Contribution ID: 5a3d4696-ccf1-49ed-8fa6-8acf15ef1dce
Date: 06/11/2019 15:15:29

Public Consultation on 12 proposed
Institutionalised European Partnerships under
the future Horizon Europe Research and
Innovation programme
Fields marked with * are mandatory.

Introduction
With a proposed budget of nearly 100 billion euro from 2021 to 2027, the Horizon Europe framework
programme represents the largest collaborative multinational research and innovation investment in Europe
and is open to participants worldwide.
The European Parliament and the Council have provisionally agreed on the Horizon Europe legislative
package (COM(2018)435)[1]. Based on the agreement, Horizon Europe promotes a more strategic,
ambitious and impact-oriented approach to public-public and public-private partnerships (European
Partnerships), ensuring that they can effectively contribute to the Union’s policies and priorities.
European Partnerships allow to bring together a broad range of actors to work towards a common goal,
develop synergies with EU, national and regional programmes and strategies, and accelerate societal and
market uptake. Different forms of European Partnerships can be implemented depending on specific
needs, type of activities and criteria: Co-funded, Co-programmed or Institutionalised European Partnerships.
Institutionalised Partnerships are implemented only when other parts of the Horizon Europe programme,
including other forms of European Partnerships (Co-funded or Co-programmed), cannot achieve the
objectives or generate the necessary expected impacts. The preparation of such Institutionalised
Partnerships requires new EU legislation and the setting up of specific legal structures (funding bodies)
based on Article 185 and 187 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU)[2]. As such all
Institutionalised Partnerships must be justified with an impact assessment prior to the preparation of the
legislative proposals.
The European Commission is currently running the impact assessment of 12 candidate Institutionalised
European Partnerships in the following priorities:
1. EU-Africa research partnership on health security to tackle infectious diseases (Global Health)
2. Innovative Health Initiative
3. Key Digital Technologies
4. Smart Networks and Services
5. European Metrology
6. Transforming Europe's rail system

1

7. Integrated Air Traffic Management
8. Clean Aviation
9. Clean Hydrogen
10. Safe and Automated Road Transport
11. Circular bio-based Europe: sustainable innovation for new local value from waste and biomass
12. Innovative SMEs
This public consultation aims to collect the views of stakeholders and citizens on the need for such
Institutionalised European Partnerships and will feed into the impact assessment process. This consultation
is structured in two parts: Part 1 covering all candidate Institutionalised European Partnerships and Part 2
specific to each candidate. We invite you to provide feedback on any of the candidate Institutionalised
European Partnership.
The questionnaire is available in English, French and German and you can reply in any EU language. You
can pause any time and continue later. Your contribution is downloadable once you have submitted your
answers.
Responses received after the closing date will not be considered. Questionnaires sent by e-mail or on
paper will not be analysed except those due to accessibility needs of people with visual disabilities and their
representative organisations.
A summary on the outcome of the public consultation will be published by the Commission services on the ‘
Have your say’ portal.
We thank you for your participation.
Protection of personal data
Privacy statement on the protection of personal data in EU Survey
[1] Legal texts for Horizon Europe to be found here: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/publications/researchand-innovation-including-horizon-europe-iter-and-euratom-legal-texts-and-factsheets_en
[2] Following Article 8(1)(c) of the proposed Regulation for Horizon Europe

About you
* Language of my contribution

Bulgarian
Croatian
Czech
Danish
Dutch
English
Estonian
Finnish
French
Gaelic
German
Greek

2

Greek
Hungarian
Italian
Latvian
Lithuanian
Maltese
Polish
Portuguese
Romanian
Slovak
Slovenian
Spanish
Swedish
* I am giving my contribution as

Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
Consumer organisation
EU citizen
Environmental organisation
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
Other
* First name
Carla

* Surname
Robledo

* Email (this won't be published)
c.b.robledo@minezk.nl

* Scope

International
Local
National
Regional
* Organisation name

255 character(s) maximum

3

Ministry of Economic Affairs & Climate Policy/ Ministry of Infrastrucutre & Water Management

* Organisation size

Micro (1 to 9 employees)
Small (10 to 49 employees)
Medium (50 to 249 employees)
Large (250 or more)
Transparency register number
255 character(s) maximum
Check if your organisation is on the transparency register. It's a voluntary database for organisations seeking to influence EU decisionmaking.

* Country of origin
Please add your country of origin, or that of your organisation.

Afghanistan
Åland Islands

Djibouti
Dominica

Libya
Liechtenstein

Albania

Dominican
Republic

Lithuania

Algeria
American
Samoa
Andorra

Ecuador
Egypt

Luxembourg
Macau

El Salvador

Madagascar

Angola

Equatorial
Guinea
Eritrea
Estonia
Eswatini

Malawi

São Tomé and
Príncipe
Saudi Arabia

Malaysia
Maldives
Mali

Senegal
Serbia
Seychelles

Ethiopia
Falkland Islands

Malta
Marshall
Islands
Martinique
Mauritania
Mauritius
Mayotte

Sierra Leone
Singapore

Anguilla
Antarctica
Antigua and
Barbuda
Argentina
Armenia

Saint Martin
Saint Pierre
and Miquelon
Saint Vincent
and the
Grenadines
Samoa
San Marino

Aruba
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan

Faroe Islands
Fiji
Finland
France

Bahamas
Bahrain

French Guiana
French
Polynesia

Mexico
Micronesia

Sint Maarten
Slovakia
Slovenia
Solomon
Islands
Somalia
South Africa

Bangladesh

French

Moldova

South Georgia

4

Bangladesh

French
Southern and
Antarctic Lands

Moldova

Barbados
Belarus
Belgium
Belize
Benin
Bermuda
Bhutan

Gabon
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Gibraltar
Greece
Greenland

Bolivia
Bonaire Saint
Eustatius and
Saba
Bosnia and
Herzegovina
Botswana
Bouvet Island
Brazil
British Indian
Ocean Territory
British Virgin
Islands
Brunei
Bulgaria

Grenada
Guadeloupe

Monaco
Mongolia
Montenegro
Montserrat
Morocco
Mozambique
Myanmar
/Burma
Namibia
Nauru

South Georgia
and the South
Sandwich
Islands
South Korea
South Sudan
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Suriname
Svalbard and
Jan Mayen
Sweden
Switzerland

Guam

Nepal

Syria

Guatemala
Guernsey
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau

Netherlands
New Caledonia
New Zealand
Nicaragua

Taiwan
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Thailand

Guyana

Niger

The Gambia

Nigeria
Niue

Timor-Leste
Togo

Burkina Faso
Burundi

Haiti
Heard Island
and McDonald
Islands
Honduras
Hong Kong

Tokelau
Tonga

Cambodia

Hungary

Norfolk Island
Northern
Mariana Islands
North Korea

Cameroon

Iceland

Canada
Cape Verde
Cayman Islands

India
Indonesia
Iran

North
Macedonia
Norway
Oman
Pakistan

Central African
Republic
Chad
Chile
China

Iraq

Palau

Ireland
Isle of Man
Israel

Christmas
Island

Italy

Palestine
Panama
Papua New
Guinea
Paraguay

Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab
Emirates
United
Kingdom

Clipperton

Jamaica

Peru

United States

Trinidad and
Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Turks and
Caicos Islands
Tuvalu

5

Clipperton
Cocos (Keeling)
Islands

Jamaica
Japan

Peru
Philippines

Colombia
Comoros

Jersey
Jordan

Pitcairn Islands
Poland

Congo
Cook Islands
Costa Rica
Côte d’Ivoire
Croatia
Cuba

Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kiribati
Kosovo
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan

Portugal
Puerto Rico
Qatar
Réunion
Romania
Russia

Curaçao

Laos

Rwanda

Cyprus

Latvia

Czechia

Lebanon

Democratic
Republic of the
Congo
Denmark

Lesotho

Saint
Barthélemy
Saint Helena
Ascension and
Tristan da
Cunha
Saint Kitts and
Nevis

Liberia

United States
United States
Minor Outlying
Islands
Uruguay
US Virgin
Islands
Uzbekistan
Vanuatu
Vatican City
Venezuela
Vietnam
Wallis and
Futuna
Western
Sahara
Yemen
Zambia

Zimbabwe

Saint Lucia

* Publication privacy settings
The Commission will publish the responses to this public consultation. You can choose whether you would like your details to be made
public or to remain anonymous.

Anonymous
Only your type of respondent, country of origin and contribution will be
published. All other personal details (name, organisation name and size,
transparency register number) will not be published.
Public
Your personal details (name, organisation name and size, transparency
register number, country of origin) will be published with your contribution.
I agree with the personal data protection provisions

Part 1: General questions on European Partnerships

As per the political agreement on Horizon Europe, an Institutionalised European Partnership shall
be implemented only where other parts of the Horizon Europe programme, including other forms of

6

European Partnerships (co-programmed, co-funded), would not achieve the objectives or would not
generate the necessary expected impacts; they should be justified by a long-term perspective and
high degree of integration.
There will be three types of European Partnerships under Horizon Europe [1].
Co-programmed European Partnerships are based on memoranda of understanding and/or contractual
arrangements between the Commission and private and/or public partners. They are expected to be best
suited to partnerships involving industry, but also Member States, foundations, international partners etc.
They are jointly implemented by the Commission (Union contribution via Horizon Europe work
programmes) and partners (contributions under their responsibility), with full application of Horizon Europe
rules for the Union contribution, whereas partners rules apply to their contributions. They allow for more
flexibility over time as regards the composition of partners, objectives and activities and require the
relatively lowest effort for set-up and implementation compared to the other forms of European Partnerships.
Co-funded European Partnerships are implemented under the responsibility of the partners, that receive
a substantial budget contribution from Horizon Europe (Grant Agreement) to cofound their joint programme
of activities. They are expected to be best suited to partnerships involving Member States, with research
funders and other public authorities at the core of the consortium, and possibility to include foundations and
international partners etc. By default national rules apply to calls launched by the consortium. They require
a relatively moderate effort for their set-up and implementation compared to other forms of European
Partnerships.
Institutionalised European Partnerships are based on the Union participation in and financial
contribution to research and innovation programmes undertaken by several Member States (under Article
185 TFEU) or by bodies established under Article 187 TFEU, for partnerships involving typically industry,
research organisations but also Member States, foundations and international partners. They are expected
to be best suited for long-term collaborations with stable partners and provide only limited flexibility for
adaptation during their implementation. Compared to other forms of European Partnerships, they require a
relatively high and long-term effort for their preparation and set-up, including the establishment of dedicated
entities (funding bodies) for their implementation. By default the rules for participation of Horizon Europe
apply for the calls launched under Institutionalised European Partnerships.
[1] Article 8 of COM(2018)435

* 1. Have you been involved in the on-going research and innovation framework

programme Horizon 2020 or the preceeding Framework Programme 7?
Yes
No
* Please identify in which capacity (multiple answers possible):

Applied for funding
Received funding
Expert (evaluator, reviewer, etc.)
Participated in governance (programme committee, etc.)
Other

7

Participated in governance (programme committee, etc.)
Other
* Are or were you directly involved in a partnership under Horizon 2020 or its

predecessor Framework Programme 7?
Yes
No
* Please identify your role in the partnership (select all that apply):

Partner/Member/Beneficiary in a partnership
Representative in the governance of a partnership
Member of a committee for a partnership
Expert (evaluator, reviewer) in calls for proposals in partnership
Applied for funding under a partnership
Provided national cofinancing to a partnership
Other
* Please identify the partnership (select all that apply):

European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP2)
Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 (IMI2) Joint Undertaking
Electronic Components and Systems for European Leadership (ECSEL)
Joint Undertaking
5G (5G PPP)
European Metrology Programme for Innovation and Research (EMPIR)
Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking
Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research (SESAR) Joint
Undertaking
Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking
Fuel Cells and Hydrogen 2 (FCH2) Joint Undertaking
Bio-Based Industries Joint Undertaking
Eurostars-2 (supporting research-performing small and medium-sized
enterprises)
Ambient Assisted Living (AAL 2)
Partnership for Research and Innovation in the Mediterranean Area
(PRIMA)
European High-Performance Computing Joint Undertaking (EuroHPC)
2. To what extent do you think that the future European Partnerships under Horizon
Europe need to:
1 (Not
needed
at all)

2

3

4

5 (Fully

Don't

needed)

Know

* Be more responsive towards EU policy objectives
* Be more responsive towards societal needs

8

* Be more responsive towards priorities in national
and regional research and innovation strategies,
including smart specialisation strategies
* Make a significant contribution to achieving the UN’
s Sustainable Development Goals
* Make significant contribution to the EU efforts to
achieve climate-related goals
* Focus more on the development and effective
deployment of technology
* Focus more on bringing about transformative
change towards sustainability in their respective
area
* Make a significant contribution to EU global
competitiveness in specific sectors/domains
* Other
* (Other) Please specify:

500 character(s) maximum
In general, partnerships should look beyond their own discipline, incorporating (where possible) relevant
social sciences and humanities, technical and medical sciences. The above mentioned statements are
difficult to interpret when we speak about a broad range of partnerships which on itself apply to different
goals of Horizon Europe. There is no one size fits all approach based on some of these statements, while
question two does imply a one size fits all approach.

* 3. What would you see as main advantages and disadvantages of participation in

an Institutionalised European Partnership (as a partner) under Horizon Europe?
500 character(s) maximum
The Netherlands strongly supports the need to address industrial leadership and public-private partnerships.
It can strengthen transnational cooperation between stakeholders, accelerating the implementation of, for
example, a clean hydrogen based energy system in the EU. The main advantages are the long term
relationships and regional implementation of R&I programmes. The main disadvantage is the possible delay
in setting up the partnership (if done efficiently it will not be a problem).

4. For which of the candidate Institutionalised European Partnership(s) would you
like to specifically provide your views through this consultation (you may provide
your views for more than one)?
EU-Africa research partnership on health security to tackle infectious
diseases - Global Health
Innovative Health Initiative
Key Digital Technologies
Smart Networks and Services
European Metrology
Transforming Europe's rail system
Integrated Air Traffic Management
Clean Aviation

9

Clean Aviation
Circular bio-based Europe: sustainable innovation for new local value
from waste and biomass
Clean Hydrogen
Safe and Automated Road Transport
Innovative SMEs

Part 2 - Questions on problems, objectives, policy options and impact
tailored to each candidate European Partnership
The following questions allow to assess the necessity of a partnership approach, as well as the
need for an Institutionalised Partnership for each candidate partnership.

Clean Hydrogen
The European Commission is assessing whether to propose an Institutionalised;European Partnership on
Clean Hydrogen under Horizon Europe. Its overall objective would be to create a strong, innovative and
competitive European Clean Hydrogen sector, fully capable of underpinning the European energy transition
by accelerating the market entry of nearly-zero carbon hydrogen-based technologies and delivering a wide
range of socio-economic benefits to the European society.
The proposed partnership would build on the experience gained in the existing Fuel Cells and Hydrogen 2
Joint Undertaking (FCH 2 JU), but could significantly revise its scope, expand partners and take account of
the strengthened scientific, societal, economic and technological impact criteria of Horizon Europe. FCH 2
JU is a public-private partnership between the EU and the Hydrogen and Fuel Cells industry, established
under Horizon 2020 (on the basis of Article 187 TFEU) and which functioning is currently planned until 31
December 2024.
The inception impact assessment outlines an early description of the problems, objectives, options and
likely impact of a candidate European Partnership in this field.
1. To what extent do you think this is relevant for research and innovation efforts at EU level to address the
following problems in relation to hydrogen and fuel cells?

Research and innovation problems:
1 (Not
relevant
at all)

2

3

4

5 (Very

Don't

relevant)

Know

Lack of understanding of or knowledge about
hydrogen and fuel cells

10

Innovation gap in the EU in translating the
results of hydrogen and fuel cells research into
new products
Lack of interest of major market players to
engage in hydrogen and fuel cells research

Structural and resource problems:
1 (Not
relevant

2

3

4

at all)

5 (Very

Don't

relevant)

Know

Limited collaboration and pooling of resources
between public actors and private actors
Limited role of the current industrial policy in
framing the market perspectives related to
hydrogen and fuel cells innovation

Problems in uptake of hydrogen and fuel cells innovations due to:
1 (Not
relevant
at all)

2

3

4

5 (Very

Don't

relevant)

Know

Small current market size
Market failures due to inadequate industry
investment
Lack of refuelling infrastructure
Lack of funding or de-risking financial instruments
for large-scale hydrogen/fuel cell projects
Overly restrictive regulation in the field of
hydrogen and fuel cells
Overly restrictive regulation in energy markets
and in particular for energy carriers that enable
sector coupling across different areas (power,
gas, fuels for transport networks)
High financial risk for early movers
Fragmentation among players and lack of critical
mass
Fragmentation among Member States and lack of
EU binding targets and bonding networks

11

High costs of clean hydrogen and fuel cells
solutions that hinder mass commercialisation
until serial production is achieved, factoring-in
economies of scale

2. In your view, how should the specific challenges described above be addressed
through Horizon Europe intervention?
European Partnerships may take any of the following forms:
a) Co-programmed European Partnerships: based on memoranda of understanding and/or contractual arrangements between the
Commission and private and/or public partners;
b) Co-funded European Partnerships: based on participation in and financial contribution to a programme of R&I activities, using a
Programme co-fund action; or
c) Institutionalised European Partnerships: based on participation in and financial contribution to R&I programmes undertaken by
several Member States (under Article 185 TFEU) or by bodies established under Article 187 TFEU (Institutionalised European
Partnerships)

Traditional calls under Horizon Europe work programmes
Co-Funded partnership
Co-Programmed partnership
Institutionalised Partnership
* Please explain briefly your choice:

500 character(s) maximum
The momentum worldwide on the implementation of clean hydrogen as energy carrier and feedstock in the
industry is extremely large. Nonetheless, special support is needed in order to achieve large-scale
deployment, reduce costs, adapt gas regulation for sustainable gases, and to establish a guarantee of origin
system and a European clean hydrogen market. This form of partnership could certainly help achieve these
goals on a regional level and position the EU as front runner in the world.

3. In your view, how relevant are the following elements and activities to ensure that the proposed
European Partnership would meet its objectives?

Setting joint long-term agenda with strong involvement of:
1 (Not
relevant)

2

3

4

5 (Very

Don’t

relevant)

Know

Member States and Associated Countries
Industry
Academia
Foundations and Non-Governmental
Organisations
Other societal stakeholders (e.g. end users,
regulators, etc.)

Pooling and leveraging resources (financial, infrastructure, in-kind expertise
etc.) through coordination, alignment or integration with:
12

1 (Not

2

relevant)

3

4

5 (Very

Don’t

relevant)

Know

Member States and Associated Countries
Industry
Academia
Foundations and Non-Governmental
Organisations
Other societal stakeholders

Partnership composition:
1 (Not

2

relevant)

3

4

5 (Very
relevant)

Don’
t
Know

Flexibility in the composition of partners over time
Ensuring a broad range of partners, including
across disciplines and sectors (e.g. academia,
research performing organisations, Member
States representatives other EU Agencies like
EDA, EMSA and other partnerships, etc.)

Implementing the following activities:
1 (Not

2

relevant)

3

4

5 (Very

Don’t

relevant)

Know

Joint R&I programme
Collaborative R&I projects
Deployment and piloting activities
Input to regulatory aspects
Co-creation of solutions with endusers

4. In your view, how relevant is to set up a specific legal structure (funding body) for
the candidate European Partnership to achieve the following?
1 (Not
relevant at
all)

2

3

4

5 (Very
relevant)

Don’
t
know

Implement its activities more effectively
Implement activities faster to respond to
sudden market or policy needs

13

Implements activities more transparently
Increase financial leverage
Ensure better links to regulators
Ensure better links to practitioners on the
ground
Obtain more buy-in and long-term
commitment from other partners
Ensure harmonisation of standards and
approaches
Facilitate synergies with other EU and
national programmes
Facilitate collaboration with other relevant
European Partnerships

5. What is your view on the scope and coverage proposed for this candidate
institutionalised European Partnership, based on its inception impact assessment?
Too narrow

Right scope & coverage

Too broad

Don't know

Technologies covered
Research areas covered
Geographical coverage
Types of partners covered
Range of activities covered
Sectoral coverage

Please provide any comment you may have on the proposed scope and coverage
for this candidate Institutionalised Partnership:
500 character(s) maximum
Technologies in the partnership specially targeted are fuel cells and electrolyzers. Other applications that
have great potential for decarbonising the residential heating sector should be considered, such as hydrogen
boilers, combined heat pumps, microCHP, etc.

6. In your view, would it be possible to rationalise the candidate European
Institutionalised Partnership and its activities, and/or to better link it with other
comparable initiatives?
Yes
No
(No) Please explain why other comparable initiatives are not suitable to be linked
with?
14

500 character(s) maximum
The content of the partnership is sufficient in its own and does not need the support of other initiatives to
exist. Off course interaction with other international hydrogen (IPHE, HEM, IEA, etc) organisations is desired
to share best practices, but not mandatory.

7. In your view, how relevant is it for the candidate European Institutionalised Partnership to deliver on the
following impacts?

Societal impact:
1 (Not
relevant

2

3

4

at all)

5 (Very
relevant)

Don’
t
know

Improved public health: reduction of pollutants,
particulates and noise emissions compared to
direct fossil fuel combustion
Improved working conditions (e.g. for transport
professionals, or on construction sites) by
eliminating toxic and harmful local emissions
Novel competitive cross-sectoral solutions for
decarbonisation

Economic/technological impact:
1 (Not
relevant
at all)

2

3

4

5 (Very
relevant)

Don’
t
know

Increased industrial leadership in hydrogen
technologies and uptake of new technologies
Preparation of re-skilling of human resources
towards high value-added markets with increasing
weight in the economy (adaptation to phase-out
/replacement of old technologies)
Providision of a solution for storing renewable
energy for later use
Creation of jobs in the low-carbon economy by
strengthening the European hydrogen sector
New demand-side solutions to decarbonise the
energy and transport systems (also in remote
/isolated areas)
Better cross-fertilisation of innovative ideas from
SMEs to large companies that can bring them to
mass market
Highly skilled jobs in industry

15

Low-carbon and competitive solutions for heavy
duty and long-distance transport
Low-carbon and competitive solutions for all
modes of transport

Scientific impact:
1 (Not
relevant
at all)

2

3

4

5 (Very
relevant)

Don’
t
know

Contribution to the advancement of science by
stimulating innovation along the entire hydrogen
value chain
New scientific knowledge and reinforcement of
EU scientific capability

Contact
RTD-A2-SUPPORT@ec.europa.eu

16