicants from the following FP7 associated countries:
Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Israel, Norway, Serbia, Switzerland, Turkey,
and also applicants from FP7 third countries: Canada, People's Republic
of China, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Senegal, Ukraine and the USA.
The figure below provides information on the submitted EoIs in the first stage
of the call per country:

Figure 15. IMI JU 2009 call for proposals –
Stage 1. Participation in the submitted EoIs per country

About 77% of
all EoIs (90 in total) were submitted under Pillar II: Improving the
Predictivity of Efficacy Evaluation. The remaining about ¼ of the EoIs (28
in total) was submitted under Pillar III: Knowledge Management.

Figure 16. IMI JU 2009 call for proposals – Stage 1.
Submitted EoIs per pillar

Similarly to the first call for proposals
launched by IMI in 2008, the biggest number of EoIs was in Pillar II: Improving
the Predictivity of Efficacy Evaluation.

3.3.3.     Evaluation
procedure

Stage 1 – EoIs

The evaluation of the EoIs (also referred
to as "first peer review") took place between 11 and 26 February
2010. It was done in two consecutive steps – remotely and through consensus
panel meetings.

The EoIs were evaluated against the
following four criteria: 1) Scientific and/or technological
excellence, 2) Excellence of partnership, 3) Quality and soundness of the work
plan, including the budget, and 4) Potential ethical issues.

For each evaluation criterion, a score has
been given on a scale from 0 (EoI fails to address the criterion) to 5 (EoI
addresses all aspects of the criterion). Weighting and thresholds were set for
the first two criteria, while 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.

The table
below gives an overview on the evaluation criteria, scoring, weighting and
applicable thresholds in Stage 1 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 || --- || ---

Table 15. IMI JU 2009 call for proposals –
Stage 1. Scoring, weighting and thresholds

As a first step, the EoIs were reviewed remotely
by a total of 58 independent experts and representatives of the
topic-generating EFPIA consortia. The latter could consult the EFPIA
consortium on EoIs submitted in their own call topic. At this point, each
expert worked on the EoIs individually. In the end, scores and comments
on each evaluation criterion were included in individual evaluation reports
used later in the consensus panel meetings.

After the individual assessments were
completed, the first peer review moved to the next step – the consensus
panel evaluations. The independent experts, along with the representatives
of each topic-generating EFPIA consortium were brought together to finalise the
first stage of the evaluation process. A series of consensus panel meetings
were held from 23-26 February 2010 in the IMI premises in Brussels. The
conclusions of these meetings were included in consensus evaluation reports
based on which the IMI JU established a ranked list of the submitted
EoIs for each of the nine call topics. It should be noted that the EFPIA
representatives, while fully participating in the discussions, were not
involved in the ranking of the submitted EoIs.

To ensure transparency, the IMI Executive
Office invited three independent observers to the two stages of the
evaluation process. The role of the observers was to verify if the peer reviews
have been done according to the IMI Rules for submission, evaluation and
selection of EoIs and FPPs. Their conclusions were reflected in an independent
observers' report made publicly available on the IMI's website after the
evaluation stages.

In general, the observers found that the
first peer review was conducted in a professional and fair manner according to
the rules. They also gave some recommendations to IMI on how to improve the
Stage 1 submission and evaluation process in future calls.

The final ranking of the EoIs proposed by
the evaluators was approved by the IMI Governing Board on 16 March 2010. After
that, the applicant consortia of the top-ranked EoIs for each of the nine call
topics were invited to discuss with the corresponding EFPIA consortium the
feasibility of jointly developing Full Project Proposals for Stage 2 of the
call.

Details on the selected EoIs in the first
stage of the call can be found in Section 3.3.4.

Stage 2 – FPPs

The second stage of the call was launched
on 23 March 2010. At this stage, the applicant consortia with the top-ranked
EoIs submitted in each of the nine topics of the call were invited to join
together with the pre-established EFPIA consortia associated with the
respective topic and to submit Full Project Proposals. The deadline for FPPs
submission was 28 June 2010.

At this stage, the coordinators of the
applicant consortia and the EFPIA consortia held a number of meetings to foster
interaction between the partners, as well as to facilitate the establishment of
full project consortia and prepare their FPPs. The IMI Executive Office
participated in each of these meetings providing assistance and acting as a
facilitator on scientific, administrative, financial and legal issues.
Similarly to Stage 1, the FPPs had to be submitted through the IMI electronic
submission tool.

The evaluation of the FPPs (also referred
to as "second peer review") took place between 1 and 16 July 2010. As
in the first peer review, it has been done in two consecutive steps – remotely
and through consensus panel meetings.

The FPPs were evaluated against the
following four criteria: 1) Scientific and/or technological excellence,
including an appropriate response to any ethical issues, 2) Excellence of the
project implementation plan, 3) Consistency with the call topic and the project
objectives set in the EoI at Stage 1 of the call, and 4) Potential impact and
foreseen dissemination of the project results.

As in Stage 1 of the call, a score has been
given on a scale from 0 (FPP fails to address the criterion) to 5 (FPP
addresses all aspects of the criterion) for each evaluation criterion. In
contrast to the previous stage, however, the criteria were not weighted. A
threshold (3 points out of 5) has been set only for the criterion on scientific
and/or technological excellence of the proposal, including also a response to
any ethical issues the project might raise.

Table 16 gives
an overview on the evaluation criteria, scoring and thresholds in Stage 2 of
the call:

№ || Evaluation criterion || Score || Threshold

1. || Scientific and/or technological excellence || 0 to 5 || 3/5

2. || Excellence of the project implementation plan || 0 to 5 || ---

3. || Consistency with the call topic and the EoI || 0 to 5 || ---

4. || Potential impact of project results || 0 to 5 || ---

Table 16. IMI JU 2009 call for proposals –
Stage 2. Scoring and thresholds

In contrast to the first peer review, the
evaluation of the nine top-ranked FPPs was conducted by independent external
experts only, without participation of members of the EFPIA consortia. A total
of 58 experts participated in the second peer review of the call,
including 8 ethical experts. The evaluation of the FPPs was, where
feasible, performed by the same experts as the evaluation of the EoIs.

The proposals were assessed first remotely
(1-7 July) and then in consensus panel meetings held in the IMI
premises in Brussels (13-16 July). In addition, an ethical review was carried
out for each FPP.

The results of the second peer review for
each of the nine FPPs were included in two documents: valuation consensus
form and ethical review report. After Stage 2 of the call, these
documents have been communicated to the applicants.

The independent experts found out that the
FPPs constructively evolved from the EoIs submitted in Stage 1 of the call,
managed to address most of the questions raised during the first peer review
and met the objectives of the call topics. They agreed, however, that some
modifications may be required during the negotiation process.

As in the
first stage of the evaluation, the IMI Executive Office invited the three
independent observers to verify if the second peer reviews have been done
according to the set evaluation guidelines and rules. Their conclusions have
been reflected in a second independent observers' report. An Action
Plan based on the recommendations of the report was drafted by the IMI JU
with the objective to implement the prescribed actions in its 2010 call for
proposals.

3.3.4.     Evaluation
results

Stage 1 – EoIs

Out of the 118 eligible EoIs , 51
(43.2%) were favourably evaluated in the first peer review of the
call, i.e. above the defined thresholds. They were included in ranked lists
under each of the nine call topics. The remaining 67 EoIs (56.8%)
failed at least one threshold.

Table 17 shows
that 45.6% (or 41) of the eligible EoIs passed the thresholds in Pillar II:
Improving the Predictivity of Efficacy Evaluation, and 35.7% (or 10) – in Pillar
III: Knowledge Management:

Pillar || Topic number || Eligible EoIs || EoIs above threshold || Selected EoIs for Stage 2

Pillar II: Improving the Predictivity of Efficacy Evaluation || 1 || 26 || 7 || 26.9% || 1 || 14.3%

2 || 27 || 13 || 48.1% || 1 || 7.7%

3 || 10 || 3 || 30.0% || 1 || 33.3%

4 || 17 || 11 || 64.7% || 1 || 9.1%

5 || 7 || 6 || 85.7% || 1 || 16.7%

6 || 3 || 1 || 33.3% || 1 || 100.0%

Sub-total || 90 || 41 || 45.6% || 6 || 14.6%

Pillar III: Knowledge Management || 7 || 4 || 1 || 25.0% || 1 || 100.0%

8 || 6 || 3 || 50.0% || 1 || 33.3%

9 || 18 || 6 || 33.3% || 1 || 16.7%

Sub-total || 28 || 10 || 35.7% || 3 || 30.0%

TOTAL || 118 || 51 || 43.2% || 9 || 17.6%

Table 17. IMI JU 2009 call for proposals –
Stage 2. Scoring and success rate of the submitted EoIs

It can be observed that the overall success
rate of the EoIs in this call was 17.6%. It was higher than
in the previous IMI's call, when 13.4% of the eligible EoIs were selected to
continue in Stage 2.

With regard to
the call topics, the success rate under Pillar II was significantly
lower than in Pillar III – 14.6% against 30%. This is partly due to the
fact that the number of the submitted EoIs under the second pillar was much
higher, but at the same time its scope was more specific.

Stage 2 – FPPs

All 9 FPPs were eligible and passed
the threshold applicable to evaluation criterion 1 "Scientific and/or
technological excellence".

Following a recommendation of the
independent experts after the second peer review that the FPPs from Topic 5
"Understanding aberrant adaptive immunity mechanisms" and Topic
6 "Translational research in chronic immune-mediated disease: bridging
between animal models and humans" should be merged due to their
commonalities and complementarities, finally 8 FPPs were selected for
negotiation.

In total, 193
applicants participated in the full project consortia that submitted the
8 FPPs proposed for funding. Of them, 22 EFPIA member companies
representing one third of the total number of successful applicants accounted
for 65 participations. 128 were the non-EFPIA participants, of which 36.3%
came from academia, 11.9% were SMEs and 18.1% – other
types of legal entities, such as patient organisations, agencies/regulatory
organisations, other industry associations or non-EFPIA companies larger than
SMEs. This distribution is shown in the table below:

|| EFPIA || Non-EFPIA ||

Academia || SMEs || Others

Participants || 65 || 70 || 23 || 35 || 193

Total || 65 || 128

% || 33.7% || 36.3% || 11.9% || 18.1% || 100%

Table 18. IMI
JU 2009 call for proposals – Stage 2. Typology of participants

In comparison
to the final stage of the IMI first call for proposals launched
in 2008, there was a relative increase in the participation of SMEs against
academia and other type of legal entities (6.1% in 2008, while 11.9% in 2009).
However, the number of SME partners in the FPPs proposed for funding in this
call remained at the same level as before (24 in 2008, 23 in 2009).

The non-EFPIA
participants in the successful full project consortia originated from 20
countries – 17 EU Member States, Switzerland, Norway and Israel. The UK, as
in the previous call, had the highest participation rate – 31 participants,
followed by Germany and the Netherlands, respectively with 26 and 16
participants. Figure 17 illustrates in detail the participations per country in
the end of that stage of the call:

Figure 17. IMI
JU 2009 call for proposals – Stage 2.

Participation in the FPPs proposed for funding per
country

The total IMI JU financial contribution requested
by the non-EFPIA participants in the FPPs selected for funding amounted
to € 80,740,072. The funding requested by the SME partners was €
15,455,411, which represented 19.1% of the total IMI JU contribution in the
call.

3.3.5.     Grant
agreements signed

The grant agreements of the IMI JU 2009
call for proposals were negotiated from September until November 2010.
There were no changes in the approved list of the FPPs proposed for funding
compared to the grant agreements signed.

The eight grant agreements were signed in
2011. Their total budget was € 171,707,565, of which the EU
contribution formed the biggest part – € 80,740,072. The in-kind
contribution from the EFPIA members amounted to € 65,872,527, and €
25,094,966 were added from the participants' own funds.

The amount committed by the European
Commission for the second call for proposals in 2009 was € 78,643,200, of which
the EFTA contribution was € 1,843,200. In 2010, IMI committed
additionally € 2,096,872 for this call on the carried over amount from 2008 (€
16,039,097).

Table 19 below provides information on the
signed grant agreements in the IMI's 2009 call for proposals, detailing
the financial contribution in the awarded proposals.

№ || GA number || Project acronym || Project title || IMI JU contribution || In-kind contribution from EFPIA members || Additional own resources || Total contributions

1. || 115188 || PREDECT || New models for preclinical evaluation of drug efficacy in common solid tumours || 8,100,509 || 7,066,607 || 2,532,789 || 17,699,905

2. || 115234 || OncoTrack || Methods for systematic next generation oncology biomarker development || 16,050,282 || 9,726,557 || 4,915,508 || 30,692,347

3. || 115151 || QuIC-ConCePT || Quantitative imaging in cancer: connecting cellular processes with therapy || 7,000,000 || 8,053,206 || 2,062,174 || 17,115,380

4. || 115153 || RAPP-ID || Development of rapid point-of-care test platforms for infectious diseases || 6,828,438 || 5,848,470 || 1,771,853 || 14,448,761

5. || 115139 || BTCure || Be the cure || 16,137,872 || 14,172,302 || 7,807,923 || 38,118,097

6. || 115156 || DDMoRe || Drug disease model resources || 9,615,058 || 9,820,120 || 1,729,883 || 21,165,061

7. || 115191 || Open PHACTS || The open pharmacological concepts triple store || 9,988,867 || 4,142,649 || 2,265,938 || 16,397,454

8. || 115189 || EHR4CR || Electronic health record systems for clinical research || 7,019,046 || 7,042,616 || 2,008,898 || 16,070,560

TOTAL || € 80,740,072 || € 65,872,527 || € 25,094,966 || € 171,707,565

Table 19. Grant agreements signed in the IMI JU 2009
call for proposals

3.4.        Call
3 IMI\_Call\_2010\_3

3.4.1.     Summary
information

IMI launched its third call for
proposals on 22 October 2010. A two-stage submission and evaluation
process, as in the previous calls, has been followed. According to the
planning, the call process and the negotiations of the projects selected for
funding had to be finalised in 2011.

Any company, university, research
organisation, or other entity carrying out activities relevant to the
objectives of the IMI JU in the EU Member States or countries associated with
the FP7 could participate in the call by submitting an Expression of Interest.

Based on the scientific priorities outlined
in the IMI Annual Implementation Plan 2010, the third call included seven
topics. They were addressing the three following strategic pillars: Pillar
I Improving the Predictivity of Safety Evaluation, Pillar II:
Improving the Predictivity of Efficacy Evaluation and Pillar IV: Education
and Training. Each topic was formulated and associated with a
pre-established consortium of pharmaceutical companies – members of the EFPIA.

The topics in
the IMI 2010 call are listed in the table below:

№ || Topic

Pillar I: Improving the Predictivity of Safety Evaluation

1. || Improving the early prediction of drug induced liver injury in man

2. || Immunogenicity: assessing the clinical relevance and risk minimization of antibodies to biopharmaceuticals

3. || Immunosafety of vaccines – new biomarkers associated with adverse events (early inflammation, autoimmune diseases and allergy)

Pillar II: Improving the Predictivity of Efficacy Evaluation

4. || Improving the preclinical models and tools for tuberculosis medicines research

5. || Translational endpoints in autism

6. || Development of personalized medicine approaches in diabetes

Pillar IV: Education and Training

7. || Fostering patient awareness on pharmaceutical innovation

Table 20. Topics of the IMI JU 2010 call
for proposals

The timeline
of the IMI's 2010 call for proposals has been planned as follows:

Figure 18. Indicative timeline of the IMI
JU 2010 call for proposals

The total indicative budget of the call
included a maximum EU financial contribution of € 114 million,
matched with an in-kind contribution from the research-based companies, members
of the EFPIA.

The amount committed by the European
Commission for this call in 2010 was € 98,644,744, of which the EFTA
contribution was € 2,424,744. The foreseen amount after Stage 2 of this call is
€ 111,816,312, which was planned to be committed by IMI in 2011.

The deadline for submitting Expressions of
Interest was 18 January 2011. As before, EoIs had to be submitted online via
the electronic tool on the IMI's website. The evaluations followed and Stage 1
of the call was completed by the end of February. IMI launched Stage 2 of the
call in May as planned, followed by evaluation, selection and negotiation of
the successful projects. The grant agreements signature and the payment of
pre-financing were expected to be concluded by the first quarter of 2012.

Taking into consideration this timeline,
the Commission shall present the results of the IMI's 2010
call for proposals in its next year's report on the progress achieved by
the JTI JUs.

4.           Progress
achieved by the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen (FCH) JU

4.1.        About
the FCH JU

The Fuel Cells
and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking (hereinafter referred to as "FCH JU")
has been established by Council Regulation (EC) 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 energy
technologies in Europe. The FCH JU members are the New Energy World Industry
Grouping (NEW-IG)[20],
representing the fuel cell and hydrogen industries, the N.ERGHY Research
Grouping[21],
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[22], 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.

In order to achieve this aim, as well as manage and
implement its programme of RTD activities in an efficient manner, the FCH JU
has identified four main application areas (AA) outlined in the Multi-Annual
Implementation Plan 2008-2013:

(1)
Transport & Refuelling Infrastructure – dealing with next generation fuel cell hybrid vehicles, including
cars and buses;

(2)
Hydrogen Production and Storage – referring to sustainable hydrogen production, storage and
distribution processes, for example production of hydrogen from biomass or
solar energy;

(3)
Stationary Power Production & Combined
Heat and Power – aiming to meet the technical and
economic requirements needed to compete with the existing energy conversion
technologies;

(4)
Early Markets –
focused on the development of fuel cell-based products capable to enter the
market in the short term and to turn into commercial success stories.

Cross-cutting activities have been established as a fifth area to provide programme level
coordination. These 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.

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
Specific Programme "Cooperation" under the FP7. For operational
costs, the in-kind contributions from the members of the NEW Industry Grouping
at least match the EU contribution to all type of beneficiaries participating
in the FCH JU activities.

For
coordinating the inputs of all the members and managing its activities, the
Joint Undertaking's governance structure comprises 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 and the Stakeholders' General Assembly.

4.2.        Main
activities of the FCH JU in 2010

The main operational objectives of the FCH
JU in 2010 focused on the management of its first and second calls for
proposals. An overview of the 2009 call and details on the outcome of the
negotiation process are provided in Section 4.3. Section 4.4 gives information
on the 2010 call, providing analysis of the submitted proposals, describing the
evaluation procedure and the evaluation results.

As to the administrative activities of the
Joint Undertaking, the focus in 2010 was put on completing the legal and
financial framework for the autonomy of the JTI JU[23]. After meeting all
"autonomy criteria", on 15 November 2010, the Joint Undertaking has
been granted administrative and operational autonomy from the European
Commission.

Key milestones

·
Negotiation, signature of the grant agreements
with selected beneficiaries and kick-off of the projects from the 2009 call for
proposals;

·
Launch of the 2010 calls of proposals,
evaluation of the eligible proposals and establishment of a reserve list;

·
Adoption of management and internal control
systems;

·
Configuration of the IT-assisted accounting
system ABAC.

In terms of staffing, 12 new temporary
agent positions have been filled in by the end of 2010. Thereby, 14 temporary
agents had been recruited out of the 18 temporary agents authorised by the
Joint Undertaking's 2010 Staff Policy Plan. In addition,
following a public procurement procedure in 2010 jointly with the other JTI
JUs, FCH moved into its new premises in the White Atrium building in Brussels
in January 2011.

FCH experienced some IT problems during the
year, such as delays in the configuration of the project management tools and
increased response time of ABAC and the various FP7 applications used by FCH,
which were identified in the Annual Activity Report 2010 as a critical
risk for the operational performance of the Joint Undertaking. A number of
actions have been taken to mitigate the risk – a root-cause analysis of the
problems, a close follow-up of the concluded Service Level Agreements,
monitoring and timely reporting of the occurred IT issues.

In preparation of its autonomy, in 2010 the
FCH JU completed the establishment of its own internal control system. A set of
16 Internal Control Standards have been adopted and an action plan on
their progressive elaboration has been established.

It is also worth mentioning that the Joint
Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission continued to collaborate
together with the FCH JU under the Framework Agreement concluded in 2009.

Governance

The FCH
Governing Board held three meetings in 2010.

The 5th
Governing Board meeting was held on 29 January 2010, when the FCH
JU's budget for 2010 was adopted and the Terms and Conditions for internal
investigations in relation to the prevention of fraud, corruption and any
illegal activity detrimental to the EU's interests were approved.

At the 6th
Governing Board meeting on 15 June 2010 the then chair of the Joint
Undertaking was re-elected and a new deputy-chair was elected. The Board
nominated also Bert De Colvenaer as an Executive Director who officially took
up his duties on 1 September. During this meeting the Governing Board adopted a
number of important documents: the Annual Management Report 2009, the Annual
Implementation Plan (AIP) 2010 and the amendment of the model FCH JU grant
agreement. The FCH JU's Internal Control Standards were also formally approved.

The Board
formally requested the Commission to initiate a process of amendment of the
relevant articles in the Statutes of the FCH JU[24] in order to improve the
funding levels in the future calls for proposals. This has been done following
the results of the readiness assessment exercise performed in preparation of
the JU's autonomy. Among the identified critical risks was the impact that the
requirement for the industry to match the EU financial contribution to projects
had on the attractiveness of the FCH JU's programme[25]. To solve the problem, the
Board suggested keeping the 50/50 co-funding principle intact and recognising
the shareholder role of the research community.

In the
meantime, the ranked list of proposals selected for funding in the FCH JU's
2009 call was adopted in April 2010 and the negotiations have started. By
October-December 2010 the negotiations of all projects were completed and the
Board approved the lists of proposals for funding followed by signature of the
grant agreements.

The last for
the year 7th Governing Board meeting which took place
on 10 November 2010 was concluded with appointment of the Commission Internal
Audit Service (IAS) as the FCH JU's Internal Auditor.

The Scientific
Committee met once during the year and the States Representatives Group
held two meetings in 2010. In their advisory role, the members of the Scientific
Committee provided input on the scientific priorities for the future Annual
Implementation Plan and discussed the revision of the R&D agenda set
out in the Multi-Annual Implementation Plan. The States
Representatives Group was consulted on the topics for the 2010 and 2011
call for proposals, the possible amendments of the Council Regulation (EC)
521/2008 to improve the FCH JU funding limits and also discussed the revision
of the Multi-Annual Implementation Plan.

The Stakeholders'
General Assembly is an annual event aiming to inform the interested parties
about the activities of the FCH JU and to receive feedback for the future
planning of the programme. It provides a space for stakeholders across sectors
from around the world to get together and discuss the state of affairs of the
fuel cell and hydrogen industry, exchange ideas and make contacts. The 3rd
Stakeholders' General Assembly took place in Brussels on 9-10 November 2010
and has been attended by more than 350 participants.

Communication
activities

The main
objectives in 2010 concerning communication activities were to efficiently
disseminate the information on the opportunities offered by the calls for
proposals and to raise political awareness on the technologies' readiness and
commercialisation prospects.

Two Info Days
were organised to promote the FCH JU 2010 call for proposals to potential
participants and other stakeholders – on 17 May in Essen (Germany) and on 8
July 2010 in Brussels (Belgium). In addition, the FCH JU presented its
programme and activities during 27 external events and conferences in 7
different EU Member States and one associated country, as well as on events in
two non-European countries.

The
Stakeholders' General Assembly, as mentioned above, was organised in Brussels
on 9-10 November 2010 and represented a major communication event open to all
public and private stakeholders. It gathered more than 350 participants from
all over Europe, with some 70 speakers from Europe, Japan, Korea and the USA
representing industry, research organisations, governmental and other public
bodies, and NGOs.

Furthermore,
the FCH JU published three press releases and launched a competitive market
procedure for a new visual identity, the outcome of which was expected in 2011.
Regarding its internet presence, the Joint Undertaking developed a new website
(http://www.fch-ju.eu) aiming to inform the
interested parties about project funding and ongoing RTD projects, as well as
to provide general information to the public about the latest developments in
fuel cell and hydrogen technologies.

Calls for
proposals

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
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 used in the different calls are
announced in the call fiche. Collaborative projects are objective-driven
research projects aiming at developing new knowledge, technology or product.
Participants must form a consortium by at least three legal entities
established in different EU Member States or FP7 associated countries, of which
at least one should be a member of the Industry Grouping or the Research
Grouping. Collaborative projects typically last two to five years.

The funding scheme allows also for two
other types of actions to be financed: coordination (networking) actions
coordinating research activities and policies and support actions
contributing to the Annual Implementation Plan and the preparation of
future EU research and technological development policy. Coordination actions
are normally completed in two to four years, while support actions have a
shorter duration.

FCH JU's projects are selected through
calls for proposals following a single stage submission and
evaluation process. Applications must be submitted using a special
web-based service (since 2010, this is the FP7 tool EPSS – Electronic Proposal
Submission Service) before a strictly-enforced deadline. The notifications for
calls for proposals are published in the Official Journal of the European Union
and broadly announced through various communication channels, including on the
FCH JU website, indicating call topics, indicative budget, funding scheme,
deadlines for submission and links to the submission tool EPSS. The whole call
process is managed by the FCH 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.

As a next step, the FCH JU performs an eligibility
check to see whether the applicants meet the announced eligibility
criteria. Then FCH appoints independent experts to assist with the evaluation
of proposals and identify 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. 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 reviews. The outcome of those
reviews is the evaluation summary report including a list of
ranked proposals above thresholds, 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, the Joint Undertaking enters into a negotiation with the
coordinators of the proposals which have successfully passed the evaluation
stage and until there is a budget available. If negotiations are successfully
concluded, the project is selected and a grant agreement providing for a FCH JU
financial contribution is signed.

Figure 19. FCH JU calls for proposals.
Submission and evaluation process

The Commission Staff Working Document
accompanying the Annual Report on the progress achieved by the JTI JUs in
2009 provided detailed information on the FCH JU's first and second
calls for proposals launched in 2008 and 2009. However, since the
negotiations with the selected participants and the grant agreements in the
second call were signed in 2010, the results of this call will be briefly
presented in the present document.

The document will also describe the FCH JU third
call published in June 2010, presenting the call topics, timeline and
budget, analysing the proposals submitted in the call and the evaluation
results. Since the ranked list of proposals selected for funding had to be
approved by the Joint Undertaking's Governing Board in 2011, the definitive
list of successful proposals and information on the signed grant agreements
will be presented in the next year's Commission's report.

4.3.        Call
2 FCH-JU-2009-1

4.3.1.     Summary
information

The FCH JU second
call for proposals was published on 2 July 2009 with a deadline for
submission 15 October 2009.

The call was
open to legal entities established in the EU Member States or FP7 associated
countries, as well as for international organisations. Legal entities from
third countries could also participate, but they were only eligible for FCH JU
funding provided that the Governing Board considered their participation to be
of a particular benefit to the project. In general, the rules for participation
and the eligibility criteria were similar to those in FP7 with the main
difference that in the proposals funded through FCH calls at least one legal
entity should be a member of the FCH JU Industry Grouping or the Research
Grouping.

The 29
topics of the call covered all five FCH Application Areas, including
22 collaborative projects and 7 projects for coordination and support actions.
The total indicative contribution from the FCH JU was set to €
73 million (including the EFTA contribution of € 1.7 million),
which had to be at least matched by in-kind contributions from the industry
participants in the projects. The topics and their corresponding indicative
budget were exhaustively presented in the previous year's Commission's report.

The timeline of
the call is shown on Figure 20 below:

Figure 20. Timeline of the FCH JU 2009 call
for proposals

4.3.2.     Analysis
of proposals submitted

The submission
of proposals was done in a single stage. A total of 50 proposals were
submitted in this call, of which 49 were eligible. They accounted
for 400 participants from 25 countries, including 103 SMEs
(25.8%). Detailed statistics on the types of participants, number of
applicant SMEs and participation per country at this phase of the call can be
found in the Commission's report on the JTI JUs' activities in 2009.

4.3.3.     Evaluation
procedure

The evaluation of the submitted proposals
was carried out from 3 to 20 November 2009 by 31 independent experts in
line with the FCH JU Rules for submission of proposals, and the related
evaluation, selection and award procedures.

The evaluation criteria for collaborative
projects and support actions were similar to those in FP7: 1)
Scientific and/or technological excellence relevant to the topics addressed by
the call, 2) Quality and efficiency of the
implementation and the management, and 3) Potential impact through the
development, dissemination and use of project results.

Each criterion was scored out of 5
(0 if the proposal fails to address the criterion and 5
if it addresses all aspects of the criterion); no
weightings were applied. Individual and overall thresholds were applied
to the scores. The threshold for individual criteria was 3/5, while the overall
threshold, applying to the sum of the three individual scores, was 10/15.

In addition, a chairperson oversaw the
consensus phase and one independent observer was invited to monitor that the evaluation
procedure was carried out in a fair, impartial and confidential manner. The
individual remote evaluations took place from 3 to 13 November 2009, followed
by consensus meetings on 16-18 November and a final panel meeting on 19-20 November
2009.

4.3.4.     Evaluation
results

Out of the 49 eligible proposals, 31
were assessed above thresholds. They accounted for 395 participations,
of which 88 were the SMEs (22%). Regarding the typology of
participants, 112 (28.4%) were representatives of the research
community and 73 (18.5%) of the participants came from academia.

In the light of the available budget, on 16
April 2010 the Governing Board of the FCH JU approved a list of 26 proposals
for funding with additional 4 on the reserve list, ranked in
priority order according to the evaluation results. This underwent a slight
change and finally, it was decided that 28 proposals should be funded.

A total of 250
participants from were involved in the final 28 proposals to be funded. The
table below gives a comparative overview on the number of participants and
requested funding per AA of the eligible proposals and those proposed for
funding:

Application Area || Transport & Refuelling Infrastructure || Hydrogen Production and Storage || Stationary Power Production & Combined Heat and Power || Early Markets || Cross-cutting activities || TOTAL

Number of proposals || Eligible || 7 || 7 || 20 || 7 || 8 || 49

To be funded || 4 || 2 || 13 || 4 || 5 || 28

Success rate || 57.1% || 28.6% || 65% || 57.1% || 62.5% || 57.1%

Number of participants || Eligible || 83 || 53 || 146 || 66 || 47 || 395

To be funded || 59 || 23 || 92 || 46 || 30 || 250

Success rate || 71.1% || 43.4% || 63% || 69.7% || 63.8% || 63.3%

Total costs (M€) || Eligible || 96.2 || 20.9 || 78.4 || 38.3 || 5.2 || 239

To be funded || 81.4 || 7.4 || 54.1 || 25.6 || 2.5 || 170.9

FCH JU requested contribution (M€) || Eligible || 43.9 || 13.5 || 45.9 || 21.3 || 4.9 || 129.6

To be funded || 34.2 || 4.8 || 30.1 || 14.3 || 2.4 || 85.7

Table 21. FCH JU 2009 call for proposals. Number of participants
and requested funding per AA

The representatives of the research
community kept their participation rate in the proposals proposed for
funding of 28.4% (71 participations), while the number of higher or
secondary education establishments slightly decreased to 14% (35
participants) against the private companies and public bodies. The overall success
rate in the proposals for funding was 63%, of which 62% in
collaborative projects and 70% in coordination and support actions. The
requested EU contribution was € 85.74 million.

The participants in the successful projects
originated from 20 countries – 14 EU Member States, Switzerland, Norway,
Croatia, Turkey, the Russian Federation and Canada. Germany had the highest
participation rate – 49 participants, followed by Italy and France,
respectively with 39 and 32 participants. Figure 21 illustrates in detail the
participations per country in the end of that stage of the call:

Figure 21. FCH JU 2009 call for proposals.
Participations in the successful proposals per country

4.3.5.     Grant
agreements signed

The negotiation phase started on 19
April and was concluded by the end of 2010. The negotiation process took longer
than expected due primarily to the fact that the IT tools (mainly NEF[26]) were not adapted to the FCH
JU rules until end of September 2010. The first payments to beneficiaries were
made to all project consortia with the exception of one[27] before the year end.

Table 22 below
provides details on the projects for which grant agreements were signed with
information about the EU contribution and the in-kind contribution from
industry and research communities.

№ || Project acronym || Project title || FCH JU contribution || In-kind contribution from industry\* || In-kind contribution from research\* || Total contributions

1. || CHIC || Clean Hydrogen in European Cities || 25,878,334 || 55,633,502 || 412,455 || 81,924,291

2. || HyGuide || HyGuide || 366,318 || 123,932 || 25,848 || 516,098

3. || HyQ || Hydrogen fuel Quality requirements for transportation and other energy applications || 1,385,219 || 1,045,189 || 919,432 || 3,349,840

4. || PEMICAN || PEM with Innovative low cost Core for Automotive applicatioN || 1,861,352 || 866,404 || 1,207,463 || 3,935,219

5. || ADEL || Advanced Electrolyser for Hydrogen Production with Renewable Energy Sources || 2,043,518 || 761,254 || 1,164,328 || 3,969,100

5. || SSH2S || Fuel Cell Coupled Solid State Hydrogen Storage Tank || 1,613,878 || 211,886 || 1,615,225 || 3,440,989

7. || Premium Act || Predictive Modelling for Innovative Unit Management and Accelerated Testing Procedures of PEFC || 2,513,251 || 813,936 || 1,838,233 || 5,165,420

8. || Maestro || MembrAnEs for STationary application with RObust mechanical properties || 1,040,049 || 842,939 || 381,776 || 2,264,764

9. || HyComp || Enhanced Design Requirements and Testing Procedures for Composite Cylinders intended for the Safe Storage of Hydrogen || 1,380,728 || 1,291,900 || 878,676 || 3,551,304

10. || Ramses || Robust Advanced Materials for metal Supported SOFC || 2,140,334 || 972,726 || 1,583,284 || 4,696,344

11. || Hyprofessionals || Development of educational programmes and training initiatives related to hydrogen technologies and fuel cells in Europe. || 373,537 || 29,971 || 7,586 || 411,094

12. || STAYERS || STAYERS Stationary PEM fuel cells with lifetimes beyond five years || 1,938,497 || 1,778,502 || 464,463 || 4,181,462

13. || FC-EuroGrid || Evaluating the Performance of Fuel Cells in European Energy Supply Grids || 588,982 || 60,070 || 185,603 || 834,655

14. || Asterix3 || ASsessment of SOFC CHP Systems build on the TEchnology of htceRamIX 3 || 1,361,894 || 1,499,042 || 235,955 || 3,096,891

15. || D-CODE || DC/DC COnverter-based Diagnostics for PEM systems || 1,173,818 || 568,921 || 473,028 || 2,215,767

16. || SCOTAS-SOFC || Sulphur, Carbon, and re-Oxidation Tolerant Anodes and Anode Supports for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells || 1,701,770 || 772,555 || 1,894,254 || 4,368,579

17. || NH34PWR || Ammonia based, fuel cell power for off-grid cell phone towers || 3,054,515 || 4,954,568 || 195,245 || 8,204,328

18. || LOTUS || Low Temperature Solid Oxide Fuel Cells for micro-CHP applications || 1,632,601 || 985,634 || 206,451 || 2,824,686

19. || CATION || Cathode Subsystem Development and Optimisation || 2,625,833 || 4,021,607 || 547,240 || 7,194,680

20. || SOFC-Life || Solid Oxide Fuel Cells – Integrating Degradation Effects into Lifetime Prediction Models || 2,418,620 || 789,830 || 2,441,404 || 5,649,854

21. || DESIGN || DEGRADATION SIGNATURES IDENTIFICATION FOR STACK OPERATION DIAGNOSTICS || 1,745,752 || 325,632 || 1,194,794 || 3,266,178

22. || H2FC-LCA || Development of Guidance Manual for LCA application to Fuel cells and Hydrogen technologies || 311,957 || 0 || 74,905 || 386,862

23. || TrainHy-Prof || Building Training Programmes for Young Professionals in the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Field || 269,105 || 9,776 || 66,841 || 345,722

24. || FITUP || Fuel cell field test demonstration of economic and environmental viability for portable generators, backup and UPS power system applications || 2,475,978 || 1,761,001 || 766,478 || 5,003,457

25. || SHEL || Sustainable Hydrogen Evaluation in Logistics || 2,443,095 || 792,994 || 1,290,588 || 4,526,677

26. || HyLIFT-DEMO || European demonstration of hydrogen powered fuel cell forklifts || 2,881,245 || 3,416,038 || 464,815 || 6,762,098

27. || Moby Post || Mobility with Hydrogen for Postal Delivery || 4,262,057 || 2,640,159 || 884,405 || 7,786,621

28. || HyFacts || Identification, Preparation and Dissemination of Hydrogen Safety Facts to Regulators and Public Safety Officials || 1,044,406 || 272,463 || 83,759 || 1,400,628

TOTAL || € 72,526,643 || € 87,242,431 || € 21,504,534 || € 181,273,608

\* Indicative budget figures.

Table 22. Grant agreements signed in the
IMI JU 2009 call for proposals

4.4.        Call
3 FCH-JU-2010-1

4.4.1.     Summary
information

The FCH JU third
call for proposals was published on 18 June 2010 with a deadline for
submission 13 October 2010. The rules for participation and eligibility
criteria were similar to those of the call launched in 2009. See Section 4.3.1
above.

The call comprised of 25 topics
based on the FCH RTD priorities in 2010 and covering all five Application
Areas included in the FCH Annual Implementation Plan 2010. The estimated
FCH JU financial contribution to the call was € 91.4 million
(including the EFTA contribution of € 2.3 million), which had to
be at least matched by in-kind contributions from the industry participants in
the projects.

Table 23 provides
a list of all the topics open in this call, as well as the indicative FCH JU
funding per AA:

Application Area || Indicative FCH JU funding[28] (M€)

Area SP1-JTI-FCH.1 "Transportation & Refuelling Infrastructure" || 31.6

SP1-JTI-FCH.2010.1.1 Large-scale demonstration of road vehicles and refuelling infrastructure III ||

SP1-JTI-FCH.2010.1.2 Next generation European MEAs for transportation applications ||

SP1-JTI-FCH.2010.1.3 Investigation of degradation phenomena ||

SP1-JTI-FCH.2010.1.4 Bipolar Plates ||

SP1-JTI-FCH.2010.1.5 Auxiliary Power Units for Transportation Applications ||

Area SP1-JTI-FCH.2 "Hydrogen Production & Distribution" || 11.0

SP1-JTI-FCH.2010.2.1 Efficient alkaline electrolysers ||

SP1-JTI-FCH.2010.2.2 Development of fuel processing catalyst, modules and systems ||

SP1-JTI-FCH.2010.2.3 Development of gas purification technologies ||

SP1-JTI-FCH.2010.2.4 Low temperature H2 production processes ||

SP1-JTI-FCH.2010.2.5 Preparation of demonstration of efficient large-scale hydrogen liquefaction ||

SP1-JTI-FCH.2010.2.6 Feasibility of >400bar CGH2 distribution ||

Area SP1-JTI-FCH.3 "Stationary Power Generation & CHP" || 33.0

SP1-JTI-FCH.2010.3.1 Materials development for cells, stacks and balance of plant (BoP) ||

SP1-JTI-FCH.2010.3.2 Next generation cell and stack designs ||

SP1-JTI-FCH.2010.3.3 Component improvement for stationary power applications ||

SP1-JTI-FCH.2010.3.4 Proof-of-concept and validation of integrated fuel cell systems ||

SP1-JTI-FCH.2010.3.5 Field demonstration of stationary fuel cell systems ||

SP1-JTI-FCH.2010.3.6 Pre-normative research on power grid integration and management of fuel cells for residential CHP, commercial and industrial applications ||

Area SP1-JTI-FCH.4 "Early Markets" || 11.5

SP1-JTI-FCH.2010.4.1 Demonstration of fuel cell-powered materials handling vehicles including infrastructure II ||

SP1-JTI-FCH.2010.4.2 Demonstration of industrial application readiness of fuel cell generators for power supply to off-grid stations, including the hydrogen supply solution ||

SP1-JTI-FCH.2010.4.3 Fuel supply concepts for portable and micro fuel cells ||

SP1-JTI-FCH.2010.4.4 Components with advanced durability for Direct Methanol Fuel Cells ||

SP1-JTI-FCH.2010.4.5 Research and development on new portable and micro Fuel Cell solutions ||

SP1-JTI-FCH.2010.4.6 Pre-normative research on the indoor use of hydrogen and fuel cells ||

Area SP1-JTI-FCH.5 "Cross-cutting Issues" || 2.0

SP1-JTI-FCH.2010.5.1 Development of a Framework for Technology Monitoring and Assessments (TMA) ||

SP1-JTI-FCH.2010.5.2 Study of advanced hydrogen economy financing options ||

TOTAL (M€) || 89.1

Table 23. Topics of the FCH JU 2010 call
for proposals and indicative EU funding

The timeline
of the FCH JU's 2010 call for proposals is shown on Figure 22 below:

Figure 22. Timeline of the FCH JU 2010 call
for proposals

4.4.2.     Analysis
of proposals submitted

The submission
of proposals was done in a single stage. A total of 71 proposals were
submitted by the deadline, of which 69 were eligible. They
accounted for 559 participants from 32 countries, including 140
SMEs (25%). Regarding the typology of participants, 36% were
representatives of the research community and 8% of the
participants came from academia.

Figure 23.
FCH JU 2010 call for proposals. Typology of applicants in submitted proposals

In this third
call, Germany participated with the biggest number of partners – 88, followed
by Italy (70), UK (59) and France (57). There were applicants from the
following FP7 associated countries: Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Israel, Serbia, Switzerland, Turkey, and also applicants from FP7 third
countries: the Russian Federation, Japan, People's Republic of China and
the USA. The figure below gives an overview on the participations per country:

Figure 23.
FCH JU 2010 call for proposals. Participation in the submitted proposals per
country

The requested funding in all project proposals submitted by
the deadline before evaluations amounted to € 230.6 million, 24%
of which requested by SME partners. The requested funding per
participating country can be found in the table below:

Table 24. IMI JU 2010 call for proposals.
Requested funding per country

4.4.3.     Evaluation
procedure

As in the previous call, the submission of
proposals was done in a single stage. The evaluation was carried out by 32
independent experts and a chairperson who oversaw the whole consensus
phase. In addition, two independent observers monitored that the
evaluation procedure was carried out in a fair, impartial and confidential
manner. The individual remote evaluations took place from 1 to 13
November 2010 and the consensus meetings – from 16 to 18 November 2010.

4.4.4.     Evaluation
results

Out of the 69 eligible proposals, 43
were assessed above thresholds, requesting FCH JU contribution of
€ 147.76 million.

Table 25 below presents the overall picture
of the evaluation with a breakdown of the proposals submitted in each Application
Area, indicating the number of those which were above and below thresholds,
as well as the requested FCH JU contribution:

Table 25. FCH
JU 2010 call for proposals. Evaluation results by AA

4.4.5.     Grant
agreements signed

No agreements were signed in 2010. In light
of the available budget a list of 27 proposals (25 for collaborative
projects and 2 for coordination and support actions) with
additional 16 on the reserve list, ranked in priority order according to
the evaluation results, was established by the end of 2010. The lists had to be
submitted for approval of the FCH JU Governing Board at their first meeting in
2011. It was foreseen that the grant agreement negotiations for the
short-listed proposals remain open by February-March 2011.

The Commission
shall therefore present the definite list of grant agreements signed in the FCH
JU third call for proposals in its next year's report.

Data on the provisional ranked list is
provided in Table 26 below.

FCH JU rank || Final score || Coordinator || Proposal

Organisation || Nationality || Number || Funding scheme || Duration (months) || Acronym || Title

1 || 14 || DEUTSCHES ZENTRUM FUER LUFT – UND RAUMFAHRT EV || DE || 278138 || CP || 36 || NEMESIS2+ || New Method for Superior Integrated Hydrogen Generation System 2+

2 || 14 || SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V. || NL || 278177 || CP || 24 || IDEALHY || Integrated Design for Efficient Advanced Liquefaction of Hydrogen

3 || 14 || NEDSTACK FUEL CELL TECHNOLOGY BV || NL || 278548 || CP || 36 || DEMCOPEM || Demonstration of a combined heat and power PEM fuel cell unit integrated into a chlor-alkali plant

4 || 14 || DIVERSEENERGY Ltd || UK || 279190 || SA || 24 || TOWERPOWER || Demonstration of FC-Based integrated generator systems to power off-grid cell phone towers, using ammonia fuel

5 || 13.5 || AVL LIST GMBH || AT || 278899 || CP || 36 || DESTA || Demonstration of 1st European SOFC Truck APU

6 || 13.5 || Rolls-Royce Fuel Cell Systems Ltd || UK || 278195 || CP || 36 || C3SOFC || Cost Competitive Component integration for StatiOnary Fuel Cell power

7 || 13.5 || AFC Energy plc || UK || 278674 || CP || 36 || LASER-CELL || Innovative cell and stack design for stationary industrial applications using novel laser processing techniques

8 || 13.5 || FORSCHUNGSZENTRUM JUELICH GMBH || DE || 278525 || CP || 30 || MMLRC=SOFC || Working towards Mass Manufactured, Low Cost and Robust SOFC stacks

9 || 13 || VAN HOOL N.V. || BE || 278192 || CP || 36 || High V.LO-City || Cities speeding up the integration of hydrogen buses in public fleets

10 || 13 || FUNDACION PARA EL DESARROLLO DE LAS NUEVAS TECNOLOGIAS DEL HIDROGENO EN ARAGON || ES || 278824 || CP || 36 || ELYGRID || Improvements to Integrate High Pressure Alkaline Electrolysers for Electricity/H2 production from Renewable Energies to Balance the Grid.

11 || 13 || HyGear Fuel Cell Systems B.V. || NL || 278629 || CP || 36 || SUAV || Microtubular Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Power System developement and integration into a Mini-UAV

12 || 12.5 || VOLVO TECHNOLOGY AB || SE || 277844 || CP || 36 || FCGEN || Fuel Cell Based On-board Power Generation

13 || 12.5 || AGENZIA NAZIONALE PER LE NUOVE TECNOLOGIE,L'ENERGIA E LO SVILUPPO ECONOMICO SOSTENIBILE || IT || 279075 || CP || 36 || CoMETHy || Compact Multifuel-Energy To Hydrogen converter

14 || 12.5 || FUNDACION INASMET || ES || 277916 || CP || 36 || METPROCELL || Innovative fabrication routes and materials for METal and anode supported PROton conducting fuel CELLs

15 || 12.5 || E.ON New Build & Technology Limited || UK || 278804 || CP || 36 || SOFT-PACT || Solid Oxide Fuel Cell micro-CHP Field Trials

16 || 12.5 || ERICSSON TELECOMUNICAZIONI || IT || 278921 || CP || 36 || FCpoweredRBS || Demonstration Project for Power Supply to Telecom Stations through FC technology

17 || 12 || AIR PRODUCTS PLC || UK || 278727 || CP || 40 || HyTEC || Hydrogen Transport in European Cities

18 || 12 || FOUNDATION FOR RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY HELLAS || EL || 278538 || CP || 24 || Hy2Seps\_2 || Hybrid Membrane – Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA) Hydrogen Purification Systems

19 || 12 || DEUTSCHES ZENTRUM FUER LUFT - UND RAUMFAHRT EV || DE || 278732 || CP || 36 || RESelyser || Hydrogen from RES: pressurised alkaline electrolyser with high efficiency and wide operating range

20 || 12 || TOPSOE FUEL CELL A/S || DK || 278257 || CP || 36 || METSAPP || Metal supported SOFC technology for stationary and mobile applications

21 || 12 || FUNDACION INASMET || ES || 278997 || CP || 36 || ReforCELL || Advanced Multi-Fuel Reformer for Fuel Cell CHP Systems

22 || 12 || CONSIGLIO NAZIONALE DELLE RICERCHE || IT || 278054 || CP || 36 || DURAMET || Improved Durability and Cost-effective Components for New Generation Solid Polymer Electrolyte Direct Methanol Fuel Cells

23 || 12 || Claassen Industrie Management Trading GmbH || AT || 278862 || SA || 24 || Temonas || TEchnology MONitoring and ASsessment

24 || 11.5 || POLITECNICO DI TORINO || IT || 278798 || CP || 36 || SOFCOM || SOFC CCHP with poly-fuel: operation and maintenance

25 || 11.5 || L'AIR LIQUIDE S.A A DIRECTOIRE ET CONSEIL DE SURVEILLANCE || FR || 278534 || CP || 36 || HyIndoor || Pre-normative research on safe indoor use of fuel cells and hydrogen systems

26 || 11 || STICHTING DIENST LANDBOUWKUNDIG ONDERZOEK || NL || 278855 || CP || 36 || HyTime || Low temperature hydrogen production from second generation biomass

27 || 11 || L'AIR LIQUIDE S.A A DIRECTOIRE ET CONSEIL DE SURVEILLANCE || FR || 278382 || CP || 36 || FCLIFT || FCLIFT: demonstration of substitution of battery electric forklifts by hydrogen fuel cell forklifts in a logistics warehouse

Table 26. FCH JU 2010 call for proposals.
Ranked list of proposals selected for funding

5.           Progress
achieved by the ARTEMIS JU

5.1.        About
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 22
countries)[29],
and ARTEMIS-IA[30],
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.

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.

The ARTEMIS
Joint Undertaking is managed by an Executive Director. Its governance structure
comprises a Governing Board, a Public Authorities Board (PAB) and an Industry
and Research Committee (IRC).

5.2.        Main
activities of the ARTEMIS JU in 2010

After its establishment, ARTEMIS gradually
developed operational capacity, and on 26 October 2009 it has been granted
administrative and operational autonomy from the Commission. Thus, 2010 was the
first full year of independent functioning of the Joint Undertaking.

Key milestones

·
Launch of the ARTEMIS third call for proposals;

·
Grant agreements signature and kick-off of the
selected proposals in the 2009 call;

·
Monitoring and review of the ongoing 2008 calls
for proposals;

·
Adoption of an Internal Control Framework;

· Decision to delegate the Internal Audit function to the European
Commission.

In 2010, ARTEMIS JU staff increased
slightly – by two administrative assistants and the Undertaking ended up the
year with 11 employees. Together with the other JTI JUs, the JU moved
officially into its new premises in the White Atrium building in Brussels in
January 2011.

Governance

The running of the Governing Board and the
PAB run smoothly in 2010. The Governing Board held 3 meetings in 2010, while
the PAB met 5 times. The IRC organised one official meeting.

The main decisions taken by the Governing
Board during the year were related to the following topics:

·
Internal Audit Service Charter and Ex-post Audit Strategy;

·
Annual Implementation Plan and Budget Plan 2011;

·
Multi-Annual Strategic Plan and Research Agenda, 2011 edition;

·
Internal Control Framework and Internal Control Standards;

·
Annual Accounts
and Annual Activity Report for the year 2009;

·
Management probationary report of the Executive Director;

·
Multi-Annual Staff Policy Plan 2011-2013;

·
Amendment to the model ARTEMIS JU grant
agreement;

· Adoption of the JU's Annual Implementation Plan 2010 and
Annual Budget Plan 2010.

Communication activities

One of the significant communication
activities throughout the year was the participation of ARTEMIS at the ICT4EE
event on 23-24 February 2010 in Brussels. Energy Efficiency is one of the key
applications of embedded systems so ARTEMIS JU and ARTEMISIA organised a
presence at this important conference and exhibition. This second edition of
the high-level event on ICT for Energy Efficiency was organised by the
European Commission's DG INFSO, in cooperation with the Spanish Presidency. It
gathered policy makers and experts on the ICT for Energy Efficiency
field through conferences, a Projects' exhibition and the "Best ICT4EE
Project" Award Ceremony.

On 9-10 June 2010 ARTEMIS JU took part in
the ARTEMISIA Summer Camp – a high-level strategic meeting defining the R&D
agenda in embedded systems in Europe.

The peak of the events was the
ARTEMIS-ITEA2 Co-Summit in Gent on 26-27 October 2010. This was an annual event
during which ARTEMIS presented its role and objectives, and participated in an
exhibition space with all its 25 presently running projects. A "student
day" was also held, exposing the real world of embedded systems to
students to encourage their career choice in the field. In addition, a workshop
for the project coordinators was organised to discuss progress on the
industrial priorities of the ARTEMIS-SRA and to evaluate the non-R&D
activities, such as SME involvement, community building, etc. The Co-summit was
an all-time record event in size; more than 600 people from 22 countries
participated in the event and 90 stands at exhibition represented all running
projects of ITEA and ARTEMIS and partnering organisations.

During the year, ARTEMIS published also
several information brochures on the ongoing and the future calls for
proposals, and three numbers of the quarterly ARTEMIS Magazine. The Undertaking
improved it visual identity too, by re-designing its logo.

An overview of the ARTEMIS projects was
produced in the ARTEMIS Book of Projects, Volume 1. This publication of
almost 100 pages contains the 25 running ARTEMIS projects and articles that
were published in the ARTEMIS Magazine. The ARTEMIS book was designed as a
corporate identity gift of the ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking, as well as being a
brochure. It has been distributed to high-level authorities, ARTEMIS Governing
Board and PAB, member representatives of the ARTEMIS Industry Association,
Directors of the ETPs and newly established PPPs, ARTEMIS project leaders, etc.

Interaction with the press occurred mainly
via press releases and arranged interviews on different topics – briefings on
the Co-Summit and on the ARTEMIS Brokerage event, an informative release on the
submitted proposals in the 2010 call, etc.

Besides, the web site (http://www.artemis-ju.eu) has been an
important tool for the ARTEMIS JU for publishing its objectives and
announcements on the calls, but also for providing up-to-date information to
the stakeholders. In the first quarter of 2010, the site has been significantly
upgraded visually, much of the antiquated text replaced, information about the
ARTEMIS JU office and its staff was added, and the appearance tidied up.

Calls for proposals

The ARTEMIS JU supports R&D activities
through open and competitive calls for proposals published on a yearly
basis, to attract the best European research ideas and capacities in the field
of embedded computing systems. The ARTEMIS JU manages and coordinates research
activities through a 10-year, € 2.5 billion research programme on embedded
computing systems. The programme is open to organisations in the EU Member
States and Associated Countries. Selected projects are co-financed by the Joint
Undertaking and the Member States that have joined ARTEMIS. The ARTEMIS JU
implements significant parts of the ARTEMIS–ETP Strategic Research Agenda
co-funded by industry, research organisations, Member States and the
Commission's own ICT programme.

ARTEMIS applies a two-stage procedure:
proposers must first submit Project Outlines (POs), followed by the
submission of Full Project Proposals (FPPs). The submission of an
eligible PO is mandatory for the submission of a FPP. This is a detailed
version of the PO and takes into account the feedback from the experts.
Projects are selected for funding based on the quality of this document. The
evaluation criteria and sub-criteria, including weights and thresholds, and the
selection and award criteria are set out in the ARTEMIS Annual Work
Programme 2010.

Proposals submitted to ARTEMIS JU calls
undergo a technical evaluation and selections process carried out with the
assistance of independent experts. This process ensures that allocation of the
ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking's public funding follows the principles of equal
treatment, excellence and competition.

Funding for ARTEMIS projects follows a
unique tripartite model. Much of the funding is provided to the partners by
their own government or regional agency, with whom a grant agreement is set up.
The ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking also provides funding directly to the partners to
the amount of 16.7% of their eligible costs. This funding model has been
working well in the first years of the Joint Undertaking, but with certain
limitations – mainly due to the strongly reduced level of commitments from the
Member States in the context of the economic and financial crisis.

Concerning the first (2008) and second call
(2009), the Annual Report on the progress achieved by the JTI JUs in 2009
prepared by the Commission gives detailed information on these calls.

The ARTEMIS JU
has managed its third call for proposals in 2010 as planned. It was launched on
26 February 2010 and in the end of November 2010 the negotiations have started.
Since the outcome of the negotiations was planned for January 2011, the
Commission shall present the definitive list of the grant agreements signed
under this call in its next year's report on the progress achieved by the JTI
JUs.

5.3.        Call
3 ARTEMIS-2010-1

5.3.1.     Summary
information

ARTEMIS
published its third call for proposals on 26 February 2010.

The results arising from projects following
the 2010 call were expected to demonstrate their contribution to the ARTEMIS JU
high-level objectives set out below. ARTEMIS set an over-arching objective to
close the design productivity gap between potential and capability, as a
necessary pre-requisite to advancing Europe's competitive position on the world
market:

·
Reduce the cost of the system design from 2005
levels by 15% by 2013;

·
Achieve 15% reduction in development cycles,
especially in sectors requiring qualification or certification – by 2013;

·
Manage a complexity increase of 25% with 10%
effort reduction by 2013;

·
Reduce the effort and time required for
re-validation and recertification after change by 15% by 2013;

· Achieve cross-sectoral reusability of embedded systems devices
developed using the ARTEMIS JU results.

The 2010
ARTEMIS calls for proposals had to address the design, development and
deployment of ubiquitous, interoperable and cost-effective, powerful, safe and
secure electronics and software systems. It should deliver on three industrial
priorities: 1) Reference designs and architectures, 2) Seamless
connectivity and middleware, and 3) Design methods and tools.

In addition to
the industrial priorities, ARTEMIS JU proposals had to fit into one of the 8
specific ARTEMIS Sub-Programme (ASP) priorities for 2010, which
were determined in the ARTEMIS Annual Work Programme for 2010 as
follows:

·
ASP1. Methods and processes for safety-relevant
embedded systems;

·
ASP2. Person-centric health management;

·
ASP3. Smart environments and scalable digital
services;

·
ASP4. Efficient manufacturing and logistics;

·
ASP5. Computing environments for embedded
systems;

·
ASP6. Security, privacy and dependability in
Embedded Systems for applications, networks and services;

·
ASP7. Embedded technology for sustainable urban
life;

· ASP8. Human-centric design of embedded systems.

The timeline
of the call is shown on Figure 24 below:

Figure 24. Timeline of the ARTEMIS JU 2010
call for proposals

The total
budget for the call included an indicative ARTEMIS JU contribution of €
33.1 million and contributions from the Member States estimated at €
60.2 million. The exact commitment by Member State is shown in the table
below:

ARTEMIS JU Member States (M€)

Austria || 5 || Hungary || 0.6

Belgium || 2 || Ireland || 1

Cyprus || 0 || Italy || 8

Czech Republic || 0.8 || Latvia || 0.22

Germany || 8 || Netherlands || 6

Denmark || 2 || Norway || 1.5

Estonia || 0.3 || Portugal || 0.8

Spain || 4 || Romania || 0

Finland || 6 || Sweden || 3

France || 4 || Slovenia || 1

Greece || 2 || United Kingdom || 4

Table 27. ARTEMIS JU 2010 call for
proposals. Funding by Member States

5.3.2.     Analysis
of proposals submitted

The 2010 call was published on 26 February
2010 with a two-step procedure: deadline for submission of Project
Outlines (POs) on 26 March 2010 and of Full Project Proposals (FPPs) on 1
September 2010. Submission of a PO was mandatory, although not gating. In both
phases, the proposals had to be submitted electronically to the ARTEMIS
JU via the FP7 Electronic Proposal Submission System (EPSS).

The 2010 call for proposals was the second
ARTEMIS call to operate in a two-phase process call after the one launched in
2009. The call published in 2008 was one-stage.

The PO phase yielded 73 proposals, 1
of which was ineligible. The remaining 72 eligible proposals were
reviewed and feedback was given to the applicants. For the FPP phase, 47
proposals were received by 1 September 2010 and the evaluations were completed
in October 2010.

Stage 1 – Project Outlines (POs)

In total, 72 eligible POs have been
submitted for evaluation involving 1,028 participants from 29
countries. Regarding the topic distribution, as seen from the graph below,
the most attractive was ASP3 "Smart environments and scalable digital
services", which gathered 18% of the submitted proposals at that stage.

Figure 25.
ARTEMIS JU 2010 call for proposals – Stage 1. ASP distribution as submitted

The total individual
participations (each partner participating in multiple proposals was
only counted once) were 745, of which 278 declared as SMEs
(38%). 30% of the participants belonged to public and research
organisations. The data for the proposals eligible for evaluation of the PO
phase are detailed in the following chart:

Figure 26.
ARTEMIS JU 2010 call for proposals – Stage 1. Typology of applicants in POs

With regard to geographical distribution of
the POs, a total of 29 countries took part at the first stage of the
call. Spain accounted the biggest number of participants, followed by Germany,
Italy and Finland.

Figure 27. ARTEMIS JU 2010 call for
proposals – Stage 1. Applicants by country

They requested a total funding of
€ 704 million. The total requested funding was split as follows: The total
requested national funding was € 259 million and the total
requested ARTEMIS JU funding was € 377 million, of which € 118
million EU funding. This is graphically presented by country on Figure 28
below. The total requested funding by SME partners was € 90
million (24%).

Figure 28. ARTEMIS JU 2010 call for
proposals – Stage 1. Requested national funding by POs

As a tool to
aid the participating ARTEMIS Member States in preparing their budget
allocations, and also to provide valuable feedback for monitoring the
programme, the Executive Director asked the assessors to judge the relative
maturity of each project outline, classifying them on a scale of 1 ("very
mature") to 4 ("below average"): MI=3 is regarded as
"average" while MI=2 is "mature"). This Maturity Index
information was given only to the PAB members, and not distributed to the
proposers or otherwise outside the JU.

|| ASP1 || ASP2 || ASP3 || ASP4 || ASP5 || ASP6 || ASP7 || ASP8 || Total

MI=1 || 2 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 4

MI=2 || 4 || 1 || 3 || 1 || 2 || 2 || 4 || 3 || 20

MI=3 || 9 || 1 || 6 || 3 || 2 || 3 || 1 || 5 || 30

MI=4 || 1 || 5 || 5 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 2 || 1 || 17

Total || 16 || 8 || 14 || 5 || 6 || 6 || 7 || 9 || 71\*

\* For one proposal, the experts didn't find any
relation with any of the 8 ASPs.

Table 28. ARTEMIS JU 2010 call for
proposals – Stage 1. Maturity indexes by ASP

Over all proposals, the peak of 42% is in
MI=3 (average), which had to be expected. The value in MI=2 is also relatively
high, while the number in category MI=1 is quite small (6%). This may indicate
a more severe rating by the experts for the highest maturity category, but the
distribution is otherwise reasonable. The 24% of proposals in MI=4 represent
some proposals that are often very incomplete. In future calls, this
"number reservation strategy" will be discouraged and accurate instructions
will allow all PO's not matching minimum requirements to be declared
"ineligible".

Stage 2 – Full Project Proposals (FPPs)

Out of the 72 POs, 47 FPPs were
successfully submitted by the deadline of 1 September 2010. As anticipated, all
four of the most mature outline proposals were finalised and submitted as full
project proposals. A small number of MI=2 proposals were not re-submitted, and
about half of the coordinators of the least mature proposals decided not to
re-submit. A little more than half of the MI=3 proposals were not re-submitted.

The total number of participations was 840,
with 633 individual participants of which 34% – SMEs.
Regarding the topic distribution, as seen from the graph below, the most
attractive this time was ASP1 "Methods and processes for safety-relevant
embedded systems", which gathered 25% of the submitted proposals at that
stage.

Figure 29.
ARTEMIS JU 2010 call for proposals – Stage 2. ASP distribution as submitted

The initial
analysis, based on the declarations of partners, showed that total individual
participations (each partner participating in multiple proposals was
only counted once) were 663, of which 226 declared as SMEs
(34%). 25% of the participants belonged to public and research
organisations. The data for proposals eligible for evaluation of the FPP phase
of the call are detailed in the following chart:

Figure 30.
ARTEMIS JU 2010 call for proposals – Stage 2. Typology of applicants in FPPs

The average
partners per project at the FPP stage equalled to 17.87. The proposals in the
2010 call showed a substantial number of large pan-European initiatives being
undertaken by the constituency. There was also the requisite number of more
targeted proposals.

With regard to geographical distribution of
the FPP, 28 countries continued at the second stage of the call. The
average number of participating countries in a proposal was 6.74 – the largest
number being 13 and the smallest being 4 (one more than the strict minimum for
eligibility).

Figure 31 shows a strong Spanish
participation in the programme, particularly through the large number of SMEs,
which have actively subscribed since the outset. Italy was also strongly
represented at this stage of the call, followed by Germany, Finland and the
Netherlands.

Figure 31. ARTEMIS JU 2010 call for
proposals – Stage 2. Applicants by country

The total requested funding by the
47 FPPs was € 589 million. The total requested national funding reached
€ 215 million and the total requested ARTEMIS JU funding amounted
to € 313 million, of which € 98 million EU funding. This is
graphically presented by country on Figure 32 below.

In terms of EFTA contribution, it
represented € 1,356,163 for the operational credits allocated to the
call 2010[31].

The total requested funding by SME partners
was € 156 million (27%).

Figure 32. ARTEMIS JU 2010 call for proposals – Stage
2. Requested national funding by FPPs

5.3.3.     Evaluation
procedure

Stage 1 – POs

73 POs for
research projects were submitted in response to first phase of this call, of
which 72 satisfied the eligibility criteria.

The RiVET software[32] was used to support and to
track both off-site reading by experts and the progress of the panel
meeting. The latter was held in Brussels on 2-6 May 2010. Each PO was
assessed by two independent experts selected from the lists provided by
the PAB and by ARTEMIS-IA. The individual assessment reports were
summarised by a third expert, acting as rapporteur.

For the first
time, a tool facilitating further analysis was used at the first phase of the
call to judge the subjective quality of the POs and to observe the level of
maturity of the response of the ARTEMIS community to the work programme. To
that end, POs were classified into 4 Maturity Index levels – from
"Below average" to "Very mature proposal". This information was not communicated externally, but did provide
the ARTEMIS JU with an insight on the activities of the R&D community. The
obtained results were also used by the PAB members in refining their budget
allocations, where possible.

The evaluation results of this first phase
were communicated to participants on 18 May 2010. They were notified on the
level of satisfying the assessment criteria specified in the call, but were
also informed by the national authorities on the fulfilment of the eligibility
criteria for national funding. The submission of an eligible PO was mandatory
for submission of the subsequent full project proposal.

Stage 2 –
FPPs

47 FPPs were submitted in this phase, all eligibility criteria. The
evaluation was conducted according to the rules described in the ARTEMIS
Joint Undertaking selection and evaluation procedures related to calls for
proposals.

Each proposal
was initially evaluated remotely by four individual experts. This
was followed by a panel meeting of external experts under the
chairmanship of the ARTEMIS JU Executive Director. The panel produced the final
evaluation result for each proposal after an in-depth discussion on the basis
of the four individual reports from the experts.

The 5 evaluation criteria were:

·
Relevance and contributions to the objectives of
the call;

·
R&D innovation and technical excellence;

·
S&T approach and work plan;

·
Market innovation and market impact;

·
Quality of consortium and management.

Remote evaluation
was done by in total 67 experts. Synthesis was done by one
rapporteur per project. Consolidation and calibration of evaluation scores were
performed by 15 experts, meeting in Brussels from 4 to 8 October
2010. Consolidation of the evaluation summary reports was achieved
through three sub-panels, chaired by one EC person plus one JU person.
Calibration of final scores in the evaluation summary reports was done
in the final panel discussion chaired by the Executive Director.

5.3.4.     Evaluation
results

The applicants
were informed of the evaluation results on 25 October 2010. At this stage, 28
proposals (60% of the total FPPs) were evaluated above threshold (40
points minimum on a maximum of 60) and 19 were evaluated below this selection
threshold. Out of the 28, 11 projects were retained for negotiation,
6 were placed in a reserve list, and 11 projects were
deemed not feasible financially though above the minimum score
threshold. 19 projects (40% of the FPPs) were rejected as they were below
the selection threshold.

A total of 10 projects successfully
completed the negotiation phase. One project negotiation was
cancelled by the Executive Director due to the changing market situation for
the operating system Symbian.

The 10 selected
proposals covered the priority objectives of the call (safety-relevant embedded
systems for transportation and automation, smart environments and digital
services and embedded computing platforms) in a satisfactory manner. About 33%
of investment concerned projects related to safety critical systems (typically
for transport applications), 4% – to smart environments and digital services,
and 14% were earmarked for computing architectures projects. Additional 18%
were spent energy reduction in urban areas, and another 12% – on human-centric
design. One project in topic "Health", with 8% of the funding, was
retained. 12% of the total contribution was spent on secure digital services.
Unfortunately, no project addressing industrial efficiency (manufacturing and
logistics) was retained.

In terms of
the number of participants, the projects selected for funding comprise a total
of 227 participations, of which 103 were large enterprises, 66 – SMEs
(29%), and 58 represented public research organisations, such as
universities and institutes. The following graph shows their relative
distribution:

Figure 33.
ARTEMIS JU 2010 call for proposals. Typology of applicants in the proposals for
funding

With regard to geographical distribution of
the proposals selected for funding, a total of 21 countries have been
presented. Spain gave way to Italy (42), reaching the same number of applicants
as Germany (27). The following chart shows a breakdown of participant type per
country, taken into account all participations:

Figure 34. ARTEMIS JU 2010 call for proposals. Participant type per
country

in the proposals selected for funding

In terms of the number of countries
involved in each project, they varied from 10 to 4. No project has the strict
minimum of 3 participating countries, and the average of 6.4 countries per
project is significantly higher than has been historically the case. This is
evidence that the ARTEMIS programme started attracting not only larger
initiatives, but also various international partners in its projects, calling
on expertise from a broader base of participants.

Overall, the Public Authorities Board
allocated € 82.9 million of public funds from the ARTEMIS Member
States and the European Union to those 10 projects amounting to a total funding
of € 167.5 million. The € 28 million EU funding resulted in a
leverage effect of 6 to 1. National budgets published in the call, subsequently
increased by some countries to permit strategically important projects to be
funded, were allocated at the rate of 91.2% and the EU budget – at the rate of
84.5%.

The projects ranged in size from € 45 million to € 3.3 million, with
3 projects of over € 15 million, representing 58% of the total funding. This
was in line with the ARTEMIS "Think Big" approach, where larger
projects are supported by smaller, more targeted initiatives in addressing the
goals of the Annual Work Programme.

|| Industry || Public & Research Organisations || SMEs || TOTAL (€)

Total Eligible Costs || 106,114,720.60 || 31,068,725.22 || 30,280,204.89 || 167,463,650.71

National Funding Requested || 27,682,748.66 || 16,903,600.96 || 10,313,050.43 || 54,899,400.04

EU Funding || 17,721,158.34 || 5,188,477.11 || 5,056,794.22 || 27,966,429.67

Total Eligible Costs || 63% || 19% || 18% || ---

National Funding Requested || 50% || 31% || 19% || ---

National Funding Rate || 26% || 54% || 34% || 33%

Total Funding Rate || 43% || 71% || 51% || 49%

\* The ARTEMIS JU contribution was fixed at 16.7% of
the total eligible costs

Table 29. ARTEMIS JU 2010 call for
proposals. Funding breakdown per partner type

5.3.5.     Grant
agreements signed

On 20 October 2010, the ARTEMIS JU
Executive Director received a mandate to enter into negotiations with 8
of the 11 highest ranked projects and to investigate possible
reconfiguration of the remaining three. This mandate was extended in November
to embrace the negotiation of the 3 FPPs, with the mandate ending in mid-April
2011.

During this period it became clear that the
negotiations of one of the original 8 proposals would be irrevocably
unsuccessful due to changes in the corporate strategy of the coordinator. In
order to allow the national funding that became available due to the closure of
this project to be re-allocated, the process of signing of the Joint
Undertaking grant agreements was temporarily put on hold until a decision was
taken on the re-allocation. The grant agreement preparation work was
subsequently re-started, though by June 2011 no contract had yet been signed.
The expected signature dates indicated in the table below are dependent on the
ARTEMIS JU receiving signed NGA (National Grant Agreement) declarations from
the coordinators' Member States: to date only two such certificates have been
received.

The signature of the JU grant agreements in
itself is not critical for allowing the projects to start, and two projects
planned to kick off in March, three in April, two in May, two in June and one
in July 2011. For two projects, however, a combination of internal delays and
delay in securing a NGA led to a request to move their official starting date
to the October- November 2011 timeframe.

№ || Project number || Project acronym || Project title || Total national funding || ARTEMIS JU contribution || Additional own resources || Total costs || Signature date (expected)

1. || 269334 || ASTUTE || Pro-active decision support for data-intensive environments || 5,362,482.07 || 2,301,932.48 || 6,119,612.30 || 13,784,026.85 || Q4 2011

2. || 269336 || D3CoS || Designing Dynamic Distributed Cooperative Human-Machine Systems || 5,193,398.75 || 2,429,633.51 || 6,925,671.39 || 14,548,703.65 || Q3 2011

3. || 269354 || ENCOURAGE || Embedded Intelligent Controls for Buildings with Renewable Generation and Storage || 1,756,412.94 || 1,063,579.18 || 3,548,745.48 || 6,368,737.60 || Q4 2011

4. || 269356 || HIGH PROFILE || High-throughput Production of FunctIonal 3D images of the brain || 5,017,647.04 || 2,825,739.87 || 9,077,211.09 || 16,920,598.00 || Q4 2011

5. || 269374 || IoE || Internet of Energy for Electric Mobility || 14,370,762.28 || 7,587,182.26 || 23,474,284.57 || 45,432,229.11 || Q4 2011

6. || 269335 || MBAT || Combined Model-based Analysis and Testing of Embedded Systems || 11,398,412.00 || 5,761,237.31 || 17,338,777.69 || 34,498,427.00 || Q3 2011

7. || 269317 || nSHIELD || New embedded Systems arcHItecturE for multi-Layer Dependable solutions || 5,091,894.30 || 2,249,372.43 || 6,128,029.77 || 13,469,296.50 || Q4 2011

8. || 269362 || PRESTO || ImProvements of industrial Real Time Embedded SysTems devel0pment process || 2,540,068.00 || 1,446,709.98 || 4,676,156.02 || 8,662,934.00 || Q4 2011

9. || 269265 || pSAFECER || Safety Certification of Software-intensive Systems with Reusable Components || 2,599,302.68 || 1,739,991.20 || 6,079,815.12 || 10,419,109.00 || Q4 2011

10. || 269389 || WSN DPCM || WSN Development, Planning and Commissioning & Maintenance ToolSet || 1,607,670.00 || 559,063.40 || 1,180,951.60 || 3,347,685.00 || Q4 2011

TOTAL || € 54,938,050 || € 27,964,442 || € 84,549,255 || € 167,451,747 || ---

Table 30. ARTEMIS JU 2010 call for
proposals. List of proposals selected for funding

6.           Progress
achieved by the ENIAC JU

6.1.        About
the ENIAC JU

Growing out of the ENIAC European
Technology Platform (ETP), the ENIAC Joint Undertaking (hereinafter referred to
as "ENIAC JU") was established by Council Regulation (EC) 72/2008 of
20 December 2007as a public-private partnership between the European
Commission, the participating Member and Associated States (by now 21
countries)[33]
and AENEAS[34],
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 nanoelectronic technologies and smart components and their
integration in smart systems faced by the industrial sector. The goal is to
define and implement a Research Agenda for Nanoelectronics-Based Systems.
ENIAC JU aims to help European industry consolidate and reinforce its world
leadership in nanoelectronics technologies and systems.

The maximum EU contribution to the ENIAC
Joint Undertaking 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 (€ 810 million) and through in-kind contributions by research and
development organisations participating in projects, which at least match the
contribution of the public authorities.

Similarly to ARTEMIS, the ENIAC Joint
Undertaking is managed by an Executive Director. Its governance structure
comprises a Governing Board, a Public Authorities Board (PAB) and an Industry
and Research Committee (IRC).

6.2.        Main
activities of the ENIAC JU in 2010

After its establishment, ENIAC gradually
developed operational capacity, and on 3 May 2010 it has been granted
administrative and operational autonomy from the Commission.

Key milestones

·
Launch of the third call for proposals;

·
Preparation of the fourth call for proposals;

·
Updating the ENIAC Research Agenda in
cooperation with CATRENE (Cluster for Application and Technology Research in
Europe on Nanoelectronics)[35];

·
Implemented the Internal Control Framework;

·
New staff recruited and prepared the move to the
new premises.

Governance

The running of the Governing Board and the
PAB run smoothly in 2010. The Governing Board held 2 meetings in 2010, while
the PAB met 5 times. The IRC organised one official meeting.

The main decisions taken by the Governing
Board during the year were related to the following:

·
Implementing rules of the Staff Regulations for
the appraisal of the Executive Director;

·
Annual Implementation Plan and Annual Budget Plan 2011;

·
Revision of the ENIAC JU grant agreement to take
into account the changes introduced by the Lisbon Treaty;

·
Multi-annual Strategic Plan and Research Agenda 2011;

·
Internal Control Framework and Internal
Control Standards;

·
Ex-post audit strategy and Internal Audit
Plans;

· Nomination of the reporting officers in charge of the appraisal of
the Executive Director.

Communication activities

The ENIAC JU intensified
its communications and dissemination activities in 2010 (brochure, project
profiles, flyers, etc.), updated its web site, co-organised the European
Nanoelectronics Forum, and actively participated in dedicated events and
international conferences.

The ENIAC JU
concluded in 2010 a Service Level Agreement with its member AENEAS to
provide communication and public relations support. The ENIAC JU defined and
executed in 2010 a Communication Plan. It established communication
goals for its 5 constituencies:

(1)
Internal to Executive Director /
Secretariat

(2)
ENIAC JU Bodies (Governing Board, PAB,
Executive Director and IRC)

·
Contributed to the Annual Activity Report
2009;

·
Issued Quarterly reports to the Governing
Board showing progress versus plan: achievements, issues, actions planned, in
form of an Executive Summary and a Narrative;

·
Organised a National Funding Authorities day;

·
Had face-to-face meetings with public
authorities (Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Romania, Spain);

(3)
European Union Bodies (European
Commission, Council and Parliament / Budget Authority, European Court of
Auditors)

·
Presented to the Commissioners for Research and
for Digital Agenda, presented the real estate procedure to the Budgetary
Committee of the Parliament and of the Council;

·
Contributed to the Interim Evaluation of
the JTIs;

(4)
R&D Actors

·
Published an updated version of the call for
proposal including the Guide for Participants;

·
Executed a communication day for the Project
Coordinators;

(5)
Public at large

·
Issued 2 press releases;

·
Printed and distributed the ENIAC JU brochure
and Project Profiles for calls 1 and 2;

·
Renewed the web site (http://www.eniac.eu);

·
Co-organised the European Nanoelectronic
Forum in Madrid (Spain);

·
Organized a session and "Building
Bridges" event at the conference ICT2010 in Brussels (Belgium);

·
Participated in several events in Germany,
Austria, Italy, Romania, sponsored events in Belgium, France and Germany;

·
Presented an invited paper at the Sematech Litho
Workshop and presented the "LENS" project at the Litho Symposium
enhancing the international visibility.

Although progress
has been made, the presence of the ENIAC JU in the media and in the public
space is still to be improved, inter alia by making all public documents
and project information readily available on the ENIAC JU web site.

Calls for proposals

The ENIAC JU supports R&D activities
through open and competitive calls for proposals published on a yearly
basis, to attract the best European research ideas and capacities in the field
of nanoelectronics. The ENIAC JU manages and coordinates research activities
through a 10-year, € 3 billion research programme on nanoelectronics. The
programme is open to organisations in the EU Member States and Associated
Countries. Selected projects are co-financed by the Joint Undertaking and the
Member States that have joined ENIAC. The ENIAC JU implements significant parts
of the ENIAC–ETP 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 planned research activities and give information on
the applicants and the costs. The ENIAC JU evaluates all eligible proposals
using independent experts in order to rank the proposals on the basis of the
evaluation criteria.

Following the evaluation, the Public
Authorities Board of the ENIAC JU 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 potential recommendations for changes.

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 as they normally also receive a national financial contribution.

Concerning the first (2008) and second call
(2009), the Annual Report on the progress achieved by the JTI JUs in 2009
prepared by the Commission gives detailed information on these calls.

The ENIAC JU
has launched its third call for proposals in 2010 as scheduled. It was
published at the same date as the ARTEMIS JU' call – on 26 February 2010. In
the end of November 2010 the negotiations have already started. Since the
outcome of the negotiations was planned for January 2011, the Commission shall
present the grant agreements signed under this call in its next year's report
on the progress achieved by the JTI JUs.

6.3.        Call
3 ENIAC-2010-1

6.3.1.     Summary
information

ENIAC published
its third call for proposals on 26 February 2010.

The results
arising from projects following the 2010 call were expected to demonstrate
their contribution to the ENIAC-JU high-level objectives described in the Multi-Annual
Strategic Plan and in the Annual Work Programme 2010. The selected
topics covered the priorities of the stakeholders, including those of the
Member States.

The topics and
proposals are grouped in four major areas:

(1)
Advances in electric mobility;

(2)
Applications driving advances in n and n+1
Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor (CMOS) technology nodes and their
derivatives, related packaging and design technologies;

(3)
Energy efficient, ecologically benign future
manufacturing technologies;

(4)
Alternative energies value chain and efficient
power grid.

The timeline
of the call is shown on Figure 35 below:

Figure 35. Timeline of the ENIAC JU 2010 call for
proposals

The total
budget for the call included an indicative ENIAC JU contribution of €
30.1 million and contributions from the Member States estimated at €
54.8 million. The exact commitment by Member State is shown in the table
below:

ENIAC JU Member States (M€)

Austria || 3.0 || Italy || 10

Belgium || 2.0 || Netherlands || 8.0

Czech Republic || 0.4 || Norway || 1.5

Estonia || 0.0 || Poland || 0.8

Finland || 1.5 || Portugal || 0.5

France || 7.0 || Romania || 0.5

Germany || 12.0 || Slovak Rep. || 0.5

Greece || 1.5 || Spain || 1.5

Hungary || 0.6 || Sweden || 1

Ireland || 1.0 || United Kingdom || 1.5

Table 31. ENIAC JU 2010 call for proposals.
Funding by Member States

6.3.2.     Analysis
of proposals submitted

The ENIAC JU 2010 call was published on 26
February 2010 and operated in a two-phase mode. The Project Outline
(PO) phase yielded 34 proposals for review before the set deadline –
30 April 2010. This represented an increase of 26% in comparison to the year
before. Submission of a PO was mandatory, although not gating. In both phases,
the proposals had to be submitted electronically to the ENIAC JU via the
FP7 Electronic Proposal Submission System (EPSS).

The submitted POs requested a
total funding of € 707.8 million. This funding was split as follows:
the requested national funding was € 234.8 million and the
requested ENIAC JU funding was € 118.3 million.

In the Full Project Proposal (FPP) phase,
24 proposals were received by the deadline – 31 July 2010. The total
requested funding by the 24 FPPs was € 482.8 million. The requested national
funding reached € 159.8 million and the requested ENIAC JU
funding amounted to € 80.7 million.

6.3.3.     Evaluation
procedure

24 POs for
research projects were submitted in response to first phase of this call, all
of which satisfied the eligibility criteria.

Each FPP was
initially evaluated by four individual experts. This was followed by a panel
meeting of external experts under the chairmanship of the interim Executive
Director. The panel produced the final evaluation result for each proposal
after an in-depth discussion on the basis of the 4 individual reports from the
experts.

The 5 evaluation criteria were:

·
Relevance and contributions to the objectives of
the call;

·
R&D innovation and technical excellence;

·
S&T approach and work plan;

·
Market innovation and market impact;

· Quality of consortium and management.

6.3.4.     Evaluation
results

The applicants were informed of the
evaluation results in October 2010. At this stage, 21 FPPs were
evaluated above threshold and 3 were evaluated below the selection
threshold. Out of the 21, 10 projects were retained for negotiation;
no projects were placed on a reserve list.

The total number of participants in
the 21 proposals proposed for funding was 212. These 212 participants
were supported financially by 17 ENIAC Member States[36]. An overview of the number of
proposals in the different stages of the three calls launched so far by ENIAC
(2008-2010) can be found in the graph below:

Figure 36. Number
of proposals in the different stages of the ENIAC JU 2008-2010 calls

The trend of a strong SME participation
continued in 2010. In the FPPs selected for funding in the 2010 call there were
212 participants coming from 145 organisations, among which there
were 48 SMEs representing 33.1% of the participating entities.
The situation is illustrated on the figure below:

Figure 37. ENIAC
JU 2010 call for proposals. Typology of applicants in the proposals for funding

The SMEs
contributed € 33.0 million (16.4%) of the total eligible costs,
and received € 13.3 million (15.2%) of the total public funding
(14.8% of the national funding and 15.7% of the ENIAC JU funding). The funding
distribution is graphically shown on Figure 38:

Figure 38. ENIAC JU 2010 call for
proposals. Requested funding per type of participant

For reference, the statistics since the
inception of the programme indicate that in the period 2008-2010 the ENIAC
JU projects accounted for 627 participants from 336 organisations,
out of which 140 (41.7%) – SMEs. In conclusion,
SMEs represent 41.7% of the participating organisations and received 16.3% of
the ENIAC JU grants awarded.

The total requested funding for the 21
proposals evaluated above threshold the second stage was € 482.8 million.
The requested national funding amounted to € 159.8 million and the requested ENIAC
JU funding was € 80.7 million. The total requested funding by SME
partners was € 33 million (16.4 %).

All 10 projects have successfully
completed the negotiation phase. The success rate was 41.7%. In terms of geographical distribution, the projects in the 2010 call had between 3 and 12 participating
countries:

Figure 39.
ENIAC JU 2010 call for proposals.

Number of participants and countries in the
calls selected for funding

For reference,
in all 28 projects selected for funding since the ENIAC programme start, all
ENIAC Member States except Estonia and Latvia have been present in at least one
project, while Denmark and Switzerland participated without becoming an ENIAC
Member. The number of actually participating countries is 21.

Overall, € 87.6 million of public
funds were allocated to the 10 proposals selected for funding with a total
requested contributions amounting to € 201.1 million. The € 33.6
million EU funding resulted in a leverage effect of 6 to 1. National
budgets published in the call were increased by some countries to permit
strategically important projects to be funded. The EU indicative budget was went
up by 12% following this increase.

The funding
situation in the call is summarised in Table 32 below. It shows that the
average oversubscription rate at the PO stage is about 4 times, and almost 3
times in the FPP evaluated above thresholds.

|| Available budget || POs || FPPs above threshold || Granted funding

Total requested funding || Min 180.5 || 707.8 || 482.8 || 201.1

National funding || 54.8 || 234.8 || 159.8 || 54.0

ENIAC JU funding || 30.1 || 118.3 || 80.7 || 33.6

Table 32. ENIAC JU 2010 call for proposals.
Requested funding in the different stages of the call

The distribution of total eligible costs,
national funding and JU grants per area of research in the projects arising
from the 2010 and in the projects selected for funding since the inception of
the programme (2008-2010) is shown in the next graph:

Figure 40. Total costs per research area in
the ENIAC JU 2010 call and in all projects (2008-2010)

6.3.5.     Grant
agreements signed

All 10 consortia were invited to negotiations
on 2 November 2010 for conclusion of grant agreements. The projects kick-off
was planned for in 2011.

Nonetheless,
delays have been experienced by some participants in the establishment of
National Grant Agreements (NGA) which consequently slowed down the signature of
the ENIAC JU grant agreements. Consortia have also experienced difficulties in entering
into a Project Consortium Agreements. Although this was a legal
requirement, it appeared to be very difficult to finalise it in less than one
year.

№ || Project acronym || Project title || Total national funding || ENIAC JU contribution || Additional own resources || Total costs || Signature date (expected)

1. || ARTEMOS || Agile RF Transceivers and Front-Ends for Future Smart Multi-Standard Communications Applications || 8,543,956 || 6,836,061 || 25,554,478 || 40,934,495 || 8/2011

2. || EnLight || Energy Efficient and Intelligent Lighting Systems || 10,833,438 || 6,899,794 || 23,582,899 || 41,316,131 || 8/2011

3. || EPAMO || Energy-efficient piezo-MEMS tunable RF front-end antenna systems for mobile devices || 5,269,609 || 2,224,524 || 5,826,370 || 13,320,503 || 18/3/2011

4. || ERG || Energy for a green society || 8,138,528 || 4,293,851 || 13,279,305 || 25,711,684 || 2012 (Italian coordinator)

5. || HEECS || High Efficiency Electronics Cooking Systems || 899,690 || 833,894 || 4,009,515 || 4,933,378 || 5/4/2011

6. || MotorBrain || Nanoelectronics for Electric Vehicle Intelligent Failsafe Drive Train || 11,021,728 || 6,112,613 || 19,468,130 || 36,602,471 || 5/4/2011

7. || NANOCOM || Reconfigurable Microsystem Based on Miniaturized and Nanostructured RF-MEMS || 1,221,550 || 930,285 || 3,418,736 || 5,570,571 || 30/3/2011

8. || NanoTEG || Nanostructured ThermoElectric Systems for Green Transport Applications || 1,140,869 || 1,016,910 || 3,931,502 || 6,089,281 || 7/2011

9. || PARSIMO || Partitioning and Modeling of SiP || 1,847,175 || 814,244 || 2,214,294 || 4,875,713 || 7/2011

10. || TOISE || Trusted Computing for European Embedded Systems || 5,048,449 || 3,617,522 || 12,995,835 || 21,661,806 || 7/2011

TOTAL || € 53,155,271 || € 33,579,698 || € 114,281,064 || € 201,016,033 || ---

Table 33. ENIAC JU 2010 call for proposals.
List of proposals selected for funding

7.           Conclusion

2010 was the first year of autonomous
functioning for most of the Joint Technology Initiatives Joint Undertakings
after they developed operational capacity to implement their own budget.
Despite the fact that the JTI JUs' internal structures were not yet working
optimally and they have still to recover from the initial operational delays, the
results achieved by the five JTI JUs reviewed in this document prove that they
are on the right way towards achieving the set objectives.

Taking into account that together they
represent a total investment of €10 billion and have the concrete capacity to
accelerate the generation of new knowledge and innovation in their industries
through organisation of successful calls for proposals, encouraging cooperation
and involving a variety of stakeholders, especially SMEs, the JTI instruments
might play an important role for the EU economy in the future. The lessons
learned and the information gained from the first ongoing projects should be
skilfully used to continue at this competitive pace.

8.           References

(1)
ARTEMIS JU Annual Activity Report 2010

(2)
ARTEMIS JU Annual Work Programme 2010

(3)
Clean Sky JU Annual Activity Report 2010

(4)
Clean Sky JU Annual Implementation Plan 2010

(5)
Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May
2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, OJ
L 124, 20.05.2003, p. 36

(6)
Commission Staff Working Document "Joint
Technology Initiatives: Background, State-of-Play and Main Features",
SEC(2007) 692, Brussels, 15.05.2007Designing together the "ideal
house" for public-private partnerships in European research, JTI Sherpas’
Group, Final Report, January 2010

(7)
Commission Staff Working Document accompanying
the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council,
the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions
"Partnering in Research and Innovation", SEC(2011) 1072 final,
Brussels, 21.09.2011

(8)
Council Regulation (EC) 521/2008 of 30 May 2008
setting up the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking, OJ L 153, 12.06.2008,
p. 1

(9)
Council Regulation (EC) 71/2008 of 20 December
2007 setting up the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking, OJ L 30, 04.02.2008, p. 1

(10)
Council Regulation (EC) 72/2008 of 20 December
2007 setting up the ENIAC Joint Undertaking, OJ L 30, 04.02.2008, p. 21

(11)
Council Regulation (EC) 73/2008 of 20 December
2007 setting up the Joint Undertaking for the implementation of the Joint
Technology Initiative on Innovative Medicines, OJ L 30, 04.02.2008, p. 38

(12)
Council Regulation (EC) 74/2008 of 20 December
2007 on the establishment of the ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking to implement a Joint
Technology Initiative in Embedded Computing Systems, OJ L 30, 04.02.2008, p. 52

(13)
Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) 1605/2002 of 25
June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the
European Communities, OJ L 248, 16.09.2002, p. 1

(14)
Decision 1982/2006/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Seventh Framework
Programme of the EC for research, technological development and demonstration
activities (2007-2013), OJ L 412, 30.12.2006, p. 1

(15)
ENIAC JU Annual Activity Report 2010

(16)
ENIAC JU Annual Work Programme 2010

(17)
FCH JU Annual Activity Report 2010

(18)
FCH JU Annual Implementation Plan 2010

(19)
FCH JU Multi-Annual Implementation Plan
2008-2013

(20)
First Interim Evaluation of the ARTEMIS and
ENIAC Joint Technology Initiatives, Panel Report, 30 July 2010

(21)
First Interim Evaluation of the Clean Sky Joint
Undertaking, Panel Report, 15 December 2010

(22)
First Interim Evaluation of the Fuel Cells and
Hydrogen Joint Undertaking, Expert Group Report, 13 April 2011

(23)
First Interim Evaluation of the Innovative
Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking, Panel Report, 20 December 2010

(24)
IMI JU Annual Activity Report 2010

(25)
IMI JU Annual Implementation Plan 2010

(26)
IMI JU Scientific Research Agenda 2008

(27)
Joint Technology Initiatives: Public-Private
Partnerships in EU research, brochure, 2007, European Commission,
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, ISBN: 978-92-79-06176-9

(28)
Report from the Commission to the European
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions "First Interim Evaluation of the ARTEMIS and
ENIAC Joint Technology Initiatives", COM(2010) 752 final, Brussels,
16.12.2010

[1]               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.

[2]               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.

[3]               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.

[4]               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).

[5]               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.

[6]               Pursuant
to Art. 16 (1) of Council Regulation (EC) 73/2008, the Commission was
responsible for the establishment and initial operation of the IMI JU until it
gained the operational capacity to implement its own budget.

[7]               In system engineering, a trade-off study is a
simultaneous consideration of multiple alternatives at a point in the design
process where a decision needs to be made.

[8]               The start of project 271867 – LUBSEP has been postponed
by two years following an agreement between the Partner and the Topic Manager; the
project was monitored by the CS JU and finally cancelled in 2011.

[9]               EFPIA's
mission is to promote pharmaceutical research and development in Europe and to
create a favourable economic, regulatory and political environment, enabling
the research-based pharmaceutical industry to meet the growing healthcare needs
and expectations of patients. In 2010, the members of the EFPIA comprise of 31
European national pharmaceutical associations and 38 companies undertaking
research, development and manufacturing of medicinal products for human use.

[10]             The
EU Member States and the countries associated to the FP7.

[11]             The four pillars are defined in the original IMI Scientific
Research Agenda (2008) and address the principal causes of delay in
the biomedical R&D process.

[12]             Pursuant
to Art. 16 (1) of Council Regulation (EC) 73/2008, the Commission was
responsible for the establishment and initial operation of the IMI JU until it
gained operational capacity to implement its own budget.

[13]             The
Annual Implementation Plan describes the activities of the IMI JU
planned for the following year and the corresponding expenditure estimates. It
is subject to approval by the Governing Board.

[14]             Compliant
with the provisions set in Art. 15 of Council Regulation (EC) 73/2008 stating
that distinct rules on IP should be adopted to ensure that the intellectual
property generated in the performed research activities is protected and results
are used and properly disseminated.

[15]             The IMI Scientific Research Agenda is a
multiannual research plan, setting out the research priorities of IMI. The
priorities for each year are detailed in the IMI Annual Implementation Plan.

[16]             The
objective of the ethical review is to ensure that the IMI JU supports research
activities which are compliant with the fundamental ethical principles referred
to in Art. 6 of Decision 1982/2006/EC on the Seventh Framework Programme of the
European Community for research, technological development and demonstration
activities (2007-2013).

[17]             A
funding scheme broadly used in the FP7 designating research projects carried
out by consortia with participants from different countries, aiming at
developing new knowledge, technology, products, demonstration activities or
common resources for research.

[18]             Within the meaning of Commission Recommendation
2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small- and
medium-sized enterprises.

[19]             The amount shown is the
indicative IMI financial contribution as it was published with the call.
However, the final IMI financial contribution to the second call projects after
negotiation was € 80.7 million (see Section 3.3.5). The EFTA contribution of €
1.843 million and a transfer of € 2.097 million from running costs to
operational costs were used to enable IMI to engage this total contribution to
the second call projects.

[20]             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 2010, the Industry
Grouping had 56 members. They varied from micro to large enterprises and were
developing products for application in transportation, stationary, hydrogen
production, components and portable fuel cell fields.

[21]             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.
Currently the organisation has over 60 research institutes and universities as
members.

[22]             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].

[23]             Pursuant
to Art. 16 (1) of Council Regulation (EC) 521/2008, the Commission was
responsible for the establishment and initial operation of the FCH JU until it
gained operational capacity to implement its own budget.

[24]             Annexed
to the Council Regulation (EC) 521/2008 setting up the FCH JU.

[25]             As explained in the Annual Activity Report 2010
of the FCH JU, "a large number of participants in the projects are
research centres and other non-industry participants whose contribution to
projects is currently not considered in the matching requirement. Therefore,
the industry contribution alone has shown not to be sufficient to fulfil the matching
requirement while maintaining funding rates that are in line with the nominal
rates set at a level corresponding to the FP7 funding rates".

[26]             IT tool used in the negotiation process.

[27]             At the request of the project coordinator, for
accounting reasons and due to the late start date of the project, the payment
was delayed to January 2011.

[28]             The funding includes the FCH JU's own budget only. The
amount corresponding to European Free Trade Area (EFTA) contribution was used
to reinforce the different sub-budgets.

[29]             Austria,
Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Spain, Finland,
France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal,
Romania, Sweden, Slovenia and the United Kingdom.

[30]             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.

[31]             Source: SINCOM data from budget appropriation
BGUE-B2010-09.040102-C1-CE that corresponds to the operational credits for the
ARTEMIS JU for 2010.

[32]             Software used for the
evaluation of proposals.

[33]             Austria,
Belgium, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary,
Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak
Republic, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

[34]             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.

[35]             CATRENE is an industry-driven 4-year EUREKA programme,
starting on 1 January 2008, extendable to eight years. In the CATRENE
programme, 260 partners (as of December 2011) from 18 European countries work
on the most advanced research challenges in micro/nanoelectronics.

[36]             Estonia, Hungary, Latvia and Norway do not participate
in this call.

[Top](#document1)